The Enduring Legacy of MLK’s “I Have a Dream” Speech

Freedom needs no lengthy explanation.

It was a short speech. It stopped short of 1,600 words – a point at which many public figures who have far less to say are just getting warmed up. But in that short span of words the Rev. Martin Luther King packed more power than in all the hate of all the bigots arrayed against him.

What made King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, delivered at the March on Washington 50 years ago today, so mighty? His style of oratory, no doubt. It is hard to read the text now without hearing the words roll through your mind on the waves of his unmistakable cadence. But many ministers speak in similar cadences today, in Sunday sermons that are forgotten by noon.

King also possessed the great advantage of having justice on his side. The same cannot be said of certain other mesmerizing orators – Hitler comes most immediately to mind – which makes their oratory sound repugnant, not compelling.

King also knew how to make use of imagery – although, if one is being completely candid, he did lay it on a little thick. The “Dream” speech is full of joyous daybreaks and long nights of captivity, of lonely islands of poverty and vast oceans of prosperity, of quicksands of racial injustice and solid rocks of brotherhood, of sweltering summers of discontent and invigorating autumns of freedom, of vaults of opportunity and valleys of despair, of palaces of justice and stones of hope. It makes you wonder a bit if he could order a cup of coffee without pouring the soothing nectar of cow’s milk into the dark and bitter vat of Folger’s.

But then, there have been many other flowery speakers too – and few of them uttered any words that lasted longer than the breath they took to speak them.

Of course, King delivered his speech at a profound historical moment. He could have read his shopping list and we would still remember it today.

And yet there is something about the Dream speech that transcends all of those factors put together. That magnificent speech – part extemporaneous – compelled assent in 1963, just as it compels assent today.

It did so because, in addition to everything else, King did not lecture America as though apart from and superior to it – though he certainly would have been justified in doing so. The stupid, cruel, unthinking bigotry endured by African-Americans would have justified a primal scream of pain and rage, never mind a finger-wagging lecture from the moral mountaintop.

But King delivered neither. Nor did he try to convert those hostile to the cause of civil rights to notions they found foreign. Instead, King appealed to natural law, and to the principles his opponents held most dear.

He had come, he said, to cash a promissory note written by the Founders. And everyone – in every civilization and throughout every age – has always known a promise must be kept. The duty to keep a promise is so basic, so obvious, that even little children see it.

Keeping a promise is not just a question of duty. It is also a question of honor. And the demands of honor weighed heavy in the hearts of the South. “What is life without honor?” asked Stonewall Jackson. Another Southern Jackson – Andrew – urged “every good citizen” to “make his country’s honor his own.” The nation’s honor, King implied, was now at stake. Would it keep the promise it had made?

Moreover, King did not ask America to become something it was not; he asked America to become something it had always meant to be. He dreamed, he said, not that the country would turn its back on its creed, but that it would “rise up and live out the true meaning.” This presented opponents and fence-sitters with a simple choice: Did they believe in America’s creedal values, or not? King spoke as a defender of the country’s catechism. Would they also defend it – or embrace apostasy?

King spoke of nonviolence – a sharp contrast to the dogs and fire hoses wielded by the gangsters who called themselves the government in 1963.

And he spoke, above all, of freedom – the cause that inspired the Revolution.

The March on Washington addressed other causes, too: Desegregation. The minimum wage. Public works. But it was freedom – America’s most cherished value and her most glorious promise – to which King devoted his final, loftiest minutes. And that is what made the speech so powerful, too. Because freedom is such a simple concept.

Freedom needs no lengthy explanation. It needs no five-year plan, or 10-point agenda, or 30-percent tax, or 200-person bureaucracy. Freedom asks for none of those things. In fact, it doesn’t ask for anything – except to be left in peace.

Let freedom ring, King said. It was all he needed to say.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The same cannot be said of certain other mesmerizing orators...

    You know who else was said to be a mesmerizing orator?

    And too bad most people today abusing King's memory for their own purposes don't use the words correctly. We're about righting the wrongs of the past instead of focusing on simple equality.

  • lizalisa12||

    my friend's step-mother makes $83/hour on the laptop. She has been out of work for eight months but last month her income was $20438 just working on the laptop for a few hours. read here ------ Click Here for More Details

    Go to website and click Home tab for more details.
    ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

  • Tony||

    MLK understood, as all libertarians don't, that freedom is about more than being left alone. To be free you need a decent income, the ability to participate fully in your society, and the other amenities modern societies offer. Let's not appropriate the socialist MLK for libertarianism--a movement with strands of umbilical cord still attached to its segregationist parentage.

    The freedom of the business owner to be left alone has always been your primary concern. That sentiment is not prior to segregationist arguments. It is the segregationist argument.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Fuck off, bigot.

  • Tony||

    Orwell (also a socialist) would like to speak to you about this cutesy appropriation of liberal grievance language in service of conservative white dominance.

  • ||

    As a black man and as a Libertarian, I find your assumptions above not only ignorant but quite frankly insulting. The Libertarian philosophy rejects discrimination and taking a person's freedom and rights away. Their right to justice, their right to pursue a living, a right to not live in fear of being harmed, and a right to defend themselves if need be.

    My grandparents who lived during the Jim Crow South had to deal with discrimination (government dictated discrimination by the way) but yet persevered and managed to live their lives well and provide for all of their children. They taught us that despite the disadvantages they had during that awful period, you work hard and be self sufficient. They taught us to never take government handouts because if the government gives you something, they have strings attached and also take it away whenever it pleases them. They taught us charity, self reliance, hard work and being responsible for one's actions.

    Also spending my teenage years on the Southside of Chicago, I saw firsthand how ,if well intentioned ,liberal policies destroyed the black community. It took our destiny from out of hands and put us at the mercy of do gooder white liberals and the incompetent federal government. It destroyed our sense of family, dignity, hard work, and personal responsibility.

  • Tony||

    The Libertarian philosophy rejects discrimination and taking a person's freedom and rights away.

    But it doesn't propose to do anything about it when it does occur.

    I won't pretend to know what will solve the problems of income, incarceration, education, and livelihood disparities that exist among the races. But lecturing people to pull themselves up from their bootstraps hasn't worked yet. As a liberal I think about these things on a macro scale. I'd prefer not to talk about race at all and focus on the disadvantages that come with poverty--but it cannot be denied that race is relevant when poverty and race are correlated to the degree they are in this country.

  • ||

    Yep because Libertarians hate blacks and want to keep them in chains.

