The Chick-Fil-A/Libertarian/Gay Marriage thread ;)

There is nothing to be clarified. The term Jim Crow refers to a set of racist laws. I think both Robin and I oppose those laws, I dont see what Robin's problem is.

To suggest that Jim Crow - meaning institutionalized racial segregation - would not have existed in the South if not for laws is simply inane.

I never suggested that. I suggested that I opposed the laws.

Notice you used the word institutionalized. Institutionalized by? The government.

Yes, the government was reflective of the culture. That is part of the problem with it. I prefer a minimal government that has a few timeless principles and doesnt ebb and flow with the changes in culture.

Would there have been segration and racism without the laws. Of course. Would it have changed faster if the Jim Crow laws had never existed. Of course. And that is the point. The government regulation slowed down the change in the culture by preventing the radical business man (for example) from trying something different. The crazy guy who ran the mixed race lunch counter in Montgomery in 1932 might have started the process of change much faster.

Dont think that would work? See baseball. It took one crazy owner willing to make a change. And Jackie Robinson probably had WAY more effect on the culture than anything any politician did.

Oh, and you seem to pick on the South for Jim Crow. Jim Crow was a northern problem too. See baseball again, their werent any teams in the south at the time. Well, DC. Other than DC they were all in the NE and MW.

Well articulated Rob, excellent.

It might be fun to post anyway. It's my critique of libertarianism.

Ive seen a brazilian of them, some are better than others.

Let me give you a pre-critique of your critique to make sure its fun on both sides.

I consider myself a deontological realist libertarian (DRL is a term I made up, so it only describes me).

For the realist part see the Heinlein quote above, I acknowledge what wont change and tolerate or ignore it.

Anyway, the point is, if your critique is on utilitarian or pragmatic grounds, I will ignore it, deontologists dont give a damn about those things.

Also, I consider my political philosphy to be "complete", which means this applies. Unlike Rand, contradictions dont bother me too much.

Oh, and I have one premise that I cant "prove", hence it being a premise, that my political views follow from: Liberty is the highest political value.

[Robin Garr]

Yes, the government was reflective of the culture. That is part of the problem with it. I prefer a minimal government that has a few timeless principles and doesnt ebb and flow with the changes in culture.

And this is where the rubber meets the road, and where this kind of debate, no matter how well-intentioned the participants, is bound to fail. I find this line of thinking - not speaking of you, Rob, but of the Randian/right-libertarian philosophy in general - to be essentially naive and out of touch with the real world. It sets up strawman opponents and then declares victory by knocking them down.

History is loaded with examples to the contrary, from the New Deal to the civil rights struggle to Great Society, and as Santayana famously warned, those who aren't willing to learn history's lessons are doomed to repeat them.

This post has crossed with Rob's quite a bit, but I'm posting it anyway.

The laws followed the custom and the culture, institutionalized prejudice that continued for about 100 years after the Civil War with the full support of most of the people.

Jim Crow wasn't a practice forced by law upon white southerners who would have preferred to be diverse and inclusive. It reflected their long-standing bigotry, a bigotry that was given biblical support and preached from the pulpits of Bible Belt churches.

Certainly, the laws followed the customs and culture.

It took the conscience of the greater nation, support from the federal government and the National Guard, years of protests, thousands of beatings and hundreds of deaths before Jim Crow was finally legally ousted by legislation in the form of the Civil Rights Acts, plural.

This really is a case of the Federal government taking a stand for individual liberty, but it wasn't against individuals doing what they do, it was against real laws enacted by real governments.

This is not an argument against libertarianism. This is the abolition of unjust laws. now if we can just get to work on all those Affirmative Action polices which are still perpetuating official racism.

To suggest that Jim Crow - meaning institutionalized racial segregation - would not have existed in the South if not for laws is simply inane.

Correct. The laws did not create the racism. But, without the laws, people would have been free to follow their own conscience on the matter. Being a racist is not a binary condition. So, there would have been a spectrum of opinion, from for bore racism to complete brotherly harmony. The South was not monolithic collective.

The Jim Crow laws suppressed these minority opinions under threat of CRIMINAL prosecution. That is the coercive power of government. The majority silenced the minority, both white and black who where amenable to racial reconciliation. So, we got a southern culture frozen in amber instead of being allowed to evolve naturally... which it would have. It was government power that was the biggest problem.

So, after the Civil Rights Acts, did racism magically disappear in the South? No, it did not. But at least the amber was finally broken, and Southern Culture started evolving as it always should have.

Here's another question...
As a gun control advocate, would you have supported gun control in the South during the Jim Crow era? Even knowing it would've denied the freed slaves the only self defense that they had against the rapacious state governments? The Right to Bear arms IS a civil right.

It might be fun to post anyway. It's my critique of libertarianism.

Ive seen a brazilian of them, some are better than others.

Let me give you a pre-critique of your critique to make sure its fun on both sides.

I consider myself a deontological realist libertarian (DRL is a term I made up, so it only describes me).

For the realist part see the Heinlein quote above, I acknowledge what wont change and tolerate or ignore it.

Anyway, the point is, if your critique is on utilitarian or pragmatic grounds, I will ignore it, deontologists dont give a damn about those things.

