How would we ever survive here without 'robinred' popping in to play his role as the self-appointed adult in the room?

Anyway, unless things other than Sam's name were redacted on the last page (and it appears that isn't the case), Good Face's comment seems like child's play compared to the huge amounts of vitriol regularly heaped by the lefties here, which is usually led by none other than Sam. And as for putting "tribalism" aside — physician, heal thyself. The next time I see you or some other lefty run to Jim because another lefty is being nasty will be the first.

You don't get it. SH is often very snarky, as you are, and if the TOS were rigorously enforced, he would get nailed for it a lot more often, as you would. But what Face did in that case was different for a couple of reasons, and Furtado explained why. Also, SH actually grasps the "get what you give" concept and regularly exchanges insults with DJS and DMN without "running to Jim."

IOW the nonviolent movement that spurred a sea change in our country's racial mores should have been cast aside and replaced by an earlier version of the Black Panthers.

Yeah, that would've been an absolutely brilliant piece of political strategy, because an integrated busload of civil rights demonstrators going from city to city, openly violating all the local Jim Crow laws while waving their six shooters and their NRA membership cards, would have never, ever brought about any unintended consequences, either on the ground or in the legislatures. There was nothing that evoked white admiration in the 1960's more than scenes like this or this.

There are a lot of contexts in which non-violence is overrated.

But not in this case, unless you think that shootouts that you'll never win are some sort of winning strategy.

Beyond that, if I was a black person in the Jim Crow South, "white admiration" would have been the least of my concerns.

Except that in this case, the entire point of the Freedom Rides, and the nonviolent movement in general, was to win the "admiration" of that part of white America that might demand that Congress pass some civil rights laws with actual teeth.** I realize it's too much to ask of you and David to actually study a bit of history rather than just reflexively reaching for your generic talking points, but without white "admiration" in the form that I'm talking about, blacks would still be stuck in the same rut that they were in 1961.

For the record, the most famous case of "Negroes With Guns" during that time period was that of Robert Williams of Monroe, North Carolina. He took up arms to defend nonviolent black demonstrators, got framed by the local police for a crime he didn't commit (big surprise there), and by the time it was all over he'd wound up in Cuba and China, making "Radio Free Dixie" broadcasts from Havana which we sometimes used to listen to in North Carolina when the reception wasn't scrambled. It's not that Williams wasn't morally justified in what he did, considering the provocation, but as a political strategist he made Mitt Romney and Michael Dukakis look like Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan.

**Not even you could be clueless enough to think that we could have gotten the 1964 and 1965 bills passed with the support of black legislators alone. You've said some strange things here in your time, but that one might be a stretch even for you.

You don't get it. SH is often very snarky, as you are, and if the TOS were rigorously enforced, he would get nailed for it a lot more often, as you would. But what Face did in that case was different for a couple of reasons, and Furtado explained why. Also, SH actually grasps the "get what you give" concept and regularly exchanges insults with DJS and DMN without "running to Jim."

No, I get it perfectly. Our resident Alinsky wannabe, like most Alinsky wannabes, is great at giving and not so great at taking. Likewise, the lefties here not only have no problem when other lefties cross various lines of comportment, but they generally cheer such comments. But on the rare occasions when a non-liberal stoops to that level, the BBTF Left makes a big show of being aghast at the violation of decorum. It would be silly if it weren't so shameless and hypocritical.

I didn't see you or anyone else running to Jim when Voxter was (absurdly) calling me "Eichmann" a couple weeks ago, but now a little hyperbole on the part of Good Face is enough to send Sam running to Jim? How absurd.

and if the TOS were rigorously enforced, he would get nailed for it a lot more often, as you would.

Well, you're half right. If the TOS were rigorously enforced here, Sam would have been banned years ago. As for the "as you would" part, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and do an accounting of the vitriol in some of these political threads, especially from the pre-election months? We both know you won't do so, because you know you wouldn't like what you'd find. You prefer to float in here and claim from on high — like a liberal who blames society instead of the specific offenders — that both sides are equally guilty of such violations. I couldn't care less if people call me names, but the hypocrisy and childishness inherent in this whole spectacle is laughable.

Except that in this case, the entire point of the Freedom Rides, and the nonviolent movement in general, was to win the "admiration" of that part of white America that might demand that Congress pass some civil rights laws with actual teeth.** I realize it's too much to ask of you and David to actually study a bit of history rather than just reflexively reaching for your generic talking points, but without white "admiration" in the form that I'm talking about, blacks would still be stuck in the same rut that they were in 1961.