    One of the few functions of government that we actually believe in is that if any person's rights are being violated, the government should and ought to use force to protect those rights. The right to liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Tony doesn't believe people have rights--unless the government says so.

    MLK's mission in life was to convince people to stand up for their rights--despite the fact that the government said those rights didn't exist.

    The libertarian mission could be summed up as trying to convince people to stand up for their rights.

    Yeah, you're right. Libertarians generally believe that if the government has any legitimate purpose at all, it's to protect our rights.

    And that's why Tony hates libertarians. And that's why Tony goes around trying to convince people that their rights don't really exist.

  • Tony||

    I agree. I just believe in more rights than libertarians. A right to healthcare, workplace safety, oh and a right to be free from discrimination in publicly accessible places, among others.

  • Brandon||

    You are willing to trade other peoples' rights to liberty and property for your "right" to never have to pay for anything, take any risk or make any effort. You don't believe in more rights, you don't believe in rights. You believe in privileging certain members of society over others based on your feelings.

  • scareduck||

    Tony believes in bullshit positive rights: the right to a new car, say, or to socialized medicine, and for himself, to deflower whatever maidens he might like. Oops, sorry, that was the king's right. But anyway, the liberal catechism is all about electing the right king.

  • Frank_Carbonni||

    I have been reading these boards for a couple of years now, Tony. I have come to the conclusion that you are completely full of shit and circular logic. But mostly shit.

    I have no only heard you say that rights don't exist unless if the government recognizes it (not just in practice, but in theory as well), so using your logic; MLK (and every other Civil Rights activist) was a dangerous malcontent claiming rights he did not actually have and should have just shut up about it.

    Oh, and fuck you, Tony. I almost forgot that.

  • DH||

    -I won't pretend to know what will solve the problems of income, incarceration, education, and livelihood disparities that exist among the races-

    -To be free you need a decent income, the ability to participate fully in your society, and the other amenities modern societies offer.-

    Sounds like you know what will fix it. Use the government to force income redistribution so others can take my hard work without having to do anything for it. I don't think you need a big screen tv and a obama phone to be free.

  • Tony||

    big screen tv and a obama phone to be free.

    This is why I didn't just shut up and let libertarians pretend that MLK was part of their project. It's quite apparent we have a long way to go.

  • Brandon||

    Another Boondocks fan?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Tony wants to use the government to oppress people who disagree with him, and, somehow, he think that represents the legacy of Martin Luther King.

    MLK having changed society a) from outside the government b) by breaking the law and c) to end government oppression completely escapes him.

    Tony isn't even an ideologue, really. He's just a moron.

  • Tony||

    Tony wants to use the government to oppress people who disagree with him

    No I don't. Stop lying.

    You evidently have no idea what MLK advocated or what he was planning to advocate before he was shot to death. It wasn't quote "government should leave business owners alone."

  • Ken Shultz||

    You're denigrating everything Martin Luther King achieved in his lifetime, you disgusting piece of shit.

    But none of your hate will ever change the fact that Martin Luther King heroically broke the law, defied the government, and changed racism in this country forever--all from outside of the government.

    "No I don't. Stop lying."

    According to Tony, people's rights don't really exist unless the government says so. When asked point blank in the past, Tony has refused to admit that black people's rights were violated during Jim Crow--because their rights didn't exist until the government said so...

    It's absolutely disgusting. He basically thinks that the government was right to arrest civil rights leaders for exercising their rights--so long as the government didn't recognize their rights. He chastises other people for assuming the legacy of Martin Luther King, when he himself would have approved of throwing Martin Luther King in prison--for exercising rights Kind supposedly didn't have, according to Tony.

    You're nauseating, Tony. You make people want to vomit.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Tony--specifically--refused to admit that Rosa Parks had the right to sit in the front of a public bus!

    And he thinks we're the ones misappropriating the legacy of Dr. King?

    You are a vile human being, Tony.

  • Tony||

    According to Tony, people's rights don't really exist unless the government says so.

    I don't believe in magic because I am a rational person. If not being disgusting requires me to believe in magic, I'm terribly sorry to disappoint you. I don't understand what this ridiculous never-ending semantic debate has to do with anything. Fine, black people had rights that weren't being recognized. I'm sure that would have been a huge comfort to them to know that the rights were there all along, even if they absolutely did not exist in practice.

    The fact of the matter is these rights didn't exist until the federal government intervened and forced them to. Those would be the legislative actions libertarianism has been positively obsessed with getting rid of since forever. Because, as I said, you care primarily about the freedom of the business owner, not the customer, and I dare you to deny that.

    You're twisting my preference for using rational language to discuss rights into a ridiculous straw man. Of course I appreciate the value of nonviolent civil disobedience. Sometimes that's the only avenue for people who are disenfranchised.

  • Calidissident||

    "The fact of the matter is these rights didn't exist until the federal government intervened and forced them to. Those would be the legislative actions libertarianism has been positively obsessed with getting rid of since forever."

    Libertarians object(ed) to one section of the CRA. To pretend like they did not or do not support the sections that outlawed Jim Crow laws is nothing short of mendacious.

    "Because, as I said, you care primarily about the freedom of the business owner, not the customer, and I dare you to deny that."

    Business owners should be free to decide who they wish to serve, customers should be free to decide where they wish to spend their money. You're the one who supports forcing people to buy a product from a private company (health insurance mandate), not us. So please spare me the bullshit about how you're just standing up for the rights of the customer

  • Tony||

    customers should be free to decide where they wish to spend their money.

    A freedom that doesn't meaningfully exist when most businesses discriminate against you for the color of your skin.

    Freedoms can conflict, and some are more important than others. Libertarians need to figure this out at some point.

    You're the one who supports forcing people to buy a product from a private company (health insurance mandate)

    False. I support the total destruction of the private health insurance market and the replacement of it with a totally socialized system.

  • Calidissident||

    "A freedom that doesn't meaningfully exist when most businesses discriminate against you for the color of your skin."

    You do realize that Jim Crow laws mandated segregation by private businesses? There was integrated transportation in the Deep South in the freaking 1800s before the state governments passed Jim Crow laws. Do you honestly think most businesses would refuse to serve blacks in 2013?

    "False. I support the total destruction of the private health insurance market and the replacement of it with a totally socialized system."

    But when you can't have that, you're perfectly fine with supporting the next best alternative of compelling the purchase of a product?

  • Old Dave||

    "The fact of the matter is these rights didn't exist until the federal government intervened and forced them to."

    Wow. My jaw just hit the desk. Tony, you truly are a...well, I don't know exactly what you are. I do know I feel a bit sorry for you.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Exactly!

