Why not to vote

canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
Please relay to me a "states rights" issue that didnt have something to do with discrimination or taking away someones rights
Click to expand...

Considering that the root of all litigationi in America is based upon rights, I don't believe I can.
 
overgrowem

overgrowem

Well-Known Member
America under Dems.=1938 Germany. America under Repubs.=1938 germany meets Soylent Green. If Citizens United and voter suppresion decide the election,do we have a legitamate gov.? Are Dems. justified in adopting the Repubs. rhetoric about Second Amendment remedies?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
Freedom to you still means being free of consequences of your actions. Consequences are not your masters. Neither president will be your "master". No one gets to do whatever they wish without consequence Rob, and that is what you seem to think is the definition of freedom.
Click to expand...
Nope. Again you've miscast my beliefs. Freedom means being left alone if a person wishes and if they leave others alone AND being accountable for that which you consensually use.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
Littlerock Arkensas highschool had to be intigrated at gun point after a SCOTUS decision that backs were not being treated as well as whites. That was force Rob, but it was force on behalf of those who were powerless against established bigotry, were whites deprived of their freedom?
Click to expand...
You make a good argument for ending "public" schools. If government school systems didn't exist would this problem have arisen?

Obviously in the scenario presented, the white people that thought they could prevent blacks from attending a "public" school, were in the wrong. The easy solution for people that wish to segregate themselves for reasons as asinine as racial bias is for them to have a private school. Then they can do what they wish and others don't have to fund it or put up with it if they chose not to.

The present system where the default is a public school enables the powerlessness.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
You make a good argument for ending "public" schools. If government school systems didn't exist would this problem have arisen?

Obviously in the scenario presented, the white people that thought they could prevent blacks from attending a "public" school, were in the wrong. The easy solution for people that wish to segregate themselves for reasons as asinine as racial bias is for them to have a private school. Then they can do what they wish and others don't have to fund it or put up with it if they chose not to.

The present system where the default is a public school enables the powerlessness.
Click to expand...

No.


In a racialy biased neighborhood, blacks would have the same problem you claim they have in public schools.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
No.


In a racialy biased neighborhood, blacks would have the same problem you claim they have in public schools.
Click to expand...
Hmm. If I ran a private business my motive would be based on serving customers to gain a living from the service, race of the customers would not be a determinant...would race be a determinant in how you ran a business and who you provided services to?
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Hmm. If I ran a private business my motive would be based on serving customers to gain a living from the service, race of the customers would not be a determinant...would race be a determinant in how you ran a business and who you provided services to?
Click to expand...

Where does it say that capitalism is pure? Where does it say that greed trumps hatred? Beyond that, suppose it is pressure that causes businesses to serve who they do?

In the deep south, blacks couldn't eat in white diners - their money was as green as anyone elses and yet white proprietors refused to serve them.

There were areas where blacks couldn't obtain loans and realitors would not participate in getting blacks houses in "white" neighborhoods. This absolutely disproves your theory that libertarianism is the cure for racism.,
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
Where does it say that capitalism is pure? Where does it say that greed trumps hatred? Beyond that, suppose it is pressure that causes businesses to serve who they do?

In the deep south, blacks couldn't eat in white diners - their money was as green as anyone elses and yet white proprietors refused to serve them.

There were areas where blacks couldn't obtain loans and realitors would not participate in getting blacks houses in "white" neighborhoods. This absolutely disproves your theory that libertarianism is the cure for racism.,
Click to expand...
Greed and capitalism are not one and the same in many instances. It isn't "wrong" to be a capitalist or even greedy for that matter, the "wrong" occurs when an actual act of taking against another parties consent occurs. Failing to interact with a person (provide them a service) isn't an action against them. It could be considered not nice by some, but it doesn't involve the INITIATION of force.

Ahh "the deep south" eh? Racism didn't just occur there, it still occurs lots of places today, but THAT isn't the point. If proprietor A fails to run his business as well as proprietor B,
meaning attracting paying customers, proprietor B will soon put him out of business, no? You can't "cure" racism by government force either, since that institution caused much of the racism to be prolonged for so long. You "cure" things by getting people to act in their own rational self interest.

When did I say libertarianism "cures" racism? I think it can help, but I don't believe any "system" can be applied to irrational minds and magically "cure" people of their ignorance.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Greed and capitalism are not one and the same in many instances. It isn't "wrong" to be a capitalist or even greedy for that matter, the "wrong" occurs when an actual act of taking against another parties consent occurs. Failing to interact with a person (provide them a service) isn't an action against them. It could be considered not nice by some, but it doesn't involve the INITIATION of force.

