Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 51

Thread: Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Praises Company For Firing Woman Who Posted ALM

  1. #1

    Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Praises Company For Firing Woman Who Posted ALM

    Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Praises Company For Firing Woman Who Posted “All Lives Matter” on Facebook

    Libertarian Party presidential nominee Jo Jorgensen praised a company for firing an employee who had posted “all lives matter” on her private Facebook page as an example of the free market standing up against “systemic racism.”

    Yes, really.
    During a C-SPAN interview, Jorgensen argued that Rosa Parks was discriminated against because, “what a lot of people don’t realize is that that was a government-owned, government-run bus, and the only way that racism was able to go on for so long was the government was putting it into place.”
    She then claimed that it’s harder for private companies to engage in ‘systemic racism’ because they would go out of business, before celebrating the fact that a woman lost her job for posting “all lives matter” on her Facebook page.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Weird how none of you guys will post the video link of the interview. A 1 hr ish interview where she was trying to explain how private companies are more responsive to their customers is being used by liberty haters to smear Jo.

    When you actually see the context and the way she said it, none of you guys will be posting these articles, this is me assuming that you people have an honest bone in your bodies.

    Post the video link please, the truth is out there.

  4. #3
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?c48931...ivate-facebook

    This is the video, please watch it with the libertarian party hate shades off. The bigger point she was trying to make is that private companies unlike govt run companies are more responsive to discrimination. She wasn't praising the particular act but rather the speed as a desire for private companies not to offend(I can't think of a lesser SJW word at the moment) their paying customers.

    That was the point of the discussion, just so you knows, this 2 min clip is from a 1 hr interview and this is all the haters can find to smear the lady with. Not bad at all if you asked me. One will probably find at least a half dozen objectionable points in a Joe/Donald 1 hr interview

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by John-G View Post
    This is the video, please watch it with the libertarian party hate shades off. The bigger point she was trying to make is that private companies unlike govt run companies are more responsive to discrimination. She wasn't praising the particular act but rather the speed as a desire for private companies not to offend(I can't think of a lesser SJW word at the moment) their paying customers.
    Did she criticize the Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton? I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by John-G View Post
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?c48931...ivate-facebook

    This is the video, please watch it with the libertarian party hate shades off. The bigger point she was trying to make is that private companies unlike govt run companies are more responsive to discrimination. She wasn't praising the particular act but rather the speed as a desire for private companies not to offend(I can't think of a lesser SJW word at the moment) their paying customers.

    That was the point of the discussion, just so you knows, this 2 min clip is from a 1 hr interview and this is all the haters can find to smear the lady with. Not bad at all if you asked me. One will probably find at least a half dozen objectionable points in a Joe/Donald 1 hr interview
    The person in question got fired because of an inclusive statement, not discrimination. Her firing was an act of discrimination because she didn't toe the discriminatory line.
    Rights of private companies should be protected, but they weren't responding to discrimination.
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Ryan
    In Washington you can see them everywhere: the Parasites and baby Stalins sucking the life out of a once-great nation.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by fedupinmo View Post
    The person in question got fired because of an inclusive statement, not discrimination. Her firing was an act of discrimination because she didn't toe the discriminatory line.
    Rights of private companies should be protected, but they weren't responding to discrimination.
    You are right but she did not praise the firing per say but rather the private company's response to perceived discrimination. Btw, I wish she didn't use that example because she did not articulate well and leave her open for attack by her detractors.

    If you listen to the clip you can get the idea that she think the firing was absurd with her emphasizing how it was done in private and how no customers were harmed.

    My point is that she did not praise the firing and that is what the OP would like you to believe. Any reason no matter how disingenuous to get us back into the D/R plantation

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Did she criticize the Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton? I don't know, that's why I'm asking.
    I don't think so, she was just talking about how the free market can prevent discrimination better than the federal govt. Essentially saying that the free market unlike govt in their pursuit of the almighty dollar will be more responsive to their customer which in turn will eliminate generalized discriminations.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by John-G View Post
    You are right but she did not praise the firing per say but rather the private company's response to perceived discrimination. Btw, I wish she didn't use that example because she did not articulate well and leave her open for attack by her detractors.

