As for the discrimination topic going on, yes Libertarians oppose ALL discrimination laws at the FEDERAL level.

 

Now after you calm down and get over the shock of such a thing continue reading on and I'll explain why,

 

Libertarians believe the free market will weed out poor decisions especially those made based upon race, gender, sexuality and so on. If I own a restaurant and I limit who I'll serve be it Whites only Blacks only Straights only whoever, they guy across the street that serves everyone is going to put me out of business.

 

As for the Civil Rights Act Ron Paul did oppose it and to this day holds the position that there is no constitutional authority for federal oversight on who private business serves. That doesn't make him a racist and it doesn't mean he supports the idea of racism it means like most Libertarians he understands you will never legislate away immoral actions or unethical behavior. As for taking a step backwards that's just a straw man argument, you still have racism abound today, the Civil Rights Act didn't eliminate racism, it didn't eliminate exclusive business either. What it did do is give big brother more power over your personal choice and liberty.

---

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.

 

When you stop viewing the world through race and start viewing it though liberty you'll understand.

---

 

 

As for the Civil Rights Act Ron Paul did oppose it and to this day holds the position that there is no constitutional authority for federal oversight on who private business serves. That doesn't make him a racist and it doesn't mean he supports the idea of racism it means like most Libertarians he understands you will never legislate away immoral actions or unethical behavior. As for taking a step backwards that's just a straw man argument, you still have racism abound today, the Civil Rights Act didn't eliminate racism, it didn't eliminate exclusive business either. What it did do is give big brother more power over your personal choice and liberty.

 

This is a reasonable point. 

---

As for the discrimination topic going on, yes Libertarians oppose ALL discrimination laws at the FEDERAL level.


Now after you calm down and get over the shock of such a thing continue reading on and I'll explain why,


Libertarians believe the free market will weed out poor decisions especially those made based upon race, gender, sexuality and so on. If I own a restaurant and I limit who I'll serve be it Whites only Blacks only Straights only whoever, they guy across the street that serves everyone is going to put me out of business.


As for the Civil Rights Act Ron Paul did oppose it and to this day holds the position that there is no constitutional authority for federal oversight on who private business serves. That doesn't make him a racist and it doesn't mean he supports the idea of racism it means like most Libertarians he understands you will never legislate away immoral actions or unethical behavior. As for taking a step backwards that's just a straw man argument, you still have racism abound today, the Civil Rights Act didn't eliminate racism, it didn't eliminate exclusive business either. What it did do is give big brother more power over your personal choice and liberty.

If Ron Paul isn't a racist he sure keeps interesting company..

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28353_Ron_Pauls_Photo-Op_with_Stormfront&only'>http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28353_Ron_Pauls_Photo-Op_with_Stormfront&only</a>

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/01/clearing-view-of-ron-paul.html?m=1'>http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/01/clearing-view-of-ron-paul.html?m=1</a>

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

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

Maybe because that's the era the Civil Rights Act was passed making that type of descrimination illegal? No way... Can't be.

---

Eric, I'm going to assume you've never taken an economics class if you think a true free market would be successful. It's good in theory but applied to the real world is not feasible. We don't live in a world of unicorns and fairy Godmothers.

---

Let the businesses fail. If they're going to be bigoted and not serve certain people, then their business will crash. No one will want to be affiliated with them.

 

Then, the owners will be left with nothing, which is what they deserve for being so moronic. If you need the Government to tell you wether something like that is wrong or not, then you need help.

---

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.

 

In this example, a Florida vs. Georgia lawsuit would need to happen at the Federal level. You could argue the effectiveness of the EPA, but the reality would be that many environmental issues will still need to be settled at the Federal level in this scenario. It's not removing absolute Federal intervention as much as it's removing direct intervention.

 

I like Libertarianism in theory, because it makes a lot of sense in theory, but I personally feel many of the ideas rely too heavily on the idea that everyone is automatically going to work for the common good since there's no Federal assistance.

 

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.

 

This may be a discussion that goes into semantics because I'm going back in time while you're discussing the present, but I feel it makes my point. The problem I have with this idea is that this type of economic Darwinism in the early/middle twentieth century would have led to practically no businesses accepting black people into their stores. In cities like Atlanta, there were storeowners who were not against racial mixing, but knew that if they changed their policies to reflect that, the majority of their white customers would have simply chose to give their business to a store that restricted blacks. If they turned away the segregationist whites in favor of any minorities and whites who were integrationist they would have lost a substantial amount of potential profit. Economic Darwinism would have promoted that status quo rather than progressing the businesses into integration.

 

I'm also curious to know your opinion on Federal antitrust laws that promote fair competition and block monopolies.

---

Eric, I grew up in a town with two black kids and they were brothers. Do you really think that every business in town that didn't serve those two kids would go out of business?


Pretty stupid assertion.

