Maybe I'm not "hardcore" libertarian enough, but I think its fine for states to mandate auto-insurance if people want to drive on the public roads.
See? Libertarians compromise their values all the time. One libertarian in this thread thinks states shouldn't do that, but you don't have a problem with it. Once you start analyzing things case-by-case instead of just doing a blanket application of your ideology, you aren't really a libertarian anymore and you become a pragmatist. Just don't beat us down with cries of 'freedom freedom freedom!' when you and your ilk don't practice it yourself.
Psst. Jim Crow laws were a reflection of a particular geographical area of a particular group of people. They were state and local laws and the federal government had nothing to do with that and many conservatives and libertarians are for 'states rights' (which is what jim crow is). Even without Jim Crow laws, there was a market disincentive to serve blacks in those southern states when a) whites were the overwhelming majority and b) Whites had all the money and c) They did not want to associate with blacks.
I think the problem is more of your libertarian exposure is to people who are almost strawmen in their failure to understand the concepts they support. Far too many people who are vocal supporters really do sound like the right side of that little chart. The people who keep spewing garbage about how great the austrian economic theory is and everything would be perfect are very visible and stupid. If you really want to consider it seriously, listen to people a lot more like Sowell and Friedman, not Ron Paul. And seriously, if you want to understand a little more about the basis of a free markets efficiencies, read up on Sowell and the role that prices play in the coordination and distribution of resources in an economy. A good understanding of that part of his books makes it very obvious why huge companies are inefficient and harmful to the economy as a whole.
Easy. You either have insurance to cover your mistakes and compensate victims, or you can get thrown in jail and be sued to cover it personally. Your choice, you may never actually need car insurance in your life. That's a risk decision you are free to make. Take away the state law requiring insurance, and just make it clear that if you cause a loss to someone you will be held responsible. That can mean wages and property taken, and jail time, if you don't have a savings or insurance to take care of it for you. The only reason the state makes it mandatory is so they can fine you for not having insurance and generate revenue, regardless if you ve been involved in an accident. State shouldn't care, it should only matter at the time of an accident, then you get bent over if you have no means of covering your damages.
Also, government's regulatory role exists to regulate interactions between people, and you interact with other 1000s of other people on the highway and need proof of financial responsibility should you cause damage to another. You don't have to have insurance, but most people don't have a savings to cover it themselves so they pay an insurance company to cover that responsibility. This is regulating interactions between individuals in a way that protects others from procuring loss because of your direct involvement.
Note however when someone 1000 miles away from me has too many kids they can't afford and they want free medical care, or a bunch of illegals in a over loaded truck roll over on the highway, and my taxes are used to pay for it, I had no interaction with those people and had nothing to do with their loss. This is incorrect application of government regulation, its just communism.
You missed everything entirely, before Jim Crow laws, some or many businesses were racist, after Jim Crow laws, every business was racist. The inclusion of the government into the system made it worse. You can't pretend that libertarians want to just remove the good parts of government and keep the bad parts and then argue libertarians are stupid.
Libertarian: less government and more freedom would be good for all
Response: But the government saved us from Jim crow laws that the government created, and one part of the government saving us from another part of the government proves that we needs lots of government.
And don't forget, the civil rights act was lucky it passed, The assassination of a well loved president who supported it brought about the civil rights act a lot earlier than it most likely would have if he had not been killed.
How is that compromising my values? I'm not an anarchist. Theres a role for government to play in our lives. I believe people should be able to voluntarily associate and make business transaction with whoever they choose. If government wants to maintain a road system then they are free to make rules to make driving on those roads safe.
I only say I'm a libertarian because its the closest way I can describe myself. Not every libertarian will agree on everything. Just like not every socialist, progressive, communist, neocon etc will
I believe in the maximum amount of freedom as is practical.
That's the rub. You can't say it as an absolute and it's obnoxious when you and your ilk says that they believe in freedom while anyone else who disagrees doesn't.
1. Many libertarians are for states rights (these Jim Crow laws are the result of states rights).
2. Actually you missed the point completely, whether or not a business owner served a black customer had nothing to do with whether or not the business owner was racist, it was due entirely to the fact that market forces dictated they'd be more profitable if they DIDN'T serve black customers. White southerners were: a) the majority and b) had the money to patronize the businesses and c) did not want to mingle with black customers. If you were a logical non-racist business owner, you still would have enacted racist policies of not serving blacks because that was the most profitable way of going about it, instead of angering the white customer.
Also, LOLWUT, claiming JFK's assassination had anything to do with it, if anything, segregation was an embarrassment to the US and the soviets took advantage of the issue and were hammering us in the international community. During the cold war when America and the Soviets were trying to export their ideologies to other countries, this created a great incentive by the federal government to get rid of segregation as quickly as possible.
In late November 1963 the Assassination of John F. Kennedy changed the political situation. The new president, Lyndon Johnson, utilized his experience in legislative politics and the bully pulpit he wielded as president in support of the bill. In his first address to Congress on November 27, 1963, Johnson told the legislators, "No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy's memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long."