    When I say that he doesn't believe people have rights unless the government says so--I'm not exaggerating.

    He refused to admit that Rosa Parks had the right to sit in the front of a public bus.

    He refused to admit that Jewish people had a right to their lives during the holocaust--despite the fact that their government didn't recognize that right.

    I'm not exaggerating. That's what he believes.

    AND he's chastising us for supposedly misappropriating King's legacy!

  • ||

    We should go to Congress and enact a statute that will force everyone who has the name Tony to be shot during Labor Day Weekend. He wouldn't mind this since he believes that rights only exist if the government says they exist.

  • Tony||

    If Rosa Parks had the right to sit at the front of the bus then nobody would know her name. The whole point was that she didn't have the right at that time.

    If the Jews had a right to life during the Holocaust, there wouldn't have been a Holocaust. The whole point is that they had no rights in the most unimaginably horrible way.

    You do get that this is almost totally substanceless semantics you're obsessing about?

    A lack of a belief in magic prevents me from saying people have innate rights, but if you want to talk about it that way, it really doesn't change the political discussion. One thing I will say is that I believe it is more respectful of the concept of rights to recognize that they were extremely hard-won and must be vigilantly defended.

  • Calidissident||

    If Jews had no right to life, then what exactly was wrong with the Holocaust? If blacks had no rights during Jim Crow, what exactly was wrong with oppressing them? It is precisely because of the violation of the rights of others that these atrocities are so horrible.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "If Jews had no right to life, then what exactly was wrong with the Holocaust?"

    Tony has no response. Or whatever his response is, it doesn't make any sense.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Seriously, though, can you imagine someone actually going into a synagogue and arguing that Jews during the holocaust didn't have a right to their own lives?

    I mean, beyond that pathetic logic, there's such a sick...

    There's more to libertarianism than just utilitarianism and outcomes... There's a moral component, too, where you have to care about people, generally, or you won't care about their rights. And Tony's moral compass is completely broken.

    It always points to Obama, or whatever he thinks is good for Obama, I guess? The fear that the individual mandate might be wrong, or that people might have a right to bear arms offends him so mightily, that's he won't even admit that victims of the holocaust had a right to their own lives...

    He ends up with no reasonable explanation as to why what the perpetrators of the holocaust did was wrong, and he doesn't care. Because that wasn't the point of his argument anyway. The point of his argument was to support Progressives and Obama. And that's all that matters.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    If the Jews had a right to life during the Holocaust, there wouldn't have been a Holocaust.

    And if people have a right to healthcare, they'd already have it. If they already have it, why are you bitching about it? If they don't, try to be consistent in your arguments and admit that they don't have such a right.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "If Rosa Parks had the right to sit at the front of the bus then nobody would know her name. The whole point was that she didn't have the right at that time."

    If the government had respected Rosa Parks' right to sit in the front of a public bus, no one would know her name.

    The whole point was that the government wasn't respecting her right...

    And Martin Luther King (among other civil rights leaders) understood that, and that's why the boycott happened.

    ...and anybody that doesn't understand that Rosa Parks was important because it showed that the government wasn't respecting her rights? has no business saying that other people don't understand Martin Luther King.

    P.S. You're a moron.

  • Tony||

    This is a pointless conversation. I am right, but it's still pointless.

    You just don't want to admit any role for government in the securing of rights, despite obvious reality. This is your problem, not mine. Get out of your stupid cult and you won't have it any more.

  • ||

    You just don't want to admit any role for government in the securing of rights, despite obvious reality.

    Actually, the sole function of the government is to secure our rights. We just do not admit, because it is utter and complete hogwash, any role for the government in creating rights. If you didn't know the difference, you'd be an idiot. But it's been explained to you at least a thousand times at this website alone. So you do know the difference, you're just a lying, mendacious, privilege-mongering cunt.

  • DH||

    The Jews did have a right to life, and guess what, government took it away.

  • Homple||

    "The whole point was that she didn't have the right at that time."

    She had the right at that time and all others. The Jim Crow laws of the Democrat's segregationist South prevented her by force and threat of imprisonment from exercising it.

  • Blueman||

    Rights and laws are not the same thing.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Rights and laws are not the same thing."

    According to Tony, they are!

  • ||

    It's sad that you have come here and try to use this wonderful transformative speech to bash Libertarians so you can simply fulfill your insatiable lust for partisan hackery.

  • Tony||

    I do not believe it is an appropriate use of the legacy of MLK to sit on my hands and let libertarians whore him out for purposes that are explicitly contrary to his aims.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Tony goes around trying to convince people--including black people--that their rights don't really exist...

    And then he say we're the ones misappropriated MLK's legacy!

    What do think MLK would say about you going around trying to convince people that their rights don't exist, Tony?

    You think that's somehow representative of MLK's legacy? You couldn't possibly be that dumb, but you are that ideological. And when your ideology makes you go around trying to convince people that their rights don't exist--and claim the mantle of Martin Luther King? then your ideology has made you a really sick human being.

  • Tony||

    Their rights didn't exist until they did--the primary agent of that change being the federal government. I don't see what comfort it's supposed to bring to engage in this sophomoric semantic nonsense. The civil rights movement advocated for rights that didn't exist. It didn't advocate for rights that did exist but that people were clumsily forgetting to recognize. Either way you frame it though is entirely beside the point. I prefer to talk about real-world things and not philosophical abstractions that have no bearing on anyone's actual livelihood.

  • Brandon||

    Their rights didn't exist until they did--the primary agent of that change being the federal government.

    The federal government, after all the marches, demonstrations, boycotts and sit-ins performed by thousands of individuals. But those don't count, right Tony? Fuck Rosa Parks, fuck Medgar Evers, fuck all those little peons, it is the Federal Government from which all good things flow, right Tony? Or is it time for another non sequitur, you disingenuous little shit?

  • Tony||

    Where are you getting this from? I am not claiming the federal government acted all by itself. Again, I don't see government as an alien force, for either evil or benevolence. The private demonstrations of the civil rights movement are what led to the legislative victories. But it was legal changes they were seeking, since they were smarter than you in realizing that this is a more productive means of gaining freedom than trying to convince racists to stop being racist.

  • Calidissident||

    You say this as if laws against discrimination by private business was the primary objective of the Civil Rights Movement. Sure, that was definitely a part of the platform. But you are ignorant or disingenuous if you're ignoring the fact that the bulk of the movement was about ending government and government-enforced discrimination and segregation

  • Brandon||

    Their rights didn't exist until they did--the primary agent of that change being the federal government.

