- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,715
- Reaction score
- 751
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
from El Galt on slavery at the time of the writing of the US Constitution
Many nations had already abolished slavery or the slave trade. That list included
Sweeden, Japan, Poland, Lithuania, Chile, Japan, Russia, Portugal and Scotland among others. I would hardly call that the custom of the day.
I offered this on the idea of lovers of liberty allowing slavery to be placed in the new Constitution
It is such a contradiction that - in my opinion - it completely invalidates and negates any claim a person can make to being a lover of liberty or freedom.
the response for Galt
No. I am not kidding. The want to advance liberty is not on the backs of a race of people being held in a condition of slavery. To write lofty statements about the equality of man and the equality of all mankind while personally owning slaves and enshrining a system of slavery into the national Constitution is a serious contradiction that goes far beyond mere political hypocrisy. It seriously calls into question the merit of such a label as 'lover of freedom' or 'lover of liberty' and demonstrates why it is hollow at best.
It is not BS that most modern libertarians have found themselves on the opposite side of a long list of issues advocated by African Americans and the American civil rights community. And I refer to much much more than a single law about a business practice. If you take almost every issue regarding African Americans and the effort to attain full equality, libertarians have been in lockstock with the most right wing of conservatives on them. They certainly come up with loftier reasons then the Bull Conners and George Wallaces of the world - but in the end they come down on the same side as that crowd.
Affirmative action is but a single item on a much larger list which would include almost every Civil Rights Law from the Sixties through today, laws passed to aid African Americans, and programs aimed at helping them. You mention Ron Paul and I cannot help but think of this hypocrisy in refusing to allocate any monies for medals for Rosa Parks and others claiming there is not any Constitutional language for that expenditure while co-sponsoring and voting for striking of coins to raise money for a private organization - the Boy Scouts at the same time. And there is not language in the US Constitution to allow the printing of coins to raise extra money for a private organization. But he found a way to do it.
I will grant you the point that one can oppose some affirmative actions programs without being a racist or even a conservative on civil rights. Yes, that is true and liberals also find reasons to oppose it. However, there is a very extensive list of civil rights laws and programs that are opposed by libertarians that go far beyond affirmative action and I believe we both know that.
The US Supreme Court has heard those arguments and has held that the use of Article I, Section 8, paragraph 18 does indeed come into play and permit these things. Rather than me simply parrot the Court - and do a far less extensive and thorough job in the task - I would recommend that if you want to know those answers you refer to the specific controversy and the SC ruling that approved the programs that you are opposed to. Your objections have been dealt with in the Court for a long time now.
But we are going astray from the main point here.
The people who wrote the US Constitution were complex men who harbored a variety of ideologies and opinions about government and other issues. I have no doubt that some of them did harbor ideas that would be in sync with some ideas of some modern libertarians. They also possessed ideas which greatly put them out of sync with the beliefs of modern libertarians - if we take those beliefs at face value. Even so, that does not make them libertarians. That does not make the Constitution a libertarian document. And it certainly does not give license to modern libertarians to claim it as a libertarian work product or any sort of a validation of their current belief system.
How?
......
I've already responded to everything you've just said. Why should I waste my time giving you a lengthy response when you only reply to a couple of sentences (and you merely repeat everything you've already said)? Plus, you're notorious for being vague about what civil liberties libertarians oppose. Affirmative Action is not a civil liberty!
If you're going to respond to this post, please respond to the other points I've made. Especially in regards to FDR and Coolidge and Wilson.
Its your time - not mine.
I don't remember saying that affirmative action was a civil liberty. Why would you then state that it is not with the added emphasis of an exclamation point? Go back and look at the context it was used in please.
If you feel you have responded - then we are done. That is up to you. I do notice that when you exchange ideas with posters, you state things and then seem to feel that it is the final word on the subject. That is fine. But I do not.
Summarize "The Road to Serfdom" as actually spelled out by its author. Can you? You keep using that phrase as though you think it's a zinger.
Have you read the posts in this thread? Your complete misunderstanding of the opening post and apparent lack of knowledge about the contents of many other posts causes me to wonder. Several other posters have discussed this. The idea (that I have no doubt at all that you will dismiss out of hand with ridicule and scorn) is that government will be so reduced and stripped of authority that corporate interests will effectively rule the nation with little to stop them. The big losers will be average working people. Read the thread. It in here.
