What Did Che Guevera And Kim Il Sung Have In Common?

[sleslie23]

There is no difference whatsoever. Undoing the Jim Crow laws was the whole point of the Civil Rights Act, which Goldwater opposed - thereby approving of those same discriminatory laws.

There are some who argue that Jim Crow never went away. Looking at the rates of incarceration, discriminatory polices like stop and frisk, etc. one can see why.

 

[camberiu]

So, if a state wants to reinstate slavery, that's ok with you because states shouldn't be "coerced" into doing anything? I don't think even Steve or Queso are willing to adopt your brand of libertarianism.

I don't really think you think that, but I do think you need to explain yourself a little better.

I said nothing like that. Slavery is, by the very definition of the word, coercion. So, of course legalizing slavery is fundamentally anti libertarian. That is a non-issue that only people who don't understand libertarianism or are acting in bad faith bring it up.

Libertarians believe in the non initiation of force. That force can only be used as a reaction to force being applied against you, your family or your community. When the state tells somebody that they must do business with x, even if they don't want to, or else, libertarian then to be against that. Not because they support racism, but because they are against the " do this or else ".

 

[sleslie23]

Well, thanks for that clarification, but you don't find it coercive to have black and white restrooms? Or that blacks have to sit at the back of the bus? Or that blacks can't attend white colleges and university?

I'm having a hard time understanding where your libertarianism draws the line between what's coercive and what's not.

 

[camberiu]

There is no difference whatsoever. Undoing the Jim Crow laws was the whole point of the Civil Rights Act, which Goldwater opposed - thereby approving of those same discriminatory laws.

There is a HUGE difference. Many libertarians were very much against the Jim Crow laws and against the civil rights act. That is a perfectly logical position.

The Jim Crow laws had a strong element of forced/coerced segregation. Interracial marriages were illegal. Business were prohibited from offering integrated services and blacks and whites were taxed the same, but had differentiated government services (i.e., segregated schools, public bathrooms, etc...)

When the state coerces people from doing what they want (i.e. a black woman marrying a white guy) libertarians take a huge issue with that.

At the same time, libertarians also take issue with the extreme opposite, where you go from mandated segregation to mandated integration. The key word here is mandated. Mandated means "do this or we will apply force on you until you comply". As I said before, libertarians believe that force or the threat of force should never be initiated, but only be used as a response to someone else using force against you. So, when the government says "do this or else", be it in terms of segregation or integration, libertarians will always be against it.

 

[sleslie23]

At the same time, libertarians also take issue with the extreme opposite, where you go from mandated segregation to mandated integration. The key word here is mandated. Mandated means "do this or we will apply force on you until you comply". As I said before, libertarians believe that force or the threat of force should never be initiated, but only be used as a response to someone else using force against you. So, when the government says "do this or else", be it in terms of segregation or integration, libertarians will always be against it.

Well, here, you answered my previous question, but I think you are a little naive. Jim Crow laws in the south didn't magically go away because of a sudden change of heart.

 

[camberiu]

Well, thanks for that clarification, but you don't find it coercive to have black and white restrooms? Or that blacks have to sit at the back of the bus? Or that blacks can't attend white colleges and university?

If those are public, yes, of course.

But libertarians believe that if you own a private school, it should be your choice who you do business with, and the government should have no power to tell you that you have to segregate or integrate. There should be no "do this or else" when it refers to your own private property.

 

[camberiu]

Well, here, you answered my previous question, but I think you are a little naive. Jim Crow laws in the south didn't magically go away because of a sudden change of heart.

That is fine. I can accept your point of view. My goal here was not to convert anyone to libertarianism. It was simply to show that being against the civil rights act does not make one racist. You might disagree with the libertarian critique of the civil rights act, but it is important to understand that the critique is not based on racial prejudices or dislike of minorities, but instead on the dislike of state coercion. You may find that view naive and/or impractical. but it is not racist. Not one bit.

 

[ElQueso]

ElQueso,

The old paleo-conservative GOP was a very different animal than the post-Nixon GOP. You read the writing of the old leadership, like Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater and you'd never guess that those old conservatives had anything to do with today's GOP. For them, conservatism meant small government, a non-interventionist foreign policy and a strict adherence to the constitution. The social conservatism that we see today is a completely new thing.
[...]