    If you listen to the clip you can get the idea that she think the firing was absurd with her emphasizing how it was done in private and how no customers were harmed.

    My point is that she did not praise the firing and that is what the OP would like you to believe. Any reason no matter how disingenuous to get us back into the D/R plantation
    Paul Joseph Watson is an Alex Jones hack that has gone full Trumptard over the past 4 years. I agree with you that she could have picked a better example like the CEO of Papa Johns getting hammered over the n-word.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by John-G View Post
    I don't think so, she was just talking about how the free market can prevent discrimination better than the federal govt. Essentially saying that the free market unlike govt in their pursuit of the almighty dollar will be more responsive to their customer which in turn will eliminate generalized discriminations.
    Thank you for the reply. Can you see why many libertarians are upset with statements like these? It appears to be a one way street.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Thank you for the reply. Can you see why many libertarians are upset with statements like these? It appears to be a one way street.
    I think libertarians have been spoiled by Ron Paul that they now expect every new libertarian leader to be in the manner of Ron Paul and anything less will elicit a complaint and add that to the Trump fan bois and Libertarian party hater and you get this loud noise of complaint concerning anything they do. Listen to the clip while following the flow of the conversation and it is easy to see that what she was never praising the particular act of the firing.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by John-G View Post
    I think libertarians have been spoiled by Ron Paul that they now expect every new libertarian leader to be in the manner of Ron Paul and anything less will elicit a complaint and add that to the Trump fan bois and Libertarian party hater and you get this loud noise of complaint concerning anything they do. Listen to the clip while following the flow of the conversation and it is easy to see that what she was never praising the particular act of the firing.
    I wasn't clear with my question.

    The Libertarian Party claims that it is the party of principle. Jo represents the party as their nominee. What is the principle that she was advocating when she made the statement listed in the original post?

    To me, it doesn't look like a principled stance when she is silent on defending the market's ability to discriminate. Hence, my question regarding the Supreme Court.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    I wasn't clear with my question.

    The Libertarian Party claims that it is the party of principle. Jo represents the party as their nominee. What is the principle that she was advocating when she made the statement listed in the original post?

    To me, it doesn't look like a principled stance when she is silent on defending the market's ability to discriminate. Hence, my question regarding the Supreme Court.
    I think she was trying to promote the idea that the free market would punish and end racism. This idea has also been promoted by Ron Paul but I don't buy it. Racism can be promoted and profit by private corporations. Its actually not true what she is saying she says it to pander to the voting public. If you tell people that racism can exist and even thrive in the free market and then you might lose the popular vote, so they make shyte up.

    I wish she had not used the example she used because of issues like this but please go and watch the clip itself, reading the transcript alone doesn't do it justice. You will understand what she is getting at if you actually watch it. She will not go out and defend the govt's ability to discriminate, remember she is still trying to win hearts and mind. It would be a death sentence for her to do such a thing. And if she goes out of her way to bring it up then I am out, it would be a sign to me that she really isn't serious about winning

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by John-G View Post
    I think she was trying to promote the idea that the free market would punish and end racism.
    If you're correct, then Jo might be the most un-libertarian candidate the party has ever had. How can she make a claim about what millions/billions of people will do in a free market? She can't. As you call out, she is pandering. We know she isn't going to win the election, so why she is pandering for an extra few thousand votes is beyond me.