Of course it's clear that you think it's a "zinger" along those lines. But this isn't about that. This is about finding out if you even know what it is you're referencing, regardless of how you choose to use it. You think it's a "zinger" because it references something in the modern libertarian lexicon, so let's see if you understand it instead of just sniggering something you have no clue about.
In my opinion you and others have addressed no such thing and instead blockages vague attacks on your I'll formed view of libertarianism.
Please by all means specifically how? Coporate bogeymen is not an answer that holds any intellectual prowess.
If you want to start a thread on that subject, I will be happy to read what you have to say and perhaps put forth my thoughts.
Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism ...?
And so it begins. The usual FDR as Satan or at least his son. And what does FDR have to do with the authors of the Constitution being libertarians? What does FDR have to do with the libertarian record on civil rights?
Again, for the third time, the affirmative action mention was in connection to making the point to refute your claim that libertarians want such wonderful things for all mankind.
In point of fact, they are almost always in opposition to everything the African American civil rights community advocates... and AfAc is just one of those things. If you missed I told you that some reasonable people with solid civil rights records do indeed find fault with AfAct. fine. They have a strong civil rights record which shows they are not a racist or a right winger. But when a libertarian writes essays supporting the South in the Civil War, blasts the 14th Amendment, hates Reconstruction efforts, and opposes almost every 20th century proposal for civil rights laws and programs to help African Americans - it then has to be considered as part of an overall pattern of anti African American stands on important issues.
Sometimes, people get a pass when their overall record indicates a different picture than one isolated snapshot may indicate. FDR is part of that pass for his terrible actions with Japanese Americans. That is not the case with libertarians and aff-action.
Doesn’t everyone want wonderful things for all mankind? Mankind appears to be the least of many of their concerns.
Civil Rights: I stand with Rand Paul on this issue. I would support virtually every part of the Civil Rights Act(s) except for the title that demands private businesses must serve everyone of the public. The freedom to do business also means the freedom to deny business.
and one more thing Galt... you said this
The business is open to the public. All the public. That so called private business could not operate or function without the tremendous infrastructure paid for by the people trough the institution of government. Every business in America which wants customers is subsidized one way or another by the infrastructure provided by government. If you are open to the public that means all the public.
Why would this be any different than rulings indicating that a business may restrict persons for "no shirt -no shoes"? Restrictions based on a persons race, ethnicity, color, gender are based on something the potential customer cannot change. A restriction in a bar which does not allow someone to carry a firearm does not bar the person from the establishment. All they have to do is not bring in their weapon and they can still gain service just like anyone else. A person cannot do that with an establishment that is using race, ethnicity, color or gender to bar them as customers.
It is two very different things.
"The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."
My right to life can be taken by someone who is armed and has ill intent, especially if I am not armed.
And it is well regulated as you know when your state issued you your CCW with certain restrictions and conditions that you accepted when you applied for it. The well regulated language is also part of the Constitution.Being armed is a Constitutional right.
Galt - please get this straight once and for all. I brought up affirmative action ONCE including with other civil rights issues that libertarians oppose. When you objected I said that while I can understand people opposing the program who otherwise have a positive record of supporting civil rights, as libertarians THEY HAVE NO SUCH RECORD. Instead, opposition to AF/AC is just one small item on a very long list starting with support for the secession of the South, support for the Confederacy, opposition to the 14th Amendment, opposition to Reconstruction and opposing almost every single Civil Rights law and proposal in the 20th century backed by the African American community.
But go ahead and take af/action off the list for heavens sake. Its still one hell of a damning list for many libertarians.
Is there some reason why you just don't get this? Forget about Af/action for heavens sake.
Nope. When you have a ideology based on selfishness and self interest above all else, you don't want wonderful things for mankind.
and one more thing Galt... you said this
The business is open to the public. All the public. That so called private business could not operate or function without the tremendous infrastructure paid for by the people trough the institution of government. Every business in America which wants customers is subsidized one way or another by the infrastructure provided by government. If you are open to the public that means all the public.
Turning a legitimate point into a horrible Frankenstein monster caricature of the actual argument seems to be routine here for some. I would guess that is far easier than actually dealing with the point that was made and all its subtleties.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?