r/Libertarian finally admits that they think Jim Crow was actually totally fine
np.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/8or9lr/t...Posted Jun 5, 2018, 7:55 PM UTC
246141
np.reddit.com
Love that they don't see anything slightly tone deaf about the fact that they're essentially saying that the abolition of chattel slavery leftover discrimination is "slavery" to the person doing the discriminating.
113
It's like they view people as property or something
59
They worship capital to the extent that they fully support discrimination on the part of the bourgeoisie, simply because they're in a position to discriminate. According to them, the only recourse for minorities barred from participating in the local economy is to hope someone who isn't a bigot opens a store.
45
The 'libertarian' view of freedom is always based on the freedom of the oppressor to oppress.
6
Unless they are on the receiving end.
-1
"You not letting me discriminate against black people is slavery."
74
It's the people who get run over by neo-nazis who are the real racists, actually
4
And who's going to want to associate with me if I'm openly discriminating against black people? Not nearly enough to keep a business open that's for sure. I would inevitably be the cause of my own demise. If a person cares more about their bigotry than running a successful business, then you won't be there for long.
If people want to discriminate over something as arbitrary as race, let them. They're only hurting themselves
-1
Right that's why we had civil rights laws because racism is completely unacceptable in this country and any business that discriminated against black people went out of business. Is it exhausting to constantly have to avoid any media that contains historical information or do you just sit in a dimly lit room drooling all day.
3
These laws protect businesses from their own stupidity, that you think that standards are somehow anti-business is pretty absurd.
1
If you're stupid enough to need an overbearing nanny state to make you have standards, there's no hope for you. Why would you even want to protect those kinds of people?
0
Are you an entrepreneur from the south who refuses to do business with blacks? Do you represent every entrepreneur from the south? Tell me, if no white businesses would have served black customers, why in the hell did they feel the need to codify discrimination into the law? Wouldn’t it have just been the de facto state of affairs, since according to you no white business owner would have voluntarily declined to segregate?
This guy's dick is just the head
71
if no white businesses would have served black customers, why in the hell did they feel the need to codify discrimination into the law?
Implying that laws are always passed on the basis of need rather than the mood of those in power, instead of the other way around.
47
Things always happen because they're supposed to happen, unless they're the things that I want to happen that haven't happened, which must imposed by force.
11
Separate but equal baby.
66
" " " equal " " "
9
Then they don't serve people that are Muslim. Big fucking deal. That is not an "abuse" and no, it doesn't matter what reason you refuse service to someone. Freedom of association.
u/StatistDestroyer would it surprise you to learn that you are not a libertarian. you are a conservative. libertarian does not mean what you think it means.
47
Wrong. I'm AnCap and libertarian philosophy is all about freedom of association. That means freedom from association should someone feel so inclined.
-33
AnCap
You may want to read up on what "libertarian" means.
35
I'm plenty familiar. Maybe you'd like a reference on libertarian philosophy?
-12
This is a golden opportunity to clear up a question I've been mulleling over. As anarchist, how do you justify extreme inherited wealth? Wouldn't the power inherent in wealth create unjustifiable hiearchies becuase of how inheritance can not really be described as merit based?
35
Libertarianism
Libertarianism (from Latin: libertas, meaning "freedom") is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle. Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association and individual judgment. Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power, but they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing political and economic systems. Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling for the restriction or dissolution of coercive social institutions.
^[ ^PM ^| ^Exclude ^me ^| ^Exclude ^from ^subreddit ^| ^FAQ ^/ ^Information ^| ^Source ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
3
Lol check out this dweeb
-1†
AnCap is fascism for pedophiles.
25
It’s ephebephilia, actually.
3
These are such odd hypotheticals where people live in communities that are openly hostile to them to the point they literally can't live.
Yeah, certainly it's impossible to imagine a climate where a majority community may be so hostile to minorities among them that they refuse to serve them. Nope, never happened before won't ever happen again. Couldn't possibly, the free market would fix that!
😐🔫
45
Libertarians implying that minorities not served will happily walk away and think nothing of it is appalling. An NFL player kneels and conservatives shit their pants in unison. Imagine if they were physically and legally removed from a restaurant for talking conservative talking points and see how fast they drop the indivuality schtick and jump right into fascism.
2
Libertarians are not the same as conservatives, so please don’t lump us together in the nfl discourse. The conservative abandonment of free speech in the name of patriotism is disgusting. And while I am ok with s private company enforcing its own rules, in this case the nfl gets lots of money from the government and actively supports the anthem and displays of patriotism. Since the nfl is weighing in on politics, the players should be allowed to protest.
