[an error occurred while processing this directive]
About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Monday, June 9 - 7:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Soviet style street theater is in full force this year, during the 50th anniversary of the CRA.

 

It was Eisenhower who sent the federal troops to turn around those state NG bayonets in those southern states controlled by Democrats. And yet, watch the modern Soviet street theater whitewashing of history.

 

The whitewashing includes Cranston on Broadway as LBJ, playing the feisty Democrat fighting for minorities and the rights of the little guy.

 

Meanwhile, here is reality, from Robert Kessler's book "Inside the White House": Lyndon Baines Johnson 1963... "These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference... I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years".

 

Another famous example is cited in "Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1908-1960", by Robert Dallek. Johnson defended the Supreme Court appointment of the famous Thurgood Marshall, rather than a black judge less identified with the civil rights cause, by saying to a staff member, "Son, when I appoint a n-----r to the court, I want everyone to know he's a n-----r."

 

Johnson leaves years of public service as a multimillionaire. Detroit looks worse today than it did in 1964. Minorities used like cheap Kleenex by the Democratic party.

 

But watch the 'whitewashing' of LBJ that is going on. LBJ, the southern dixiecrat democrat in the early 60s. It was Goldwater who personally fought against segregation, in public and business communities in Arizona. And it was that screaming racist LBJ who accused Goldwater of being a racist for opposing LBJs cynical power play on principles supportive of all of our freedom.

 

 

I have no issue with CRA64 as written; it is race neutral, and is just polite manners in public codified. Same with JFK's Executive Order, which was also race neutral.

 

But LBJs Executive Order, which overturned JFK's race neutral EO, created by whim a mandate to do explicitely what the CRA had just outlawed, and enabled race based discrimination. The net effect of which was to divide the nation, in order to rule it, and sell out all of our freedom.

 

Detroit 2014 was really worth selling out American freedom?

 

 

Obama is the latest LBJ'ing of minorities in this nation. They've been had. But we've all been had. And not just by the Democrats.

 

regards,

Fred

 

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 6/09, 7:23am)



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Monday, June 9 - 12:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Fred,

 

Good post.

LBJ, playing the feisty Democrat fighting for minorities and the rights of the little guy

The Democrats want to ignore that it was Eisenhower who was the leading light behind desegregation, and that he would have been the one to pass the big Civil Rights Act (he, and the Republicans, had already passed voting rights and other civil rights acts), but then they were stopped.  Stopped by the Senate - or to be more specific, the Senate leader, LBJ (he was the Senate's Minority Leader 1953-1955, and Majority leader from 1955-1961).  

 

Before LBJ became a model for Obama, he was the model for Harry Reid.

 

There is an evolution visible in the Progressive's 'progress' - If you go back to Wilson (another Ivey Leaguer), he was as racist as LBJ and even favored eugenics.  But with the passage of time, the progressives learned that they should 'streamline' themselves, get rid of rough spots on their exterior, and thereby generate less friction.  LBJ may well be the last of the progressives to get to the top despite being politically uncorrect.  The modern progressive knows that he needs to be totally slippery, and only offer an exterior that is about saving the planet, the poor, the sick, etc.  The underlying game plan remains unchanged: Elites moving closer to total, centralized control by hiding inside of altruistically decorated Trojan Horse campaigns - using constant lies, and the various religious themes of Social Justice, Equality everywhere but under the law, Redistribution of other peoples money, Diversity, and unlimited Democracy.



Post 2

Tuesday, June 10 - 5:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Two points about Lyndon B. Johnson, both recent to me, that light up this rehabilitation of his image in history to produce a chiarascuro.  We could not see the darker side of LBJ if not for the good.

 

Yesterday, I watched a Firing Line from 1984 with Christopher Hitchens and R. Emmmett Tyrell.  Buckley's assumption, of course, was that President Kennedy and President Johnson were both liberals.  Neither was, of course.

