Civil Rights

Reason on Martin Luther King, Jr., Medgar Evers, and Civil Rights

|

Today is a national holiday that commemorates the life and work of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the larger civil rights movement of which he was such an important part.

Here are some of Reason's writings about King and other movement leaders.

Justice for All:

The new Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial honors King's universal commitment to justice.

Kmele Foster | October 14, 2011

…it's fitting that the memorial's sole quotation directly referencing race contextualizes the subject within King's broader project. "If we are to have peace on earth," the memorial reads, "our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Our loyalty must transcend our race, our tribe, our class and our nation, and this means we must develop a world perspective."

In the minds of too many Americans, King is primarily a "black" leader and the civil rights movement he has come to embody is principally the endowment of black Americans. But that view inappropriately qualifies the man and the movement. King wasn't narrowly interested in race; he was broadly committed to justice….

Read the whole piece here.

A Fitting Tribute to Medgar Evers: America honors the civil rights hero.

Ira Stoll | November 14, 2011

Each civil rights leader had his own role to play in the struggle for integration. Thurgood Marshall was the lawyer. Martin Luther King, Jr., the inspiring orator. And Medgar Evers was the martyr.

Evers was the field secretary of the Mississippi NAACP. After President Kennedy had given a nationally televised civil rights speech on June 11, 1963, Evers's wife had let their three children stay up past midnight to wait up for their father, who was returning from a strategy meeting. At about 12:20, they heard the sound of his car, which they recognized. Then they heard the car door open, and then the sound of a rifle shot.

The children kept crying "Daddy, get up, please get up," as their father bled to death.

Medgar Evers was back in the news over the weekend with the U.S. Navy's christening, at San Diego, of the USNS Medgar Evers, a 689-foot, $500 million new dry cargo/ammunition ship. There were remarks by the secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, a former governor of Mississippi. And by Medgar Evers's widow, Myrlie, who said, ""I will not have to go to bed ever again wondering whether anyone will remember who Medgar Evers is."…

Read the whole story here.

Dream Interpretation

The March On Washington's enduring legacy

Ronald Bailey | August 25, 2003

…[MLK's "I have a dream"] speech also lent momentum to two of the most consequential pieces of civil rights legislation in American history, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Civil Rights Act outlawed state-sanctioned and enforced racial discrimination in the form of Jim Crow laws. For example, it allowed blacks to come down out of that theatre balcony in Bristol Virginia. The Voting Rights Act insured that Southern blacks who were being systematically denied the franchise by corrupt voter registration officials would have access to the ballot box.

Sure, these laws are not perfect. For example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act has been interpreted as authorizing the creation of affirmative action programs. This despite the fact that Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) declared specifically that Title VII "would prohibit preferential treatment for any particular group," and famously promised that if this turned out to be wrong that he would eat the pages on which the statute was printed. I wonder if the Senator would have liked the pages sautéed or with a nice béchamel? And yes, the Voting Rights Act has led to "racial gerrymandering." Still, we are a far better, and fairer country because of those laws.

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), the only remaining speaker from the 1963 march, told the Washington Post, "I wish Dr. King could see the progress that we have made, see the distance that we have come."…

Read the whole thing here.

Like Henry David Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience," King's "Letter From Birmingham Jail" remains a touchstone in American political rhetoric and is always worth reading on a day like this (or any other, for that matter). A snippet:

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire.

Whole text. Read about its composition and more here.

Reason contributor Thaddeus Russell's contrarian take on MLK here.

Damon Root on Moorfield Storey, the libertarian lawyer and "Grover Cleveland Democrat" who helped start the NAACP.

Reason on civil rights.

Advertisement

NEXT: Steve Chapman on Mormons

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.

  1. No A.M. Links. Today Riggs has decided to let freedom ring in lieu of his alarm clock.

    1. Do try to persevere.
      Or post your own like everyone else!

  2. MLK was a pretty good guy for a philandering communist.

    1. Fluffy, I don’t care that MLK fucked other women/men; why would a libertarian?

      1. Yeah, Fluffy, and besides, did you ever take a good look at Coretta?

      2. Fluffy, I don’t care that MLK fucked other women/men; why would a libertarian?

        Why do you think that libertarians would automatically be OK with adultery? It is almost like you need “libertarianism =/= libertinism” tattooed on your forehead.

        1. If I don’t want the state in my bedroom, why would I want to know what does or does not go on in yours?

          1. When did I say anything about knowing or not knowing? For whatever reason, it is public knowledge that So-and-So committed adultery. I am not advocating snooping, but once something enters the social ken, it is permissible to judge that past action.

            1. Another libertarian we need on a jury

            2. I look it as breaking a contract. I don’t care who you fuck in your privacy but it is grounds for breaking the contract. Especially if it ends up with someone paying 20 years of child support for someone else’s kid.

              1. I have read that women at the time considered it part of their powerful man/slut contract; I don’t if their acquiescence was genuine but I do believe most women knew

                1. I assume he snuck around just for the thrill of it then?

                  If he had nothing to be ashamed of, then there should not have been any need to try to keep it from people.

                  1. FFS, do you tell your mama everything you do?

                    1. FFS, do you tell your mama everything you do?

                      I didn’t look my mother in the eye and promise to be faithful.

                    2. How do you know that she was not in agreement? Or, that she had lovers?

                      Either way, perfection is elusive to most men but no one can deny the significance of MLK

                    3. How do you know that she was not in agreement? Or, that she had lovers?

                      Then he wouldn’t have snuck around. RIL.

                    4. I believe that was just the way it was done then; not everyone is French and comforts their husband’s mistress, and love child at his funeral

            3. Didn’t it become public knowledge because the FBI was following him around?

              1. Didn’t it become public knowledge because the FBI was following him around?

                Does it really matter how, do you think?

          2. Would you want to know whether a man of the cloth had moral integrity or was just another holy rolling hypocrite?

            1. He was in consenting relationships; it is his concern how he interprets his religion and marriage; I wrote about my view yesterday

              1. Consent has nothing to do with it – nor does his interpretation of his religion. If the man continually cheats on his wife and yet preaches chastitiy and fidelity to his flock, he’s an abysmal hypocrite. Such hypocrisy seems especially egregious when practiced by a reverend.

                1. First, you and I don’t know if it was a fact, or an attempt to damage is public esteem but the man was not preaching his doctrine but that of Jesus.

                  Is religion not a beau ideal?

          3. no one says the state should be in your bedroom, but it is not unreasonable to say that King’s halo is a bit tarnished. Serial philandering is what we expect of Kennedy’s, not ministers. We also don’t expect preachers to be world class plagiarists. And while I agree with the central message of “content of character rather than color of skin”, that sort of thinking would have King branded as an Uncle Tom by today’s race hustlers.

            1. “We also don’t expect preachers to be world class plagiarists.”

              Actually, I think that people who have studied the sermons of other black baptist preachers who influenced King expect just that. It is pretty common practice to use materials from other people’s sermons. The point is to convince and inspire people, not win an originality contest.

              1. it’s not using the words of others, it is the failure to attribute or cite the source. That things like King’s academic “work” are overlooked is simply wrong. Pardon the pun, but historians have done a masterful job of whitewashing a good many things about King as though the good parts could not stand on their own.

            2. “We also don’t expect preachers to be world class plagiarists.”

              Actually, I think that people who have studied the sermons of other black baptist preachers who influenced King expect just that. It is pretty common practice to use materials from other people’s sermons. The point is to convince and inspire people, not win an originality contest.

              1. Weird, that never happens to me.

                1. You’ve never plagiarized yourself before?

                  1. That wasn’t plagiarism; it was dimensional time travel; Zeb #2, get me my fucking coffee, and get your ass back to bed

              2. The accusation is not about the content of his sermons. MLK plagiarized his doctorate thesis.

                1. OK. I don’t know about his doctoral thesis, so I have no further comment.

                  1. Please tell me you know how to make coffee

        2. [Standing over the ho that just annoyed MLK]

          Bitch, you just got knocked the fuck out!

      3. I actually don’t care.

        More power to him. I hope he enjoyed himself.

        But there appears to be one of those new-fangled “sensitivity rules” out there that says that no one is allowed to ever say that MLK was a philandering communist, even though he was. In the interest of outraging that rule and the people who apply it, I figured I would just throw that out there once again.

        1. “In the interest of outraging that rule and the people who apply it, I figured I would just throw that out there”

          Trolling?

          1. Trolling when directed at assholes is no vice.

            1. And not being an asshole to trolls is no virtue.

              Needs work to eliminate the double negative, but I don’t want to lose the “asshole.”

        2. No one seems to have a problem with describing Jefferson as a slaveholding rapist. The truth sometimes hurts.

          1. In Jefferson’s case it is debatable whether it was actually rape rather than consensual. Yes, I’m aware there are those who would say being a slave precludes being able to consent. I don’t think that is necessarily always true.

            1. I don’t think that is necessarily always true.

              Let me take a wild guess: you’re a man 😉

              1. Let me take a wild guess: You consider sex with a man to always be rape unless it’s the woman’s idea first and she gets to be on top. Do enjoy your vibrator, dear. 🙂

                1. Let me take a wild guess: You consider sex with a man to always be rape unless it’s the woman’s idea first and she gets to be on top…

                  Yes, I like to be on top but I don’t consider it rape just because I’ve tied him up. If he can’t recall the safe word, that ain’t my problem

                  1. How fucking hard is it to scream 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751
                    05820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117067
                    98214808651328230664709384460955058223172535940812
                    84811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819
                    64428810975665933446128475648233786783165271201909
                    14564856692346034861045432664821339360726024914127
                    37245870066063155881748815209209628292540917153643
                    67892590360011330530548820466521384146951941511609
                    43305727036575959195309218611738193261179310511854
                    80744623799627495673518857527248912279381830119491?

            2. The “rapist” part is probably unfair. But the slave holder part is not. And that says pretty bad things about you. They guy worked people to death so he could build his vanity palace on the top of a mountain.

              But in the end, what does that have to do with the plain meaning of the things he wrote?

            3. Raping a slave isn’t rape rape.

            4. In Jefferson’s case it’s also not firmly established that he really did have a sexual relationship with Sally Hemmings.

              The DNA tests showed that it was more likely that Hemmings’ youngest child was related to Jefferson’s cousin, who visited the estate at around the right time. None of Hemmings’ other childrens’ descendents showed a DNA match to the Jefferson family.

