PDA

View Full Version : Libertarianism has Failed; It doesn't work.




FrankRep
05-23-2010, 09:32 AM
Proof:

Thomas E. Woods Jr: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was UnConstitutional, Statist, and a Failure
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=246171


Tom Woods and Thomas Sowell both expose the Civil Rights Act as Big Government and Unconstitutional and the Libertarian movement still seems to embrace this statist measure.


Conclusion: Libertarianism doesn't work. We Need Big Government.



Tom Woods (Mises) vs. The Civil Rights Act of 1964
YouTube - Civil Rights and Statism [Thomas E. Woods, Jr.] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH52tkt0C1A)


http://s3.mediamatters.org/static/images/tv_clips/people/thomas-sowell.jpg
Thomas Sowell

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0688062695.01._SX140_SY225_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/Civil-Rights-Rhetoric-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0688062695

FrankRep
05-23-2010, 10:06 AM
Good for him. He understands that it doesn't work.

Rand Paul: I'm not a Libertarian
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=246146

Live_Free_Or_Die
05-23-2010, 10:27 AM
I can see the statists want to start a war and try to defend 225 years of complete and utter constitutional failure.

Republic... didn't work for Rome... didn't work for America either....

RM918
05-23-2010, 10:39 AM
Failed before we even got to try it out, eh?

cheapseats
05-23-2010, 10:42 AM
-ISM is a body of Doctrine, of Belief. It is a THEORY.


The suffix -ism denotes a distinctive system of beliefs, myth, doctrine or theory that guides a social movement, institution, class or group. For example, baptize (literally derived from "to dip") becomes "baptism," a distinctive system of cleansing in water for the forgiveness of sins[1]. It is taken from the Greek suffix -ismos, Latin -ismus, and Old French -isme, that forms nouns from verbal stems. Greek baptismos "immersion", for example, is derived from baptizein, a Greek verb meaning "to immerse". Its usage has since been extended to signify the ideology or philosophy surrounding the element to which the suffix is added.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/-ism

There's a lotta prime real estate between Theory and Practical Application. Or a yawning abyss, take yer pick.

I have heard it suggested on the Recovery Circuit that -ISM connotes Incredibly Short Memory. America is a NATION OF ADDICTS, no doubt about it.

ninepointfive
05-23-2010, 10:46 AM
your mom doesn't work!

FrankRep
05-23-2010, 10:48 AM
Failed before we even got to try it out, eh?

Do you have the courage to reject The Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Otherwise, Yes, Libertarianism is a failure.

Live_Free_Or_Die
05-23-2010, 11:10 AM
Do you have the courage to reject The Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Otherwise, Yes, Libertarianism is a failure.

Is that a trick question? What principled libertarian does not reject the CRA?



Last week, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The heroic Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No. Here is his statement. ~ Ed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

CasualApathy
05-23-2010, 11:13 AM
*sigh*

RM918
05-23-2010, 11:14 AM
Do you have the courage to reject The Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Otherwise, Yes, Libertarianism is a failure.

Getting rid of institutional racism was necessary. I only disagree with a portion of the Act.

Sentient Void
05-23-2010, 11:33 AM
Ahhhahahah... if that's not a strawman - I don't know what is!

/facepalm

silverhandorder
05-23-2010, 11:37 AM
I love you OP this just won be three seperate arguments.

FrankRep
05-23-2010, 11:51 AM
Ahhhahahah... if that's not a strawman - I don't know what is!

/facepalm

How is it a strawman?
If America needs the 1964 Civil Rights Act, then Libertarianism is a failure.

torchbearer
05-23-2010, 11:54 AM
what years would this country been anything close to libertarian?
maybe the first 10 or so years under the AOC?
why do i smell fail in the same vein as Rand paul is a racist argument?

Fredom101
05-23-2010, 11:58 AM
Well I'm glad we got to enjoy all those years of free market libertarianism before it finally failed! :rolleyes:

Live_Free_Or_Die
05-23-2010, 12:09 PM
How is it a strawman?
If America needs the 1964 Civil Rights Act, then Libertarianism is a failure.

Who are you waiting for to deliver an emancipation proclamation before you actually believe you are free? If we convinced Obama to deliver one would you believe you are free or would we still need to go back and raise Jefferson from the dead?

t0rnado
05-23-2010, 12:15 PM
How is it a strawman?
If America needs the 1964 Civil Rights Act, then Libertarianism is a failure.

It's a strawman and a non sequitor.

The main objective of the "Civil Rights" Act was to prevent government segregation and thus the government failed. The bus that Rosa Parks was prevented from sitting in was a GOVERNMENT bus. The school district that segregated children in Brown v Board of Education of Topeka was a GOVERNMENT run school. Guess what the keyword in the phrase "Jim Crow Laws" is(It's 'law' if you can't guess). It was the Supreme Court that ruled in Plessy v Ferguson that segregation was constitutional. So no, libertarianism hasn't failed. You're government has.

FrankRep
05-23-2010, 12:18 PM
It's a strawman and a non sequitor. The bullshit you've posted in this thread would make a sane person contemplate whether or not you have some mental disability that prevents you from putting together logical thoughts.

Thomas Woods Jr, of the Mises Institute, actually made the argument!

Tom Woods (Mises) vs. The Civil Rights Act of 1964
YouTube - Civil Rights and Statism [Thomas E. Woods, Jr.] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH52tkt0C1A)

akforme
05-23-2010, 12:22 PM
I've been on every blog I can find posting defense of it. I've not only been discriminated against, (because I was a man and the last tech was hitting on all the women and they wanted to stop that, I was more liberal at the time and I thought they had the right. it was another liberal friend of mine who pointed out I had been discriminated against) but my best client is black and he's not my best for any other reason than he pays on time every time and never complains. I actually talked to him about this issue about a year ago and he agreed with me. He runs a storage place and he hates the rules he has to follow.

peacepotpaul
05-23-2010, 12:49 PM
Do you have the courage to reject The Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Otherwise, Yes, Libertarianism is a failure.

how is the CRA libertarian?

can you tell me what is a success?

peacepotpaul
05-23-2010, 12:53 PM
How is it a strawman?
If America needs the 1964 Civil Rights Act, then Libertarianism is a failure.

No, America doesn't need the Civil Rights Act, just like it doesn't need the 13th-16th Amendment.

And, it sounds like you're saying, libertarianism, small government, and free market "is a failure" because minorities don't get what they want, I disagree. I don't see inequality amongst people, based on race, wealth or health to be a failure.

I don't consider it a goal for society to "address" the "problems" of inequality.

So only if you agree that equality is good, and people need to be kept alive and healthy without working for it, can you say libertarianism is a failure. I don't believe libertarianism is a success either, as I don't believe it's a means to an end.

peacepotpaul
05-23-2010, 12:54 PM
Getting rid of institutional racism was necessary. I only disagree with a portion of the Act.

was racism once state forced and immediately anti-racism was forced?