Rand Paul and the Civil Rights Act.

[Slartibartfast]

:roll: Um no, if you don't believe in the right of self ownership then you believe in collective tyranny, there is no in between.

I agree in that you are saying that there is an inherent pull between these two concepts, however, the buzz words are still interesting. Ultimately they serve no purpose than to shut out debate as they are presented as conceptual absolutes. What I did was bring the rhetoric back down to reality and reveal what you are actually saying.

 

[Agent Ferris]

I agree, however, the buzz words are still interesting. Ultimately they serve no purpose than to shut out debate as they are presented as conceptual absolutes. What I did was bring the rhetoric back down to reality and reveal what you are actually saying.

No they do serve a purpose as they are descriptors of what both sides of the argument believe, on the one hand we have those who believe in the right of self ownership and on the other those who believe that ownership of the individual is entitled to the state.

 

[Slartibartfast]

No they do serve a purpose as they are descriptors of what both sides of the argument believe, on the one hand we have those who believe in the right of self ownership and on the other those who believe that ownership of the individual is entitled to the state.

They are descriptors of your perception of what both sides believe. That is the fundamental difference. However, you are starting to come down to earth with your terminology.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Look at all of the damage Bernie Madhoff did. Him being in jail doesn't get those people's money back. The market didn't correct that.

Neither did the SEC. Madoff didn't get corrected by the market or by regulators because he was doing something highly illegal and took great pains not to get caught. Furthermore; as said it wasn't the regulators that caught him it was an independent whistle blower, so in that sense the market did indeed correct itself.

The law of the land says otherwise.

The law of the land is statist and anti-individual sovereignty, it is an unjust system.

There is absolutely no sense in inviting those things to happen. Racism is a pejorative action for everyone involved and there is no excuse to allow it to manifest it in the public sector.

Once again a business that engages in such practices will quickly find themselves out of business but anyone who engages in the illegitimate use of force is responsible for their own actions.

This is a rather simplistic assessment. I believe in personal liberty, but not to the extreme that you do. Businesses are still free to make tons of decisions.

But only those decisions which you agree with.

Not if you operate in public and that descrimination is based on race.

And where do you assume the right to interfere with the private affairs of the individual?

It's not an either/or situation. There are multitudes of levels in between.

No either you believe in the right of self ownership and all that implies or you believe in collective tyranny.

No, by my logic you take your ideology to an extreme that allows one to discriminate based on race. I find it unnecessary and distasteful. I don't see how someone can expect the market to correct things until it is too late or vigilantism steps in. The market had roughly 100 years to correct it but it didn't.

The institutionalized racism stemmed from the policies of the state not that of private individuals.

Okay, pick an age you like. How about 12?

And once again you're assuming that a store owner would intentionally harm his own business by selling alcohol to 12 year olds.

 

[Agent Ferris]

They are descriptors of your perception of what both sides believe.

O.K. so then what? What is the in between here? Is the state entitled to partial ownership over my body? Where does that entitlement come from?

There is no in between, either you believe in the right to self ownership or you don't.

 

[Slartibartfast]

O.K. so then what? What is the in between here? Is the state entitled to partial ownership over my body? Where does that entitlement come from?

There is no in between, either you believe in the right to self ownership or you don't.

Forgive me, but I am tired of arguing about natural rights. I think I have threads all over the place with that. However, that was never the point I was trying to make anyway which is about the usage of language and its effect on productive debate.

 

[Gina]

Oh come now Gina. "There is no cause so right you can't find a fool following it... if you're looking for one."

There are individual racists around yes. Some of them are Democrats, btw.

Racism in America is all but dead. It remains in scattered individuals and a few dark corners here and there, but on the whole it is rare. Institutional racism is even closer to extinction. Large organizations could not survive public outrage if they were revealed to practice racism.

The fact that you can find a limited number of individual racists supporting some particular candidate/party/cause is in NO way an indicator that such racism is a majority viewpoint of that party or cause.

Indeed, some Democrats are racist. No political bent has the corner on racism and I have not asserted otherwise.

We agree on much. I don’t think there is widespread racism, but it does exist, hence the videos.

As long as racism exists and there is a possibility of discrimination, and the videos are demonstrative evidence of that, then there should always be a legal remedy.

Wow...all that work and you couldnt find even one non white person to use as an example of racism. SHOCKING.