              The thing is that Hemmings was the half-sister of Jefferson’s wife who died, and Jefferson’s known feelings about slavery might have led him to free the blood relatives of his wife even absent any sexual relationship.

          2. Having and raping slaves > adultery

            1. So what? As usual you miss the point. You really have a hard time grasping subtle points and metaphors don’t you?

              1. To promote world peace, I think we should have a fundraiser for John and MNG to room together on the next Reason cruise.

                The rights to the video would pay for all future H&R donation drives

                1. Can the next Reason Cruise be captained by this guy?

                  1. I’ll follow the cruise on a yacht, and when their boat Titanics, I’ll sell spaces on mine christened “Float Or Boat Bitches”

                    Conditional on rescue, my service includes a private voluntary contract of a life of servitude .

                    They better look good naked; I’m not providing uniforms

        3. Why do we care about the philandering part?

          1. This is what John misses with his Jefferson comparison. Pointing to a small fault in a man who did great moral things is different than pointing to large failings in a man who did great moral things. I submit the person who does the former is likely motivated by something ugly (why else squint so hard?)

            1. Some might say that being a communist in 1963 is a large failing.

              1. Also, I’m not entirely sure that wherever Jefferson did with Hemmings is a large moral failing. Let’s stipulate that the relationship was real and he did father all of her children. The Hemmings descendents have long had the tradition that the relationship was a loving one. Since Jefferson probably could not have married a slave, or even a freedwoman, keeping the relationship a secret and freeing her children upon his death might have been the most moral thing he could do, given the social environment of the time. Imagine what might have happened to the Hemmings family after his death if the relationship were openly acknowledged.

  3. Somehow, I just knew this day wouldn’t pass without Gillespie inviting us to a chorus of If I Had a Hammer….

    All together now, children!

    Fortunately, we still have Jim Goad to tell us why he’s so bored with MLK…

    1. Whenever I have second thoughts about this holiday, someone comes along to demonstrate that its power for butthurtedness makes it all worth it.

    2. I agree with much of what Goad says in this piece but this one is bullshit:

      the historical narrative has been sanitized to portray only white club-wielding police as the perpetrators of violence throughout King’s numerous marches and mass demonstrations, there’s also evidence that his own protesters were less than peaceful on numerous occasions.

      Right, real equivalence there.

    3. Somehow, I just knew this post wouldn’t pass without Slappy! inviting us to a chorus of Deutschland ?ber alles….

    4. Jeebus. When did Jimmy Goad turn into another mewling conservative? He used to have some genuinely unorthodox ideas to go with his self-pity. Hitchens wouldn’t cross the street to puke on him now.

        1. Yeah, I dread rereading The Redneck Manifesto now because it might remind me how naive I was in college. It’s too bad no one’s talking about this Racial Truth stuff… except for every other aggrieved bitch on the far right. Goad was more interesting when he was bragging about his schlong.

  4. That last picture perfectly captures today’s GOP voter base – redneck to the core.

    1. Do they look like christ-fags, too?

      1. The Big Government GOP of today could not survive without duping so called “Christians”.

        Its a worthy topic.

        1. only in your fevered mind.

        2. that explains why the last known Klansman in Congress, one Robert Byrd of everything in West Virginny is named for me, was a DEMOCRAT. Is idiocy a requirement for inclusion in the party?

          1. There’s white niggers, too.

            1. One of H&R favorites took scholarship money from that bastard; at least one’s ignorance can be educated but and educated man cannot be unstained

    2. It appears that the kid on the right didn’t go to school all that much anyway.

      1. none of them look much like college material to me. no big loss if they never went to school again.

    3. That is a picture of Democrat children. If you think they were bad in the 1960’s you should have seen them in the Civil War!

      1. This talking point is beyond retarded.

        1. If you were not such a severe retard, you would understand it.

    4. Motherfucker, paranoid shut-in is no way to go through life.

    5. Hey, Shrike – your biggotry’s sticking out.

  5. Let us not forget a man who bankrolled much of the early civil rights movement, T.R.M. Howard. A man who is practically written out of the history books because the socialist wing of the civil rights movement hated his guts (a man whom Thurgood Marshall contemptuously described in a letter to J. Edgar Hoover as a “rugged individualist”).

    1. After reading the article, “bankrolled much of the early civil rights movement” seems a pretty big stretch there tarran…

      1. It is a stretch. It was supposed to read bankrolled some critical battles of the early civil rights movement. I fucked it up by hasty editing.

        1. No problems, it’s an interesting article, thanks for referring it.

    1. [insert blind joke here]

      I cant think of a good one, but no it exists.

    2. Ugh, it gets worse.

      Brent Spiner: $700 to John Edwards in 2007
      Wil Wheaton: $200 to Jack Conway (vs Rand Paul), Russ Feingold, and Joe Sestak in 2010
      Michael Dorn: $500 to Peter Beilenson, author of the health care co-ops in 2006

      Patrick Stewart: $300 to the RNC in 2003

      1. I like to think that, a la Family Guy, Patrick Stewart goes over to Wil Wheaton’s house once a month or so just to smack him in the face.

      2. Tulpa, if you really want to go apoplectic, look up Leonard Nimoy. A veritable who’s-who of Democratic Douchebags.

        1. I guess I can turn this into my own little corner of Star Trek’s Bad Politics. I was actually near this little tragedy:

          Actress Kate Mulgrew has handed over her Star Trek outfit to a rich Trekker to raise cash for her husband’s campaign to become Governor of Ohio. Mulgrew’s Star Trek: Voyager uniform fetched $50,000 at a weekend auction to benefit Tim Hagan’s Democratic campaign. The auction was part of a fundraiser that netted $150,000 for Hagan’s campaign against Republican candidate Bob Taft. Members of the Voyager cast and original Enterprise captain William Shatner turned up to help Hagan’s cause. An anonymous bidder snapped up Mulgrew’s costume

          1. It’s only Voyager.

          2. Don’t forget Jeri Ryan helping BO get his original Senate seat by getting all sensitive about being choked in a sex club.

            I wonder how much her uniform would sell for?

            1. I think it is important to mention Jeri Ryan did not want this to become public. The news media decided in this particular case, what the two parties involved wanted, and what was best for their kids wasn’t important and managed to convince a judge that the two parties and their kids didn’t matter either.

              Just another example of Barak Obama’s good luck.

              1. Just another example of Barak Obama’s good luck.

                Some might call it ‘luck’….

          3. Mrs. Columbo? I love her.

      3. I was just about over my hating Wil Wheaton for the role he played phase (25 years is about the limit for that), but fuck him.

        Conway? Fuck you Wil Wheaton.

        1. Have you seen him in The Guild or Big Bang Theory?

          1. He’s been popping up in Eureka as well.

        2. If it makes you feel any better, every candidate he donated to in 2010 lost to a Tea Party fave (Paul, Toomey, Johnson).

          1. The only thing better than Wesley getting crushed is a creepy alien coming to take him away.

          2. The fact that he appeared to be going out of the way to fund TP opponents makes me feel none the better.

            1. Funny, I’m a bidet aficianado, and he never gave me anything.

    3. Wait, so a show centered around a socialist society had leftist cast members? SHOCKING!

      1. We should never be surprised when an actor is a leftist. Those beliefs are a prerequisite for SAG entry.

  6. I always wonder what happened to the kids who had issues with ‘negroes’; did they change, are they just silent, and ashamed?

    1. Yes, it might be instructive to have a journalist talk to the three grown up maroons and see what they think today.

    2. Why should they be ashamed? Look at Detroit, it looks like they were vindicated.

      1. Shhhh! You’re not supposed to notice that! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

        1. Looks like slappy has a couple more white trash collectivists to invite to the sheep deflowering shindig tonight. Hope he made enough spinach dip!

          1. If by “more” you mean obvious sockpuppets, then yes.

            1. If by sockpuppet you mean those too chickenshit to write what they really think under their usual handle, then yes.

              1. If by sockpuppet you mean those too chickenshit to write what they really think under their usual handle, then yes.

                I do. It’s gonna be a hot time in the old town tonight!

              2. No one has been spoofed more that I and I don’t see anyone saying: “you’re doing it to yourself” but no one thinks that was you.

                I just wish that you could ask for their IP to be published when it is your name or handle abused.

          2. spinach dip

            I don’t what to know the meaning of that euphemism. *shudder*

      2. What the fuck are you talking about? One can debate the wisdom of forced integration, but they damn well ought to be ashamed of having held those signs.

      3. So what are we? Dog meat?

  7. If you don’t want to send your kids to school with negroes, fine. Start your own school with your own money. You can teach them the sun is a gamboling priestess with luxirious fiery red hair, and the world is a flat plate balanced on the back of a turtle, too, for all I care.

    1. And the poor, intellectually hobbled kids who will be forced to go to this school? Freedom starts to take on more complex dimensions when you admit children into your universe. Not to mention the disabled and otherwise disadvantaged.

      1. We don’t forcibly remove children from all homes where people have any religious belief.

        Because we acknowledge that the state is not the arbiter of orthodoxy.

        Of any orthodoxy.

        So, no, you haven’t introduced any more complex dimensions at all. I already knew people were stupid and would teach their kids stupid things. I already knew it, and accepted it. Adding something to the list of stupid things doesn’t really add any complexity to the argument. It merely adds detail.

        1. Yeah well libertarianism is a defense of entrenched generational privilege/generational disadvantage and the consequent neo-feudal society. No surprise there.

          If things are so relative that we can’t even have standard curricula, I don’t see why an absolute morality of liberty is supposed to be accepted by all.

          1. tony,
            your side has inflicted such fatal damage to public education that no substantive debate is possible regarding the state of schools. When vouchers and other ways out become available, the black families consigned to the worst of the worst can’t run for those exit tickets fast enough.

          2. The truth value of any particular statement is completely irrelevant to the question of whether you can teach it to your kids.

            That’s the whole point. Nothing has to be “relative”. You can tell your kid 2+2 = 8 if you want to.

            The simple fact of the matter is that if you made it illegal for one set of parents to teach their kids racial prejudice, the very next morning I would feel completely entitled to blast your door open with a grenade and blow you away for teaching your kid that progressive taxation is OK. Or that there’s a god. Why wouldn’t I be so entitled? If what you teach your kids is open to forcible intervention by others who think it’s not true, then I see no reason to not go all the way with that and fucking kill you if I think you’re teaching your kids things that aren’t true. On what basis would you tell me I would be wrong to do that?