 

Last month, completing a contract with the Texas Division of Emergency Management, I researched Hurricane Betsy.  Comparing and contrasting that to Katrina and the two Presidents really illustrates how far our culture has fallen in one or two generations.  The Dixiecrats had abandoned the party with the formerly solid South going solidly for Goldwater.  Moreover, Hale Boggs and Russell Long were powers in the House and Senate.  "Mr. President, your people are suffering here."  In other words, "these were Democratic voters: you need to get them back; and this is how."  It was power politics put to a good use.  On the other hand, President Bush just abandoned the same people for the same reason: why do anything for Democrats?  

 

More deeply, however, and a point often made by Fred, Johnson's generation of leaders came from World War II. They had no FEMA, no bureaucracy in place to lean on and then blame.  The President called his emergency manager - whose office thought of "emergencies" as meaning Russian A-Bombs Raining Down - and they did what needed to be done, finding, marshaling, and dispatching resources.  Furthermore, in that previous generation, volunteers showed up to help. They were welcomed, of course.

 

In our time FEMA does not welcome spontaneous volunteers, but calls them "the disaster within the disaster."  Thus, firefighters who routinely self-dispatch as part of their operational culture, were shipped off to Georgia to spend three days in classes on the history of FEMA before being allowed to goto New Orleans.  In our time, also, any parish president or city mayor could have declared an emergency and ordered an evacuation. Everyone looked to someone else with N.O. mayor Ray Nagin waiting for landfall, lest he order an unnecessary evacuation.  

 

I delivered those facts at a Toastmaster's meeting and one of my visual aids was of Eleanor Roosevelt in a coal mine.  She did not sit in the White House.  She surely did not go vacationing off to Spain.  She put on a hard hat and went 200+ feet down and 2000+ feet in to advocate for a cause that she believed in.  Say what you want about her politics, her personal dedication to her ideals was integrated within her.  We don't see that too often these days...

 

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 6/10, 5:43am)



Post 3

Tuesday, June 10 - 8:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Michael:

 

It's hard for me to wrap my head around Nixon as the political spawn of Eisenhower, LBJ as the political spawn of JFK.     There is something dangerous, clearly, about 'balancing' the ticket with an opposite.   The nation elected Eisenhower and Nixon twice.   Probably JFK and LBJ, too, and in a sense, they did.    LBJ's election was largely national sympathy for JFK no matter what Goldwater said or did or who was going to run in '64.    But the nation was robbed of what was going to be the 1964 Kennedy Goldwater campaign, and a new high bar of American politics.    And what it got, instead, was the 'accuse 'em of fucking a pig; even if its not true, they'll have to answer it' scumbag Johnson.  There is no part of that scumbag that was worthy of being a POTUS, except for some corrupt failed state on its way downhill.   And same with Nixon.  Totally unlike Eisenhower and JFK(and I don't give two shits who JFK was banging, that nonsense is all part of the modern version of clown politics.)

 

There really was a seachange between the WWII generation of leaders and what followed, but I view Johnson and Nixon as the leading wave of the worst to come.   JFK's assasination was a kind of cusp in American politics.   It seems to me, looking back, like the end of America as America.   Maybe American politics was long rotting around the edges, but the embrace of full blown media circus clown politics seemed to blossom in the aftermath of JFK's assasination.   Whatever replaced it after JFKs America just has an undeniable overwhelming stench of America increasingly sprinting downhill.   Our elections are now photogenic charismatics winning a poltitical version of American Idol, leader maximus.    Reagan's affable likability over fringe Clark's putting it all down in writing, black and white, in 'New Beginnings.'   America can't be bothered to read so much as a pamphlet.  Give it a bumper sticker and a billboard that says "God's Country" or "Hope and Change" and the bitch is yours.    Nothing good will ever come from that out of all control lack of process.

 

Me, telling my kids, I hope I'm wrong about that.  Good luck, and so on.   Closing my eyes and hoping.   Maybe for political balance, I should be closing my eyes and hoping for change while praying.

 

regards,

Fred

 

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 6/10, 8:30am)



Post 4

Tuesday, June 10 - 3:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Fred,

It's hard for me to wrap my head around Nixon as the political spawn of Eisenhower, LBJ as the political spawn of JFK.

That Nixon and Eisenhower were of the same party means nothing in the face of their fundamental differences. Eisenhower: honest, competent, and focused on practical and fair ends he thought were needed. Nixon: An ideolgoically agnostic and paranoid crook.

