"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From:
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 05:26:23 GMT

If a black person enters a business where such a sign was posted he would
be
trespassing, then he would be subject to the same laws that govern
trespass
in any other situation.

There is no civil right to do business with someone, especially someone
who
doesn't want to do business with you.

Wow. I'll hazard a guess: you're from rural Alabama, or perhaps
Mississippi.

I grew up in Seattle Washington.

Where did you get your degree? Bob Jones University? And
what was your major?

If these views are a part of the libertarian platform, I can see why
they get a whopping one or two percent of the vote.

Of course, we're all the dumb ones, aren't we?

If you can't see that the curreent system is in constant need of fine tuning
and that it would be simpler to have a system that is smaller and more
manageable. Let people learn that they must provide for their own welfare
and they will in most cases. There will always be those that choose not to
work and be productive and those that for whatever reason are unable to do
so, but they are not to be rewarded by the fruits of someone else's labor by
force. Let those private organizations that deal in philanthropy take care
of them with the money freely given by those who produce. With the much
lower tax burden of a free society, there would be ample monye available for
these needs.

I have a much higher regard for the ability and decency of my fellow humans
than you do it seems.

I don't view the world as being populated by those who either **** you over
or those who are getting ****ed.

Most people recognize that treating their fellow humans with respect and
decency is in their self interest. Those that don't should be allowed to
congregate but not to harm their fellow men. They also tend to be held in
low esteem by their fellow men and shunned by them as well.

If you advocate a truly free society, you must that the indispensable
foundation of that society is the principle of individual rights, and that
only capitalism can uphold and protect them.

Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law. Not
the altruist concept of morality where others are deemed more important than
one's self, but the objective one that deems all men need the same freedoms
in order to thrive. The priciple of man's individual rights is an extension
of morality into the social system, it is a limitation on the power of the
state. Recognizing that that men need protection from brute force, that
might is not right, but that freedom is.

That others define things differently is obvious, but not IMO correct.
I assume you believe that your ethics are correct and that no matter how big
a majority could be mustered against your view, you would not change it. I
feel the same way about my view.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
Taxes are not stealing.

They are if taken by force.

Hm. Army men ringing bells outside stores on a year-round basis, asking
for voluntary tax donations to pay for their salaries and equipment.
You're one smart cookie!

It would appear that your real problem is with
our very form of government.

I knew you'd get it eventually.

Usually it's the liberals who are accused of hating the US. Clearly,
it's the libertarians.

What they hate is the pervesion of what our government has become due to the
lack of moral clarity from both Liberals and Conservatives. What should
have been as replaced by what is.

"Powell" wrote in message
news

wrote

Where was the marketplace during that time?

Um, buying and selling slaves for a lot of it, who
were "private property" at that time.

It was a policy that was in place in most countries
of the world at one time or another,

From a anthropological prospective, slavery
has been part-and-parcel of man's existence
from the time human beings first organized. It
was not until the advent of industrialization
that slavery became abolished. It has little
to do with the economic system anyone
country develops. Indeed, even Marxist
ideological countries (vs. capitalism) came to
the same conclusion.

So you don't think that it is a moral concept that men should be free, or
that that idea came to be more widely recognized?

Free men tend to work harder and better. Tis was glaringly obvious in the
USSR when they allowed a tiny % of agricultural land to be given over to
whatever the farmowner chose as opposed to what the state mandated. Such
land accounted for 1 or 2% of the land but 22% of the output.



so there's shame enough to go around.

There is no shame anyhow, when real
growth (intellectual enlightenment) takes
place.

Agreed. The shame is that it took so long.

That we took so long and fought a war that
was inpart because of slavery is not to our
credit, but we have since made slavery illegal.

The Civil war did far more. It added the *The*
to the United States in greater world prospective.


It's a good thing that a bloody Civil War, no
doubt initiated by the marketplace, helped
put an end to the practice.

At least partly true.

What part?


That the Civil War caused there to be an end of slvery in the U.S..

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
Taxes are not stealing.

They are if taken by force.

Hm. Army men ringing bells outside stores on a year-round basis, asking
for voluntary tax donations to pay for their salaries and equipment.
You're one smart cookie!

It would appear that your real problem is with
our very form of government.

I knew you'd get it eventually.

Usually it's the liberals who are accused of hating the US. Clearly,
it's the libertarians.


I suppose if left to themselves, the Libertarians would force
their government upon the rest of us, Taliban style.


Libertarians do not want to FORCE anything on anybody, other than that men
are free and their rights are to be protected.

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 02:40:37 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:02:12 GMT, wrote:

That leaves a market open for someone else to cater to.

And yet, if there's a disenfranchised market, what do you do?

Work for change with the legal framework.

Hmmm, back to government...

Which is the people in a FREE SOCIETY.

So you're now willing to concede that it's the government's job (in
the guise of "the pople") to take care of inequities in the
marketplace, not the marketplace's job?

No. The government's job is to insure the protection of men's rights. The
government has a pretty poor track record on correcting economic inequities,
other than to stay out of the way and to reduce the tax burden. This
accounts for why the economy is now flourishing.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From:
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 02:48:39 GMT

...it included a lot of those evil Hollywood
Liberals, like Charleton Heston who was part f the march on Washington.

Ah, the true character and debating tactics of the man now become
clear. Take what's going on today, now, and apply it to what was
happening then.

From the Wikipedia: "In his earlier years, Heston was a Democrat,
campaiging for Presidential candidates Adlai Stevenson in 1956 and John
F. Kennedy in 1960. He was also a civil rights activist long before it
became fashionable for other celebrities to do so, accompanying Martin
Luther King Jr. during the civil rights march held in Washington, D.C.
in 1963. In 1969 Heston was asked by some Democrats to run for the
California State Senate, a move that would have likely had bipartisan
support in the state. He declined because he wanted to continue
acting."

"In the 1980s, however, Heston began to support more conservative
positions on such issues as affirmative action and gun rights. He has
campaigned for Republican candidates and Presidents Ronald Reagan,
George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush."

So at the time he was involved with Dr. King's march, Heston *was* a
Hollywood liberal. You imply that he was deeply conservative then.

I honestly wasn't aware of his politics at the time. I
assumed he was a Conservative then as he is today.

I should have known better, after all Regan was once a Democrat as well.
It was only when the Democrat party decided to become irrational that they
left.