    Quote Originally Posted by John-G View Post
    I wish she had not used the example she used because of issues like this but please go and watch the clip itself, reading the transcript alone doesn't do it justice. You will understand what she is getting at if you actually watch it. She will not go out and defend the govt's ability to discriminate, remember she is still trying to win hearts and mind. It would be a death sentence for her to do such a thing. And if she goes out of her way to bring it up then I am out, it would be a sign to me that she really isn't serious about winning
    Commenting on Bostock v. Clayton would not be out of nowhere. It was a landmark case that was decided in June. It happened a week or so after she accepted the party's nomination. It was a case that involved a firm's rights to fire an employee.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    If you're correct, then Jo might be the most un-libertarian candidate the party has ever had. How can she make a claim about what millions/billions of people will do in a free market? She can't. As you call out, she is pandering. We know she isn't going to win the election, so why she is pandering for an extra few thousand votes is beyond me.
    Now you are just being ridiculous, most unlibertarian candidate because she suggested that the private sector might be better at dealing with racial discrimination than the govt? cos you know that was the point of the whole exercise. And the part I think is pandering is with the idea that she is omitting the part about some segment of this sector being very accommodating to racial discrimination. Sorry mate but every politician panders to the voters to some degree and this is about the most inconsequential form of pandering I have ever seen. Yes, she isn't going to win but she is hoping to make gain over the last guy that ran. Btw, the last guy that ran supported humanitarian wars and for some weird reasons that doesn't make him the most unlibertarian candidate ever


    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Commenting on Bostock v. Clayton would not be out of nowhere. It was a landmark case that was decided in June. It happened a week or so after she accepted the party's nomination. It was a case that involved a firm's rights to fire an employee.
    Going out of her way to highlight a court case that says its was OK for private corporations to discriminate would be her going out of her way to make trouble for her campaign ala Rand's Rachel Maddow interview. You guys are making a huge deal out of this issue. Again, she did NOT praise the company that fired their employee that made an all lives matter post on facebook.
    Last edited by John-G; 08-07-2020 at 06:02 PM.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by John-G View Post
    Now you are just being ridiculous, most unlibertarian candidate because she suggested that the private sector might be better at dealing with racial discrimination than the govt?
    Quote Originally Posted by John-G View Post
    I think she was trying to promote the idea that the free market would punish and end racism.
    Suggesting that the free market is better at dealing with racial discrimination than the state is wildly different than saying that the free market would end racism. Nice try.

    Quote Originally Posted by John-G View Post
    Sorry mate but every politician panders to the voters to some degree
    Did her running mate in 1996 pander?

    Quote Originally Posted by John-G View Post
    the last guy that ran supported humanitarian wars and for some weird reasons that doesn't make him the most unlibertarian candidate ever
    Gary Johnson was quite terrible. No argument from me. Shame on the Libertarian Party for ever nominating him.

    Quote Originally Posted by John-G View Post
    Going out of her to highlight a court case that says its was OK for private corporations to discriminate would be out of nowhere. You guys are making a huge deal out of this issue. Again, she did not praise the company that fired their employee that made an all lives matter post on facebook.
    Ah, I see.

    It is relevant for Jo to comment on a story involving a firm firing someone for being against the values of said firm.

    However, it is not relevant for Jo to comment on a landmark Supreme Court case involving a firm's ability to fire an employee for being against the values of said firm.

    Look. I'm just looking for consistency in the Libertarian Party nominee. If you're going to take the approach that votes and power are more important than principles, then perhaps you ought to just be upfront about that.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Suggesting that the free market is better at dealing with racial discrimination than the state is wildly different than saying that the free market would end racism. Nice try.
    Ending racism bit is me interpreting her words. This is why I ask that you actually watch the clip, its 2 mins long and you can easily get the idea she is trying to impart on the audience. She mainly try to say, "see, the free market are so fervent in their dislike of discrimination that they stamp it out immediately. Again, I implore you, give the clip 2 min of your time.


    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    It is relevant for Jo to comment on a story involving a firm firing someone for being against the values of said firm.

    However, it is not relevant for Jo to comment on a landmark Supreme Court case involving a firm's ability to fire an employee for being against the values of said firm.