So WWYBYWB? or is your other account still active?
until those people with sound theory are actually electable--the ones making real decisions rather than the nutcases hijacking half-formed theories and putting their idiocy into legislation, then it might be relevant.
again, I'm not the one espousing such ideals or putting myself out into the candidacy pool--nor do I want to. Libertarians have the responsibility to select viable candidates, that is not the electorate's responsibility. They choose to ignore the nutcases that latch on to the fringe wackos like teapartiers and whoknowswhat.
again--it's the difference between reality and theory, and that's what we're talking about here. Until the memory of dudes like Rand Paul are a distant memory, nothing will ever come of Libertarianism as a viable political party.
So WWYBYWB? or is your other account still active?
...
Why Would You...Beat Your...White...Bitch?
"Using institutional coercion to force people into collectives is neither moral nor efficient. Humans naturally cooperate voluntarily".
Except when this is false. Example: Car insurance and state mandates that force drivers to have it. When it's in law and strictly enforced, car insurance is cheaper for everyone. When it's up to the driver or isn't enforced strictly, car insurance is more expensive and fewer people have it.
It's funny because i've debated this with libertarians and it turns out they don't actually believe in personal responsibility either. If car insurance is a choice, and you kill/maim people, cause property damage in an accident without insurance and you can't recompense the other party for the damage you've caused, in essence you've forcibly taken something from somebody else without compensation. I love this example because i've yet to see a libertarian not stumble on it (amongst other examples).
Libertarians, at least the more intelligent ones that I know of, want ALL government reduced, they don't want to just move the layer of control. You are confusing states right republican/conservatives with libertarians. Remember, the states rights thing was a southern strategy of the republicans. Libertarians are not republicans, not every person who disagrees with you believes in the republican crap, and you are blending them all together in a way that is almost insulting.
The "logical" choice to not serve blacks would have never required laws if every business owner already did that. We do not enact laws to make everyone behave the way they already act, healthcare reform wouldn't be an issue if health care wasn't broken. The fact that so many southern states enacted laws that controlled how businesses behaves indicates that it is very likely that they were not already acting in the intended manner. I am fairly certain the buses in Montgomery were not segregated, until the government made them so.
From wikipedia:
It is no accident that they tried to get this thing through for years, and suddenly right after the beloved president who supported the act is killed, support for the bill increases.
Also, you are continuing to do exactly what I said you would, your attacking me because you seem to think that the Civil Rights act is a success, even though we really are not making any progress. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16257374 Black people are getting poorer relative to white people. We should not ignore reality just because we passed a law that sounded good, and is all warm and fuzzy in its intentions. We need to stop ignoring the fact that over 12% of our population is being wasted because most of them cannot find good gainful employment.
Cold War and the Civil Rights Movement discusses the relationship between American racial policy and foreign policy and diplomacy during the post-World War II era through the mid-sixties. Mary Dudziak demonstrates the interactivity between domestic and foreign policy as international attention focused on discrimination in America. Racial injustice in the United States simply did not square with the narrative of American democracy enunciated to the world, and segregation, racial violence and protest, lynching, economic and social inequities were well publicized overseas. They provoked global outrage in European nations and in third world countries, weakening America’s image abroad. The American racial paradigm fueled the anti-American Soviet propaganda machine as well. “At a time when the United States hoped to reshape the postwar world in its own image, the international attention given to racial segregation was troublesome and embarrassing. …The need to address international criticism gave the federal government an incentive to promote social change at home.” (12)
Even while the government sought to control the overseas message, presidential administrations during this time period recognized the need to demonstrate that the Cold War imperative also demanded social change. Dudziak characterizes this effort to salvage the image of American democracy abroad as “fighting the Cold War with Civil Rights reform.” (79) When President Truman formed the President’s Committee on Civil Rights in 1947, the committee’s report cited three reasons for redressing civil rights abuses in the United States, including the fact that discrimination damaged U.S. foreign relations. He urged Congress to pass civil rights legislation that would outlaw lynching, protect voting rights, and estgablish a permanent civil rights commission, suggestions that failed because of the preponderance of Southern democrats on relevant committees.
Foiled by Congress, however, Truman utilized the power of the executive and legislative branches to position the federal government ideologically. He desegregated the US Armed Forces by Executive Order, and his administration became the first, as well, to file amicus curiae briefs supporting NAACP cases before the Supreme Court. The briefs emphasized and re-emphasized the damage that racial segregation at home caused to America’s fight against world communism. Support for the argument abounded and the briefs included quotations from Soviet newspapers such as, “Coloured America is not allowed to mix with the other white America, it exists within it like the yolk in the white of an egg. Or, to be more exact, like a gigantic ghetto.” (93)
Dudziak traces the interrelationship between the Cold War imperative and civil rights reform through the Kennedy and Johnson administrations as their administrations protected the narrative of racial progress during the most volatile period of the civil rights movement. Dudziak believes that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were among the factors that helped the idea of American racial progress to take hold overseas. The government hastened to construct its message in a pamphlet entitled for the Dignity of Man, illustrating the document with interracial photographs depicting a middle-class, integrated world—a mythical dwelling place for most African-Americans in the mid-sixties.
