Libertarians support local legislation fighting pollution at the state level rather than the federal level. It's the broad one-size fits all approach that often makes the EPA ineffective.

 

What about pollution that effects things larger than the state? If northern states allow the dumping of crude oil into the river systems that run through them, should southern states just have to bite the bullet and accept the toxification of their water systems?

---

So your answer is yes? Business owners should be allowed to deny service to blacks based on the color of their skin? ......Neat.

it should be quite obvious that institutions that choose to segregate their client base also choose to limit their potential income. With those self imposed limits they will also limit growth. Add to that the stigma of being a place of open bigotry, and you have the formula for a business that will not last long.


I didn't say I agree with someone opening a business that used such practices, just that I feel a personally owned business should be allowed to choose the level of client they wish to cater to. And thereby should be allowed limit entry to those clients.


This is allowable for government funded institutions such as black/womens colleges. It is also allowed for private scholarship programs such as UNCF & various beauty pageants for women. Augusta National limited its membership to men only until only recently.


Personally, I think it would be a stupid idea to open a business and hang such signs, that doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to. It's your business, you can make it fail any way you want to.

---

Signature goes here.

Just call them gay, slap a religious freedom claim on there and you're A-OK!

 

I'm not saying the current system in place is perfect, because it's not. Letting owners and employers openly enforce "No Blacks Allowed" seems pretty counter-productive race relations going forward. To hell with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

In 1964, the Civil Rights Act passed on a 290-130 vote that "...that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

In 2004, Congress held a vote "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

 

414 yes votes.

1 no vote.

18 no shows.

 

That no vote? The face of libertarianism, Ron Paul.

---

I'm not saying the current system in place is perfect, because it's not. Letting owners and employers openly enforce "No Blacks Allowed" seems pretty counter-productive race relations going forward. To hell with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


In 1964, the Civil Rights Act passed on a 290-130 vote that "...that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

In 2004, Congress held a vote "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."


414 yes votes.

1 no vote.

18 no shows.


That no vote? The face of libertarianism, Ron Paul.

His point?...... That a business owner should have the right to fail any way they want to.

---

Signature goes here.

it should be quite obvious that institutions that choose to segregate their client base also choose to limit their potential income. With those self imposed limits they will also limit growth. Add to that the stigma of being a place of open bigotry, and you have the formula for a business that will not last long.


I didn't say I agree with someone opening a business that used such practices, just that I feel a personally owned business should be allowed to choose the level of client they wish to cater to. And thereby should be allowed limit entry to those clients.


This is allowable for government funded institutions such as black/womens colleges. It is also allowed for private scholarship programs such as UNCF & various beauty pageants for women. Augusta National limited its membership to men only until only recently.


Personally, I think it would be a stupid idea to open a business and hang such signs, that doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to. It's your business, you can make it fail any way you want to.

 

So, without the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you think that the millions of white racists in this country would have stopped supporting Whites Only establishments? You also think that all areas of our country would suffer the stigma from being labeled a bigot? You think every single "Whites Only" restaurant would fail? Pretty ignorant and naive.

---

His point?...... That a business owner should have the right to fail any way they want to.

 

In 2004, Ron Paul was literally the only person in congress to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

"is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations")."

 

 

Do you agree with Ron Paul's opposition of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

---

So, without the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you think that the millions of white racists in this country would have stopped supporting Whites Only establishments? You also think that all areas of our country would suffer the stigma from being labeled a bigot? You think every single "Whites Only" restaurant would fail? Pretty ignorant and naive.

You are assuming that I would repeal the existing civil rights act. In fact, it creates the basis on which I form my opinion of this situation. Since the conception of that Act, we know the detriment we would choose to put our businesses through if we so choose to operate them in such a manner.


Again, I think it is reprehensible for anyone to choose to operate their business in this type of manner, and I would not support their bigotry with my hard earned money, but if they open their business on such they should be allowed to fail on those morals without tax funded legislation to do the dirty work.

---

Signature goes here.

In 2004, Ron Paul was literally the only person in congress to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


From Wikipedia:


"is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations")."