If your rights are being trampled and your strategy is centered on winning the "admiration" of the people doing the trampling, I'd say your strategy stinks.

Schools and buses and lunch counters were integrated in the Jim Crow South because of legal and legislative victories backed by the power of guns, not because black people won the "admiration" of bigots.

Joe crediting the power of government to change people's minds and attitudes is a new one.

Joe crediting the power of government to change people's minds and attitudes is a new one.

I didn't say anything about government changing people's minds and attitudes.

Schools and buses and lunch counters were integrated in the Jim Crow South because of legal and legislative victories backed by the power of guns, not because black people won the "admiration" of bigots.

yes, but do't you people also view those legal rulings as examples of illegitimate judicial activism. and don't you people also view those legislative victories as examples of illegitimate government overreach.


also, again, when you use phrases like "backed by the power of guns", i cannot help but think that you view america in the same way that mel gibson viewed the world in mad max.

yes, but do't you people also view those legal rulings as examples of illegitimate judicial activism. and don't you people also view those legislative victories as examples of illegitimate government overreach.

No, I can't recall the last time I saw a right-winger citing Plessy as an example of great jurisprudence.

also, again, when you use phrases like "backed by the power of guns", i cannot help but think that you view america in the same way that mel gibson viewed the world in mad max.

Green avatars on Twitter didn't bring democracy to Iran. Guns might have.

Likewise, the U.S. Constitution is only as good as the people's ability to defend the rights and principles therein.

No, I can't recall the last time I saw a right-winger citing Plessy as an example of great jurisprudence.

that's a clever dodge, but it's not at all related to your original point, which concerned integration, not segregation.



also, that's a great use of weasel language ("i can't recall..."), since i'm pretty sure that you are familiar with the fact that strom thurmond was a right winger who did hold up plessy v. ferguson as an example of great jurisprudence.

Green avatars on Twitter didn't bring democracy to Iran. Guns might have.

i don't disagree. and i actually am in favor of personal ownership of guns.

however, this is not iran. and even in 1954, this was not iran.

Likewise, the U.S. Constitution is only as good as the people's ability to defend the rights and principles therein.

would those rights include being able to go see a christopher nolan movie without getting shot?
or being able to go to worship at a sikh temple without getting shot?
or being able to go to a political rally without getting shot?
or being able to go to kindergarten without getting shot?


or, to be less inflammatory, how about being able to exercise your right to vote, without being removed from the voting rolls prior to the election, or without being harassed by police, or without having to wait 4 hours at a DMV to get a photo ID which has never before been a requirement for casting a ballot?

that's a clever dodge, but it's not at all related to your original point, which concerned integration, not segregation.

It wasn't a dodge at all. You referenced "legal rulings"; if not Plessy and Brown, et al., to which rulings were you referring?

also, that's a great use of weasel language ("i can't recall..."), since i'm pretty sure that you are familiar with the fact that strom thurmond was a right winger who did hold up plessy v. ferguson as an example of great jurisprudence.

Strom Thurmond? He's been dead for almost a decade, and he was little more than a GOP mascot for a decade or so before he died.

We both know you won't do so, because you know you wouldn't like what you'd find.

And we both know that you don't have what it takes to own the implications of your own words, or to connect them to how people talk to you, so this whole line of conversation is a non-starter for you, which is why, rather than thinking about it and dealing with it, you are instead insulting me in various ways.

As to the comps between what Face did and other stuff you are bringing up: again, it is right there in what Furtado wrote when he made the call. It wasn't about liberals or conservatives, or about me and you, or about cumulative accountings of snark by people of various ideologies. You are taking the situation there on your own.

And, sure, if the TOS were rigorously enforced, (and I am not saying that would be a good idea) SH and some others on all bands of the ideological spectrum would have been gone awhile back or would have had to make some changes. And you and Face would be right in the middle of that group.

Green avatars on Twitter didn't bring democracy to Iran. Guns might have.

Which is interesting, given that civilians can openly carry guns in Iran.

there isn't much correlation between gun ownership and democracy, amongst the top 25% of gun owning country per capita we see a bunch of Middle Eastern and Balkan country, meanwhile, amongst the country that DID bring Democracy from Tyranny, we see Tunisia rank LAST amongst guns per capita.

Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation, but when you don't even have correlation...

