Five seems to be a repeat of 4.

Sorry - will fix!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVtJE890Jao

eh.. we were doing that at nearly the same time.

Interesting talk. I like the judges idea of no taxes.. Though I am not sure it is realistic for right now..

I'll have to find time later to watch them, but I just wanted to add that I too have a lot of respect for McElroy. She's one feminist who hasn't forgotten what feminism once stood for. I wish there were more like her.

Great stuff.
I love Stossel. When I was young he was just a "local color" reporter in NYC. Amazing what he's doing now.

Yeah, let's get rid of the SEC, the FDIC and the USDA. And the homeowners mortgage interest tax deduction.

Polygamy? Legal. Casino-brothels on Main St? Go for it! Opium dens underneath the left-field bleachers? Right on, baby.

You fly into an airport and there are nude hookers behind plate-glass windows, ala Amsterdamn. Businessmen away from home have money to spend, and what do they really want? Free enterprise baby, they want free enterprise.

Restaurants that have signs that read, "No Niggers Allowed." (Don't tell me that can't happen--I am old enough to have seen one.)

High-rise condos on the rim of the Grand Canyon. Yahoo!

No sexual harassment laws--you give blow-jobs to the boss, or you lose your job, and no waa-waa about it. Learn to swallow, girls.

I find most "libertarians" start to talk about local regulations etc, or mumble that they are liberatrian on most issues etc when confronted with the full face of libertarianism.

Really, most "libertarians" are just Republicans who want to smoke pot.

I guess congratulations are in order: You seem to have acquired your very own Nikki the Stupid Stalker Bot.

Okay bash the messenger.

But how about handling some of the issues raised?

What is the libertarian reponse to the "No Niggers Allowed" restaurant sign?

Or the boss who says put out or get out?

And what is the libertarian response to polygamy?

I won't get into the FDIC...

> Don't tell me that can't happen--

It can't happen. There's not a state in the union where, if it did, the governor's office wouldn't have ten thousand phone messages within an hour asking why state troopers (and county health inspectors) aren't moving in to shut the place down.

> I am old enough to have seen one.

And yet you never did, did you? So what point are you making? Is your social development truly this constrained? Do you need to be patted on the head and told that some parts of civilization aren't as bad as they used to be?

Seriously, what kind of infantile bug has crawled up your rapier ass? Yes!— People used to to behave more badly to each other than they do today. So...

What? What does this have to do with libertarianism? Do you seriously contend that GOVERNMENT is what's made society better in these matters?

Crud-

Yes, sustained government action reduced overt racism, and outlawed discrimination in "public places," a definition that includes restaurants.

Yes, I did see racist signs in Kentucky, in 1959. Don't tell me I have never seen one. Besides my observation, there are plenty of phtoos out there.

Beyond that, your arguments are hollow. The question is, under libertarianism, if I today opened up a restaurant, and put the "No Niggers" sign on the entryway, what is the libertarian response?

Of course, it is to do nothing--no calls for state action etc. It is purely a private matter-I can serve who I want in my restaurant. Indeed, this was the position of Goldwater and the R-Party in 1964, under the States Rights banner.

All of the issues I pose are real challenges to libertarianism--yet most libertarians resort to foul-mouthed bashing when confronted with these gigantic questions they face.

Polygamy? Commercial sex? Commercial drug dens?
A financial system sans any state or federal deposit insurance? No SEC?

Rather than frothng at me, why not substantively answer the questions raised, and see if you can posit a positive, sustainable libertarain society?

I doubt that you can, both due to your limited mental faculties and the underlying substantial shortcomings of libertarianism.

Oh, BOTU, your comments remind me of the old adage that 'If people are basically good, then you don't need a government. If they are basically bad, then you don't dare have one.'

Come on, out with it. If the government didn't forbid discrimination against blacks at restaurants, do you seriously think there would still be restaurants around that did it? Do you really see yourself surrounded by people who hate blacks? And if you are, does the government make any damn difference? This kind of crap ended because of SOCIAL change. Asking libertarians whether this would still happen in their "ideal world" is stupid. Stop ignoring Crid's point.

> Yes, I did see racist signs in Kentucky, in 1959.