So we have a fact-twister on our hands, one who apparently will do
anything to twist things to prove his point and justify his rather
racist views. This, even though he admonishes another for 'twisting
facts.'


My views are anything but racist, I view racism as idiocy, and have said so
in this thread and others. That doesn't mean that I approve of the way the
subject of racism and racial equality has been handled up til now. So I
think the person doing the twisting now is you.

I answered every point you just don't like the answers or try to twist
them
into something other than what I said. This is your habit.

Shameful. Simply shameful.

I agree, that putting any group in a special category and cofering more or
less rights than other men is shameful. All men should be equal under the
law. I do not find it to be so at present.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 02:48:39 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:02:12 GMT, wrote:

I guess you'll just have to go back to my recent post. It's not like
I've posted a lot in the past 3 or 4 days...

I don't think I want to engage in more dioscussion with someone who
doesn't
do so honestly.

It's YOU who's being dishonest. You couldn't come up with an answer to
any of my points so you just avoid them.

I answered every point you just don't like the answers or try to twist
them
into something other than what I said. This is your habit.

No, you never addressed my previous response to your own post. You
know. the one where you claimed that the civil rights movement didn't
consist of non-white participants?

THAT'S not the libertarian
way.

PS, done any research on the civil rights movement yet? Find any
non-white faces in there?

Again I wonder if you pretend stupidity or.....................

You completely missed the point about the civil rights struggle being not
entirely made up of persons of color.

I don't think you said the word "entirely". Here - let's see what you
said in its entirety:

There was a Civil Rights movement and it was not made up of persons of
color.

Here's what I said:
There was a Civil Rights movement and it was not made up of persons of
color.
It should have included a question mark at the end, to show sarcasm.

Well, I'm sorry for not being a mindreader.

For
that I apologize, but it should have been obvious in the rest of what was
being said that I clearly understood that Civil Rights movement included
people other than Blacks, it included a lot of those evil Hollywood
Liberals, like Charleton Heston who was part f the march on Washington.

Obviously the movement was variegated. My rabbi was one of those
people, a guy who walked side by side with Dr. King. I don't know what
your point WAS in the first place in bringing up that point. If it was
to support the "marketplace as changemaker", it's pretty specious.

Only if you don't take in the whole context. The transit systems that were
run by private corporations did not want to segregate, and the Plessy vs.
Fergusson case was an attempt to get segregated cars abolished.

From: http://www.lawbuzz.com/can_you/plessy/plessy.htm

In one of the most shameful decisions ever issued by the United States
Supreme Court, Homer Plessy lost his bid to be treated equally with whites
in America. The fact that Homer was 7/8 white and 1/8 black didn't seem to
matter to the majority of the high court. Only one justice, John Marshall
Harlan, dissented from this outrageous result.

Who was Homer Plessy? How did his name get associated with one of the worst
decisions in the history of American justice? For some time activists had
looked for a person who could help to get rid of discriminatory laws against
blacks once and for all. Since Homer was nearly white, he seemed the perfect
choice.

Plessy bought a train ticket for Covington, Louisiana. He planned to travel
from New Orleans. In June of 1892, blacks were required to sit in a
black-only railroad car. Plessy refused to do that. He sat in the
whites-only car. He was arrested and thrown into the New Orleans jail. He
didn't get very far with his travels that June day.

Of course, Homer Plessy was convicted of refusing to leave the whites-only
car. His conviction was upheld by the Louisiana Supreme Court, so Plessy and
his advocates appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Homer's suit was
to prevent Judge Ferguson (the trial judge in New Orleans where Plessy was
found guilty in the first place) from carrying out Homer's sentence - a $25
fine or 20 days in jail.


In
any case, the main point that you haven't bothered to address is that
it only occured AFTER the government intervened to enforce
desegregation in the public schools.

That what occured ? The Civil Rights momvement? I have pointed out that
there has been a civil rights movement for a very long time and that it has
had many people of all colors involved. If yo want to say that it gained
strength after the government intervened then you may claim that. Certainly
much more happened after that. My point regarding the marketplace was that
it has nver been much for advocating that some people not be allowed to
participate. Had the government not gotten involved and made some very
stupid decisions such as Plessy it would have been a much different story.
The government interfered in the marketplace with typical results, they
****ed it up.

Had they left it alone and let businesses sell to whomever they chose, there
would ahve either less or no segregation and whatever segregation there
might have been would have gone away much sooner.

Whatever good the government has done in such things as civil rights seems
to be to correct its mistakes.

The abiding priniple that governments are instituted for should always be
the protection of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Had they adhered to this concept in
Plessy, they would have brought segregation to an end much sooner and the
Civil Rights movement would ahve been a much different story.

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 20:44:58 GMT, wrote:

Had the government not gotten involved and made some very
stupid decisions such as Plessy it would have been a much different story.
The government interfered in the marketplace with typical results, they
****ed it up.

Tell me how you think this would have happened. Plessy was thrown in
jail, right? Why do you think that the marketplace would have evolved
to allow this "outrageous" behavior of Mr. Plessy on its own? After
al, the government (in this case, the local authorities) were only
trying to enforce your own idea of "private property rights". And this
segregation had been going on for 100 years already.

BTW, the Civil Rights Movement only became a "movement" after Brown v.
Board of Education. Sure, there were isolated incidences of attempts
to right civil wrongs, but most of them were by your hated Communists
and Leftists. It realy only became feasable to fight those injustices
in an organized fashion after 1954.

From:
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 20:24:58 GMT

My views are anything but racist, I view racism as idiocy, and have said so
in this thread and others. That doesn't mean that I approve of the way the
subject of racism and racial equality has been handled up til now. So I
think the person doing the twisting now is you.

Your views, if more than one in one hundred agreed with them (which
thankfully they don't), would have the net effect of legalizing racism,
regardless of your personal views on the subject. You apparently are
not clever enough to see that.

You are so enamored with the marketplace. Doesn't it seem that the
marketplace has soundly rejected your ideas?

Shameful. Simply shameful.

I agree, that putting any group in a special category and cofering more or
less rights than other men is shameful. All men should be equal under the
law. I do not find it to be so at present.

And so your answer is to ignore 200 years of institutional racism and
the negative effects thereof.

What a progressive thinker you are!

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:02:12 GMT, wrote:


Well, yes. The "marketplace" didn't insist, did it?

Then there are no people in the marketplace? Actually I never said
the
marketplace was what caused change

Actually you did. Or *should* cause change. Or is the only thing that
*should* casue change.

