To reach blacks, libertarians must begin to understand the African-American experience

[Vanguard101]

http://rare.us/story/to-reach-blacks-libertarians-must-begin-to-understand-the-african-american-experience/

Very good read. Was really long so I didn't copy and paste

[nayjevin]

Any non-black person who understands the African-American experience to some degree has a great chance of being a libertarian.

[nayjevin]

Libertarians tend to think of freedom as either a means to an end of maximum utility—e.g., free markets produce the most wealth—or, in a more philosophical sense, in opposition to arbitrary authority—e.g., “Who are you to tell me what to do?”

Errors in libertarian thinking include those two angles taken to extremes. I don't think it's fair to say that libertarians tend to think in these absolutes exclusively, it's a simplified view of complex thinking.

Utilitarianism is easily debunked, and has been by libertarian thinkers.

'Who are you to tell me what to do.' conjures immature rebellion, whereas opposition to arbitrary authority is not necessarily.

Also among those who too often allow utility and misplaced perception of authority to cloud thinking - authoritarians and mass murderers.

Who is the citizenry to tell me what to do? It's for the greater good.


Take, for example, the common libertarian/conservative trope: “We believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.” Most people, outside of the few and most ardent socialists, should believe that is a fair statement. But to say such a thing as a general defense of the status quo assumes that the current American system offers roughly equal opportunity just because Jim Crow is dead.Yet, that cannot possibly be true.

I agree with this assessment - it is no defense of the status quo. But we wouldn't hear a soundly reasoned argument from a seasoned Libertarian thinker that does so. We more often would hear such an intellectual abomination from the lapdog 'experts' of crony-capitalists. The ones who like to call themselves Libertarians, but in truth are more dog-eat dog survival of the fittest, anything for an edge, might makes right vultures.



Think of the phrase “Don’t go there, it’s a bad neighborhood.” Now, sometimes that neighborhood is just a little run down, doesn’t have the best houses, doesn’t have the best shopping nearby, or feeds a mediocre school. But, more often, that neighborhood is very poor, lacks decent public infrastructure, suffers from high unemployment, has the worst schools, and is prone to gang or other violence.

And, in many cities—in both North and South—that neighborhood is almost entirely populated by minorities.


There are only two conclusions possible when facing the very real prospect that thousands or millions of Americans live in areas you warn your friends not to go, even by accident: Either everyone in those areas is a criminal, or is content to live among and be victimized by criminals; or there is some number of people, and probably a large one, trapped in living conditions that cannot help but greatly inhibit their opportunities for success and advancement.

The key disagreement is whether 'trapped' is a fair word. The most extreme on both ends are wrong. At some point an individual must make choices to succeed, and many individuals have unfair obstacles to doing so. Libertarians would argue that where there is an unfair obstacle, there is a government mandate which caused it.

[James Madison]

I don't get it. This article is about the 'black experience', but the author is white.

[idiom]

I don't get it. This article is about the 'black experience', but the author is white.

Don't be racist dude.

White people can be black.

[idiom]

In other news Black Like Me just had a 50th anniversary print.

If you haven't, read it (http://www.amazon.com/Black-Like-Me-Definitive-Griffin-ebook/dp/B0042JSLXI/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=8-1&qid=1404436552).

[NewRightLibertarian]

I don't get it. This article is about the 'black experience', but the author is white.

Rare is a drivel mill trying to dumb down the liberty movement. Don't pay any attention to this garbage.

[osan]

http://rare.us/story/to-reach-blacks-libertarians-must-begin-to-understand-the-african-american-experience/

Very good read. Was really long so I didn't copy and paste

Not so great, actually. Author makes some good statements, but also some nonsense. To wit:


Jim Crow’s death is worth celebrating but hardly sufficient for establishing equal opportunity in any meaningful sense, especially when our society still effectively traps people in these conditions by both law and custom, based in no small part on their race. - See more at: http://rare.us/story/to-reach-blacks-libertarians-must-begin-to-understand-the-african-american-experience/#sthash.FKgO8GZg.dpuf

Load of malarky. I lived as a young adult through an era where blacks had their asses kissed every which way by "government" on my nickel. Not only did they have every opportunity to do for themselves, they had artificially enhanced opportunity showered upon them in ways most white folk would never see for themselves. That "black people" (whatever in hell that even means) are statistically still in the shit tube has NOTHING to do with "white privilege" or anything else other than the fact that they don't do anything for themselves and are most fond of tearing each other down. That they have been given so much, have accomplished so little, and still manage to blame whitey for it all is definitive evidence of the corruption from which they issue in terms of attitude, always blaming someone else for their utter failure to act. Success is not going to happen when one never gets his butt off the couch.

And the white drama queens who wring their hands in "compassion" for these poor and so obviously inferior people are the worst of it because they make it all about THEMSELVES... Oh, look how I suffer for the black man - the tacit message being that the negroes are too god damned stupid to do for themselves and so the noble cracker must intercede on behalf of the black man. Such people will never in a million lifetimes admit it, but that is what I have observed time and again in them.

The compassionate welfare state has done nothing but drive black folk ever deeper into the de-facto slavery of dependence. It's not a black v. white thing - it's an issue of pure power and Theye have done a fine job of stooging the average black man in America into buying a line of shit so rotten that one must give Themme props for pulling it off so marvelously.

No, there is nothing righteous in the white hand-wringing stories such as this one where an author attempts to appear so evolved and compassionate and wise and generous of spirit by regurgitating the same clapped-out old lies about white guilt, effectively copping to them personally without really copping to them, if you know what I mean. It's disgusting, it is lame, and it is a subtle form of evil that should be exposed for what it is and slammed mercilessly into the dust.

Feh.

[Ronin Truth]

I think I'm more for the blacks reaching for the libertarians by understanding our experience.

[cajuncocoa]

I think I'm more for the blacks reaching for the libertarians by understanding our experience.
^^^This.

[jmdrake]

I think I'm more for the blacks reaching for the libertarians by understanding our experience.

I haven't read the article yet, but I will briefly share something from my own black quasi libertarian experience. I was recently at a family reunion of sorts. One of my cousins, who knows I support Ron and Rand Paul and who was wearing a Che Guevera t-shirt, immediately shouted "Four more years" talking about Obama. Well we had what started to be good natured funning that eventually ended in a full blown argument. His brother put us both in check. But here's the kicker. Before the weekend was out he was really starting to see my point of view. One revelation was about taxes. At first he was all for the whole "I love Warren Buffet and rich people need to pay more taxes" school of thought. No counter argument I made got through. Then I started asking questions instead of giving arguments. He had been convinced that "rich people just pay 15% while everyone else pays 35%". Of course...that's not true. I asked him if he thought Lebron James was "rich". He said "No because pro athletes don't know how to manage their money." I said "Fair enough. Say if Lebron James was hired by Dubai to coach their Olympic basketball team for 500 million a year. Now that's rich to me. Would he be taxed at 15%?" Of course the answer to that was "no". So you know what he said? "I think that everyone should have to pay the same thing no matter how they receive their income. I would set taxes at 5%" Once I picked up my jaw off the floor I said "You know you just sounded like a Tea Partier right?" He said "Somebody stab me."

We ended up coming to agreement on most things. At first he said he couldn't stand Rand Paul and called him an "extremist". I asked him what he didn't like about Rand. He said "Well he doesn't support affirmative action." I said "That's the typical republican position. How can you all it extremist?" Then I asked him about particular positions I new Rand had taken. "What do you think about Rand's filibusterer over drones?" He supported that. "What do you think about Rand raising concerns about the NSA after the Snowden revelations?" He supported that. "What do you think about Rand being against the drug war?" He supported that and pointed out that hemp isn't even a drug but it's suppressed by the government. I pointed out that Rand was upset that Obama blocked hemp growth in Kentucky. I asked "What do you think of Rand's criticism of our intervention in Syria and Libya and our going back into Iraq?" More support for Rand's position. So....we were left with "I don't like his position on Affirmative Action".

My cousin believes AA should continue indefinitely. I don't. Long discussion on that with he and another friend of the family. I pointed out what Malcolm X said about how you can't expect someone who oppressed you to be the one who freed you. I pointed out that Booker T. Washington, during the height of the Jim Crowe laws, had more economic power than most "black leaders" today in that he supplied all of the bricks for all of Tuskegee county. (Today, sadly, the Federal Park service runs the gift shop at Tuskegee which is full of trinkets made in China. This is the same institution that has a museum of all of the wonderful stuff that George Washington Carver made from things grown or found right there at Tuskegee.) I pointed out that during the Montgomery bus boycott, black taxis companies flourished. My point? Blacks could free ourselves economically without dependence on the government. The family friend, who was old enough to remember the pre Civil Rights Era, stated that he didn't want to return to a place where blacks had to be "as good as the best and better than the rest" to make it. My reply? I want that for my kids now and would want that even if I was white. And I've seen black parents at the park for little league football practice pushing their boys hard to be the best in football. Why not do that for academics?

One thing my cousin said that hit home is that he supported AA because he wanted to be "protected". I said "protected from what?" He said "I don't like the idea of someone calling me the n-word." I was like "Okay. I'd rather be protected from the police kicking my door in on a no knock warrant based on false information that I'm running a drug house and then killing me because I thought it was a home invasion and was defending myself as what happened to a black man in Nashville a few years ago or a black grandmother in Atlanta. In the case of the grandmother the cops planted drugs to cover up what they did. I want protection from the police planting drugs on my car, in full view of their own dash cameras, at a simple traffic cop as happened in Tennessee a few years ago as well. I'm much more concerned about that than I am about some idiot using the n-word. Ron Paul in 2008 pointed out that blacks use drugs at the same rate as whites, but are far more likely to be arrested, convicted and imprisoned than whites. It's the drug war I want protection from." My cousin hadn't heard about that speech by Ron Paul and I pointed out that it was at the GOP debate hosted by Tavis Smiley in 2008. He said he'd look it up.

We ended the weekend with mutual respect and he said he was going to change my name to "John X". Anyway, here's the bottom line. If you want to reach anyone you have to understand him/her. You can't be upset that they just don't "get it". Many of us didn't "get it" either. Find common ground. Respect the fact that people's fears are real to them even if they are illogical to you.

[Ronin Truth]

Good story. Keep up the good work. A free society is created one by one. ;) :)

[jmdrake]

Not so great, actually. Author makes some good statements, but also some nonsense. To wit:


Load of malarky. I lived as a young adult through an era where blacks had their asses kissed every which way by "government" on my nickel. Not only did they have every opportunity to do for themselves, they had artificially enhanced opportunity showered upon them in ways most white folk would never see for themselves. That "black people" (whatever in hell that even means) are statistically still in the shit tube has NOTHING to do with "white privilege" or anything else other than the fact that they don't do anything for themselves and are most fond of tearing each other down. That they have been given so much, have accomplished so little, and still manage to blame whitey for it all is definitive evidence of the corruption from which they issue in terms of attitude, always blaming someone else for their utter failure to act. Success is not going to happen when one never gets his butt off the couch.


And about that time the government started flooding the African American community with drugs while at the same time ramping up the so called "war on drugs" which was really a war on the American people. Ron Paul understands the devastation this "one / two" punch has had on the black community. Black intellectual (and closet libertarian IMO) Tony Brown put it this way. "Blacks are the canary in the coal mine. What the government has done to blacks will eventually be done to whites." And....he's right. Yes there is someone to "blame". The problem is the blame has been misdirected. One form of state sponsored systematic oppression was replaced with a "kindler gentler" version, but black "leaders" focused on the battle they already "won". Donald Sterling is the boogeyman, meanwhile the Obama administration can bring in a C130 load of cocaine legally and nobody bats an eyelash (http://www.infowars.com/us-air-force-transports-24-tons-of-cocaine-to-miami/).

If you want to "win friends and influence people" find something that you and they can agree on. (Like the fact that the government brings in the drugs then prosecutes people for buying/selling them is unthinkable.)

[Peace&Freedom]

And about that time the government started flooding the African American community with drugs while at the same time ramping up the so called "war on drugs" which was really a war on the American people. Ron Paul understands the devastation this "one / two" punch has had on the black community. Black intellectual (and closet libertarian IMO) Tony Brown put it this way. "Blacks are the canary in the coal mine. What the government has done to blacks will eventually be done to whites." And....he's right. Yes there is someone to "blame". The problem is the blame has been misdirected. One form of state sponsored systematic oppression was replaced with a "kindler gentler" version, but black "leaders" focused on the battle they already "won". Donald Sterling is the boogeyman, meanwhile the Obama administration can bring in a C130 load of cocaine legally and nobody bats an eyelash (http://www.infowars.com/us-air-force-transports-24-tons-of-cocaine-to-miami/).

If you want to "win friends and influence people" find something that you and they can agree on. (Like the fact that the government brings in the drugs then prosecutes people for buying/selling them is unthinkable.)

Add to the blacks as the canary in the coal mine process, the rise of the prison industrial complex (first pile them up with blacks, then expand the 'prison planet' procedures to everybody else), the rise in mass illegitimacy (first encouraged among black girls in the '60's-'70's, then white teens thereafter) to weaken the family, the surveillance/SWAT team state (at first justified to crackdown on drugs in black areas, then expanded to terrorism), etc.

It appears that blacks have been the primary laboratory for building the Total State in the US, decade by decade. Wilbert Tatum of Harlem's Amsterdam News summed it up by saying (something like), the problem with most white Americans, who believe they're better off than (n-words), is that they don't know that the elite regards them as the white (n-words).

[acptulsa]

Load of malarky.

True. Thanks for the warning. Hate to go all grammar nazi on you, but that sentence should have had a colon ( : ) at the end of it. Every statement you began with...


...they don't do... . That they have been given so much, have accomplished so little, and still manage to blame whitey for it all is ... ... always blaming someone else for their utter failure...

...is dead wrong, and I believe Mr. Drake just proved it.

We aren't here to collectivize people and I don't like to see anyone do it here. If we as libertarians don't protect the individual's right to excel or give credit where due to individuals for excelling we are the worthless dogs many perceive us as being. Some may fit your narrative, perhaps even many do, and the things you say about the game that the power brokers play and that we are all pawns in may be true. But your points are lost when you begin your libertarian argument with a lot of collectivist lies.