 

The same is true of LBJ and JFK. The differences in character - particularly honesty - and in vision, stand up as greater than any similarity of party - so much so that it becomes absurd to treat party affiliation as meaning they are of the same cut.
----------------------

There really was a seachange between the WWII generation of leaders and what followed, but I view Johnson and Nixon as the leading wave of the worst to come. JFK's assasination was a kind of cusp in American politics. It seems to me, looking back, like the end of America as America. Maybe American politics was long rotting around the edges, but the embrace of full blown media circus clown politics seemed to blossom in the aftermath of JFK's assasination.

I think that's a striking overservation. We know that it is the fundamental philosophical premises that gradually work their way into a culture, taking generations, and finally directing all things. But the change is traceable as layers and can only take place over many, many generations. First comes bad philosophy, then comes the joining of collectivist ethics to form bad political philosophy, then comes the spread of common propaganda. And finally with all that groundwork laid the culture has become a stage accessible to a Nixon or a LBJ. And there we see the culmination of bad ideas fully expressed day after day in concrete political acts.



Post 5

Tuesday, June 10 - 7:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

CRA64 as written ... is race neutral, and is just polite manners in public codified.

Polite ! After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the owner of a restaurant or other business no longer controlled his most basic means of doing business, the government did. The act regulated whom a business owner could serve and hire.

 

Mark

ARIwatch.com

 

(Edited by Mark Hunter on 6/10, 7:25pm)

 

(Edited by Mark Hunter on 6/10, 7:26pm)

 

(Edited by Mark Hunter on 6/10, 7:27pm)



Post 6

Wednesday, June 11 - 3:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

what I find even more revealing is the fact that as a Republican you almost had to vote for Democrats (and vice-versa) if you were interested in the best man for the job - now there's a conundrum ;)

also goes to show that parties cannot trump individualism ... we had that here in Munich: CSU (christian social union) being the entrenched 'big party' in Bavaria, but the mayor being consistently elected from the SPD (social democrat party) for 20 years because he was the better person for the job

sadly we don't have direct presidential elections - maybe some 'less-than-intelligent-personalia' could have been avoided in that office ... instead they keep electing their parties, no matter the embarrassing personal consequences



Post 7

Wednesday, June 11 - 9:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Mark:

 

Both the CRA and JFKs earlier EO were race neutral, and applied only to behavior in the public sphere, on the public commons.    Neither addressed private behavior or even private commerce.   There is a separate debate whether there should be any such thing as a public sphere or public commons, but there is.  (LBJs EO, OTOH, mandated racial discrimination.  A complete stunner.  And Nixon later double downed on it.   The 8(a) program started under Eisenhower in the late 50s and was originally race neutral.   It was the tag team of LBJ and NIXON that turned the 8(a) program into a tool of racial discrimination, as well as, one of the most corrupt programs imaginable,with hardly a legitimatelydisadvantaged minority insight.  I've never seen so many WASPs high fiving each other while rolling in millions of dollars of OPM.)

 

Steve has pointed out that Goldwater's objections to the CRA were principled, and based on the idea that acknowledging one set of responsibilities to peers in freedom in the public sphere vs. the private sphere was just a slippery slope invitation to tear down any barriers between public and private. (And, looking to what just happened to Sterling, that could be the case today.   Did he not have a reasonable expectaition of privacy in making those comments, and how is that those comments entered the public sphere?   The ends -- he said heineous things -- do not justify the means. He was not broadcasting those remarks at a Clippers home game, and that is how the Tribe is reacting.)

 

But I think that opposition to a race neutral set of rules of public behavior might have made it too easy to attack that barrier as being not worthy of defense; if its only purpose can be painted (even if that isn't true in the least)as enabling scumbag racists to be scumbag racists, then it gets easily torn down for all of us, for any reason.

 

Discrimination in private commerce and life happens all the time, by all races, and is not 'racism.'  It is free association.   The tools we use to choose who to freely associate with are by definition 'discrimination.'   Without 'discrimination', our associations would be 'indiscriminate' -- done 'randlomy without careful judgement.'   The point in a free society is not the 'careful' the point is that the choice is ours, individually, under rules of free association.   We freely choose, else, wthout access to those choices-- requiring force to prohibit --our associations are forced associations.