            1. On what basis would you tell me I would be wrong to do that?

              The ministrations of TOP.MEN.

            2. I don’t support making it illegal for parents to teach their kids anything. I do support making it illegal for children not to receive a decent secular education. Having your fate be entirely up to the whims of potentially ignorant parents is not freedom, it’s generational disadvantage.

              There is the fact of sects who think it’s tyranny to impose a decent secular education on kids. Their freedom to autonomy shouldn’t be dismissed, but government shouldn’t be in the business of encouraging that behavior either. It’s beyond dispute that groups of ignorant people don’t contain their harm to themselves–society as a whole suffers every day from the influence of such sects. Most of them don’t act like the Amish, content to keep to themselves. If they did, I’d have a hard time finding a problem with it. But a society in which there isn’t a baseline value of secular education provided universally is not one anyone wants to live in. Anything other than a liberal education is simply dogma, and dogmas don’t compete for any reason except to conquer.

              1. Anything other than a liberal education is simply dogma

                shorter tony: WHAT DO YOU FUCKING PEASANTS NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT TOP.MEN.!!!!?@?!?!@?!11oneoneone

                1. I realize libertarians think their high school education and/or bachelor’s in computer science along with a little light reading of Rand and Hayek has provided them with all they need to know in the world, but the problem with children is they can’t know what they haven’t learned.

                  1. Yeah, Tony, we’re all a bunch of philistines. No one on here is at all well read or knowledgeable about anything outside of narrow interests. (That was sarcasm, in case anyone is having a hard time keeping up).

                2. Being a charitable sort of person, I think Tony means “liberal education” in the more old fashioned sense that has nothing to do with contemporary liberal politics. I woudl tend to agree with that assessment.

              2. society as a whole suffers every day from the influence of such sects.

                I went to a party Saturday night that had people that were CPA’s, two lawyers, finance people, a bartender, a surf clothing manufacturer, a couple of beach bums, and some college students. Mixed racially, economically, and socially. My part of “society” isn’t suffering. Thank you for your fake concern, though.

                1. There Tony goes again wth his elitist shit.

                  He’s no better than any random so-con.

      2. Tony, that’s how it works now. Parents can decide what school their children go to (and force them to go there), or to home school.

        1. They have to meet certain minimum standards for it to be considered an education. Too minimal if you ask me.

          1. Most home schooled kids I have met are vastly better educated that the products of the public school system.

            1. In my experience, I wouldn’t go quite that far, but homeschooled kids are certainly not deficient, by and large.

              1. Translated Tony:

                1. Shit, hit enter too early:

                  Ahh, never mind. He’s not worthy.

    2. You can teach them the sun is a gamboling priestess with luxirious fiery red hair

      I am intrigued by your views and wish to subscribe to your (picture filled) newsletter.

      1. Anyone else think of Mellisandre when they read that?

        1. The night is dark and full of terrors.

          And R’hllor is a dude.

  8. (a man whom Thurgood Marshall contemptuously described in a letter to J. Edgar Hoover as a “rugged individualist”).

    “I offered him help, and he turned me down, the bastard!”

  9. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty.

    Talk about an historical artifact.

    1. Step. Away. From the keyboard.

    2. Someone not playing the victim is pretty refreshing.

    3. There’s actually very little grounding to the entire concept argued here.

      It sounds very noble, so people think it must be true.

      But it falls apart as soon as you point to it and ask why.

      Why is it only OK to break an unjust law openly? Why lovingly? Why do you have to a willingness to accept the penalty?

      If the law is unjust, I think the default presumption would be that you are not obligated to accept the penalty if you break it. I’d need to hear something pretty darn compelling to rebut that presumption.

      1. Because if people could pick and choose which laws to follow with impunity, there would be no rule of law?

        1. Because if people could pick and choose which laws to follow with impunity, there would be no rule of law?

          I am going to assume that your youth-privileged existence means you are ignorant of, vice deliberately overlooking, gay history in this country.

        2. For that to be a problem, you’d have to establish that the rule of law has value.

          It seems to me that the rule of law has value in a just social order and has less value progressively as the social order grows more unjust.

          Ann Frank was breaking an unjust law, and not doing it openly. Had she succeeded, that would have been awesome.

          1. The rule of law precedes any kind of social order: anarchy is the worst kind of tyranny, as it admits all tyrannies.

            The simple answer to your question is you are obligated to accept penalty because men with guns will force you to. What’s the alternative? Atomistic individuals deciding what law they want to follow, i.e., anarchy?

            1. So, Tony, you’re saying that those negroes should have just followed the law and stayed at their segregated schools?

              1. I agree with MLK quoted in the post.

              2. John Lawrence should have totally denied himself sexual contact so as to not be an unmutual atomistic individual.

            2. That does not tell me why I would be obligated to accept the penalty morally.

              King is making a moral argument. For his argument to be true, I would have to be morally required to submit to an unjust law even if I could evade it.

              That would mean that if it was against the law for a black man to vote, it would be immoral for me to evade that law and cast a ballot…even if I could do so and get away with it.

              That would also mean that if the law said that all Jews must go to the gas chamber, it would be immoral for me to hide…even I could get away with it.

              Face it, Tony. This warmed-over Emersonian nonsense sounds noble, as I said, but when subjected to basic examination it’s easy to see it’s absurd.

              The rule of law precedes any kind of social order: anarchy is the worst kind of tyranny, as it admits all tyrannies.

              Who said anything about anarchy? If our social order consisted of a grand total of three laws (just for example):

              1. No murderin’ (except as required by law #3)

              2. No rapin’ (except as required by law #3)

              3. All Jews must be raped and then murdered on sight.

              …The right thing to do, assuming you weren’t powerful enough to destroy the state and impose a new one, would be to obey law #1 and law #2 but evade law #3 to the extent you were able, and frustrate the application of law #3 to the extent that you were able, and do everything you can to help others evade it and frustrate it, even if that meant doing so secretly. And that wouldn’t be “anarchy”, as long as you continued to obey the first two laws.

              1. You can acknowledge unjust laws while maintaining respect for the rule of law. If you don’t respect the latter, then you have nothing to appeal to to rectify injustices. The goal is to repeal unjust laws, not evade them or pick and choose which we’re going to follow based on a personal assessment.

                In the case of immediate threats to your life and safety as a result of unjust law, certainly evasion is the preferred route to submission–you can hardly require people to become actual martyrs before their actions are considered morally laudable. But King is talking about the type of law that is not illegitimate on its face, but which has (and is designed to have) unjust consequences. A law requiring the murder of Jews is so obviously illegitimate on its face that no action against it should be considered wrong.

                1. As soon as you say that there are any laws it’s OK to evade, you are conceding my point.

                  You do, in fact, agree with me that there is no moral requirement to either obey unjust law or break it openly and take the punishment. You do, in fact, agree with me that you can also evade the law.

                  You’re also asserting that you’re going to make up your own mind about what unjust laws you’re entitled to evade. Sometimes you’ll choose to evade the same laws as me, and sometimes you won’t. But either way you’re going to make up your own mind. So we agree on that at least.

                  It would have been easier just to say, “I’m sorry, Fluffy, you were absolutely right!”

                  1. I only conceded your point with respect to laws favoring genocide. At that point I think it’s clear that even foreign entities have a right to impose their will.

                    But for laws that are legitimate in theory but cause oppression in practice, like parade regulations, MLK’s approach is the best because it maintains respect for the rule of law, which is the only thing there is to appeal to when you are being treated unjustly.

            3. “The rule of law precedes any kind of social order”

              If you consider government originating after a SOCIAL contract…then you’re full of shit.

              Also, you and others need to understand the point that laws do very little except legalize the violence used to enforce them.

              A peaceful, just society starts with the responsibility and self control of the individual, not with the government making rules. The law against murder isn’t keeping me from killing the person next to me, it will only legalize the trial, prosecution, and punishment once they catch me. I have enough respect for another’s right to live that I’m not going to do it unless he is threatening my right.

              1. Even a society full of nothing but responsible people practicing self-control needs rules–some rules are perfectly arbitrary except in that a rule is better than no rule, so that everyone is on the same page. It goes without saying that there is no such society full of angels and never will be.

                1. Wow. A rule is better than no rule?

                  Rule 1: Marijuana shall be prohibited.

                  Absence of rule 1: Nothing happens.

                  1. Didn’t say all rules were good, did I?

                    1. Well, when you utter “a rule is better than no rules,” yes, that’s what you’re saying.

              2. Laws do very little except legalize the violence used to enforce them.

                1. Wonder how many Occutards agree to follow all the laws?

      2. It only works when your opponents have consciences. It worked for MLK and it worked for Gandhi because the people they were fighting were not total monsters and didn’t just shoot them. Against enemies who are, the technique is rather less effective.

        1. Conscience? We don’t need no stinking conscience.

      3. Fluffy, MLK is just getting his idea from Jesus who lovingly and openly broke an unjust law and suffered the consequences up to and including death at the hands of the state. There’s the precedent.

        1. This is probably the most accurate interpretation.

          Really, it’s just a tactic. You break the law openly, in order to draw attention to the law and the injustice. The “must” part just means “if you want it to have an effect on changing the law in a democracy”.

          Civil disobedience is less effective if your aren’t in a situation where public opinion is likely to have an effect on changing the laws.

  10. And the poor, intellectually hobbled kids who will be forced to go to this school?

    Oh, I forgot. We must prize conformity above all else.

  11. MLK and his legacy seem to me to be a bit problematic for libertarians. On the one hand, sure, libertarianism would have no problem with much of his non-violent marches and boycotts and could oppose much of the state-instigated parts of Jim Crow (but note the paleos who always come in during gay marriage arguments to argue that libertarians should oppose gay marriage because, as it involves government recognition and benefits, increase overall goverment; following that line of thought a libertarian could argue that denying government services based on race would fall into the same category).

    But it’s also a pretty glaring historical fact that the opponents of libertarianism seemed more prominent in the front lines of the civil rights movement (reason, no doubt, for most civil rights icons that went into politics doing so as Dems and liberals, and for the refusal of many civil rights leaders to condemn the socialists and communists that worked with them during the movement). Meanwhile the thing that historically seemed to get many libertarians worked up was opposition to the CRA as espoused by Goldwater.

    Additionally, MLK and most civil rights icons pretty consistently included as evils they were opposing practices that libertarians here would have to allow (King mentions being turned away from public accomodations in his I have a Dream Speech).