Racism: Apparently just fine as long as the government doesn't mandate it!

Nice strawman. I think I've made it very clear that there's nothing "just fine" about racism. I just don't see it as the government's proper role to solve the problem by legislating decency, even if it makes the country a better place.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

I meant exactly what I said. For the 500 years or so of a so-called "all comers" philosophy on accommodations, we had segregation, "No Jews and Dogs allowed," and a bunch of "we don't like your kind here" in general as fairly common policy. I'm not defending the behavior in a moral sense, but whether it was codified into law or not, the sense of an obligation to treat all people as welcome customers was nothing like a generally accepted policy in a practical sense.

The public accommodations portion of the Civil Rights Act was fairly groundbreaking, and certainly worthy of respect for its motivations.

And we both know that you don't have what it takes to own the implications of your own words, or to connect them to how people talk to you, so this whole line of conversation is a non-starter for you, which is why, rather than thinking about it and dealing with it, you are instead insulting me in various ways.

I'll give this an "LOL" and leave it at that, since the idea that I don't own my comments here is incorrect to the point of being delusional.

As to the comps between what Face did and other stuff you are bringing up: again, it is right there in what Furtado wrote when he made the call. It wasn't about liberals or conservatives, or about me and you, or about cumulative accountings of snark by people of various ideologies. You are taking the situation there on your own.

Adolf Eichmann was directly responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews. When Voxter called me "Eichmann" a couple weeks ago, that was far more slanderous than anything The Good Face did on the last page, and yet all I saw from you and the lefties here was ... silence. You'll have to forgive me for not seeing you in the same way you seem to see yourself — i.e., as BBTF's Great Arbiter.

And, sure, if the TOS were rigorously enforced, (and I am not saying that would be a good idea) SH and some others on all bands of the ideological spectrum would have been gone awhile back or would have had to make some changes. And you and Face would be right in the middle of that group.

Yeah, my calling liberals "lefties" is the same as Sam threatening neck-stabbings, talking about giving libertarians a "double tap" to the head, and using copious insults and profanity on a near-daily basis. Get serious.

would those rights include being able to go see a christopher nolan movie without getting shot?
or being able to go to worship at a sikh temple without getting shot?
or being able to go to a political rally without getting shot?
or being able to go to kindergarten without getting shot?

Sure. Without a doubt, the U.S. needs to do a better job of identifying and detaining people who are mentally ill to the point of being a danger to themselves and others. If only the ACLU and other liberals would get on board.

or, to be less inflammatory, how about being able to exercise your right to vote, without being removed from the voting rolls prior to the election, or without being harassed by police, or without having to wait 4 hours at a DMV to get a photo ID which has never before been a requirement for casting a ballot?

Eligible U.S. citizens have the right to vote. It's not at all clear that they have the right to vote without ID, or the right to a no-wait appointment at the DMV.

It wasn't a dodge at all. You referenced "legal rulings"; if not Plessy and Brown, et al., to which rulings were you referring?

well, no. you said "Schools and buses and lunch counters were integrated in the Jim Crow South because of legal and legislative victories...". i referenced your reference, which was pretty clearly not at all related to plessy. either your wording was poor and you did not literally say what you thought you said (there's no moral judgment there, that can happen to anyone) or you were deliberately attempting to weasel away from your previous statement without giving the appearance of actually weaseling away.

Strom Thurmond? He's been dead for almost a decade, and he was little more than a GOP mascot for a decade or so before he died.

and again, that's another very clever dodge, except for the fact that if strom thurmond were still alive, he'd be in lock-step with the GOP base on most every issue.


the fact is, the legal and legislative defense of segregation was based on the same sets of principles and ideas and beliefs that the modern republican party now uses to define its own platform. to suggest anything else is just a shell game.

Sure. Without a doubt, the U.S. needs to do a better job of identifying and detaining people who are mentally ill to the point of being a danger to themselves and others. If only the ACLU and other liberals would get on board.

yes, damn those liberals for defunding federal mental health facilities and programs in the 1980s.

oh wait, that wasn't liberals. that was ronald reagan. hmmm...

ronald reagan? he's been dead for almost a decade and he was little more than a GOP mascot for a decade or so before he died.

Which is interesting, given that civilians can openly carry guns in Iran.