    You claimed, very specifically that the federal government acted by itself, everything else being peripheral.

  • ||

    When I was in school, I was probably what you call a moderate Democrat. But after sitting in the classroom with liberals, especially when they talked about race, it turned me off from the progressive doctrine completely. Whenever they talked about black people, it was in a paternalistic manner and without ever saying it blatantly, believed that black people couldn't survive without the benevolence of white people. It made me sick then and it makes me sick now. Like I said in a board earlier this week, white progressive could give two shits about poor black people. To them we are nothing more then pawns in their political game.

  • Tony||

    My prescription is humble and the very definition of fairness and respect: the wealth that was pillaged from the black minority over several centuries should be returned to it. Frankly paying a little in taxes to fund good education, nutrition, criminal justice reform, and a social safety net is getting off easy.

  • Brandon||

    Your prescription is keeping a permanent underclass?

    http://www.intellectualtakeout.....erty-began

  • sarcasmic||

    My prescription is humble and the very definition of fairness and respect: the wealth that was pillaged from the black minority over several centuries should be returned to it.

    In North Korea when someone commits a crime (and practically anything is a crime) the children and grandchildren of the criminal are also punished.

    You'd be right at home there.

  • Floridian||

    Wait. When did I become an immortal that has been robbing people for centuries? That's right, I'm not. Everything I have, I worked for and earned. Not sure how taxing me pays back dead people.

  • sarcasmic||

    Not sure how taxing me pays back dead people.

    Sins of the father and all of that.

  • Floridian||

    (Calls dad) nope he didn't have slaves either.

  • Tony||

    You've benefited from that history. Not every privilege in your life was the result of your own hard work.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    You've benefited from that history.

    So have the descendants of slaves. Slaves got fucked over good and hard. Their descendants, who are here instead of in their slave ancestors' countries, don't have a slam dunk argument that they aren't in fact better off today than they would be absent slavery.

  • Calidissident||

    I see NEM beat me to the point, although in reality, their descendants simply wouldn't exist instead of living in Africa. Most black Americans are part white and there's no way all of their black ancestors would have otherwise met each other and had kids in the exact order necessary for them to be born.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Yes, in an absolute sense they wouldn't even exist to complain but, even giving that they do, the claim for damages -- for them, not their dead ancestors -- is basically non-existent. They're better off than they would have been in the absence of slavery. As you say below, that doesn't justify the slavery but it does pretty plainly gut arguments for reparations.

  • Calidissident||

    If you wanna go down that route, everyone alive today in this country has benefitted from that history. Black Americans wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for slavery. Does that mean it was justified? Of course not. But don't try to act like whites are the only people alive today who benefited from that. You can't change the past, and your proposal does nothing to solve past or present injustice.

  • Brandon||

    Not every privilege in your life was the result of your own hard work.

    Tony is starting to use the language of victimology.

  • Floridian||

    Blacks haven't benefited from the progress of America as a whole?

  • Tony||

    You have got to be kidding.

  • Vincent Milburn||

    That's a can of beans we will never be able to objectively count. You can't undo hundreds of years of history.

    Ultimately, though, everyone has the life they are given now. How they got there historically is inconsequential.

  • Homple||

    Yeah, I should pay for something I didn't do to somebody it didn't happen to.

  • Brandon||

    what he was planning to advocate before he was shot to death.

    Only Tony is wise enough to know what Dr. King really wanted to say. So listen to him, he is an expert at standing on the corpses of people better than him to try to bolster his pathetic arguments.

  • Ken Shultz||

    My understanding is that Dr. King ideas about economics weren't anything that would make a libertarian happy, but if Tony thinks people remember MLK because of his stance on economics, he's completely out of his mind.

  • Brandon||

    I don't give half a fuck about Dr. King's economics, but it is despicable to claim that you know what he would have done the rest of his life if he hadn't been killed, and that he would've agreed with everything you say. This is the most awful in a long line of awful things Tony has said. He is actually trying to reap a benefit from the fact that a man was killed. Tony is supporting James Earl Ray, and that is disgusting.

  • Tony||

    Tony is supporting James Earl Ray

    Oh yes I'm being disgusting. Are you suggesting that King would have lived on to be a libertarian? Because I'm pretty sure he was consistent in his message that racial progress required real, tangible, legal changes and not just rhetoric.

  • Enigma||

    Lets remember who the most enthusiastic supporters of eugenics and segregation were in the last century. It was the progressives, first and foremost, with their myopic conceptions of power, human action, and individual rights. There is a very good chance that Dr. King wouldn't have been a libertarian, but there is no chance in hell that he would have been a progressive, seeing as these were the people that he had to fight in the government for their aforementioned beliefs. Besides, as has been beaten into you countless times in this thread, private businesses were more than happy to serve black people until shithead progressives came in and forced them to segregate. Dr. King would've recognized this, and acted accordingly.

  • Calidissident||

    You have no idea what Jim Crow laws actually did, do you?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, well, Jim Crow laws weren't put in place by the government, Tony World, they were...um...

    How dare you misappropriate the legacy of Dr. King!

    Besides, when government schools were refusing to admit black children, it wasn't the government that did that. It was...um...

    You dirty racist libertarians!

    And it's important to remember, too, that what Dr. King achieved, he achieved through the ballot box. If he hadn't run for office and won, we might still have segregation today!

    So stick that in your peace pipe and smoke it.

  • Tony||

    Yes those evil Southern governments contradicting the will of the good-hearted definitely-not-racist people who voted for their compositions.

    So were Southerners just too stupid to realize that the people they were electing were racists? Did they feel really bad about their error?

    This government-as-alien-invader mentality really warps the brain. Southern governments were doing what southern whites wanted them to do, which included keeping blacks from the franchise precisely so they wouldn't have a say in government policy. This is too obvious to need to be stated.

    Sorry, MLK was a socialist. He favored sometimes radical changes in government policy to promote the welfare of the black and the poor. In other words, everything you guys get your panties in a twist about to this day.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Does anybody else have any idea what this is supposed to mean?

    Or is it just Tony flailing against the libertarians in his twisted head, again?

  • Jordan||

    His point is apparently that government is the People, and the People were totally racist, therefore everything the government (which is the People) did was okay. Yeah, makes perfect sense.

  • Tony||

    I didn't say it was okay, I said it was reflective of the will of the (white) people.

    You're trying to shoehorn in your ridiculous obsession with government-as-devil when the root problem was social in nature.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Tony is all for democracy, except for when he isn't.

  • Tony||

    Keeping minorities from voting means you don't have a democracy.