    1. MLK was a religious leader, a post-New-Deal social activist representing the poor, and a political activist.

      Given those three things about him, it really shouldn’t surprise anyone if he only favored pro-freedom policies some of the time. Favoring them any more than one-third of the time (given that mix) would indicate he was doing pretty well.

    2. It’s not problematic at all.

      Libertarians opposed Jim Crow strenously.

      In the late 50’s and early 60’s. Libertarianism was nearly dead. There weren’t many of us around to do anything. And the ones like Howard who did a great deal are largely written out of the history books.

      Jim Crow is a phenomenon of people using government to violate the rights of people they don’t like. If anything, it bolsters the case for libartarianism.

      1. “Libertarians opposed Jim Crow strenously.”

        They did? Do you have tales of Rothbard, Rand, etc., joining marches, boycotts, sit ins and such?

        On the other hand their participation in the Goldwater campaign is pretty well documented.

        Seems they demonstrated what got them worked up…

        1. So this is guilt by failure to associate with the angels or what?

          1. Well, we know that opposition to the CRA, unlike opposition to Jim Crow, seemed to light a fire under more libertarians of the day…And yeah, that does seem indicative of something, namely the kind of thing that they valued enough to get involved about.

            1. Freedom of association, you mean? I concur – that is a very important issue.

              1. Like I said, for libertarians: Jim Crow-not enough to get worked up about to join in the fight; right of association of racists-let’s organize now!

                1. Like I said, for libertarians: Jim Crow-not enough to get worked up about to join in the fight; right of association of racists-let’s organize now!

                  Right, so yes, your “point” is guilt by failure to associate with the “right people”.

                  1. Again, are you arguing with me with my posts incifed or something? Because you should read what I write before responding to it. I’m talking about taking the time and effort to organize to oppose the CRA but not to oppose Jim Crow.

                    1. It all goes back to Africa. You are taking the time to argue about this while Rwandan children are starving. Therefore, you are a child killer.

                      Yay I win the argument.

                    2. “Yay I win the argument.”

                      Hardly.

                      Look, it’s not like the CRM and the Goldwater campaign were separated by some gulf in time and space. But while the former invovled a much more glaring oppression than the latter, it was the latter that libertarians got organized in opposing. That’s pretty f*cked up and shows some messed up priorities, at the least.

                    3. But while the former invovled a much more glaring oppression than the latter, it was the latter that libertarians got organized in opposing. That’s pretty f*cked up and shows some messed up priorities, at the least.

                      I guess if people have different viewpoints or priorities, or different views on what the greater injustice is, then they must be moral monsters.

                      It isn’t hard to get that mask off, is it?

                    4. I think the point here is that Jim Crow laws were every bit as much a violation of the right to free association as the CRA, worse actually.

                      It’s a fair question to ask why libertarian leaders of that era were apparently comfortable with the status quo violation of Jim Crow, but got up in arms about the CRA, which just maintained the violation in a different (and better, in my way.) manner.

                    5. Is MNG trying to lump Progressives of today in with the eugenicists of the early 20th Century? Of course not. No one cherry picks (and avoids unsavory history) like MNG.

                    6. “MNG trying to lump Progressives of today in with the eugenicists of the early 20th Century?”

                      Except for the facts that, as was hashed out here not long ago, eugenics was embraced by both conservatives (like Coolidge or the three of the “Four Horsemen” that joined Holmes in Buck v. Bell) and “progressives” in its heyday and that there’s quite a bit more historical distance between the progressives of the 1920’s and today’s progressives than for Goldwater libertarians and today’s libertarians, you really have something there!

                    7. “I think the point here is that Jim Crow laws were every bit as much a violation of the right to free association as the CRA, worse actually.”

                      Shhh. Don’t tell Blue Moon!

                    8. You’re a moral monster because you think it’s OK for government guns to be used to enforce a business owner’s racial prejudice, but not to enforce a citizen’s right to participate in the commerce of his community.

                      You guys always leave off the part where the business owner’s right you defend entails the use of taxpayer-funded government goons to expel black people forcibly. I don’t want my tax money paying to enforce segregation. Yes, your priorities are messed up, and no they are justifiable on grounds antigovernment or pro-liberty.

                    9. I think it’s OK to use government guns to enforce freedom of association, yes.

                      I don’t want my tax money paying to enforce segregation.

                      I am coming over to live at your place. You can’t call the police and “segregate” me from your residence, either.

                    10. A private residence and a business that caters to the public are two different things.

                      Government guns enforcing racial segregation at businesses that cater to the public is not freedom of association, it’s racists using government to enforce segregation. As a taxpayer I have every right to object to that.

                      Perhaps the racist business owner has to sacrifice some freedom of association. Oh well, he should have thought about that before he chose to racially discriminate and contribute to a much greater loss of freedom for others.

                    11. Government guns enforcing racial segregation at businesses that cater to the public is not freedom of association, it’s racists using government to enforce segregation. As a taxpayer I have every right to object to that.

                      I assume that means that you don’t believe in gay clubs, black after-hours bars, safe spaces just for women, etc.?

                    12. I believe there is a distinction between private clubs and businesses that cater to the public.

                    13. I believe there is a distinction between private clubs and businesses that cater to the public.

                      One you are making up as you go along, you mean.

                    14. Please describe those distinctions.

                      A private business doesn’t cater to the public, it caters to customers and just like a private residence has the right to refuse customers it does not want. Only public services cater to the public and must be open to all citizens and/or residents depending on the laws that created it. Private property ceases to be private if the state can dictate the terms of its use.

                    15. A private residence and a business that caters to the public are two different things.

                      Businesses, like residences, are private, too. So it was a private business that caters to the White public. Despicable, indeed. But that is the right of the business owner.

                    16. Local and state governments restricted Woolworths’ right to allow blacks to eat at their lunch counters. So libertarians would take issue, not with Woolworths but with those laws that prohibit a private business from accepting customers it wants to accept. It was Woolworths’ rights that were violated, not the black potential customers. Now when we talk about public schools, that’s something different. All citizens should be treated equally by the state. And yet you want more state, Tony. Who is more racist in 2012? The redneck who hates all black people because one yelled at the movie screen or your precious federal government that disproportionately arrests and prosecutes blacks for drug possession?

                    17. I do not support our drug policies and think they are racist.

                      I’m not gonna become an anarchist because there are bad laws.

                    18. You don’t have to be an anarchist, but you can recognize that a law existing for the sake of having laws is stupid. You could be a libertarian if you just recognized the right to one’s personal property. That includes a business you may own just the same as a house you may own.

                    19. There is no moral superiority in favoring government guns to protect property but not to protect people from starvation.

                      There is no moral superiority in using government to protect the luxuries of the rich but not the needs of the poor.

                    20. Government has a legitimate role in stopping theft. It has no role in feeding people because to do so it must first steal from others.

                    21. It has to “steal” from others to stop theft too. Police are paid by tax dollars are they not?

                    22. You’re wrong on woolworths. It was company policy even where the law did not force it.

                    23. You’re a moral monster because you think it’s OK for government guns to be used to enforce a business owner’s racial prejudice, but not to enforce a citizen’s right to participate in the commerce of his community.

                      So as a citizen who has a “right to participate in the commerce of his community” I am justified in having government force you to buy my products and at my price, whether you wish to do so or not. Figures.

    3. MLK’s legacy is problematic for libertarians because he wasn’t a libertarian? I am not sure where you were aiming, but “missing it by a country mile” is a generous description of where you landed.

      1. “because he wasn’t a libertarian?”

        How about “because central components of his campaign were and are opposed by libertarians?”

        Closer? Cuz that’s what I originally said…

        1. How about “because central components of his campaign were and are opposed by libertarians?

          So what? Not everything MLK did is to be embraced just because he was struck down and turned into a modern-day saint.

          1. “On the one hand, sure, libertarianism would have no problem with much of his non-violent marches and boycotts and could oppose much of the state-instigated parts of Jim Crow”

            It might help you to read posts you respond to

            1. I think it is pretty clear you don’t have a point here.

              Libertarians liked some stuff, disliked other stuff…and somehow that disagreement is “problematic”? The only reason it would be problematic if opposing the wrong things King believed is wrong because he’s MLK, and that’s just ridiculous.

              Otherwise your post is complete nonsense.

              1. When you oppose central components of what the man was about then yes it’s problematic.

                We’re not talking about rejecting some of his later ideas on economic inequality; we are talking about central parts of his CRM stances.

                But I’m betting from your flippant “saint” comment that you find his legacy unproblematic for different reasons…

                1. When you oppose central components of what the man was about then yes it’s problematic.

                  Who did that? And why would you say it is problematic anyway? Again, this assumes that everything MLK did was right.

                  But I’m betting from your flippant “saint” comment that you find his legacy unproblematic for different reasons…

                  Care to elucidate?

                  1. “Care to elucidate?”

                    I’m betting you’re no fan of MLK period. That would fit with the grumbling about all the positive attention he has been getting…

                    Look, if you want to say “MLK was a guy who was wrong on most things, including central parts of his stance on civil rights” that’s fine. I’m no hurler of the lame “racism” charge. My point is that MLK is VERY popular and well thought of in this nation, especially on his CRM creds. For obvious reasons libertarians don’t often want to be seen as contrary to that, they would like to argue they fit into that tradition, and I’m saying that is problematic given the tenets of MLK’s civil rights (and ohter) views and libertarianism’s.

                    1. I’m betting you’re no fan of MLK period. That would fit with the grumbling about all the positive attention he has been getting.

                      I don’t particularly care. It is inarguable that, like Kennedy, the only reason we have this holiday is because he was assassinated.

                      For obvious reasons libertarians don’t often want to be seen as contrary to that, they would like to argue they fit into that tradition, and I’m saying that is problematic given the tenets of MLK’s civil rights (and ohter) views and libertarianism’s.

                      Ah, now your point emerges. I can assume, though, that this then:

                      But it’s also a pretty glaring historical fact that the opponents of libertarianism seemed more prominent in the front lines of the civil rights movement

                      and this:

                      libertarians: Jim Crow-not enough to get worked up about to join in the fight; right of association of racists-let’s organize now!

                      weren’t meant to be derogatory or insinuate libertarians are racist. Not. At. All.