If we're to win the votes of the people we can help out of the trap that the status quo has set for them, first we have to make them see how. And the only way to do that is to never forget for a moment that every member of every demographic is an individual. To see how misplaced concern creates and baits the traps that keep people down is to approach individuals as individuals and treat them that way. Once we fail to do that we cease to be what we say we are and we cease to be able to implement the real solutions that we have to offer. Every time we say, '...they do...' or '...they don't...' instead of '...many of them...' or '...those among them caught up in...' we throw our own principles right out the window and lose the audience of those people instantly before we even begin making it. They're right there on the ground, they know Mr. Drake (or someone like him), they know white people who do fit your description, and they will stop listening to you before you begin because who listens to someone who's full of shit?

With friends who do this Rand Paul needs no enemies.

[nayjevin]

That "black people" (whatever in hell that even means) are statistically still in the shit tube has NOTHING to do with "white privilege" or anything else other than the fact that they don't do anything for themselves and are most fond of tearing each other down.

Are you serious? All blacks don't do anything for themselves and are most fond of tearing each other down? You think that's the only reason for the statistically significant systemic economic and academic depression among American blacks? I'm ashamed to see such overt racism on this forum, which I regard as a group of particularly open minded friends of justice.

Take any individual black person in hard times and you don't know why. But we know that people with attitudes like yours are more likely to be in a position to hire than an equally stupid black man.


That they have been given so much, have accomplished so little, and still manage to blame whitey for it all is definitive evidence of the corruption from which they issue in terms of attitude, always blaming someone else for their utter failure to act. Success is not going to happen when one never gets his butt off the couch.

Disgusting. This attitude has nothing to do with color of skin. Every crackhead in America is blaming everyone but themselves. Government actively encouraged crack use in black communities. Government is almost all white. Blame whitey indeed!


And the white drama queens who wring their hands in "compassion" for these poor and so obviously inferior people are the worst of it because they make it all about THEMSELVES... Oh, look how I suffer for the black man - the tacit message being that the negroes are too god damned stupid to do for themselves and so the noble cracker must intercede on behalf of the black man. Such people will never in a million lifetimes admit it, but that is what I have observed time and again in them.

Wherever there is injustice any person should step in, without considering the color of their skin first. Anyone promoting bad policies should be criticized, no matter the color of their skin.


these poor and so obviously inferior people

That's all you needed to say.

[Working Poor]

If you want to "win friends and influence people" find something that you and they can agree on. (Like the fact that the government brings in the drugs then prosecutes people for buying/selling them is unthinkable.)

Thank you that is the best advice I have seen all day!

[Vanguard101]

Not so great, actually. Author makes some good statements, but also some nonsense. To wit:



Load of malarky. I lived as a young adult through an era where blacks had their asses kissed every which way by "government" on my nickel. Not only did they have every opportunity to do for themselves, they had artificially enhanced opportunity showered upon them in ways most white folk would never see for themselves. That "black people" (whatever in hell that even means) are statistically still in the shit tube has NOTHING to do with "white privilege" or anything else other than the fact that they don't do anything for themselves and are most fond of tearing each other down. That they have been given so much, have accomplished so little, and still manage to blame whitey for it all is definitive evidence of the corruption from which they issue in terms of attitude, always blaming someone else for their utter failure to act. Success is not going to happen when one never gets his butt off the couch.

And the white drama queens who wring their hands in "compassion" for these poor and so obviously inferior people are the worst of it because they make it all about THEMSELVES... Oh, look how I suffer for the black man - the tacit message being that the negroes are too god damned stupid to do for themselves and so the noble cracker must intercede on behalf of the black man. Such people will never in a million lifetimes admit it, but that is what I have observed time and again in them.

The compassionate welfare state has done nothing but drive black folk ever deeper into the de-facto slavery of dependence. It's not a black v. white thing - it's an issue of pure power and Theye have done a fine job of stooging the average black man in America into buying a line of shit so rotten that one must give Themme props for pulling it off so marvelously.

No, there is nothing righteous in the white hand-wringing stories such as this one where an author attempts to appear so evolved and compassionate and wise and generous of spirit by regurgitating the same clapped-out old lies about white guilt, effectively copping to them personally without really copping to them, if you know what I mean. It's disgusting, it is lame, and it is a subtle form of evil that should be exposed for what it is and slammed mercilessly into the dust.

Feh.

You don't get it at all.

[acptulsa]

You don't get it at all.

That's a charitable assumption. After all, he could be helping the powers that be divide the American populace for easier conquering on purpose

[osan]

And about that time the government started flooding the African American community with drugs while at the same time ramping up the so called "war on drugs" which was really a war on the American people.

Agreed. Race had nothing to do with it, per se. Power, OTOH, did.


Ron Paul understands the devastation this "one / two" punch has had on the black community

Yes, it was devastating, but it was those folks who devastated themselves. Nobody marched an armed force into the 'hood and made people smoke crack at the end of a barrel. The precise same can be said for any other "community", including the white.


Black intellectual (and closet libertarian IMO) Tony Brown put it this way. "Blacks are the canary in the coal mine. What the government has done to blacks will eventually be done to whites."

Not the best analogy. "Guinea pig" might be more apropos. That trifle aside, Theye got away with it because black folks let them. Theye are getting away with that which they do today because we are ALL letting them get away with it. We are ALL to blame - Themme for being the covetous, treacherous little hacks that they are, and the rest of us for not lynching every last stinking one of them. Shame on us all.


And....he's right. Yes there is someone to "blame". The problem is the blame has been misdirected.

Example? Just wondering where you'd go with this.


One form of state sponsored systematic oppression was replaced with a "kindler gentler" version, but black "leaders" focused on the battle they already "won". Donald Sterling is the boogeyman, meanwhile the Obama administration can bring in a C130 load of cocaine legally and nobody bats an eyelash (http://www.infowars.com/us-air-force-transports-24-tons-of-cocaine-to-miami/).


The latter by far the more dangerous. In the days of open chattel slavery everyone knew the score. Now, almost nobody does anymore.


If you want to "win friends and influence people" find something that you and they can agree on. (Like the fact that the government brings in the drugs then prosecutes people for buying/selling them is unthinkable.)

Something meaningful. In principle I agree completely, but in practice the $64 is "How?" I never cease to be amazed at both blacks and jews who hold to the progressive-democrat line. It is mind boggling. If I were the descendant of the American slave era, the last thing I'd be advocating, for example, would be gun control and a large state government. Just how endlessly stupid can you get? It was GOVERNMENT who actively supported and often drew the framework for chattel slave trading. It was GOVERNMENT who instituted Jim Crow. It was GOVERNMENT who failed to protect those poor bastards from the lynch mobs. Virtually every outrage perpetrated upon inherently free men came to pass at the hands of government, directly or otherwise, yet the current crop of black imbeciles look to government to save them from the jazzy-ole white man. For pity's sake, someone is sawing your damned arm off with a herring and making a pretty good show of it. Might you not want to stop praying to them and smack them into the next three counties, perhaps?

After what jews went through in Europe under Hitler, one would think every jew on the planet would be 10 million percent behind the right to keep and bear arms. The vast majority are terrified of guns and want them taken from everyone. I grew up marinaded in jews and other than a tiny handful of sensible and non-fearful examples, not a one of them was anything other than completely opposed to "ordinary" people having access to guns. Just "military and police".

Seriously, it is as if there is some massive and intense Stockholm deal going on with those two groups in relation to government. It makes no sense to me at all. The thing that threatens them most is the thing to which they fall upon their knees, mouths wide open and ready. It's sick.

[osan]

You don't get it at all.

Please illuminate. What am I missing?

[tod evans]

Please illuminate. What am I missing?

Obsequiousness....;)

[acptulsa]

Please illuminate. What am I missing?

Except where you're talking about demographics that you actually know, and don't turn away from out of hand due to your obvious biases, you're blatantly missing a whole lot of...


...and other than a tiny handful of sensible and non-fearful examples...

I'll say it again.

This movement is about individuals. Demographics are a divide and conquer tactic. This movement is about individuals.


'There is one rule that works in every calamity be it pestilence, war or famine, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The poor even help arrange it.'--Will Rogers

Why do the poor help arrange it? Two reasons--either they're fooled into thinking they're getting it over on someone else (almost always a different demographic) or they're afraid of someone who looks at them as a demographic, not a person, and they think they're protecting themselves.

If you can't see that every demographic has a 'tiny handful of sensible and non-fearful examples' you're contributing to the problem and moving us away from the solution. And defying the movement's most core principle--that individuals have God-given rights, including the right to excel in the pursuit of happiness--in the process.

You say...


...these poor and so obviously inferior people ...

...without a hint that you have your tongue in your cheek but Mr. Drake makes better points than you and more cogently, and you are willing to give a few Jews credit where credit is due but won't do it for him. Fail.

You make a valid point or two but as long as you bury it in your demographic, collectivist bullshit it will never be seen and appreciated. Are you trying to accomplish what you're accomplishing--in other words, are you a plant trying to undermine us by bathing our principles in muck and mire--or are you just a self-defeating fool? Either way, gee, thanks. :rolleyes:

[osan]

Are you serious? All blacks don't do anything for themselves and are most fond of tearing each other down? You think that's the only reason for the statistically significant systemic economic and academic depression among American blacks? I'm ashamed to see such overt racism on this forum, which I regard as a group of particularly open minded friends of justice.

Oh for pity's sake - racism? Really? I am surprised at you. I believe I mentioned that race has nothing to do with this. I also made it very clear I was speaking statistically and observation of large populations will bear out what I have asserted. What do you think is the basis and effect of blacks calling each other "nygger"? It is a term of contempt. I grew up in the middle of all this and saw countless thousands of examples of the brand of self-hatred that fueled such behavior.

Shoot, I will never forget my first year teaching when two black girls got into words with each other. Finally the lighter skinned one shut the other one dead up when she said she was better looking than the other's "black burned up ass". That is pure and utter contempt for "blackness", expressed by one black person against another. You cannot really slice that pie any differently. It's not racism that drives me to write this - it is first hand experience in things I've observed more times that you could shake your stick at. It is fact and I could prove it to you any hour of any day of the week by taking you to a 'hood and just standing around and observing how folks interact.

If you want to cry "racism", then point your words to the black folk who show nothing but the most bitter contempt for themselves on that basis. Action speaks more powerfully than words alone.


Take any individual black person in hard times and you don't know why. But we know that people with attitudes like yours are more likely to be in a position to hire than an equally stupid black man.

So you feel the need to make things personal without having uncovered truth? OK - so noted.


This attitude has nothing to do with color of skin.

Show me where I wrote that it did. Please - quote the text, and good luck with it because I never wrote nor implied any such a thing. I was making a statistical observation about black people in America because that is the subject at hand. Had you made the effort to query me prior to attempting to drill me a new asshole, you might have asked something like, "are you saying that black people are unique in this and that the quality is the result of race?", to which I would have answered in the negative. But the truth is that a great multiplicity of black people want to have nothing to do with responsibility for themselves and want much to be handed them on a silver platter. That is reality and I have not written that ONLY blacks do this, do you can un-knot your shorts. The point I was clearly making and which you clearly missed was that black people are responsible for the ways in which they run their lives. To say otherwise is once again implying in a most direct fashion that they are incapable of doing so, and I would call THAT the racist position. My position is precisely the non-racially based stance because I am saying they CHOOSE their behaviors. This should be pretty easy to deduce from what I wrote without a whole lot of reading between the lines.


Every crackhead in America is blaming everyone but themselves.

Agreed, but we were not talking about EVERY crackhead. We were discussing BLACK crackheads in specific and my point is that they chose and are, therefore, their own victims. That does not mean there was no conspiracy against them, but that they could have chosen otherwise. To deny this is not even remotely credible unless, once again, you concede that black people are simply not up to responsible adult living. I know this is not the case and therefore my position is proven by contradiction.


Government actively encouraged crack use in black communities. Government is almost all white. Blame whitey indeed!


Oy... One more time: this is about power and not race. The perception of race was nothing more than an incidental factor upon which those running the circus could seize and make their hay, which was done well.


Wherever there is injustice any person should step in, without considering the color of their skin first. Anyone promoting bad policies should be criticized, no matter the color of their skin.

Did I indicate otherwise?


That's all you needed to say.

I take it your sarcasm detector is on the fritz. Might want to take it to the shop for repairs

[osan]

Obsequiousness....;)

Never was very good at that.


Except where you're talking about demographics that you actually know, and don't turn away from out of hand due to your obvious biases, you're blatantly missing a whole lot of...

Yes? I'm listening.

What obvious biases are those to which you refer? You write in half-thoughts... are you teasing me? Seriously, if you have something definite to say, then say it. Let us now waste time miscommunicating.




I'll say it again.

This movement is about individuals. Demographics are a divide and conquer tactic. This movement is about individuals.


Agreed, but that does not invalidate STATISTICAL observations made on large populations and that was what I was explicitly doing. Hell, I even bolded the text to make sure that part was not missed.

Demographics, in case you've not been paying attention, work. They are effective, which you concede obliquely via complaint. They may be used to "divide and conquer", but the observations and conclusions that underpin them are valid... which is WHY they work. They don't have to be perfect, they only have to be good enough, and they are most certainly that.


If you can't see that every demographic has a 'tiny handful of sensible and non-fearful examples' you're contributing to the problem and moving us away from the solution.

Yeah, I understand statistics pretty well.


And defying the movement's most core principle--that individuals have God-given rights, including the right to excel in the pursuit of happiness--in the process.

??? You're accusing me of this - or are you speaking in the general?

[acptulsa]

I take it your sarcasm detector is on the fritz. Might want to take it to the shop for repairs

When you think seventeen people had their sarcasm detectors go out at once, you're wrong. Either 'What we have here is a failure to communicate' or somewhere deep inside you don't really think it's sarcasm--and it shows to others even where your self-imposed blinders keep you from seeing it.

Don't honestly know which in your case. But we here tend to call them like we read them.



Seriously, if you have something definite to say, then say it. Let us now waste time miscommunicating.

Read it without the blinders and it will be clear enough. And your only possible defense is you have already been 'miscommunicating'.


??? You're accusing me of this - or are you speaking in the general?

I am speaking with considerable specificity.

