|
jrodefeld posted:Roosevelt negroes quote The first part of your quote can be sourced easily and therefore ought to be. It was said to a group of senators who were concerned that the bill would alienate southern voters. The concluding sentence does not actually appear in the source material. It appears on page 33 of Ronald Kessler's Inside the White House and was uttered by Johnson while he was away from DC during a conversation with two governors. It is not plausible to imagine that the entire quote was part of a single speech or conversation. Linking the two parts with ellipses is improper (by the standards of journalism or academic writing) and misleading to your readers.
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 00:22 |
|
|
# ? May 22, 2024 03:07 |
|
jrodefeld posted:Black teenagers will continue to languish at nearly 50% unemployment because of these laws. Naturally these kids are more likely to get involved in gangs and illegal work, ending up with criminal records, in jail or killed. That is the reality of the artificial economic restrictions to opportunity that you continually foist upon the most vulnerable in society. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. While I agree that Who What Now's tone is overly vitriolic, this idea is just... Jrodefeld, how many workers does a McDonalds need? If they could pay the people half as much, how many would they need? Here's a hint: the number would be the same (I don't have a clue what it is, though, I haven't been to a McDonalds in years.) Minimum wage jobs are pretty much solely inelastic. There are a certain number of positions to fill, and given basic abilities, anyone can fill those positions. Once they're filled, there's very little if any incremental profit in hiring more people. So, no. There aren't enough positions to fill, that's the problem.
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 00:24 |
|
Literally The Worst posted:Minimum wage jobs are actually worthless on your resume unless you're applying for more minimum wage jobs. Citation: the only job I can get is mimium wage bullshit or slightly above, and even then those jobs are still awful in entirely different ways. I needed experience to apply for a housekeeping job this summer. To APPLY. you have literally no idea what you're talking about as usual.
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 00:26 |
|
Let's have teenagers fill current minimum wage jobs at less than minimum wage, potentially putting their own parents out of work. Everybody* wins! * just McDonalds shareholders really
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 00:27 |
|
I give Jrod exactly as much respect as he has earned, which is none at all. E: Literally The Worst posted:Citation: the only job I can get is mimium wage bullshit or slightly above, and even then those jobs are still awful in entirely different ways. I needed experience to apply for a housekeeping job this summer. To APPLY. you have literally no idea what you're talking about as usual. Just because they ask for previous experience does not mean having no experience automatically disqualifies you. I did interviews for candidates with no previous experience all the time when I was manager at a retail location. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Nov 17, 2014 |
# ? Nov 17, 2014 00:28 |
|
-edit- For fucks sake, awful app, twice in a row?
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 00:32 |
|
Who What Now posted:I give Jrod exactly as much respect as he has earned, which is none at all. He hasn't earned it, agreed. But there's nothing to gain from rudeness. It just gives him more ammo to dismiss our arguments. Besides, it's far more amusing to tear down everything he believes in and watch him blindly stumble into trying to use it again than it is to just call him an idiot and move on.
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 00:36 |
|
Who What Now posted:I give Jrod exactly as much respect as he has earned, which is none at all. I mean they literally did not let me apply. I asked for an application and they said no. I had to bullshit about how much of my last retail job was selling in order to get the job I have now, and my job now is still awful.
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 00:36 |
|
Literally The Worst posted:I mean they literally did not let me apply. I asked for an application and they said no. I had to bullshit about how much of my last retail job was selling in order to get the job I have now, and my job now is still awful. That sounds like an issue with that one specific company, not something systemic.
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 00:41 |
|
Who What Now posted:That sounds like an issue with that one specific company, not something systemic. My point is just that having minimum wage work isn't a guarantee of anything except that you had minimum wage work at some point and acting like its a valuable thing on your resume is dumb and I gave an extreme example that happened to me to illustrate this. Obviously that's not the norm but you get what I'm trying to say.