                    2. “the only reason we have this holiday is because he was assassinated”

                      I know you and your “obvious truths”, but that is pretty arguable imo. Some people, myself included, think he should be honored not because he was slain, but because he “spoke truth to power” on the central moral deficiency of this nation’s history. But, like libertarians of his day, I understand you’re not impressed. There’s more important matters to get involved in, like protecting racists from anti-discrimination laws!

                    3. “now your point emerges”

                      WTF? My point the whole time, in numerous posts, has been the same: the fact that libertarians got vigorously involved in opposition to the CRA but not Jim Crow shows, at the least, very screwed up priorities.

                      MNG|1.16.12 @ 10:54AM|#
                      Meanwhile the thing that historically seemed to get many libertarians worked up was opposition to the CRA as espoused by Goldwater.

                      MNG|1.16.12 @ 12:03PM|#
                      Well, we know that opposition to the CRA, unlike opposition to Jim Crow, seemed to light a fire under more libertarians of the day

                      MNG|1.16.12 @ 12:10PM|#
                      Like I said, for libertarians: Jim Crow-not enough to get worked up about to join in the fight; right of association of racists-let’s organize now!

                      “now..emerges?” Sheesh…

                    4. Wait, you are saying that opposing a wrong without opposing another wrong makes libertarians…bad somehow?

                    5. It is inarguable that, like Kennedy, the only reason we have this holiday is because he was assassinated.

                      I always have to work on JFK Day too.

                2. Cuz you’re not saying “the man was a moral icon in his fight for civil rights, but was mistaken on his later economic views.” You’re saying “the guy was wrong about half of the stuff he talked about even on civil rights, not to mention the crazy shit he said about economics.” That kind of makes embrace of King, who kind of is known for that CR stand, problematic at the least…

                  1. You’re saying “the guy was wrong about half of the stuff he talked about even on civil rights, not to mention the crazy shit he said about economics.”

                    When did I say that?

                    1. “When did I say that?”

                      You don’t think he was wrong on many of those CRA issues? Or you want to argue they were not consistently central components of what he pushed for?

                    2. You don’t think he was wrong on many of those CRA issues? Or you want to argue they were not consistently central components of what he pushed for?

                      I thought we already agreed that I could disagree with his economics and/or tools engaged to achieve goals without disagreeing with the goals.

                    3. So you think he was dangerously wrong on economics, wrong on much of his views on civil rights (and not just tools, his stated goals included laws to end discrimination in public accomodations), yet you don’t find embracing him “problemattic.”

                      Interesting. Is there someone you don’t agree with on most things that you do embrace you can point to as a contrast?

                  2. You realize your other fallacy is that you think that because libertarians didn’t necessarily “get riled up” for Civil Rights Marches, that means that they must have opposed the central aims of those Marches. That doesn’t follow.

                    1. Dude, you’re flailing around, this discussion is above…But yes, the fact that they got involved and organized to resist the evil federal government’s restricting the right of people to discriminate but not to fight the state governments oppression of blacks is telling of something…

                    2. Dude, you’re flailing around, this discussion is above…But yes, the fact that they got involved and organized to resist the evil federal government’s restricting the right of people to discriminate but not to fight the state governments oppression of blacks is telling of something…

                      Telling of what? Oh, but I am sure you are not insinuating racism – you’re above all that.

                      You said that failure to march = opposition to central aims or objectives of said march. That’s fucking retarded. You can call it “flailing” or you can admit what you’re up to, which is to try to insinuate without stating that libertarians are racist.

                    3. “Telling of what?”

                      Some pretty fucked up priorities at the least…

                      “You can call it “flailing””

                      Er, dude, my reference to flailing centered on you posting in this subthread about a different conversation being held in another above…My, you’re touchy about the absence of your ideological forerunners in what was probably the central moral issue of the last century, huh?

                    4. Some pretty fucked up priorities at the least…

                      So freedom of association isn’t important. You seem to keep shifting the argument.

                      My, you’re touchy about the absence of your ideological forerunners in what was probably the central moral issue of the last century, huh?

                      Probably because I and all of my “forerunners” are racists. That’s what you want me to say, right?

                    5. “You seem to keep shifting the argument.”

                      No, it’s you shifting. I never said freedom of association ISNT important, just that its infringement was the lesser of evils compared to Jim Crow. The fact that the latter didn’t motivate libertarians to do much about it while the former did is terrible.

                      “Probably because I and all of my “forerunners” are racists. That’s what you want me to say, right?”

                      I frankly don’t know what was wrong with them, or you…

                    6. No, it’s you shifting. I never said freedom of association ISNT important, just that its infringement was the lesser of evils compared to Jim Crow. The fact that the latter didn’t motivate libertarians to do much about it while the former did is terrible.

                      Why? What makes one worse than the other?

                      I frankly don’t know what was wrong with them, or you…

                      But you’re not above insinuating the worst.

                    7. “What makes one worse than the other?”

                      Let’s just be sure of what you are saying. Are you arguing that the CRA was a worse evil than Jim Crow? Because I think it’s pretty “inarguable” that the reverse is true. And this is what my point has been: it is terrible that when racists were using government to oppress blacks under Jim Crow libertarians did not get involved anywhere to the extent than they got involved to oppose government ‘oppressing’ racists…

                    8. Are you arguing that the CRA was a worse evil than Jim Crow?

                      They’re two wildly different concepts.

                      Because I think it’s pretty “inarguable” that the reverse is true.

                      Explain.

                      And this is what my point has been: it is terrible that when racists were using government to oppress blacks under Jim Crow libertarians did not get involved anywhere to the extent than they got involved to oppose government ‘oppressing’ racists…

                      Does the freedom of association only extend to racists, do you think?

                    9. “They’re two wildly different concepts.”

                      Both involve government intrusion. Interesting that your forerunners chose the lesser form of that to organize against…

                      “Explain.”

                      Explain that Jim Crow was more evil than the CRA? If I didn’t know you I’d say you’re kidding…

                      “Does the freedom of association only extend to racists”

                      The kind intruded on by the CRA seems to…

                    10. Can you also explain how the modern-day “embrace” of MLK by libertarians is problematic because dead people who at one point in time called themselves libertarians allegedly didn’t get off the couch as fast you wanted them too?

                      How do these alleged lazy libertarians reflect on modern-day libertarians?

                    11. “How do these alleged lazy libertarians reflect on modern-day libertarians?”

                      So do you disavow them?

                      Look, I am not just saying that Jim was a more egregious wrong than the CRA, I’m saying that Jim Crow was a more egregious violation of libertarian morals than the CRA was. The fact that libertarians mobilized so much against the latter and so comparitively little against the former is therefore needing some explanation.

                      I heard a speaker once say that the greatest moral failing, given their stated beliefs, of American liberals was its failure to oppose communism more strongly, while the greatest failure of libertarians was the same in reference to the civil rights movement. As many libertarians point out at the heart of Jim Crow was government oppression and intrusion on a horrible scale.

                      Libertarians providing more organization agains the CRA than Jim Crow is like isolationists providing more organized opposition to the invasion of Grenada than the invasion of Iraq…

    4. Yes, Goldwater opposed the part of the CRA that said a black businessman could not discriminate against white patrons who he was pretty certain were responsble for the cross burnings in his town. Nor could a gay bar owner keep out the straights that he suspected painted the hate slogans on the rest room walls every night.

      1. Um, I’m gonna make a wild guess that you either were not born or else not very old when the civil rights act was first passed in the early 60’s. There wasn’t anything in it about gays as far as I know. Homosexuality was not a topic of polite conversation in those days. In fact, it was still a crime in many areas.

        1. It’s a modern-day description of the principle at stake, not a reflection of the debate at the time.

          1. If it’s a “modern-day” description, then why is Goldwater mentioned?

      2. “said a black businessman could not discriminate against white patrons”

        Of course, this was a central concern of the civil rights movement…

        Look, I get the reasoning behind G’s and libertarians opposition to theCRA,just pointing out that, reasoning notwithstanding, this is contrary to what King and the CRM were pushing for.

    5. His legacy is only problematic if you are some kind of partisan fanatic who thinks one must either be on the right team and always correct and on the wrong team and always wrong. If you are not then you understand that someone like King can have very mistaken views on some issues but be exactly right on others.

      Given the fact that you are such a partisan fanatic, it is no surprise that you would project and find MLK’s legacy problematic for Libertarians.

      1. If you believe in an economic system tailor-made to keep underprivilaged classes in their place, then saying you agree with the spirit of MLK counts for very little.

        1. It depends on what you think defined him. If you think what defined him was his commitment to people being judged as individuals and racial equality, then his economic views are just mistaken and not essential to the person. If you think that he is defined by his economic views, then you really are not too concerned about his racial views are you?

          1. His economic views are consistent with and essential to his social movement.

            Let’s take your economic views and apply them to a society in which a particular race is disproportionately economically disadvantaged. What’s your answer? They should have to work 10 times harder to compete? All of the effects of generational disadvantage are to be ignored, because freedom equals government ignoring you and your concerns (but not those of the privileged whites with all the money and power, whose primary economic concerns are for some reason legitimate)?

            Is it really justice to say hearts and minds have been changed, and therefore the work is done? As long as you feel that blacks are equal in theory, that’s all that matters?

            1. No Tony they are inconsistent. By saying that blacks cannot compete in an open market and need the great white government to look after them, you are saying they are inferior. It is embracing a paternalistic white supremacy. It may not be as bad as an antagonistic one. But it is white supremacy none the less.

              1. I think the goal is to make them able to compete when they couldn’t before. Telling them you are equal and free, but because of social realities you have to work 10 times harder to compete, then blaming them when they fail to, is not only more paternalistic, but a recipe for perpetual de facto inequality.

            2. Tony, you do realize that Jim Crow laws were mostly about preventing blacks from engaging in normal economic activities like starting businesses?

              It wasn’t about an “economic class” out-competing them, it was about forcibly putting them out of business so that other blacks had to patronize whiteowned businesses.

            3. tony,
              the disadvantaged people your side claims as mascots have only become more so through creeping liberalism. LBJ’s Great Society essentially made the black father an asterisk in the family and it turned breeding into a business. Affirmative action served mostly to plant the seed of doubt among both whites and blacks.

              Time and again among older blacks, you hear stories about their mothers and fathers (as in living in the same home at the same time) worked multiple jobs, the kids went to school and kept their noses clean, and neighbors looked after each other. Enter liberalism, and?

              Rates of single motherhood grossly out of what with the rest of the population. Ditto rates of incarceration. And dropouts. And just about every other marker of potential upward mobility in society.