[nayjevin]

Yes, it was devastating, but it was those folks who devastated themselves. Nobody marched an armed force into the 'hood and made people smoke crack at the end of a barrel. The precise same can be said for any other "community", including the white.

Crack uses force - addiction. Crack uses fraud - illusion of a better existence.

[osan]

E
...without a hint that you have your tongue in your cheek

Oh jesus... I've been posting here for what, five years, and you're going to tell me you cannot tell my sarcasm by now? It seems you read what I wrote assuming facts not in evidence and made your judgments based on that alone. You might want to try differently next time, but that is up to you.


but Mr. Drake makes better points than you and more cogently,

Well, I'm not going to get into a pissing match that seems to exist nowhere but inside your own skull.


and you are willing to give a few Jews credit where credit is due but won't do it for him. Fail.

Your assumption seems to be that because I did not run down the entire litany of equivalence classes that I have denied credit. I would call THAT fail. Once again, instead of asking what I meant by X, you assumed the "worst" and proceeded based on that.


You make a valid point or two but as long as you bury it in your demographic, collectivist bullshit it will never be seen and appreciated.

Sorry, but this is pure nonsense. Accurate statistical statements made based upon valid observations hold strongly for the valid populations. They often fail when applied to individuals - yeah we all know that. I've buried nothing. You simply failed to correctly read what I wrote.


Are you trying to accomplish what you're accomplishing--in other words, are you a plant trying to undermine us by bathing our principles in muck and mire--or are you just a self-defeating fool? Either way, gee, thanks. :rolleyes:

A plant? Go see a shrink pal because you're going paranoid beyond good reason. When you learn to read properly, I suggest you go back and do a line by line semantic analysis of what I wrote. You will find that nothing I wrote was false and that it holds true in the context in which I made them, which was about populations and NOT individuals. Learn something about statistics and you will see that the statements I made were valid and in fact true. The truth I expressed is uncomfy for some but IMO it needs to be made open and clear for people to see. Getting down to actualities and specifics to the topic at hand, do you think the "average" black fellow is going to benefit by not speaking truthfully? It seems to me that the contemporary trend to blow sunshine up everyone's ass has not helped anyone, black or otherwise, a whole lot. Telling people they are OK or even wonderful when they are fucking up royally is not a kindness. It is a betrayal.

[acptulsa]

You simply failed to correctly read what I wrote.

Yes, yes. You couldn't have failed to write what you meant. Obviously everyone else simply didn't read it right.

[osan]

Crack uses force - addiction. Crack uses fraud - illusion of a better existence.

Oh come on d00d... that isn't the point and I have to believe that you know it.

I was addressing taking the bait in the first place. If we grant that the first wave of addicts could be excused for naiveté, what about the second? The third? The tenth? IS it your assertion that after 30 years of watching people's lives turn to shit that one can claim they didn't know what the result of that first hit might be? And just to be clear so you don't have a cow and go running out your front door screaming "osan's a racist" to the universe, I am speaking of ANYONE who chooses to take that first hit TODAY, all them evil white people included. Do I have to use a smiley, or can you tell I'm at least attempting to diffuse with mildly sarcastic humor?

Oh, and I don't think crack uses anything... I may be wrong, but is it not inanimate? :)

[osan]

Yes, yes. You couldn't have failed to write what you meant. Obviously everyone else simply didn't read it right.

OK, I will ask you a SECOND TIME to point out where my communication failed. If you can, I will readily concede. I've done it before and have no problem doing it again.

Ball is in your court.

ETA: I notice that you did not respond to any of my points in response to your previous statements. May I take it you concede?

[acptulsa]

OK, I will ask you a SECOND TIME to point out where my communication failed. If you can, I will readily concede. I've done it before and have no problem doing it again.

Ball is in your court.

As many times as I and others have quoted you, and as many times as you have defended yourself already, all that's left to do is to forcibly pry your blinders from your head. And I have better things to do on the Fourth of July than violate the NAP.

Been there, done that, don't feel repetitious. I'm here to save our reputations from you, not to save your soul from you. So, I'm done.

[nayjevin]

Oh for pity's sake - racism? Really? I am surprised at you. I believe I mentioned that race has nothing to do with this.

You said something racist, then said racism has nothing to do with it. So?


That "black people" (whatever in hell that even means) are statistically still in the shit tube has NOTHING to do with "white privilege" or anything else other than the fact that they don't do anything for themselves and are most fond of tearing each other down.

You said this. And you think it's wrong for people to assume you're racist. Therefore 'you don't get it at all.'


I also made it very clear I was speaking statistically and observation of large populations will bear out what I have asserted. What do you think is the basis and effect of blacks calling each other "nygger"? It is a term of contempt. I grew up in the middle of all this and saw countless thousands of examples of the brand of self-hatred that fueled such behavior.

You are attempting to put a single reason for using that word onto every time it has ever been used. Broad brush.


Shoot, I will never forget my first year teaching when two black girls got into words with each other. Finally the lighter skinned one shut the other one dead up when she said she was better looking than the other's "black burned up ass". That is pure and utter contempt for "blackness", expressed by one black person against another.

So? Are white people cannibals because of what Jeffrey Dahmer did?


You cannot really slice that pie any differently.

Why not?


It's not racism that drives me to write this - it is first hand experience in things I've observed more times that you could shake your stick at. It is fact and I could prove it to you any hour of any day of the week by taking you to a 'hood and just standing around and observing how folks interact.

There's nothing to prove. There is no truth that you have stated which I don't also know to be true. But there are claims you have made which aren't.


If you want to cry "racism", then point your words to the black folk who show nothing but the most bitter contempt for themselves on that basis. Action speaks more powerfully than words alone.

When someone points out overt racism, you call it crying. You 'don't get it at all.'

If you tell a child they are worthless because of their enlarged kneecap, they will hate their enlarged kneecap. You are finding examples of the child who hates their kneecap and saying that they are the problem.


So you feel the need to make things personal without having uncovered truth? OK - so noted.

Racism is stupid - truth.


Show me where I wrote that it did. Please - quote the text, and good luck with it because I never wrote nor implied any such a thing. I was making a statistical observation about black people in America because that is the subject at hand.


That "black people" (whatever in hell that even means) are statistically still in the shit tube has NOTHING to do with "white privilege" or anything else other than the fact that they don't do anything for themselves and are most fond of tearing each other down.

You said this. And you think it's wrong for people to assume you're racist. Therefore 'you don't get it at all.'


Had you made the effort to query me prior to attempting to drill me a new asshole, you might have asked something like, "are you saying that black people are unique in this and that the quality is the result of race?", to which I would have answered in the negative.

It's not up to me to get you to clarify your obviously racist statements.


But the truth is that a great multiplicity of black people want to have nothing to do with responsibility for themselves and want much to be handed them on a silver platter. That is reality and I have not written that ONLY blacks do this, do you can un-knot your shorts.

To believe there is no greater statistically significant portion of blacks who believe this way than that of the general public, yet word things as you did, is statistically significant intellect deprivation.


The point I was clearly making and which you clearly missed was that black people are responsible for the ways in which they run their lives.

People are responsible for the ways in which they run their lives. Black people are people.


To say otherwise is once again implying in a most direct fashion that they are incapable of doing so, and I would call THAT the racist position.

Who said otherwise? You're confusing to the detriment of all involved. The argument is that outside factors affect opportunity. You act as though it's impossible for there to be racial outcomes to policy. But it's obvious that there are racial outcomes to a great number of policies - not to mention the fact that people like you are all over the place - making arrests, judgments, and hiring decisions.

Black people are incarcerated at a higher rate than white people - even where each group has an equal probability of committing that crime. You want to blame their kids for not knowing how to be fathers and mothers for the next generation.


My position is precisely the non-racially based stance because I am saying they CHOOSE their behaviors. This should be pretty easy to deduce from what I wrote without a whole lot of reading between the lines.

You are making a point to single out blackness where it is not relevant. i.e. racism


Agreed, but we were not talking about EVERY crackhead. We were discussing BLACK crackheads in specific and my point is that they chose and are, therefore, their own victims.

Crack uses force - addiction. Crack uses fraud - the illusion of a better existence. Crack society uses fraud - peer pressure. Social condition creates disadvantage - living without parents or parents who use crack would cause a child to see it differently. But it's not their fault - though they have a chance to make the right choice, it is not an equal chance to one who has not grown up that way. And we have income and economic disparity in part because of policies entirely out of the control of people affected by them.

[jmdrake]

Agreed. Race had nothing to do with it, per se. Power, OTOH, did.

Glad you can see that.



Yes, it was devastating, but it was those folks who devastated themselves. Nobody marched an armed force into the 'hood and made people smoke crack at the end of a barrel. The precise same can be said for any other "community", including the white.


Remember I called it a "one/two" punch. When I drive by a drug stake out and get pulled over for no reason other than the fact that I stared at the cops too long (yes that did happen to me and I was on my way to a law school final), that is an armed person marching into my community with force against me even though I haven't done anything wrong.



Not the best analogy. "Guinea pig" might be more apropos. That trifle aside, Theye got away with it because black folks let them. Theye are getting away with that which they do today because we are ALL letting them get away with it. We are ALL to blame - Themme for being the covetous, treacherous little hacks that they are, and the rest of us for not lynching every last stinking one of them. Shame on us all.


No argument there.



Example? Just wondering where you'd go with this.


The people who profit off of prisons and lobby for new laws for the purpose of increasing their profits? The people who profit off of wars? Corrupt public officials in both parties?



The latter by far the more dangerous. In the days of open chattel slavery everyone knew the score. Now, almost nobody does anymore.


Right. That's why education is paramount. Someone recently posted an article here at RPF about how there are more slave today via prison labor than there was in 1850 under chattel slavery. I've posted that on FB and Twitter and have already received a positive response from people in my community. That goes a lot further in reaching the goal of promoting libertarianism among blacks them simply saying "Black folks need to do better."



Something meaningful. In principle I agree completely, but in practice the $64 is "How?" I never cease to be amazed at both blacks and jews who hold to the progressive-democrat line. It is mind boggling. If I were the descendant of the American slave era, the last thing I'd be advocating, for example, would be gun control and a large state government. Just how endlessly stupid can you get? It was GOVERNMENT who actively supported and often drew the framework for chattel slave trading. It was GOVERNMENT who instituted Jim Crow. It was GOVERNMENT who failed to protect those poor bastards from the lynch mobs. Virtually every outrage perpetrated upon inherently free men came to pass at the hands of government, directly or otherwise, yet the current crop of black imbeciles look to government to save them from the jazzy-ole white man. For pity's sake, someone is sawing your damned arm off with a herring and making a pretty good show of it. Might you not want to stop praying to them and smack them into the next three counties, perhaps?


Okay. I put one part of what you wrote in bold. I will repeat it here. It was GOVERNMENT who failed to protect those poor bastards from the lynch mobs.

I hope you can see the irony. On the one hand you are pointing out the failures of government. On the other hand you attacked the government for not acting. I understand your position. But can't you see that someone might look at the lynch mob part of the argument and say "Yeah! We need a strong federal government because the state government implemented Jim Crowe and failed to protect blacks from lynch mobs?" Sometimes people get mad at me for pointing out how part of what they are saying helps the argument I'm making against them. But that's just how I think. And if you can stop to look at the points you are making from the point of view of the person arguing against you, you might see that their position, while possibly misguided, is not "stupid". Lynch mobs by in large no longer happen in the U.S. (Except with the police are beating homeless people to death.) You're wanting to convince people to give up the main tool that they have had against they tyranny of the majority, namely a "strong Federal government", without fully addressing their fears. It's not going to work that way. Point out how that "strong Federal government" is actually directly harming them. The drug war is one way to do that. There are others.



After what jews went through in Europe under Hitler, one would think every jew on the planet would be 10 million percent behind the right to keep and bear arms. The vast majority are terrified of guns and want them taken from everyone. I grew up marinaded in jews and other than a tiny handful of sensible and non-fearful examples, not a one of them was anything other than completely opposed to "ordinary" people having access to guns. Just "military and police".


Have you read the full history of Hitler's rise to power? Long before the Nazi's became the government, they were paramilitary thugs who engaged in pitched gun battles with Communist paramilitary thugs. Basically it was a fight between ideological versions of the Bloods and the Crypts. Against that backdrop I could see why a Jew would be for gun control to prevent such crazies from becoming a powerful force in the first place. Some Jews are against full first amendment rights when it comes to free speech for the same reason. They don't want another charismatic "Hitler" like character arising. I remember once I was at a meeting about what to do regarding brutality in private prisons. One Jewish doctor added "We must do something about dangerous speech" to the discussion even though it had nothing to do with what we were talking about. I responded with "What about the first amendment" and she got quiet. That said I know not all Jews feel that way. In fact some support gun rights. (Jews for the preservation of firearms.) I'm just stating that once you understand what people fear and why, you have a better way to understand and ultimately influence them.



Seriously, it is as if there is some massive and intense Stockholm deal going on with those two groups in relation to government. It makes no sense to me at all. The thing that threatens them most is the thing to which they fall upon their knees, mouths wide open and ready. It's sick.

The most accurate thing you have said is "It makes no sense to me at all." If you want to have influence with either group (or with Christian conservatives....or with feminists or with fill-in-the-blank) you'll have to take your time to understand what others are truly feeling.

[osan]

You said something racist

OK, you see it as you do no matter how I attempt to explain it, so how about we just leave this dog sleeping? If I meant it as a racist slur, I would claim it. I have tried to make it clear and you don't seem to want to accept my explicitly state position as being mine, but that your misinterpretation is. That's OK by me. I have nothing to prove here.


To believe there is no greater statistically significant portion of blacks who believe this way than that of the general public, yet word things as you did, is statistically significant intellect deprivation.

One again making things personal. Noted again.

Have a happy 4th.

[MelissaWV]

If you want to cry "racism", then point your words to the black folk....

http://loldailyfun.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Pink-Floyd-Facepalm.jpg

[osan]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by osan http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=5581442#post5581442)
Agreed. Race had nothing to do with it, per se. Power, OTOH, did.



Glad you can see that.


Yes, it was devastating, but it was those folks who devastated themselves. Nobody marched an armed force into the 'hood and made people smoke crack at the end of a barrel. The precise same can be said for any other "community", including the white.