1
Here's my argument for the libertarian types on this:
In a country where goods and services are provided by private citizens, as is the libertarian ideal, liberty can't be ensured unless the right to purchase those goods and services is available to all. What can happen, and did happen in many places, is that critical goods and services can become unavailable to people as a result of discrimination on irrelevant grounds. African Americans had to use The Green Book if they wanted to be able to travel and find food, gas, and lodging. Without it, the "freedom" of shop owners to discriminate meant they could get stranded. This is liberty of different groups at odds with one another.
This represents a de facto, not de jure, limitation on liberty. And given human nature it is a predictable limitation that is to be expected if not prevented. Just like we can expect some to steal property, or rape, or murder if no laws are made to prevent it.
When a business opens its doors to the public, it creates a grey space in terms of rights. The shop owner is saying that anyone can come in to look for things to buy. That comes with obligations to not violate the rights of those entering, implicitly. To then say that you will not sell those goods to a person willing to pay the same price as everyone else, is to violate that implicit promise. You would restrict their access to (often necessary) goods and services and significantly harm their freedom to live and pursue their happiness. If you want to limit your sales, open only to a privately selected group. This is permissible under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
43
What this boils down to is that the systems of property rights and contractual freedom necessarily violate the rights and freedoms of others (i.e. those without property).
you're totally correct, but for libertarians this kind of wilful ignorance of de facto freedom, and the harms to liberty created by private property, is kind of the point. Concede this argument, and their entire philosophy collapses.
So good luck convincing them; Libertarians have been ignoring these arguments for almost a century. Already in the 1920s, legal realists like Robert Hale had already totally dispensed with these laissez-faire shibboleths like freedom of contract, but that never stopped them. Here's Matt Bruenig on the topic: http://www.demos.org/blog/10/28/13/libertarians-are-huge-fans-economic-coercion
edit: nothing could prove my point better than me taking the bait and banging my head against some libertarian in the comments below. what a waste of time. should have known better
32
What this boils down to is that the systems of property rights and contractual freedom necessarily violate the rights and freedoms of others (i.e. those without property).
No, they do not. The only "rights and freedoms" violated are imagined ones. There is no such thing as a positive right.
So good luck convincing them; Libertarians have been ignoring these arguments for almost a century. Already in the 1920s, legal realists like Robert Hale had already totally dispensed with these laissez-faire shibboleths like freedom of contract, but that never stopped them. Here's Matt Bruenig on the topic: http://www.demos.org/blog/10/28/13/libertarians-are-huge-fans-economic-coercion
We're not ignoring it. We've refuted this kind of idiocy over and over and over again. You're not oppressed by someone else owning property. You don't have a positive right to housing just like you don't have a positive right to any other good or service.
-14
#notruecapitalism /s
8
There's no such thing as words and yet you use them anyway
7
Eat shit and die you racist cunt.
4†
Who's the racist here? The person saying that those of other races are perfectly capable of succeeding in life under their own power? Or people like you, who belittle, and patronize them by telling them, "oh don't worry, we'll help you, because you're too weak and stupid to do anything without our help"
0†
Your username is adorable!
3
please point me to your best rebuttal of Hale's coercion argument
can you even rebut Bruenig's blog post?
3
I just did refute the blog post: you don't have a positive right to housing. This immediately destroys the "hurr I could just move in on someone else's property because I need shelter to live derp." Want more? The comparison to an income tax is a false equivalence for the reason that he conflates a positive right to housing with a negative right to one's earnings. The landlord has a valid claim on the property because he earned the money to buy it. The state does not have a valid claim on the land because it didn't earn the money. Oh, and ownership is not coercion by definition.
6
You have no positive right not to be rendered into grease to light our lamps.
1†
That's a violation of the negative right to life, you retarded fuck.
2
Their retort will always be: "we don't live in a free market" until the government ceases to be.
5
In their defense, we'll say the same about communism until the state ceases to be lmao
1
True, but most of us don't pretend that any market is good. And at the very least the social Democrats have proven that a more egalitarian society seems to keep more people happier.
2
Also true, I was just making a dumb joke that I saw had an opening lol
1
[deleted]
1
In a country where goods and services are provided by private citizens, as is the libertarian ideal, liberty can't be ensured unless the right to purchase those goods and services is available to all.
That's not what liberty means. When you actually reference the definition of liberty, this all falls apart.
When a business opens its doors to the public
It doesn't. Declaring it to be so is quite dishonest.
That comes with obligations to not violate the rights of those entering, implicitly. To then say that you will not sell those goods to a person willing to pay the same price as everyone else, is to violate that implicit promise.
No, simply being in business carries no such promise.
You would restrict their access to (often necessary) goods and services and significantly harm their freedom to live and pursue their happiness.
No, it doesn't.
If you want to limit your sales, open only to a privately selected group. This is permissible under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
I'm actually not opposed to this, but imo this should be the default rather than instantly labeling all businesses that don't charge for admission as "open to the public."
-23
Cool racism apologia bro, have fun pitching it to racist psychopaths for the rest of time you more irrelevant than us dick lol
Holy shit he's defining liberty. Seriously someone shove this guy into a locker LOL
Your whole schtick was basically invented by post keynesians, who operate out of an inverted keynesian framework. These are friedmans own words. You're politics is also based aroind the business round table garbage from the 70s. There's no trajectory from the enlightenment, there's no ancient libertarians. It's garbage and it's a fucking lie . Youre pushing some fucking ghouls propaganda. It's fucking absurd.
Your politics are designed to make the boots taste better than real food
You're some lame fuck that thinks the world hasn't changed since 1730, and it has, it's like being a fucking Plato scholar, it's fucking worthless, but worse, it literally is only there to make boots taste good
24
I must have missed the part in that entire dumbass word salad where you thought this was a coherent argument to what I posted. At no point did you actually address what I wrote. Insults aren't arguments. And if you're not going to make a coherent argument and only feel that I'm worthy of insults I guess this is the perfect place for that level of intellectualism. Good job. You've proved that this sub is just a bunch of retarded leftists incapable of forming a coherent response when you feel that your shitty ideas are threatened.
1
nOt aN aRguMeNT
3
What a socialist loser fuck you are. Fucking pussy.
0
I have to hand it to you, you’re very good at the grown-up way of saying “No u”.
3
Liberty
Liberty, in politics, consists of the social and political freedoms to which all community members are entitled. In philosophy, liberty involves free will as contrasted with determinism. In theology, liberty is freedom from the effects of, "sin, spiritual servitude, [or] worldly ties."
Generally, liberty is distinctly differentiated from freedom in that freedom is primarily, if not exclusively, the ability to do as one wills and what one has the power to do; whereas liberty concerns the absence of arbitrary restraints and takes into account the rights of all involved. As such, the exercise of liberty is subject to capability and limited by the rights of others.
^[ ^PM ^| ^Exclude ^me ^| ^Exclude ^from ^subreddit ^| ^FAQ ^/ ^Information ^| ^Source ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
2
The Wikipedia definition of Liberty contrasts with Freedom as: "whereas liberty concerns the absence of arbitrary restraints and takes into account the rights of all involved"
absence of arbitrary restraints
defending racial prejudice
Congratulations, you played yourself.
0
My take on this, whether it conforms to the Libertarian ideology
proceeds to trout out a popular Libertarian talking point
26
This might not sound very American of me, but I honestly love apple pie, and think the world of man’s best friend, the majestic eagle.
22
i can't say for sure whether i'm gay or not, but show me that dick please
13
What can I say, babe...it doesn't affect me. puts on sunglasses and throws cigarette butt on ground
25
[very Shania Twain voice]
That don't affect me much.
27
The truly libertarian (not rw-libertarian) position should be that any system of hierarchy should be subject to those who are under the hierarchy. So a corporation should not be able to refuse service to anyone, because the corporation is a hierarchy that acts on the population.
But if it is isn't a corporation, and it's literally one guy who is a baker, then he should have the freedom to deny service to anyone he wants--as he had the right to control his own labor. (But doesn't mean it is moral to deny the service.)
20
hmmm. i'm wondering how this line of thought travels. wouldn't this imply that a group of individuals, each w/ control over their own labor, should then be able to refuse service to anyone they wish? I'm not sure I grasp why individual vs. corporation is a meaningful distinction here.
Also:
"the corporation is a hierarchy that acts on the population"
does this mean that ALL collective action (so long as it constitutes a subset of the total population) counts as a "hierarchy" that the overall population can control?
"any system of hierarchy should be subject to those who are under the hierarchy"
is this pure majoritarianism, in that the majority can simply override subsets of the population--hierarchies--as it wills? because if so, i'm not sure how that responds to the critique that libertarians were fine with jim crow--whites were a majority in both the south and the nation as a whole, so why shouldn't they then be able to deny service to blacks?