According to a study by Dave Kopel, et al., of firearm ownership in 59 countries, there are only 0.053 firearms per citizen in Iran, while there are roughly 0.5 firearms per citizen in Finland and Switzerland and 0.90 firearms per citizen in the U.S.

there isn't much correlation between gun ownership and democracy, amongst the top 25% of gun owning country per capita we see a bunch of Middle Eastern and Balkan country, meanwhile, amongst the country that DID bring Democracy from Tyranny, we see Tunisia rank LAST amongst guns per capita.

Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation, but when you don't even have correlation...

I don't know what you used as your source, but the above is fairly ludicrous. Using the list of per capita gun ownership at Wikipedia, I see maybe three countries in the top 25 that might be considered a "tyranny."

Right. Saying that an American values Israel's goals over those of the U.S. isn't an accusation of dual loyalty. Sure, Sam.

Wouldn't an American politician who 'values Israel's goals over those of the U.S.' and who acts on that value in his behavior and votes as a politician be guilty of treasonous behavior?

As for large capital investments, most people would probably be better off paying those items in full if they had the means to do so.

But, isn't this entirely dependent on the inflation rate, current and expected income, expected appreciation of the large capital investment, and the interest rate on the debt?

There are far too many key factors to say it's simply a good or bad idea.

well, no. you said "Schools and buses and lunch counters were integrated in the Jim Crow South because of legal and legislative victories backed...". i referenced your reference, which was pretty clearly not at all related to plessy. either your wording was poor and you did not literally say what you thought you said (there's no moral judgment there, that can happen to anyone) or you were deliberately attempting to weasel away from your previous statement without giving the appearance of actually weaseling away.

What are you talking about? Plessy upheld the concept of "separate but equal" that was overturned in Brown.

and again, that's another very clever dodge, except for the fact that if strom thurmond were still alive, he'd be in lock-step with the GOP base on most every issue.

LOL. You accused me of using "weasel language" because Strom Thurmond — who died about a decade ago — didn't immediately come to mind when I was writing a comment above, but now you're using "if he were still alive" with a straight face? That's just bizarre.

the fact is, the legal and legislative defense of segregation was based on the same sets of principles and ideas and beliefs that the modern republican party now uses to define its own platform.

Ah, now I see what was going on. Your initial comments were just a warm-up before your usual performance art.

yes, damn those liberals for defunding federal mental health facilities and programs in the 1980s.

oh wait, that wasn't liberals. that was ronald reagan. hmmm...

It wasn't Ronald Reagan who put seriously mentally ill people out on the streets; that was mostly the result of ACLU-backed lawsuits in the 1970s. Nice try, though.

just to have a small bit of fun, do you see any conflict within these 3 statements that you have made?

the U.S. Constitution is only as good as the people's ability to defend the rights and principles therein.

Without a doubt, the U.S. needs to do a better job of identifying and detaining people who are mentally ill to the point of being a danger to themselves and others. If only the ACLU and other liberals would get on board.

It wasn't Ronald Reagan who put seriously mentally ill people out on the streets; that was mostly the result of ACLU-backed lawsuits in the 1970s. Nice try, though.

because, it seems to me as if you believe that people who are "mentally ill" should be detained without having committed a crime, solely on the basis of whether they are deemed - by someone. who, i don't know? - to be a danger to themselves or others, and further, whether their illness is declared rightly or wrongly, that once it is declared, they should have no further right to legal representation.


because, if that's what you're suggesting, it would seem to be in stark contrast to your first statement, which is, again:

the U.S. Constitution is only as good as the people's ability to defend the rights and principles therein.

No it's not and your stated policy preferences over the years are proof of that, your response shows the real problem with libertarians, most of you are simply full of #### when you claim to want liberty- some do, some don't, obviously you are one of the ones who is full of it

Wouldn't maximization of liberty be a fundamentally utilitarian philosophy?

One would necessarily argue that liberty is the highest happiness, or good, then work on ways to maximize that greatest good for the greatest number. Libertarians, then, shouldn't be arguing that their primary interest is in maximizing liberty (and I don't know that they do so argue).

-----------------------

Speaking of our righties, they had a point. In a previous thread there was discussion of how badly defenders of the Duke lacrosse team were slammed. I recently participated in a discussion on rape and its prevalence and was interested in getting accurate statistics on rape in the U.S. Simply taking an interest in those facts got me harassed by multiple parties as "pro-rape".

As I researched I began to notice how many organizations, studies, and websites were conflating rape, attempted rape, and sexual assault under the heading of rape; catcalling as sexual assault; and non-contact behavior (otherwise undefined) as sexual violence, I was phyically threatened.