Remember I called it a "one/two" punch. When I drive by a drug stake out and get pulled over for no reason other than the fact that I stared at the cops too long (yes that did happen to me and I was on my way to a law school final), that is an armed person marching into my community with force against me even though I haven't done anything wrong.

Two things. First, sorry you had to experience shit like that. Second, you are confusing apples with oranges. I will not disagree with what you wrote, but I'm not sure how it applies to what I wrote. Specifically, I meant that nobody to my knowledge was making people take that first hit at the end of a gun. People CHOSE to take it, or am I wrong?



Not the best analogy. "Guinea pig" might be more apropos. That trifle aside, Theye got away with it because black folks let them. Theye are getting away with that which they do today because we are ALL letting them get away with it. We are ALL to blame - Themme for being the covetous, treacherous little hacks that they are, and the rest of us for not lynching every last stinking one of them. Shame on us all.


No argument there.

Well I'm glad at least you see my point. Someone here seems hell bent to paint me as a card-carrying Klansman. Their problem, but still I'd rather be properly understood.



Example? Just wondering where you'd go with this.


The people who profit off of prisons and lobby for new laws for the purpose of increasing their profits? The people who profit off of wars? Corrupt public officials in both parties?


OK, I see what you're driving at. These things are monumental evils living among us.



The latter by far the more dangerous. In the days of open chattel slavery everyone knew the score. Now, almost nobody does anymore.


Right. That's why education is paramount. Someone recently posted an article here at RPF about how there are more slave today via prison labor than there was in 1850 under chattel slavery. I've posted that on FB and Twitter and have already received a positive response from people in my community. That goes a lot further in reaching the goal of promoting libertarianism among blacks them simply saying "Black folks need to do better."


OTOH, look at the reception guys like Bill Cosby get from "his own" (sorry - I know the expression is shit, but I'm trying to be conversational). He points out some rather unattractive STATISTICAL truths about the "community" and that same community wants him hanging from his dangly bits.



Something meaningful. In principle I agree completely, but in practice the $64 is "How?" I never cease to be amazed at both blacks and jews who hold to the progressive-democrat line. It is mind boggling. If I were the descendant of the American slave era, the last thing I'd be advocating, for example, would be gun control and a large state government. Just how endlessly stupid can you get? It was GOVERNMENT who actively supported and often drew the framework for chattel slave trading. It was GOVERNMENT who instituted Jim Crow. It was GOVERNMENT who failed to protect those poor bastards from the lynch mobs. Virtually every outrage perpetrated upon inherently free men came to pass at the hands of government, directly or otherwise, yet the current crop of black imbeciles look to government to save them from the jazzy-ole white man. For pity's sake, someone is sawing your damned arm off with a herring and making a pretty good show of it. Might you not want to stop praying to them and smack them into the next three counties, perhaps?


Okay. I put one part of what you wrote in bold. I will repeat it here. It was GOVERNMENT who failed to protect those poor bastards from the lynch mobs.

I hope you can see the irony.

The irony was the whole point of the statement.


On the one hand you are pointing out the failures of government. On the other hand you attacked the government fornot acting. I understand your position. But can't you see that someone might look at the lynch mob part of the argument and say "Yeah! We need a strong federal government because the state government implemented Jim Crowe and failed to protect blacks from lynch mobs?"

I'd not considered that bit explicitly, but yes of course. It is pretty obvious... and ironic after a fashion. But is this not pretty much the standard operating procedure in terms of reasoning for ever more authority? Nonetheless the tactic is logically bankrupt... not that that makes any difference in the real world where the average man cannot or will not dope such things out properly.


Sometimes people get mad at me for pointing out how part of what they are saying helps the argument I'm making against them. But that's just how I think. And if you can stop to look at the points you are making from the point of view of the person arguing against you, you might see that their position, while possibly misguided, is not "stupid". Lynch mobs by in large no longer happen in the U.S. (Except with the police are beating homeless people to death.) You're wanting to convince people to give up the main tool that they have had against they tyranny of the majority, namely a "strong Federal government", without fully addressing their fears.

Don't assume too much here about my intentions. Space and time are limited and if someone wishes to raise the point as have you, I am happy to address it, but otherwise I could spend my life here writing volume after tedious volume in the effort to be complete where it is not quite necessary.



It's not going to work that way. Point out how that "strong Federal government" is actually directly harming them. The drug war is one way to do that. There are others.

I've done this endlessly and while many people are open to fact and reason, there is a disturbingly large plurality that will not give you a fair hearing no matter what you do. I have executed picture perfect Socratic method on people who, when faced with their own contradictions based on things they agreed were true, simply refused to accept truth as it shouted in their ears. You can't fix stupid.


Have you read the full history of Hitler's rise to power? Long before the Nazi's became the government, they were paramilitary thugs who engaged in pitched gun battles with Communist paramilitary thugs. Basically it was a fight between ideological versions of the Bloods and the Crypts. Against that backdrop I could see why a Jew would be for gun control to prevent such crazies from becoming a powerful force in the first place. Some Jews are against full first amendment rights when it comes to free speech for the same reason. They don't want another charismatic "Hitler" like character arising.

Yes, but those are children's answers, not those of presumably intelligent adults. When put under even casual scrutiny, such argumentation falls apart without any outside assistance. When presented with unbreakable logic, they put their fingers in their ears, close their eyes, stomp up and down and scream "I can't HEAR you!" over and over until the shrill notes make your ears bleed, ending you in the ER.




I remember once I was at a meeting about what to do regarding brutality in private prisons. One Jewish doctor added "We must do something about dangerous speech" to the discussion even though it had nothing to do with what we were talking about. I responded with "What about the first amendment" and she got quiet. That said I know not all Jews feel that way. In fact some support gun rights. (Jews for the preservation of firearms.) I'm just stating that once you understand what people fear and why, you have a better way to understand and ultimately influence them.


I did not mean to imply all jews or all of anyone are this or that, but in this particular case, those in favor of the RKBA are a very distinctly small minority. It's a culture thing and very dangerous, as history attests. It is interesting how differently Israelis view this vis-à-vis jews in America.






Seriously, it is as if there is some massive and intense Stockholm deal going on with those two groups in relation to government. It makes no sense to me at all. The thing that threatens them most is the thing to which they fall upon their knees, mouths wide open and ready. It's sick.



The most accurate thing you have said is "It makes no sense to me at all." If you want to have influence with either group (or with Christian conservatives....or with feminists or with fill-in-the-blank) you'll have to take your time to understand what others are truly feeling.

Agreed, but in far too many cases understanding is sadly insufficient. I would not care were it not for the fact that so many people seem so perfectly impervious to truth and reason.

[jmdrake]

[/COLOR]
Two things. First, sorry you had to experience shit like that. Second, you are confusing apples with oranges. I will not disagree with what you wrote, but I'm not sure how it applies to what I wrote. Specifically, I meant that nobody to my knowledge was making people take that first hit at the end of a gun. People CHOSE to take it, or am I wrong?


Oh I don't mind the negative experiences I've had. (Most of them anyway). If I never had them then I wouldn't be able to share them or relate to people who did.

Second, apples and oranges mix together quite well to make ambrosia (food of the gods). And yes, I know what you're trying to say, but I disagree. If someone entices someone to do something, then punishes that person for doing that, the "mix" is appropriate. I would say the same thing for the U.S. government encouraging Saddam Hussein to invade Iran, then later turning around and using Saddam's invasion of Iran as part of the pretext for war against Iraq. And while it's quite possible that someone, somewhere had a gun to his head to take the first hit of crack, the fact that most made the choice does not absolve the culpability of those who brought the drugs into the community in the first place. Of course using the "canary in the coal mine" example, increasingly it's poor whites getting caught up in the drug prison industrial complex because of crystal meth. Again blacks were just test subjects or "guinea pigs" as you put it.




Well I'm glad at least you see my point. Someone here seems hell bent to paint me as a card-carrying Klansman. Their problem, but still I'd rather be properly understood.

LOL. Well we'd all like to be properly understood. Did you hear about the black musician that became friends with actual card-carrying klansmen? Some of them left the klan.




OK, I see what you're driving at. These things are monumental evils living among us.


Glad you see where I'm going. I don't always know myself. ;)



OTOH, look at the reception guys like Bill Cosby get from "his own" (sorry - I know the expression is shit, but I'm trying to be conversational). He points out some rather unattractive STATISTICAL truths about the "community" and that same community wants him hanging from his dangly bits.


No problem with the expression. The reason Bill Cosby caught hell is because he made his statements publicly and blacks were concerned that (some) whites would take those statements in isolation and run with them. Go be a fly on the wall and many black homes on Sunday dinner and you'll hear similar comments. Think of it this way. Rand Paul catches hell sometimes on these forums. But I bet even most of his critics here would be upset to see someone from our ranks attacking him on national TV. I'm not saying it was right to criticize Cosby. I'm saying it's human nature. Now here's the question. Armed with the information that Bill's comments were not an "isolated incident", how do you reach out to blacks who agree with his position, but are wary of those who might exploit his words for divisive reasons?



[/B]The irony was the whole point of the statement.


Right. But I'm looking at the irony from a different vantage point. In the 1950s - 1960s the Federal Government took an activist role in Southern politics. By the 1970s lynch mobs were a thing of the past. (I certainly don't remember any). So you're using the existence of lynch mobs prior to an expansive Federal role in Southern politics to advocate what exactly?



[/B][/B][/B]I'd not considered that bit explicitly, but yes of course. It is pretty obvious... and ironic after a fashion. But is this not pretty much the standard operating procedure in terms of reasoning for ever more authority? Nonetheless the tactic is logically bankrupt... not that that makes any difference in the real world where the average man cannot or will not dope such things out properly.

I agree. And the way to defeat that logic, in my opinion, is to show how abuse of Federal power has had unfavorable consequences to the person or group in question.



[/B]Don't assume too much here about my intentions. Space and time are limited and if someone wishes to raise the point as have you, I am happy to address it, but otherwise I could spend my life here writing volume after tedious volume in the effort to be complete where it is not quite necessary.[B][B][B][B][B]


Okay. But the thread is about reaching blacks with the libertarian viewpoint. So the OP's intention is to change the point of view of someone else.



I've done this endlessly and while many people are open to fact and reason, there is a disturbingly large plurality that will not give you a fair hearing no matter what you do. I have executed picture perfect Socratic method on people who, when faced with their own contradictions based on things they agreed were true, simply refused to accept truth as it shouted in their ears. You can't fix stupid.


Except sometimes "stupid" is just an inability to put something into a form the listener will accept. Come on. I got someone wearing a Che Guevera t-shirt to push for a 5% flat tax!


Yes, but those are children's answers, not those of presumably intelligent adults. When put under even casual scrutiny, such argumentation falls apart without any outside assistance. When presented with unbreakable logic, they put their fingers in their ears, close their eyes, stomp up and down and scream "I can't HEAR you!" over and over until the shrill notes make your ears bleed, ending you in the ER.


Ummm...if you say so. But did you know that putting something within six bold tags like your doing doesn't do anything for your post? Seriously, only one bold tag is needed to bold texts and the other bold tags are redundant. Similarly using the same argument over and over again to convince someone else of your position doesn't do anything. Some of us are trying other arguments and are having some success. You could do the same. Or you just just lament that those who aren't being persuaded by you are stupid.


I did not mean to imply all jews or all of anyone are this or that, but in this particular case, those in favor of the RKBA are a very distinctly small minority. It's a culture thing and very dangerous, as history attests. It is interesting how differently Israelis view this vis-à-vis jews in America.


Jews in Israel are the majority. Jews in America are in the minority. If you are afraid of the majority then you might not want the majority keeping and bearing arms. That said, are Israeli Jews in favor of Israeli Arabs having the right to keep and bear arms?



Agreed, but in far too many cases understanding is sadly insufficient. I would not care were it not for the fact that so many people seem so perfectly impervious to truth and reason.

So many people? To double your political influence you only need to convince one other person. To go exponential you need to convince two other people both of whom only need to convince two other people who all need to convince two other people and......

[James Madison]

Libertarians aren't fans of personal responsibility anymore it seems. Easier to blame someone else for your own failings.

[nayjevin]

One again making things personal. Noted again.

Have a happy 4th.

Racist who doesn't like being called a racist taking the high road.

The thing about racists is they always collectivize individual traits.

[James Madison]

Racist who doesn't like being called a racist taking the high road.

The thing about racists is they always collectivize individual traits.

What a collectivist thing to say.

[osan]

Second, apples and oranges mix together quite well to make ambrosia (food of the gods). And yes, I know what you're trying to say, but I disagree. If someone entices someone to do something, then punishes that person for doing that, the "mix" is appropriate.

You'll get no argument from me on that point, but that is a separate issue of entrapment. What I was referring to was the fact that ANYONE (forget race for the moment) always has the choice to do or not do in such cases. That the whole deal is a setup from the get-go should provide even stronger impetus not to take the bait. It is not as if people do not know the consequences of these brands of choice. That the consequences are synthetic and wholly unjust - criminal in fact - is another issue. I'm not saying that because the acts are "wrong" that those who do them deserve what they get when caught, but that they should be smarter in making the choices precisely because there is a corrupt mob who will cage or kill them without authority.


...the fact that most made the choice does not absolve the culpability of those who brought the drugs into the community in the first place.

We agree.


Of course using the "canary in the coal mine" example, increasingly it's poor whites getting caught up in the drug prison industrial complex because of crystal meth. Again blacks were just test subjects or "guinea pigs" as you put it.


Experience appears to bear this out.


Did you hear about the black musician that became friends with actual card-carrying klansmen? Some of them left the klan.

Didn't most leave? After the '20s most members took a hard second look at what it all meant.



No problem with the expression. The reason Bill Cosby caught hell is because he made his statements publicly and blacks were concerned that (some) whites would take those statements in isolation and run with them.

No no no... that is not at all how I recalled it. I would also note that one does not respond with "Uncle TOM!" when the concerns are as you state. The responses I read of were pure and unvarnished bile. He has pissed on a very big and heavily vested parade.


Now here's the question. Armed with the information that Bill's comments were not an "isolated incident", how do you reach out to blacks who agree with his position, but are wary of those who might exploit his words for divisive reasons?