Also, I consider my political philosphy to be "complete", which means this applies. Unlike Rand, contradictions dont bother me too much.

Oh, and I have one premise that I cant "prove", hence it being a premise, that my political views follow from: Liberty is the highest political value.

Yeah, I'm going to pass on posting it. My comment yesterday about combative still applies. There are many forms of combat, and your pre-critique is just another example.

Why would I care to share my labor with you if you already don't give a damn about it?

But that's the libertarian creed - care only about oneself, but hide behind some concept of liberty when doing so. And I guess I meant that combatively, seeing as you provided me few other options.

But why would you care for other options? An idea of a social good or a social contract means nothing to you. Were all just autonomous moral characters only connected by our participation in the free market. Any other connection not driven by one's liberty is coercion perpetuated by the government. Somehow, though the free market itself is never viewed to be coercive.

Oh, what's the point. I should have stopped when I said I was going to.

Yes, the government was reflective of the culture. That is part of the problem with it. I prefer a minimal government that has a few timeless principles and doesnt ebb and flow with the changes in culture.

And this is where the rubber meets the road, and where this kind of debate, no matter how well-intentioned the participants, is bound to fail. I find this line of thinking - not speaking of you, Rob, but of the Randian/right-libertarian philosophy in general - to be essentially naive and out of touch with the real world. It sets up strawman opponents and then declares victory by knocking them down.

History is loaded with examples to the contrary, from the New Deal to the civil rights struggle to Great Society, and as Santayana famously warned, those who aren't willing to learn history's lessons are doomed to repeat them.

http://www.slate.com/id/2297019/

"The essence of any utopianism is: Conjure an ideal that makes an impossible demand on reality, then announce that, until the demand is met in full, your ideal can't be fairly evaluated. Attribute any incidental successes to the halfway meeting of the demand, any failure to the halfway still to go."

Yeah, I'm going to pass on posting it. My comment yesterday about combative still applies. There are many forms of combat, and your pre-critique is just another example.

Why would I care to share my labor with you if you already don't give a damn about it?

I wasnt being combative, I was literally trying to save you the trouble. If you have a Kantian critique of libertarianism, I would love to see it. Seriously. Ive seen some in the past and changed my positions somewhat due to them. Admittedly, they have mostly come from other libertarians.

But that's the libertarian creed - care only about oneself, but hide behind some concept of liberty when doing so. And I guess I meant that combatively, seeing as you provided me few other options.

But why would you care for other options? An idea of a social good or a social contract means nothing to you. Were all just autonomous moral characters only connected by our participation in the free market. Any other connection not driven by one's liberty is coercion perpetuated by the government. Somehow, though the free market itself is never viewed to be coercive.

Oh, what's the point. I should have stopped when I said I was going to.

And then, strawmen. You got one thing right though, the "social contract" means absolutely nothing to me. I never signed it. Oh, and we are all just "autonomous moral characters", that is also true. Im not sure about anyone else, but I have free will.

"The essence of any utopianism is: Conjure an ideal that makes an impossible demand on reality, then announce that, until the demand is met in full, your ideal can't be fairly evaluated. Attribute any incidental successes to the halfway meeting of the demand, any failure to the halfway still to go."

And you completely missed the R in DRL.

The Heinlein quote I used early is the exact opposite of utopianism.

"The essence of any utopianism is: Conjure an ideal that makes an impossible demand on reality, then announce that, until the demand is met in full, your ideal can't be fairly evaluated. Attribute any incidental successes to the halfway meeting of the demand, any failure to the halfway still to go."

And you completely missed the R in DRL.

The Heinlein quote I used early is the exact opposite of utopianism.

I was/am too lazy to go back and find it.

Edit: I went back and looked for it. Couldn't find it. There are 116 posts.

I've never found a way to see realism in libertarianism.

"The essence of any utopianism is: Conjure an ideal that makes an impossible demand on reality, then announce that, until the demand is met in full, your ideal can't be fairly evaluated. Attribute any incidental successes to the halfway meeting of the demand, any failure to the halfway still to go."

And you completely missed the R in DRL.

The Heinlein quote I used early is the exact opposite of utopianism.

I was/am too lazy to go back and find it.

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

thanks Rob. Don't think the quote has much to do with realism, but thanks for locating it for me.

I've never found a way to see realism in libertarianism.

Do what you want, but dont harm others.

Its pretty much how most of us live 95% of our lives. I just want to expand it to 99+%.

thanks Rob. Don't think the quote has much to do with realism, but thanks for locating it for me.

I wonder why I would locate it for you if I only cared about myself.

And you are welcome.

That quote has everything to do with realism. I would like to change a lot of stuff, but realize it isnt going to happen and roll with those things I cant change. Or ignore them if to oppressive.

Another example - if I ever ran for office (which I wont, all politicians are corrupt douchebags, even the ones I vote for), I would run on the following platform (taken directly from CS Lewis):

To live his life in his own way, to call his house his castle, to enjoy the fruits of his own labour, to educate his children as his conscience directs, to save for their prosperity after his death --- these are wishes deeply ingrained in civilised man.

I dont think that is utopian in the least.