    Look. I'm just looking for consistency in the Libertarian Party nominee. If you're going to take the approach that votes and power are more important than principles, then perhaps you ought to just be upfront about that.
    Yes, I like consistency too but if the message you are trying to impart is that the free market abhors discrimination, how would highlighting a story about private enterprise winning a landmark case on discrimination help that case?



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by John-G View Post
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?c48931...ivate-facebook

    This is the video, please watch it with the libertarian party hate shades off. The bigger point she was trying to make is that private companies unlike govt run companies are more responsive to discrimination. She wasn't praising the particular act but rather the speed as a desire for private companies not to offend(I can't think of a lesser SJW word at the moment) their paying customers.

    That was the point of the discussion, just so you knows, this 2 min clip is from a 1 hr interview and this is all the haters can find to smear the lady with. Not bad at all if you asked me. One will probably find at least a half dozen objectionable points in a Joe/Donald 1 hr interview
    Give me a break, that's praising them for being "more responsive to 'discrimination'" and labeling "All Lives Matter"
    discrimination at the same time.

    She's feeding the commie black supremacist racists and contributing to the far left's take over of our culture.
    In short, she's a commie mole like most of the LP.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by John-G View Post
    Ending racism bit is me interpreting her words. This is why I ask that you actually watch the clip, its 2 mins long and you can easily get the idea she is trying to impart on the audience. She mainly try to say, "see, the free market are so fervent in their dislike of discrimination that they stamp it out immediately. Again, I implore you, give the clip 2 min of your time.
    I've seen the clip. You have given me two vastly different interpretations of her words.

    I still don't understand how she knows that the free market will end racism or, at least, be favored against it. She is grossly misleading people on what the free market will be when she has no way of know that. There is nothing built into the free market that makes it any more likely to be anti-racist than a state controlled market like busing example she referenced.


    Quote Originally Posted by John-G View Post
    Yes, I like consistency too but if the message you are trying to impart is that the free market abhors discrimination, how would highlighting a story about private enterprise winning a landmark case on discrimination help that case?
    You must be unfamiliar with Bostock v. Clayton. Businesses lost the ability to fire someone based on their sexual orientation. I was expecting the Party of Principle to comment on how the state is interfering with a firm's ability to hire and fire whomever they want.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    I've seen the clip. You have given me two vastly different interpretations of her words.

    I still don't understand how she knows that the free market will end racism or, at least, be favored against it. She is grossly misleading people on what the free market will be when she has no way of know that. There is nothing built into the free market that makes it any more likely to be anti-racist than a state controlled market like busing example she referenced.
    An educated guess based on recent trends? Or let me put the question to you. Do you believe that Papa Johns would not have lost significant market share if the respose to their CEO using the N-word was "So f'ing what? We can be racist if we want to!" In the 1950s that would have gained Papa Johns market share especially in the South. But not in the 21st century. On to her more subtle point, the racism that sparked the Montgomery bus boycott was subsidized as all public mass transit was subsidized. And "private" taxi companies have been subsidized by the medalion system which only allows so many taxis in the same area. Uber and Lyft totally disrputed that. The phenomenom of "not being able to hail a taxi while black" is much less of an issue on Uber or Lyft. https://futurism.com/the-byte/racial...idehaiing-apps No matter what race you are, somebody is going to give you a ride. While driving Lyft (or Uber, I don't remember which), I once picked up a drunk gay guy who was SURE he didn't get picked up because he was gay and he wanted the customer service number. (There isn't one to my knowledge). I didn't argue with him but I thought "I wouldn't know that you were gay if you hadn't told me" and "You're still getting a ride home aren't you?"

