"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.

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.



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

"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.

It is capitalism that gave mankind the first steps towards a rational way of
life. It is capitalism that broke through national and ratioanl barriers,
by means of free trade. It is capitalism that abolished serfdom and slavery
in all the civilized countries of the world. It is th capitalist North that
destroyed the slavery of the agrarian-feudal Southin the United States."

That's from her essay on racism in The Virtue of Selfishness.

As I said, people with something to sell tend not to care about the color of
the skin of their customers. They'd rather not lose or close out a
significant customer base.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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

I stand by my statement.

From: - Find messages by this author
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 05:11:25 GMT

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.

So Rand wasn't smart enough to know that correlation does not equal
causation? I find that hard to believe.

I remember from my statistics analysis course that in areas with harder
pavement, the mortality rate is higher.

Seems that lots of elderly people die when shoveling snow off frozen
pavement. Obviously the pavement has nothing to do with it.

You can justify rasicm with statistics any old day. By the way, you can
justify it with the Bible too.

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.


It is capitalism that gave mankind the first steps towards a rational way
of life. It is capitalism that broke through national and ratioanl
barriers, by means of free trade. It is capitalism that abolished serfdom
and slavery in all the civilized countries of the world. It is th
capitalist North that destroyed the slavery of the agrarian-feudal Southin
the United States."


The slave trade was run by capitalists. They capture, transportation,
buying and selling of salves was a capitalistic venture.



That's from her essay on racism in The Virtue of Selfishness.

As I said, people with something to sell tend not to care about the color
of the skin of their customers. They'd rather not lose or close out a
significant customer base.


Howver, they did care about the color of of skin
of their "Product".



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.



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.


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.



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.


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 whiote racists!!


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.



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

"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.

It is capitalism that gave mankind the first steps towards a rational way
of life. It is capitalism that broke through national and ratioanl
barriers, by means of free trade. It is capitalism that abolished
serfdom and slavery in all the civilized countries of the world. It is
th capitalist North that destroyed the slavery of the agrarian-feudal
Southin the United States."


The slave trade was run by capitalists. They capture, transportation,
buying and selling of salves was a capitalistic venture.

No argument. It was also aided by Africans in Africa.

That's from her essay on racism in The Virtue of Selfishness.

As I said, people with something to sell tend not to care about the color
of the skin of their customers. They'd rather not lose or close out a
significant customer base.


Howver, they did care about the color of of skin
of their "Product".

Here yes, in Africa, it was other Africans. as long as they were other
tribes.

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.


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?


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.

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.

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.

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.

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