Boy, i hope bobberfett comes in here, because he likes screaming at the top of the lungs about how he's a card carrying libertarian who wants to eliminate the federal government but let states decide how big they want to get. You're actually wrong about this, there are lots of libertarians who believe in states rights (i'm a former libertarian myself, i should know).
Sorry, but no, you're completely wrong about how businesses operated back in the south.
This is what happened when black people (and their white supporters) tried to even sit down at those businesses:
Does that look good for your profit margins? You would have gone out of business and your business probably would have burned to the ground if you freely let black people patronage your business back then.
The Cold War was a MAJOR impetus for civil rights action via the federal government that preceded even the civil rights act. The Johnson and Kennedy administrations weren't the first administrations to tried to attempt (with failures and successes) to desegregate. I'm not sure if you remember what a perceived threat the Soviets were to the US was and the amount of paranoia they caused our society or not, but civil rights was a major foreign policy stumbling block from the Johnson administration and before:
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/schrag/wiki/index.php?title=Cold_War_Civil_Rights
Do you have any idea what picture you just used, the sit ins caused woolworths to change its segregation policy because people stopped shopping there, the actual event shows that the market caused them to de-segregate without the government interacting. That picture is about an event where the free market ended segregation. Are you intentionally trying to argue my points for me?
lol Phokus is fucking himself over by proving your point! haha that's gold.
Do you have any idea what picture you just used, the sit ins caused woolworths to change its segregation policy because people stopped shopping there, the actual event shows that the market caused them to de-segregate without the government interacting. That picture is about an event where the free market ended segregation. Are you intentionally trying to argue my points for me?
lol Phokus is fucking himself over by proving your point! haha that's gold.
The reason they desegregated was because black activists specifically targetted woolworths (and Kress stores) by the hundreds and thousands disrupted their businesses.
The students were so enraged by this that they launched a massive boycott of stores with segregated lunch counters. Sales dropped by a third, forcing the store owners to relent. Six months from the very first sit-in, the four freshmen returned and were served at Woolworths lunch counter.
Actually you're completely wrong, that picture was from 1963 (one year before the civil rights act, 3 years AFTER woolworths desegregated already). Woolworths desegregated in 1960. It shows the patrons being being threatened with physical violence NOT from government, but from white patrons. The reason they desegregated was because black activists specifically targetted woolworths (and Kress stores) by the hundreds and thousands disrupted their businesses.
You do realize that you're basically saying that the protesters didn't care about Woolworth's segregation policies and forcibly sat at the lunch counters and didn't respect their private property. It's good that you recognize that the disrespect for private property was a major impetus for change. However, that still didn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of businesses were segregated. Welcome to team lefty.
Lastly, woolworths did NOT want to desegregate because the other businesses near them were still segregated. They understood that they would be at a competitive disadvantage because of that. They even closed their lunch counters down in order to avoid it.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/odyssey/educate/lunch.html
Woolworth put up with six months of protest, and only changed their policy because sales dropped to much.
That evening, student leaders, college administrators and representatives from F.W. Woolworth and Kress stores held talks. The stores refused to integrate as long as other downtown facilities remained segregated. Students insisted the F.W. Woolworth and Kress retail stores would remain targets, and the meeting ended without resolution.
No shit their sales dropped so much, the black activists specifically targeted them whether they were forcibly sitting in their stores or outside protesting the store, they drove away customers, especially when there was violence from white patrons involved. You're confusing the issue and thinking it was a voluntary drop in sales because whites were somehow disgusted with the racial segregation and refused to shop in woolworths when in fact it was because they were driving away customers.
http://www.sitinmovement.org/history/greensboro-chronology.asp
When they were negotiating the segregation policy with woolworths, woolworths resisted, why is that?
http://www.sitinmovement.org/history/greensboro-chronology.asp
Because they would have had been in a competitive disadvantage if THEY had to desegregate while other stores remained segregated.
You seem to be right, this is not the incident that caused a private company to desegregate, this is another incident where the public were being assholes. But, woolworths was still desegregated wasn't it? Your showing us this horrible image, but did woolworths re-segregate? I cannot find any history on this incident beyond one of the activists first person account, every other mention of Jackson Mississippi in 1963 refers to the death of Medger Evers. Nothing ever mentions public pressure causing resegregation. So, even in spite of this horrible pressure, I can't find that your segregation by public pressure occurred, except maybe through violence, and I have never said violence was a free market problem, it is an obvious case of one person violating another's freedom and requires a government to intervene.
That evening, student leaders, college administrators and representatives from F.W. Woolworth and Kress stores held talks. The stores refused to integrate as long as other downtown facilities remained segregated. Students insisted the F.W. Woolworth and Kress retail stores would remain targets, and the meeting ended without resolution.