---

Eric, I'm going to assume you've never taken an economics class if you think a true free market would be successful. It's good in theory but applied to the real world is not feasible. We don't live in a world of unicorns and fairy Godmothers.

A free market works the same as a game of Monopoly; everyone starts out the same but soon one player gains an advantage is able to exploit that to remove the other players from the game. Every game ends up with the final player holding a complete monopoly over the once free market, their wealth and power is completely unchallenged and they can effectively do as they please. 

 

Free market in the real world end up the same; a true free market will always result in a monopoly. 

---

In this example, a Florida vs. Georgia lawsuit would need to happen at the Federal level. You could argue the effectiveness of the EPA, but the reality would be that many environmental issues will still need to be settled at the Federal level in this scenario. It's not removing absolute Federal intervention as much as it's removing direct intervention.


I like Libertarianism in theory, because it makes a lot of sense in theory, but I personally feel many of the ideas rely too heavily on the idea that everyone is automatically going to work for the common good since there's no Federal assistance.



This may be a discussion that goes into semantics because I'm going back in time while you're discussing the present, but I feel it makes my point. The problem I have with this idea is that this type of economic Darwinism in the early/middle twentieth century would have led to practically no businesses accepting black people into their stores. In cities like Atlanta, there were storeowners who were not against racial mixing, but knew that if they changed their policies to reflect that, the majority of their white customers would have simply chose to give their business to a store that restricted blacks. If they turned away the segregationist whites in favor of any minorities and whites who were integrationist they would have lost a substantial amount of potential profit. Economic Darwinism would have promoted that status quo rather than progressing the businesses into integration.


I'm also curious to know your opinion on Federal antitrust laws that promote fair competition and block monopolies.

Exactly. Is libertarianism something that can only be applied to 21st century USA? Instill that ideology 50-60 years ago and we'd still have segregation and gross amounts of inequality. Not that we live in equality now, but it's alot better than it would have been had the Civil Rights Acf of 1964 been passed.

---

This is why I don't say I'm a libertarian.  Regulation is necessary at every level. 

 

Libertarians get too whacky in that they believe anybody should be able to do almost anything they want.  no, people need to be regulated. 

---

If Ron Paul isn't a racist he sure keeps interesting company..

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28353_Ron_Pauls_Photo-Op_with_Stormfront&only'>http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28353_Ron_Pauls_Photo-Op_with_Stormfront&only</a>

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/01/clearing-view-of-ron-paul.html?m=1'>http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/01/clearing-view-of-ron-paul.html?m=1</a>

 

Not saying anything about him being racist because I don't personally know him, but the first link doesn't really mean much.  According to it, he was at a debate, and probably is asked by many people to take photos. 

---

A free market works the same as a game of Monopoly; everyone starts out the same but soon one player gains an advantage is able to exploit that to remove the other players from the game. Every game ends up with the final player holding a complete monopoly over the once free market, their wealth and power is completely unchallenged and they can effectively do as they please.


Free market in the real world end up the same; a true free market will always result in a monopoly.

Yes and can you imagine complete monopolies here? People still eat billions of dollars of McDonalds food despite the facts available. Could you imagine the corners McDonalds could cut without ANY regulations? Scary thought.

---

I don't believe in the whole anarcho-capitalism sect of libertarians (not all libertarians think this way obviously), that thinks businesses should do as they please, and public services should be privately controlled, but I do think they have it right on personal liberties.     

---

Yes and can you imagine complete monopolies here? People still eat billions of dollars of McDonalds food despite the facts available. Could you imagine the corners McDonalds could cut without ANY regulations? Scary thought.

 

Taco Bell meat would be inedible... wait, it is!

 

---

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

That's the point. The animal can't consent meaning it can't be legal.

---

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

Exactly. Is libertarianism something that can only be applied to 21st century USA? Instill that ideology 50-60 years ago and we'd still have segregation and gross amounts of inequality. Not that we live in equality now, but it's alot better than it would have been had the Civil Rights Acf of 1964 been passed.

 

I guess a counterargument to my own post would be that some Libertarians may consider it a modern day ideology for a modern day United States, at least with regards to racial discrimination. Though I'm sure there would be some rural towns and villages that would promote blatant racial discrimination or businesses that block individuals wearing "urban" attire which could be pseudo-racial discrimination.

---

Exactly. Is libertarianism something that can only be applied to 21st century USA? Instill that ideology 50-60 years ago and we'd still have segregation and gross amounts of inequality. Not that we live in equality now, but it's alot better than it would have been had the Civil Rights Acf of 1964 been passed.

 

Public segregation and inequality would not exist if libertarianism was implemented in its truest form, however it could still exist privately. It would be up to an educated populace to decide whether or not to conduct business with individuals who were openly prejudice.

---

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.

 

Where would they sue them?  Florida courts have no jurisdiction over anyone in Georgia.  They'd have to sue them in federal court.   But what federal law have they violated?   You've done away with federal pollution laws and left it all to the individual states.  

---