Fuck its silent in here.......

[Wheezer]

Everyone must be playing Pac Man on Google or something, but just one final counterargument explaining the silliness of suggesting libertarians support Jim Crow:

[...] But none of that changes the fact that we're talking primarily about state action, not about some failure of the free market.

Isn't it the state that's going to be responsible for hauling the Blue Gums out of one's sacred, likely rented and otherwise state-licensed lunch counter?

[CT III]

Hutchins-Millen '12!

http://www.kevinmillenforcongress.net/index.html

[morpheus]

Hutchins-Millen '12!

http://www.kevinmillenforcongress.net/index.html

Anything with "Millen" in it is inherently funny.  It's science.

[Canadouche]

Another lefty hit job on libertarianism:

So is Rand Paul a racist? No, and it's irritating to watch his out-of-context quotes -- this and a comment about how golf was no longer for elitists because Tiger Woods plays golf -- splashed on the Web to make that point. Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses. Those businesses, as Paul argues, take a risk by maintaining, in this example, racist policies. Patrons can decide whether or not to give them their money, or whether or not to make a fuss about their policies. That, not government regulation and intervention, is how bias should be eliminated in the private sector. And in this belief Paul is joined by some conservatives who resent that liberals seek government intervention for every unequal outcome.

But Paul never settles down and to make the argument. Rachel Maddow repeatedly raises lunch counters, and it would have really pleased me if Paul had just made the case for private sector discrimination. Frankly, I can see the outlines of the argument and am not totally unsympathetic to it. Indeed, I think there's a beautiful justice that's visited upon the random politician who, to this very day, is routinely exposed as belonging to a white country club. There's a kind of social sanction in that embarrassment that I don't think the law can bring. (That said, I trust the people who were actually there more than my own abstract theorizing.)

But what about red-lining? Does Paul know anything about blockbusting? Does he think banks should be able to have a policy of not lending to black businesses? Does he think real-estate agents should be able to discriminate? Does he think private homeowner groups should be able to band together and keep out blacks? Jews? Gays? Latinos?

I kept waiting for Maddow to say."OK these guys are sitting at a lunch counter that won't serve them.  The owner calls the police to remove them.  Should the police arrest them or refuse to intervene in a private dispute over private racism?"

Sure. They're on private property. As long as the police are to protect private property rights, shouldn't they?

To borrow from the wise Rachel Maddow: I'm against high cholesterol, but I am for the right of any of you to eat fried cheese.

So do private property rights trump the right of a black guy to eat lunch at the establishment of his choice?

Just as they should allow the racist guy on the street to invite everyone on his block to his party except for the black guy.

Just as they should allow for a restaurant to elect to seat a famous person before others.

Just as they should allow for a small town strip club in what used to be a school in downstate Illinois to continue operating.

Just as they should allow Tom Ricketts to put whatever signage he wants inside his building.

Just as they should allow private businesses to set rules for decorum inside its doors.

Just as they should allow owners of private businesses to do the right thing as well.

Again, the constraints should be placed on government before it's placed on the people.

So the Government is overreaching in denying marriage to certain individuals? While churches certainly have the right (under the 1st Amendment) to now recognize same-sex marriage, the Libertarian doctrine, as I understand it, dictates the Governement allow everyone to get married.

Yeah, pretty much. I don't give two shits if Bort and Thrill wanna commit to each other. Not my business, not the government's business. Unless one of them queers hits on me.

Not even sure if the gummint needs to be in the marriage business at all. But that's just me.

With an attitude like that, what's stopping Gil from marrying his cousin, or TDubbs from marrying his dog?

[Tinker to Evers to Chance]

I tell you, I won't live in a town that robs men of the right to marry their cousins.

[Gilgamesh]

Another lefty hit job on libertarianism:

So is Rand Paul a racist? No, and it's irritating to watch his out-of-context quotes -- this and a comment about how golf was no longer for elitists because Tiger Woods plays golf -- splashed on the Web to make that point. Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses. Those businesses, as Paul argues, take a risk by maintaining, in this example, racist policies. Patrons can decide whether or not to give them their money, or whether or not to make a fuss about their policies. That, not government regulation and intervention, is how bias should be eliminated in the private sector. And in this belief Paul is joined by some conservatives who resent that liberals seek government intervention for every unequal outcome.

But Paul never settles down and to make the argument. Rachel Maddow repeatedly raises lunch counters, and it would have really pleased me if Paul had just made the case for private sector discrimination. Frankly, I can see the outlines of the argument and am not totally unsympathetic to it. Indeed, I think there's a beautiful justice that's visited upon the random politician who, to this very day, is routinely exposed as belonging to a white country club. There's a kind of social sanction in that embarrassment that I don't think the law can bring. (That said, I trust the people who were actually there more than my own abstract theorizing.)

But what about red-lining? Does Paul know anything about blockbusting? Does he think banks should be able to have a policy of not lending to black businesses? Does he think real-estate agents should be able to discriminate? Does he think private homeowner groups should be able to band together and keep out blacks? Jews? Gays? Latinos?

I kept waiting for Maddow to say."OK these guys are sitting at a lunch counter that won't serve them.  The owner calls the police to remove them.  Should the police arrest them or refuse to intervene in a private dispute over private racism?"

Sure. They're on private property. As long as the police are to protect private property rights, shouldn't they?

To borrow from the wise Rachel Maddow: I'm against high cholesterol, but I am for the right of any of you to eat fried cheese.

So do private property rights trump the right of a black guy to eat lunch at the establishment of his choice?

Just as they should allow the racist guy on the street to invite everyone on his block to his party except for the black guy.