It was then that I ran into Amanda Murcotte who, during the Duke lacrosse case, announced anyone defending the players were 'pro-rape scum,' something that lingers on her wikipedia page. It appears to be a common accusation levied against anyone interested in the facts of rape. And I don't mean it's an occasional accusation. It's actually common, in my experience.

Ah, now I see what was going on.

Also new.

This - the conflation of rights of the person/body as equal to or tautological with the rights to control property - is the fundamental flaw in libertarian thinking.

Your body is your property; it's the most fundamental piece of property you own. All your other rights stem from that right to control your body.

Catching up ...

Interesting how liberals lament that majority rule brought with it Jim Crow laws, but now want the Second Amendment — which, incidentally, could have helped ensure that the Freedom Riders weren't "risking their lives" simply by riding a bus, and will help to ensure that future unpopular or oppressed people/groups won't have to face similar threats while defenseless — to be run through the shredder.

Assumes so many stupid things it is amazing there was room in the paragraph. Liberals know there needs to be a balance between rights and authorities, and in the Jim Crow south the US government fell down on the job and allowed local authorities to enforce their local version of values rather than the societal values (to say nothing of the very real constitutional violations which all Liberals agree should trump simple majority rule). It was not majority rule at a federal level that led to Jim Crow, but a regional majority shamefully one in which the rest of the nation's government was at the very complicit.

The "second amendment" (aka carry guns and wild west your way to rights) way would have been a complete disaster in the south as an attempt to rectify the situation as anyone with half a brain could see (JoeK I can explain it in small words if you like).

Also I do love how any gun law is "running the Second Amendment through the shredder" but we never see similar language regarding various analogous laws regarding search and seizure or voting rights from the loony right. One the Second must stand pure I guess, everything else are just laws, so long as we get our guns. Compensate much?

Finally ...

There are a lot of contexts in which non-violence is overrated.

is exactly the sort of completely unsupported assertion I would expect from Joe. Care to expound on the analogous situations to Jim Crow south which were or should have been solved through violent means rather than non-violent ones?

Regarding Joe K whining about the GF/Sam dust up and Jim's comments.

Sam "whining" to Jim about something said = what a hypocritical wimp.
Joe K "whining" to the internet about above = Joe bravely taking a stand against the hordes of Lefty bullies and hypocrits.

As Joe so often says, LOL.

Seriously dude, if you were offended by something someone said then deal with it, if not then don't. What happened between GF and Sam had nothing to do with you and your whining about it is sad. It is Jim's site and he is pretty darn hands off. I suggest you follow the TOS and if you feel someone has violated it feel free to contact Jim. But using a situation to whine about the mean old lefty cabal just makes you sound desperate.

Regarding China.

Good question. China is very large (duh) which is a blessing and a curse, but from a statistical level you always have to remember it, because in total numbers they are always huge, but the rate stats not so much. To my mind the biggest dangers to China are ...
* Economic growth is not a linear or constant process, and is much easier when the "rate stats" are really low, and gets harder the further along you are.
* Governmental stewardship, especially with little corruption, is critical to continued growth. China is a governmentally corrupt country and that is going to really hinder them going forward.
* Economically authoriatarian regimes do very well historically with industry and much less well with post-industrial economies. Many authoritarian regimes (USSR is a great example) do well on the industry portion of the growth curve, but find the switch to post-industrial economics much harder to handle, this is because heavy industry is much more amenable to authoritarian regulation. It is unclear how well China will be able to handle this transition.
* China is really big and diverse. This means handling long term the impacts of differing regions growing differently, and eventually passing through various stages of growth. China handled factories flowing from outside China into China very well, will it also handle factories leaving one part of China for another as economic conditions within the country change, or will it ossify and allow the first movers enough political leverage to prevent creative destruction within China? It is alwyas easier to have the destruction part of the equation happen elsewhere, can they handle it when it happens in China?
* They have had a really good run, but inevitably rough spots will happen. Can they handle the bad (whatever it happens to be) appropriately? Don't judge how well a country will do over the long haul by their best times, but their worst.

Of course China has much going for it to, so I would not count them out, but I don't think they are destined to be the world power anytime real soon - a world power certainly, but they are already that.