Deny that at your own peril.

Supply the quote. I recall saying that capitalism was moving towards
breaking down barriers and thereby causing change, Inever said it was
the only vehicle or that it should be.

Capitalism does not break down social barriers and cause change. Even
Rand
was not that stupid. Capitalism is strictly an economic system that
enables
capital growth, income, production and services to occur ina relatively
orderly
and productive fashion.

Rand noted that there is a "correlation between racism and and political
controls in the semifree economies of of the 19th century. Racial
and/or religious persecutions of minorities stood to inverse ratio to
the degeree of a country's freedom. Racism was strongest in the more
controlled economies such as Russia and Germany, and weakest in in
England, then the freest country in Europe.


When I lived in Britain in the late 60's, I was shocked at the intensity
of overt
racism I found directed towards Indians and Pakistanis.


As has been well documented. Their rights however are protected under
law.


that was a vry concise statement. You managed to contradict
yourself twice in as litle as 12 words. First, about racism in
Britain, and second, about governmennt rather than capitalism as being
the guarantor of individual rights vs racism in society.



See also: http://www.capitalism.org/faq/racism.htm
Capitalism is a system of individual rights -- it is a necessary
political condition to the banishment of racism, where it results in the
violation of individual rights.

Capitalism is NOT a system of rights. It is strictly
an organization of the economy, of production, supply,
trade, and money.

An opinion you get to have.

One attribue of capitalism is that it is neutral. It is government
that protects rights, and gets to decide
which rights it wishes to protect.



The only protection a man needs from racism is the protection of his
rights -- specifically protection from the initiation of force, whether
it be a knife held at ones throat by a Black Panther, or the noose held
by a member of the KKK.


Unfortunatley, the only viable protection of
rights comes from a free representative government.

Who has said otherwise?


Duh....Mikey did.




Thomas Sowell writes on the subject as well at:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4457
An excerpt:
Far from existing from time immemorial, as many have assumed, racially
segregated seating in public transportation began in the South in the
late 19th and early 20th centuries.


Yes, right after the Civil War ended.
Duh, public transportation itself only became prevalent in the mid to
late 19th century, after the Civil War.

But the fact still remains that the private sector transportation
companies were generally not segregating, that came from the government,
which is why their needs to be a system of rights have the force of law
behind them.


Some private sector transporation companies were segregated,
particularly privately owned municipal bus systems. Plus, many pother
private businesses were segregated. It was not oedered by the government.


Those who see government as the solution to social problems may be
surprised to learn that it was government which created this problem.

Many, if not most, municipal transit systems were privately owned in the
19th century and the private owners of these systems had no incentive to
segregate the races.


Duh, not if white people, the majority of the travelling public, strongly
preferrede segregation.

But the point is it wasn't done by private carriers.


But in many cases, it was.



These owners may have been racists themselves but they were in business
to make a profit -- and you don't make a profit by alienating a lot of
your customers.

duh, they were mostly white racists!!


I think you missed the point AGAIN. Even if the owners of the private
companies were racist, they were not segregating, until the government
became the owners of the transit companies and forced it.


No. Privately owned municpal bus companies were segregated.


There was not enough market demand for Jim Crow seating on
municipal transit to bring it about.

I stand by my statement.



You are SO, SO, mixed up.


Priavte transit comapnies were not segregating their passengers.
Capitalism didn't give a **** about any color other than the money.

And the money demanded the desegregation.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote in message
ink.net...

\
Priavte transit comapnies were not segregating their passengers.
Capitalism didn't give a **** about any color other than the money.


Should have read that "the money" demanded segregation



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote in message
ink.net...


That we took so long and fought a war that
was inpart because of slavery is not to our
credit, but we have since made slavery illegal.

The Civil war did far more. It added the *The*
to the United States in greater world prospective.


It's a good thing that a bloody Civil War, no
doubt initiated by the marketplace, helped
put an end to the practice.

At least partly true.

What part?


That the Civil War caused there to be an end of slvery in the U.S..


Congrats!
You finally got a fact right.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote in message
news

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:02:12 GMT, wrote:

Congress passes civil rights act granted equal rights in public
accommodations and jury duty, in 1875.
National Congress on the Negro convened in 1909, leading to
founding of
the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

There were steps taken before that. It was a slow process, but it
was an
inevitiable conclusion.

So says you. And yet, without government intervention, we might
STILL
be holding our breath.


You seem to keep forgetting that the government is people.

No I don't. It's YOU who keeps forgetting that important tenet.

I haven't forgotten it, but some in the government sonmetimes seem to
have done so.

You
seem to claim that "the people" (being interchangeable with "the
government" is powerless to act, because it's "the marketplace" that
will correct all wrongs, even though history hasn't shown that to be
the case).

If that's what you believe I said then you are either an idiot or a
liar.

I said that the marketplace can be a source for change and it was
partly responsible for helping move things along in the case of
segregation, by trying to get rid of one of the segregationist laws
concerning trains. At no time did I ever state or imply that
capitalism was the only right and proper way to accomplish change.


OTOH, capitalism helped create slavery.


Only in the sense that when people are allowed to be sold as slaves
there will be people willing to make a profit from that enterprise. It
was however a losing proposition, morally and economically.


Economically losing propsitions don't continue to make profits for almost
200 years.


Can you provide any analysis that shows that slavery was an econimic plus
for the South?
The following from The Economics of Slavery by Thomas J. Di Lorenzo seems
to put the lie to your view.

"In fact antebellum slavery was propped up by such laws as the federal
government's Fugitive Slave Act (which Abraham Lincoln strongly supported)
and the abolition of that law would have greatly reduced the profitability
of slavery and quickened its demise."

I would direct you to "Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, who
said that in 1861 slavery was more secure in the Union than out of it
because of the Fugitive Slave Act. Garrison advocated Northern secession
for decades precisely because that would have nullified this insidious Act
and greatly encouraged runaway slaves, breaking the back of that
institution."

"The Fugitive Slave Act socialized the enforcement costs of slavery,
thereby artificially inflating slave prices. Abolition of the Act, as
would have been the reality had the Southern states been allowed to leave
in peace would have caused slave prices to plummet and quickened the
institution's demise. That, coupled with a serious effort to do what every
nation on the face of the earth did to end slavery during the nineteenth
century - compensated emancipation - could have ended slavery peacefully.
Great Britain did it in just six years time, and Americans could have
followed their lead."