Do you agree with Ron Paul's opposition of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

I agree with his opposition to continue spending tax payers monies to continue an idea that will be enforced by the people that either choose to do business with them or not.

---

Signature goes here.

What about when someone in one state pollutes another state?   For example, air pollution from Georgia drifts into Florida, or water pollution from Mississippi flows into Louisiana?  

 

Asked a similar question on the top of page 2 before seeing this. Interested in seeing the answer.

 

Also waiting for my question about Libertarians thinking should people be able to have sex with goats and other animals.

---

I agree with his opposition to continue spending tax payers monies to continue an idea that will be enforced by the people that either choose to do business with them or not.

 

So yes? You support the opposition of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

Neat.

---

How do Libertarians feel about sex laws? People should have their personal right to have sex with a goat, right? Who is government to tell them what they can't do.

Is the goat consenting?

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

So yes? You support the opposition of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

Neat.

 

You really like arguing with straw men, huh?

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

You really like arguing with straw men, huh?

 

More like I enjoy getting to the point rather than watching people tap-dance around it.

---

Is the goat consenting?

 

who knows? Its not like you can ask the goat if it gave consent... lol

---

More like I enjoy getting to the point rather than watching people tap-dance around it.

Well,, I think you're trying to start a debate/argument just because. Personally,, I have never seen any establishments with "Whites Only" or "No Blacks Allowed" signs on them. In fact, the only times I can recall anything like that is on old footage from around the 50's-60's,,, well before I was born, and positive it's quite long before you were born. So,, wth is the point? Are you trying to start some type of race/bigotry issue for some reason? Why?


I agree with the other poster. In a free society, if an establishment owner wishes to put out signs like "Blacks Only," "No Whites Allowed," "No Blacks Allowed," "No Homosexuality," and so on,, it is certainly their own right to do so. Absolutely it's disgusting and bigoted, and I would never give them my business. But, it's their business. And, if it did happen (again something I've never seen), that business would certainly fail, surely.


And,, BTW,, why on earth would you care if someone wants to have sex with a goat? Lol. As long as the goat doesn't try sexual advances on me,, I could care less what someone is doing. It's their own business. Lol

---

The libertarian party will never gain much steam.  As I said in another thread, once the public learns it can vote itself goodies from the public treasury, all thoughts of having a limited government disappear.  Often times I hear even supposed right leaning people speak in favor of "entitlements", and often because they are the ones receiving them, the old "who's ox is being gored" adage.  Who's the crank (besides me) who blasts the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security?  Once these programs are in place and have recipients, they're permanent, and they're permanent because folks will not typically gore their own ox.

 

So, bottom line, libertarian candidates will forever continue to enjoy election day losses.         

---

What about when someone in one state pollutes another state?   For example, air pollution from Georgia drifts into Florida, or water pollution from Mississippi flows into Louisiana?  

 

there's a legal system for a reason, in that case Florida could sue Georgia and seek damages needed to clean their state because of another states neglect. It would create an atmosphere where States are motivated to keep their own enviroment clean because the federal branch of government would no longer be able to bail them out with billions of dollars.

---

How do Libertarians feel about business owners not allowing people into their establishment? If a restaurant owner wants no blacks or gays on at their restaurant, they have the personal right to hang signs like this, right?

 

 

 

Yea it's disgusting but as a Libertarian I support any private establishment to be as stupid as they want. Here's the reality especially today, anyone that is seeking to eliminate a fraction of its customer base is going to go out of business, there's no need for federal legislation in this case.

 

We can't legislate away people's lack of Morales or ethics that's for the free market to decide through basically business Darwinism if you'll have it.

---

 

 

We can't legislate away people's lack of Morales or ethics that's for the free market to decide through basically business Darwinism if you'll have it.

 

Morales? Is that the Latin version?

---

Yea it's disgusting but as a Libertarian I support any private establishment to be as stupid as they want. Here's the reality especially today, anyone that is seeking to eliminate a fraction of its customer base is going to go out of business, there's no need for federal legislation in this case.


We can't legislate away people's lack of Morales or ethics that's for the free market to decide through basically business Darwinism if you'll have it.

Well said. Very true,, IMO

---