By being carefully clear with one's words? Black conservatives get the uncle tom treatment as if they were lily-white klansmen, if media accounts are to be believed... and I'm not 100% sure they can be. But the consistency of reportage does leave one wondering whether it is indeed the case. What happens there is consistent with the same issues between, say, white liberals and conservatives. For example, what motive do intergenerational white welfare recipients have to agree with those conservatives of any denomination who call for personal responsibility? None that I can see and this is borne out by the fact that just about any time you hear an opinion, it is that conservatives are heartless and want to see babies die. Just like any other statistical group, those of the black persuasion who are enjoying their "free ride" are going to attack anyone who threatens the gravy train, especially if those are also black. Betrayal is perhaps the most bitter of human circumstances, is it not? This isn't black people being black. It is, as you yourself wrote, human nature. How did jews regard NAZI collaborators? Not very well at all, as I recall. How did Klansmen respond to whites who associated a little too freely with blacks? Not pleasantly in many cases. And so it goes.


Right. But I'm looking at the irony from a different vantage point. In the 1950s - 1960s the Federal Government took an activist role in Southern politics. By the 1970s lynch mobs were a thing of the past. (I certainly don't remember any). So you're using the existence of lynch mobs prior to an expansive Federal role in Southern politics to advocate what exactly?

Not sure I'm following you here. Was I advocating something? I thought I was only citing an observation.


I agree. And the way to defeat that logic, in my opinion, is to show how abuse of Federal power has had unfavorable consequences to the person or group in question.


Sure, but my point was that there is a disturbingly large proportion of people who refuse to acknowledge such consequences no matter how they are presented. I'd simply ignore them were they not so great a plurality. That fact is frightening because it connotes a mindless mob of individuals whose minds are dangerously set against you. It is not dissimilar to the old lynch mobs running about on Friday nights chasing some poor guy through the woods because they were whipped up to believe he looked as a white woman the wrong way. There is no reasoning with such creatures - they are mindless lunatics gone blood-simple and I cannot think of anything in this world that frightens me more than this. Ever see "The Sandpipers"? The scene where the couley is chased by the mob and strung up, his chest sliced open... that is what I'm talking about here. To my eyes, that is more frightening than lighting off a hydrogen bomb.



Okay. But the thread is about reaching blacks with the libertarian viewpoint.

Depends on what one means by "reach". It certainly does not mean "win over" in terms of thought because they are already of that bent. To me it means to get them to openly stand for their beliefs amongst "their own" (another horrible nonsense term, but again I use it to be conversational), and that is the real crux of the problem precisely because they get stones thrown at them for having the temerity to hold such positions.



Except sometimes "stupid" is just an inability to put something into a form the listener will accept. Come on. I got someone wearing a Che Guevera t-shirt to push for a 5% flat tax!

That is not what I meant at all. I specifically referred to those who refuse to accept truth no matter how adeptly one presents it. Inability to see for the absence of the right presentation to an otherwise capable and open mind is not stupidity. Blatant refusal to accept truth regardless of how perfectly presented, OTOH, may be that... or pure corruption of character.


Ummm...if you say so. But did you know that putting something within six bold tags like your doing doesn't do anything for your post? Seriously, only one bold tag is needed to bold texts and the other bold tags are redundant.

I didn't put any bold tags in. I copied and pasted from your post. I just assumed that you put them there, not really paying much attention because I was too busy thinking on the points in question. I wondered why you bolded the text as much as it was but did not bother to check that which I'd copied. OK, I just looked back to the post in question and there are only bolded words and phrases. I have no idea what happened there. I'd assumed what I pasted was faithful to the original. My bad.


Similarly using the same argument over and over again to convince someone else of your position doesn't do anything. Some of us are trying other arguments and are having some success. You could do the same. Or you just just lament that those who aren't being persuaded by you are stupid.

I was only attempting to explain my meaning as originally expressed.


Jews in Israel are the majority. Jews in America are in the minority. If you are afraid of the majority then you might not want the majority keeping and bearing arms.

I see your point, but I do not believe this is the reason for the positions so widely held, but I concede I may be mistaken on that point.


That said, are Israeli Jews in favor of Israeli Arabs having the right to keep and bear arms?

Point taken.


So many people? To double your political influence you only need to convince one other person. To go exponential you need to convince two other people both of whom only need to convince two other people who all need to convince two other people and......

If that is the case, then I must submit that we are not doing so well. We are making headway, but the issue of time does appear to be pressing, given what I see happening around us, what with MRAPS becoming commonplace in local police mob organizations and all that.

[dannno]

I agree with the author that many libertarians do need to have a better understanding of black history and how it relates to their current condition, but I don't think the author has a very good understanding about how libertarianism would improve their situation in the long run.

[kcchiefs6465]

Crack uses force - addiction. Crack uses fraud - illusion of a better existence.
What is your argument, here?

The interdiction of 'crack' uses force - robbery to fund an agency that not only picks winners and losers in the drug trade (that is, they directly help multi-ton traffickers) but also flagrantly violates rights, steals property, and justifies it all through collectivist re-imagining of the Constitution.

The interdiction of 'crack' uses fraud - an illusion of paper notes having varying ascribed values, not being tied to any sense of reality and rather floating on corporate, bankster (who are tied at the hip with multi-ton traffickers) credit; to wit, the debasement of all's currency for immoral scams and schemes.

To argue as you do, I could paint a picture for any collectivist's (to be clear, I am referring to the majority having supposed authority over the true minority [i.e. the one]), momentary concerns and the 'need' to disallow, sanction or forbid this or that (I could also paint the picture of why this is immoral, foolish, and shortsighted).

I really wouldn't know where to begin.

From the disallowing of firearms, to the banning of high sugar substances (or high carbs, whatever the majority deems to be correct in a given time period) to the restriction of the internet.

These would all be covered under one (or both) of your two general points.

[jmdrake]

You'll get no argument from me on that point, but that is a separate issue of entrapment. What I was referring to was the fact that ANYONE (forget race for the moment) always has the choice to do or not do in such cases. That the whole deal is a setup from the get-go should provide even stronger impetus not to take the bait. It is not as if people do not know the consequences of these brands of choice. That the consequences are synthetic and wholly unjust - criminal in fact - is another issue. I'm not saying that because the acts are "wrong" that those who do them deserve what they get when caught, but that they should be smarter in making the choices precisely because there is a corrupt mob who will cage or kill them without authority.

Okay. Seems we're in total agreement on the GWOD (global war on drugs). Yep the government shouldn't bring them in. Yep the users shouldn't use them. Sadly black and white people use them. (According to Ron Paul's stat, blacks and whites use drugs in equal percentages but blacks get shafted worse in the legal system. That is largely because of economic reasons.) So my response is both to work to end the GWOD and to inform whoever I can not to fall into the trap.



Didn't most leave? After the '20s most members took a hard second look at what it all meant.


Most is a relative term. At one point most of the powerful people in Birmingham Alabama were KKK. I know this because of research I did for a term paper. The Birmingham News, still the most influential paper in Alabama, would carry KKK meeting notices on the front page. My great-grandfather was "friends" with the sheriff who was also a klansman. You couldn't be sheriff without being a klansman. And the klan was very strong long after the 1920s. Do you know why George Wallace lost his first attempt to be governor in 1958? It was because his opponent was endorsed by the klan. George Wallace was actually a progressive who initially talked about harmony among the races.

Anyway, there are still pockets where the klan is popular. But that wasn't my point. My point is that with the right tactics you can win over almost anyone. If you think you can't then there is a problem with your tactics. Here's the story I was talking about.

http://guardianlv.com/2013/11/kkk-member-walks-up-to-black-musician-in-bar-but-its-not-a-joke-and-what-happens-next-will-astound-you/

http://guardianlv.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/DD-at-KKK-Rally-in-Maryland-650x589.jpg



No no no... that is not at all how I recalled it. I would also note that one does not respond with "Uncle TOM!" when the concerns are as you state. The responses I read of were pure and unvarnished bile.


Just because you "recalled" it a certain way doesn't make your "recall" the only correct "recall". I was alive then too you know? And I saw other reactions. Sure in every situation there are the extreme reactions. If you only choose to focus on that, that doesn't make your "recall" right. And for the record, Uncle Tom was a hero. Unlike most people who use that term, I actually read the book.



By being carefully clear with one's words? Black conservatives get the uncle tom treatment as if they were lily-white klansmen, if media accounts are to be believed.


I've never known of a black person to consider the term "Uncle Tom" to be the equivalent of a "lily-white klansman". Did you know that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr was called an "Uncle Tom" by Malcolm X and others? It wasn't because Malcolm thought MLK hated black people. It's because Malcolm thought non violence was a bad idea.




.. and I'm not 100% sure they can be. But the consistency of reportage does leave one wondering whether it is indeed the case. What happens there is consistent with the same issues between, say, white liberals and conservatives. For example, what motive do intergenerational white welfare recipients have to agree with those conservatives of any denomination who call for personal responsibility? None that I can see and this is borne out by the fact that just about any time you hear an opinion, it is that conservatives are heartless and want to see babies die. Just like any other statistical group, those of the black persuasion who are enjoying their "free ride" are going to attack anyone who threatens the gravy train, especially if those are also black. Betrayal is perhaps the most bitter of human circumstances, is it not? This isn't black people begin black. It is, as you yourself write, human nature. How did jews regard NAZI collaborators? Not very well at all, as I recall. How did Klansmen respond to whites who associated a little too freely with blacks? Not pleasantly in many cases. And so it goes.


What is becoming increasingly clear to me is that you are actually proving the OP article correct. Your personally perceived knowledge of the black experience for outstrips your actual knowledge. As a result I don't see how you could be very effective. And I'm not meaning that as a slight. I'm sure there are many areas that I don't know as much as I think I know and that I'm not as effective as I could be.



Not sure I'm following you here. Was I advocating something? I thought I was only citing an observation.


I was asking a question. Maybe you aren't advocating anything. I know that I advocate blacks, whites and others to look at government differently. It's not easy, but I'm having some success.



Sure, but my point was that there is a disturbingly large proportion of people who refuse to acknowledge such consequences no matter how they are presented. I'd simply ignore them were they not so great a plurality. That fact is frightening because it connotes a mindless mob of individuals whose minds are dangerously set against you. It is not dissimilar to the old lynch mobs running about on Friday nights chasing some poor guy through the woods because they were whipped up to believe he looked as a white woman the wrong way. There is no reasoning with such creatures - they are mindless lunatics gone blood-simple and I cannot think of anything in this world that frightens me more than this. Ever see "The Sandpipers"? The scene where the couley is chased by the mob and strung up, his chest sliced open... that is what I'm talking about here. To my eyes, that is more frightening than lighting off a hydrogen bomb.


And so your point, in ten words or less, is......? That last sentence is disturbing. "To my eyes, that is more frightening than....." The real enemy is fear itself. I know FDR got a lot of things wrong, but that one quote is timeless. We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Just about every criticism that you have leveled at some other "group", blacks in general, Jews in general, welfare whites in general, can be traced to some legitimate fear that group has. Deal with the fear and the problem goes away. But you can't deal with fear in others if you become gripped by fear yourself. The KKK was born out of fear. Fear that the radical shift in political power in the south caused by post civil war reconstruction would lead to the wholesale destruction of southern white society. Fear causes people to be reactionary and to cling to a particular idea long after there is any justification for it.



Depends on what one means by "reach". It certainly does not mean "win over" in terms of thought because they are already of that bent. To me it means to get them to openly stand for their beliefs amongst "their own" (another horrible nonsense term, but again I use it to be conversational), and that is the real crux of the problem precisely because they get stones thrown at them for having the temerity to hold such positions.


I hate to sound like a broken record, but winning over a Che Gueverra t-shirt wearing Obama supporter to advocating for a 5% flat tax without me even advocating a 5% flat tax sounds like reaching someone by any definition.



That is not what I meant at all. I specifically referred to those who refuse to accept truth no matter how adeptly one presents it. Inability to see for the absence of the right presentation to an otherwise capable and open mind is not stupidity. Blatant refusal to accept truth regardless of how perfectly presented, OTOH, may be that... or pure corruption of character.


*SIGH* You can't know if someone will refuse to accept truth no matter how adeptly one presents it unless you really believe that you are the most adept person in the world at presenting truth! I would bet you the national debt that if you had been the one talking to my cousin you wouldn't have won him over. And without the intervention of his brother to get us to quit shouting and start talking I probably wouldn't have one him over. And had you met me ten to fifteen years ago you probably wouldn't have won me over either. And apparently its impossible for me to win you over to the truth that there are many people that you are oh so willing to write off as "unreachable" that could possibly be reached by a different approach.



I didn't put any bold tags in. I copied and pasted from your post. I just assumed that you put them there, not really paying much attention because I was too busy thinking on the points in question. I wondered why you bolded the text as much as it was but did not bother to check that which I'd copied. OK, I just looked back to the post in question and there are only bolded words and phrases. I have no idea what happened there. I'd assumed what I pasted was faithful to the original. My bad.


Okay. My comment on that withdrawn.



I see your point, but I do not believe this is the reason for the positions so widely held, but I concede I may be mistaken on that point.


That was just a theory. I have not done any research. I understand support for gun control in the black community. It's largely driven by looking blindly at gun violence statistics coupled with personal experience. For instance at the age of 6 I got between two relatives pointing guns at each other. That put me decidedly in the gun control camp until well into adulthood. My "waking up" to 9/11 truth caused a complete paradigm shift for me on guns. If I believed (and I do) that elements within our government at the very least had foreknowledge of 9/11 and looked the other way, how could I trust those same people with the power to disarm the country? Note, I'm not trying to engage a debate about 9/11 in this thread. I'm just explaining how I shifted from anti-gun to pro 2nd amendment.



If that is the case, then I must submit that we are not doing so well. We are making headway, but the issue of time does appear to be pressing us, given what I see happening around us, what with MRAPS becoming commonplace in local police mob organizations and all that.

I posted a Ben Swann story about MRAPS on my Facebook page. One of my black friends, who I'm pretty sure voted for Obama, posted back a picture he took of an MRAP filling up next to him and he agreed with me that the trend was frightening. That's a point of common ground. On my Twitter feed I posted the thread Anti-Federalist posted about questions regarding the 4th of July. One of my close friends, who likes Ron Paul but leans democrat, said she was about to wish me a Happy Fourth but she saw my Tweet and wanted to know if that was how I really felt. I explained that I still love this country but have concerns such as the "no refuse blood checkpoints" that were going on. She looked up the information, was shocked to find out it was true, and agreed with me that such measures are concerning.

Winning people over a little bit at a time, one person at a time, is tedious, but it's the only thing I've done so far that has had a lasting impact. Yes we've had great "money bomb" days. And I'm glad to see Rand Paul in the senate. I gave Rand a little money, but I doubt anything I did made much of a difference in his campaign. But I got 8 family members to cross over and vote for Ron Paul in the GOP primary in 2012. That was the first time any of them had voted in a GOP primary. Imagine the impact if every Ron Paul supporter did that? Imagine Ron Paul's primary votes last time times 8. If you've got some more powerful idea, I'm ready to hear it.

[Anti Federalist]

Add to the blacks as the canary in the coal mine process, the rise of the prison industrial complex (first pile them up with blacks, then expand the 'prison planet' procedures to everybody else), the rise in mass illegitimacy (first encouraged among black girls in the '60's-'70's, then white teens thereafter) to weaken the family, the surveillance/SWAT team state (at first justified to crackdown on drugs in black areas, then expanded to terrorism), etc.

It appears that blacks have been the primary laboratory for building the Total State in the US, decade by decade. Wilbert Tatum of Harlem's Amsterdam News summed it up by saying (something like), the problem with most white Americans, who believe they're better off than (n-words), is that they don't know that the elite regards them as the white (n-words).

This is truth, right here.

Let us not mince and prance around the words.

We, every of us, are the new ******s on the global plantation.

[osan]

Okay. Seems we're in total agreement on the GWOD

I think we are in greater agreement than that. I suspect we are speak past each other in some ways... perhaps differences in expressive styles, who can say?

You were making a point I perhaps was being too subtle about - if you're not getting through, your method may be failing. But the complementary notion also holds: if you're not getting through, perhaps the failure is not yours.

[nayjevin]

If we grant that the first wave of addicts could be excused for naiveté, what about the second? The third? The tenth? IS it your assertion that after 30 years of watching people's lives turn to shit that one can claim they didn't know what the result of that first hit might be?

From the perspective of an addict who grows up knowing nothing else. Imagine there is no 'watching people's lives turn to shit.' There is only being a part of the group whose lives are shit, and always will be. There is no feeling of 'this is not the life for me' or 'I'm more like those successful people on TV.'

Then somebody comes along and says 'fuck them. You don't want to be like them. They're all born into money and don't give a shit about us. They vote in the people that keep us here. They hire the cops that put your daddy in jail.'

If there are self-image problems caused by such statements or otherwise poor upbringing it becomes that much more difficult to make the right choices to succeed, or even know what successful choices are.

Much of that is not the fault of the impressionable child who grows up in a bad situation. I'm all for personal responsibility but it can't be expected from a person who hasn't ever seen opportunity.

[nayjevin]

What is your argument, here?

The interdiction of 'crack' uses force - robbery to fund an agency that not only picks winners and losers in the drug trade (that is, they directly help multi-ton traffickers) but also flagrantly violates rights, steals property, and justifies it all through collectivist re-imagining of the Constitution.

The interdiction of 'crack' uses fraud - an illusion of paper notes having varying ascribed values, not being tied to any sense of reality and rather floating on corporate, bankster (who are tied at the hip with multi-ton traffickers) credit; to wit, the debasement of all's currency for immoral scams and schemes.

To argue as you do, I could paint a picture for any collectivist's (to be clear, I am referring to the majority having supposed authority over the true minority [i.e. the one]), momentary concerns and the 'need' to disallow, sanction or forbid this or that (I could also paint the picture of why this is immoral, foolish, and shortsighted).

I really wouldn't know where to begin.

From the disallowing of firearms, to the banning of high sugar substances (or high carbs, whatever the majority deems to be correct in a given time period) to the restriction of the internet.

These would all be covered under one (or both) of your two general points.

If self government is legitimate, and a government is legitimate to the extent it minimizes force and fraud, then the individual would abstain.

[osan]

It appears that blacks have been the primary laboratory for building the Total State in the US

I must agree here - the entire psychological landscape made them perfect for it. A marginalized group to whose rescue the rest was not likely to come running, if for no other reason than the absence of any sense of connection. It was easy to look at this as "their problem" if the truth were known. But it mostly wasn't because white Americans were still decent people and if they'd known what was going on I suspect they would have been less ho-hum. But look to media now and see how events were painted and all of a sudden the majority response becomes far more sensible and less evil in appearance. "Those people" were painted as being up to nothing better than no-good. Those perceptions didn't just pop out of Jed Clampett's ass one Tuesday morning in June. They were crafted, IMO. Government in action must always be painted as justified.


Wilbert Tatum of Harlem's Amsterdam News summed it up by saying (something like), the problem with most white Americans, who believe they're better off than (n-words), is that they don't know that the elite regards them as the white (n-words).

In Theire eyes, we are all niggrahs. That's been boilerplate a very long time.

[kcchiefs6465]

If self government is legitimate, and a government is legitimate to the extent it minimizes force and fraud, then the individual would abstain.
What does, "If self government is legitimate" mean? Of course it is legitimate. One owns themselves. Morally, physically.. this is a certainty. The idea that any one (or rather, a group of people) has more authority over your life, (if you are acting peacefully, not violating anyone else's rights, and acting within the law), is one of the greatest evils to ever plague mankind. I'm not really sure why there is an "if" there.

The issue I have with the second portion of your statement, ("and a government is legitimate to the extent it minimizes force and fraud"), is that you've defined "force" and "fraud" so ambiguously as to cover virtually everything a given majority finds distasteful (at the violation of other's natural rights). Inanimate substances do not use force. And insofar as "crack" is a baking soda based, cocaine containing "rock", it is not fraudulent. To be clear, buying crack, smoking crack, or selling crack, is not in violation of anyone's rights. I say this knowing all the ills that come from the substance. To gather a majority and ban any of the three, or in today's case to put people in a cage for it is in violation of people's rights.

"....then the individual would abstain." This is off-putting as well. First and foremost, many would like nothing more than to smoke crack cocaine [in peace and without being treated as a bum when obtaining the substance]. They'd like not to be robbed and ripped off constantly. The prohibition of cocaine being ended would make the prices affordable for the average person. That is, they won't be knocking out your car windows and scrounging for items to sell. Property crimes would drastically reduce. The social stigma of using the substance isn't going to change anytime soon, but without the "war on drugs" rhetoric, people, if they have a shred of decency in themselves, anyways, will live and let live.

Your use of "If [self government is legitimate]" and your previous vague, all encompassing definition of force and fraud, leaves this final statement a little bit peculiar. I do not know what you mean by it. Some would not abstain. Even defining the use, or sale, of crack cocaine as using force and as fraud and prohibiting it, people would still not abstain (this does not make self-government illegitimate). They could, and did, turn this country into a prison and people would still not abstain. Now if your point is that if certain protected agents of the government didn't flood the Los Angeles streets with cocaine, and further export it to metropolitans around the country, then many people would never have come in contact with the substance and would not have had anything to do with it, then we are in agreement.

I hope I don't seem as if I'm picking nits. It isn't my intention.

[FloralScent]

Racist who doesn't like being called a racist taking the high road.

The thing about racists is they always collectivize individual traits.

A Communist who doesn't have a valid point to make screeching "racist" to divert attention away from the fact.

[nayjevin]

What does, "If self government is legitimate" mean? Of course it is legitimate. One owns themselves. Morally, physically.. this is a certainty. The idea that any one (or rather, a group of people) has more authority over your life, (if you are acting peacefully, not violating anyone else's rights, and acting within the law), is one of the greatest evils to ever plague mankind. I'm not really sure why there is an "if" there.

It would have been more accurate (pleasurable to subjective judgments such as ours?) to say 'If you believe self government is legitimate.' I thought that was more off-putting, because I wasn't talking to a 'you' and saying 'If one believes...' makes people think I think I'm Confucius. I just put the 'if' because I don't intend to decide for others what they believe, though I do think some things are so obvious everyone ought to believe them.


The issue I have with the second portion of your statement, ("and a government is legitimate to the extent it minimizes force and fraud"), is that you've defined "force" and "fraud" so ambiguously as to cover virtually everything a given majority finds distasteful (at the violation of other's natural rights). Inanimate substances do not use force. And insofar as "crack" is a baking soda based, cocaine containing "rock", it is not fraudulent.

Once self-government has been adopted, I think it's interesting to look around at things like that in terms of the non-aggression principle. If it leads to conclusions that don't make sense, one mustn't adopt them. But if I own myself, and I don't like force and fraud, I won't like things that make me feel bad. If they make me feel good but then destroy my life, I don't want them.


To be clear, buying crack, smoking crack, or selling crack, is not in violation of anyone's rights. I say this knowing all the ills that come from the substance.

Wow, yeah I guess so, it's not necessarily, in that there isn't a right to not be sold crack in the Constitution or studies of natural law. But being fraudulent to somebody is wrong. People get an idea that crack is better than no crack. But it's not true. How do they get that idea? Sometimes it's from fraud - somebody wants to profit selling crack so they lie.


To gather a majority and ban any of the three, or in today's case to put people in a cage for it is in violation of people's rights.

Yeah cages are bad, Ron Paul is right that we need focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment. But in the same sense that it's really against what I want for a person to be drunk and next to me talking, it's bad for communities to have crack. People don't want it when they are trying to succeed. It pollutes the environment!

This discussion reminds me: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/interviews/rand-paul/


"....then the individual would abstain." This is off-putting as well. First and foremost, many would like nothing more than to smoke crack cocaine [in peace and without being treated as a bum when obtaining the substance].

But they are defrauded. It's not good for them!


They'd like not to be robbed and ripped off constantly. The prohibition of cocaine being ended would make the prices affordable for the average person. That is, they won't be knocking out your car windows and scrounging for items to sell. Property crimes would drastically reduce. The social stigma of using the substance isn't going to change anytime soon, but without the "war on drugs" rhetoric, people, if they have a shred of decency in themselves, anyways, will live and let live...

Some would not abstain. Even defining the use, or sale, of crack cocaine as using force and as fraud and prohibiting it, people would still not abstain (this does not make self-government illegitimate). They could, and did, turn this country into a prison and people would still not abstain.

I see what you mean, people are going to do it even though more and more money is spent trying to stop it with bigger police toys. It's still hard to believe that it's not stopping some of it, and why not make things better?

As long as people are defrauded, and have the wrongheaded belief that crack is better than no crack, at least minimize the crime that results from it? Like, come to our rehab center voluntarily, and we will give you a free dose of crack. Then a smaller and smaller dose as we ostracize your usage until we don't give you any, but we'll feed you and love you.' Much less turf war and violence, robbery?


Your use of "If [self government is legitimate]" and your previous vague, all encompassing definition of force and fraud, leaves this final statement a little bit peculiar. I do not know what you mean by it.

I think you're right that from the perspective of annoying legal proofs and philosophical sound reasoning and semantic squabble my statement isn't good. But if good is white people arguing about semantics I don't want to be good.

Thinking about the way the temporary feeling of drugs defrauds people into believing it's better than not using them, and the way people who are addicted do the drugs even after they say they don't want to, makes me think of how interesting the non-aggression principle is on many levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle


The non-aggression principle (NAP)—also called the non-aggression axiom, the zero aggression principle(ZAP), the anti-coercion principle, or the non-initiation of force principle—is a moral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality) stance which asserts that aggression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression) is inherently illegitimate. NAP and property rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property) are closely linked, since what aggression is depends on what a person's rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights) are.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle#cite_note-1) Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will) and interfere with his right to self-determination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination_(philosophy)) and the principle of self-ownership (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership).

Supporters of the NAP often appeal to it in order to argue for the immorality of theft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft), vandalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism), assault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault), and fraud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud). In contrast to nonviolence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolence), the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense) or defense of others.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle#cite_note-2) Many supporters argue that NAP opposes such policies as victimless crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime) laws, coercivetaxation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation), and military drafts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_draft). NAP is the foundation of libertarian philosophy.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle#cite_note-3)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle#cite_note-USLPmf-4)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle#cite_note-KinsellaNAP.26PR2011-5)


Now if your point is that if certain protected agents of the government didn't flood the Los Angeles streets with cocaine, and further export it to metropolitans around the country, then many people would never have come in contact with the substance and would not have had anything to do with it, then we are in agreement.

I feel like I've heard that often enough to believe it must have happened to some extent, but I've never researched it. But the same applies to crack dealers.


I hope I don't seem as if I'm picking nits. It isn't my intention.

I like you, enlarged kneecaps and all.

[nayjevin]

A Communist who doesn't have a valid point to make screeching "racist" to divert attention away from the fact.

I know right?

[juleswin]

I watched a speech Marin Luther King gave where he said a few things that made me think. I don't know how true what he said is but if its true, then I can understand why mere freedom will not be good enough for them. It explains a lot when you listen to some of their gripes.

Here the video, its less than 2mins long.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR4jQJJYW3Y

[kcchiefs6465]

It would have been more accurate (pleasurable to subjective judgments such as ours?) to say 'If you believe self government is legitimate.' I thought that was more off-putting, because I wasn't talking to a 'you' and saying 'If one believes...' makes people think I think I'm Confucius. I just put the 'if' because I don't intend to decide for others what they believe, though I do think some things are so obvious everyone ought to believe them.



Once self-government has been adopted, I think it's interesting to look around at things like that in terms of the non-aggression principle. If it leads to conclusions that don't make sense, one mustn't adopt them. But if I own myself, and I don't like force and fraud, I won't like things that make me feel bad. If they make me feel good but then destroy my life, I don't want them.



Wow, yeah I guess so, it's not necessarily, in that there isn't a right to not be sold crack in the Constitution or studies of natural law. But being fraudulent to somebody is wrong. People get an idea that crack is better than no crack. But it's not true. How do they get that idea? Sometimes it's from fraud - somebody wants to profit selling crack so they lie.



Yeah cages are bad, Ron Paul is right that we need focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment. But in the same sense that it's really against what I want for a person to be drunk and next to me talking, it's bad for communities to have crack. People don't want it when they are trying to succeed. It pollutes the environment!

This discussion reminds me: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/interviews/rand-paul/



But they are defrauded. It's not good for them!



I see what you mean, people are going to do it even though more and more money is spent trying to stop it with bigger police toys. It's still hard to believe that it's not stopping some of it, and why not make things better?

As long as people are defrauded, and have the wrongheaded belief that crack is better than no crack, at least minimize the crime that results from it? Like, come to our rehab center voluntarily, and we will give you a free dose of crack. Then a smaller and smaller dose as we ostracize your usage until we don't give you any, but we'll feed you and love you.' Much less turf war and violence, robbery?



I think you're right that from the perspective of annoying legal proofs and philosophical sound reasoning and semantic squabble my statement isn't good. But if good is white people arguing about semantics I don't want to be good.

Thinking about the way the temporary feeling of drugs defrauds people into believing it's better than not using them, and the way people who are addicted do the drugs even after they say they don't want to, makes me think of how interesting the non-aggression principle is on many levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle





I feel like I've heard that often enough to believe it must have happened to some extent, but I've never researched it. But the same applies to crack dealers.



I like you, enlarged kneecaps and all.
This is why we can't have nice things.

[kathy88]

Nice to see you posting Drake. Hope you and yours are well.

[jmdrake]

I think we are in greater agreement than that. I suspect we are speak past each other in some ways... perhaps differences in expressive styles, who can say?

You were making a point I perhaps was being too subtle about - if you're not getting through, your method may be failing. But the complementary notion also holds: if you're not getting through, perhaps the failure is not yours.

You are exactly right. It was pointed out in Bible study recently that Jesus at times had trouble getting through to His own disciples.

[jmdrake]

Nice to see you posting Drake. Hope you and yours are well.

Thank you! I'm doing fine and life is improving.

[osan]

From the perspective of an addict who grows up knowing nothing else. Imagine there is no 'watching people's lives turn to shit.' There is only being a part of the group whose lives are shit, and always will be. There is no feeling of 'this is not the life for me' or 'I'm more like those successful people on TV.'

I grant that this can be the case. It may even be the average reality, but it is not universally so. I grew up in the ghetto and I know the life well. Since I was 8 I wanted nothing other than to get the hell out. No way was I going to be like that. My parents had some small part in this, with the emphasis on "small". Very small. Most of it was my nature, so far as I can tell.


Then somebody comes along and says 'fuck them. You don't want to be like them.

Would you agree that the person in question is no friend?


They're all born into money and don't give a shit about us. They vote in the people that keep us here. They hire the cops that put your daddy in jail.'


And this is, on the whole, pure ignorant bile. Not yours, theirs.


If there are self-image problems caused by such statements or otherwise poor upbringing it becomes that much more difficult to make the right choices to succeed, or even know what successful choices are.

No argument there. But what does that say about the parenting in question? To say "they don't know any different" seems to me endlessly condescending. It implies that they are incapable of doping out for themselves the most basic common sense notions and I do not accept that for a moment. That lets such people off the hook far too easily - it's the old victim mentality gussied up in slightly different words and coming at you from another direction. I call that primo-fail.


Much of that is not the fault of the impressionable child who grows up in a bad situation.

Agreed, but the impressionable child is not always quite as vulnerable as you suggest. That aside, he presumably becomes an adult one day and the choice is always available to him to remain the same or change. That is available to virtually everyone. I grew up in a world of shit. I could tell you stories you would not believe of the things to which I was subjected and the far worse I'd seen others suffer. I once made a grown woman burst into tears when I took issue with her stridently offered opinion that men could never know what rape was like. I did nothing other than relate some of the things from my childhood and she went all to pieces. That's how bad some of the stuff was. My point is that this was all I knew and yet I CHOSE not to allow my life go in the direction my experiences would dictate. I decided that I was captain of my life. If I can do it, anyone can. That others don't is more often a function of attitude than aptitude, so far as I can see.

I taught in NYC ghetto schools for 3 years and I can tell you that the kids in the 'hood are anything but stupid. Therefore, there is nothing going on out there that by necessity defeats their ability to make better lives for themselves. I would add that some of my worst students had parents who did everything they knew how to get their issue to tread the righteous path. In some cases the child simply refuses, despite having a solid family life. The same can be observed in middle-class suburbia. I watched this brand of drama playing out with the families of my daughter's friends in high school and, just as in the ghettoes, some kids with seemingly solid family lives chose poorly despite their full knowledge that they were heading for a high-speed collision with a brick wall. Awareness may be a necessary condition, but it is certainly not always sufficient.

People choose and it is not always so neatly discernible why they go this way or that. The babes in the woods argument holds little water with me because I have seen far too many people who, by that theory should have been burned to fly ash, put their lives right and became what I would assess to be successful.


I'm all for personal responsibility but it can't be expected from a person who hasn't ever seen opportunity.

Why can't it? You make a VERY big statement here - an important one, in fact, and yet you do not explain it, nor support it with facts. I would ask you explain why it is so.

[Dianne]

Look, I campaigned for civil rights in South Carolina in the 1960's; when campaigning for civil rights wasn't cool. Right now we have a Saudi in the White House, who is doing everything he possibly can to destroy the black community. And, actually I have not spoken too, or met one black American who has one nice thing to say about this piece of chit in the White House. This "thing" has done more to destroy Black America than any President I know of.

The reason the Congress has less approval ratings then "the thing", is because they don't kick "the things" ass out of the White House ... the Congress does nothing to stop "its'" destruction of the black community.

[nayjevin]

I grant that this can be the case. It may even be the average reality, but it is not universally so. I grew up in the ghetto and I know the life well. Since I was 8 I wanted nothing other than to get the hell out. No way was I going to be like that. My parents had some small part in this, with the emphasis on "small". Very small. Most of it was my nature, so far as I can tell.

I'd consider that a rare case. At age 8, a person may or may not have ever seen another kind of life that wasn't on the TV. And who knows what they're parents tell them about the truth of what is on TV?

Every person has a chance to make the right choice once they have the opportunity to learn that it is possible. Many of the obstacles to learning enough about the world, about one's self, about what good choices are - are not a result of a 'victim mentality' but a result of factors outside the individual's control. Certainly there is a point where one can be expected to have enough of a rounded experience to make the right choices - and failure to do so beyond that point is inexcusable - but that point could conceivably be well after the first decade long prison sentence.


Would you agree that the person in question is no friend?

Definitely. But sometimes kids don't learn what a real friend is until far too late.


No argument there. But what does that say about the parenting in question? To say "they don't know any different" seems to me endlessly condescending. It implies that they are incapable of doping out for themselves the most basic common sense notions and I do not accept that for a moment. That lets such people off the hook far too easily - it's the old victim mentality gussied up in slightly different words and coming at you from another direction. I call that primo-fail.

This just reads to me as more assuming everyone should think like an adult who has had a reasonable opportunity to gain experience to make good choices - when there are some very old people who never have.


Agreed, but the impressionable child is not always quite as vulnerable as you suggest.

Possibly, but I maintain that children and adults who have had obstacles to experience placed in front of them all of their lives are often more vulnerable than it seems you are suggesting.


That aside, he presumably becomes an adult one day and the choice is always available to him to remain the same or change. That is available to virtually everyone.

Yeah, as society gets better, this becomes more true. I think people just want it to be virtually everyone - at a young age, before life is ruined. Some people advocate policy changes to that end.


If I can do it, anyone can.

I don't think so, experiences vary too widely for that to be true. And even if it is true, for some, it may only be at a very late age that enough experience has occurred that they can reasonably be considered fully responsible. Even then, have you tried to start your own business lately?


I taught in NYC ghetto schools for 3 years and I can tell you that the kids in the 'hood are anything but stupid. Therefore, there is nothing going on out there that by necessity defeats their ability to make better lives for themselves.

Intelligence is overrated, especially by the intelligent.


I would add that some of my worst students had parents who did everything they knew how to get their issue to tread the righteous path. In some cases the child simply refuses, despite having a solid family life. The same can be observed in middle-class suburbia. I watched this brand of drama playing out with the families of my daughter's friends in high school and, just as in the ghettoes, some kids with seemingly solid family lives chose poorly despite their full knowledge that they were heading for a high-speed collision with a brick wall. Awareness may be a necessary condition, but it is certainly not always sufficient.

Though true, it does nothing to prove that everyone has equal opportunity. In fact it highlights that opportunity varies widely. It's detrimental to view people who don't succeed as part of a hazy group of the 'victim mentality' problem, particularly when, as you say:


People choose and it is not always so neatly discernible why they go this way or that.


The babes in the woods argument holds little water with me because I have seen far too many people who, by that theory should have been burned to fly ash, put their lives right and became what I would assess to be successful.

And it is not always so neatly discernible why some succeed and some don't. Maybe success ought to be a fair measure of a person - but it surely won't be when there are so many ways in which, for instance, entire races of human beings are systemically mislabeled, falsely judged, and viewed individually as the worst among the whole.



Much of that is not the fault of the impressionable child who grows up in a bad situation. I'm all for personal responsibility but it can't be expected from a person who hasn't ever seen opportunity.Why can't it? You make a VERY big statement here - an important one, in fact, and yet you do not explain it, nor support it with facts. I would ask you explain why it is so.

Personal responsibility is learned. It's not inborn. Why do I need to explain that? Before a child has had a chance to learn something, you can't blame them for not knowing it. Are you among those reading internet forums about politics who don't understand that already? If so I can clarify that point some more if it's worth your time.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

to-reach-blacks-libertarians-must-begin-to-understand-the-african-american-experience


They're not telling me anything. I once watched every episode of a Different Strokes marathon.

[The Free Hornet]

I hate to sound like a broken record, but winning over a Che Gueverra t-shirt wearing Obama supporter to advocating for a 5% flat tax without me even advocating a 5% flat tax sounds like reaching someone by any definition.

IMO, if a grown-ass man isn't a libertarian, anarchist (anarcho-capitalist), Objectivist, "classical liberal", or similar, then such a person is philosophically a lost cause. They will always be somebody's "useful idiot". People like that - and sorry to generalize - will revert because they have no core. There is nothing to reach.

[LibertyEagle]

From the perspective of an addict who grows up knowing nothing else. Imagine there is no 'watching people's lives turn to shit.' There is only being a part of the group whose lives are shit, and always will be. There is no feeling of 'this is not the life for me' or 'I'm more like those successful people on TV.'

Then somebody comes along and says 'fuck them. You don't want to be like them. They're all born into money and don't give a shit about us. They vote in the people that keep us here. They hire the cops that put your daddy in jail.'

If there are self-image problems caused by such statements or otherwise poor upbringing it becomes that much more difficult to make the right choices to succeed, or even know what successful choices are.

Much of that is not the fault of the impressionable child who grows up in a bad situation. I'm all for personal responsibility but it can't be expected from a person who hasn't ever seen opportunity.

Who exactly are you calling "impressionable" children?

This oozes with white guilt. Sorry, but it does. Saying someone isn't responsible for their own actions is nothing short of bizarre. You said in another post that you didn't think that some blacks had "equal opportunity". Well, what to you is equal opportunity? Is it a monetary figure? Living in a "good" neighborhood? Designer clothes? What?

Is it not up to each individual to pick themselves up and better themselves to the best of their ability? I say it is.

It's nothing more than making excuses to blame someone's lack of action on their race, sex, or anything else for that matter. It's what the liberals do.

People are responsible for their own actions and that's true whether they realize it or not.

Treating adults like they are little children is not doing them any favor.

[nayjevin]

Who exactly are you calling "impressionable" children?

All children. Are you saying children are not impressionable? Advertising works, because adults are impressionable too. Even false advertising works on adults.

Women are not entirely responsible for feeling like they need to be skinny to be beautiful, for instance.


This oozes with white guilt. Sorry, but it does.

I don't know what that means.


Saying someone isn't responsible for their own actions is nothing short of bizarre.

Are you saying that a child is born responsible for his or her own actions? If you agree that there is a point at which a person becomes responsible for their actions, is it at the same age for all people? Obviously not. I believe for some people, that point is well past 18, for some actions.


You said in another post that you didn't think that some blacks had "equal opportunity". Well, what to you is equal opportunity? Is it a monetary figure? Living in a "good" neighborhood? Designer clothes? What?

Designer clothes? I don't know what you're getting at, or who you think I am. Where does the idea that I might think designer clothes = opportunity come from? Are you mad at black people who decide to wear nice clothes?

To answer your question, there is no way to quantify or enforce equal opportunity. But it is obvious when the opportunity an individual receives does not meet the basic necessary to have a reasonable chance to succeed. People who have a tv with pbs growing up vs. people whose parents won't spend $20 bucks on a tv and antenna to get it because they're addicted to crack. People who don't know the difference between a toy and trash until an obscene age. People who have poor upbringing, and then are forced by the state to attend a school among the worst in the country, where they are influenced most heavily by older kids who make poor decisions. People who live through all of this, then go to juvenile detention and/or jail for a substantial portion of their formative years, thereby unable to experience the world with any perspective.


Is it not up to each individual to pick themselves up and better themselves to the best of their ability? I say it is.

Yes. Warren Buffet's kids have more opportunity, with the same amount of effort, than prototypical inner city kids do. Only a belief that Warren Buffet's kids are somehow inherently better human beings can support a belief that people have equal opportunity in this world.


It's nothing more than making excuses to blame someone's lack of action on their race, sex, or anything else for that matter. It's what the liberals do.

I get it, you hate liberals. No one is making excuses that aren't justified here, nor blaming lack of action on race. Disagreeing does not make one a liberal, or like the liberals. This sounds like a 'you're with us or your against us' argument.


People are responsible for their own actions and that's true whether they realize it or not.

Nope, that's not true. Unless you don't consider a human being 'people' until they can be responsible for their own actions. A child can be taught to believe some weird, untrue things. They must have outside influences, perspective, experience to have the ability to overcome falsehoods bestowed upon them. They must refuse the new information to be considered at fault. Even then, more human improvement will be had by giving the benefit of the doubt to people who refuse change than will be by going around blaming people for not picking themselves up.