Feel free to provide contradictory evidence if you have it.


Of course, slavery would be even more profitable if totally
sanctioned by the government. If one loses ones property,
and is unable to retrieve it, of course it raises the costs.
You are talking about government sanctions against a profitable
enterprise, done with the intent of making it less profitable.
instead of 'free trade' artificially raising prices, it is more a matter
of government intervention artificially lowering prices.
Under 'free' capitalism, slavery was profitable. I find it amusing
that you undermine your own basic tenets just to
earn some debating trade points on a side issue!
You learn well from your perverted master.

At any rate, slavery as an institution also included the
slave trade, which was highly profitable for over 150 years.
And it was most definitely a capitalistic enterprise, bringing
them over here, and into the Caribbean.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote in message
ink.net...

. Private fire departments .... are things that can be handled privately.


Already tried, and it didn't work all that well, in developed areas.
Now, it is more a rural phenomenum.

We have them here in the 'burbs, but integrated with and and much under the
control of the County Fire Department.








--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 20:44:58 GMT, wrote:

Had the government not gotten involved and made some very
stupid decisions such as Plessy it would have been a much different story.
The government interfered in the marketplace with typical results, they
****ed it up.

Tell me how you think this would have happened. Plessy was thrown in
jail, right? Why do you think that the marketplace would have evolved
to allow this "outrageous" behavior of Mr. Plessy on its own? After
al, the government (in this case, the local authorities) were only
trying to enforce your own idea of "private property rights".

They were enforcing the state law.

And this
segregation had been going on for 100 years already.

BTW, the Civil Rights Movement only became a "movement" after Brown v.
Board of Education. Sure, there were isolated incidences of attempts
to right civil wrongs, but most of them were by your hated Communists
and Leftists. It realy only became feasable to fight those injustices
in an organized fashion after 1954.

That the Left has done some good is not in question, that it is not a force
for good at this time is certainly debateable.

Here's CNN's list of early Civil Rights attempts.

1783 -- Massachusetts outlaws slavery within its borders.

1808 -- Importation of slaves banned; illegal slave trade continues.

1820 -- Eighty-six free blacks sail to Sierra Leone, a British colony in
Africa -- first immigration of blacks from U.S. to Africa.

Missouri Compromise allows slavery in Missouri, but not elsewhere west of
the Mississippi and north of Missouri's southern border; repealed in 1854

1831 -- Nat Turner leads slave rebellion in Virginia; 57 whites killed; U.S.
troops kill 100 slaves; Turner caught, tried and hanged.

1833 -- Oberlin College, first U.S. college to adopt co-education, is first
to refuse to ban black students.

1850 -- Compromise of 1850 admits California into the union without slavery,
strengthens Fugitive Slave Laws, and ends slave trade in Washington, D.C.

1857 -- Dred Scott Supreme Court decision rules that slaves do not become
free when taken into a free state, that Congress cannot bar slavery from a
territory, and that blacks cannot become citizens.

1861 -- Confederate States of America formed; Civil War begins.

1863 -- President Lincoln issues Emancipation Proclamation freeing "all
slaves in areas still in rebellion."

1865 -- Civil War ends.

13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, added to the Constitution.

1866 -- Ku Klux Klan formed in secrecy; disbands 1869-71; resurgence in
1915.

Congress takes over Reconstruction.

1867 -- Series of measures aimed at suffrage, other redresses for former
slaves passed over President Andrew Johnson's vetoes.

1868 -- 14th Amendment conferring citizenship added to Constitution.

1870 -- 15th Amendment barring racial discrimination in voting added to
Constitution.

1875 -- Congress passes civil rights act granted equal rights in public
accommodations and jury duty.

1877 -- Henry O. Flipper becomes first black graduate of U.S. Military
Academy at West Point.

1883 -- Supreme Court invalidates 1875 Civil Rights Act, saying that the
federal government cannot bar discrimination by corporations or individuals.

1896 -- Supreme Court approves "separate but equal" segregation doctrine.

1906 -- Race riots in Atlanta; 21 dead, city under martial law.

1909 -- National Congress on the Negro convenes, leading to founding of the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

1923 -- Oklahoma placed under martial law because of Ku Klux Klan
activities.

1925 -- Ku Klux Klan marches on Washington.

1943 -- War contractors barred from racial discrimination.

Riots in Harlem, Detroit.

1948 -- President Truman issues executive order outlawing segregation in
U.S. military.

1952 -- Racial, ethnic barriers to naturalization removed by Immigration and
Naturalization Act.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 07:22:55 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 20:44:58 GMT, wrote:

Had the government not gotten involved and made some very
stupid decisions such as Plessy it would have been a much different story.
The government interfered in the marketplace with typical results, they
****ed it up.

Tell me how you think this would have happened. Plessy was thrown in
jail, right? Why do you think that the marketplace would have evolved
to allow this "outrageous" behavior of Mr. Plessy on its own? After
al, the government (in this case, the local authorities) were only
trying to enforce your own idea of "private property rights".

They were enforcing the state law.

Isn't that you have to enforce "property rights"? How else would you
ensure that a business owner can prevent interlopers on his business?
Wouldn't this be another one of the "few uses of government" approved
by a libertarian? Or do you think that the business owner simply has
the right to shoot someone who's insisting on being served?

And this
segregation had been going on for 100 years already.

BTW, the Civil Rights Movement only became a "movement" after Brown v.
Board of Education. Sure, there were isolated incidences of attempts
to right civil wrongs, but most of them were by your hated Communists
and Leftists. It realy only became feasable to fight those injustices
in an organized fashion after 1954.

That the Left has done some good is not in question, that it is not a force
for good at this time is certainly debateable.

I notice that you avoid the point entirely.

Here's CNN's list of early Civil Rights attempts.

1783 -- Massachusetts outlaws slavery within its borders.

1808 -- Importation of slaves banned; illegal slave trade continues.

1820 -- Eighty-six free blacks sail to Sierra Leone, a British colony in
Africa -- first immigration of blacks from U.S. to Africa.

Missouri Compromise allows slavery in Missouri, but not elsewhere west of
the Mississippi and north of Missouri's southern border; repealed in 1854

1831 -- Nat Turner leads slave rebellion in Virginia; 57 whites killed; U.S.
troops kill 100 slaves; Turner caught, tried and hanged.

1833 -- Oberlin College, first U.S. college to adopt co-education, is first
to refuse to ban black students.