  • Calidissident||

    In most areas of the South, especially post-Great Migration, whites outnumbered blacks by a big enough margin to enforce segregation totally democratically, even if they did allow black people to vote

    And in any case, nobody says ancient Athens wasn't a democracy, even though male citizens who could vote were a small minority of the population.

  • Tony||

    I'll say it.

  • Calidissident||

    Fair enough. Doesn't refute the main point of my post.

  • Tony||

    Which is true and which is why I whole-heartedly support certain exceptions to straight democracy to protect basic rights of minorities. But I would maintain that that's really more of a liberal concept than a libertarian one. An activist exception to blind equality under democratic law, if you will.

  • Floridian||

    What minority rights? According to you there are no rights not granted by the majority.

  • Tony||

    Never claimed that.

  • Floridian||

    You said there are no rights not granted by government. If the majority doesn't grant rights to the minority they don't have rights. So no minority rights. It's in your whole premise of might makes right, source of rights.

  • Tony||

    I can't change the nature of the universe. Rights are human inventions, not aspects of nature. Sorry.

    I have repeatedly said I'm against direct democracy for all matters. The obscene thing is you need that straw man so you can argue against all democracy. Because we just need to do it your way and shut up.

  • Homple||

    "Rights are human inventions, not aspects of nature."

    Consequence: governments giveth rights and taketh them away when convenient for them to do so.

  • Hawk Spitui||

    I have repeatedly said I'm against direct democracy for all matters. The obscene thing is you need that straw man so you can argue against all democracy.

    The hell I do!

  • Calidissident||

    "But I would maintain that that's really more of a liberal concept than a libertarian one. An activist exception to blind equality under democratic law, if you will."

    I fail to see how consistently treating people equally under the law is an "activist exception" to the concept of equality under the law, or how preventing democracy from infringing on minority rights is liberal (in the modern sense of the word) and unlibertarian.

  • Brandon||

    Keeping minorities from voting, if the majority votes for it, is democracy. Face it, Tony, you don't have any principles, you don't want any particular system, you just want whatever feels right to you at a given moment. And you want it enforced by a government that is the sole armed presence in society because you cannot conceive of that government ever harming someone who has been as mindlessly loyal as you. You are not a democrat, you are a toady.

  • Tony||

    Places whose governments don't have a monopoly on legitimate force are generally referred to as failed states. All I want are some moderate tweaks to the system we have to make it better. You want a candy-land fantasy.

  • sarcasmic||

    Places whose governments don't have a monopoly on legitimate force are generally referred to as failed states.

    Repeat after me.

    Limited government does not mean no government.

    Limited government does not mean no government.

    Limited government does not mean no government.

    Limited government does not mean no government.

    Limited government does not mean no government.

    Limited government does not mean no government.

    Limited government does not mean no government.

    Limited government does not mean no government.

    Limited government does not mean no government.

    Limited government does not mean no government.

    Get it?

    Didn't think so.

  • Tony||

    I want a limited government too. Just one that provides universal healthcare. Am I a libertarian?

    No I'm some "other" with fundamentally different beliefs about using force to compel action, because I believe in healthcare and not merely government shooting trespassers on your lawn.

  • sarcasmic||

    I want a limited government too.

    *snort*

    No I'm some "other" with fundamentally different beliefs about using force to compel action

    Well there you go. You believe that coercion is perfectly acceptable if the right people are doing it with the right intentions. Thing is, once a government sets down that path, there is no end to it. So if you feel that government should coerce people who are not otherwise bothering anyone, then you indeed to believe in unlimited government. Because a totalitarian state is the logical conclusion of the state coercing people who are otherwise minding their own business.

    Thing is, you don't understand what coercion is. You think voluntary transactions are coercion.

    Face it dude, you're stupid. That's all there is to it. You are a fucking moron. A waste of carbon. A mouth-breathing cretin. Do the world a favor and kill yourself.

  • Tony||

    You believe that coercion is perfectly acceptable if the right people are doing it with the right intentions.

    Which is exactly what you believe, as I'm constantly told you're not anarchists.

  • Brandon||

    You don't want a limited government. You specifically want a government that can enforce your whims with no restrictions. Universal healthcare happens to be the current whim, because it sounds good.

  • DH||

    Oh limited, like government can only do what it wants on days that end in Y. You see that's limited.

  • Tony||

    Government should be able to do whatever the people want it to do. Unlike you, I don't believe in tyranny, be it tyranny of a king or an immutable set of first principles.

  • DH||

    Ain't nothing "immutable" about our government. You don't like something, get a supermajority and amend the constitution.

  • Jordan||

    I don't believe in tyranny

    But you just said you did:

    Government should be able to do whatever the people want it to do.
  • Enigma||

    I don't believe in tyranny

    But you just said you did:

    Government should be able to do whatever the people want it to do.

    Even segregate private businesses and kill millions of people who hold minority beliefs.

  • ||

    Government should be able to do whatever the people want it to do.

    Unless that's, say, keeping black people from voting. Or restricting gay marriage. Or failing to make some people pay for other people's health care. Etc, etc, ad infinitum.

    Fuckin logical consistency, how does it work?

  • Jordan||

    Southern governments were doing what southern whites wanted them to do, which included keeping blacks from the franchise precisely so they wouldn't have a say in government policy.

    And you think this somehow vindicates your belief in having an omnipotent state? What a clown.

  • Tony||

    I don't believe that. Stop lying.

  • Brandon||

    You're the one who said it.

  • Calidissident||

    No one said those governments didn't reflect the attitudes of their voters. I don't see how this is a point in your favor, and not ours

  • Ken Shultz||

    There isn't a point to Tony lashing out at libertarians.

    The point of Tony lashing out at libertarians is to lash out at libertarians.

    Nothing he says to us survives light scrutiny.

  • Tony||

    Nothing you believe is true and everyone laughs at you guys when your backs are turned, and I do it to your faces. Libertarianism is a steaming pile of snake oil and everyone with half a brain knows this.

  • ||

    Then why do you keep on coming here?

  • Tony||

    To laugh at you to your faces. I thought I said that.

  • sarcasmic||

    To laugh at you lie to your faces.

    ftfy

  • Ken Shultz||

    And be made a fool of.

    You're a troll.

    You only come to try to disrupt, and you always make progressives look bad. You're so pathetic, you make progressives look even worse than they are. The meanest thing you could do to the libertarian movement is become one of us and use your complete lack of ethics or reasoning to go around spouting about libertarianism. But as a progressive, you do more harm to the progressive movement than anything I could ever do...