    The free market in the country has never been free! Government has in large part caused the racial ecconomic disparities that now exist. And I'm not just talking about slavery or overt Jim Crow. There were the federal government drawn up "red-line" maps that denied favorable lending to black owned neighborhoods regardless of the economic status of the people living there. And that's just part of the picture. One thing that the CATO institute and Alexandria Ortega Cortez can agree on is that the New Deal itself was racist. But she wants to sell people on the idea that somehow the "Green New Deal" won't be. I, for one, am not buying that.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    I've seen the clip. You have given me two vastly different interpretations of her words.

    I still don't understand how she knows that the free market will end racism or, at least, be favored against it. She is grossly misleading people on what the free market will be when she has no way of know that. There is nothing built into the free market that makes it any more likely to be anti-racist than a state controlled market like busing example she referenced.
    Yes, I agree with you on this. I have noticed that libertarian politicians over inflating the abilities or capabilities of the free market. I don't think she was saying that free markets will end racism but instead said free enterprise will be more responsive to racial discrimination that public institutions. Take for the example she gave, I find it really hard to see a private enterprise having the black people sit at the back policy.

    But again, I see what you are saying. I have heard Ron Paul say that famines would be eliminated and there would be affordable healthcare available for people if we used a free market system. Those are just not very true, but he says them anyway. It is just what free market proponents says about their system. In the same vein, she goes about saying that free enterprise will deal with racism better than the public system.


    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    You must be unfamiliar with Bostock v. Clayton. Businesses lost the ability to fire someone based on their sexual orientation. I was expecting the Party of Principle to comment on how the state is interfering with a firm's ability to hire and fire whomever they want.
    Its not the party of principle per say but the party of liberty and regardless of what you think, they are still in the market of winning voters. So I will ask again, why would she bring up this court case while discussing this particular topic? how does that advance the idea that private enterprise works best at eliminating racial discrimination than public institutions?

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by John-G View Post
    Yes, I agree with you on this. I have noticed that libertarian politicians over inflating the abilities or capabilities of the free market. I don't think she was saying that free markets will end racism but instead said free enterprise will be more responsive to racial discrimination that public institutions. Take for the example she gave, I find it really hard to see a private enterprise having the black people sit at the back policy.
    I can see that happening because it happened! Greyhound, a private interstate bus company, had a segregation policy that was challenged by the "freedom riders" including the late John Lewis.

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Riders

    Now why was this private bus company segregated? A combination of racist laws and white terror in the South. When the racist laws were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, Greyhound still had to deal with the white terror which was supported by local law enforcement. If you owned a bus company and if the only thing you were worried about was profit, what would you think when you saw this?



    The libertarian free market ideal is based on the protection of property rights correct? But when the property of black people and/or those who would serve them without discrimination were not protected simply due to racism, you did not have a free market. From a strictly accounting calculation, any business, public or private, had a decision to make. How much money will I gain by best serving all customers versus how much will I lose from A) biggoted customers no longer using my services and worse B) setting fire to my business? The role of the state should be to at the very least prevent B. Problem A cannot be prevented, but when desegregation became the law, business owners could at least say "Don't blame me for serving blacks inside my resturant. I have to. It's the law."

    But yes. In the perfect world that didn't exist, if the only thing causing discrimination in bussing was racist owners of Greyhound, then Megabus would have popped up and Greyhound would have lost significant market share until it changed its policies.

    Now this is my criticism of the Montgomery bus boycott. When the city desegregated the busses the activists should have said "Ummmm...thanks but no thanks." During the boycott, blacks who owned cars started their own ride sharing services. Think of it as Uber but without cell phones. All that was gained was the "privilege" of giving a still racist city your money and having access to first class service but no economic stake in that service.