 

So why do I not think that applies to a restaurant in the public commons?   Because we freely choose to commerce in the public commons.   That is not our only choice.   We do so because of the broad access it gives us to a broad market of our peers, who also choose public commerce.   We could choose private commerce: by private invitation only, into our homes.   We are free to select our clientele in private commerce.  We can discriminate to our heart's content, using any basis we want.     But when we avail ourselves of the -advantages-  of accessing a large and anonymous public marketplace, becuase it is large, becuase it is filled with our peers living in freedom and sharing that same public commons, I(at least, myslelf)recognize an obligation that goes along with the advantage I just availed myself of.   That obligation to treat my peers living in freedom and sharing that commons with respect and dignity and fairness.   Just because I choose to commerce on the pubic commons does not mean I get to sprint headlong to my destination, ignoring the existence of peers on that same commons.   I have an obligation --  a selfish obligation -- to navigate to my destination, mindful of the existence of others doing same, to avoid collisions.   And beyond that, to not act the oaf.  And to not support oafdom on the public commons.   Because it was my choice to commerce on the public commons, a choice to gain the advantage of access to a broad public marketplace.   I forego the opportunity of private commerce limited to invitation only into my home or place of private business.

 

Some might argue, "I need access to the public commons for my public commerce to survive, because retricting my commerce to private commerce is insufficient for my needs, which includes, my declared need to publicly practice racism as an element of my free association discrimination."

 

And I would say 'Fuck them and their Holy self defined public needs, their Holy needs are not a licence to force association with their shit for brains racism on the public commons.   Keep it back in the falling down double wide, where they are free to practice racism privately."

 

Because IMO, we have a different set of obligations to each other as peers, living in freedom, when we choose commerce in the public commons.   And it is in my selfish best interests to defend the rights of those peers, because that is the only means of actually defending my or anyones freedom.   If I can tolerate their freedom being eaten by the needs of others, then I can tolerate my freedom being eaten by the needs of others.

 

And if we can't defend our mutual freedom from shit for brains racists, literally, like Hitler and his skinhead spawn, then we can't defend freedom from anything.

 

White supremacists are free to march and speak in America.   Say what they want.  As long as I am not forced to associate with shit for brains, I'm cool.   Walk away.  Change the channel.   Don't invite me to their flag burnings, please.    I don''t want to stumble directly across their hate on the public commons by accident, though, uninvited, without fair warning.  That is forced association.    They can practice private commerce, by private invitation only, thereby minimizing forced association with their shit for brainedness.   And when they step into public commerce, like every other peer living in freedom, play by the same race neutral polite rules, or be thrown off the public commons like the louts they are.  There is an argument -- a good argument -- that such a policy simply pushes racism underground,  making it hard to identify for the purposes of informed free association.   As in, forced to smile at public patrons while secretly spitting in their food back in the kitchen.  Indeed, that is a cost of this policy.   But that cost depends on the claim that racists really effectively hide themselves in public.    They are not hiding themselves if they are spitting in food. And that fear of the fringe can't be the reason that freedom in America can be interpreted to include the freedom to be Hitler.

 

In some future nation, maybe there will be no such thing as the public commons, or public commerce.   But those ideas, as concepts, are firmly rooted today, and without some care and strategic thinking, it is just as likely that there is no such thing as a private life in some future nation.   Peers defend the freedom of peers only when that freedom is worth defending.    The freedom to be a racist scumbag is not a freedom that hurls folks onto the beaches at Normandy defending freedom.   Just the opposite.

 

regards.

Fred



Post 8

Wednesday, June 11 - 11:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

We’re talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It applied not only to federally owned property but to all property public and private.

 

It didn’t just overturn local “Jim Crow” laws (government mandated segregation), it made private segregation illegal too. It applied to the workplace. It applied to any place supposedly open to the general public such as clubs and restaurants. It applied to renting or selling houses and apartments. It gutted the former freedom of association interpretation of the Bill of Rights (which the Supreme Court had affirmed in 1958).