    I didn't think it was possible, but you make progressives look ever worse than they are. Congratulations!

  • sarcasmic||

    And be made a fool of.

    The guy is so incredibly stupid that he doesn't even know he's stupid.

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com.....e6bb28.jpg

  • Tony||

    If I articulated all the bullshit straw man you accuse me of, I'd agree with you.

  • Brandon||

    Tony, age 6, in the sandbox: "You're a poopyhead, give me the shovel!!! You smell, and everybody thinks so!!!!

    As you can see, he hasn't progressed much.

  • sarcasmic||

    Tony, age 6, in the sandbox: "You're a poopyhead, give me the shovel!!! You smell, and everybody thinks so!!!!

    No. That was Randian, or Neoliberal Kocktapus, or whatever name he/she/it uses these days.

    Tony would just wait until no one was looking, steal the shovel, and then claim it was his all along.

  • Blueman||

    "Nothing you believe is true and everyone laughs at you guys when your backs are turned, and I do it to your faces. Libertarianism is a steaming pile of snake oil and everyone with half a brain knows this."

    Superb argumentation skills, sir. Not a fallacy in sight.

  • Frank_Carbonni||

    For example, Tony, you have half a brain and you *know* libertarianism is a "steaming pile of snake oil".

  • LynchPin1477||

    We can't be free until other people are forced to give us stuff against their will. Obviously.

    If you want to argue for socialism, fine, but don't make up new definitions of freedom to do it.

  • Tony||

    Your definition is the anomalous one. Freedom from government means slavery to every other oppressive force that's not government. That includes endemic racism, business malfeasance, and nature itself.

    No intelligent person and no dictionary defines freedom merely as "freedom from government." Only you guys do that. And by limiting your definition so much, you are actually for a minimal, not maximal, amount of freedom.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    No intelligent person and no dictionary defines freedom merely as "freedom from government." Only you guys do that.

    Burn strawman! Burn!

  • LynchPin1477||

    Oxford English dictionary...

    freedom (noun)
    1 the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants
    2 the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved

    Libertarians focus on freedom from government for two reasons. The first is that government, having a monopoly on the use of force, is the entity you can't escape from. The second is that, in a society with a well constituted government, someone else that does try to usurp your freedom will be prevented from doing so.

    My definition of freedom is wholly self-consistent. Yours isn't. For your definition of freedom to work, you have to to impinge upon the freedom of others.

  • Tony||

    That's true for anyone's definition of freedom, including yours. To be free from murder you have to have government impinge upon the freedom of others to murder. Defend minimalist government intervention but don't tell me it's any more consistent an application of freedom than mine.

  • LynchPin1477||

    This is me telling you it is more consistent. If a "right" allows you take take something from someone against their will, it isn't actually a right.

  • Tony||

    If a "right" allows you take take something from someone against their will, it isn't actually a right.

    This bromide does not become more sensible with repetition. Do you think courts and the justice system don't cost anything? Or are property rights mere assertions of the well-armed? And what gives you the right to take away my freedom to trespass on your property if it's against my will?

    "Well that's different!" Somehow.

  • Calidissident||

    "That's true for anyone's definition of freedom, including yours. To be free from murder you have to have government impinge upon the freedom of others to murder."

    The fact that you can make this statement after all these years reading this site shows how completely incapable you are of logical reasoning or comprehending arguments made by other people.

  • LynchPin1477||

    He understands just fine. He repeats the same falsehoods because it gets a rise out of us, and here we are playing right into it. Silly us. I'm done.

  • sarcasmic||

    He repeats the same falsehoods because it gets a rise out of us

    He repeats the same falsehoods because he believes them. Even though I think part of him knows that they are lies, he believes them because they justify the initiation of force against people who tweak his fragile emotions.

    "Look at him! He's rich! That's not fair! He's not feeding starving children! Let's kill him and steal his stuff! Oh crap, that's against the law! Let's get the government to do it for us! Yeah! Murder and theft is perfectly fine if the government does it! Yeah!"

  • Tony||

    What should reading your nonsense and agreeing with it have to do with each other?

  • Enigma||

    impinge upon the freedom of others to murder.

    Others don't have the freedom, or should I say, right to murder anybody. The fact that you think you (or anybody else) has the freedom to murder at will is extremely disturbing. Its literally the textbook case of a psychopath.

  • Brandon||

    Freedom from government means slavery to every other oppressive force that's not government. That includes endemic racism, business malfeasance, and nature itself.

    Jesus Christ this is incoherent. Stick to the talking points, Tony, don't freelance. You are actually managing to make TEAM BLUE look worse.

  • sarcasmic||

    You don't get it.
    Employers are oppressors because they profit off of their workers who work for them voluntarily.
    Landlords are oppressors because they profit off of their tenants who live there voluntarily.
    Banks are oppressors because they charge interest off loans that people take voluntarily.
    Any voluntary transaction is oppression.

    The only thing is this world that is not oppression is government, because government uses force and coercion instead of icky voluntary transactions.

  • ant1sthenes||

    And yet, for the government to guarantee you a decent income regardless of your own actions makes you less free, since your fate is no longer governed by your own choices. Nor will you be politically free, since as your capacity to provide for yourself withers away, you will have no choice but to vote for candidates promised to care for you like a child, however repugnant you may otherwise find their views.

    In addition, since government has no money of its own, to give you that decent income it must make yet more people less free, by taking away the choice over how a substantial portion of the proceeds from their labor will be used and instead compelling them to keep you comfortable.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    MLK looks like he was frozen in carbonite.

  • Swiss Servator - past LTC(ret)||

    Look out! A thermal detonator!!!

  • PapayaSF||

    Two nicknames for the piece are Martian Luther King and Martin Luther Ming the Merciless.

  • kinnath||

    I was 6 when MLK gave this speech. I was well into adulthood before I ever saw the whole speech from end to end, but I heard the key parts of it hundreds of times by the time I turned 18.

    When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    I am a libertarian because of Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King. I never read Rand or any of the prominent thinkers of classical liberalism.

    It's like physics for me. You start with force equals mass times acceleration and compute everything you need from.

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident....." is all you really need to compute the way society should be organized.

  • Homple||

    "When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

    Well, that's what MLK said. Now, the civil rights advocates who followed him keep telling us that those architects owned slaves and wrote that document in old-fashioned English that nobody talks anymore with bird feather pens. In some sort of cursive, no less.

  • Tman||

    Glad to see Tony has taken this opportunity to shit all over a great essay by Hinkle by completely missing the entire point of not only Hinkle's piece but MLK's speech itself.