3
A corporation is the opposite of collective action. It is something which affects pretty much the entire population, yet it is only controlled by a handful of people. The more a corporation affects society, the more that the people should have a say in how it's run.
I think what you're confusing here is identifying hierarchy and power dynamics. For example, it is not right for 99% of the population to pick off some random guy on the street and kill him just because they wanted too. But it is right for a group of slaves to kill a slave master. Analyzing the power dynamics and its justification is what tells you how to deal with hierarchy--and is what prevents pure majoritarianism.
Jim Crow was a massive unjust exertion of power and hierarchy of one group over a smaller powerless group. Therefore it should've been abolished. RW-Libertarians wouldn't agree with this because they have a much simpler view on coercion and power than Libertarian Socialists. RW-Libertarians see only the State has a source of authority.
9
Ah okay, that makes it clearer for me. Wasn't thinking about the justification component. Thanks!
1
Whenever someone advocates for discrimination it's because they see themselves as the one doing the discriminating and not the one being discriminated. They see themselves holding the whip, not as the ones being whipped.
18
Argue with NFL kneeling rule defenders until they admit they support segregation by private businesses . It works with like half of em
11
Libertarians are crypto fascists.
8
They're slow burning fascism, there's arguably no difference. Libertarians have their own mythology(the founders), revisionism(they call like fucking Adam Smith libertarian), and a blood and soil mentality(property and all that bullshit about earned power).
Honestly there's hardly a difference. It's a matter of what the mythology is obsessing over.
4
This position is a reductio ad absurdam to the idea that property and liberty are compatible.
6
Don't think they were ever hiding it
3
List of reasons to be a libertarian:
-
you have an insanely specific fetish where you can only cum if you are either making or listening to an extremely convoluted analogy
-
...?
3
"we don't need anti discimination laws to police businesses, society and social consquences will punish racist businesses" - libertarians
Libertarian victory occurs, businesses can now discriminate on race.
"Why are you guys boycotting/protesting/picketing/shunning this (racist) business for wanting to operate the way they see fit, this is fascism." - same libertarians.
3
Right-wing libertarianism in America was literally born in protest of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The freedom of association of business owners was being violated, god damn it!
Ron Paul openly states this was one of the crucial moments where it all started to go down. Allowing that violation of business freedom was the slippery slope that's led us toward "big government" and such.
2
“Libertarians” are literally just conservatives who like weed
2†
Libertarians have always thought this
Yeah I'd be more surprised if they came out opposed to Jim Crow. I've had libertarians earnestly tell me they think civil rights was a mistake
“There’s no such thing as civil rights, only individual rights”
The majority of libertarians are white males who are completely blind to the privilege they experience. It's no surprise they are unable to comprehend the importance and necessity of the civil rights movement
Libertarians hate groups and collective anything. If you allow everyone to shit on hispanic people, they'll band together in their own enclaves and refuse to learn English and prop up their own culture as better then white American culture due to spite. If they can't work or shop outside if their communities, they'll organize and protest and vote until they can. If they can't, they'll turn to violence until they can get full treatment. They can cry freedom all the want and that they have a right to defend themselves should violence erupt, but if push came to shove and people were dying in the streets because you refuse to serve peach cobbler to everyone, they're going to realize it's not a hill that's literally worth dying for. For a white guy it's just a piece of pie but for a Hispanic american citizen that's dying for dignity, respect, and the right to be treated fairly. It's so profoundly ignorant of how people and society act.
https://youtu.be/ICGDvWd0Ugc?t=2m47s
From the 2016 libertarian debate.
Legally enforced nondiscrimination will lead to a nightmare hellscape of toaster licenses.
That one was the most bizarre non-sequitur, the toaster thing. When you get into a car you're literally taking everyone else's life into your hands, and we know this because 30,000 people a year die on American roads, 1 million worldwide.
If ever there was a case of it being right to limit the freedom of the individual to protect the community, driving licenses is it.
Didn’t Ron or Rand say some shit like this once?
Yes. They both explicitly oppose the civil rights act.
It is a indicative of our deeply racist country that these men wield incredible political power and influence, while patrotic aggrieved neighbors rot in jail
It would be nice if any of them took a single history class, to complement what little they understand about economics
[deleted]
I posted in that thread prior to this link and was shockingly upvoted.