Options

Why Are So Many "Nerds" Libertarians?

145791022

Posts

  • Options
    Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    No, I totally think Jefferson would be a Libertarian today, because Jefferson was bat-shit fucking crazy. He'd fit right in with the Libertarian movement.
    Hahaha, well observed.
    Nah.

    I'd bet he'd be one of those anarcho-syndicalists.

    You can't be a libertarian and hate industrialization/economic centralization as much as Jefferson did.
    Man, Libertarians specialize in totally selling out one set of their beliefs in order to advance another one. He'd fit in perfectly.

    Isn't there something a bit odd about a libertarian who owned slaves?

    Not even slightly. In fact it's a logical consequence of the philosophy...

    Professor Phobos on
  • Options
    MuttnikMuttnik Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Oh, hey guys.

    Why are you all standing in a circle, holding each other's cocks? Am I interrupting something?

    Muttnik on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Muttnik wrote: »
    Oh, hey guys.

    Why are you all standing in a circle, holding each other's cocks? Am I interrupting something?

    So, your ego is still the size of Cleveland, I see.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    MuttnikMuttnik Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Muttnik wrote: »
    Oh, hey guys.

    Why are you all standing in a circle, holding each other's cocks? Am I interrupting something?

    So, your ego is still the size of Cleveland, I see.

    It is good to see you in full health.

    How many scabs have you assaulted this week?

    Muttnik on
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2007
    Katholic wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    I have to do a presentation on anti-trust policies next week.

    While Greenspan may only be tangentially mentioned, I have a feeling that I may have to bring up the rumors of his being Ayn Rand's lover, then have a several slide tirade against Ayn Rand, before the presentation of anti-trust material can continue.

    Shinto, can you go back to your old buddy icon? I like it better, it made you seem more evil in a way.

    Stop oppressing me with your social pressure.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2007
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    No, I totally think Jefferson would be a Libertarian today, because Jefferson was bat-shit fucking crazy. He'd fit right in with the Libertarian movement.
    Hahaha, well observed.
    Nah.

    I'd bet he'd be one of those anarcho-syndicalists.

    You can't be a libertarian and hate industrialization/economic centralization as much as Jefferson did.
    Man, Libertarians specialize in totally selling out one set of their beliefs in order to advance another one. He'd fit in perfectly.

    Isn't there something a bit odd about a libertarian who owned slaves?

    Libertarians have actually never, ever, been in the forefront of any civil rights issue.

    At best they golf clap while worrying about taxes.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    No, I totally think Jefferson would be a Libertarian today, because Jefferson was bat-shit fucking crazy. He'd fit right in with the Libertarian movement.
    Hahaha, well observed.
    Nah.

    I'd bet he'd be one of those anarcho-syndicalists.

    You can't be a libertarian and hate industrialization/economic centralization as much as Jefferson did.
    Man, Libertarians specialize in totally selling out one set of their beliefs in order to advance another one. He'd fit in perfectly.

    Isn't there something a bit odd about a libertarian who owned slaves?

    Libertarians have actually never, ever, been in the forefront of any civil rights issue.

    At best they golf clap while worrying about taxes.

    The libertarian argument about civil rights is basically "racism is irrational, therefore it won't happen." Remember that libertarians believe that humans are perfectly rational actors.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2007
    No, that isn't their argument generally in my experience.

    Have you ever heard them say that, or are you just generally talking out of your ass today?

    Shinto on
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    There are no such things as civil rights to a Libertarian. Racism is irrational, but it isn't the government's job to punish irrational decisions.

    Yar on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    No, that isn't their argument generally in my experience.

    Have you ever heard them say that, or are you just generally talking out of your ass today?

    Okay, here's the whole argument as I've heard it described to me.

    Libertarians have no need for anti-discrimination laws, because any company or person who chose to discriminate in their business would immediately put themselves at a disadvantage, by limiting their customer base artificially in comparison to their competitors. Therefore, the market will punish them for their conduct.

    The fact that it flies in the face of history is of no consequence.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    I checked the Libertarian Party's platform, and they don't seem to have any mention of racism. Ironically, they have special sections devoted to reproductive rights and sexuality and gender, but other than that it's all vague talk of safeguarding rights and freedoms.

    ...Not that I think the American Libertarian Party is the end-all, be-all of libertarianism, but they seem like an obvious starting point.

    Zalbinion on
  • Options
    jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    No, that isn't their argument generally in my experience.

    Have you ever heard them say that, or are you just generally talking out of your ass today?

    Okay, here's the whole argument as I've heard it described to me.