            4. Let’s take your economic views and apply them to a society in which a particular race is disproportionately economically disadvantaged. What’s your answer? They should have to work 10 times harder to compete?

              Worked for the Jews, Chinese, Indians, etc…

              1. The implication being that certain minorities are genetically incapable?

                You can’t compare an indigenous minority to those descended from recent immigrants. A bit of selection bias goes on there.

                1. The implication being that certain minorities are genetically incapable?

                  Don’t be an ass.

              2. They should have to work 10 times harder to compete?

                Worked for the Jews, Chinese, Indians, etc…

                and the Irish, Italians, Polish, ….hmmm, maybe working 10 times harder IS THE ONLY FUCKING WAY TO SUCCESSFULLY COMPETE!

                1. (working smarter may offset some of the working harder, YMMV)

                2. So what you’re saying in plain English is that blacks are lazier than everyone else.

                  1. Oh, and dumber.

                    1. Actually, Tony, it’s you that seems to be making those arguments.

                      Your position seems to be that blacks need help from their white betters.

                    2. the one’s who don’t/won’t/can’t succeed? sure. just like all the lazy and stupid white trash who will never raise themselves out of their squalor.

                      Crazy ain’t it, laziness and stupidity crossing all boundaries of race, creed, color, sex, etc.

                    3. If it’s entirely a matter of personal effort, then you have to claim that disparities in economic outcomes for blacks is a result of blacks being genetically inferior. Sorry, that’s just not acceptable nor is it factual. Even if it were, your social order wouldn’t necessarily follow. The question would then become, what do we do with the genetically inferior? Let them weed themselves out, or perhaps we help them along, a la the Nazis?

                      If the child of a poor person (however that person came to her poverty) is unable to get out of poverty, then society must offer some sort of means of escape. If it doesn’t, and generation after generation of undereducated people grow up unable to compete economically, I don’t see what cause you have to blame them for their problems, except ignorant perversity on your part.

                    4. If it’s entirely a matter of personal effort, then you have to claim that disparities in economic outcomes for blacks is a result of blacks being genetically inferior.

                      Nope. You forget about culture.

                    5. Any explanation that supposes economic disparity to be the result, rather than the cause, is suspect and racist. What culture? That’s just the genetic argument in another form.

                    6. What culture? That’s just the genetic argument in another form.

                      Yes, Tony. Because if we dropped you as an infant into the middle of Saudi Arabia, you would hold the same world-view as you currently do.

                    7. But black Americans are… Americans.

                      You can’t explain economic disparity in terms of culture. No culture would choose to be an economic underclass.

                    8. If it’s entirely a matter of personal effort, then you have to claim that disparities in economic outcomes for blacks is a result of blacks being genetically inferior.

                      Are you high?

                    9. What happens when society makes attempts at helping them and they remain poor or become even poorer? Maybe your methods suck, Tony. How about a system that requires people of lesser means to bust their ass to get somewhere in life instead of a system that perpetuates the poverty by incentivizing the very situation that keeps them poor?

                      In the red corner: “Here’s a thousand dollars a month to do nothing.” In the blue corner: “If you want something, get a job and pay for it yourself.” Oh, look the guy in the blue corner got a job! And he’s in the management training program at work now. Oh, he got a promotion. Did you see he saved up to buy his own house? Yeah, I heard he’s trying to buy a stake in the company. Everyone works for him now.

                      The lady in the red corner is still doing nothing.

                      The lady in the red corner is poor white trash and always will be. The guy in the blue corner is on the cover of Entrepreneur Magazine (and happens to be black). If Tony says that can’t work, he’s racist because it presumes the black man can’t get out of his situation without his help.

                    10. “If it’s entirely a matter of personal effort, then you have to claim that disparities in economic outcomes for blacks is a result of blacks being genetically inferior.”

                      Yeah, that’s just fucking stupid. Poor white people in similar situations have all of the same problems. You are the only one claiming that this has anything to do with genetics.

                    11. no society that offers equality of opportunity will EVER have equality of condition, whether measured by comparison of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, etc.

                      certain groups do better in certain areas (imo has nothing to do with genetics, but has a lot to do with culture) in every nation on earth where they at least have some freedom

                      thomas sowell supports this with endless statistics in his book “ethnic america”

                      japanese americans, a minority in this country that has faced HEAVY discrimination (and even internment for fuck’s sake) average iirc 1.72 times (read that again) the average american income

                      they get WAY better SAT scores, they are far more likely to graduate college than whites, and also to get degrees in areas that tend to pay well

                      and if their culture, etc. dictates that they will be successful, it’s only social engineers like tony that find that “unjust” and seek to change it. instead of allowing good strategies to get good results, they want to PUNISH people for success

                      this was the case in california pre-the ban on racial preferences, when asian americans needed MUCH higher SAT scores to be admitted to UC Berkeley for example, than whites

                      iow, it wasn’t about content of character for the racist liberals who invented racial preferences, … it was about punishing success

        2. If you believe in an economic system tailor-made to keep underprivilaged classes in their place,

          An apt description of socialism. Good job, Tony.

          1. but but but, The Inherent Equality!!11oneoneone

            1. if our system was tailor made to do what tony believes it does, then we wouldn’t have minorities like jews, and asian americans BLOW the white majority away in nearly every metric you could imagine that measures success.

        3. Good thing we want to change that system, then, isn’t it Tony?

        4. If you believe in an economic system tailor-made to keep underprivilaged classes in their place, then saying you agree with the spirit of MLK counts for very little.

          So the entire post-War on Poverty Democrat party?

      2. “if you are some kind of partisan fanatic who thinks one must either be on the right team and always correct and on the wrong team and always wrong.”

        You mean as you admitted to being just the other day?

        1. John|11.22.11 @ 10:28AM|#
          I am open for suggestions MNG. I cannot think of a single thing where the Republicans are bad and the Democrats are not equally horrid.

          1. That seems a pretty accurate sentiment, Minge. You’ve intimated almost the same in your disapproval of our president.

            1. When you think one party is better on every single issue than the other then you can’t complain about others being “partisan fanatics”, because that is kind of what a partisan fanatic is…

              1. Well yes, and he may feel that way, but in the quote you used John says “equally horrid”.

                And I still agree with John that republicans and democrats are equally horrid.

                1. In the post leading up to that one I told John that I thought the GOP and conservatives were better than the liberals and Dems on many issues and challenged him to name one issue in which he thought the Dems were better than the GOP. He could not name one. He’s acknowledge the GOP is better on issues, he doesn’t hold them equally horrid. He holds one is imperfect but in every issue better than the other. That’s what a partisan is dude.

                  1. Better doesn’t necessarily mean good in any absolute sense. If you loathe everything about the Democratic party and say that the Republicans are slightly better on a few issues and about the same on most, that is not exactly a ringing endorsement of Republicans.

                    1. If you want to say John is a partisan fanatic in his opposition to the Democratic Party, not in slavish devotion to the GOP, I’d agree with that. A “reverse partisan” if you will.

          2. Last I looked MLK was a Republican. So maybe it was even true in the 1960s.

            http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16500

          3. And I am not the one that finds his views problematic. You are. You are the one who seems to be unable to grasp that someone can be right about one thing but wrong about another. Not me.

            1. “And I am not the one that finds his views problematic. You are.”

              No, I embrace all of his views. It’s libertarians, and yourself, that think he was right on some but wrong (dangerously so to believe your rhetoric in other forums) on others. That makes your embrace of him problematic, mine is easy…

              1. But how is it problematic to celebrate someone you disagreed with on some issues? I don’t know where the problem’s supposed to come from.

              2. @minge

                You embrace every last single one of MLK’s views? No difference at all? On anything. Nary a subtle divergence to be found, eh?

                Considering I have never met two people that are so similar I would say that you are either a statistical anomaly or a clone.

                1. There is some matter of degree here. When a guy gets iconic status for his role in a certain movement, then disagreeing with much of his stances in that movement is going to make it “problemattic” to embrace him and his “legacy”. No?

                  Like I said above, if libertarians want to say “look, on most things MLK is associated with we think he was wrong, but big ups to him on hating on racism in general” then fine. But that’s not what they do. For obvious reasons they want to locate themselves as close to his legacy, not contrary to it. Therefore I said his embrace by libertarians is “problematic”

                  1. But that’s not what they do.

                    That’s exactly what I do. And everybody else around here seems to be doing the same thing.

                    1. But, Fluffy, not the libertarians in MNG’s head.

                    2. “But, Fluffy, not the libertarians in MNG’s head.”

                      Can you name me a prominent libertarian who argues libertarianism is not aligned with the legacy of MLK? Look at the post this thread belongs to dude.

                    3. I’d say that MLK’s legacy is the non-violent protests of the CRM, the fight for individual rights for all and his skillful and inspiring oration. I don’t think that the socialism he espoused is really part of his legacy for anyone other than socialists. He certainly isn’t a celebrated figure because of his socialist political views.

                    4. Yup. I embrace the civil disobedience and the push for equal rights. I don’t jive with the socialism. Gee, that was easy.

                      Does anyone get the impression that MNG makes all libertarians equal to John’s opinion about any given topic? And John isn’t even a libertarian.

    6. (…following that line of thought a libertarian could argue that denying government services based on race would fall into the same category).

      As one of those “paleos” (apparently), I can tell by that line of reasoning that you don’t understand the objection. It’s not that I don’t want same-sex marriage, but I don’t believe expanding government benefits to one more group of people while still excluding others (based on the group members’ actions or inaction or whatever criteria) is advancing liberty or basic fairness. You’re still advocating the state maintain an exclusive situation.

      And many libertarians do have a problem with the state removing the right of people to do with their private property what they will, that people have the right to be bigots on their own property. But if libertarians rejected wholesale people who do in any way think governments should legislation to coerce thought, libertarianism would be even lonelier than it is.

  12. Freedom starts to take on more complex dimensions when you admit children into your universe.

    Okay, Coach.

  13. Why do you have to a willingness to accept the penalty?

    You cannot be elevated to martyrdom, if you don’t get caught and punished.

    willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community

    1. Sure, that’s a tactical reason why you might choose to take the penalty, but why do you have to take the penalty?

      1. Because the only alternative is violent opposition. Nonviolent resistance is the strategy, so taking the penalty is a part-and-parcel tactic of that strategy.

