Misrepresenting Libertarianism

[Procrustes Stretched]

"Probably"??

Care to back that up with anything other than your clearly bigoted surmise?

Do you support state's having the right to segregate? If yes in some cases, list the cases.

Can you show me anyone who claims the state has a right to segregate?

The Founding Fathers and States Rights advocates?

 

[mal]

Great comment from the link in the OP:



The writers at the NYTs screwed up again. That, however, won't stop the rabid wackos from supporting their lies.

Yep...



peace...

HEY! Libertarians...with these two on your side you sure will win converts.

Observing the NYT's Dishonesty doesn't put me on ANYONE's Side...

It's like saying I am one Side or the other because I Observed the Sun Rising in the East.

Get back under your Bridge, Dipshit!



peace...

 

[elvis]

you're afraid of Union 'thugs'?

I thought you were a tough guy.




---

http://www.usmessageboard.com/education-and-history/118296-the-manifoil-libertarian-principle-challenge-is-voting-a-civil-right.html

union thugs tend to carry clubs.

Yeah. I thought Libertarian Pussies carried guns?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/118398-crazy-anti-census-woman-shot-dead-after-pointing-shotgun-at-police.html

so you think those who exercise their second amendment right are pussies?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you support state's having the right to segregate? If yes in some cases, list the cases.

Can you show me anyone who claims the state has a right to segregate?

The Founding Fathers and States Rights advocates?

Ever read the Constitution? It prohibits discrimination based on race, which is what segregation is.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

union thugs tend to carry clubs.

Yeah. I thought Libertarian Pussies carried guns?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/118398-crazy-anti-census-woman-shot-dead-after-pointing-shotgun-at-police.html

so you think those who exercise their second amendment right are pussies?

I think many pussies think a gun makes them tough. They usually find out different. Same goes for thugs with clubs.

but I dislike dishonest people who hide behind the amendments.

 

[boedicca]

How many Liberals does it take to screw in a light bulb? None. The Government will take care of it.

Good one!

How many liberoidal socialist nitwits does it take to change a light bulb?

None!...That's the IBEW's job and we'll break your knee caps if you try to change it!

How many Congressional Democrats does it take to change a light bulb?

None. They'll pass a 2,700 page bill to increase taxes (effective immediately) to pay for your light bulb to be changed per pending SEIU negotiations for the Change Light Bulb Reimbursement rate, but delay supplying the new light bulb (to be redesigned under the pending Cap & Trade Bill) until 2014.

 

[Vast LWC]

The premise of the OP was faulty, for two reasons.

1. The only reason Jim Crow Laws were abolished was by exercising Federal power to abolish local laws.
Federal power trumping states rights is surely not something libertarians would support.

and

2. The Civil Rights act was clearly federal power acting again in an attempt to control a problem social issue, in this case racism.
This is an example of when pure Libertarianism just does not work in promoting good governance.

While some media outlets are insinuating that this makes Rand Paul a "racist" (which it does not), the New York Times made no such inference, but simply pointed out the problem with Paul's rather extremist stance.

In fact, there doesn't seem to be anything in the article from the OP that "misrepresents" anything at all.

Oh, there's definitely a bias in the choice of descriptive language used, and perhaps a very small amount of hyperbolization in regards to Paul's stance, but that's about it as far as I can see.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The premise of the OP was faulty, for two reasons.

1. The only reason Jim Crow Laws were abolished was by exercising Federal power to abolish local laws.
Federal power trumping states rights is surely not something libertarians would support.

Federal power was used to protect individual rights against state sponsored suppression of them, something almost every libertarian supports.

2. The Civil Rights act was clearly federal power acting again in an attempt to control a problem social issue, in this case racism. This is an example of when pure Libertarianism just does not work in promoting good governance.

This just indicates a lack of understanding of what libertarianism actually means. Libertarians support individual rights and are against systematic suppression of them. Most of the people supported the CRA when it was passed, which means you actually think libertarians would automatically oppose the right for the majority of people to self determine their choices. Does that really sound like libertarianism to you?

While some media outlets are insinuating that this makes Rand Paul a "racist" (which it does not), the New York Times made no such inference, but simply pointed out the problem with Paul's rather extremist stance.

In fact, there doesn't seem to be anything in the article from the OP that "misrepresents" anything at all.

Oh, there's definitely a bias in the choice of descriptive language used, and perhaps a very small amount of hyperbolization in regards to Paul's stance, but that's about it as far as I can see.

If the article supported your view of libertarianism it did.

 

[Bfgrn]

Looks like we've had a whoooole lotta that there "misrepresentin" thing going on around these here parts, too.

The editors of the New York Times misrepresent libertarianism by way of Rand Paul and his statements about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, saying:

"As a longtime libertarian, he espouses the view that personal freedom should supersede all government intervention. Neighborhood associations should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, he has written, and private businesses ought to be able to refuse service to anyone they wish. Under this philosophy, the punishment for a lunch counter that refuses to seat black customers would be public shunning, not a court order.

It is a theory of liberty with roots in America’s creation, but the succeeding centuries have shown how ineffective it was in promoting a civil society. The freedom of a few people to discriminate meant generations of less freedom for large groups of others.

It was only government power that ended slavery and abolished Jim Crow, neither of which would have been eliminated by a purely free market. It was government that rescued the economy from the Depression and promoted safety and equality in the workplace."

Let’s start with the most obvious canard, which is the proposition that Jim Crow had anything to do with free markets. They were called “Jim Crow Laws“, not “Jim Crow Markets”, the obvious reason for which is that separate accommodations were mandated by state governments, not organically grown in some mythical garden of free association rights. Indeed, the entire reason for the corrupt deal behind the presidential election of 1876 was to throw the South’s support behind a president who would end Reconstruction.