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 00:43 |
|
Wolfsheim posted:I should also remind anyone still willing to take jrode's minimum wage bait that the answer "Actually, eliminating minimum wage would just hurt unskilled laborers, an already incredibly vulnerable group that already owns close to 0% of wealth in this country" doesn't actually count because libertarians see those people as lazy parasites who don't want to bother finding a better job. No, libertarians don't think that. That is an uninformed leftist stereotype of libertarians. Speaking for myself, I am concerned with the welfare of the poor. Remember that those who have their wealth want the system to stay as it is. Capitalists who earn their money in the market tend to turn their focus on lobbying the State. They use the market then rail against the market. If you get to the top the only place to go it down. Businessmen don't want that so they form cartels and monopolize. And the only way to do this is through legislation and State privilege. Those who should favor the free market the most are the poor and middle class. The unfettered market continually overturns the wealth of the rich because the poor have many competitive advantages over them. They are ambitious, have less expenses, can worker cheaper and more efficiently. The wealthy erect economic barriers to the poor, they speak to them condescendingly and paternalisticly. They sell the poor on the idea that they are victims and need to rely on welfare programs. What they really don't want is for the poor to undercut the rich and overturn their wealth through the market. Libertarians don't look down on the poor. We see them as completely competent and capable of out-competing the very rich. What we don't want is barriers to economic activity that proponents of the State continually erect which limits the ability of the poor to gain economic independence and overturn the established wealth of the capitalists. There is an old saying about the free market economy. "Rags to riches back to rags in three generations". It is an observable phenomenon that the privileged children of the rich don't have the same ambition and competence to achieve that their parents, who actually earned their wealth, had. There are certain values that you learn by growing up poor or middle class that you lose if you are raised wealthy. The children of privilege tend to squander much of the wealth of their parents without having all the skills to maintain and grow their wealth and within a few generations the family has fallen back down into the middle class or even lower. On the other hand, if the capitalists pass legislation to keep out new competitors and protect their wealth, multiple generations of the "idle rich" can exist in perpetuity because they don't have to actually compete in the marketplace and satisfy consumers. The free market should be the tool most valued by the poor and middle classes since it is the one most hated by oligarchs everywhere. You are not helping with your paternalistic condescension, rather you are making the situation worse.
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 00:47 |
|
jrodefeld posted:Sometimes my mind boggles at the lack of economic understanding. How does anyone earn more money at a job? Why aren't you still making the exact same wages as you did at your first job? The answer of course is that you learned skills and became more valuable as an employee. You built a resume so other people would be more interested in hiring you. I don't even know where to begin. But you might want to watch out, because pots shouldn't call kettles black. Here's the thing - my time spent as a cashier in a supermarket never enters into my current line of work. I don't think to myself "Man, all that time I spent pulling cans forward and organizing shelves really comes in handy with this difficult job." quote:Suppose you are 14 or 15 and you want some extra money over the summer. Most people are not going to hire a kid at a high wage rate when they could hire an adult. How do less productive and less desired workers compete for jobs? One way is to offer to work for less money. A fifteen year old kid could take a basic job for $5 or $6 an hour, build a resume and then earn more money. After four or five months, maybe less, they have demonstrated competence in doing a very basic job and they could be promoted to a hire paying position. Or if they quit that job they now have a resume and a reference for future employers, which makes their human capital more desirable to potential employers. Do you have any experience with hiring minimum wage employees? Well, I do. See, the reason why 14 and 15 year olds have a hard time finding a job has nothing to do with their rate of pay. It has everything to do with the fact that the labor laws around people who are under 17 in most states are such a pain in the rear end to deal with that it's not really worth the hassle. See, they can't work more than a certain number of hours (varies by state, I think in mine, it was 4 or 5). They need breaks after a certain point. They're prohibited from doing a lot, even more than just what a minor can't do. They can't work past certain hours on school nights. And then there's things that come with the age. They tend not to have their own transportation, so they rely on mom and dad to get them places. And dealing with 16 and 17 year-olds on that matter, that gets pretty flaky pretty quickly. Also, they tend to be pretty immature, and require a lot more supervision. Add that all up, and it's just not worth hiring them. Even if I could get them for free, it would be such a massive pain in my rear end that I don't want to deal with that. So yes. It's not a lack of experience that factors into that. Most of the work is pretty menial. There's barely any training, and most of it is just "Do it this way and make sure it looks like this." quote:If you are a teenager living at home, virtually all of your money is disposable. Working part time for $6 an hour means that you can go out to a restaurant, see a movie, take a girl on a date, things like that. But the most important thing is to develop a resume and work history at an early age. This will be very beneficial at 22 or 23 when you need to get a real job to support yourself. Except that experience means nothing. Have you ever hired someone, or applied for a job? I mean, when I got my first big-boy job, I didn't put the time I spent as a supermarket cashier on my resume. It's not helpful for the jobs that pay real money, and you go back to my post on the subject originally on why it's a bad idea in general!
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 00:48 |
|
jrodefeld posted:Remember that those who have their wealth want the system to stay as it is. That doesn't automatically make any other system better.
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 00:49 |
|
Barbe Rouge posted:That doesn't automatically make any other system better. It's also a lie. Consider how much the welfare state has been assaulted by moneyed interests.