        1. I think this is the answer. But I also think Fluffy has a point. The purity and nobility of acts of civil disobedience are played up a bit too much. There’s nothing really inherently noble about it, but it makes you look good and is a useful tactic.

          1. Even the noble language is part of the strategy. How else are you going to convince your nonviolent foot soldiers to fall on their swords? By saying pretty please?

        2. That’s not the only alternative.

          You could also just break the law and evade the penalty.

          Let’s say there was a law that said it was illegal to worship Jesus.

          If you didn’t have the power to destroy the state imposing that law, you might choose to employ King’s strategy and break the law openly, to bring the penalty down upon your head and try to outrage the moral sensibility of enough people to create a movement for change.

          Or you might just worship Jesus secretly, and evade the police who were searching for no-good law-breaking Christians.

          King is saying that the second group of people are doing something wrong. I don’t think they’re doing anything wrong at all.

          1. Not wrong, just ineffective if you want to change the law.

            1. kind of like wanking about policies you disagree with … here.

              it’s phun, and the righteous anger is invigorating for sum, but it ACCOMPLISHES fuck-all

  14. why do you have to take the penalty?

    I don’t believe you HAVE to; but I am not afflicted with Joan of Arc’s Disease.

    You can ignore laws which you perceive to be unjust (or merely idiotic); I do it all the time. Thus far, I have escaped getting myself tasered or executed on the side of the road.

    1. we ALL do

      but i also think it’s important we fight to change those we think are unjust, or we are ultimately part of the problem.

  15. John check your AOL email

    1. It is no good. Haven’t used it in years. I used to put my real email in here. But then Joe Boyle started stalking me. No kidding. Sending me all kinds of crazy rants. So I quit doing that.

      1. how can I get in touch with you?

        1. can’t post something here?

          1. sorry not a big poster, longtime lurker wanted to get your thoughts on something….you and I think a lot alike politics wise so I value your opinion

            1. This sounds like the prelude to “catch a predator.”

      2. He did the same damn thing to me to when I use to keep a steady handle. I’m still feeling around with this one. I like it, but still not too sure. I kind of think of it as an even more illiterate evocation of my persona.

  16. libertarianism is a defense of entrenched generational privilege/generational disadvantage and the consequent neo-feudal society.

    Do the voices in your head wiggle their fingers approvingly when you say stuff like that?

    1. At some point you guys will have to own up to the fact that you’re a totalitarian movement disguised with buzzwords about liberty.

      “Freedom from government” far from being the only legitimate type of freedom, means, essentially, freedom from democracy. Government is the only entity that, to some extent, is accountable to the people.

      All this concern over people’s ability to be autonomous, yet not a word about the private tyrannies most people live their lives in, and which would become all the more controlling of their lives if you had your way. Eight-hour work days are, after all, the result of top-down socialism. You want to be praised for protecting us from tyranny, but you suppose there is only one type of tyranny, and it happens to be the one entity everyone gets an equal say in, at least in theory. But what of the powers that would exist and exert control in its absence, the ones that aren’t accountable to society at all?

      1. Its like he’s speaking a foreign language or something, isn’t it? Most of the words must mean something other than their usual meaning. Otherwise, its just gibberish.

        1. totalitarian, noun: one who totals sums

      2. where do you get this stuff? Eight hour workdays are considered a starting point for a large swath of society, particularly those who own businesses. Frankly, the contract between me and my employer is not hte govt’s business. I smart enough to say no to terms and conditions that are not acceptable. Why do liberals hate free will so much?

        1. Thank your local union for 8 hour workdays and weekends, not to mention the ability to make a living wage. In your free market there is no negotiation, there is what the employer is willing to give and what the worker is forced to take. We see what kind of terms people are able to get in your type of society–it’s called a race to the bottom, especially in an environment with an oversupply of labor.

          1. In your free market there is no negotiation, there is what the employer is willing to give and what the worker is forced to take.

            Really? I’m -forced- to work there?

            Jesus fucking christ you’re stupid Tony.

            1. If you live under the threat of starvation, it’s not a stretch to say that you’re forced to work wherever you can find it.

              However, provide a little safety net so that nobody ever lives under the threat of starvation, and your choices open up and the labor market starts to actually resemble something like a free one rather than institutional indentured servitude.

              1. If you live under the threat of starvation, it’s not a stretch to say that you’re forced to work wherever you can find it.

                Not a single person in America lives under the threat of starvation. Zero. Zilch. Nada. None. You’ve constructed a strawman and have proceeded to beat away at it.

                Furthermore, even were there starving individuals, it’s their own fault. If someone’s not willing to hire them at any wage, they obviously need to develop a skillset. Which brings me to the point that minimum wage laws have done more to impoverish the modern family than -any- employer has ever done.

                1. ^this. i mean for fuck’s sake, not only is the threat of starvation in the US nonexistent (unless you are trapped in the wilderness or something and don’t know how to survive), but the #1 health problem amongst the poor is OBESITY, and smoking aint far behind, ironically an activity that burns up free cash with no benefit.

                  1. If there are no starving people in the US, it’s thanks to our socialist safety net.

                    In our culture thinnness is a privilege of the leisure class. Obesity is a symptom of being in the economic underclass in societies with abundant food.

                    This is all beside the point, of course, since we’re talking theoretically. You’d like to strip away all vestiges of negotiating power workers have as well as the safety net and call it freedom. It’s certainly arguable that even in our society workers aren’t as free as they could be to be mobile and to negotiate. In your society they’d essentially be indentured servants. Your freedom is all theoretical and utopian.

          2. Now you are just being fucking ignorant. The 8-hour work day and the 5-day work week can be traced back to Sumeria and Babylon; both concepts pre-date your precious unions by thousands of years.

      3. At some point you guys will have to own up to the fact that you’re a totalitarian movement disguised with buzzwords about liberty.

        Tony has bred the ultimate straw man – it beats up itself.

        1. It’s hard not to be good at something you do all day every day.

      4. The War on Drugs has done more to destroy the black community than any other policy since Jim Crow. And blacks can thank the benevolent, democratic government for that.

        1. I agree. So what do you propose? Nonbenevolent nondemocratic government?

          1. Since “benevolent” and “government” are mutually exclusive, I go with “limited government.”

            Funny that option didn’t occur to you.

          2. Nonbenevolent nondemocratic government?

            Essentially. Pure democracy is just tyranny of the majority. And any government which is concerned with your welfare inevitably leads to policies like this. Protect people’s life, liberty, and property. The rest is up to them.

            1. So simple it must be true… Nobody is advocating pure democracy, that’s a bit of a straw man.

              We don’t have to go to a night watchman society to get better drug laws. The most pressing concern to my mind is to restrict influence over policy by corporations, be they represented by the alcohol or private prison lobbies.

              1. This is an example of confusing the object level with the meta level. “What should policy be?” and “How much influence on policy should particular people/ institutions have?” are two separate questions and ought to be treated as such.

      5. Tony, do you even know jack shit about the 8 Hour work day? Have you ever studied it?

        Let me give you some history: The 8 hour work day was first achieved by carpenters working through the American Federation of Labor. They didn’t go through the government- they peacefully held strikes against their employers. Many of those employers called out the cops and the private army that was the Pinkertons to bust the heads of those strikers.

        They used the force of the state to stop people from peacefully assembling, a right which the government is supposed to protect as per the Bill of Rights.

        The AFL had a plan to gradually 8-hour other industries, but the crash of 1893 screwed up their plans. However, by about WW1 the conditions for skilled labor had dramatically improved, often without government intervention.

        Other significant moves for shorter working hours came from Henry Ford’s Detroit plant in 1911- without anyone from the government telling him, Ford slashed the hours and raised the wages of his workers in order to allow them to consume the Model Ts that they were building.

        The only real one in your favor was the 1935 GM sitdown strike, where management using people to remove the workers (because the workers were legally trespassing) would have been kosher.

        Still, Tony, jesus tits christ, read history.

        1. Yes, so why do you guys so consistently join forces with the business elite and favor restricting freedom of association of workers?

          1. How do you figure?

            Support for Right to Work? The right to associate goes hand in hand with the right NOT to associate.

            Opposition to government unions like AFSCME? I actually disagree with a lot of reason here- they should be allowed to unionize, and we should kick out the scumbag politicians who fork money over to them. However, if you want to start playing this game Tony, why are you so cool with FDR, who banned federal workers from unionizing?

            Yeah, there’s a lot of hate thrown here at the UAW, but rarely do I hear that they shouldn’t be allowed to form a union. On the other hand, I do hear that if you want to fire unionized workers, you should be allowed to fire them just like you can non-unionized workers. Also, certain union pratices get shit, but often times they deserve to. It is ridiculous that workers get paid not to work- and until the bailout, I could just blame GM for that idiocy, but now I also have to blame the Feds.

      6. These words you’ve used; they don’t mean what you think they mean.

    2. Can we pretend its Thursday and everyone will stop responding to Trollholio here?

  17. I guess this is the best way….send me an email and I’ll reply

  18. So is Reason gonna take the whole day off because of some Negro?

    1. go away, mouth-breather.

      1. I remember when they begged us to call’m Negroes. There is no pleasing those kind.

        1. Big shocker. White trash collectivist is a white trash collectivist.

          Slappy might have to get a couple more sheep for the party this weekend.

          1. I ain’t no collectivist.

            I git up, go to work, collect my check, and pay my bills.

            Why don’t those Negroes in the big city do the same.

            1. So you deny being a collectivist, but not a sheep fucker?

              Interesting.

              1. I ignored that part, cause reasonoids say that about most everyone.

                1. Nope, just you and slappy.

                  Not to mention that you don’t know the fucking meaning of ‘collectivist’.

                  1. collectivist, socialist, communist, …. same difference.

                    1. Thank you.

                    2. Glad to be of assistance.

                      Any other points of confusion that I can clear up for you?

                    3. No, any doubts that you’re a white trash collectivist and don’t know what that means have been abolished.

                    4. I got no problem with abolition. It’s that whole integration thing that worries me.

  19. Okay Tulpa, apparently the Santorums didn’t have an abortion, but the wife did sleep for 6 years with a sugardaddy abortionist obstetrician before hooking up with Rick.

    1. I got 99 reasons not to vote for Rick but something his wife did before they even met ain’t one.

    2. I know the story of Santorum’s wife’s procedure (and I got it straight from Tulpa-vetted sources) and I still think he should be subject to criticism for it.

      If Santorum had this way, every woman who got a procedure like the one his wife got would be rolling the dice that some prosecutor somewhere would call it an abortion and come after her.