Is "racist signs" the same thing as your explicit, repeated wording of "No Niggers Allowed"?

I ask for two reasons. One-

> Don't tell me I have never seen one.

Because you very specifically, carefully, WEIRDLY said not that you had seen one, but that you were old enough to, and Two-

> sustained government action reduced
> overt racism

There's just no reason to think that that's true, even if I did excuse your rhetorical swapout (from "government's what's made society better"), which I do not.

> Rather than frothng at me, why
> not substantively answer

Because your so frothable. (I'm all about substantive-itude on this blog.) I've concluded that you're a humorless, aging, socially-repressed, control-minded scold, eager to imagine somehow that we're all in this together in some fantastic lefty way by which you personally might never be called upon to make any greater sacrifice for others.

No law ever changed anyone's mind about anything. Laws do not command society; they are a trailing indicator of social attitudes. Had the civil rights movement just been a bit more patient, the problem would have been solved without all of the extra-constitutional garbage that is now being abused, like the Voting Rights Act.

Crid,

Replying to the troll just encourages him.

But as far as the FDIC -- it should be that they are properly funded. Just like car insurance. The actuaries sit and look at your profile (driving record, age, vehicle types, etc.) and say we are going to charge $200 a month.

Now-needy FDIC collected little in premiums

The issue is that FDIC didn't do the same things. They should have been charging premiums regardless of "This guy hasn't talked to a cop in five years. He shouldn't have to pay."

And BOTU, your fundamental problem here is that you seem to be incapable of distinguishing between libertarianism and libertineism. They are not the same thing. Yet when you want to "prove" the impracticality of libertarianism, you always wind up resorting to libertine arguments instead. Libertineism is not a libertarian philosophy; it is what leftists consistently promote -- opiate of the masses and all that. Amy is not advocating for libertineism, but for some reason you keep tossing it out there as a straw man.

> Replying to the troll just encourages him.

I'm the troll on this blog, and I resent his incursions.

You know how sometimes stereotypes are just so CORRECT? And you shake your head and think how could such a constrained, rote description of an actual human personality so real, so descriptive, so thorough, so spot-on? That's how this guy is for me... He's the modern American lefty. Humorless but sarcastic, isolated but intrusive, etc etc etc

uhh..... BOTU may very well be a troll.

Can someone answer his questions?

Yes, there is talk of legalizing drugs, prostitution, and other vices in libertarian circles.

Yes, there is talk of extreme respect for the private sector in those circles.

So far the only responses to the hypothetical whites-only restaurant have been:

1)"the governor would be swamped with phone calls" - a not-very-libertarian answer that begs the question: in a libertarian legal climate, what basis would the government have for action?

2) The assertion that we are somehow "beyond that issue" - which does not address the question. so let's try it this way:

We just had a post about a "no gays" graduation party - what about a straights-only restaurant? Without laws that restrict private use of private property, what happens in such situations?

> So far the only responses to the
> hypothetical whites-only restaurant

Seriously? Does this really keep you up at night? Are you truly concerned that race relations would go downhill if the country took a more libertarian turn?

What is it with lefties? When they think government gives their lives purpose and decency and meaning, is it all just the remnant of some collapsed teenage developmental stage, some failure of individuation?

Man-to-man, I'm embarrassed for people that, and kind of ashamed. It's pathetic when people think their lives are something that's DONE to them, for better or for worse. It's a tragedy.

To extrapolate that servility to your whole nation is just infantile.

Crid - it's me, Ben-David.

You think I'm a Leftie?

I just want an answer.

A white only restaurant? Today? How long would it take for the protests to begin? The boycotts? I was in Ireland 2 years ago on vacation. Some bar in Dublin decided not to let obese women in. It took 1 week for the dude to change his policy because of the flak he endured. So I guess what it comes down to is whether you believe government laws lead to social changes or social changes lead to government laws. I believe the latter.

As for the FDIC, no more fractional reserve banking makes the FDIC utterly useless.

Ben-David, we know good and darn well that BOTU is a troll. He's been posting here for months under a bevy of different screen names. He has a few points that he brings up over and over. We've addressed his points multiple times in past threads. He ignores our answers and just keep repeating the few things that he's hung up on -- freedom (he doesn't like it), the military (he doesn't like it) and the Agriculture Department (you don't want to know).

Charles already covered the bit about the whites-only restaurant -- it would be out of business shortly. This is what would have happened to all of the segregated restaurants of the '60s if the civil rights movement had been a little more patient. But this isn't satisfying to leftists, whose fundamental claim is that there can never be a market solution to any problem, and they resent like hell when a market solution proves them wrong, so they try to pre-empt that at every opportunity. As for the rest, see my previous posts about (1) libertarianism vs. libertineism, and (2) how laws cannot change what people think.

> Charles already covered the bit about the
> whites-only restaurant

As I had earlier in the thread. (That's not to harsh Charles, just sayin'.) It's more interesting to ask why this Kentuckian BOTU seems eager to precisely recite the wording of that sign not once but twice, as if the social evil of twenty years ago still creates energy in his own heart... And I'm pretty sure that energy is dark. Libertarians are not famous for their weird racial attitudes.

> this isn't satisfying to leftists, whose fundamental
> claim is that there can never be a market solution
> to any problem, and they resent like hell when a
> market solution proves them wrong, so they try
> to pre-empt that at every opportunity

Yes! That's what i was getting at :

In the pages of the LA Times, I read an absolutely insane hatred of capitalist success, no matter how humble... And Toyota has both success and humility (I've seen it from within as a short-term freelancer.) In each section of the LAT, including sports, headline after headline and feature after feature describe man's inhumanity to man and the withering horrors of poverty and incompetence; and then will come these Toyota articles, often side-by-side, fraudulently belittling the unprecedentedly successful enterprise as an unbalanced, bloodthirsty viper pit.

This is lunacy, absolute moon-howling madness.

You will have noticed that public finances are under collapse. The only people who can fix this are the ones who pay taxes. Yet in the mentality of my hometown newspaper, no human being must be allowed to actually create value, not when there are so many people who cannot; their fear of power imbalance is that exaggerated. They just can't risk having some people prove to be more useful than others.

[Forgive pompous italics in quoting my own comments, but I'm trying to keep it all straight.]

Lefties are obsessed, OBSESSED with matters of power. This is what I was saying in the earlier comment here— For them, it's always about someone being oppressed and held back or not respected. The odors of confused teenage individuation are all over this. They don't trust the devastating power that a restaurant has over a black man (in 2010!), so they'll give TOTAL authority to a government to make things better. It's not about an adult's community responsibility, it's about an isolated child's infantile faith in Daddy.

"This is what would have happened to all of the segregated restaurants of the '60s if the civil rights movement had been a little more patient."

You just came right out of '60s comic book. So, I get it. If we just let the free market decide, then we will eventually create the Utopia.

E.V.E.N.T.U.A.L.L.Y Like year in 50350?

I was reading National Geographic one day and I found out that in Russia, you cannot get in some certain night clubs if you are old, fat, short or ugly. They can legally do that and the bouncers will make sure of it.

Those night clubs are still thriving in Russia in recession and obviously, the free market system is working.

I really doubt that you or me have a shot to get in there.

Amy beat me to it. Dude, have you even BEEN to West H? Or downtown or even Culver City or Brentwood?

Maybe if you were fat and style-less but showed up in a wheelchair, they wouldn't have the balls to keep you out of the Champagne Room for fear of a lawsuit.

Someone has probably tried this in Los Angeles. Last weekend, even.

"Amy beat me to it. Dude, have you even BEEN to West H? Or downtown or even Culver City or Brentwood?"

No. Unfortunately, I failed my driver's license test again. Please pray for me.

But I highly doubt that the bouncers in Culver City would tell me in my face that I cannot get in because I am too ugly. Most likely they would tell me that the club is full or reserved for the private party. Why? Because I have the law enforced by the government on my side thanks to the civil right movements in 60s.

Imagine a society, where a bouncer can legally tell you that you cannot get in here because you are too short.

Dude, that is you.

Chang, you know what? I live in a Southern town that had segregated restaurants when I was young. You know how long it took to end it? One night. One of the area's major employers told the town fathers "either you fix this or we will start moving work elsewhere." The next day, the restaurants were integrated. No laws were passed. Indeed, the legal system isn't even capable of moving that fast. Social and market pressure worked.

As far as your night club comment: "But I highly doubt that the bouncers in Culver City would tell me in my face that I cannot get in because I am too ugly. Most likely they would tell me that the club is full or reserved for the private party. "

You didn't get in either way. What's the diff?

"Why? Because I have the law enforced by the government on my side thanks to the civil right movements in 60s."

Well, guess what. The government ain't on my side. I'm in a "non-protected class". Any club can legally exclude me because I'm white and male. So what's my motivation here?

"Chang, you know what? I live in a Southern town that had segregated restaurants when I was young."

That does not surprise me. And I have this feeling that you do not get out of your Southern town often. Here are the assumptions you are making based on your limited Southern town experiences.

In '60s America, every town has major employers. And all of the major employers feel that the "White Only" sign must come down. And they will risk additional moving costs and possibly going out of businesses because the sign must come down at all costs.

Does this make sense to you?

"You didn't get in either way. What's the diff?"

The difference is that I can keep coming back the next day to the club until the bouncer run out of all of the legal excuses. I can keep pushing him until he caves in. My efforts and resilience will eventually open the door to the club if I keep trying. That is what America means to me.

"Well, guess what. The government ain't on my side. I'm in a "non-protected class". Any club can legally exclude me because I'm white and male. So what's my motivation here?"

You should be very motivated to protect the minorities. Your comment reminds me an episode of Comedy Central I watched about a year ago. It goes like this.

It is year 2048 and we have a new U.S. President, whose name is Hose Fernandez. He was just about to give an inauguration speech, when he was interrupted by the protesting white minorities chanting "Revive Equal Opportunity Act". And the president shouts back to them "Didn't you guys repeal the Equal Opportunity Act back in 2020? Please, why don't you guys shut up and go back to where you came from? A country like Czechoslovakia!!!!

"Chang, you know what? I live in a Southern town that had segregated restaurants when I was young."

That does not surprise me. And I have this feeling that you do not get out of your Southern town often. Here are the assumptions you are making based on your limited Southern town experiences.

In '60s America, every town has major employers. And all of the major employers feel that the "White Only" sign must come d

> I failed my driver's license test again.

Relevance?

> I highly doubt that the bouncers in Culver City
> would tell me in my face that I cannot get
> in because I am too ugly.

Should they have to? Seriously, dude... How old are you? Are bouncers really what you think this is about? Or is it about your supposition that the whole world can be made clear through easy-to-read, laminated instruction sheets such that any human being can achieve any fulfillment at any moment?

How old are you?

What would a libertarian say to a "White's Only" sign. Simple what ever floats your boat go ahead. In the end you will suffer the consequences good or bad. That reminds me of three incidents.

One here in Korea. A few years ago two school girls where killed in a accident caused by a huge American military vehicle. After that the general Korean public went on a regular anti-American kick. Some bars, clubs and restaurants put up signs that sad "No American Military allowed" and even worse "No Americans". What happened most places went on fine as they did not have many military/expat customers or none at all. But a few changed their mind when they found themselves losing business or their image was tarnished by what they put up, quickly changed their mind. Some places still do not allow military personal but to me it is all up to the business owner.

Second. A story heard from someone else. Is that in Sydney Australia there was a Korean restaurant in the local Asian district that was refusing to serve white people or just non-Koreans. Some reporter for local TV station got wind and tried to make a story out it. In the end I think nothing came of it since it was not going the other way Asian being discriminated against. In the end I THOUGHT - the korean business owner can do what ever they want. I mean come on most of their customer are Korean and will likely speak Korean. Heck I bet the waitresses would be more comfortable speaking Korean and they should get all put out because one white person might come by and throw everything out of wack. Once again the owners have to suffer the consequences which in the was probably pretty much - NOTHING.

Third was about a landscaping company that refused to work for a gay couple.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228518,00.html

So in the end for a libertarian - you a business owner should be able to refuse to serve blacks, gays, whites, or the squishy citizens of Alpha Centuri it is free speech and all that. You just have to suffer the consequences of lost business, bad advertising, and destroyed relationships. OR NOT.

"Relevance?

That means I have to take a bus to the Culver City.
And I just ran out of allowance money. The bouncer at the Culver City must wait until I pass the driver's license test, so I can drive my mom's car to the club.

"How old are you?"

50 1/2.

"What would a libertarian say to a "White's Only" sign. Simple what ever floats your boat go ahead. In the end you will suffer the consequences good or bad."

In your analysis, it will take about two months for U.S. looks like Afghanistan.

Do you remember the L.A. riots? We will have that in daily basis all of the U.S. as all of the libertarians are willing to suffer the consequences good or bad.

When you experience the bad consequences like in '60s and you are still alive, your next steps should be those bad consequences do not happen to you or to your loved ones again. You do not want your loved ones to find out the bad consequences in the way you found out. We call that a culture and the culture becomes the law.

I remember a newspaper comics and it goes like this. A job applicant asks a potential employer if his business discriminates clients based on their race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. And the potential employer replies, "No, we don't do that here. We take anybody's money."

When a business takes anybody's money, we will create the Utopia, where everyone has a shot at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The free market will not take anybody's money as we will always have some bouncers to tell me my money is not welcome here at his club because I am too short and ugly. If he can legally tell me that in my face and I don't have any other legal options to counter it, I will be reaching for my 38 at that point. The libertarian bouncer is about to find out and going to " suffer the consequences good or bad."

Chang as a short ugly person women are not going to let you buy them drinks as often as a good looking guy would be encouraged to.

Therefore rom a cash flow standpoint hot chicks will encourage hot guy to spend more cash - so it aint about you sweetheart, its about maximizing profits.

And I doubt you have he stones to shoot guy for insulting your delicate personage

"Therefore rom a cash flow standpoint hot chicks will encourage hot guy to spend more cash - so it aint about you sweetheart, its about maximizing profits."

I disagree. If you looked like Brad Pitt, do you really need to buy drinks to get laid? Besides, most good looking guys I know are broke and they usually work for ugly, fat and rich boss.

If you don't believe me, just go through the fortune 500 billionaires and I challenge you to find one good looking guy.

Those guys dont go to clubs stag, when ugly billionares go to clubs it with half a dozen models that he picked up at a fashion show after they found out he was loaded

So we have:
about the whites-only restaurant -- it would be out of business shortly. This is what would have happened to all of the segregated restaurants of the '60s if the civil rights movement had been a little more patient. But this isn't satisfying to leftists, whose fundamental claim is that there can never be a market solution to any problem

and:

What would a libertarian say to a "White's Only" sign. Simple what ever floats your boat go ahead. In the end you will suffer the consequences good or bad
- - - - - - - -

... and just WHO will suffer the consequences?

Long before the Nazis passed their discrimination laws, their goons stood in front of Jewish businesses and drove German customers away.

There was no "outcry" - and quickly no legal recourse, either.

... and I'm gonna need a lot of convincing to believe that most small towns in the South just would have removed all the "Coloreds Only" signs. Or that most employers in the area cared.

The cotton-picking machine was developed in the 50s, and drove tens of thousands of Southern blacks to northern cities. Which only increased the wages paid to white mill and farm workers.

Man Chang you have no faith in Humanity! Anyways let me expand on my opinion/thoughts. As I said what every floats you boat IN CONJUNCTION with basic laws protecting body,life and property. As said above libertarians are not against law we just do not like laws the restrict liberty and choice. Chang pulling a gun and shooting somebody is not liberty it is murder or assault. A In Libertarianism people believe you can do what you want as long as it does not harm anybody else or affect somebody else adversely.

Chang are you one of those guys who rants and raves when ever a bar has a Lady's Night with free drinks for the women. "I want my free drink too that is so not fair wah wah wah".... OR do you demand you right to exercise in a womens only gym.... OR do you like going into a lesbian bars and start looking at the women, then when all the patrons ask you to leave do you start screaming discrimination again.

It annoys me that discrimination now means anything that hurts somebodies feelings. A woman called my short and ugly ... whoops thats discrimination...A woman was told to not breast feed in the middle of store... feelings hurt thats discrimination again... I am using my cell phone in the middle of a cafe and somebody shushes me that is discrimination against cell phone users.....

See Amy last comment also is the power of the consequences.