Coercive edicts don't solve social problems

Discussion in 'Politics' started by aaronman, May 25, 2010.

  1. The Civil Rights Laws and Growth of Government

    Agree, disagree?
  2. #2 Gooch_Goblin69, May 25, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 25, 2010
    Agree, not only that racial quotas are ridiculous, but government trying to fix social problems with coercive laws never works out. Just look at prohibition (of alchohol or marijuana) the aim was to reduce use yet having the law did nothing and created more problems.

    Employers should be able to pick the BEST workers based on skills. Race should have nothing to do with it.

    Besides if a racist bussiness owner hires the white worker over the black or hispanic or asian when the minority is accualy a more skilled worker it will lead to inneficiency. A smart bussiness cares about one thing: gettting the most output for the least input. A worker at $9 an hour is the input, the output is whatever they produce. A more skilled worker would obciously put out more than an unskilled worker for the same input.

    However quota's take away that choice to be effiecient or ineficeint. In many cases the qouta's probably lead to inefficiency.
  3. What about when it comes to customers... should Jews be forced to serve loud-mouthed swastica toting Neo-Nazis?
  4. No, but imagine what they could do to the food if they were forced to. :D
  5. #5 Perpetual Burn, May 25, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 25, 2010
    ^No, dude that's racism... well, if you're Rand Paul it is.

    It is ironic that people fail to realize that Jim Crow laws were a product of activist government. I was watching Real Time this past week and this dude was blaming libertarians on segregation and said only they opposed ending segregation.
  6. Yea, I actually didn't mind the economist Maher had on before the panel (I always tune out Maher's opening stand-up because it's usually so awful), but as soon as that professor opened his mouth I had to shut it off.
  7. Yeah, Maher totally played his role bashing Rand Paul in the opening segment... some "libertarian" he is. Later in the show he tried to distance himself from libertarianism saying he used to be one back in the early 90's... but I know he's said, "I'm a libertarian" on his show within the past two years.

    But the dude on the right in the panel actually made some good points, though you could tell he had a "GOP approved" script to follow.

    The lady in the middle said she was a libertarian the very first time she spoke... of course, she made the most sense the whole night, but she was too tentative compared to the abrasive rhetoric of the dude on the left. Go figure they sat left to right. :laughing:
  8. Agreed on all points. :cool:

    Maher has really become a joke when it comes to issues that actually require some background knowledge in certain fields (economics, health, etc.).
  9. If you can't fix social problems by coercion, you aren't using enough coercion. :wave:
  10. You do know there are different types of libertarians right?

    Albeit only one type of libertarians, the right-libertarians who support economic liberalism, frequently post on this forum.
  11. Sure there are... an infinite different type...

    But at it's root... it is based on liberty (a simple idea)... something Maher doesn't seem to really care about anymore.

    Remember when Democrats used to pride themselves in protecting civil and personal liberties? That was a good one. Remember when Republicans used to value financial liberty? That was another good one.
  12. The reason why people are so critical of the Tea Parties, and now libertarians, is because we're the biggest threat to the establishment there is. Liberals often talk about how they're going to change Washington, make it more ethical, etc. They've been doing it since JFK, but it's never happened. Now, we have a HUGE uprising of legitimate independents, and now the two mouthpieces of the two majority parties are either trying to suck as many of them in as possible, or try and discredit them. MSNBC is trying their hardest to discredit the Tea Party, because they're a huge threat. FOX is trying to reel them in (with varied success).

    I've been hearing people in my daily life bring up about how 'that guy from Kentucky' is a HUGE racist and wants to repeal the CRA. Both are patently false, but that doesn't stop the MSM from spreading these lies. And let's be real, if you don't understand Rand Paul's position on private property, chances are you eat up the oatmeal mush that the MSM feeds you every day.

    Anyways, about the article, I read it on LRC, and it's an excellent one.
  13. Libertarianism is based on the NAP. The non-aggression principal. The non-aggression principal states that it is immoral to initiate force or coercion. 'Economic liberalism', as you say, is the most consistent interpretation of libertarianism there is. Also, the most consistent libertarians who post here are not 'right-libertarians'. Consistent libertarians are ancaps (Anarcho-capitalists), and their political position transcends typical party boundaries.

    Dickie, I understand that you are unable to think for yourself, and you instead rely on blogs from the prog-left to do all your thinking for you. That's fine. People can believe whatever they want. But please, stop spreading complete falsehoods so readily.
  14. I know I know, the whole anyone that doesnt believe in the right-libertarian world view is just some brain dead liberal sheep line. But rightwing libertarians, ya there the only ppl who think for themselves.:rolleyes:

    What did aaronman post? Oh wait, it was an article from a rightwing site. But thats ok, because hes a conservative and its a conservative article and you agree with him.