For the record...NO ONE has suggested racism doesnt exist. Quite to the contrary. But hey...drag every strawman out that you can...

The topic of this thread is The Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was passed primarily to address discrimination against blacks and minorities, thus the nature of the videos I posted. If you want to go into other kinds of racism, you are free to start another thread. But please understand, I abhor racism, period, it is never justified under any circumstance from any race. There is no excuse for it.

As I said above: As long as racism exists and there is a possibility of discrimination, and the videos are demonstrative evidence of that, then there should always be a legal remedy. As such, the amendment Dr. Paul refers to should remain on the books.

 

[Caine]

No kiddin'. Whining old white farts, bitching about tough we've got it, now that some things have happened to start to level the playing field, are an embarrassment to my demographic.

Leveling the playing field does not include refusing to hire people of a certain demographic who are fully qualified for that job.

 

[Thorgasm]

As I recall, it was also Lincoln who stated that if he could keep the Union together without freeing a slave in the South, he would do it.

It was about preservation of the Union for the North.

It was about freedom from the oppressive central federal government for the South.


One could ponder whether forcing freedom of the Slaves on southern states didn't create resentment of blacks by some of the southerners which caused bad race relations that continue to this day. For many southern whites during the reconstruction days, attacking blacks was their only way of releasing their anger towards the federal government for what happened to them and their families during the war and during the reconstruction period after the war.

Of course it was all about preserving the Union for the North.

But let me remind you of Lincoln's "House Divided" speech in 1858. Slavery was an issue and he recognized it then.

I don't ponder whether forcing the end of slavery caused bad race relations to this day. There are racists in the North that weren't affected. Racism is retarded. If someone today is blaming the Emancipation Proclamation for how they feel about people different than them, I'm sure they would find any pathetic excuse to be a racist.

 

[Groucho]

Groucho,

Even after the civil war had been over for more than a hundred years, Martin Luther King saw the extent of Northern tolerance for blacks in his visit to Chicago, where they were systematically discriminated against by the public and the government.

Surely you do not actually believe that the North waged war on the South out of a desire to liberate black people? That they actually did so as a matter of principle and philosophy?

Is this what you think?

The north didn't want to extend slavery to new states as they were brought in; the south did. The south saw that Lincoln had just been elected on an anti-slavery platform, so they rebelled. The south caused the war, not the north, and it was because of slavery.

I am always astounded when it seems that people are taking the side of treasonous slave-owners.

 

[LaMidRighter]

The north didn't want to extend slavery to new states as they were brought in; the south did. The south saw that Lincoln had just been elected on an anti-slavery platform, so they rebelled. The south caused the war, not the north, and it was because of slavery.

Punitive tariffs imposed by the north were the reason for the civil war, slavery was a sub-issue and it was the angle used for justification. No war is completely benevolent.

I am always astounded when it seems that people are taking the side of treasonous slave-owners.

It wasn't simply slave owners that wanted the war, anyone who depended on shipping was effected by the tariffs, and to call people who had the right of secession as was clearly spelled out in the founding documents treasonous is tantamount to slander. It is very simple, two regions could not reach agreement and the north did not respect the south's right to seceed, there are still federal encroachment problems we as a country face because of that. The question becomes whether the union being preserved was a better outcome......well of course, anyone could agree to that, but it was the first violation of state's rights leading to many down the road. So the general summary is that the civil war was bittersweet, some things were good in that the end of slavery brought us a step closer to our true ideals as a nation and the union remained intact, however giving the federal the power to ignore other tenets of our founding has paved the way for a multitude of governmental abuses of the constitution. Pick your poison.

 

[Groucho]

I write fiction.

Let me tell you:

If you read a story about a fictional country -- one half of which owned slaves and were willing to go to war over their right to keep them, as well as commit treason against a democratically elected government, and one who placed unfair tariffs on the slaveowners -- nobody would ever doubt who the bad guys are.

 

[Caine]

I write fiction.

Let me tell you:

If you read a story about a fictional country -- one half of which owned slaves and were willing to go to war over their right to keep them, as well as commit treason against a democratically elected government, and one who placed unfair tariffs on the slaveowners -- nobody would ever doubt who the bad guys are.

Because we view society differently than it was viewed at that time.

