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

[R-V]

Let's say a black family's car breaks down in a small town with only one motel. In the libertarian paradise, the owner of this motel (let's just call him Tdubbs' Uncle) has the right to refuse to provide lodging to this family. Is it acceptable that the family should have to sleep in their car so Tdubbs' Uncle's can maintain his absolute property rights?

[Chuck to Chuck]

Let's say a black family's car breaks down in a small town with only one motel. In the libertarian paradise, the owner of this motel (let's just call him Tdubbs' Uncle) has the right to refuse to provide lodging to this family. Is it acceptable that the family should have to sleep in their car so Tdubbs' Uncle's can maintain his absolute property rights?

Yes.  If there was no hotel, but a boarding house in a private residence, should the owner be forced to take someone in who is stranded?

[Chuck to Chuck]

So then was the Government overstepping its authority by violating the 10th Amendment in emancipating slaves?

The power to emancipate the slaves was delegated to the United States by the Constitution via the 13th Amendment.

[CBStew]

So then was the Government overstepping its authority by violating the 10th Amendment in emancipating slaves?

The power to emancipate the slaves was delegated to the United States by the Constitution via the 13th Amendment.

I am certain that the Libertarians of the 19th century argued, just as Mr. Paul argues today, that they abhor slavery, but that the Government should not step in to prevent private ownership of human beings.   

[Chuck to Chuck]

Cut the budget!

http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/

[Quality Start Machine]

So then was the Government overstepping its authority by violating the 10th Amendment in emancipating slaves?

The power to emancipate the slaves was delegated to the United States by the Constitution via the 13th Amendment.

13 wasn't ratified until after Lincoln was dead. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.

[fiveouts]

So then was the Government overstepping its authority by violating the 10th Amendment in emancipating slaves?

The power to emancipate the slaves was delegated to the United States by the Constitution via the 13th Amendment.

13 wasn't ratified until after Lincoln was dead. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.

The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves in those states that had left the union, and since they considered themselves to be a separate country, it didn't really apply to anyone. 

[CT III]

So then was the Government overstepping its authority by violating the 10th Amendment in emancipating slaves?

The power to emancipate the slaves was delegated to the United States by the Constitution via the 13th Amendment.

13 wasn't ratified until after Lincoln was dead. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.

The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves in those states that had left the union, and since they considered themselves to be a separate country, it didn't really apply to anyone. 

Uh, yes it did.

[Wheezer]

Let's say a black family's car breaks down in a small town with only one motel. In the libertarian paradise, the owner of this motel (let's just call him Tdubbs' Uncle) has the right to refuse to provide lodging to this family. Is it acceptable that the family should have to sleep in their car so Tdubbs' Uncle's can maintain his absolute property rights?

Yes.  If there was no hotel, but a boarding house in a private residence, should the owner be forced to take someone in who is stranded?

Which, in effect, is an argument that hotels should be like boarding houses, including the elimination of public-safety requirements and the tyranny of having to put locks on doors.

[Gilgamesh]

So then was the Government overstepping its authority by violating the 10th Amendment in emancipating slaves?

The power to emancipate the slaves was delegated to the United States by the Constitution via the 13th Amendment.

13 wasn't ratified until after Lincoln was dead. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.

The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves in those states that had left the union, and since they considered themselves to be a separate country, it didn't really apply to anyone. 

This is a joke, right?  My color blindedness is preventing me from seeing your green font, I think.

[fiveouts]

So then was the Government overstepping its authority by violating the 10th Amendment in emancipating slaves?

The power to emancipate the slaves was delegated to the United States by the Constitution via the 13th Amendment.

13 wasn't ratified until after Lincoln was dead. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.

The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves in those states that had left the union, and since they considered themselves to be a separate country, it didn't really apply to anyone.  

This is a joke, right?  My color blindedness is preventing me from seeing your green font, I think.

The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to ten states, none of whom Lincoln had jurisdiction over at the time.  None of the Northern slaves were freed by the Proclamation, and only the part of Virginia that remained loyal to the South was named as an applicable area for freedom.  The Proclamation didn't really apply to the South until 1865, when Sherman ran roughshod over their asses.  

"We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."--William Seward, Secretary of State under Lincoln

[Brownie]

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

And, by "people" what we really mean is "business owners."

A business owner is a person. So yeah, we mean business owners can protect their property as much as non-business-owning people can protect theirs.

So then was the Government overstepping its authority by violating the 10th Amendment in emancipating slaves?

You're confusing Federalism and Libertarianism. Bruce Bartlett did. You can be a Federalist and a Commie and you can have a broader view of the Constitution and be a libertarian.

If you believe the power of government need to be constrained to protect the rights of the individual, I'm not sure how you can make a case for involuntary servitude.

[Bort]

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

And, by "people" what we really mean is "business owners."

A business owner is a person. So yeah, we mean business owners can protect their property as much as non-business-owning people can protect theirs.

So then was the Government overstepping its authority by violating the 10th Amendment in emancipating slaves?

You're confusing Federalism and Libertarianism. Bruce Bartlett did. You can be a Federalist and a Commie and you can have a broader view of the Constitution and be a libertarian.

If you believe the power of government need to be constrained to protect the rights of the individual, I'm not sure how you can make a case for involuntary servitude.

T. J. is right. There is not a single form of Libertarianism across either the left or right end of the spectrum that does not believe that all labor relationships must be entered into voluntarily. Whether you are a Rothbardian Libertarian, an Anarcho-Syndicalist, a Stirnerite, or an Anarcho-Communist, no one can force you to labor for another.

[SKO]

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

And, by "people" what we really mean is "business owners."

A business owner is a person. So yeah, we mean business owners can protect their property as much as non-business-owning people can protect theirs.

So then was the Government overstepping its authority by violating the 10th Amendment in emancipating slaves?

You're confusing Federalism and Libertarianism. Bruce Bartlett did. You can be a Federalist and a Commie and you can have a broader view of the Constitution and be a libertarian.

If you believe the power of government need to be constrained to protect the rights of the individual, I'm not sure how you can make a case for involuntary servitude.

T. J. is right. There is not a single form of Libertarianism across either the left or right end of the spectrum that does not believe that all labor relationships must be entered into voluntarily. Whether you are a Rothbardian Libertarian, an Anarcho-Syndicalist, a Stirnerite, or an Anarcho-Communist, no one can force you to labor for another.

This. That, and they believe that people who just wanna have fun should be allowed to do everything within their rights to have that fun, as it's all they really want.

[Wheezer]

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

And, by "people" what we really mean is "business owners."

A business owner is a person. So yeah, we mean business owners can protect their property as much as non-business-owning people can protect theirs.

I don't count corporate entities as natural persons, nor is it reasonable to presume that business owners are not lessors. The point, however, was that the discrimination-is-no-problem argument places the rights of the "nation of shopkeepers" in a supervenient position to those of the "people of customers."