    MLK believed GOD granted all men equality, not the government you fucking moron. Your ignorance is infinite in these matters.

    I linked it late last night but it's worth reposting, Sowell on the anniversary-

    http://townhall.com/columnists.....y-n1673700

  • Brandon||

    Tony is true (team)blue. Everything is politics, and everything must be twisted to fit the team message. Coherence, logic and principles be damned.

  • Tony||

    It wasn't God MLK was asking to change things. He was a socialist who believed in affirmative action and direct government action to make jobs available.

    It would be very nice for libertarians if all we did was sit around and treat MLK as a projection of our own beliefs. But he was a forefather of my politics, not yours. The forefathers of your politics were the ones turning blacks away from lunch counters, I'm sorry to say.

  • Calidissident||

    "The forefathers of your politics were the ones turning blacks away from lunch counters, I'm sorry to say."

    This is nothing short of laughable. Yeah, those Dixiecrats were really radical libertarians!

  • Tony||

    "Leave business owners alone!" is the principal cry of the libertarian.

  • Calidissident||

    Yeah, that's totally the only thing libertarians care about. And totally the only thing Jim Crow laws were about

  • Tony||

    It's the only thing you ever get accomplished. Curious, that.

  • Calidissident||

    When have libertarians had the political power to do that?

  • ||

    It's the only thing you ever get accomplished.

    Jim Crow laws that mandated who businesses could serve were "leaving business alone"?

  • Floridian||

    Only tony could claim democrats were the forefathers of libertarianism. That whole using the government to deny a minority group rights seems so libertarian.

  • Brandon||

    Back to standing on the man's grave and being glad he was killed, Tony? Do you thank James Earl Ray every day, or is it just a weekly thing?

  • Brandon||

    Back to standing on the man's grave and being glad he was killed, Tony? Do you thank James Earl Ray every day, or is it just a weekly thing?

  • Vincent Milburn||

    "...I'm sorry to say."

    Don't pretend you don't relish making this observation.

  • SIV||

    Troll-free Wednesday.

  • William of Purple||

    if only.
    Some people can't help but engage the socks

  • sarcasmic||

    Been watching Weeds on Netflix. Hilarious show. Just finished the one where the kid was spanking it in a sock and then flushing the thing, clogging the pipes. So his mom told his uncle to give him the speech. Uncle recommends using a microwaved banana peel. Now mom thinks he's potassium deficient.

  • William of Purple||

  • Federale||

    No, because MLK was a tryannical socialist and Communist sympathizer. He was an enemy of freedom. He was a supporter of the welfare state and supported confiscatory tax rates. His brief attempt at talking about freedom and equality was quickly quashed by his support for the Great Society, higher taxes, discrimination against whites, and the communist attack on the Republic of Vietnam.

  • William of Purple||

    that's a kind of freedom.

  • Calidissident||

    Opposing the idiotic US involvement in Vietnam does not make MLK a supporter of the communist attack on South Vietnam

  • Ken Shultz||

    A lot of the rest of it is crap, too.

    Nobody was saying he was the libertarian Jesus.

    But anybody who doesn't think he was the champion of liberty is out of their minds.

    And any libertarian who doesn't appreciate his strategies (working outside of the government) against government oppression should get a clue.

    If we ever live to see a truly libertarian world, it'll be because libertarians used similar tactics, and then we'll owe an even greater debt to Martin Luther King.

  • Calidissident||

    Unlike people like Tony, libertarians are able to admire people and appreciate their contributions to liberty even if they didn't totally conform to libertarian ideology

  • ||

    Somewhat off topic: the Trayvon Martin Luther King T-shirt is being sold on the Mall today.

  • Floridian||

    Is that real?

  • Slammer||

    Tony: "If the Jews had a right to life during the Holocaust, there wouldn't have been a Holocaust. "

    Wait. What? What the heck? I just... WHAT?

  • Tony||

    Rights are things people either enjoy in practice or they don't. They are not things that exist in the fabric of the cosmos or as some yet-unidentified organ in the human body. They are guarantees enforced by governments.

  • Floridian||

    Floridian| 8.28.13 @ 12:20PM |#

    What minority rights? According to you there are no rights not granted by the majority.
    reply to this
    Tony| 8.28.13 @ 12:24PM |#

    Never claimed that.

  • ant1sthenes||

    No, rights are moral rules. Like any moral rule, they may or may not be obeyed by moral agents. Otherwise they would be worthless for ethical discussion, as either their violation would nullify them, or the physical impossibility of violating them would make the issue irrelevant.

    You truly excel at sophistry, though. You're a real asset to Progressivism.

  • wwhorton||

    Well, rights are entitlements, but you get into the idea of "natural" rights and "legal" rights. Libertarians (not exclusively, but more than most other political ideologies) focus on the idea of natural rights, especially as interpreted by Locke. The idea that you have the right to your own life, to any actions you can perform, and to own things, in order of supremacy. Anything that violates those rights, whether your own or those of someone else, is illegitimate and immoral. They're all basically negative rights, e.g. the right to not be compelled to do something, or the right to not be physically harmed.

    Progressivism is all about the legal rights, or rights granted by the government, most of which Locke and co. would find morally repugnant and cause for armed rebellion. So Tony's "right" to healthcare, for instance, violates Doctor X's right to sell his services as he sees fit, to whoever he chooses. In essence, Tony's healthcare "right" violates the second and third natural rights of any doctor involved by compelling action and forcing the sale of services (property, in this sense), and will probably run afoul of the first when the doctor resists arrest for not making a housecall on demand.

  • wwhorton||

    Locke would probably say that a good rule of thumb regarding natural rights would be that, if the normal exercise of your "right" prevents the normal exercise of a right by another, it's not a right. By Tony's bizarre "murder right" example, his "right" to murder is canceled by everyone else's right to, well, not be murdered. My right to own property doesn't give me a right to own your property, because that would infringe on your right.

  • ||

    So if tomorrow, Congress decides that everyone named Tony didn't have a right to their life, then you wouldn't mind if someone came over and blew your brains out? What you basically argued is that something isn't a right unless the government says it's a right.

  • Tony||

    I didn't say that either. Why is this so difficult? I get that you need rights to be things set in stone so that you get to decide all public policy for everyone and claim it's what God demands. But to ignore the role that legislation and codification plays in the realization of rights is to treat them as less important than they are, not more.

  • Vincent Milburn||

    It sounds like you're a relativist in theory, but like all relativists, an absolutist when it comes to specific examples.