Its all about historical context. We know slavery to be bad today. So anything viewed as bad as society today would be viewed as bad in a fictional novel. Too many lack the ability to put things into historical context.
To claim that there were no slaves in the North during the civil war is being extremely myopic about the issue. And the "point the finger at the other guy" argument isn't what Im getting at here. What im getting at is contrasting to the "we're better than you because" bull****. Slavery was bad, but in a historical context I can understand why Southern states did not want to give up slavery just yet when their agriculture driven economy depended on it, while at the same time being forced into that position by a segment of the country who did not depend on slave labor so thus had nothing to lose. Thus created your problem. Which while slavery was a cause of the division of our country that started the civil war, it wasn't slavery in itself as much as the economic impact it would have, and the fact that a centralized government thought to cause this economic impact on them against their wishes. Thus the states had no rights to self government.

It had little to do with, "Im a mean white guy who wants to own other people."

 

[LaMidRighter]

I write fiction.

Let me tell you:

If you read a story about a fictional country -- one half of which owned slaves and were willing to go to war over their right to keep them, as well as commit treason against a democratically elected government, and one who placed unfair tariffs on the slaveowners -- nobody would ever doubt who the bad guys are.

Again, slavery was a smaller issue leading up to the war. While the north did certainly write the script well to change the historical perception there are many, many more factors at work. Exercising the right to secession was not treason.

 

[Groucho]

While I certainly understand that the reason the south didn't want to give up slavery was because they knew their economy would topple, that doesn't make them any nicer. It doesn't make it more acceptable, even at the time.

Benjamin Franklin and John Adams knew slavery was wrong 100 years earlier.

No, I think you guys are being too liberal. Seriously -- you're doing the old "let's show some empathy for them" and trying to explain away something evil.

Slavery was wrong then, and everyone knew it. And shooting on fellow Americans and starting a war is treason by any definition.

 

[Thorgasm]

Punitive tariffs imposed by the north were the reason for the civil war, slavery was a sub-issue and it was the angle used for justification. No war is completely benevolent.

The Republicans were looking to increase the tariffs to protect industry. The Democrats had decreased them steadily from 1816 to 1857. Seven states seceded before Lincoln even took office. In fact, the tariff increase was passed after the Southerners resigned their seats in Congress. Secession documents mention slavery more than they do tariffs. The reason the South left before Lincoln took office is they new that slavery wasn't going to be allowed to expand to new states and was on a path to extinction.

It wasn't simply slave owners that wanted the war, anyone who depended on shipping was effected by the tariffs, and to call people who had the right of secession as was clearly spelled out in the founding documents treasonous is tantamount to slander. It is very simple, two regions could not reach agreement and the north did not respect the south's right to seceed, there are still federal encroachment problems we as a country face because of that. The question becomes whether the union being preserved was a better outcome......well of course, anyone could agree to that, but it was the first violation of state's rights leading to many down the road. So the general summary is that the civil war was bittersweet, some things were good in that the end of slavery brought us a step closer to our true ideals as a nation and the union remained intact, however giving the federal the power to ignore other tenets of our founding has paved the way for a multitude of governmental abuses of the constitution. Pick your poison.

Do you know how high the tariffs were in 1816 compared to those in 1861?

I'm curious about this as I don't know.

 

[alms]

The north didn't want to extend slavery to new states as they were brought in; the south did. The south saw that Lincoln had just been elected on an anti-slavery platform, so they rebelled. The south caused the war, not the north, and it was because of slavery.

Of course, this has nothing to do with your initial comments where you implied that the North's motivation to wage war on the South was based primarily upon altruism and humanism, e.g., a desire to liberate black people. Anyone who is even remotely familiar with the circumstances surrounding the Civil War knows this is an overly simplistic and, frankly, preposterous notion. Abraham Lincoln's own words are more than sufficient to refute your premise:

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

Even after the Civil War had been over for a century blacks still faced institutionalized and systematic racism in Northern states and cities, a fact Martin Luther King became aware of in his visit to Chicago.

I am always astounded when it seems that people are taking the side of treasonous slave-owners.

A transparent and dishonest attempt to discredit me by misrepresenting my position. Nowhere have I taken the side of Southern slave-owners. How disingenuous of you, sir.

 

[LaMidRighter]

The Republicans were looking to increase the tariffs to protect industry. The Democrats had decreased them steadily from 1816 to 1857. Seven states seceded before Lincoln even took office. In fact, the tariff increase was passed after the Southerners resigned their seats in Congress. Secession documents mention slavery more than they do tariffs. The reason the South left before Lincoln took office is they new that slavery wasn't going to be allowed to expand to new states and was on a path to extinction.



