Do you have proof, or are you going to continue parroting what you read on blogsites? By definition our country is not free market. Here, educate yourself. It was Adam Smith himself who said that Governments provide the illusion that they exist to help the poor, when in fact they exist to help the already-rich stay rich. It was also Milton Friedman who said that anti-market monopolization (Through state capitalism) made markets uncompetitive and burdensome. I could give you a list of reasons why our economy is not, and has never been free market, but I'm sure you'll be far too busy with your 'life' to actually address it. So I'll play the game your way. Give me a blog post, something, an editorial, showing that the free market has failed. Conservatives aren't really pro-market, because they support many anti-market ideologies, such as strong IP and tort laws. They're just as anti-market as lefties are, but they claim they're pro-market. Conservatives are also not anti-state. They want Government to be 'small' (Small enough to not dip into their salary too much) but they almost invariably support growing the Government if they support it. Ergo, the military. As an Ancap, I unequivocally support any and all illegitimate authority. Oh, and as a consistent libertarian, I extend that to the economy. Most of Lewrockwell bloggers are the same. There's a variety of libertarians, and the blog is completely open to free expression. There's some radical things said and posted all the time, but that's the beauty of free association and free expression. Your dichotomy is turning out to be false It certainly seems it, considering you rarely formulate your own opinions. You always say radical shit, and when asked to back it up, you post a blog link to the source of where you got the idea. But materially, you are incapable of defending it. Think for yourself once. Oh right. You care so much about posting your blog links, but when it comes to backing them up, you magically 'get a life' and chose not to argue with some person. Right. What's the point of debating if you are so busy that you cannot possibly reply to 'some person' on the computer? You sure do seem to make a habit of not returning to threads you make to actually make a material defense of something, but you're more than willing to spew partisan rhetoric at every turn. Sounds to me like you're not as busy as you claim you are, and instead are just not capable of defending your views from criticism.
Why are you in the politics section then? I'm insulted Lol well, maybe it wouldn't have been that extreme, but I think there would have been a bit more blood spilled, eventually, if that sort of societal behavior had have stuck around. Your country is armed to the teeth after all.
Why more blood spilled? Don't you think forcing all the bigots to serve or hire people they don't want to has caused for greater resentment and race divisions? Racial tensions haven't abated because of coercion, if anything coercion is a hinderence to the progress that we have seen. The person you originally responded to didn't even realize they were referencing the forced segregation of publicly funded facilities, which everyone wanted removed. As the article pointed out, we really jumped the gun on prohibiting discrimination in private sector because it's led to a myriad of negative consequences, as most coercive social laws do. Had the clause pertaining to private businesses been left out of the CRA the negative consequences would have primarily been felt by amoral businesses that discriminated, instead of to all businesses equally. True, in the beginning some patrons would be turned away because of their religion or skin color, but society as a whole would quickly learn it's better if we all got along. Why do you think Woolworths desegregated their lunch counter before the CRA was passed?
I'm just saying that if the CRA hadn't been passed there would be more spilled blood, based on other oppressed groups of people I see in the world, although the particular group of people I'm thinking of right now is full of fundamentalist Muslims... But I agree that if society itself was given the choice to segregate everything(when it comes to private property at least) that the racism would slowly be weened out entirely. I'm sure there would be a few bigots here and there with segregated businesses, but I don't see them making much money, unless they were set up in bigoted communities. Idk, I live in rural Nova Scotia. It's pretty white out here(like you can identify certain people by their ethnicity. "Tyler who?" "Oh, you know, the black kid" Unfortunate, but it happens), and there are quite a number of bigots in my particular community. But they all know that they would just be hated on if they were publicly racist, even by other bigots. I don't know where I was going with all that, but I guess my point would be that if left alone things do sort them selves out.