Does this override all rights in your opinion? For example, since the government subsidizes some forms of private university education, does it have the right to tell those private universities what they may or may not teach? Since the government subsidizes the mail service that delivers magazines, does it get to tell the magazine publishers what they are allowed to print?

I am not arguing with the government's intervention in the Jim Crow South. I'm just not sure I agree with your line of reasoning.

All rights? No, I did say they should have some say not total say. For instance if the government gives private universities subsidies then of course it is proper and right that the government would wish to enter into a contract with the private university in order to get those subsidies. Same with magazine publishers. If they wish to use the government's services, i.e. the mail, then they must agree with the government's TOS. Seems only natural that it should be so.


That's an uncomfortably broad statement that could apply to 'activities' you most likely feel the government has no say in.

Well, I'm not writing a law here. I'm posting on a message board.

You don't get it. SH is often very snarky, as you are, and if the TOS were rigorously enforced, he would get nailed for it a lot more often, as you would. But what Face did in that case was different for a couple of reasons, and Furtado explained why. Also, SH actually grasps the "get what you give" concept and regularly exchanges insults with DJS and DMN without "running to Jim."

In 10 or so years of participating in the conversations and discussions on Jim's website, Jim has spoken to me privately about tone and unacceptable comments exactly once, in a thread where Dan and I went at each other in a particularly vicious manner. When Jim contacted me and explained himself, I modified behavior in that thread. It's Jim's house. It's Jim's rules.

I did send a note to Jim yesterday, privately, calling his attention to the attempted Google-bomb of my name. That was the full extent of my "running to Jim." Jim's response and clarifications of the how his Terms of Service will be applied in situations such as that exchange, were fully his own (which is obvious, I'd think.) I would advise people to take note and keep that in mind going forward. It's Jim's house. It's Jim's rules.

To the point above, there's clearly a distinction between the snark and barb-throwing between regulars here (on all sorts of issues, not merely in the OTP threads) and yesterday's attempt to slur my full name via Google-bombing. But it's not my opinion that that is the case that matters. It's Jim's opinion that it was out of line that matters. It's Jim's house. It's Jim's rules.

Your body is your property; it's the most fundamental piece of property you own.

No. Your body is you. You don't own yourself. You are not distinct from your body. It's a senseless statement you make here.

Without property rights, what good do rights of person do you? Without property rights you can't feed, clothe and house yourself.

I'm not arguing against property rights, per se (though I don't support the extreme reading of property rights most of the libertarian brigades put forward.) I'm simply arguing that bodily right - the right to actually control your own body - is primary and greater in scope than secondary and tertiary property rights.

No. Your body is you. You don't own yourself. You are not distinct from your body. It's a senseless statement you make here.

Thank you. I was having a hard time coming up exactly with my problem with the statement and I think you nailed it.

I think one's "personhood" is the moral justification of having rights (for whatever that is worth). Of course where the rights "come from" is much more of a philisophical discussion we have had here before and devolves into "natural rights" and other such topics.

Without property rights you can't feed, clothe and house yourself.

I am curious about this statement. It seems very overbroad, considering there have been human societies without property rights as the West understands them. How does an absence of property rights prevent one from housing oneself?

Expounding on my feelings regarding the Jim Crow south. It was not a philisophical failing (of Liberalism, conservatism, or whatever), it was a failing of governence, of executing the law of the land, and of society.

In my opinion Jim Crow was an abberation where one region was tacitly allowed (for decades) to enforce a different set of fundemental values than the rest of the nation. I think it more than OK for various parts of society to execute a shared vision in different ways, I am not arguing that everyone everywhere is the same. But for fundemental values (like the rights of people), those values have to be consistent or the the society is not coherent.

A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.

Jim Crow was a shadow of slavery that held on far too long and continued to damage the nation over the years.

I think one's "personhood" is the moral justification of having rights (for whatever that is worth).

As do most people. There's a reason Paul Broun (R-GA) and the nutter brigades are pushing through the "personhood" bill to say that a zygote is a 'person.'

Jim Crow was a shadow of slavery that held on far too long and continued to damage the nation over the years.

No, Jim Crow *was* slavery in all but name. There's a great speech given by...damn it. Let me go find it. The point of it being that the "civil rights movement" was in fact simply the last, successful, slave rebellion.