Do you know how high the tariffs were in 1816 compared to those in 1861?

I'm curious about this as I don't know.

It's not as simple as slavery being the primary reason is my point. Groucho is specifically oversimplifying here and I have a problem with that. I don't really know the tariff rates to be honest but the writings were pretty angry.

 

[Thorgasm]

It's not as simple as slavery being the primary reason is my point. Groucho is specifically oversimplifying here and I have a problem with that. I don't really know the tariff rates to be honest but the writings were pretty angry.

I know that tariffs were a part of it, but some want to say that was the primary reason. If that were the case, I would think the specifics would have been discussed in detail. Most of the writings were hyperbole and rhetoric that is not any more absurd that what we see today. I could imagine in a couple hundred years people could actually believe that we were almost a socialist country.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I know that tariffs were a part of it, but some want to say that was the primary reason.

Well, to be fair many historians called the taxes prior to the official tariffs as such. There were a multitude of reasons including trade route conflicts, excise taxes, unfair trade rates, the western expansion, etc. and interestingly.......something I didn't know.......historians seem to change the primary focus of the war in 30 to 50 year cycles.

If that were the case, I would think the specifics would have been discussed in detail. Most of the writings were hyperbole and rhetoric that is not any more absurd that what we see today. I could imagine in a couple hundred years people could actually believe that we were almost a socialist country.

Fair enough. And that probably is the main point of historical contention in that the war was as emotional as philisophical and monetary.

 

[Groucho]

Of course, this has nothing to do with your initial comments where you implied that the North's motivation to wage war on the South was based primarily upon altruism and humanism, e.g., a desire to liberate black people.

In response to a comment that the south was fighting against "tyranny" (in that the majority had passed taxes the south didn't like -- a new definition of tyranny you won't find in the dictionary) I responded satirically "Those terrible northerners! Trying to impose their tyrannical view that people should not be possessions. Can you imagine!"

I stand by that statement, which is that there WAS no tyranny, and if there was, it was the way the South treated their slaves. Now THAT was tyranny.

And if you check, I was responding to someone else, not you.

I still say the South's attempt to rewrite history to make the north look like the bad guys is as ridiculous as saying "You know, Ghengis Khan didn't really want to kill all those people, but you have to admit, they had tried to tax him."

 

[alms]

In response to a comment that the south was fighting against "tyranny" (in that the majority had passed taxes the south didn't like -- a new definition of tyranny you won't find in the dictionary) I responded satirically "Those terrible northerners! Trying to impose their tyrannical view that people should not be possessions. Can you imagine!"

I stand by that statement, which is that there WAS no tyranny, and if there was, it was the way the South treated their slaves. Now THAT was tyranny.

And if you check, I was responding to someone else, not you.

Groucho,

I know what you said and who you said it to. You said the North was trying to impose their view that "people should not be possessions" - the implication being that the North waged war on the South primarily out of a humanist desire to liberate blacks. I'm simply pointing out that this is preposterous.

A great many Northerners were virulent racists. Even a hundred years after the Civil War was over, blacks were still being systematically and institutionally discriminated against in Northern states and cities. If you honestly think the majority of Northerners risked their lives because they felt sorry for black people then you are just naive.

I still say the South's attempt to rewrite history to make the north look like the bad guys is as ridiculous as saying "You know, Ghengis Khan didn't really want to kill all those people, but you have to admit, they had tried to tax him."

And I still say your attempt to paint the North as benevolent humanists risking their lives on behalf of black people is absurd and naive.

 

[Groucho]

Groucho,

I know what you said and who you said it to. You said the North was trying to impose their view that "people should not be possessions" - the implication being that the North waged war on the South primarily out of a humanist desire to liberate blacks. I'm simply pointing out that this is preposterous.

A great many Northerners were virulent racists. Even a hundred years after the Civil War was over, blacks were still being systematically and institutionally discriminated against in Northern states and cities. If you honestly think the majority of Northerners risked their lives because they felt sorry for black people then you are just naive.



And I still say your attempt to paint the North as benevolent humanists risking their lives on behalf of black people is absurd and naive.

Look, Alms, as long as you are going to argue with someone else I guess I have nothing to say to you. You apparently are interpreting my words the way you want, putting other words into my mouth, and arguing with that. When you want to discuss the exact words I wrote, I'll be here.