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 00:51 |
|
Political Whores posted:Gee, it sure would have been embarrassing to all us progressives if anybody at all had held Lyndon Johnson up as a great thinker of the "left". Why, if I'd put up page after page of quotations from obvious and unrepentant racists like Johnson as a defense of my ideology, I might feel some sort of shame at the obviously terrible opinions I was tacitly (or explicitly) supporting. Bigger issue is that when Caros quotes jrod's heroes saying racist things, he relies on primary and secondary sources like their published works or articles and quotes of them from Libertarian websites like mises.org and lewrockwell that would have no reason to fabricate them. Meanwhile jrod takes his evidence from a book published by a political opponent of Johnson's providing an uncorroborated quote first mentioned 25 years after the man died and is no longer around to dispute it or defend himself. Classy. For an ideology that's true a priori, Libertarians sure spend a lot of time lying.
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 00:52 |
|
jrodefeld posted:I could have a field day pulling up quotes from Progressive heroes from the 20th century who established all your favorite government programs, from the Federal Reserve to Social Security to Medicare and Medicaid, that were incredibly racist and supremacist. Then I could conclude that these programs were ALWAYS designed to hurt the poor minorities since their proponents were clearly overwhelmingly racist. We could both play this game but I think it would be unfair to both of us. A lot of progressives in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and even the 60s were horrible racists. This is indisputable. That's why they did their best to write Social Security in such a way that it would exclude as many black people as possible by making occupations they tend to be represented in not eligible to participate. Wiki posted:Most women and minorities were excluded from the benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns. Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers. The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently. These jobs were dominated by women and minorities. For example, women made up 90 percent of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service. Exclusions exempted nearly half of the working population. Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80 percent in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security. At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.” Social Security (much like the more explicitly discriminatory social programs under South African apartheid) when first implemented had the specific aim of helping poor whites at the expense of other races, quite successfully in fact. So you're right that these programs were originally designed to hurt poor minorities, but not by tricking them "onto the welfare plantation" as conservatives like to put it, but by reserving the huge benefits of these programs for poor whites only. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Nov 17, 2014 |
# ? Nov 17, 2014 01:03 |
|
jrodefeld posted:No, libertarians don't think that. That is an uninformed leftist stereotype of libertarians. Speaking for myself, I am concerned with the welfare of the poor. Can you defend that quote? I mean, we have the Koch brothers in the camp against you. Or Peter Theil for example - http://theweek.com/article/index/218393/libertarian-island-a-billionaires-utopia Did you just make an assertion and expect us to treat it as fact. STOP loving DOING THIS. This is not how you argue. You don't make some broad baseless claim and then pretend that it has value. Also, another question YOU have to answer is why this would change in a libertarian society. As has been stated before, money is power. The more money you have, the more resources you can acquire. What's to keep the rich from gaming the system in their favor. quote:Those who should favor the free market the most are the poor and middle class. The unfettered market continually overturns the wealth of the rich because the poor have many competitive advantages over them. Oh really? And you can show this... how? quote:They are ambitious, have less expenses, can worker cheaper and more efficiently. And you can show this... how? Are rich people unambitious? I mean, I guess that's why Mitt Romney didn't run for president. No ambition. Here are some things that rich people have the poor and middle class people don't have and need - money. See, starting a business and running a business can be a significant investment, and for the first few years, people actually expect to lose money. In order to start new ventures, you need a lot more resources than the average person has access to. quote:[ Citation needed. You need to show me how Welfare Systems are keeping me down. quote:Libertarians don't look down on the poor. We see them as completely competent and capable of out-competing the very rich. What we don't want is barriers to economic activity that proponents of the State continually erect which limits the ability of the poor to gain economic independence and overturn the established wealth of the capitalists. Wait... aren't the capitalists champions of the free market? Well, with you, I never know what words actually mean. The problem is that there are some barriers to economic activity that don't require the state. Such as a need for capital to start a business. Also, what barriers are you talking about specifically. I mean, there are bad laws, and those should be overturned. quote:There is an old saying about the free market economy. "Rags to riches back to rags in three generations". It is an observable phenomenon that the privileged children of the rich don't have the same ambition and competence to achieve that their parents, who actually earned their wealth, had. I'll give you credit. You can find a lot of information about this on Google. I mean, your argument is weak, but at least using your quotation, I can find information that supports what you say. Good work here! quote:There are certain values that you learn by growing up poor or middle class that you lose if you are raised wealthy. The children of privilege tend to squander much of the wealth of their parents without having all the skills to maintain and grow their wealth and within a few generations the family has fallen back down into the middle class or even lower. http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/25/luxury/family-wealth/ - Except it's not. According to this article, the biggest reason why wealth is squandered has more to do with a lack of management rather than ambition. While you will find examples of bad spending and a lack of ambition, it's just that managing wealth can be very complicated. quote:On the other hand, if the capitalists pass legislation to keep out new competitors and protect their wealth, multiple generations of the "idle rich" can exist in perpetuity because they don't have to actually compete in the marketplace and satisfy consumers. How many people will this really help out though? There's only room for so much competition in certain markets.