Just as they should allow for a restaurant to elect to seat a famous person before others.

Just as they should allow for a small town strip club in what used to be a school in downstate Illinois to continue operating.

Just as they should allow Tom Ricketts to put whatever signage he wants inside his building.

Just as they should allow private businesses to set rules for decorum inside its doors.

Just as they should allow owners of private businesses to do the right thing as well.

Again, the constraints should be placed on government before it's placed on the people.

So the Government is overreaching in denying marriage to certain individuals? While churches certainly have the right (under the 1st Amendment) to now recognize same-sex marriage, the Libertarian doctrine, as I understand it, dictates the Governement allow everyone to get married.

Yeah, pretty much. I don't give two shits if Bort and Thrill wanna commit to each other. Not my business, not the government's business. Unless one of them queers hits on me.

Not even sure if the gummint needs to be in the marriage business at all. But that's just me.

With an attitude like that, what's stopping Gil from marrying his cousin, or TDubbs from marrying his dog?

or pedophiles from teaching in schools?

[Bort]

I tell you, I won't live in a town that robs men of the right to marry their cousins.

TECbyville Manhattan has spoken!

[Quality Start Machine]

Obama in bed with Big Oil? You betcha!

[Brownie]

Everyone must be playing Pac Man on Google or something, but just one final counterargument explaining the silliness of suggesting libertarians support Jim Crow:

[...] But none of that changes the fact that we're talking primarily about state action, not about some failure of the free market.

Isn't it the state that's going to be responsible for hauling the Blue Gums out of one's sacred, likely rented and otherwise state-licensed lunch counter?

Possibly. Of course, they could rely on private security to determine who can be on the privately-owned (or privately-rented) premises. If Tom Ricketts tomorrow decided that eating bologna in the left-field bleachers is grounds for ejection, it won't be Chicago Police that will be hauling the voice of the fan out of the ballpark.

A couple points to consider:

1) Plessy v. Ferguson was not a case where the railroad's right to serve whom it wanted was upheld. Au contraire. The railroad, apparently not getting the memo about how many whites would stop riding the train, attempted to sell Plessy a train ticket.
2) The Woolworth lunch counters were desegregated during the Eisenhower Administration, and not by government action.

[Gilgamesh]

Interesting decision on American Needle.  Interesting meaning unanimous in support of American Needle against the NFL.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AnKEPRNh3mHqN3yzyIjYvUtDubYF?slug=ap-supremecourt-nfl

This will be a big factor for the upcoming NHL and NFL negotiations.

[PenPho]

Interesting decision on American Needle.  Interesting meaning unanimous in support of American Needle against the NFL.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AnKEPRNh3mHqN3yzyIjYvUtDubYF?slug=ap-supremecourt-nfl

This will be a big factor for the upcoming NHL and NFL negotiations.

So, a few questions on this...

1. Does this mean that certain teams can sell their marketing/licensing rights to the highest bidders?
2. Could this affect NCAA sports as well?

[Gilgamesh]

Interesting decision on American Needle.  Interesting meaning unanimous in support of American Needle against the NFL.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AnKEPRNh3mHqN3yzyIjYvUtDubYF?slug=ap-supremecourt-nfl

This will be a big factor for the upcoming NHL and NFL negotiations.

So, a few questions on this...

1. Does this mean that certain teams can sell their marketing/licensing rights to the highest bidders?
2. Could this affect NCAA sports as well?

Depending on the district court retrial, yes.
Yes, they were amici in the suit in favor of the NFL.

[ChuckD]

Obama in bed with Big Oil? You betcha!

Stolen shamelessly from Reddit:

Sometimes I just don't get Sarah Palin. She sleeps with a guy who worked for BP for eighteen years but accuses Obama of being in bed with big oil. Go figure.

http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/c7kod/a_friend_dropped_this_gem_today_sometimes_i_just/

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Everyone must be playing Pac Man on Google or something, but just one final counterargument explaining the silliness of suggesting libertarians support Jim Crow:

[...] But none of that changes the fact that we're talking primarily about state action, not about some failure of the free market.

Isn't it the state that's going to be responsible for hauling the Blue Gums out of one's sacred, likely rented and otherwise state-licensed lunch counter?

Possibly. Of course, they could rely on private security to determine who can be on the privately-owned (or privately-rented) premises.

True.

But, insofar as private security relies on legitimate use of force (or the credible threat thereof) to carry out such work, their work relies on use of force delegated to them by the state, which (per Max Weber's definition) necessarily maintains a successful claim on a monopoly of legitimate use of force over its territory.

(Of course, in our republic, the state's claim on force derives from the legitimacy afforded it by the people. But this doesn't change the fact that it is the state that delegates and legitimates use of force. It merely changes how it does so.)

The point is... Unless you're talking about dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely (which is a whole different can of anarcho-capitalist thunderdome worms), it is still the state that is legitimating the use of force, however private the actors may be.

[Wheezer]

If Tom Ricketts tomorrow decided that eating bologna in the left-field bleachers is grounds for ejection, it won't be Chicago Police that will be hauling the voice of the fan out of the ballpark.

Well, it would be if Al had his way.

Put police officers in the bleachers. I have not been to the new Yankee Stadium, but in the old Yankee Stadium bleachers -- where I sat at least 15 times during the 1990's and 2000's -- there were both plainclothes and uniformed NYC police officers. If you broke the rules or broke the law, one of these officers would say, "Come with me." If it was serious enough for arrest, they'd arrest you, but on most of these occasions, they would simply escort you out. No questions, no conversation, no excuses.