1850 -- Compromise of 1850 admits California into the union without slavery,
strengthens Fugitive Slave Laws, and ends slave trade in Washington, D.C.

1857 -- Dred Scott Supreme Court decision rules that slaves do not become
free when taken into a free state, that Congress cannot bar slavery from a
territory, and that blacks cannot become citizens.

1861 -- Confederate States of America formed; Civil War begins.

1863 -- President Lincoln issues Emancipation Proclamation freeing "all
slaves in areas still in rebellion."

1865 -- Civil War ends.

13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, added to the Constitution.

1866 -- Ku Klux Klan formed in secrecy; disbands 1869-71; resurgence in
1915.

Congress takes over Reconstruction.

1867 -- Series of measures aimed at suffrage, other redresses for former
slaves passed over President Andrew Johnson's vetoes.

1868 -- 14th Amendment conferring citizenship added to Constitution.

1870 -- 15th Amendment barring racial discrimination in voting added to
Constitution.

1875 -- Congress passes civil rights act granted equal rights in public
accommodations and jury duty.

1877 -- Henry O. Flipper becomes first black graduate of U.S. Military
Academy at West Point.

1883 -- Supreme Court invalidates 1875 Civil Rights Act, saying that the
federal government cannot bar discrimination by corporations or individuals.

1896 -- Supreme Court approves "separate but equal" segregation doctrine.

1906 -- Race riots in Atlanta; 21 dead, city under martial law.

1909 -- National Congress on the Negro convenes, leading to founding of the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

1923 -- Oklahoma placed under martial law because of Ku Klux Klan
activities.

1925 -- Ku Klux Klan marches on Washington.

1943 -- War contractors barred from racial discrimination.

Riots in Harlem, Detroit.

1948 -- President Truman issues executive order outlawing segregation in
U.S. military.

1952 -- Racial, ethnic barriers to naturalization removed by Immigration and
Naturalization Act.

*Almost* all of what you mention is GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. They
vastly outnumber the few expressions of private citizens taking action
on their own.

And yet, even with all of that, in 1953, a black person can't attend
school with a white person in many school districts. Or go to college
in many public institutions. Or even buy a cup of coffee at most lunch
counters.

Only after 1954 did the fight for Civil Rights become a *movement*.

Sure, you can find people like Isaiah Montgomery peppered throughout
history. You can find John Browns and Henry Ward Beecher fighting for
civil rights. But it's only been when government has provided the
tipping point where real progress has been made. I can only think of
one "marketplace" instance off the top of my head that made as much of
an impact and that wasn't even until 1947 (?) when Branch Rickey
defied convention and hired Jackie Robinson. One isolated but
important example doesn't make the argument though.

wrote in

Where was the marketplace during that time?

Um, buying and selling slaves for a lot of it, who
were "private property" at that time.

It was a policy that was in place in most countries
of the world at one time or another,

From a anthropological prospective, slavery
has been part-and-parcel of man's existence
from the time human beings first organized. It
was not until the advent of industrialization
that slavery became abolished. It has little
to do with the economic system anyone
country develops. Indeed, even Marxist
ideological countries (vs. capitalism) came to
the same conclusion.

So you don't think that it is a moral concept that
men should be free, or that that idea came to be
more widely recognized?

That would depend on the individual, culture, and the
social norms it was viewed in. You have
compartmentalized what being free means to you.
But that is based on your experiences and background
without considering that others who feel as strongly as
you but have a totally different perspective. Neither are
wrong or right.

"moral concept"... is based on fundamental principles
of right conduct rather than on law, custom, etc.: moral
obligations. In this country, I think man acquired
freedoms influenced by legislation/politics/Christian
religions, a unique invention of the industrial world.

Are you under the impression what when the U.N.
sets-up a democracy they reach for American
law books?


Free men tend to work harder and better.

Self-interest is the driving force. There are many
ways to get willing people to do that and limit
their freedoms at the same time. So there is
only a limited causative effect between freedom
and higher work output.


The Civil war did far more. It added the *The*
to the United States in greater world prospective.

It's a good thing that a bloody Civil War, no
doubt initiated by the marketplace, helped
put an end to the practice.

At least partly true.

What part?

That the Civil War caused there to be an end of slvery
in the U.S..

Ok. But the war was not "initiated by the
marketplace." It was states rights issues.
Also consider that at beginning of the war
Lincoln was willing to accept slavery if the
union could be preserved.

wrote

The government needs money to run, and
voluntary donations are just not going to cut it.

That depends on how much government you
think is neccessary. With a voluntary system
you would only get as much as the people are
willing to pay for.

Hehehe... right! Unfortunately then, they
can't afford it.

How is this different than a class based society?


What would be the value of letting the lower classes be
subject to crime?

Who doesn't lock the doors on their homes at
night? We all share in the risk.

What is the value in not spending money (tobacco
windfall) for preventative health care when the future
saving is real $ savings and lives. Its those same
people, it's all of us.


they are needed to do the work that the upper classes
need done in order to remain in the upper class.

Why, are people going somewhere where they
they won't be available?


You assume that people who have money are not
sane enough to understand that it is a value to have
peace, in one's country and one's neighborhood.

Those words are usually spoken by people who don’t
know the value/power of money and/or the complexities
of society.


If you endorse "national lottery" then legal
gambling should be unstrained, right?

Absolutely. People have the right to **** away
their money if they so choose. Freedom requires
discipline.

In saying that you realize that there will be a
tradeoff between income generated and the
future expenses it generates for tax payers/all
of us. Ranging from higher mortgage rates,
higher health care cost and lives and family
crisis. “Freedom requires discipline”... fancy
aspiration or metaphor. You are wanting a
general change in society’s behavior that is
unreasonable.


The undisciplined tend to fail.

It is a struggle to be human sometimes. We all
fail and everyone suffers in some way everyday
of their life. Do you find fault in failure?


The fact that gambling is illegal hasn't stopped
any fool who wishes to from doing so.

Well you're in luck then. We execute and house
more people in jails than any civilized country in
the world. And more prisons are in the planning
to accommodate your ilk.


In your system who decides where the
money once collected is spent?

Obciously that would need to be spelled out by
law. When you have very few requirements for
what the money should be spent on, oversight
becomes a vastly more simple task.

Hehehe... oh brother.


Do you really mean to suggest a system devoid
of politics?