    But again, I see what you are saying. I have heard Ron Paul say that famines would be eliminated and there would be affordable healthcare available for people if we used a free market system. Those are just not very true, but he says them anyway. It is just what free market proponents says about their system. In the same vein, she goes about saying that free enterprise will deal with racism better than the public system.
    That depends on what you mean by the words "affordable" and "healthcare." In a perfect free market there would be far more room for alternative medicine and the traditional medicine options would be MUCH cheaper. Government rules and regulations absolutely jack up the price of healthcare. You can't even build a hospital without a "certificate of need." In other words some beuracrat has to decide that a community "needs" X number of hospital beds before one can be built. That totally wrecks the idea of supply and demand. Drug patents also artifically inflate the cost of healthcare. Remember the "Epipen" fiasco? That wouldn't have been a problem if there was no patent, or if there was a limit on the power of the patent. (Like if you price gouge your patent is invalid and other people are free to make your drug.) The whole fight over hydroxychloroquine is really a fight over patents. HCQ is so old that it can be produced generically. No pharmacuetical can make windfall profits off of it. Without drug patents the issue over what works and what doesn't would be de-politicized and we might actually learn the truth whatever it is. Governments also put severe restrictions on what health claims you can make on products you sell. For example, if you sell a bottle of vinegar and put on the bottle "It kills germs", all of a sudden you will be regulated like you were producing a pesticide and you're vinegar bottling would have to be done in an EPA approved facility! Fail to do that and you can be incarcerated! Resell a product like that and even if you don't know doing that is illegal you can be incarcerated!

    Its not the party of principle per say but the party of liberty and regardless of what you think, they are still in the market of winning voters. So I will ask again, why would she bring up this court case while discussing this particular topic? how does that advance the idea that private enterprise works best at eliminating racial discrimination than public institutions?
    I finally read the background of Bostock v. Clayton County. That was a state actor (Clayton County) firing an employee after he said he was interested in joining a gay softball team. The libertarian principle that taxes taken from everyone shouldn't be used to support discrimination applies even though the ruling itself went beyond public institutions. The related cases, Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, were private cases. Zarda claimed he told a female skydiving customer he was gay so she would feel "more comfortable" being strapped to him. (The company claimed the customer said he inappropriately touched one of them...though I can't tell which one). The interesting thing is the company was located in Long Island New York. I think had this resulted in a boycott as opposed to a lawsuit he would have got his job back sooner. (He died in a base jumping accident before the case was settled). In the Harris Funeral Home case, a long time male employee wrote a letter to the funeral home that "he" was coming back from vacation as "she" but would perform all of her duties the same. The funeral home is located in a suburb of Detroit. I'm not quite sure how the free market dynamics of that case would have played out.

    Anyway, I agree that, unless asked, there was no reason for Jo Jorgenson to bring those cases up. That's like saying "Why doesn't Ron Paul talk about the 9/11 wargames?"
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    An educated guess based on recent trends? Or let me put the question to you. Do you believe that Papa Johns would not have lost significant market share if the respose to their CEO using the N-word was "So f'ing what?
    Can I envision a scenario in a free society where a firm loses market share due to racism? Yes.

    Can I envision a scenario in which it has no impact whatsoever on a business? Yes.

    I live in an area that is 99% white. My business involves serving the public so I get to know people and other businesses. There are business owners in my area that would absolutely discriminate based on race/sex/religion. I think it is safe to say that their businesses would be fine if they were legally allowed such actions. Libertarians often overestimate how progressive people have actually become in the 21st century.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    The free market in the country has never been free! Government has in large part caused the racial ecconomic disparities that now exist. And I'm not just talking about slavery or overt Jim Crow. There were the federal government drawn up "red-line" maps that denied favorable lending to black owned neighborhoods regardless of the economic status of the people living there. And that's just part of the picture. One thing that the CATO institute and Alexandria Ortega Cortez can agree on is that the New Deal itself was racist. But she wants to sell people on the idea that somehow the "Green New Deal" won't be. I, for one, am not buying that.
    Yes, I'm familiar with this argument. Spike Cohen likes to talk about this all the time. However, there is no proof that in a truly free market, all/most businesses would prefer not to discriminate. It is human nature to self-segregate. I think libertarians need to accept this as long as the NAP is being followed.