Property is about owning and possessing something outside yourself. To have effect in organized social life, it has to be a legal concept, and legal concepts are artificial creations within a societal context, which of course libertarians deny, and which is why I see them as having a creationist mindset. It makes no ultimate sense and serves no purpose (although it can serve as comparative clarification) to refer to your person as your property, except in a strictly ideologically dogmatic pseudo-religious sense. They can then state their biases as axioms that don't have to be intellectually defended or even explained. Libertarianism is to political philosophy what Intelligent Design is to biology. It allows one to make many gross assumptions without deigning to attempt to prove anything.

No, Jim Crow *was* slavery in all but name.

Jim Crow was bad, terrible and a stain on the US, but no. There is a ton of territory between slavery and a just society. I am willing to argue where exactly Jim Crow falls in the continuum, but it is most certainly not at either end.

Except that in this case, the entire point of the Freedom Rides, and the nonviolent movement in general, was to win the "admiration" of that part of white America that might demand that Congress pass some civil rights laws with actual teeth.** I realize it's too much to ask of you and David to actually study a bit of history rather than just reflexively reaching for your generic talking points, but without white "admiration" in the form that I'm talking about, blacks would still be stuck in the same rut that they were in 1961.


If your rights are being trampled and your strategy is centered on winning the "admiration" of the people doing the trampling, I'd say your strategy stinks.

Except that obtaining that "admiration" was absolutely necessary in order to get the (white) federal government to point its "guns" in the right direction, in the form of civil rights laws with teeth. But perhaps you think that in the early 1960's, black people were running the country and didn't need whites to pass laws.

Schools and buses and lunch counters were integrated in the Jim Crow South because of legal and legislative victories backed by the power of guns, not because black people won the "admiration" of bigots.

Joe, you manage to ratchet up your ignorance with every new comment.

Question: How in the hell do you think that those legislative victories came about in the first place? Do you think that they somehow sprung out of the spontaneous goodness of white folks' hearts?

For instance if the government gives private universities subsidies then of course it is proper and right that the government would wish to enter into a contract with the private university in order to get those subsidies.

We should start with all those religions the government subsidizes.

So, wait...Martin Luther King was wrong? Civil rights and desegregation would have happened more quickly with the threat of violence? Was Gandhi also wrong?

Your body is your property; it's the most fundamental piece of property you own.

As such, laws that prohibit open nudity are far more tyrannical than any taxation. Let's remember who the real victim is here - me, forced to wear pants at gunpoint.

In my opinion Jim Crow was an aberration where one region was tacitly allowed (for decades) to enforce a different set of fundamental values than the rest of the nation.

The problem with that is that differences between the "fundamental values" of the North and the South WRT "the Negro" were but a matter of degree, not kind. To the extent that they were different in kind, those differences existed in but a tiny (and I mean tiny) number of bohemian enclaves in a handful of big cities.

To illustrate this point, James Loewen's Sundown Towns is a comprehensive history of the thousands of cities and towns in America that literally forbade blacks from being within the city limits between sunset and sunrise. The overwhelming majority of these towns were in the North.

So, wait...Martin Luther King was wrong? Civil rights and desegregation would have happened more quickly with the threat of violence? Was Gandhi also wrong?

That certainly seems to be the clear implication of what Joe is saying, although he'll probably now pretend that he didn't really mean it that way. He's the Artfullest Dodger in the history of BTF, bless his heart.

You call that artful?

So, wait...Martin Luther King was wrong? Civil rights and desegregation would have happened more quickly with the threat of violence? Was Gandhi also wrong?

Well yeah, let's compare how well violence is working out in Palestine and how poorly non-violence worked in South Africa. Seriously have you been paying attention? [/snark]

I saw a study (last year I think it was) that after looking at various regime changes basically showed that as soon as the dissidents took up arms, when successful the result (post regime change) was much more oppressive and authoritarian than those where there was not widespread violence.

While not exactly apples-to-apples, when violence comes to play things tend to go downhill fast. If something can be solved non-violently then it should be, and I have no idea why this is even controversial. There are some problems that require violence, but far fewer than where violence is actually applied in my opinion.

Suggesting guns were the reason, even at remove, for the success of the Civil Rights movement, or where in anyway good for the Civil Rights movement is completely ridiculous, as the Reverand Doctor Martin Luther King JR and Robert Kennedy would all be able to explain to Joe.

So, wait...Martin Luther King was wrong? Civil rights and desegregation would have happened more quickly with the threat of violence? Was Gandhi also wrong?

Of course!