It was government–in this case, the state governments in the South–that imposed Jim Crow, and government that forced private companies to impose the desired restrictions on blacks. If government intervention was required to [abolish] Jim Crow, that was only because governments had imposed it in the first place....

Misrepresenting Libertarianism | Questions and Observations

Looks like we've had a whoooole lotta that there "misrepresentin" thing going on around these here parts, too.

whoooole lotta, "misrepresentin", around these here parts? Spoken like a..........Jethro...

At least you are coming out from the closet...gosh, GoLLLLYYY...

Your Jethro security guard turned blogger is confused. I already knew you were.

The author wasn't saying Jim Crow 'Laws' were 'markets'.....gosh, GoLLLLYYY...

It is Paul's view, that the marketplace would have forced businesses to serve black folk anyway, because it was in their economic interest to do so.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yep...



peace...

HEY! Libertarians...with these two on your side you sure will win converts.

Observing the NYT's Dishonesty doesn't put me on ANYONE's Side...

It's like saying I am one Side or the other because I Observed the Sun Rising in the East.

Get back under your Bridge, Dipshit!



peace...

you and manifoil agree? how sweet.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Looks like we've had a whoooole lotta that there "misrepresentin" thing going on around these here parts, too.

The editors of the New York Times misrepresent libertarianism by way of Rand Paul and his statements about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, saying:

Let’s start with the most obvious canard, which is the proposition that Jim Crow had anything to do with free markets. They were called “Jim Crow Laws“, not “Jim Crow Markets”, the obvious reason for which is that separate accommodations were mandated by state governments, not organically grown in some mythical garden of free association rights. Indeed, the entire reason for the corrupt deal behind the presidential election of 1876 was to throw the South’s support behind a president who would end Reconstruction.

It was government–in this case, the state governments in the South–that imposed Jim Crow, and government that forced private companies to impose the desired restrictions on blacks. If government intervention was required to [abolish] Jim Crow, that was only because governments had imposed it in the first place....

Misrepresenting Libertarianism | Questions and Observations

Looks like we've had a whoooole lotta that there "misrepresentin" thing going on around these here parts, too.

whoooole lotta, "misrepresentin", around these here parts? Spoken like a..........Jethro...

At least you are coming out from the closet...gosh, GoLLLLYYY...

Your Jethro security guard turned blogger is confused. I already knew you were.

The author wasn't saying Jim Crow 'Laws' were 'markets'.....gosh, GoLLLLYYY...

It is Paul's view, that the marketplace would have forced businesses to serve black folk anyway, because it was in their economic interest to do so.

Dudette is at a loss for words on this one.

I replied earlier with a similar one:



Stop whining. We've all been exposed to the dis-ease of libertarian lunacies.

We have all heard the "free markets would get rid of racist businesses' arguments.

Libertarians are

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong again, tovarich.

I merely don't entertain absurd questions.

What was absurd about the question?

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Probably"??

Care to back that up with anything other than your clearly bigoted surmise?

Do you support state's having the right to segregate? If yes in some cases, list the cases.

Don't expect an answer.

Dude is the perfect personification of the answer to the oft asked question,

why aren't more people Libertarians?

 

[xsited1]

HEY! Libertarians...with these two on your side you sure will win converts.

Observing the NYT's Dishonesty doesn't put me on ANYONE's Side...

It's like saying I am one Side or the other because I Observed the Sun Rising in the East.

Get back under your Bridge, Dipshit!



peace...

you and manifoil agree? how sweet.

Could you be any dumber? Seriously. The NY Times prints a bunch of lies and you're there to defend them.

Lay off the Kool-aid.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Observing the NYT's Dishonesty doesn't put me on ANYONE's Side...

It's like saying I am one Side or the other because I Observed the Sun Rising in the East.

Get back under your Bridge, Dipshit!



peace...

you and manifoil agree? how sweet.

Could you be any dumber? Seriously. The NY Times prints a bunch of lies and you're there to defend them.

Lay off the Kool-aid.

 

[xsited1]

you and manifoil agree? how sweet.

Could you be any dumber? Seriously. The NY Times prints a bunch of lies and you're there to defend them.

Lay off the Kool-aid.

You supports liars, so now you freely admit you are . That's the first step, Dante. Stay on the 12-step program and eventually you'll get better.

 

[boedicca]

At least you are coming out from the closet...gosh, GoLLLLYYY...

You need to get your bigoted stereotypes straightened out.

Jethro wasn't known for saying GoLLLLYYYY...that was Gomer Pyle's phrase.

 

[MaggieMae]

Good one!

How many liberoidal socialist nitwits does it take to change a light bulb?

None!...That's the IBEW's job and we'll break your knee caps if you try to change it!

How many Congressional Democrats does it take to change a light bulb?

None. They'll pass a 2,700 bill to increase taxes (effective immediately) to pay for your light bulb to be changed per pending SEIU negotiations for the Change Light Bulb Reimbursement rate, but delay supplying the new light bulb (to be redesigned under the pending Cap & Trade Bill) until 2014.

That IS pretty funny.

 

[Oddball]

At least you are coming out from the closet...gosh, GoLLLLYYY...

You need to get your bigoted stereotypes straightened out.

Jethro wasn't known for saying GoLLLLYYYY...that was Gomer Pyle's phrase.

'Zactly.

Jethro was known for his sixth grade edgy-cation.

Maybe he can entertain us all with some fancy cypherin'.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_tK4Xo28-s&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Let Me Finish - Rand Paul[/ame]