I completely agree with you. The majority of my post was about Democrats (such as Ajo) who continually point to (all) Republicans as pure evil while holding up his own party as the rose that smells good even when shat upon.

The examples of past Republicans that you cite, and the fact that the new conservatives (or neo-cons, more properly perhaps) that have taken over and twisted the Republican party is one of the biggest reasons that I first went independent and then realized that it's all pretty much the same nowadays and there is no hope for government (at least in the US and other places like Argentina) over the long run and became a Libertarian.

I got so damned sick of listening to supposedly conservatives spouting their religious crap as if they had the answer to everything, and the same fiscal conservatives spending money like it was water. Among other things. I felt betrayed by the very people that I had believed in. I had to relearn a lot of American history to understand that the US as it is today is so far from what the original founders were after that it should make everyone sick, everyone who gives a damn for the same beliefs, anyway. I know for a certainty that the people who gave their lives to win their freedom 230+ years ago, and people like George Washington who didn't even want the presidency but assumed it as a feeling of duty - and passed the office peacefully on to John Adams - would be ashamed of what has been wrought in their name since then.

I don't see people who spout their beliefs of either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party as evil - just misinformed. Except, maybe, people like Ajo who seem to revel in their own party's stated beliefs and actions.

BTW - I became an independent shortly into Reagan's second term. I actually voted for Clinton in both terms. I became a Libertarian when Bush so blatantly lied about Iraq and was so obviously eager to get us into war after war. (OK, this is a bit over-simplified and there were many reasons, but these are highlights). It was about then that I realized that government, as wielded by most politicians in this day and age at least, is inherently evil and the American people (as most in this world) are not strong enough to stand up to such people. And the concentration of extreme power that some can wield so very dangerously and without regard to any other country is a horrible thing to think about.

God Bless the US and No One Else. Almost no politician in the US these days is stupid enough to say something like that in public, but whether or not they think it, their beliefs seem to lean toward that and so many people lap it up.

It took me quite a bit of time to work through what being a Libertarian meant, and one of my prized beliefs now is the non-intervention corollary of Libertarians, that stems from its most basic, simple law: property rights. And I'm not talking about just land. There is so much bound up in that one simple concept that one needs to study it to understand what it meant.

People like Ajo might think differently about Libertarians if they'd get off their immigrant-Russian-turned-novelist (among other things) kick and realized that neither Republicans nor Democrats (nor Communists, et al) can protect all the people equally. But of course, how can that happen when they have their proverbial heads shoved so far up their smelly dark place that all they can hear are echoes of their own prejudices.

 

[sleslie23]

That is fine. I can accept your point of view. My goal here was not to convert anyone to libertarianism. It was simply to show that being against the civil rights act does not make one racist. You might disagree with the libertarian critique of the civil rights act, but it is important to understand that the critique is not based on racial prejudices or dislike of minorities, but instead on the dislike of state coercion. You may find that view naive and/or impractical. but it is not racist. Not one bit.

Many of my personal beliefs coincide with "libertarianism." However, I think this conversation highlights what I think are one of its flaws when applied to a large, pluralistic society like the US. You can't have any set of laws that all of the people will agree to. And, ultimately, you will have to force a certain sector of the population to abide by some laws.

I do find your recent statements someone what in contrast to our earlier discussion with "you know who" about racism in Argentina. I would think that Argentina is in many ways a libertarian's paradise. I can walk down the street and drink a beer without getting arrested. In fact I was on the 59 earlier and two young tourists were drinking a bottle of white wine in the middle of the bus. I have seen people make U turns in the middle of Libertador in front of the police who do nothing. And if one wants to bake and sell racist cakes, one can do so without being sued, boycotted, or causing a riot.

 

[camberiu]

I would think that Argentina is in many ways a libertarian's paradise.

Only in a very superficial way, like drinking booze on the streets and baking racist cakes. But that is not due to some underlying fundamental belief in freedom, but simply because none of those things are social taboos, so no need for the state to coerce people into not doing it.
But overall, Argentina is as anti-libertarian as it gets. Price controls, heavy taxation, import controls, heavy bureaucracy, mandatory finger printing and national ID, incredibly byzantine labor laws, weak property rights, etc....