[jmdrake]

IMO, if a grown-ass man isn't a libertarian, anarchist (anarcho-capitalist), Objectivist, "classical liberal", or similar, then such a person is philosophically a lost cause. They will always be somebody's "useful idiot". People like that - and sorry to generalize - will revert because they have no core. There is nothing to reach.

As a "grown ass man" I voted for Bill Clinton twice and John Kerry once.

Your argument is.....

http://poetry-contingency.uwaterloo.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Epic_Fail_by_thepaintrain.jpg

[jmdrake]

Who exactly are you calling "impressionable" children?

This oozes with white guilt. Sorry, but it does. Saying someone isn't responsible for their own actions is nothing short of bizarre. You said in another post that you didn't think that some blacks had "equal opportunity". Well, what to you is equal opportunity? Is it a monetary figure? Living in a "good" neighborhood? Designer clothes? What?


Okay. We all agree with this statement by Ron Paul right?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8S8N2OG7sU

So....what the hell are people arguing about? Our government stinks and blacks have disproportionately suffered. That's not "white guilt". You were not part of the Bush/Clinton crime family that flooded the inner city with drugs in order to fund illegal wars and then upped the penalty on the drugs blacks used (thanks Bill Clinton). It ain't even a "white" thing. Barack Obama, our first "black" president, had (has?) troops in Afghanistan protecting opium fields. He's openly flown tons of cocaine into Florida, supposedly to be "incinerated", as if we're dumb enough to believe the drugs couldn't be destroyed in their country of origin. The Federal government that so many black people "trust" because state government was so rotten to them during Jim Crow is stabbing its own most loyal supporters in the back. We could be like Ron Paul and just point that out. Or we could be like typical republicans and shoot ourselves in the foot.

[KingNothing]

That "black people" (whatever in hell that even means) are statistically still in the shit tube has NOTHING to do with "white privilege" or anything else other than the fact that they don't do anything for themselves and are most fond of tearing each other down. That they have been given so much, have accomplished so little, and still manage to blame whitey for it all is definitive evidence of the corruption from which they issue in terms of attitude, always blaming someone else for their utter failure to act. Success is not going to happen when one never gets his butt off the couch.


Look, I hate white guilt and I hate shouting "racism!" .... but wow, you just pushed the conversation into an insanely racist place. Your total inability to acknowledge the way in which government systematically oppressed African Americans over the last 50 years is staggering.

[KingNothing]

You said in another post that you didn't think that some blacks had "equal opportunity". Well, what to you is equal opportunity? Is it a monetary figure? Living in a "good" neighborhood? Designer clothes? What?


Simply looking at the drug use versus incarceration rates shows that black people haven't gotten a fair shake in America.

[LibertyEagle]

Okay. We all agree with this statement by Ron Paul right?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8S8N2OG7sU

So....what the hell are people arguing about? Our government stinks and blacks have disproportionately suffered. That's not "white guilt". You were not part of the Bush/Clinton crime family that flooded the inner city with drugs in order to fund illegal wars and then upped the penalty on the drugs blacks used (thanks Bill Clinton).
It ain't even a "white" thing. Barack Obama, our first "black" president, had (has?) troops in Afghanistan protecting opium fields. He's openly flown tons of cocaine into Florida, supposedly to be "incinerated", as if we're dumb enough to believe the drugs couldn't be destroyed in their country of origin. The Federal government that so many black people "trust" because state government was so rotten to them during Jim Crow is stabbing its own most loyal supporters in the back. We could be like Ron Paul and just point that out. Or we could be like typical republicans and shoot ourselves in the foot.

I understand that and I agree with you on what you said. What I am saying is it doesn't fly for people to blame the state of their lives on someone else, regardless. I believe that's one of the reasons Americans have been so easy to manipulate. We are each responsible for our own choices; actions and inaction alike.

It's not Bush's, Clinton's or anyone else's fault that so many chose this course of action for themselves:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzspsovNvII

[LibertyEagle]

All children. Are you saying children are not impressionable? Advertising works, because adults are impressionable too. Even false advertising works on adults.

Women are not entirely responsible for feeling like they need to be skinny to be beautiful, for instance.



I don't know what that means.



Are you saying that a child is born responsible for his or her own actions? If you agree that there is a point at which a person becomes responsible for their actions, is it at the same age for all people? Obviously not. I believe for some people, that point is well past 18, for some actions.



Designer clothes? I don't know what you're getting at, or who you think I am. Where does the idea that I might think designer clothes = opportunity come from? Are you mad at black people who decide to wear nice clothes?

To answer your question, there is no way to quantify or enforce equal opportunity. But it is obvious when the opportunity an individual receives does not meet the basic necessary to have a reasonable chance to succeed. People who have a tv with pbs growing up vs. people whose parents won't spend $20 bucks on a tv and antenna to get it because they're addicted to crack. People who don't know the difference between a toy and trash until an obscene age. People who have poor upbringing, and then are forced by the state to attend a school among the worst in the country, where they are influenced most heavily by older kids who make poor decisions. People who live through all of this, then go to juvenile detention and/or jail for a substantial portion of their formative years, thereby unable to experience the world with any perspective.



Yes. Warren Buffet's kids have more opportunity, with the same amount of effort, than prototypical inner city kids do. Only a belief that Warren Buffet's kids are somehow inherently better human beings can support a belief that people have equal opportunity in this world.



I get it, you hate liberals. No one is making excuses that aren't justified here, nor blaming lack of action on race. Disagreeing does not make one a liberal, or like the liberals. This sounds like a 'you're with us or your against us' argument.



Nope, that's not true. Unless you don't consider a human being 'people' until they can be responsible for their own actions. A child can be taught to believe some weird, untrue things. They must have outside influences, perspective, experience to have the ability to overcome falsehoods bestowed upon them. They must refuse the new information to be considered at fault. Even then, more human improvement will be had by giving the benefit of the doubt to people who refuse change than will be by going around blaming people for not picking themselves up.

Oh
My
God.

[LibertyEagle]

Libertarians aren't fans of personal responsibility anymore it seems. Easier to blame someone else for your own failings.

From looking at this thread, I'd have to agree with you. Did I take a wrong turn and inadvertently end up on the Democratic Underground website, instead of Ron Paul Forums?

[nayjevin]

Oh
My
God.


From looking at this thread, I'd have to agree with you. Did I take a wrong turn and inadvertently end up on the Democratic Underground website, instead of Ron Paul Forums?


Somehow I got the impression that you, as a Conservative Republican, were interested in protecting the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of children whose parents do not value their lives.

[The Free Hornet]

As a "grown ass man" I voted for Bill Clinton twice and John Kerry once.

If you changed, and the change stuck... fine. I can't speak to your prior voting strategy as that is outside the scope of my post. Nobody should vote for crap GOP candidates.

If your pro-Obama, Che Guevera t-shirt cousin/friend seriously becomes a libertarian (of sorts), then you got me.

I hate being a negative nancy but there are just so many people that can be talked into libertarianism but then they are back pushing social-justice environmental crap or whatever BS they are into. It's a serious problem. I read about the evils of minimum wage laws when I was 17 and never once forgot that lesson. Neither my intellegence nor my memory are all that impressive (AFAIK!). If your friend/cousin was already anti-drug war, how come he was stuck in the two-party mentality?

Maybe that is the bigger problem, I don't know.

[jmdrake]

If you changed, and the change stuck... fine. I can't speak to your prior voting strategy as that is outside the scope of my post. Nobody should vote for crap GOP candidates.

If your pro-Obama, Che Guevera t-shirt cousin/friend seriously becomes a libertarian (of sorts), then you got me.

I hate being a negative nancy but there are just so many people that can be talked into libertarianism but then they are back pushing social-justice environmental crap or whatever BS they are into. It's a serious problem. I read about the evils of minimum wage laws when I was 17 and never once forgot that lesson. Neither my intellegence nor my memory are all that impressive (AFAIK!). If your friend/cousin was already anti-drug war, how come he was stuck in the two-party mentality?

Maybe that is the bigger problem, I don't know.

I can only answer your question from my own perspective. Back when I saw the protester with the sign "Ask about the drugs" at the Oliver North - Iran Contra hearings (and maybe before), I knew something was rotten about the drug war. The government bringing in drugs? Say it ain't so! But I thought that was the "evil republicans". Little did I know that a certain Arkansas governor was up to his eyeballs in Iran/Contra drug money. I didn't understand the Bush/Clinton connection until I saw the Alex Jones film 9/11 The Road to Tyranny. I know. Many people around here hate 9/11 truth because they wrongly blame it for Ron losing his presidential bids. They don't do the demographics. Even into 2012, a solid majority of Republicans believed Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. There's no way to win over someone that far gone in the course of an election. (Yeah, I guess I'm sounding like you a little bit.) Anyway, the way to reach me was through unveiling conspiracy theories. I'm sure that doesn't work on everybody. Everyone's approach is different. But even if you can't immediately win someone over, if your argument is well thought out and if you are empathetic enough, you can, or should at least, be able to get them to respect you and you can respect them. Mutual respect is the seed that leads to mutual understanding and, sometimes, mutual agreement.

[jmdrake]

I understand that and I agree with you on what you said. What I am saying is it doesn't fly for people to blame the state of their lives on someone else, regardless. I believe that's one of the reasons Americans have been so easy to manipulate. We are each responsible for our own choices; actions and inaction alike.

It's not Bush's, Clinton's or anyone else's fault that so many chose this course of action for themselves:


LE, the reason governments, corporations, and other entities spend so much money on psychology and social engineering is because it works. The fact that social engineering works doesn't take away for the individuals responsibility to resist social engineering. You're a Christian right? Do you believe the story of the Garden of Eden and the serpent? God held all actors, serpent, Adam and Eve, responsible for the fall. Using your logic it wasn't the "serpent's fault" and God was wrong to hold the serpent responsible for actions that Adam and Eve willingly took. And if you think the Garden of Eden story shouldn't be taken literally, you should at least understand the principle taught by it and throughout Judeo-Christianity, of shared responsibility for the tempter and the tempted.

[LibertyEagle]

LE, the reason governments, corporations, and other entities spend so much money on psychology and social engineering is because it works. The fact that social engineering works doesn't take away for the individuals responsibility to resist social engineering. You're a Christian right? Do you believe the story of the Garden of Eden and the serpent? God held all actors, serpent, Adam and Eve, responsible for the fall. Using your logic it wasn't the "serpent's fault" and God was wrong to hold the serpent responsible for actions that Adam and Eve willingly took. And if you think the Garden of Eden story shouldn't be taken literally, you should at least understand the principle taught by it and throughout Judeo-Christianity, of shared responsibility for the tempter and the tempted.

That's not what I said, Drake. Just because the snake was at fault too, does not take away the responsibility of Adam and Eve for their choices. The same goes for the people alive today.

Stop the excuses.

[LibertyEagle]

Somehow I got the impression that you, as a Conservative Republican, were interested in protecting the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of children whose parents do not value their lives.

Yes. However you appear to believe that everyone should be given equal stuff and unless they are, they shouldn't be responsible for their actions.

[jmdrake]

That's not what I said, Drake. Just because the snake was at fault too, does not take away the responsibility of Adam and Eve for their choices. The same goes for the people alive today.

Stop the excuses.

LE. You're problem is that you are putting words in other people's mouths. Nobody has "made excuses". Nobody has said "Black people should be except from drug crime laws because they are black." I don't know why you do this. You argue against an argument that nobody has made, and then when someone tries to correct that, you say "That's not what I said." Of course not. But that's not what nayjevin said either.

One other thing. There is a HELL of a difference between an explanation and an excuse. An explanation merely states why something is. An excuse tries to mitigate consequences based on an explanation. Stop confusing the two.

[jmdrake]

Yes. However you appear to believe that everyone should be given equal stuff and unless they are, they shouldn't be responsible for their actions.

nayjevin never said that.

Edit: I was going to leave this at that one sentence, but I decided to go further. This is the quote from the original article that caused the thread to go off kilter.

Jim Crow’s death is worth celebrating but hardly sufficient for establishing equal opportunity in any meaningful sense, especially when our society still effectively traps people in these conditions by both law and custom, based in no small part on their race. - See more at: http://rare.us/story/to-reach-blacks....FKgO8GZg.dpuf

Now, Ron Paul apparently agrees with that in the sense that he feels that drug laws, among other things, effectively trap people in bad conditions based in no small part on their race. That's why I posted the video that I did. If you agree with what Ron Paul said, then you should agree with the fact that just getting rid of "Jim Crow" isn't/wasn't enough. The problem is that some have latched onto the "establishing equal opportunity" phrase and turned that into "Libertarians must support affirmative action and the welfare state" when nobody has freaking said that! Do minimum wage laws contribute to black unemployment? If so, then getting rid of minimum wage laws helps "establish equal opportunity". Really, you are doing exactly what the liberal media did with Clive Bundy. You extrapolated something that you believed someone else was saying from what that person actually said.

[nayjevin]

Yes. However you appear to believe that everyone should be given equal stuff and unless they are, they shouldn't be responsible for their actions.

I don't know, but maybe if you tried reading what I wrote again looking for something I said that makes you believe this, you would realize that it doesn't exist? Maybe then you can recognize a tendency to put people into categories and assume they hold the characteristics of others you have seen in that category? i.e. liberals, blacks

[jmdrake]

I don't know, but maybe if you tried reading what I wrote again looking for something I said that makes you believe this, you would realize that it doesn't exist? Maybe then you can recognize a tendency to put people into categories and assume they hold the characteristics of others you have seen in that category? i.e. liberals, blacks

In reality, this thread itself shows why libertarians have a hard time reaching minorities. Rather than recognizing how a libertarian philosophy could help alieve problems in the black community, some would rather pontificate about "who's fault" the problems are. If we believe big government generally causes more harm than good than we should just stick with that message. I realize that liberals have pointed out external sources to problems in the black community in order to increase government power. There's no reason libertarians can't do the same thing but with the aim of reducing government power.

[philipped]

You can't be upset that they just don't "get it". Many of us didn't "get it" either. Find common ground. Respect the fact that people's fears are real to them even if they are illogical to you.


As a fellow black man who is very fond of libertarianism, this has been the biggest battle so far.