Ahh "the deep south" eh? Racism didn't just occur there, it still occurs lots of places today, but THAT isn't the point. If proprietor A fails to run his business as well as proprietor B,
meaning attracting paying customers, proprietor B will soon put him out of business, no? You can't "cure" racism by government force either, since that institution caused much of the racism to be prolonged for so long. You "cure" things by getting people to act in their own rational self interest.

When did I say libertarianism "cures" racism? I think it can help, but I don't believe any "system" can be applied to irrational minds and magically "cure" people of their ignorance.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point - you seem to believe that capitalism cures all - it doesn't, you seem to think that libertarianism makes people color blind and immune to hatred it does not as I showed. Refusal to offer someone a service on the basis of their skin tone is an act of violence.

We don't dispute that racism occured in other places -

And no - proprietor will not "soon go out of business" - and you can "cure" racism that way actually.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
You are missing the point - you seem to believe that capitalism cures all - it doesn't, you seem to think that libertarianism makes people color blind and immune to hatred it does not as I showed. Refusal to offer someone a service on the basis of their skin tone is an act of violence.

We don't dispute that racism occured in other places -

And no - proprietor will not "soon go out of business" - and you can "cure" racism that way actually.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't think I am missing the point. An act of violence occurs when somebody is the first to use force. If you own something and I deprive you of it by theft or beating you and then taking it, I have committed an act of violence. If you own something and I ask you to sell it, but you refuse to, you haven't committed an act of violence have you?
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Well, I don't think I am missing the point. An act of violence occurs when somebody is the first to use force. If you own something and I deprive you of it by theft or beating you and then taking it, I have committed an act of violence. If you own something and I ask you to sell it, but you refuse to, you haven't committed an act of violence have you?
Click to expand...


Your original point was that capitalism is a cure for the overt manifestations of insitutional racism, you seem to be sidestepping that.

If 10 people have identical qualifications for purchasing a house and one of them is denied for no other reason than his skin color or his religion then violence is being perpetrated upon that 10th person.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
Your original point was that capitalism is a cure for the overt manifestations of insitutional racism, you seem to be sidestepping that.

If 10 people have identical qualifications for purchasing a house and one of them is denied for no other reason than his skin color or his religion then violence is being perpetrated upon that 10th person.
Click to expand...
I see your first point. I agree with my earlier self and clarify that capitalism can be part of the cure for racist practices, but maybe not racist feelings across the board. Meaning that market feedback will not reward the bigot. In other words eliminating potential customers based on skin color is stupid, and can result in the bigots business losing market share to the unbigotted business owner. In that regard the market would soon signal to the bigot, hey stupid, you just pissed on your own trousers by not serving a minority.

On your second point. I think you are wrong. Violence isn't a neutral act. Violence is an act of action. "Not" doing business with somebody is not an infliction upon a person. The reason a person choses not to do business or not to associate with another can be variable, but for violence to occur, there must be an action not merely a denial of association.

For instance rape is a violent act. Not allowing somebody to fuck you because they are black, white or green, is merely expressing a preference not to associate.
 
P

pch68

Member
I say we shouldn't have a president at all seriously what have any of them done to help out the little folks nothing at all down with the government
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
pch68 said:
I say we shouldn't have a president at all seriously what have any of them done to help out the little folks nothing at all down with the government
Click to expand...
My favorite part of the wizard of oz was where the little folks come out after Dorothy and Toto dump the house on the witch. Man great songs by the little folks, that Oz guy is amazing! I think HE should be President. I mean just bring the fucker a broom stick and he rolls out the red carpet for you!
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I see your first point. I agree with my earlier self and clarify that capitalism can part of the cure for racist practices, but maybe not racist feelings across the board. Meaning that market feedback will not reward the bigot. In other words eliminating potential customers based on skin color is stupid, and can result in the bigots business losing market share to the unbigotted business owner. In that regard the market would soon signal to the bigot, hey stupid, you just pissed on your own trousers by not serving a minority.

On your second point. I think you are wrong. Violence isn't a neutral act. Violence is an act of action. "Not" doing business with somebody is not an infliction upon a person. The reason a person choses not to do business or not to associate with another can be variable, but for violence to occur, there must be an action not merely a denial of association.

For instance rape is a violent act. Not allowing somebody to fuck you because they are black, white or green, is merely expressing a preference not to associate.
Click to expand...

Jim Crow proves you wrong Rob - we only have to look at history to find that plenty of folks just don't care about profit. As I said, if your primary clientel is willing to walk out on you if you serve a black guy, you are likely to preserve the business you have.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
pch68 said:
I say we shouldn't have a president at all seriously what have any of them done to help out the little folks nothing at all down with the government
Click to expand...

This last guy guaranteed I could get health insurance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top