No, but one with a more sane approach,

Really. One man's sanity is another's delusion.


one that is concerned only with protecting individual
rights which belong to ALL individuals. There hardly
seem to be any other reason for having a government.

You are slipping off the deep end or are simple/single
minded


The current system explains why you are
here at all, because it works, and we get
to have a country that actually runs. Its why
we survived for so long.

The one thing we do best as Americans
is compromise. That_is_the basis for why
we are "here" today

I thought it was because we have been freer than any
other people in history.

"freer"... I didn't know that. I would have guessed
that we are the most regulated society yet conceived
with a lower standard of living and lower health care
compared to other counties and for years having the
lowest test scores of any industrial county in world.

Yea, but we have the “freer” thing-e-do going for us.


It seems obvious that those societies that flourished
over history were those that had the least interfernce
from government or tyrants.

I don't see that. And for much of history religion
has been just another form/arm of goverment.


Free people prosper, the more rational freedom,
the more prosperity.

I can see no positive or negative causality between
prosperity and freedom. But I can clearly see China
prospering every time I make a consumer purchase.
Being competitive in a world market appears to advance
humanity faster than the luxury/illusion of *feeling* “freer.”

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 07:22:55 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 20:44:58 GMT, wrote:

Had the government not gotten involved and made some very
stupid decisions such as Plessy it would have been a much different
story.
The government interfered in the marketplace with typical results, they
****ed it up.

Tell me how you think this would have happened. Plessy was thrown in
jail, right? Why do you think that the marketplace would have evolved
to allow this "outrageous" behavior of Mr. Plessy on its own? After
al, the government (in this case, the local authorities) were only
trying to enforce your own idea of "private property rights".

They were enforcing the state law.

Isn't that you have to enforce "property rights"? How else would you
ensure that a business owner can prevent interlopers on his business?
Wouldn't this be another one of the "few uses of government" approved
by a libertarian? Or do you think that the business owner simply has
the right to shoot someone who's insisting on being served?

How are trespassers handled now?
How are property right violations handled now.
Not so much would chnage just because you allowed the full meaning of such
rights to be in effect.

And this
segregation had been going on for 100 years already.

BTW, the Civil Rights Movement only became a "movement" after Brown v.
Board of Education. Sure, there were isolated incidences of attempts
to right civil wrongs, but most of them were by your hated Communists
and Leftists. It realy only became feasable to fight those injustices
in an organized fashion after 1954.

That the Left has done some good is not in question, that it is not a
force
for good at this time is certainly debateable.

I notice that you avoid the point entirely.

I've addressed it already. That government has done some good in the Civila
Rights area is not in dispute, that they have also done wrong is also true,
as in the case of Plessy.

Here's CNN's list of early Civil Rights attempts.

1783 -- Massachusetts outlaws slavery within its borders.

1808 -- Importation of slaves banned; illegal slave trade continues.

1820 -- Eighty-six free blacks sail to Sierra Leone, a British colony in
Africa -- first immigration of blacks from U.S. to Africa.

Missouri Compromise allows slavery in Missouri, but not elsewhere west of
the Mississippi and north of Missouri's southern border; repealed in 1854

1831 -- Nat Turner leads slave rebellion in Virginia; 57 whites killed;
U.S.
troops kill 100 slaves; Turner caught, tried and hanged.

1833 -- Oberlin College, first U.S. college to adopt co-education, is
first
to refuse to ban black students.

1850 -- Compromise of 1850 admits California into the union without
slavery,
strengthens Fugitive Slave Laws, and ends slave trade in Washington, D.C.

1857 -- Dred Scott Supreme Court decision rules that slaves do not become
free when taken into a free state, that Congress cannot bar slavery from a
territory, and that blacks cannot become citizens.

1861 -- Confederate States of America formed; Civil War begins.

1863 -- President Lincoln issues Emancipation Proclamation freeing "all
slaves in areas still in rebellion."

1865 -- Civil War ends.

13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, added to the Constitution.

1866 -- Ku Klux Klan formed in secrecy; disbands 1869-71; resurgence in
1915.

Congress takes over Reconstruction.

1867 -- Series of measures aimed at suffrage, other redresses for former
slaves passed over President Andrew Johnson's vetoes.

1868 -- 14th Amendment conferring citizenship added to Constitution.

1870 -- 15th Amendment barring racial discrimination in voting added to
Constitution.

1875 -- Congress passes civil rights act granted equal rights in public
accommodations and jury duty.

1877 -- Henry O. Flipper becomes first black graduate of U.S. Military
Academy at West Point.

1883 -- Supreme Court invalidates 1875 Civil Rights Act, saying that the
federal government cannot bar discrimination by corporations or
individuals.

1896 -- Supreme Court approves "separate but equal" segregation doctrine.

1906 -- Race riots in Atlanta; 21 dead, city under martial law.

1909 -- National Congress on the Negro convenes, leading to founding of
the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

1923 -- Oklahoma placed under martial law because of Ku Klux Klan
activities.

1925 -- Ku Klux Klan marches on Washington.

1943 -- War contractors barred from racial discrimination.

Riots in Harlem, Detroit.

1948 -- President Truman issues executive order outlawing segregation in
U.S. military.

1952 -- Racial, ethnic barriers to naturalization removed by Immigration
and
Naturalization Act.

*Almost* all of what you mention is GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. They
vastly outnumber the few expressions of private citizens taking action
on their own.

And yet, even with all of that, in 1953, a black person can't attend
school with a white person in many school districts. Or go to college
in many public institutions. Or even buy a cup of coffee at most lunch
counters.

Only after 1954 did the fight for Civil Rights become a *movement*.

And that fact is disgraceful. That the government was responsible for it
taking that long is also disgracefull.


Sure, you can find people like Isaiah Montgomery peppered throughout
history. You can find John Browns and Henry Ward Beecher fighting for
civil rights. But it's only been when government has provided the
tipping point where real progress has been made.

Or lost.

I can only think of
one "marketplace" instance off the top of my head that made as much of
an impact and that wasn't even until 1947 (?) when Branch Rickey
defied convention and hired Jackie Robinson. One isolated but
important example doesn't make the argument though.


For the umpteenth time, I did not say that the marketplace was the primary
or only force for change, only that had the government NOT ****ed things up
in cases like Plessy is it likely that such things would have sorted
themselves out more rationally.

Powell said:

That would depend on the individual, culture, and the
social norms it was viewed in. You have
compartmentalized what being free means to you.
But that is based on your experiences and background
without considering that others who feel as strongly as
you but have a totally different perspective. Neither are
wrong or right.

I had no idea you were educated, Powie. Keep up the clear thinking --
it's a huge improvement over your erstwhile fractured thoughts and
indecipherable crypticisms.

"Powell" wrote in message
...

wrote in

Where was the marketplace during that time?

Um, buying and selling slaves for a lot of it, who
were "private property" at that time.

It was a policy that was in place in most countries
of the world at one time or another,

From a anthropological prospective, slavery
has been part-and-parcel of man's existence
from the time human beings first organized. It
was not until the advent of industrialization
that slavery became abolished. It has little
to do with the economic system anyone
country develops. Indeed, even Marxist
ideological countries (vs. capitalism) came to
the same conclusion.

So you don't think that it is a moral concept that
men should be free, or that that idea came to be
more widely recognized?

That would depend on the individual, culture, and the
social norms it was viewed in. You have
compartmentalized what being free means to you.
But that is based on your experiences and background
without considering that others who feel as strongly as
you but have a totally different perspective. Neither are
wrong or right.

"moral concept"... is based on fundamental principles
of right conduct rather than on law, custom, etc.: moral
obligations. In this country, I think man acquired
freedoms influenced by legislation/politics/Christian
religions, a unique invention of the industrial world.

Are you under the impression what when the U.N.
sets-up a democracy they reach for American
law books?


Free men tend to work harder and better.

Self-interest is the driving force. There are many
ways to get willing people to do that and limit
their freedoms at the same time. So there is
only a limited causative effect between freedom
and higher work output.


The Civil war did far more. It added the *The*
to the United States in greater world prospective.

It's a good thing that a bloody Civil War, no
doubt initiated by the marketplace, helped
put an end to the practice.

At least partly true.

What part?

That the Civil War caused there to be an end of slvery
in the U.S..

Ok. But the war was not "initiated by the
marketplace." It was states rights issues.
Also consider that at beginning of the war
Lincoln was willing to accept slavery if the
union could be preserved.


In the South, yes, the real contention was
in the territories and the new states.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Powell" wrote in message
...

wrote in

Where was the marketplace during that time?

Um, buying and selling slaves for a lot of it, who
were "private property" at that time.

It was a policy that was in place in most countries
of the world at one time or another,

From a anthropological prospective, slavery
has been part-and-parcel of man's existence
from the time human beings first organized. It
was not until the advent of industrialization
that slavery became abolished. It has little
to do with the economic system anyone
country develops. Indeed, even Marxist
ideological countries (vs. capitalism) came to
the same conclusion.

So you don't think that it is a moral concept that
men should be free, or that that idea came to be
more widely recognized?

That would depend on the individual, culture, and the
social norms it was viewed in.

Human needs are different from one place to another?
Not really. They still all function better when they have freedom.

You have
compartmentalized what being free means to you.

Not what it means to me, what it means for human beings, what is essential
to humans everywhere.

But that is based on your experiences and background
without considering that others who feel as strongly as
you but have a totally different perspective. Neither are
wrong or right.

Slavery is wrong, murder is wrong theft is wrong, the list of things that
are universally right and wrong goes on and on, it has nothing to do with
culture.

"moral concept"... is based on fundamental principles
of right conduct rather than on law, custom, etc.: moral
obligations.

You're talking about a different kind of morality, one that is completely
subjective, I'm talkng about what the objective requirements are for humans
everywhere.

In this country, I think man acquired
freedoms influenced by legislation/politics/Christian
religions, a unique invention of the industrial world.

And I think the main reason they've worked so well is because they happen to
apply to humans and not to cultural norms. The whole melting pot deal seems
to work for those who come here from othe places and don't have much trouble
adapting.

Are you under the impression what when the U.N.
sets-up a democracy they reach for American
law books?

I'd be surprised if the UN looked anywhere.

Free men tend to work harder and better.

Self-interest is the driving force. There are many
ways to get willing people to do that and limit
their freedoms at the same time. So there is
only a limited causative effect between freedom
and higher work output.

Freedom is an essential for human existence to thrive, anywhere.

The Civil war did far more. It added the *The*
to the United States in greater world prospective.

It's a good thing that a bloody Civil War, no
doubt initiated by the marketplace, helped
put an end to the practice.

At least partly true.

What part?

That the Civil War caused there to be an end of slvery
in the U.S..

Ok. But the war was not "initiated by the
marketplace."

Nor did I ever imply that it did.

It was states rights issues.
Also consider that at beginning of the war
Lincoln was willing to accept slavery if the
union could be preserved.

Perhaps as a matter of law, but his whole life he'd spoken of slavery being
evil.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 21:23:14 GMT, wrote:

I can only think of
one "marketplace" instance off the top of my head that made as much of
an impact and that wasn't even until 1947 (?) when Branch Rickey
defied convention and hired Jackie Robinson. One isolated but
important example doesn't make the argument though.


For the umpteenth time, I did not say that the marketplace was the primary
or only force for change, only that had the government NOT ****ed things up
in cases like Plessy is it likely that such things would have sorted
themselves out more rationally.

I'm sorry, but your own words below are contradictory to what you
write above:

"When any business with a racist policy started losing business or saw
other businesses gaining on them as competitors because of their
racism, I think things would have changed on their own without
government intervention and weakening of the
meaning of private property".

You are also on record as saying that government shouldn't have the
right to tell a business whom they can and cannot serve. Do you want
the pertinent quotes for that too?

You might be happy waiting 200 years for the marketplace to adjust,
but then again, you aren't part of the segment of the marketplace that
has traditionally been locked out of the marketplace. I happen to
believe that part of assuring the freedom of its people (something
that even you as a libertarian claims to accept as a basic job of
government) is the enforcement of equal opportunity. Equal opportunity
doesn't mean equal results, you know. It only means that everyone has
an equal entry point to access "the marketplace". Once there, people
are free to succeed or fail, but at least there aren't many artifical
constraints to their efforts.

Once again, it's clear that the marketplace didn't act as a
self-regulator. And yes, it's clear that the government wasn't much
help for many years either. That's why government had to take the
lead, because it's the very law itself that was onerous, starting with
the very Constitution that is the basis for our society. It's a
catch-22 that you can't get around.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 21:23:14 GMT, wrote:

I can only think of
one "marketplace" instance off the top of my head that made as much of
an impact and that wasn't even until 1947 (?) when Branch Rickey
defied convention and hired Jackie Robinson. One isolated but
important example doesn't make the argument though.


For the umpteenth time, I did not say that the marketplace was the primary
or only force for change, only that had the government NOT ****ed things
up
in cases like Plessy is it likely that such things would have sorted
themselves out more rationally.

I'm sorry, but your own words below are contradictory to what you
write above:

"When any business with a racist policy started losing business or saw
other businesses gaining on them as competitors because of their
racism, I think things would have changed on their own without
government intervention and weakening of the
meaning of private property".


That is not the same as saying there is no place for government action. It
is the observation based on history, that businesses that don't cater to one
customer base are competed against by ones that do.

You are also on record as saying that government shouldn't have the
right to tell a business whom they can and cannot serve. Do you want
the pertinent quotes for that too?

No because that is my position. It is why the other statement, taken in
proper context, makes sense. It does not mean there is no reason for
government intervention when there is an actual violation of one's civil
rights. Not being able to buy a hamburger from a racist business is not
such a right.

You might be happy waiting 200 years for the marketplace to adjust,
but then again, you aren't part of the segment of the marketplace that
has traditionally been locked out of the marketplace. I happen to
believe that part of assuring the freedom of its people (something
that even you as a libertarian claims to accept as a basic job of
government) is the enforcement of equal opportunity. Equal opportunity
doesn't mean equal results, you know. It only means that everyone has
an equal entry point to access "the marketplace". Once there, people
are free to succeed or fail, but at least there aren't many artifical
constraints to their efforts.

And that still doesn't mean being hired by someone rinning a private
business.
If the goivernment wants to hire anyone and set the example they should. If
one business won't hire you, for any reason, you do what anybody eles does.
You go elsewhere.

Once again, it's clear that the marketplace didn't act as a
self-regulator.

In some cases it wasn't allowed to because the government forbade it.

And yes, it's clear that the government wasn't much
help for many years either. That's why government had to take the
lead, because it's the very law itself that was onerous, starting with
the very Constitution that is the basis for our society. It's a
catch-22 that you can't get around.

I'm not trying to get around it, I've been saying it in post after post.

wrote

So you don't think that it is a moral concept that
men should be free, or that that idea came to be
more widely recognized?

That would depend on the individual, culture, and the
social norms it was viewed in.

Human needs are different from one place to another?
Not really. They still all function better when they have freedom.

"function better"... what does that mean?


You have compartmentalized what being free
means to you.

Not what it means to me, what it means for human
beings, what is essential to humans everywhere.

Wrong, wrong, wrong... all projections of your making.

"Maslow posited that the needs of human beings
could be divided and prioritized into five "levels."
Individuals do not seek the satisfaction of a need
at one level until the previous "level of need" is met.
The five levels of need identified by Maslow were
Physiological, Safety/Security, Belonging/Social
Affiliation, Self-Esteem, and Self-Actualization."



But that is based on your experiences and background
without considering that others who feel as strongly as
you but have a totally different perspective. Neither are
wrong or right.

Slavery is wrong,

Washington and Jefferson both had slaves. In what ways
were they morally corrupted? In their time, agriculturally
based, this was not an uncommon practice. It was up to
each to decide (highest freedom).


murder is wrong

This statement is in error both ethically and legally.



theft is wrong,

An yet it exists. You're not saying anything which
makes any logical sence. Theft exists at all cultural
and economic levels in American society.



the list of things that are universally right and wrong
goes on and on,

All moral judgements of yours having nothing to
do with benefit to humanity. You think the world
should be molded to look like you. Remind me,
in your short life what are you a model of that
anyone would want to emulate by example?



The undisciplined tend to fail.

It is a struggle to be human sometimes. We all
fail and everyone suffers in some way everyday
of their life. Do you find fault in failure?

Do you browbeat your kids into submission?



"moral concept"... is based on fundamental principles
of right conduct rather than on law, custom, etc.: moral
obligations.

You're talking about a different kind of morality, one
that is completely subjective, I'm talkng about what
the objective requirements are for humans
everywhere.

Like what? What type of reporting systems
(gov/economic/religious) objectively measure
this, if it is_really_that important? What
is the "objective" measurement of freedom, you
say there are "requirements," right?



In this country, I think man acquired
freedoms influenced by legislation/politics/Christian
religions, a unique invention of the industrial world.

And I think the main reason they've worked so well
is because they happen to apply to humans and not
to cultural norms.

In this country to deny the impact of Christian values
in every aspect of human endeavor is really being a
simpleton.



The whole melting pot deal seems to work for those
who come here from othe places and don't have much
trouble adapting.

How would you know? What would you even know
(empirically) about hard times, mr. Spoon-in-Mouth.



Are you under the impression what when the U.N.
sets-up a democracy they reach for American
law books?

I'd be surprised if the UN looked anywhere.

So you admit you're not well informed, good.



Free men tend to work harder and better.

Self-interest is the driving force. There are many
ways to get willing people to do that and limit
their freedoms at the same time. So there is
only a limited causative effect between freedom
and higher work output.

Freedom is an essential for human existence to
thrive, anywhere.

" essential"... in what way ("thrive")? Humanity
has been around 10,000 year.


It was states rights issues.
Also consider that at beginning of the war
Lincoln was willing to accept slavery if the
union could be preserved.

Perhaps as a matter of law, but his whole life
he'd spoken of slavery being evil.

Quack,quack,quack...

From: "Powell"
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 14:52:47 -0500

Not what it means to me, what it means for human
beings, what is essential to humans everywhere.

Wrong, wrong, wrong... all projections of your making.

Well, at least Nob got Rand's infamous ego right. She and Nob KNOW
what's right for humanity!

And I think the main reason they've worked so well
is because they happen to apply to humans and not
to cultural norms.

In this country to deny the impact of Christian values
in every aspect of human endeavor is really being a
simpleton.

Freedom is an essential for human existence to
thrive, anywhere.

" essential"... in what way ("thrive")? Humanity
has been around 10,000 year.

I've figured out the Nobster: he spouts off with quotes learned by rote
from an Ayn Rand website.

If he wants to allow a rules-based, short-sighted, incomplete, rather
shallow and rigid world-view to be framed for him by a novelist,
perhaps we should refer him to L. Ron Hubbard so Nob can get a dose of
religion in there, too (although Rand's and his views are, of course,
equally valid).