    Libertarians have no need for anti-discrimination laws, because any company or person who chose to discriminate in their business would immediately put themselves at a disadvantage, by limiting their customer base artificially in comparison to their competitors. Therefore, the market will punish them for their conduct.

    The fact that it flies in the face of history is of no consequence.

    Plus, that relies on the assumption that a few decades down the line there will be more than one business.

    jothki on
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2007
    Yar wrote: »
    There are no such things as civil rights to a Libertarian. Racism is irrational, but it isn't the government's job to punish irrational decisions.

    Civil rights are rights that a nation state grants and defends for its citizens. Like voting and free speech. I'm not talking about sitting at non-segregated lunch counters and equal pay.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    No, that isn't their argument generally in my experience.

    Have you ever heard them say that, or are you just generally talking out of your ass today?

    Okay, here's the whole argument as I've heard it described to me.

    Libertarians have no need for anti-discrimination laws, because any company or person who chose to discriminate in their business would immediately put themselves at a disadvantage, by limiting their customer base artificially in comparison to their competitors. Therefore, the market will punish them for their conduct.

    The fact that it flies in the face of history is of no consequence.

    That isn't the same as your assertion that they believe all humans to be perfectly rational actors.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    No, that isn't their argument generally in my experience.

    Have you ever heard them say that, or are you just generally talking out of your ass today?

    Okay, here's the whole argument as I've heard it described to me.

    Libertarians have no need for anti-discrimination laws, because any company or person who chose to discriminate in their business would immediately put themselves at a disadvantage, by limiting their customer base artificially in comparison to their competitors. Therefore, the market will punish them for their conduct.

    The fact that it flies in the face of history is of no consequence.

    That isn't the same as your assertion that they believe all humans to be perfectly rational actors.

    Because it's the subtext in the ideology itself! The whole ideology is built around that humans are economically rational. Which is why it breaks down when it hits the real world - because, let's face it, we're not.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Thanks, WikiShinto. Civil Rights are bestowed by government, specifically as opposed to natural rights. Which is why a Lib generally doesn't recognize them.

    More realistically, Civil Rights issues are about requiring one party to participate unwillingly in something, because they otherwise wouldn't do so for bigoted reasons. Which is where we get back to AngelHedge's market corrections.

    But even broadening it to voting and such, sure, the extreme Libertarian point of view is that it is up to you to get your own message across, the government need not help you so long as they aren't stopping you and no one else is trying to hurt or rob you.

    And no, Angel, it doesn't fly in the face of history. It matches history quite well, with one exception.

    Yar on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Yar wrote: »
    Thanks, WikiShinto. Civil Rights are bestowed by government, specifically as opposed to natural rights. Which is why a Lib generally doesn't recognize them.

    More realistically, Civil Rights issues are about requiring one party to participate unwillingly in something, because they otherwise wouldn't do so for bigoted reasons.

    But even broadening it to voting and such, sure, the extreme Libertarian point of view is that it is up to you to get your own message across, the government need not help you so long as they aren't stopping you and no one else is trying to hurt or rob you.

    Hence my "flying in the face of history" comment. Racism is destructive to the soul of a society, and you can't just ignore it. And no, the market won't solve the problem.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    No, that isn't their argument generally in my experience.

    Have you ever heard them say that, or are you just generally talking out of your ass today?

    Okay, here's the whole argument as I've heard it described to me.

    Libertarians have no need for anti-discrimination laws, because any company or person who chose to discriminate in their business would immediately put themselves at a disadvantage, by limiting their customer base artificially in comparison to their competitors. Therefore, the market will punish them for their conduct.

    The fact that it flies in the face of history is of no consequence.

    That isn't the same as your assertion that they believe all humans to be perfectly rational actors.

    Because it's the subtext in the ideology itself!

    I think it is ironic that you pretty much abandon evidence and just jump straight to your assertion, while at the same time criticizing Libertarians for ignoring evidence.

    The Libertarian point there is that the market will drive out irrational behavior, not that people are perfectly rational.

    The difference between those two is the difference between saying you believe in natural selection and saying that you think all individual animals are capable of simply adapting their bodies to changes in the environment.

    We don't need to make these lame straw men to knock down.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2007
    Yar wrote: »
    Thanks, WikiShinto. Civil Rights are bestowed by government, specifically as opposed to natural rights. Which is why a Lib generally doesn't recognize them.

    I don't know what Libertarians you know, but the ones around here, while having a hard on for natural rights, also have a hard on for the constitution.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    KatholicKatholic Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    No, I totally think Jefferson would be a Libertarian today, because Jefferson was bat-shit fucking crazy. He'd fit right in with the Libertarian movement.
    Hahaha, well observed.
    Nah.

    I'd bet he'd be one of those anarcho-syndicalists.

    You can't be a libertarian and hate industrialization/economic centralization as much as Jefferson did.
    Man, Libertarians specialize in totally selling out one set of their beliefs in order to advance another one. He'd fit in perfectly.

    Isn't there something a bit odd about a libertarian who owned slaves?

    Libertarians have actually never, ever, been in the forefront of any civil rights issue.

    At best they golf clap while worrying about taxes.

    The libertarian argument about civil rights is basically "racism is irrational, therefore it won't happen." Remember that libertarians believe that humans are perfectly rational actors.

    Actually, generally what we say is that racism is bad for business. Examples include the secret service scandal where Denny's lost a great deal of money and quickly developed an anti racism program among their employees to cut their losses. Racism is bad for business so the companies that don't adapt will go out of business. At least that is the theory instead of your "Libertarians are dumb I am gonna make shit up to make them sound like fucking morons".

    Katholic on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Katholic wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    No, I totally think Jefferson would be a Libertarian today, because Jefferson was bat-shit fucking crazy. He'd fit right in with the Libertarian movement.
    Hahaha, well observed.
    Nah.

    I'd bet he'd be one of those anarcho-syndicalists.

    You can't be a libertarian and hate industrialization/economic centralization as much as Jefferson did.
    Man, Libertarians specialize in totally selling out one set of their beliefs in order to advance another one. He'd fit in perfectly.

    Isn't there something a bit odd about a libertarian who owned slaves?

    Libertarians have actually never, ever, been in the forefront of any civil rights issue.

    At best they golf clap while worrying about taxes.

    The libertarian argument about civil rights is basically "racism is irrational, therefore it won't happen." Remember that libertarians believe that humans are perfectly rational actors.

    Actually, generally what we say is that racism is bad for business. Examples include the secret service scandal where Denny's lost a great deal of money and quickly developed an anti racism program among their employees to cut their losses. Racism is bad for business so the companies that don't adapt will go out of business. At least that is the theory instead of your "Libertarians are dumb I am gonna make shit up to make them sound like fucking morons".
    Yes, but history has shown that this doesn't really work.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    No, that isn't their argument generally in my experience.

    Have you ever heard them say that, or are you just generally talking out of your ass today?

    Okay, here's the whole argument as I've heard it described to me.

    Libertarians have no need for anti-discrimination laws, because any company or person who chose to discriminate in their business would immediately put themselves at a disadvantage, by limiting their customer base artificially in comparison to their competitors. Therefore, the market will punish them for their conduct.

    The fact that it flies in the face of history is of no consequence.

    That isn't the same as your assertion that they believe all humans to be perfectly rational actors.

    Because it's the subtext in the ideology itself!

    I think it is ironic that you pretty much abandon evidence and just jump straight to your assertion, while at the same time criticizing Libertarians for ignoring evidence.

    The Libertarian point there is that the market will drive out irrational behavior, not that people are perfectly rational.

    The difference between those two is the difference between saying you believe in natural selection and saying that you think all individual animals are capable of simply adapting their bodies to changes in the environment.

    We don't need to make these lame straw men to knock down.

    So, why is irrational behavior punished by the market? Because, in libertarian theory, irrational behavior places the irrational actor at a disadvantage compared to rational actors. If I cut my customer base by discrimination, and my competitors don't, then I'm at a disadvantage because they draw on larger customer bases than I do. So yes, the whole theory hinges on people being rational actors naturally - because if ALL the businesses discriminate, the whole mechanism breaks down.

    So yes, libertarianism relies on saying that people are rational.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2007
    So yes, libertarianism relies on saying that people are rational.

    It relies on some people being rational. Then it relies on the market rewarding them.

    This is different than saying that the Libertarian doesn't believe racism exists bcuz omg ppl r rational.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Katholic wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    No, I totally think Jefferson would be a Libertarian today, because Jefferson was bat-shit fucking crazy. He'd fit right in with the Libertarian movement.
    Hahaha, well observed.
    Nah.

    I'd bet he'd be one of those anarcho-syndicalists.

    You can't be a libertarian and hate industrialization/economic centralization as much as Jefferson did.
    Man, Libertarians specialize in totally selling out one set of their beliefs in order to advance another one. He'd fit in perfectly.

    Isn't there something a bit odd about a libertarian who owned slaves?

    Libertarians have actually never, ever, been in the forefront of any civil rights issue.

    At best they golf clap while worrying about taxes.

    The libertarian argument about civil rights is basically "racism is irrational, therefore it won't happen." Remember that libertarians believe that humans are perfectly rational actors.

    Actually, generally what we say is that racism is bad for business. Examples include the secret service scandal where Denny's lost a great deal of money and quickly developed an anti racism program among their employees to cut their losses. Racism is bad for business so the companies that don't adapt will go out of business. At least that is the theory instead of your "Libertarians are dumb I am gonna make shit up to make them sound like fucking morons".
    Yes, but history has shown that this doesn't really work.

    Right. The only reason that the issue with Denny's happened is because now, there's a stigma for a branch of a large corporation to be seen refusing service to blacks. If this had happened in the 50's, there wouldn't have been a backlash at all - hell, there would have been people who would have shifted their business to them. If racism was naturally bad for business, then we wouldn't have needed the Civil Rights Movement, would we?

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    KatholicKatholic Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Katholic wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    No, I totally think Jefferson would be a Libertarian today, because Jefferson was bat-shit fucking crazy. He'd fit right in with the Libertarian movement.
    Hahaha, well observed.
    Nah.

    I'd bet he'd be one of those anarcho-syndicalists.

    You can't be a libertarian and hate industrialization/economic centralization as much as Jefferson did.
    Man, Libertarians specialize in totally selling out one set of their beliefs in order to advance another one. He'd fit in perfectly.

    Isn't there something a bit odd about a libertarian who owned slaves?

    Libertarians have actually never, ever, been in the forefront of any civil rights issue.

    At best they golf clap while worrying about taxes.

    The libertarian argument about civil rights is basically "racism is irrational, therefore it won't happen." Remember that libertarians believe that humans are perfectly rational actors.

    Actually, generally what we say is that racism is bad for business. Examples include the secret service scandal where Denny's lost a great deal of money and quickly developed an anti racism program among their employees to cut their losses. Racism is bad for business so the companies that don't adapt will go out of business. At least that is the theory instead of your "Libertarians are dumb I am gonna make shit up to make them sound like fucking morons".
    Yes, but history has shown that this doesn't really work.
    I say that in modern times it does work because it has shown time and time again that racism hurts a businesses profits.. I will give you that historically, libertarianism would have basically furthered white supremancy.

    Katholic on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Katholic wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Yes, but history has shown that this doesn't really work.
    I say that in modern times it does work because it has shown time and time again that racism hurts a businesses profits.. I will give you that historically, libertarianism would have basically furthered white supremancy.
    So, in other words, your system only works after others do the heavy lifting of showing that certain things are wrong. Or, to put it more simply, your system doesn't have an answer to racism.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2007
    Katholic wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Yes, but history has shown that this doesn't really work.
    I say that in modern times it does work because it has shown time and time again that racism hurts a businesses profits.. I will give you that historically, libertarianism would have basically furthered white supremancy.
    So, in other words, your system only works after others do the heavy lifting of showing that certain things are wrong. Or, to put it more simply, your system doesn't have an answer to racism.

    I don't know. I'd say in the long run it is freedom of speech which is steadily moving society toward broader and broader acceptance of who is fully human. This short talk by Sojourner Truth being the classic example.

    It's the freedom of speech that is doing the heavily lifting of the long term trend, not government action.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    KatholicKatholic Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Katholic wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Yes, but history has shown that this doesn't really work.
    I say that in modern times it does work because it has shown time and time again that racism hurts a businesses profits.. I will give you that historically, libertarianism would have basically furthered white supremancy.
    So, in other words, your system only works after others do the heavy lifting of showing that certain things are wrong. Or, to put it more simply, your system doesn't have an answer to racism.

    People are the ones who make change, not government.

    Katholic on
  • Options
    ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Katholic wrote: »
    People are the ones who make change, not government.

    Maybe I'm being naive, but I thought that in a democracy the people are the government, and thus government action is a means by which people effect change in society?

    Zalbinion on
  • Options
    KatholicKatholic Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Katholic wrote: »
    People are the ones who make change, not government.

    Maybe I'm being naive, but I thought that in a democracy the people are the government, and thus government action is a means by which people effect change in society?

    To Libertarians government is terrible, and minimizing it as much as possible is the best solution. Government is never efficient as private industry, and many people see it as a corrupt bureaucratic mess.

    Katholic on
  • Options
    enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Civil rights are rights that a nation state grants and defends for its citizens. Like voting and free speech. I'm not talking about sitting at non-segregated lunch counters and equal pay.

    You don't consider civil rights to be inherent? Certainly a libertarian would.

    enc0re on
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    So, what does libertarianism say about people in a racist society?

    Let's say there's only 1 restaurant in town, Jimmy's International House of Racism and Pancakes. Now, Jimmy don't like the black man. Won't serve them.

    So a local black man decides he's had enough, and opens up his own restaurant. Bob McTolerance's Bar and Grill. Bob serves everyone.

    Thing is, most of the town's pretty damn racist too. They don't wanna eat at Bob's because it's full of "niggers". So they eat at Jimmy's. The black people eat at Bob's cause they ain't got no choice. The rest of the town doesn't care and goes either way.

    Thing is, there's a hell of alot more white people then black people in this town. And there's just not enough black people to support Bob's restaurant. So Bob's goes outta business, and the black people of the town are left in the same position as before. They got nowhere in town to eat.

    So, how does Libertarianism punish Jimmy for being a racist fuck if he lives in a town with a whole bunch of racist fucks?

    shryke on
  • Options
    Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    There are no such things as civil rights to a Libertarian. Racism is irrational, but it isn't the government's job to punish irrational decisions.

    Civil rights are rights that a nation state grants and defends for its citizens. Like voting and free speech. I'm not talking about sitting at non-segregated lunch counters and equal pay.

    Well, technically human rights are the ones a state protects, as all humans are supposed to have equal rights as an intrinsic privilege of person hood. In the abstract, theoretical we-are-committed-to-this-ideal sense.

    Professor Phobos on
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2007
    enc0re wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    Civil rights are rights that a nation state grants and defends for its citizens. Like voting and free speech. I'm not talking about sitting at non-segregated lunch counters and equal pay.

    You don't consider civil rights to be inherent? Certainly a libertarian would.

    You're confusing civil rights with natural rights.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    DefunkerDefunker Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Just for shits and giggles, I'm wondering why exactly segregation is a bad thing. I mean government enforced segregation, I can see how that would be bad. But if Jimmy's International House of Racism and Waffles doesn't serve white people (like myself), so what?

    I'll likely move to a different area where businesses serve me. Yes, this will result in a general segregation of the population, but why is that bad? Isn't it just natural for similiar groups of people to all converge to one area?

    I think forced de-segregation is worse than segregation.

    Defunker on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Defunker wrote: »
    Just for shits and giggles, I'm wondering why exactly segregation is a bad thing. I mean government enforced segregation, I can see how that would be bad. But if Jimmy's International House of Racism and Waffles doesn't serve white people (like myself), so what?

    I'll likely move to a different area where businesses serve me. Yes, this will result in a general segregation of the population, but why is that bad? Isn't it just natural for similiar groups of people to all converge to one area?

    I think forced de-segregation is worse than segregation.
    #1) Separate but equal inherently isn't.

    #2) Not everyone can afford to move.

    #3) You don't see a problem with the barriers to commerce and social rifts that that would inevitably erect?

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Katholic wrote: »
    To Libertarians government is terrible, and minimizing it as much as possible is the best solution. Government is never efficient as private industry, and many people see it as a corrupt bureaucratic mess.
    Right, just like you say, Libertarians are batshit fucking insane.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    KatholicKatholic Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Katholic wrote: »
    To Libertarians government is terrible, and minimizing it as much as possible is the best solution. Government is never efficient as private industry, and many people see it as a corrupt bureaucratic mess.
    Right, just like you say, Libertarians are batshit fucking insane.

    I really don't understand your reasoning. We don't have a hardon for the shitty quality of service government provides us. Private industry will always do a better job than the government.

    Katholic on
  • Options
    HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    I'm a nerd.

    I think libertarianism is flawed, and ultimately selfish.

    I don't consider myself an anomaly.

    Heartlash on
    My indie mobile gaming studio: Elder Aeons
    Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
  • Options
    HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Katholic wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Katholic wrote: »
    To Libertarians government is terrible, and minimizing it as much as possible is the best solution. Government is never efficient as private industry, and many people see it as a corrupt bureaucratic mess.
    Right, just like you say, Libertarians are batshit fucking insane.

    I really don't understand your reasoning. We don't have a hardon for the shitty quality of service government provides us. Private industry will always do a better job than the government.

    Private industry maintains equal potential for inadequacy and corruption. The only difference is that the government is one giant bureaucracy, whereas the private sector is a gaggle of larger bureaucracies. In my viewpoint, it's easier to isolate problems when you're dealing with one big machine than a bunch of slightly smaller ones. The government, by mechanisms embedded within the constitution, is prone to oversight by the people. A system regarding totalized privatization would be wide open to oligarchy.

    Heartlash on
    My indie mobile gaming studio: Elder Aeons
    Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Sign In or Register to comment.