Your foolish liberal education system and liberal college indoctrination have led you astray... the common lie you've been taught is that the end of Jim Crow, separate but equal, school segregation, lynchings, and church burnings came about because that namby-pamby King and sundry other pussies like Medgar Evers, Rosa Parks, and the rest of these non-heating packing wimps Oliver Twisted their way into "Please sir, I'd like my rights"...

The truth is that the 'civil rights movement' won the day wayyyyy back in the 1920s -- in Rosewood, Florida. It was there that armed black citizens properly used their 2nd amendment obligations to shoot the whiteys that were clearly violating their civil rights. This proceeded to save dozens of lives, prevented the town from being burned to the ground, caused FDR to tell the southern Dems to take a hike, and passed the famous federal anti-lynching laws that were a cornerstone of the era.

By 1960 - with the advent of Hollywood and the rise of the liberal media - east coast elites who feared a free and armed citizenry, knew that history needed a rewrite.... It would never do to have the end of segregation and a securing of rights come from the end of a gun barrel -- so they concocted the supposed 'Civil Rights era', the 'Freedom Riders', and the rest of this nonsense... They even got John Wayne to put on a few pounds and play a fictional character named Bull Connor.

That certainly seems to be the clear implication of what Joe is saying, although he'll probably now pretend that he didn't really mean it that way. He's the Artfullest Dodger in the history of BTF, bless his heart.

If this is the case then all of those complaints (not necessary from Joe, but from his side of the aisle certainly) that the problem with the Palestinians is that they've never developed a "great leader" like King, Mandela or Gandhi are pretty vapid.

The problem with that is that differences between the "fundamental values" of the North and the South WRT "the Negro" were but a matter of degree, not kind. To the extent that they were different in kind, those differences existed in but a tiny (and I mean tiny) number of bohemian enclaves in a handful of big cities.

I am not arguing there was (and is) not racism throughout the nation, but I think you are either wrong, misunderstanding my point (I'm not being clear), or both. Let me try and explain from the other end.

I believe the Civil Rights movement was successful because it exposed the paradox inherent in Jim Crow south (and obviously other places in the US, but clearly centered in the south). If society as a whole believed in, supported, the values of Jim Crow then how could non-violent protests have helped?

It was because there was a disconnect that the non-violent protests highlighted the disconnect. Prior to that the silent majority was not confronted with what was happening. They could ignore the injustice of Jim Crow because it was not directly in their backyard, they were not actively supporting it.

Non-violent protests forced people to acknowledge that an injustice was happening and that the opporessed had the clear moral high ground according to the shared values of our society. Once that happens then change is inevitable. And this is why violence would have made matters much worse.

Then the violent protestors may have been correct, but by using violence they cede the moral high ground. Now it is a violent struggle between two groups, both of which are making claims that appeal to the shared values and traditions. There would have been many statements about how people sympathized with their plight, still no one could blame the authorities for acting as they were to maintain their society and other similar things that echo what we here from the mideast today.

The non-violent protests exploited the fact that the protesters were in the right and the situation was abhorrent to the national shared value for how people should be treated. If there was no divide, if Jim Crow had been in accordance with the national shared value then people everwhere would have shrugged and said "so what? The specifics are a regional matter to be handled there" and nothing would have changed (well of course there is always change, but it would have been very slow).

If this is the case then all of those complaints (not necessary from Joe, but from his side of the aisle certainly) that the problem with the Palestinians is that they've never developed a "great leader" like King, Mandela or Gandhi are pretty vapid.

I don't think it a moral failing to not be King, Mandela or Gandhi*, but I think it pretty clear the Palestinians would be MUCH better off if there had been such a leader, such a great man and they had gone down the path of non-violence versus where they are today.

* EDIT: They are three of my heroes and are in my opinion truly great examples of humanity. Just as Lincoln is not the bar for being a good president, I don't think those three are the bar for leadership - it is asking too much.

I don't think it a moral failing to no be King, Mandela or Gandhi, but I think it pretty clear the Palestinians would be MUCH better off if there had been such a leader, such a great man and they had gone down the path of non-violence versus where they are today.

And I agree.

My point is that a very popular critique of the Palestinian statehood movement is that they have never managed to generate a great man of peace and wisdom such as King, Mandela, or Gandhi. This is then used as a pivot to explain why Israel is perfectly justified in any action whatsoever against the "barbarian Arabs" or whatnot.

This is at direct odds with the ongoing meme here that what a revolution really requires is ammo and men willing to use it.