    Right libertarian - Libertarian Wiki

    "Right libertarians believe in an absolute right to private property. They are heavily influenced by Austrian economics, and oppose any government intervention in the marketplace. They hold an unflinching faith in the free market, and see any market failures as the result of government intervention. They consider any voluntary, contractual agreement to be legitimate. They are highly hostile towards any form of taxation, particularly the income tax. At best, they tend to view taxation as a necessary evil, and usually advocate tariffs and excise taxes as the main source of revenue, though they are critical of these as well. Some denounce all forms of taxation, and instead believe that user fees and voluntary donations are the only legitimate means of funding government. The most extreme form of right libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism, which believes that the state should not exist at all, and that its roles could be replaced by the free market."

    Nope, doesnt sound at all like the frequent posters here.;):rolleyes:
  15. 50 years ago black kids were kept out of white schools by armed guards.

    Who needs those silly civil rights laws? I'm sure it all would have worked itself out naturally.
  16. It would have. One side would have ended up killing the other. That seems pretty natural when talking about human nature.
  17. #17 aaronman, May 26, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 26, 2010

    Ummmm, have you heard of the term, "Jim Crow Laws"? :rolleyes:

    If you read the article you'll see we don't favor coercive edicts, such as racial segregation... which is the state policy you're referencing.

    From the article you're responding to, but obviously didn't read:

    Now try again. :wave:

    Haha, do you really think that's what would happen?
  18. Well, we DO back up our arguments with things like historical evidence, basic economic law and principles of ethics.

    There's nothing wrong with you posting all your liberal blog sites if you could actually defend them, but you never do. You kinda just post them and put a :hello: in there, and then we destroy them.

    Look at Penelope's post, how often do you see one of us libertarians being flat out wrong and called out like that?:D

    I agree with you though that this forum is a libertarian echo chamber, and I think that's just because stoners are naturally skeptical of government. And smarter than the average bear. ;)
  19. No, Dicke, that's not true at all. I know of plenty of liberals who are not brain-dead. Recently, I've been praising AHuman for being pragmatic and free-thinking. Our views couldn't be more opposite, but he has a track record of thinking for himself. I respect him for that. He doesn't go around posting blog links from prog-left blogs, and when asked to defend them, runs away and never shows his face again. No, that's you.

    You on the other hand, rely entirely on other people's works to form your own opinion. There's been countless times I've attempted to initiate a debate with you over something you post, and you are completely unable to back it up. Still, to this day, you parrot what prog-left bloggers have to say, but when you get called on it, you're entirely ill-equipped to defend your position.

    This isn't even that bothersome.

    What bothers me, more, is the fact that you authoritatively declare that the free market has failed, or conservatives are racist, etc., and my contention is that you don't know what you're talking about, and instead parrot what someone else says.

    In other words, I hold disdain for you because you're not capable of thinking for yourself, and then you have the gall to sit there and speak ill on issues you don't even understand.

    Yet again, you're proving how little you know. If you honestly think is 'conservative', there's something wrong in your head.

    The problem, as I outlined above, is that all you do is parrot prog-left blogs, and you don't actually think for yourself. is one of the more popular libertarian blogrolls. They criticize the left and the right on a daily basis.

    You're operating on an 'us vs. them' mentality. The participants on the blog don't share the same views you do, so they're automatically 'conservative' and 'right-wing'. This couldn't be farther from the truth.

    And no, libertarians are not 'right-wing'. Not the consistent ones, at least.

    Lol, that's a cute article. 'Unflinching faith' in the free market, 'eh?

    First of all, that entire wiki is wrong.

    Second of all, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that;

    Ancaps, such as myself reject what is formally known as 'right-libertarian'. Right-libertarians are more objectivist than they are libertarian--they favor strong IP, a strong(er) military/defense, among other things.

    But I guess I don't expect someone who gets their information solely from blogs and mainsteam media to actually know what they're talking about.

    Yea, there's tons of libertarians here because the very existence of this forum is testament to how Government coercion is wrong and unjust. I think most level-headed people realize that Government power is illegitimate, and the war on drugs is a perfect example.
  20. #20 Dickie4:20, May 27, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 27, 2010
    What i say means something to you if you take the time in your life to write multiple paragraphs about me posting an article i posted.

    And yes, the free market as we know it has failed this country and the world. Im an anti-authoritarian btw, probably what you would call a "libertarian".

    And LewRockwell prides itself as an anti-state/pro-market site.

    "But I guess I don't expect someone who gets their information solely from blogs and mainsteam media to actually know what they're talking about."

    Yup, solely.

    And LOL at the "runs away" statement, its called having a life and not sitting in front of a computer arguing with some person.

Share This Page