 

It would have been bad enough if the Act had been as race neutral as its language pretended to be, but in practice it was whites who suffered.

... when we avail ourselves of the advantages of accessing a large and anonymous public marketplace ... I (at least, myself) recognize an obligation that goes along with the advantage I just availed myself of. That obligation to treat my peers living in freedom and sharing that commons with respect and dignity and fairness.

Fred can speak for himself, as apparently he meant to do by emphasizing “I.” But also apparently he has no problem with the feds forcing all of us to be good like him.

 

Speaking of Hitler, in a way the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which stole our right to choose with whom to associate, and the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 which let in a flood of people for whom the Civil Rights Act was designed, is “Hitler’s posthumous revenge.” The phrase is from Peter Brimelow’s book Alien Nation. 

 

Fred speaks of white supremacists etc. You might live in the whitest neighborhood you can afford, but never admit it in public or you’ll get the “white supremacist” and “racist scumbag” and “just like Hitler” treatment.



Post 9

Wednesday, June 11 - 1:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

 It applied not only to federally owned property but to all property public and private.

 

Well, we disagree on that.   And my reading of it is race neutral.   It applies equally to all Americans, period.

 

If it applies to all private property, then how is it possible that blacks still largely marry blacks and live and dine and sleep with blacks, whites with whites, and so on in America, except via free assocaitioon -- choice -- , and openly racially discriminate in private life?

 

The restaurant that you run privately, by private invitation only, that you do not generally advertise publicly, that is not known in public, is not exposed to any provision of the CRA.  You do that every day.  It's called your kitchen and dining room.  You are free to make it as big as you want in America, and invite who you want to dinner, and even charge them for the meal if you want and if they agree to it.  You are also free to meet in your massive living room after dinner and conduct private commerce.  

 

And  Moot-- How could such a private entity be subject to the CRA as written?

 

The restaurant that you choose to run in the public sphere, on the public commons, with the benefit of access to a broad market of your peers in this nation living in freedom, is subject to a race neutral CRA.    

 

So choose one, whichever best meets your priorities, and feel free.    But all benefit and no obligations to peers enjoying the same benefits?    That, to me, is like claiming when driving on the public Interstate -- a benefit -- you have the right to drive over others to get to your destination.    That is what driving in Bangladesh is like, governed only by the barely fettered anarchy restricted only by physics.   No thanks, I'm not about to get behind that.

 

regards,

Fred



Post 10

Wednesday, June 11 - 1:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

But also apparently he has no problem with the feds forcing all of us to be good like him.

 

 

"Good" has nothing to do with anything.   I've written many times that the axiom I use to weigh the rigthfullness of state action is based on free association vs. forced association.

 

Example: clean air laws.   Why should third parties be forcefully associated with the commerce of others?   State force then, to me, is justified.

 

Racist nonsense on the public commons; why should others be forcefully associated with shit for brains sensibilities like that?   They should feel free ... to keep that in the double wides, back in the trailer parks, banging their toothless sisters.    And don't invite me out there.   And keep it out of the commons.

 

No problem with the state keeping that off the commons at all.  Becuase the real slipperyslope is, bending over backwards to define every random mindless act of a complete shit for brains as freedom.

 

regards,

Fred



Post 11

Wednesday, June 11 - 2:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Fred,

 

There are two ways to view property that use the terms "private" and "public." One is in regards to ownership, and the other is in terms of access. They are related in that ownership will tell us who gets to define access.

 

Ownership is about the right to actions related to the thing in question (house, land, business, copyright, etc.) Ownership is best thought of as bundle of rights (actions) that can be exercised without permission.  Access or use of something is one of the set of rights that will be owned by someone.

 

There are different kinds of owners: Public ownership means that all of the people of the political jurisdiction own the property equally but it is managed by the government of that jurisdiction. The managers set the access rules. This is the "commons" - this public property - like state parks, the capital building, military reservations, etc.  For reasons nearly everyone at ROR understands this kind of property should be kept to an absolute minimun, not just because of the "tragedy of the commons" issue, but because it takes that property outside of the competitive free market and reduces the beneficial effects of capitalism to that extent.

 

If property isn't publicly owned, then it is privately owned. That's because the use of the term "ownership" in a discussion related to "public" versus "private" we are talking about who has control - who holds the right to uncontested actions regarding the thing in question.

 

Access can be declared to be public or private by the owner. Because ownership and access are separate focuses, we can have private property that the owner grants public access (e.g., a restaurant the owner opens to the public) or a publically owned property that is declared to have private access (e.g., some military bases).
------------------------

The restaurant that you choose to run in the public sphere, on the public commons, with the benefit of access to a broad market of your peers in this nation living in freedom, is subject to a race neutral CRA.

You speak of a "public sphere" and a "public commons" as if the implied owner of a property, who opens that property to those who might want to be customers has, by being open, given up the right to control access. RoR is in the "public sphere" but the access remains under the control of the private owner. It is exercised in a reasonable fashion here, but there are web sites where the very site itself is irrational and where access is irrationally controlled, but as long as it is the owner directing the access, even if it is irrational and immoral, it is - and should be - legal.

 

People, by right, discriminate - mentally categorize and choose. The discrimination might be on political terms - discriminating against socialists, or it might be done on racial terms. The initiation of force, threat to initiate force, fraud or theft are the only things that can violate individual rights.  And to use anything else to determine when to make things illegal for a person to do, we end up violating rights instead of protecting them.

 

If someone does not want to serve socialists in an internet forum, or does not want to serve blacks in a restaurant, both are individual discriminations that don't initiate force, fraud or theft and despite the fact that one example is rational and moral and the other is irrational and immoral, they both should be legal. We can't make one legal and the other illegal without throwing out the principle of individual rights as the basis of law.

 

If the government forced Joe to allow socialists to have equal time on RoR, or forced some bigoted diner owner to serve blacks, the result would be the same: forced association, violation of property rights, and justifying laws that are not based on individual rights.

-----------------------

Example: clean air laws. Why should third parties be forcefully associated with the commerce of others? State force then, to me, is justified.

We agree on this. No one has the right to dirty the air in ways that harm others. If they want to dirty the air in ways that only effect their private property, sure, go ahead - e.g., smoke in your house or car. But if enough smoke (like from an industrial smoke stack) gets onto my property, that is a forced association - an initiation of force.

---------------

Racist nonsense on the public commons; why should others be forcefully associated with shit for brains sensibilities like that? They should feel free ... to keep that in the double wides, back in the trailer parks, banging their toothless sisters. And don't invite me out there. And keep it out of the commons.

When someone opens a business it does not put their property into the "public commons" in the sense that phrase usually means - it does not convert private property into publically owned property.  It just means that instead of implicit or explict invitations to access the property are less restrictive. Because someone opens a business to the public doesn't mean that people can come take stuff and not pay. They can't live in somebody's store. They can't rent out the space to a third party or sell the property. They have an implicit permission to visit, during the hours open, under the terms offered, as customers and no more. No shirt, no shoes, no service. No one is forcefully required to associate with racists. To the contrary, when they can exercise their right to deny access to what they own, by right, whether it is their home or their business, on immoral, stupid, irrational racism, they are exposed and with each iota of moral progress made in a society, they are marginalized further. We have seen this steady progression from a state where slave owning was legally protected, even nurtured, to a society where racists are reviled. Racism is eliminate faster when it is not driven underground by bad laws.

--------------------------------------------

...the real slipperyslope is, bending over backwards to define every random mindless act of a complete shit for brains as freedom.

There is a slipperyslope that leads off in every single direction from the principle of individual rights, which can only be violated by the initiation of force, threat to initiate force, fraud or theft.  That is what makes free (chosen) versus forced (e.g., government threats) association.  Anarchists, Communists, Progressives, Fascists, etc. would all say that advocating for Capitalism is a case of 'complete shit for brains.'  We have no leg to stand on in arguing against their 'shit for brains' arguments without the principle of individual rights.  There is no such thing as an emotional revulsion, or a level of stupidity so great that it justifies violating the only clear principle governing the use force.  If people chose to be as stupid and repulsive as bigots, that is their right as long as they don't violate rights.



Post to this thread
[an error occurred while processing this directive]


User ID Password or create a free account.