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

[Bort]

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.

Not just anarcho-capitalist.

It could be anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, mutualist, agorist, minarchist, and probably about 60 other theories.

[Quality Start Machine]

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.

There must have been some drunk-free secret bleachers in Yankee Stadium that I was completely unaware of. It was a fucking Wild West show out there.

Actually, the Cubs are within their rights to outlaw bologna being brought into the park, as it is an establishment that sells food, therefore they can restrict people bringing in their own.

[Quality Start Machine]

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.

George Steinbrenner and Jerry Jones just passed out from the blood rushing to their boners.

[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.

Not just anarcho-capitalist.

It could be anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, mutualist, agorist, minarchist, and probably about 60 other theories.

Forest for the trees, Jon.

Although, no... Minarchists, as a rule, do not advocate dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely. That's pretty much the very definition of minarchism.

[SKO]

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.

Not just anarcho-capitalist.

It could be anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, mutualist, agorist, minarchist, and probably about 60 other theories.

Forest for the trees, Jon.

Although, no... Minarchists, as a rule, do not advocate dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely. That's pretty much the very definition of minarchism.

As a divine-right absolute monarchist, I claim the monopoly on violence entirely for myself. As ordained by God.

[Bort]

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.

Not just anarcho-capitalist.

It could be anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, mutualist, agorist, minarchist, and probably about 60 other theories.

Forest for the trees, Jon.

Although, no... Minarchists, as a rule, do not advocate dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely. That's pretty much the very definition of minarchism.

Fine, I was tired. Consider them removed. Except that I'm leaving them on the original post out of laziness.

I don't necessarily think you're right about everything devolving into a thunderdome without the government, but if there were a button that dissolved all government right now, I wouldn't push it...yet.

[Bort]

DPD.

I'm not necessarily ANTI-Thunderdome either. In a limited capacity, they could be pretty kickass.

[Tinker to Evers to Chance]

DPD.

I'm not necessarily ANTI-Thunderdome either. In a limited capacity, they could be pretty kickass.

I like to think that there's room for at least a limited use of thunderdome in every system of government.

[Gilgamesh]

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.

Not just anarcho-capitalist.

It could be anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, mutualist, agorist, minarchist, and probably about 60 other theories.

Forest for the trees, Jon.

Although, no... Minarchists, as a rule, do not advocate dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely. That's pretty much the very definition of minarchism.

As a divine-right absolute monarchist, I claim the monopoly on violence entirely for myself. As ordained by God.

"I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective."

[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.

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.

So how does any of this change anything? Underage guy tries to go into a bar; he's denied entrance at the door. Restaurant or nightclub requiring dress code refuses scruffily dressed folks entry. How are they denying entrance? With threat of force.

Maddow says Woolworth lunch counters were a good example of the practicality of the public accommodation rule of the CRA. Except again, consider:

1) The segregation of the lunch counters were lifted in Spring 1960 after peaceful protests (by those protesting the segregation; the counter-protests got ugly).
2) The initial reaction of Woolworth was to simply not serve those who sat at those seats.
3) Police were called in to prevent violence only after counter-protests occurred.

Woolworth desegregated their lunch counters after only a couple months. Woolworth apparently decided they wouldn't lose so many white customers that it wasn't worth serving other customers too.

[Bort]

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.

Not just anarcho-capitalist.

It could be anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, mutualist, agorist, minarchist, and probably about 60 other theories.

Forest for the trees, Jon.

Although, no... Minarchists, as a rule, do not advocate dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely. That's pretty much the very definition of minarchism.

As a divine-right absolute monarchist, I claim the monopoly on violence entirely for myself. As ordained by God.

"I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective."

You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship.  A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--

[Gilgamesh]

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.

Not just anarcho-capitalist.

It could be anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, mutualist, agorist, minarchist, and probably about 60 other theories.

Forest for the trees, Jon.

Although, no... Minarchists, as a rule, do not advocate dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely. That's pretty much the very definition of minarchism.

As a divine-right absolute monarchist, I claim the monopoly on violence entirely for myself. As ordained by God.

"I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective."

You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship.  A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--

Oh, there you go bringing class into it again.

[Bort]

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.

Not just anarcho-capitalist.

It could be anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, mutualist, agorist, minarchist, and probably about 60 other theories.

Forest for the trees, Jon.

Although, no... Minarchists, as a rule, do not advocate dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely. That's pretty much the very definition of minarchism.

As a divine-right absolute monarchist, I claim the monopoly on violence entirely for myself. As ordained by God.

"I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective."

You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship.  A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--

Oh, there you go bringing class into it again.

That's what it's all about if only people would--

[Quality Start Machine]

File this under "What the fuck was she thinking?".

[Gilgamesh]

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.

Not just anarcho-capitalist.

It could be anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, mutualist, agorist, minarchist, and probably about 60 other theories.

Forest for the trees, Jon.

Although, no... Minarchists, as a rule, do not advocate dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely. That's pretty much the very definition of minarchism.

As a divine-right absolute monarchist, I claim the monopoly on violence entirely for myself. As ordained by God.

"I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective."

You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship.  A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--

Oh, there you go bringing class into it again.

That's what it's all about if only people would--

Please, please, good people, I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?