  26. #23
    Big business can tyrannize you just as fast as big government, and CEOs of big business have no problem openly losing money, share price and market share directly because of "going woke".

    And that is just what it is: tyranny, when you speak your mind on political issues and end up losing your job and having a mob show up at your door.

    Point being: big business will often do the tyrannical and wrong thing, even when it goes against best business practices and profit objectives.

    CEO of Gillette is a perfect example, doubling down on a woke ad campaign that cost the company 8 BILLION in lost sales.

    Libertarians failing to realize this truth are one reason among many as to why they fail, over and over again, to gain political "traction".
    Last edited by Anti Federalist; 08-08-2020 at 10:15 AM.
    There are only two things we should fight for.
    One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. - Smedley Darlington Butler

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Can I envision a scenario in a free society where a firm loses market share due to racism? Yes.

    Can I envision a scenario in which it has no impact whatsoever on a business? Yes.

    I live in an area that is 99% white. My business involves serving the public so I get to know people and other businesses. There are business owners in my area that would absolutely discriminate based on race/sex/religion. I think it is safe to say that their businesses would be fine if they were legally allowed such actions. Libertarians often overestimate how progressive people have actually become in the 21st century.



    Yes, I'm familiar with this argument. Spike Cohen likes to talk about this all the time. However, there is no proof that in a truly free market, all/most businesses would prefer not to discriminate. It is human nature to self-segregate. I think libertarians need to accept this as long as the NAP is being followed.
    You are right that human nature trends towards self segregation but at the same time, but the libertarian ideology is that the profit motive will push against that desire. Hence the idea that free markets will counter racial discrimination. Will that be true for 100% of the communities in the US? absolutely not, every general rule has pockets of exceptions.

    But nobody expects anyone to go about spouting the exceptions to the rules that are trying to promote. And there is maybe a tiny percent chance of that approach winning her your vote and a huge percent chance of that strategy losing her the votes of millions of people living in the areas where the free market will in fact lead to lesser discrimination.

    This strategy is a no brainer, Ron Paul, Rand Paul and just about every liberty minded politician used a version of this strategy during their campaign. And I assure you, if you go back and nitpick their campaign, you will find so many instances which you can question. So essentially she can attempt to win (not even a guarantee if you did what you want) the votes of the few people who live in 90% plus homogeneous communities or try for the votes of the vast majority of the rest of the country.

    Politics sucks but if you refuse to play even a little bit of it, you will lose 100% of the time, guaranteed.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Big business can tyrannize you just as fast as big government, and CEOs of big business have no problem openly losing money, share price and market share directly because of "going woke".

    And that is just what it is: tyranny, when you speak your mind on political issues and end up losing your job and having a mob show up at your door.

    Point being: big business will often do the tyrannical and wrong thing, even when it goes against best business practices and profit objectives.

    CEO of Gillette is a perfect example, doubling down on a woke ad campaign that cost the company 8 BILLION in lost sales.

    Libertarians failing to realize this truth are one reason among many as to why they fail, over and over again, to gain political "traction".
    There is something rotten in system that prevents markets rules to work. I am not sure what it is but you can feel it with the examples you mentioned. Its like they have an external way of bolstering their market share. Fed reserve, big banks support, politicians, I really don't know. But this system is not a free market and that is why the whole debate is complicated

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by John-G View Post
    Yes, I agree with you on this. I have noticed that libertarian politicians over inflating the abilities or capabilities of the free market. I don't think she was saying that free markets will end racism but instead said free enterprise will be more responsive to racial discrimination that public institutions. Take for the example she gave, I find it really hard to see a private enterprise having the black people sit at the back policy.
    Fair enough. However, if you follow her entire campaign (including social media), she often uses language that obfuscates this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by John-G View Post
    But again, I see what you are saying. I have heard Ron Paul say that famines would be eliminated and there would be affordable healthcare available for people if we used a free market system. Those are just not very true, but he says them anyway. It is just what free market proponents says about their system. In the same vein, she goes about saying that free enterprise will deal with racism better than the public system.
    For many, the reason why libertarianism is not appealing is that it seems pie in the sky. You have libertarians essentially promising utopia. No racism! Everyone has access to healthcare! Fluid job markets! No wars! Equality for all!