      What happened to the Santorum family was tragic, but that’s precisely why we should criticize Santorum – because he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about any other family’s reproductive health tragedy.

  20. Krugabe weeps.

    Yet if King could see America now, I believe that he would be disappointed, and feel that his work was nowhere near done. He dreamed of a nation in which his children “will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” But what we actually became is a nation that judges people not by the color of their skin ? or at least not as much as in the past ? but by the size of their paychecks. And in America, more than in most other wealthy nations, the size of your paycheck is strongly correlated with the size of your father’s paycheck.

    Goodbye Jim Crow, hello class system.

    ———

    Mitt Romney says that we should discuss income inequality, if at all, only in “quiet rooms.” There was a time when people said the same thing about racial inequality. Luckily, however, there were people like Martin Luther King who refused to stay quiet. And we should follow their example today. For the fact is that rising inequality threatens to make America a different and worse place ? and we need to reverse that trend to preserve both our values and our dreams.

    Two, four, six, eight

    Let’s go out and CONFISCATE

    1. isn’t it interesting how Krugnuts raises the color/content issue yet is an integral part of the side insisting that all criticism of Obama is race-based. The one difference between King and the likes of Krugs is the former talked about equality of opportunity while the latter is fixated on equality of result.

  21. I wonder what Krugabe considers a socially “appropriate” level of discretionary spending.

    1. It depends on how much debt we can convince the Bernank to buy.

  22. By the way, Krugabe-

    what we actually became is a nation that judges people not by the color of their skin ? or at least not as much as in the past ? but by the size of their paychecks.

    Speak for yourself, you mendacious doubletalking shitbag.

    1. Hypocritical when you consider that Krugman, and his ilk, think that the lives of the blue collar hoi polloi should be dictated by a technocratic, “well educated” professional class.

      1. Better than the autocratic economic elite class you’d hand their lives over to. To the vast sea of wage slaves you say they’re free because they didn’t vote for their masters.

        1. No, I say they’re free because you didn’t vote for their masters.

        2. What the fuck is a wage slave?

          1. Its a slave who can quit any time, and gets paid for working.

            JUST LIKE ON THE PLANTATION, YOU RACIST!

        3. Are you implying that if you get to vote for your master, you are free?

          1. More free than the alternative.

            1. Why?

  23. Thank your local union for 8 hour workdays and weekends, not to mention the ability to make a living wage.

    This is why all children must be forced, at gunpoint if necessary, to attend government schools. Imagine what a pathetic anarchist dystopia America would be if its children were not universally indoctrinated with such state-sponsored falsehoods.

    1. Actually, you can thank Herbert Hoover for the so-called “living wage”, which is turn was fueled by racist and protectionist sentiment. Contemporary unions were being undercut by black laborers on federal construction projects, so they lobbied hard for Davis-Bacon which forced federal contractors to pay the “prevailing wage” on federal contracts, which, quelle suprise, was determined by the official local union wage rate.

      Oh look! No more black labor undercutting, honest, hardworking, white union men! Yay organized labor!

  24. So, they should just let Gervais host every award show, right? Because it is awesome to see celebs awkwardly laughing at getting the piss taken out of them.

  25. The most pressing concern to my mind is to restrict influence over policy by corporations

    Here’s an idea: if we restrict the scope of government, the dreaded kkkorporations will not be able to forcibly insinuate themselves into so many aspects of our lives. Unless, of course, we willingly choose to purchase their products or services.

    1. Ah yes, and we could solve organized crime overnight by getting rid of the police who are so easily bribed.

      1. Now you’re making progress.

      2. The price of straw shot up $0.10 a bushel. Thanks Tony.

        1. That’s the exact argument–get rid of corporate abuse by erasing the need for them to bribe anyone first.

          1. “That’s the exact argument”

            Not a chance. When you shrink government you reduce the booty that kkkorporations can lobby for. If you get rid of the police there is still the same amount booty for organized crime to take.

            A more proper parallel (more focused concept) would be to legalize the production sale and consumption of Mary J, thus reducing the amount of booty organized crime can get its hands on.

          2. A limited government makes bribery futile, not unnecessary. Big difference.

            If government involvement in toy construction is taboo, there’s no way for Mattel to monetarily convince elected officials to force mom-and-pop toy stores to pay through the nose for toy testing in response to a problem Mattel had.

            1. “A limited government makes bribery futile, not unnecessary.”

              Yup, that’s why the Gilded Age was so free from crony capitalism and corruption…

      3. Note that Tony equates business, which is conducted through voluntary transaction, with organized crime, which is conducted through the act or threat of violence, but not government, which is also conducted through the act, or threat of, violence.

        1. And business is prevented from abusing people by shrinking government how? Honor code?

          1. You know the answer to that.

            1. This is how things get so polarized. Tony says what he says here and you say “you know the answer to that” and then when Tony doesn’t respect that answer, or characterize its results the way you do, he gets accused of being “dishonest” because “he should know the answer” to this.

              You would say “business is prevented from abusing people by [insert libertarian axiom here: no rational producer would abuse people because they would lose customers/good will/employees and thus a business edge; no one is forced to do business or work for abusive businesses; etc]. But an honest, reasonable person can understand that is your answer but think [insert liberal reply here: focus on short term profits might incentivize abusive behavior {this does seem to happen in examples today}; in an economy where most necessaries are provided by private employers/producers and many people have little resources to “hold out” long and/or imperfect information, people might be forced to do business with abusers; etc].

              Note: I’m not saying those liberal replies effectively retort the standard libertarain replies. I’m just pointing out that this kind of thing is not self-evidently demonstrated by the assertion of the latter, so a person is not being “dishonest” or willfully ignorant for acting otherwise…

              1. Tony (if such a person really exists and hasn’t just been taken over as a sockpuppet for various people) has been here long enough that he knows the answer to the very fundamental libertarian question of how businesses are forced to behave themselves absent lots of regulation. By asking to have that explained again, he is just being a pain in the ass. He knows exactly what the argument is. And everyone else knows that he doesn’t agree.
                I try to give people who I disagree with the benefit of the doubt here. But sometimes it is just trolling.

                1. It’s absurd hand waving nonsense. Presumably market pressures exist even in the presence of regulations. It’s like saying we don’t need laws against theft, because there would be enough social pressure to prevent it.

          2. Tony, for your answer try shopping 3rd party retailers on Amazon.com.

          3. And business is prevented from abusing people by shrinking government how? Honor code?

            I’ve heard there’s this new thing out called a court, where a dude (or dudette) listens to you and somebody else bitch about who did what to who, who didn’t do what they promised to do, and at the end aforementioned dude or dudette weighs the facts and the law and decides who is right and who is wrong.

      4. Limited government means big business can’t harm individuals and organizations coercively, whether they bribe officials or not.

        Lack of police means the mafia can harm individauls coercively, whether they bribe or not.

        Do you get the diff, Tony?

        1. Limited government means big business can’t harm individuals and organizations coercively, whether they bribe officials or not.

          Why not?

          1. Because it would be illegal.

      5. Police aren’t the only ones who get bribed… politicians are damn good at that, too.

        Even *gasp!* Democrats.

  26. Also, can we stop it with Woody Allen? The guy is so goddamn overrated, because he is a neurotic film nut from New York, and a lot of critics are also neurotic film nuts from New York, so his movies are always bumped up a grade by reviewers because he is basically making movies for them.

    God, is Woody Allen over fucking rated. Also, how he bagged young, hot Diane Keaton is a mystery unto me.

    1. Midnight in Paris was awful. Just *charlesbarkley* turrible.

    1. It’s so backwards, yet there are still those that believe such nonsense. Like minge.

    2. Most psychiatrists of the time would have agreed with that stance.

      1. Yes, but some people still embrace those views. Like minge.

        It’s sad, really.

  27. Dennis: Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I’m being repressed!
    King Arthur: Bloody peasant!
    Dennis: Oh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That’s what I’m on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, Didn’t you?

  28. The most racist organizations in the world….

    1A) KKK
    1B) NAACP

    1. Don’t forget the Japs, in general, they look down on just about everybody.

      Oh yeah, and the Frogs too!

    2. I missed that part where the NAACP went around lynching people.

      1. You also missed the definition of racism. Lynching is not a measure of how racist a group is. It is a measure of how violent a group is. One group 100% white no exceptions. Another group, 100% colored people no exceptions. Equally racist.

  29. The Japs got marginalized when the “greatest POTUS ever” (quoting progressives) threw them into internment camps.

    Hey Tony, would you have been cool with Bush treating Arabs as cruelly as FDR treated the Japs?

    1. To be fair, I think FDR gets a semi-free ride for that sort of stuff from liberals for the same reason Jefferson gets a semi-free ride from so many about the whole owning people thing: making moral judgements of their actions feels redundant now that they’re dead, but their beliefs are still relevant because they could also be our beliefs.

  30. The last picture is John, Slap the Enlightened, and Gregory Smith as youngsters.

    1. Jeez. What did John do to deserve that?

  31. I feel sorry for the kids in that picture. Children below the age of consent should never be used to promote any political cause. They are too easily manipulated, and too easily abused by the the “for the children” crowd, and they aren’t old enough to be capable of understanding the issues.

    Those kids are probably adults now and have to live their whole lives with these embarassing photos of themselves protesting desegregation.

  32. If we’re discussing the Civil Rights Act, let me briefly mention some problems with this and similar legislation, as discussed by Professor Richard Thompson Ford in his recent work *Rights Gone Wrong: How Law Corrupts the Struggle for Equality.* The author is a Stanford Law professor (and an African-American). Here is what he says on p. 23:

    “Like a group of drunken fraternity brothers competing to perform the most dangerous and outrageous stunt, lawyers, legal scholars and civil rights activists strive to outdo each other in developing the most extreme and expansive interpretations of legal entitlements. Too many activists and lawyers attack unobjectionable customs and sensible practices that offend only the most expansive and uncompromising interpretation of the law….they make a federal case of minor inconveniences and trivial inequities. They press for changes that will cost far more than they are worth, and they seek to transform carefully moderated regulations into burdensome and crippling mandates.”

    And this is from a *supporter* of the Civil Rights Act. Imagine what an opponent would say!

    http://www.amazon.com/Rights-G…..993&sr=8-1

  33. Given his history of xenophobic comments about illegal immigrants diluting our culture, I find MNG’s arguments about MLK …”problematic.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.