  • wwhorton||

    Tony appears to be confused as to the meaning of the term, "right." I'm not sure if he just doesn't understand the usage or if he's being deliberately obtuse, but the end result is about the same.

  • Knarf Yenrab (prev. An0nB0t)||

    Obtuse. SocDems have been trying to redefine the word for a few generations now and like to play dumb when us liberals correct them.

  • Ann N||

    I have a hard time believing MLK's mission wasnt a ruse.

    The civil rights movement has been FOR many racist policies such as forced integration, affirmative action, quotas, reparation, college admissions using race.

    From my perspective the cause of the black man was hijacked by 'equality' ideology but only because it was the most useful concept to achieve their goal: advance cause of black america.

    it has nothing to do with equality.

    many white ppl think MLK would be ashamed to see all the institutionalized racism against whites and think MLK wouldnt ignore trayvons assault and harm caused to zimmerman. many black ppl think MLK would be on their side with affirmative action and see trayvon's skittles and age.

    imo what has happened is that ppl have magically put MLK into sainthood based on the better intentions of his rhetoric instead of pacing the civil rights movement to approximate his attitudes. watch what a person does, not what they say. MLK was a massive cheater on his wife, AND a christian minister. he had gigantic inner demons and hypocrisy. supposing his speeches amounting to a hill of beans is very naive, for any person who has every been conned. obama is MLK all over again. awesome speeches but actions and professed ideology dont match.

    MLK is al sharpton who studies gandi's war strategy, nothing more.

  • Floridian||

    I remember in elementary school my mom telling me MLK cheated on his wife, so I ask the teacher if that was true and her screaming at me like I had slapped Jesus in the face with a dildo.

  • sarcasmic||

    slapped Jesus in the face with a dildo

    I gotta remember that.

  • Knarf Yenrab (prev. An0nB0t)||

    Don't forget him being a significant plagiarist. Cracking jokes about JFK's murder and funeral before a private audience of sympathetic followers also isn't going to score him too many points.

    He's not nearly on the same level as Sharpton, as King was a savvy political advocate even if he didn't directly participate in political discourse or give his imprimatur to candidates. He's much more like his friend Jesse Jackson Sr., had Jesse never announced as a Democrat, had his hymie-town moment, fathered children out of wedlock as an old man, or made an open-mic comment about cutting Obama's nuts off. Candidate Obama's broad oratory strokes were largely an attempt to mimic King, who has become a sort of blank slate and mythical figure, though Obama's speeches obviously weren't as poetic or well delivered.

    MLK's legacy is the result of the forced-sainthood treatment and general reluctance--left, right, or center--to criticize him, but it's more useful to look at how he managed to pull off his political successes in his time despite never being an elected official.

  • Jibby2||

    So, in the recent Batman trilogy, there is an overarching theme stated therein that "you either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain."

    I think that is fairly applicable to real-life in many instances. Oddly enough, one of the first people I think of is MLK jr.

    Maybe it's not "forced-sainthood treatment" at all. Maybe it's just that he died near the top of his game and became a idealized symbol thereafter. Just think if he were alive today... would he just be a sort of godfather of the Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson crew? If he ended up a "prosperity pimp" or "peddler of victimization culture" would so many people still have respect for him?

    Now, maybe he wouldn't have ended up like that at all. Maybe he would've saved us from the displeasure of knowing Sharpton or Jackson. Either way, I still think his death is probably the primary cause of his hero status. He's no longer alive, so we remember him at his prime. Maybe this image lasts (as with most heroes) because they just weren't around long enough afterward to do something to screw it up.

  • XM||

    BTW, MLK is to most people outside of America what Joan of Arc or David Beckham is to Americans.

  • Jackand Ace||

    "His style of oratory, no doubt."

    Indeed...his closing of the speech was brilliant ("free at last..."). The crescendo to 'thank God almighty' followed by the lower emphasis on 'free at last' once again was wonderfully done.

  • Mortimer Sneed||

  • castillomalissa||

    go grab your 3$ instantly by just using my account as a refrence,Thanks,,you have to work and use the computer and internet,
    and if you can do that and dedicate some time each day then you can do this with no problem.
    I have been working with this for a month and have made over $2,000 already. let me know if you need more here you go
    ``~-- fus­eu­rl.com/17dy

  • Homple||

    "The March on Washington addressed other causes, too: Desegregation. The minimum wage. Public works. But it was freedom – America’s most cherished value and her most glorious promise – to which King devoted his final, loftiest minutes. And that is what made the speech so powerful, too. Because freedom is such a simple concept."

    If freedom is such a simple concept and MLK's speech is about freedom, why are the people who yammer most about the wonderfulness the speech working so diligently to curtail freedom for the rest of us?

  • Knarf Yenrab (prev. An0nB0t)||

    They mean the kind of freedom you hear about when you make the mistake of debating socialists: Freedom from worrying about healthcare, food, employment, or education for your family.

    If there's one thing that socialists are good at, it's assimilating language, destroying its meaning, and then giving it a new, more presentable one.

  • Homple||

    Quite so. Turkeys have no worries about food or healthcare right up to Thanksgiving.

  • Latanya1RPowell||

    like Brenda explained I am dazzled that a student able to make $6153 in one month on the computer. navigate to these guys www.work25.Com

  • Rusty Shackleford||

    I think this would be a wonderful opportunity to pause for a moment and give thanks for the many great contributions of the Black community and their culture to our society. Their peaceful and generous nature make them ideal neighbors, lending testimony to their exceptional family values and parenting skills unrivaled by any other culture.
    Their commitment to academic excellence enriches our schools and serves as an example to all who hope to achieve prominence as a people. Real Estate values are fueled by the influx of African Americans into an area due to their caring and respectful nurturing of these communities, an example of all they have achieved by their enthusiasm for self improvement through hard work and a self-reliant can-do nature. Without their industrious and creative drive, we would be poorer, as a nation.
    Presently enriching the cities of Spokane WA, Chicago IL, Philadelphia PA, Washington D.C., St. Louis MO, New Orleans LA, Los Angeles CA, Flint MI, Baltimore MD, Pontiac MI, Gary Ind., Newark NJ, Cleveland OH, Atlanta GA, Richmond VA, Memphis Tn, Birmingham AL, Camden NJ; and let's not forget Detroit, the tourism capital of the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • JAQO||

    Archibald J. Carey’s address at the 25th Republican National Convention in Chicago, Illinois in 1952: http://www.blogger.com/blogger.....c=postname

  • Vincent Milburn||

    Why are we fighting so much over MLK's legacy and who is its heir? Maybe we could stop deifying him and admit that he was sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement