And how do you explain the simple fact that such people began to win thir freedom, often helped by Federal government action, in the 1960's, rather than your mythic dream time?
- I explain it by your lack of knowledge.
Oh, don't worry, I identified your brand of insanity a few posts ago.
The so called 'Civil Rights Act of 1964' is not actually a 'Rights' Act where it concerns private property and private individuals. It's a good act where it concerns the government desegregation, but where it forced private people and businesses into a different pattern of behavior based on government becoming STRONGER - handing out punishment for not following the new rules, people lost rights, didn't gain them.
As to "Women, Blacks, Jews, Irish, Chinese, homosexuals" - sure, government was against those people, and it was obviously a BAD agreement, a bad compromise on the part of the States that ratified the Constitution that said for example that Blacks were not fully a person.
However it was the improving economy, the raising of all boats by the increase in overall wealth of the economy due to the free market and due to the 'weak' government of the time, that in fact allowed improvements in all of those areas. 1870 to 1913 was the time of weak government and strong individual freedom, which created the strongest economy in the world and this allowed the people who were oppressed by the government previously to that time to rise up.
And how do you explain the simple fact that such people began to win thir freedom, often helped by Federal government action, in the 1960's, rather than your mythic dream time?
You seem to be wedded to the idea of argument by assertion. Your claim is that "weak government" produces wealth and freedom. When anyone produces counter examples you repeat yourself, providing no more factual information.
Second, you seem to believe that the US at the start of the 20th century was a bastion of individual liberty compared to its current degraded state. That could hardly be less true. If you were black and lived in the South, the whole concept of "civil rights" barely existed. It was better in the north, but not that much better. Many towns openly banned blacks, Jews, and other "undesirable" people from living there. Interracial marriage was illegal in many states. So was homosexuality. Discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, etc. was both legal and openly practiced. We've come a very long way in the last century, and until you take a good look at how things used to be, it's hard to realize just how much.
You didn't address this point, merely claiming, with no evidence, that the USA before 1913 was freer than it is today.
As SoftwareArtist pointed out this is debateable - Women, Blacks, Jews, people of Irish or Chinese origin and homosexuals might have a different idea of how "free" things were then.
Sounds to me like it don't much matter if tab A gets inserted into slot B no matter what sex A or B is, or what hole they're using, as long as they're both consenting adults blah blah. That's the libertarian answer. The control freak comes out when you say no, you are not F-ing setting up a concentration camp for brown people, because unlike two dudes in a closet, that does destroy a country.
So we should just ignore the fact that Ron Paul, darling of libertarians, is a racist homophobe?
No, I am fantasizing about a "truly free market" world pretty similar to the Middle Age Europe, with lots of little chiefdoms and large kingdoms, palatinates and prince-bishops, with a completely splittered landscape of coin systems and units, contracts and rivalry, agreements, cross-marriages, alliances and feuds, big Reichstags where all participants declare their common interests, while already bringing their troups into position for the next war.
Alternatively, a libertarian society might possibly emerge from the ashes of a destructive event, such as a massive tsunami that washes away much of the public and private property (real and personal) of a large region.
You imply then that right-leaning people aren't intelligent? Hilarious to say the least. I'll throw my opinion in there too for that matter. Scientists are more likely to be right-leaning because they think with their brain, not their heart, as left-leaning people tend to.
You put opinion above observation (yes, there is data that shows that scientists tend to be left-leaning) which shows that you are probably not a scientist. It would also tend to indicate that you are right wing.
That would depend on your definition of "people" wouldn't it? The supreme court continuously reinterprets the constitution to mean whatever the current court wants it to mean.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're using Mercator you're not really into maps.
http://xkcd.com/977/
Replying to undo mod - tried to do "funny" but saw some paultard had already done "insightful". WTF!
Yecond Psot!
You know, for historical re-enactment?
Who said China was communist?
The Communist party however, is.
And how do you explain the simple fact that such people began to win thir freedom, often helped by Federal government action, in the 1960's, rather than your mythic dream time?
- I explain it by your lack of knowledge.
Oh, don't worry, I identified your brand of insanity a few posts ago.
The so called 'Civil Rights Act of 1964' is not actually a 'Rights' Act where it concerns private property and private individuals. It's a good act where it concerns the government desegregation, but where it forced private people and businesses into a different pattern of behavior based on government becoming STRONGER - handing out punishment for not following the new rules, people lost rights, didn't gain them.
Yup. I see exactly what you are.
As to "Women, Blacks, Jews, Irish, Chinese, homosexuals" - sure, government was against those people, and it was obviously a BAD agreement, a bad compromise on the part of the States that ratified the Constitution that said for example that Blacks were not fully a person.
However it was the improving economy, the raising of all boats by the increase in overall wealth of the economy due to the free market and due to the 'weak' government of the time, that in fact allowed improvements in all of those areas. 1870 to 1913 was the time of weak government and strong individual freedom, which created the strongest economy in the world and this allowed the people who were oppressed by the government previously to that time to rise up.
And how do you explain the simple fact that such people began to win thir freedom, often helped by Federal government action, in the 1960's, rather than your mythic dream time?
You seem to be wedded to the idea of argument by assertion. Your claim is that "weak government" produces wealth and freedom. When anyone produces counter examples you repeat yourself, providing no more factual information.
The post you were replying to said:
Second, you seem to believe that the US at the start of the 20th century was a bastion of individual liberty compared to its current degraded state. That could hardly be less true. If you were black and lived in the South, the whole concept of "civil rights" barely existed. It was better in the north, but not that much better. Many towns openly banned blacks, Jews, and other "undesirable" people from living there. Interracial marriage was illegal in many states. So was homosexuality. Discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, etc. was both legal and openly practiced. We've come a very long way in the last century, and until you take a good look at how things used to be, it's hard to realize just how much.
You didn't address this point, merely claiming, with no evidence, that the USA before 1913 was freer than it is today.
As SoftwareArtist pointed out this is debateable - Women, Blacks, Jews, people of Irish or Chinese origin and homosexuals might have a different idea of how "free" things were then.
You didn't answer the post you were replying to - just a load of unsupported assertions.
I am a socialist. The only thing that's wrong with calling (for example) Obama a socialist is that it's an insult to socialists and socialism.
Sounds to me like it don't much matter if tab A gets inserted into slot B no matter what sex A or B is, or what hole they're using, as long as they're both consenting adults blah blah. That's the libertarian answer. The control freak comes out when you say no, you are not F-ing setting up a concentration camp for brown people, because unlike two dudes in a closet, that does destroy a country.
So we should just ignore the fact that Ron Paul, darling of libertarians, is a racist homophobe?
Damned. Almost best ever post on /. and no mod points.
Just don't tell communists
The idiocy - it is strong in this one.
And if you're unlucky you'll end up in Israel or Belgium.
Uh, the USSR was the 2nd world by definition. That's what 2nd world meant.
*sigh* John Nash, so yes it is.
Interestingly Nash was insane(*) when he did his most important work.
Which may tell us something about Game Theory or Economics.
((*) Or so he claims).
Stalin was an engineer
No he wasn't. He was a seminary student.
Personally I think we should pass a bill putting out a call for Pharma companies to relocate to the US and simply close their foreign branches
Foreign branches?
6 of the top 10 pharmaceutical companies are European.
Why the fuck would they re-locate to the US?
Who stops them.
Oh, "men with guns".
Who pays for the men with guns?
No, I am fantasizing about a "truly free market" world pretty similar to the Middle Age Europe, with lots of little chiefdoms and large kingdoms, palatinates and prince-bishops, with a completely splittered landscape of coin systems and units, contracts and rivalry, agreements, cross-marriages, alliances and feuds, big Reichstags where all participants declare their common interests, while already bringing their troups into position for the next war.
What a lot of words just to say Mogadishu.
Easier to spell I suppose.
Rand wasn't a libertarian.
Libertarians aren't Objectivists.
Rand wasn't a great thinker - her insanity doesn't need "completion".
That same economic policy is what turned the serfs and rural farmers of each nation into middle class citizens.
WTF?
No, turned serfs and rural farmers into the urban proletariat.
Alternatively, a libertarian society might possibly emerge from the ashes of a destructive event, such as a massive tsunami that washes away much of the public and private property (real and personal) of a large region.
Somalia?
You imply then that right-leaning people aren't intelligent? Hilarious to say the least. I'll throw my opinion in there too for that matter. Scientists are more likely to be right-leaning because they think with their brain, not their heart, as left-leaning people tend to.
You put opinion above observation (yes, there is data that shows that scientists tend to be left-leaning) which shows that you are probably not a scientist. It would also tend to indicate that you are right wing.
That would depend on your definition of "people" wouldn't it? The supreme court continuously reinterprets the constitution to mean whatever the current court wants it to mean.
Which is, of course, a good thing