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 01:42 |
|
jrodefeld posted:Sometimes my mind boggles at the lack of economic understanding. How does anyone earn more money at a job? Why aren't you still making the exact same wages as you did at your first job? The answer of course is that you learned skills and became more valuable as an employee. You built a resume so other people would be more interested in hiring you. Okay so your argument is that teeangers build valuable work experience and a resume by starting out in low-skill jobs, and that leads to higher wages in the future. That's a coherent argument. I mean it's completely wrong, because "McDonalds burger flipper" or "Walmart greeter" on your resume only impresses employers who are aren't going to voluntarily pay at least what the minimum wage pays now, but it's at least a coherent argument even if it's completely wrong. Meanwhile, the adults who rely on minimum wage employment are getting shafted by having the floor drop out from beneath them. So while you're trying to benefit the teenagers (although you fail to do this) that are already economically secure enough to be able to accept $1/hour flipping burgers, you're harming the adults that rely on minimum wage employment. In other words, you want to gently caress over the poor in order to serve the rich (or the children of the well-off in any case)
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 01:55 |
|
jrodefeld posted:In fact, Johnson uttered these words in 1963: Dear jrod, You defend Molyneux and HHH, and the best you can come up with is an unsourced/badly sourced claim about LBJ? Go copulate with your mother, you idiot.
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 02:04 |
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Can you defend that quote? I mean, we have the Koch brothers in the camp against you. Or Peter Theil for example - http://theweek.com/article/index/218393/libertarian-island-a-billionaires-utopia I'd really like to hear your reaction to this article which was written by Sheldon Richman, called "Libertarian Left: Free-market anti-capitalism, the unknown ideal" quote:Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign introduced many people to the word “libertarian.” Since Paul is a Republican and Republicans, like libertarians, use the rhetoric of free markets and private enterprise, people naturally assume that libertarians are some kind of quirky offshoot of the American right wing. To be sure, some libertarian positions fit uneasily with mainstream conservatism—complete drug decriminalization, legal same-sex marriage, and the critique of the national-security state alienate many on the right from libertarianism. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/libertarian-left/ It should be noted that the sort of "left libertarians" that Richman is referring to were not socialists. They DID believe in private property and the free market but their concerns and values were quite similar to those on the radical left today. Sheldon Richman has actually been quite critical of the term "capitalism" when it comes to describing the sort of market that individualist libertarians support. Capitalism really was coined by Karl Marx as a term with negative connotations. Capital is savings or land or resources. So referring to a free market as a "capitalist" system implies that the system works exclusively for the benefit of those with capital to the detriment of workers, unions, the poor, etc. The Free Market that laissez faire liberals and libertarians support is not like that at all. The proof is that "capitalists" (meaning people who have money and resources) tend to rail against the free market. They always want to create cartels, to monopolize and exclude rather than compete. I usually give this article to my left liberal friends because it speaks to them in a language they appreciate about the virtues of the market economy. It furthermore describes a tradition where proponents of the market economy held similar values and concerns as do radical leftists. This has been lost since right-wingers have coopted the language of "free markets" and perverted its historical meaning. I'd be interested in reactions to Richman's article.
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 02:17 |
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Dear jrod, Hey now, don't forget his really out of context quote by Lincoln earlier, where it proved that Lincoln was a so racist he forced the CSA to declare independence and attack the USA!
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 02:18 |
|
jrodefeld posted:Remember that those who have their wealth want the system to stay as it is. Capitalists who earn their money in the market tend to turn their focus on lobbying the State. They use the market then rail against the market. If you get to the top the only place to go it down. Businessmen don't want that so they form cartels and monopolize. And the only way to do this is through legislation and State privilege. You are so very close to coming to the right conclusion here that it hurts. Let me ask you this, what is there to stop Capitalist Entrepreneurs in a Stateless society from just working together to make a new State to protect themselves with?
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 02:29 |
|
jrodefeld posted:I'd really like to hear your reaction to this article which was written by Sheldon Richman, called "Libertarian Left: Free-market anti-capitalism, the unknown ideal" No. Use your own words to defend your ideas. Don't try to deflect by throwing something from a conservative/Libertarian webpage up as if that's an argument. You have been called on this repeatedly and your continued insistence on pulling this poo poo is only showing that you have not thought enough about your own stated position to defend it! jrodefeld posted:http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/libertarian-left/ Again: No, and stop trying to deflect. You're being pressed on a point, the proper response is not to throw up a wall of text in an effort to deflect from what you're being pressed on, it is to respond, in your own words, to the point being raised. But, since we're apparently playing this game, how about you give me your reaction to this quote first? I mean, I know you don't actually read the thread, but I want to hear what you have to say about this in regards to your minimum wage bullshit: Mr George Philips, MP Wooton posted:
Again, this is not from Wikipedia, but directly from the record of the debate on the bill. I want you to respond to this because it's just about verbatim the same thing Libertarians are claiming today, and it was used directly as a justification to have children between ages 9 and 16 work 12 hour shifts. TLM3101 fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Nov 17, 2014 |
# ? Nov 17, 2014 03:00 |
|
jrodefeld posted:Do you understand that words actually having a meaning? :infinitely_expanding_ironicat.gif:
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 03:03 |
|
jrodefeld posted:I'd really like to hear your reaction to this article which was written by Sheldon Richman, called "Libertarian Left: Free-market anti-capitalism, the unknown ideal" No. Instead of engaging with me, you're going to dump a really long, and dry, article by some guy I never heard of and ask me to give my thoughts on the matter? It's laziness. It's an appeal to authority. You should be able to take his ideas, condense them down to a few brief sentences. Then you can link to the article as an extra resource. But you got to give people a hook. And I mean it. This is a dry article that's hard for me to really read well because it's actually really incredibly boring. Also, I'm not going to debate with Sheldon Richman. I want to hear you engage with my ideas. Especially since you haven't dealt with anything I've had to say on your ridiculous minimum wage proposal.
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 03:11 |
|
Any minute now, Jrode is going to come in here and FINALLY explain how a rational actor can exist in a system with imperfect information and while stuck in an exceptionally emotional animal body. He'll tell us why, although no person in all of history has acted primarily in their own rational best interest, they'll suddenly start to do so once the government is banished. He'll explain why individuals will act in their own personal worse interests when it means the best interests of society as a whole, like charitable giving during economic recessions and the permanent death of Jim Crow. He'll explain how life-saving healthcare does in fact exhibit appreciable price elasticity, as opposed to being one of the most inelastic services ever conceived. He won't mention a word about racism because, as he's stated 15 or 20 times now, he doesn't actually care about it. But best of all, he'll explain why a system devoid of police, devoid of criminal investigators, devoid of prisons and judges, will be better at deterring crime than (or even NEARLY as good as) the existing system that has all of those things. I can just FEEL it, you guys!
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 03:11 |
|
Muscle Tracer posted::infinitely_expanding_ironicat.gif: Somehow this didn't register with me on first read. For God's sake. If an-cap philosophy is correct, we should ostracize jrod for his horrific bad faith. The fact that any of us still want to interact with him demonstrates its implausibility.
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 03:14 |
|
TLM3101 posted:you have not thought enough about your own stated position to defend it! I still say that libertarianism might have some good ideas so long as you don't think about any of them for more than 30 seconds.
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 03:20 |
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Also, I'm not going to debate with Sheldon Richman. I want to hear you engage with my ideas. Especially since you haven't dealt with anything I've had to say on your ridiculous minimum wage proposal. Quoting and bolding for emphasis. This is why you get people yelling at you, JRode. This is why the tone in so many of the replies to you ( and I freely include my own in that assessment ) is borderline - if not outright - hostile. You ask, even demand, that we engage with your ideas, but when the time comes for you to respond, you have no responses of your own to bring to the table, you simply throw up an article and then go "These are my thoughts on the matter, explained by some guy you've never heard of". This is showing incredible bad faith, not to mention that it's extremely rude, evasive, and dishonest. e: spoon0042 posted:I still say that libertarianism might have some good ideas so long as you don't think about any of them for more than 30 seconds. All of which, presumably, were lifted from the early Anarchists/Syndicalists/Socialists, like JRode tried to claim Spooner for Libertarianism. God knows Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe [et. al] have contributed nothing of intellectual value. And yeah, I'm still loving incredulous that someone could miss the point of early Anarchist thought that hard, but here we are. TLM3101 fucked around with this message at 03:30 on Nov 17, 2014 |
# ? Nov 17, 2014 03:23 |
|
Seriously, we don't try to argue with you by dropping blocks of text from Rawls or Picketty. We engage with you directly, with arguments in our own words. Do us the courtesy of doing the same.
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 03:41 |
|
jrodefeld posted:At least you are acknowledging what you are doing. The problem I have with this hypersensitivity is that it makes serious debate on many different important issues virtually impossible. If we have to continually walk on egg shells trying to avoid inadvertently using "dog whistle" language that some may interpret as coded racism, then that means that we are simply not permitted to have an opinion on certain issues. JRodefeld, if you don't want to talk about racism in the libertarian party, may I suggest that you stop talking about loving racism? I mention this because the whole loving reason we are on this tangent about racist libertarians is because you went out of your way to address a handful of posts asking if you believed in the incredibly fringe historical revisionism espoused by men like Thomas DiLorenzo. In the process of doing so you called Abraham Lincoln a racist and a white supremacist which caused other posters to (rightly) dig into the fact that many of the people you support hold or directly associate with people who hold virulently racist views even in TTYOL 2014. That you are now attempting to turn this back on us and say "Well there are a lot of racists in the left progressive history" is astonishing. Yes, there are plenty of people in the history of Left Progressivism who are not (by modern standards) especially progressive on the issue of race. As VitalSigns pointed out, Social Security was incredibly biased against African Americans when it was first introduced. FDR didn't issue invitations to black olympians following the 1936 Olympics and so forth. The key word there is history. Left Progressives do not have a membership with substantial racist views in the modern age. I will undoubtably acknowledge that someone like FDR had many of the same faults of his times, I don't doubt that FDR probably wasn't very good on homosexual rights in 1939. The difference is that FDR has been dead for decades, while Hans Hermann Hoppe wrote an article extolling the virtue of the natural social elites as recently as September of this loving year. The other difference, as has also been pointed out is that we acknowledge and reject those viewpoints. You refuse to even acknowledge the existence of the very obvious racial biases in the libertarian 'movement', which is why your demographics skew Ninety-Three percent white. quote:In fact, Johnson uttered these words in 1963: No he didn't. This is the third time in five days you have used an apocryphal quote that you can't be bothered to take a few minutes to source. If you had bothered you'd have been shocked to find that Johnson almost certainly did not utter those words. Are you planning on admitting at any point that you are in error here? quote:By the same logic you are using to criticize libertarians (and noting that no notable libertarian has ever used such blatant racist language), I could easily say that the entire left progressive program is inextricably tied to racist attitudes and the only reason why they don't use such language today is that they are exploiting the black vote. I think this would be grossly unfair. I don't believe that most left liberals are racist at all and I think most people on the left have good motives. I think it would be reasonable for you to extend the same courtesy to libertarians and stop trying to create this narrative that libertarianism as an ideology is inextricably linked to racist attitudes. I know what you are going for with this example, but it doesn't carry through. Ignoring the fact that the quote doesn't apply, modern progressives are actively engaged in attempting to improve the quality of life for minorities. We point to racist views of libertarians that are at best a handful of decades old in most cases, and use that to point out that libertarians hold racist views today. You point to a half century old example of a politician saying "We should try and get black voters" to say... what? That we're all racist but we're holding our noses to get black votes? quote:I could have a field day pulling up quotes from Progressive heroes from the 20th century who established all your favorite government programs, from the Federal Reserve to Social Security to Medicare and Medicaid, that were incredibly racist and supremacist. Then I could conclude that these programs were ALWAYS designed to hurt the poor minorities since their proponents were clearly overwhelmingly racist. We could both play this game but I think it would be unfair to both of us. Can you have a field day pulling up quotes from modern day Progressives that are incredibly racist and supremacist? Because it may surprise you to learn that people tended to be more racist in the US in the early half of the twentieth century than they are today. This all changed around that whole 'civil rights' thing that happened in the 60's. What you are trying to do here is equate the thinking of modern day libertarian racists, with turn of the century progressives. Do you not see how loving insane that is? You are implying that the racial views of libertarians are equivilent to those of people who lived in the 1930's, something I agree with but which certainly does not bolster your case. quote:Racism is a disease of the mind, a prejudice that has existed everywhere throughout history born of an ignorance of other cultures and a desire to view your own "group" as somehow better than others. People who hold such prejudices have infiltrated every political ideology from the farthest left to the most conservative right. And by critical of King you mean that Murray Rothbard believed that we should give africans a state if not for the fact that he thought they would need tons of foreign aid because of how lazy and stupid they were. You know what else Murray Rothbard supported? loving Apartheid. The rest of this I won't even address because you are basing this entire post on the idea that Johnson said overtly racist things that you cannot prove he ever said and almost certainly did not say. quote:But no, Rothbard is to be thoroughly dismissed because he is not as politically correct as you think he should be, because you suggest he uses "coded" language to speak to racists. So forget all his historical work and contributions to economic and political thought. No, Murray Rothbard is to be thoroughyl dismissed because he wrote an opinion piece talking about how there would be a flourishing market in children. Or how he supported Apartheid. Or how he wrote an article supporting The Bell Curve, which is a book about how there are genetic differences in intellegence between whites and blacks: Murray Rothbard posted:Under the spell of a misplaced analogy from Darwinian theory, analysts for over a century liked to think of social change as necessarily gradual, minute, and glacial. The idea of any sort of radical or "revolutionary" social change became unfashionable among intellectuals and social scientists. The political and cultural revolutions of the twentieth century have altered that perspective, and observers are now more willing to entertain the idea of sudden revolutionary change. Just so we are clear, the bell curve determined that blacks were genetically prone to be stupider than white people. Murray Rothbard believes that this determination is non-controversial and self-evident. That isn't an Anti-PC thing to say, it is simply being racist. quote:Can you understand how the belief in the use of force against the innocent is inextricably linked to nearly every instance of racial horror, from Apartheid to Jim Crow to the Holocaust? Bigoted private views, while unfortunate, lose all of their power if not backed up by the law, by aggressive force. This is not true. Even in the absence of Jim Crowe laws people still wanted to segregate in the south. Johnson had to send in the national guard because people specifically wanted to ignore the law in favor of their racist beliefs. quote:Imagine Hitler as a libertarian as opposed to a National Socialist. Instead of rising to power democratically as head of the German government and using State violence to murder Jews and blacks, he just fought for the right to exclude these people from his property. He would still be a reprehensible human being but he would have no power over anyone else. Would he be a benevolent ruler in this example too? Because this is a stupid loving example. quote:The collectivism espoused by left progressives is much closer to the collectivism espoused by racists than you realize. People hold all manner of irrational prejudices, but if you accept an ideology that is focused on individual rights rather than group identities and on self ownership and the non aggression principle, these irrational prejudices that people have in their heads become relatively benign. Yes, the idea that we should make sure that everyone is taken care of is way closer to "I hate black people" than your ideology espoused by people who literally want the right to exclude black people from society, or who lobby for and lament the loss of a state that permitted human slavery. Go on quote:I can fully accept the possibility of a racist being attracted to libertarianism simply because they want to right to disassociate themselves from blacks or Jews or gays and exclude them from their property. However, most racists are not happy with that. They want to use force against those they hate and thus they favor legally enforced segregation, laws against interracial marriage and things of that nature, which the libertarian naturally opposes. Hoppe, Rothbard and Reisman aren't attempting to 'stimulate critical thinking' they are simply putting their own prejudices to paper about how black people are inferior to white people. I'm sorry if you have trouble believing or understanding this, but the fact that you either can't or won't admit to the fact that Stefan Molyneux is a massive Misogynist tells us that you simply lack the critical thinking skills to understand if someone is racist. I don't joke when I say that I could show you a video of Hoppe saying that he hates all niggers everywhere, and you would try and excuse his statements as not racism. You do not understand what racism is, so stop talking on the subject. quote:I said I wouldn't speak about this topic but I did it anyway. Hopefully this will be one of my final statements on the matter. Then stop. You set the pace for this conversation Jrodefeld, appart from Valhalla DRO talk you are the driving force regarding this thread. You wanted to talk healthcare, so we talked healthcare. You wanted to talk minimum wage, we talked minimum wage. You don't want to talk racism, then stop talking about racism in this thread. Do not expect to be able to post something like: quote:I have not sourced any "well known racists". I have not done that nor would I ever trust or admire a racist commentator, economist or historian. You are falling back on that old leftist trope of employing the term "racist" as a catch all smear to tarnish the reputations of those who disagree with you. It is a tired cliche at this point. And expect that we won't call you out with dozens of examples.
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 03:46 |
|
jrod, do you agree with The Bell Curve? Obviously, on a forum full of leftists, we'll lambast you for saying yes. But if a position is really correct you ought to defend it regardless of perception. So, yes or no?
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 04:11 |
|
Caros, inasmuch as he's unwilling to deal with most counter-arguments, and given the work you put into yours, you are our Lancelot.
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 04:13 |
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Caros, inasmuch as he's unwilling to deal with most counter-arguments, and given the work you put into yours, you are our Lancelot. You know that old screenshot of Cefte shooting someone down basically sentence-for-sentence with a source for every rebuttal? That's what's going on here. It's dope.
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 04:22 |
|
jrodefeld posted:Remember that those who have their wealth want the system to stay as it is. Capitalists who earn their money in the market tend to turn their focus on lobbying the State. They use the market then rail against the market. If you get to the top the only place to go it down. Businessmen don't want that so they form cartels and monopolize. And the only way to do this is through legislation and State privilege. Having all the money probably helps. Without the State, what's to stop the guy who already owns the factory from burning down the businesses of any up-and-coming competitors? The police that no longer exist? The DROs that the poor person couldn't afford? quote:Those who should favor the free market the most are the poor and middle class. The unfettered market continually overturns the wealth of the rich because the poor have many competitive advantages over them. They are ambitious, have less expenses, can worker cheaper and more efficiently. The wealthy erect economic barriers to the poor, they speak to them condescendingly and paternalisticly. They sell the poor on the idea that they are victims and need to rely on welfare programs. What they really don't want is for the poor to undercut the rich and overturn their wealth through the market. Yeah, this is what I'm talking about. You're assumption that without a State (and by extension, a minimum wage and a safety net) the poor's brilliant entrepreneurship will finally shine instead of the majority of them just taking that $3/hr job so their kids don't starve to death. Your inspirational speech doesn't count for much when history shows the results would be more people worse off and even more easily exploited. quote:There is an old saying about the free market economy. "Rags to riches back to rags in three generations". It is an observable phenomenon that the privileged children of the rich don't have the same ambition and competence to achieve that their parents, who actually earned their wealth, had. There are certain values that you learn by growing up poor or middle class that you lose if you are raised wealthy. The children of privilege tend to squander much of the wealth of their parents without having all the skills to maintain and grow their wealth and within a few generations the family has fallen back down into the middle class or even lower. Actually, financial mobility is crazy stagnant. You're both underestimating how much wealth the already-rich have and for some reason assuming less laws means it would be harder for them to continue hoarding that wealth. I mean, they're already willing to break laws and make backroom deals with corrupt lawmakers now, why when you eliminate even those barriers will they begin to play nice? Seriously, do you have an actual answer to these questions? They're not even 'lifeboat scenarios' at this point, these will be immediate and constant problems in any kind of stateless society and you have yet to give any kind of real solution to any of them. Do you have one?
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 04:24 |
|
Even if LBJ were the most racist racist ever to racist, the Civil Rights Act was championed and made possible only by the unrelenting efforts of the Black Civil Rights Movement. Even if it could be proven that LBJ was a hypocrite who only did it to get black votes, that doesn't prove the CRA was bad for black people, because the reason it got black votes is because black people near-unanimously demanded it! All that would prove is that black leaders were able to strongarm a reluctant LBJ into passing it. So what, was the CRA all the NAACP and Dr. Martin Luther King's evil plan to subjugate black people? I mean, I guess it was if we're using the logic LBJ was racist => the CRA is a racist plot => Martin Luther King and the NAACP hatched a racist anti-black plot. Like, do you ever take 5 minutes to think through the logical consequences of your arguments? jrodefeld posted:I'd really like to hear your reaction to this article which was written by Sheldon Richman, called "Libertarian Left: Free-market anti-capitalism, the unknown ideal" Oh wait, I guess you don't since we've already leaped on to something else. Jrod: "I'm interested in your reactions to this article by a neocon blowhard" Posters: "That argument is bad for reasons A, B, C, D, and also E." Jrod: "This is getting bogged down, instead I'm interested in your reactions to this article by a Big-Bang-denying kook" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Nov 17, 2014 |
# ? Nov 17, 2014 04:26 |
|
VitalSigns posted:Jrod: "This is getting bogged down, instead I'm interested in your reactions to this article by a Big-Bang-denying kook" That reminds me. Which explains some things. Also "hoodlums" *not racist*
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 04:40 |
|
You see, children's small hands are suited to sorting coal, and they'll be learning skills to apply to future jobs with their crushed fingers and damaged lungs.
|
# ? Nov 17, 2014 04:44 |
|
That Richman article is smarmy bullshit and any of your "leftist" friends who got taken in by it are either naive or uninterested in really changing the status quo. E: Seriously, are you really going to sit there and use an article that talks about the "desktop revolution" as a great equalizing force in society and wealth distribution, in 2014? Political Whores fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Nov 17, 2014 |
# ? Nov 17, 2014 04:44 |
|
|
# ? May 22, 2024 03:07 |
|
How do we end this teenage crime wave? Maybe let the black kids be janitors so they can learn janitor skills. Juvenile Arrest Rates for Property Crime Index Offenses (ojjdp.gov) oh Dmitri-9 fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Nov 17, 2014 |
# ? Nov 17, 2014 05:22 |