    I suppose its just a marketing gimmick to get votes, but there has to be a way of being positive but also realistic about expectations.

    Quote Originally Posted by John-G View Post
    Its not the party of principle per say but the party of liberty and regardless of what you think, they are still in the market of winning voters. So I will ask again, why would she bring up this court case while discussing this particular topic? how does that advance the idea that private enterprise works best at eliminating racial discrimination than public institutions?
    Again, its not out of the blue to comment on a Supreme Court decision. Would she be this aloof if she were president? If you want my vote, you kind of need to comment on what goes on with the state.

    You seem to think my goal is to eliminate racial discrimination. It isn't. My goal is to simply see the NAP realized as much as possible.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Fair enough. However, if you follow her entire campaign (including social media), she often uses language that obfuscates this point.
    Well, the only social media I follow is youtube, so I wouldn't really know what she is doing on other platforms


    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    For many, the reason why libertarianism is not appealing is that it seems pie in the sky. You have libertarians essentially promising utopia. No racism! Everyone has access to healthcare! Fluid job markets! No wars! Equality for all!
    This cannot be said loud enough, my mouth dropped when I heard Ron say famines wouldn't exist in the free market. I think its time that we become honest with ourselves and stop saying that govt is virtually all bad. As someone who has worked in transplant unit, I can tell you that govt and govt programs have forced many medical research that would have never been funded in a free market system. You see the thousand of people on dialysis, heart transplant, lung transplant etc and you are looking at people who most likely would have been dead today without those R&D money. I am talking about billion of dollars in research and then billions more for treatment and care for the people who gone through the program.

    But then again, I think people should understand there there will be a little bit of embellishment when it comes to campaigning. Regardless, the libertarians would be much closer to what they promised than what the R and D candidates promise the masses every year.


    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Again, its not out of the blue to comment on a Supreme Court decision. Would she be this aloof if she were president? If you want my vote, you kind of need to comment on what goes on with the state.

    You seem to think my goal is to eliminate racial discrimination. It isn't. My goal is to simply see the NAP realized as much as possible.

    I don't think you are trying to prevent racial discrimination. I think you would prefer a society where the individual can choose what they prefer without govt interference(NAP). But she is trying to promote the idea that the free market will improve on racial discrimination. So again, why would she bring up this case in this conversation? this doesn't help her case at all. It is a tight rope to walk, wooing the majority of the general public who are skeptical of libertarianism while keeping the votes of people like you who are open to the idea of it. I truly believe she is doing a fantastic job walking that rope
    Last edited by John-G; 08-08-2020 at 11:04 AM.

  32. #28
    I watched the clip. I’m not going to attempt to read any more into it other than she seemed to be praising the “private” sector for being free to fire an employee for something they did outside of work, no matter how small or petty it might be.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    I watched the clip. I’m not going to attempt to read any more into it other than she seemed to be praising the “private” sector for being free to fire an employee for something they did outside of work, no matter how small or petty it might be.
    Thanks for getting to the root of this issue. It's about free speech. Neither corporations or governments should be able to stifle it.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Echo1955 View Post
    Thanks for getting to the root of this issue. It's about free speech. Neither corporations or governments should be able to stifle it.
    How about political forums?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-08-2020, 02:02 AM
  2. Darryl W. Perry 2016 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate
    By presence in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 02-11-2016, 12:25 PM
  3. Replies: 582
    Last Post: 10-05-2014, 08:40 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-13-2011, 04:03 PM
  5. Wash Post: Libertarian Party picks Barr as presidential candidate
    By Bradley in DC in forum Other Presidential Candidates
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-26-2008, 07:20 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •