GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/04/19/can-government-make-life-fair-for-gay-people/trackback/

  1. “When government tries to redress a problem, it prevents such companies from developing its own solution.”

    Exactly. Government stepped in on child labor and cut off all of those great ideas that companies were coming up with not to exploit children. And government really got in the way of companies solving that whole civil rights thing, too.

    Comment by DGA — April 19, 2012 @ 9:20 pm - April 19, 2012

  2. Change comes from within. . . Many folk in the GOP are taking the lead to begin the shift.

    And. There are many folk from the highest levels, and all the way down who support the wonderful sentiment from this

    http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l569/rusty98119/97946e6c.jpg

    Comment by rusty — April 19, 2012 @ 9:20 pm - April 19, 2012

  3. I’m a conservative, not a libertarian, so I don’t have a Primary Principle by which to decide every case beforehand, but I definitely lean far more in your direction, that a republican government ought be concerned about preserving liberty before it gets into the eventually disastrous and tyrannical business of ensuring justice and equality by State power and regulation. It seems noble to start out with, but the problem is that it never stops and that leads to the increasingly regulated lives we now live, decided by the highminded politicos and bureaucrats.

    Comment by EssEm — April 19, 2012 @ 9:22 pm - April 19, 2012

  4. As an example, when I rejoiced about the passing of laws banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, I never imagined that two dykes could wind up getting monetary damages from a Christian photographer who did not want to take pictures of their wedding. (This happened in New Mexico and it is not a single example). I have learned by sad experience that “oppressed outsiders” turn into tyrants in about ten minutes.

    Comment by EssEm — April 19, 2012 @ 9:26 pm - April 19, 2012

  5. What does “fair” mean anyway?

    Comment by V the K — April 19, 2012 @ 9:49 pm - April 19, 2012

  6. The government can make life more fair by getting out of the way. When, for example, it tries to make two people who might not be equal equal, it often ends up making the lesser person “more equal” than the other (i.e. it reverses the situation instead of making the two people equal). The government can best provide an equitable system by enforcing only laws that are necessary for ensuring the natural rights that everyone has are not infringed upon.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — April 19, 2012 @ 9:56 pm - April 19, 2012

  7. Can government make life fair for gay people? (Should it?)

    The government’s role in ‘providing fairness’ is (or should be): impartially enforcing individual rights to life, liberty and property. With that understanding in mind, the answer must be ‘yes’.

    But anything else that the government does is, by definition, NOT the impartial enforcement individual rights to life, liberty and property. And is (or inevitably becomes) therefore a *violation* of individual rights to life, liberty and property. Because whenever government does anything, somebody has to pay.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2012 @ 10:52 pm - April 19, 2012

  8. Acceptance is not someting, gubment, can do no matter how tyrannical. Acceptance, can only be achieved at the individual level. There are some LGBT people that I can accept easily and some I will never accept. The same is true of hetero’s. Acceptance is born from the experiences of interaction of individuals over time. Without acceptance we are talking about affirmative action for LGBT people.

    Comment by Richard Bell — April 19, 2012 @ 11:00 pm - April 19, 2012

  9. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fair

    There are only just a few definitions of fair. I’ll allow our society to determine in which “context” we define fair.

    Comment by James Richardson — April 19, 2012 @ 11:05 pm - April 19, 2012

  10. By the way:

    …all of those great ideas that companies were coming up with not to exploit children

    Why yes, DGA. Child labor was >90% ended in the United States – by private companies; that is, by capitalism – BEFORE the first Federal law against it was ever passed.

    Don’t know much about history, do you DGA?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2012 @ 11:25 pm - April 19, 2012

  11. I don’t have a Primary Principle by which to decide every case

    You sound jealous. (kidding ;-) )

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2012 @ 11:50 pm - April 19, 2012

  12. I don’t care by what definition of fair you use if a person seeks liberty first that quarantees the existence of inequality. and if the government cannot quarantee equality then there is no basis to provide fairness in life for anyone regardless of orientation.

    Comment by The Griper — April 20, 2012 @ 12:19 am - April 20, 2012

  13. How about some citations for that preposterous claim ILoveCapitalism? And don’t try to obfuscate with “federal versus state,” because the formulation here is private companies versus government. Any government.

    Why don’t you take a crack at the “capitalism solved civil rights” with some fabricated statistics while you’re at it?

    Also, i’m curious why the original poster comes up with this slippery turn of phrase: “many (if not most) private companies” Why put the “if not most” in parentheses? Because you can’t back it up, perhaps?

    Comment by DGA — April 20, 2012 @ 12:22 am - April 20, 2012

  14. How about some citations

    I’m delighted you asked :-) Way ahead of you, DGA.

    In the 30 seconds it took me to Google “child labor historical statistics”, I came up with this article: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whaples.childlabor

    Here’s the skinny. At the start of the Industrial Revolution, child laborers went to factories because their labor could produce more for their desperate families there, than it could on the farm. In other words: Child labor was, in itself and for that time (the early 1800s), a move forward in living standards. BUT in time, businesses (and the further rises in living standards that they kept creating) put a stop to that as well.

    A few key sentences from Professor Whaples’ article:

    In the colonial period and into the 1800s parents and guardians generally required children to work. Initially most of the population worked in agriculture…

    In other words: Before capitalism came along, child labor was near-universal… on the farm. Only the highest aristocracy could afford to have their kids not work. To continue:

    Because of… low productivity levels, families couldn’t really strike it rich by putting their children to work… The low value of child labor in agriculture may help explain why children were an important source of labor in many early industrial firms. In 1820 children aged 15 and under made up 23 percent of the manufacturing labor force of the industrializing Northeast… Goldin and Sokoloff (1982) conclude, however, that *child labor’s share of industrial employment began its decline as early as 1840*… [In textiles,] despite its declining share – child labor continued to be an important input… *until the early twentieth century*.

    Emphases added. “Until the early twentieth century” – get that? Child labor stopped being important in the textile industry, at (or just after) “the early twentieth century”; 90-100 years ago.

    To continue:

    National statistics on child labor are first available in 1880… [ed: AFTER child labor had ALREADY been declining considerably since 1840; see above]
    The figures below give trends in child labor from 1880 to 1930.
    1880 1900 1930
    Labor force participation rates of children, 10 to 15 years old (percentages)
    Males 32.5 26.1 6.4
    Females 12.2 6.4 2.9

    Let’s understand this. After industrial child labor *already declined* by some unspecified, but surely considerable, amount from 1840 to 1880 – such that only 32% of males and 12% of females were still subjected to it, in 1880 – it declined *another* three-fourths by 1930, such that only 6.4% of males and 2.9% of females were still subjected to it in 1930. I don’t know exactly how much it was abolished in the total move from 1840 (rather than 1880) to 1930, but that it was over 90% seems a foregone conclusion.

    Now, when was the first lasting federal law against child labor, i.e., the first federal law that was not struck down (i.e. found unconstitutional) by court decisions? 1938.

    But there’s more:

    Percentage of 10 to 15 year olds in agricultural employment
    Males 69.9 67.6 74.5
    Females 37.3 74.5 61.5

    Of the little remaining child labor there was, the proportion of it in agriculture went *up*. Which means that in industry, it had to have declined even more!

    For males in 1880: 32.5% of males in child labor, and 69.9% of those in agriculture, makes 9.78% of all male children laboring in industry.
    Males in 1930: 6.4% of males in child labor, and 74.5% of those in agri, makes 1.63% of all male children laboring in industry.
    9.78% to 1.63%, that is a decline of greater than 80%… on a child labor rate that was surprisingly low (9.78%) to begin with.

    Females in 1880: 12.2% in child labor, and 37.7% of those in agri, makes 7.6% of all female children laboring in industry.
    Females in 1930: 2.9% in child labor, and 61.5% of those in agri, makes 1.1% of all female children laboring in industry.
    7.6% to 1.1%, that is a decline of greater than 85%… on a child labor rate that was surprisingly low (7.6%) to begin with.

    So, declines in child labor of greater than 80%, just from 1880 to 1930. And the 1880 numbers were already low-ish, compared to what anti-capitalists might guess – so that the unmeasured decline in child labor from 1840 to 1880, must have already been great.

    It would not surprise me if, in truth, child labor from its 1840 levels in the United States were abolished more like 95, 98 or even 99%, before the first federal law against child labor.

    And don’t try to obfuscate with “federal versus state,”

    Oh wait, you want me to put up with your shifting the goalposts, DGA? Forget it. I said exactly what I meant: “Child labor was >90% ended in the United States – by private companies; that is, by capitalism – BEFORE the first Federal law against it was ever passed.”

    BUT, as it happens and just for good measure, the good Professor Whaples takes care of your little sideshow – State laws – as well:

    Most economic historians conclude that [anti-child labor] legislation was *not* the primary reason for the reduction and virtual elimination of child labor between 1880 and 1940. Instead they point out that industrialization and economic growth brought rising incomes, which allowed parents the luxury of keeping their children out of the work force. In addition, child labor rates have been linked to the expansion of schooling, high rates of return from education, and a decrease in the demand for child labor due to technological changes which increased the skills required in some jobs and allowed machines to take jobs previously filled by children. Moehling (1999) finds that the employment rate of 13-year olds around the beginning of the twentieth century did decline in states that enacted age minimums of 14, but so did the rates for 13-year olds not covered by the restrictions. Overall she finds that *state laws are linked to only a small fraction – if any – of the decline in child labor. It may be that states experiencing declines were therefore more likely to pass legislation, which was largely symbolic.*

    Emphases added. Now please sputter and foam like most liberals would do in this situation, DGA. Dance for me. Maybe try again to move the goalposts again; I will enjoy the laugh.

    In conclusion: Child labor, like slavery, died largely -because of- capitalism. The very point of capitalism, the very thing that gives it its name, is: to intelligently replace grinding, soul-crushing labor with CAPITAL (e.g., machines). As capitalism raises both general living standards, and business technology, it squeezes out firms that rely on inferior forms of labor – such as slaves or children. When it is allowed to work.

    Why don’t you take a crack at the “capitalism solved civil rights” with some fabricated statistics while you’re at it?

    No need to: You are in over your head already, DGA.

    LOL :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 20, 2012 @ 1:18 am - April 20, 2012

  15. DGA, the state prevented companies from “solving”, as you put it, “that whole civil rights thing”. Jim Crow laws, enacted in the 1890s, mandated that private organizations discriminate. And such laws clearly contravene the 14th and 15th amendments to the federal constitution as Justice Harlan made clear in his “Great Dissent” in Plessy v. Ferguson.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 20, 2012 @ 1:24 am - April 20, 2012

  16. DGA,

    I’m responding to your original post, not the comments that have come after it.

    Minors do not have the same rights as adults. They do not have the same right to enter into contracts as an adult and, subsequently, protection of their rights on where they work falls within the proper sphere of the government.

    As for civil rights, I was unaware that private companies were in charge of the public school system or that they, and not the government, passed Jim Crow laws.

    I’m not going to argue that the government has no role in society. It does, but it usually greatly exceeds it (and is often viewed after the fact as having played a more important role in change than is merited). You’re cheery-picking a statement and attacking it as an absolute without taking into consideration the context of the article.

    Comment by CRogers — April 20, 2012 @ 1:30 am - April 20, 2012

  17. Ah yes, Robert Whaples, the far right’s favorite unabashedly far right economic historian. Quote away. And the far right will eat it up.

    And no one else will.

    As for moving the goalposts, that honor belongs to you. The original post is about government, any government…. it was you who tried to limit it to federal government. Oh right, but Whaples helped you out on that one, too. How about looking for somebody a little more… shall we say… neutral than Whaples? Do some digging outside your sandbox and see what you can come up with. I’m curious.

    Onto the overall topic…

    I also really love the way that private companies fought off the meddling of government to give us our state and national parks and forests. Thank goodness the free market decided on its own that every last one of those amazing thousand-year old trees in California shouldn’t be cut down for profit. If it weren’t for the foresight of private industry, the government would have certainly paved Yosemite Valley long ago.

    The other really exciting thing private companies have done is regulate the safety of our food! Without capitalism’s innate and infallible ability to correct for its own excesses, government would have most certainly enabled, and exacerbated, huge outbreaks of e-coli and what-not. Thank goodness the companies themselves have been wise and humane enough to issue warnings themselves. Without any government regulations or interference, which would have only made things worse: “When government tries to redress a problem, it prevents such companies from developing its own solution.”

    And as for all those gay people who live and have families in the majority of states that don’t prohibit discrimination in employment, housing and adoption… again, the market will solve for them, too. There’s plenty of jobs, houses and children in other states. They can just move. It’s really not that hard for anyone to move from one state to another, regardless of income. All of those lazy freeloading whiners: just move. Or I guess they can stay put and hope and pray that the parenthetical of the original post – “many (if not most) private companies have sought to redress that unfairness” – actually proves to be true.

    Companies redress unfairness. It’s in their nature.

    Comment by DGA — April 20, 2012 @ 1:42 am - April 20, 2012

  18. Blatt. And where did the pressure on the government for Jim Crow laws come from?

    And when did companies voluntarily stand up to fight against Jim Crow?

    Comment by DGA — April 20, 2012 @ 1:47 am - April 20, 2012

  19. Ah yes, Robert Whaples

    Translation: I had a cite chock full of historical statistics and references to studies in the field… and you can’t handle it. DGA Fail.

    As for moving the goalposts, that honor belongs to you. The original post is about government…

    Bzzzzzzzt, wrong answer. The original post said NOTHING ABOUT child labor. It’s a side topic, that you brought up. You responded to MY comment on it… and tried to move the goalposts on what I said. DGA Fail.

    How about looking for somebody a little more… shall we say… neutral than Whaples?

    Empty, meaningless insinuations about Whaples. I knew – I postively ***knew*** – that, rather than be able to answer me on the facts, you would try to change the subject to something else, like say your above blather about Whaples as a person. I already sort-of thanked you in advance for the laugh that I knew was coming; let’s make this an official thank you :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 20, 2012 @ 1:48 am - April 20, 2012

  20. And with that, I’m done for the night.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 20, 2012 @ 1:52 am - April 20, 2012

  21. The original post said: When government tries to redress a problem, it prevents such companies from developing its own solution.

    You tried to slime out of that by saying “Federal government” in your hideously inaccurate revisionist history of child labor.

    You also quoted someone – sorry – who is an unabashed revisionist historian. From the far right. I’m not impugning him as a person. I’m challenging you to find someone who doesn’t so overtly support your politics to back up your version of history. And you can’t.

    I know you savor the triumph of the smackdown, but you really don’t deserve it here. Sorry.

    Comment by DGA — April 20, 2012 @ 1:56 am - April 20, 2012

  22. DGA, what does your comment #18 mean? And why do you choose to address me by my last name?

    You didn’t address my point which is, simply this, the state violated the freedom of private organizations to set their own employment policies and to determine how to treat their clientele.

    The state deprived them of freedom. So, your rhetorical question is meaningless in the context of this post. I stated that I believed the state should leave individuals and private associations free. Under Jim Crow, the various states, in contravention to the federal constitution, did not.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 20, 2012 @ 2:00 am - April 20, 2012

  23. And what finally stopped Jim Crow? Government or “private companies?” That’s the sixty-million dollar question.

    Comment by DGA — April 20, 2012 @ 2:13 am - April 20, 2012

  24. Perhaps, DGA, but that’s not the point here which you have been missing since you’re very first comment.

    And you have yet to appreciate why Jim Crow laws don’t help your argument, but do help mine. Let me repeat, with Jim Crow, the state mandates discrimination, defining how people must treat the others.

    It’s the state limiting our freedom.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 20, 2012 @ 2:16 am - April 20, 2012

  25. And government really got in the way of companies solving that whole civil rights thing, too.

    Well they were until the “Father of modern progressivism”, Woodrow Wilson (D) got into office and instituted segregation. Indeed blacks had gotten into high levels of even the federal government. From actors and actresses to judges and mayors.

    I also really love the way that private companies fought off the meddling of government to give us our state and national parks and forests.

    How much private land has been grabbed to make these wonderful parks? What kind of shape are these parks in now? There’s radio ads on our local station with Sam Waterston talking about the perils of our national parks. He talks about how facilities and roads are in disrepair and school students have to be turned away because there’s not enough staff for their field trips.

    Think maybe we shouldn’t have pissed away billions on buying Government Motors, Solyndra or guns for Mexican cartels? Imagine what could’ve been done with that trillion dollar porkulous that we flushed down the shitter.

    How about all those acres of trees that GP and Weyerhauser plants every year? Is there a government mandate that they do so? Down here in Florida, Mosaic has transformed old phosphate pits into public parks as well as hunting and fishing areas. To my knowledge, they’re not required to do so, but they spend money on reclaiming the mines.

    Also, I would venture to bet that the private Civil War Trust has done more for buying up land for battlefield preservation than the federal government has. They were also the ones on the front lines of opposing development around Gettysburg and many other battlefield parks.

    If it weren’t for the foresight of private industry, the government would have certainly paved Yosemite Valley long ago.

    And we can thank the government for the massive wildfires they have out west since they oppose removal of all the dead kindling that exists out there. Plus, I can’t wait to see what the government is planning to stop the pending massive earthquake coming to Yellowstone in the near future.

    And as for all those gay people who live and have families in the majority of states that don’t prohibit discrimination in employment, housing and adoption… again, the market will solve for them, too.

    You know that circle jerk the HRC puts out every year about all the companies that are so inclusive of gays and what not? How many of those companies are required, by federal law, to offer the benefits that they do to their gay employees?

    And where did the pressure on the government for Jim Crow laws come from?

    Why from democrats, of course. The party of slavery, segregation and the Ku Klux Klan demanded and got those laws. Not to mention the ongoing “gun control”, the purpose of which is to keep blacks unarmed.

    And then there’s abortion which makes it a “right” to kill black babies. Just think, all they had to do in the Trayvon Martin kerfuffle is declare it an extremely late term abortion and Sharpton would’ve led his rent-a-mob in rejoicing. You can justify killing blacks, women, gays etc. all day as long as you call it an abortion.

    Tell me, what kind of government do we have when sea turtle eggs are federally protected, but humans are not?

    Suck on that one for a bit.

    Comment by TGC — April 20, 2012 @ 4:30 am - April 20, 2012

  26. I can’t help but notice that ILC brought facts and statistics to the argument while DGA brings nothing but talking points and rhetoric. And when confronted with facts, DGA can only bluster, “I don’t like your facts because they refute my hypothesis, bring me different ones.”

    Game. Set. Match: ILC

    Also, I wish to take issue with this comment:

    if the government cannot quarantee equality then there is no basis to provide fairness in life for anyone regardless of orientation

    I don’t want the Government to “Guarantee Equality.” I want the right to avail myself of a higher standard of living than people who are lazier or make worse choices than I do.

    Comment by V the K — April 20, 2012 @ 5:45 am - April 20, 2012

  27. Also, DGA brings up food safety, which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but reminds us that leftists are so ignorant of basic economics they really believe that poisoning your customers is a valid business plan.

    Comment by V the K — April 20, 2012 @ 5:59 am - April 20, 2012

  28. A little history lesson for those unaware of the disastrous results of statist attempts to impose “fairness:” The Boston Busing Crisis of the 1970′s, an attempt by white liberals to impose a vision of “fairness” on other people while conspicuously exempted themselves and their families; that resulted in exacerbating racial tensions and making the public schools disastrously dysfunctional.

    Comment by V the K — April 20, 2012 @ 7:33 am - April 20, 2012

  29. In South Boston, a neighborhood found by U.S. News and World Report (October 1994) to have had the highest concentration of white poverty in the country, dropout rates soared, its poorer census tracts’ dropout rates superseding rates based on race and ethnicity citywide. South Boston, along with other poor and working class white census tracts of Charlestown and parts of Dorchester, saw an increase in control by organized crime and young deaths due to murder, overdose, and criminal involvement.

    But at least things were more fair, right DGA?

    Comment by V the K — April 20, 2012 @ 7:37 am - April 20, 2012

  30. “Perhaps, DGA.” Cute. Perhaps.

    You’re mangling history to fit your argument: Jim Crow laws codified what was already long-standing policies of segregation that – sorry – “private companies” had been employing for years. And it is in fact you who continue to not address the larger point: “private companies” did not step in to end those laws. The market did not solve that problem. Your argument that government inherently limits freedom, and that somehow “private companies” always make everything better on their own, is fantastically simplistic and not at all borne out by history.

    Comment by DGA — April 20, 2012 @ 8:39 am - April 20, 2012

  31. Plus, it might help if you explained why you happened to choose this particular slippery phrasing in your original post: “many (if not most) private companies have sought to redress that unfairness.” Is it, “perhaps,” because you wanted to communicate that the “most” part was true, but some part of you knew that you couldn’t quite muster the facts to prove that case? That strikes me as a rather dishonest rhetorical device.

    Comment by DGA — April 20, 2012 @ 8:58 am - April 20, 2012

  32. DGA @#29:

    Your argument that government inherently limits freedom, and that somehow “private companies” always make everything better on their own, is fantastically simplistic and not at all borne out by history.

    But no one made the argument that private companies always make everything better on their own. Such illogical embellishment changes the whole debate in a cowardly way.

    The public square always has a say in how We the People manage this representative democracy. That is why there are no pig farms on the first floor of every hospital.

    The public square has every right to build national parks and protect seashores which the people buy and place in a public trust. The majestic redwoods and sequoias were recognized as national treasures and we the people paid for them fair and square and now we take care of them.

    Is there a “capitalist” who would like to go into a forest preserve and cut down a redwood? I suppose, but he is likely to be shot and killed by the marijuana grower who is poaching the area for his crop on government land. Do you really intend to go off on such bimbo, tangental arguments?

    Your lack of understanding of the Jim Crow laws is classic. Why not look into how the Progressive movement under Woodrow Wilson (as mentioned by TGC @ #25) institutionalized segregation in the national government?

    Tell me about “revisionist” history and how you have not come here spouting your own brand of it. You spout themes from the utopian socialists. You drip the opinions of Marx, Edward Bellamy, Sinclair Lewis. Apparently, for you, the authoritarian state, motivated by a Religion of Solidarity among the workers, leads to social justice, fairness and equality for all.

    But, actually, don’t put a lot of effort into defending or refuting anything if you are going return with silliness like the quote from you with which I led off this response.

    Comment by heliotrope — April 20, 2012 @ 9:48 am - April 20, 2012

  33. when confronted with facts, DGA can only bluster, “I don’t like your facts because they refute my hypothesis, bring me different ones.”

    Yup. I’d crush DGA’s other claims as they are as wrong as its child labor blather, but there is no point: DGA has proved that it can’t handle facts.

    if the government cannot quarantee equality then there is no basis to provide fairness in life for anyone regardless of orientation

    Know the author of the famous quote, “Life is unfair”? I guess you don’t. It was a Democrat president, John F. Kennedy.

    “…there is always inequity in life. Some men are killed in a war and some men are wounded, and some men never leave the country, and some men are stationed in the Antarctic and some are stationed in San Francisco. It’s very hard in the military or personal life to assure complete equality. Life is unfair.” Press conference, 3/21/62

    THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT GUARANTEE EQUALITY, period. DEAL WITH IT.

    What the government can do – if it is run properly, as a tightly LIMITED government – is protect individual rights to life, liberty and property with something close to impartiality. That is the most it can do to bring about fairness, and all that it should try to do, because anything else it does is a distraction from that key task and sooner or later violates the rights of somebody.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 20, 2012 @ 10:20 am - April 20, 2012

  34. “That’s not fair” is the cry of seven-year-olds whose parents deny them candy or enforce bedtime.

    Comment by V the K — April 20, 2012 @ 10:39 am - April 20, 2012

  35. There’s an old gangster rap saying that goes, “Hate the game, not the playa.” Well, after almost 10 years of ingesting some of the most obtuse, myopic, violently self-destructive, willfully ignorant intellectual excrement ever foisted upon the American public, I’ve frankly had it up to my moderately obese hairy tuchus with the 42% of this nation’s citizenry who have proven themselves utterly incapable of understanding that liberty has never been, nor can ever be, maintained through legislation.

    Democrats, and the lemmings who love them, are nothing more than petulant, infantile, ethically challenged Coward Poets. They use calculators to solve their problems and invariably fail because they cannot show their work. Further, when these textbook narcissists are called to account for their failures, they predictably attack everyone in sight who dares to suggest that perhaps, success is more often achieved through individual effort, as opposed to reliance upon the work of someone else.

    In short, they’re the same kids who pissed and moaned because the straight-A student threw off the curve, itself an egalitarian con job designed to “elevate the whole.”

    You’ll have to pardon me, but the virulent ignorance these people so mystifyingly hold as some perverted self-evident truth has morphed into an Orwellian cult, wherein it’s followers not only find themselves perfectly comfortable maintaining two completely opposing positions simultaneously, they gleefully fantasize about the deaths of those who would prefer to not participate in their own demise.

    The only thing “progressive” about these cultural terrorists is their sociopathy. Friends of Bill W. claim “spiritual progress rather than spiritual perfection.” The “progressive,” on the other hand, claims moral perfection, and seeks to inflict their delusion upon their perceived inferiors through oppression.

    The so-called “teachable moment” has become codespeak for “that which we will achieve by any means necessary.” For instance, ask a “progressive” about 9/11, or the wholesale slaughter of an Israeli family in a pizza parlor, and they’ll more than likely tell you those were “teachable moments.”

    Suggest to them otherwise, and prepare to be regaled with a most delicious (albeit frightening) display of paranoid schizophrenia, culminating in your condemnation as a warmongering, xenophobic advocate of barbaric American imperialism.

    Find me someone screaming for fairness, and I’ll show you someone who either lacks the work ethic necessary to bring about change in their own life, or can’t stomach the notion that seals do indeed sometimes find themselves eaten by whales.

    The bottom line is, there isn’t f***-all an ideology can do to stop it. As Jeff Goldblum’s character in Jurassic Park once so rightfully observed, “If there is one thing the history of evolution has taught us it’s that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, expands to new territory, and crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously.”

    Sadly, and in so doing, life doesn’t care a whit about fairness.

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — April 20, 2012 @ 10:45 am - April 20, 2012

  36. Can the government make like fair for gay people? (Strikeout mine of course, because the question really applies to all, does it not?)

    Hell no. Life just isn’t fair. Period. The state of being “fair” is rather nebulous.

    What the government can do – and must do – is to treat people or act toward people with fairness or fairly. Meaning the government should have a damn good reason when it treats one set of people differently from another set of people. And of course there are lots of damn good reasons for lots of differences. Which is one of the reasons I am not a fan of seeking “equality” but rather “equal protection under the law”. I believe the authors of that phrase were quite deliberate in their word choice.

    Comment by Neptune — April 20, 2012 @ 10:57 am - April 20, 2012

  37. No. No.

    Comment by BigJ — April 20, 2012 @ 11:25 am - April 20, 2012

  38. I also really love the way that private companies fought off the meddling of government to give us our state and national parks and forests. Thank goodness the free market decided on its own that every last one of those amazing thousand-year old trees in California shouldn’t be cut down for profit. If it weren’t for the foresight of private industry, the government would have certainly paved Yosemite Valley long ago.

    Comment by DGA — April 20, 2012 @ 1:42 am – April 20, 2012

    Easily answered.

    The Hetch Hetchy Valley. Extolled by John Muir as a cathedral of nature, and paved over/destroyed by Obama Party “progressive” government for a reservoir, whose water and the hydroelectric power generated is then sold at a profit to benefit “progressive” cronies in San Francisco’s city government.

    The Owens River. Thousands upon thousands acres of critical wildlife habitat and agricultural water supply destroyed by “progressive” government, channeled into an aqueduct to generate electricity and provide water to be sold at a profit to benefit “progressive” cronies in Los Angeles’s city government.

    Black Canyon of the Colorado River. Beautiful, wild, unspoiled — until “progressive” government decided to blast it open, divert the river, and drown thousands of natural and historical sites to get water and electricity to sell for profit.

    Do you know where Muir Woods came from? That would be Republican Congressman William Kent, who with his own money purchased the land and then donated it to the Park Service. Which he also helped create.

    Now, you see, little hypocrite, we know you don’t have ANY objections to destroying and leveling areas of great beauty when the Obama Party does it in the name of “progressivism”. That’s because you’re not a preservationist; you are a fascist, who wants all private business suppressed and for everything to be placed in the hands of the government, which you and your cronies will then milk for your survival. You have no intention of ever following the rules and regulations you want to impose on others, just like your Barack Obama and Barack Obama Party that scream about tax “fairness” are loaded to the gills with tax cheats.

    Hence where the lie is put to you, bigot. You don’t care about fairness. You don’t support fairness. You want everyone else to pay, everyone else to be punished, everyone else to be forced to do what YOU want — and you get to do, spend, buy, have, whatever you want.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 20, 2012 @ 11:58 am - April 20, 2012

  39. DGA, you keep missing the point which is:

    Jim Crow was state action limiting freedom.

    And no, the issue of private companies actions ending Jim Crow has absolutely nothing to do with the point I am making above. (Many in fact did support the Civil Rights movement.)

    You also demonstrate an ignorance of American history. If private companies employed those policies, why would they need Jim Crow? In fact, many private companies weren’t discriminating — and that’s why some Southern whites thought they needed such laws–to prevent such companies from treating black people with dignity. And to prevent former slaves from advancing in the marketplace –as many were indeed advancing.

    Please read Neil McMillien’s Dark Journey: Black Mississippians in the Age of Jim Crow which shows that just such advancements were taking place in the immediate post-Civil War era. Jim Crow laws weren’t enacted until a quarter-century after the Confederacy was defeated (in the 1890s to be exact).

    You have claimed that private companies were already discriminating in the South (pre-Jim Crow), but provide no evidence to back that up.

    As to what you call the “slippery” phrase, it’s there because no survey (that I am aware of) has been conducted of all private companies, some of which are very small. Surveys of the Fortune 50, the Fortune 500 and even the Fortune 1000 have shown that most such companies (indeed over two-thirds) have adopted non-discrimination clauses. I could have dispensed with the “perhaps” had I added “large companies.”

    Alas, that your historically inaccurate comment (at least as it relates to Jim Crow) has distracted us from considering the real issue, whether government can make life fair for gay people — and should it.

    Well, to be sure, in referencing Jim Crow, you do show how government helped make life unfair for black people –which helps buttress my skepticism of state action.

    You may call my argument “fantastically simplistic”, but at least I base it on the facts. So, please provide actual evidence debunking my claims, instead of persistent questions in your rebuttals.

    Thanks!

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 20, 2012 @ 12:03 pm - April 20, 2012

  40. And also, DGA, I never said that government should not provide parks, etc. The post, as per the title, was whether government could make life life for gay people, you seized on one sentence in the post to distract us from the real conversation.

    At least, some of our commenters did understand the post and, in their initial responses, considered my point.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 20, 2012 @ 12:06 pm - April 20, 2012

  41. [...] The Gay Patriot poses the question(s)… Can government make life fair for gay people? (Should it?) [...]

    Pingback by Friday Linkage: 4-20-2012 | REPUBLICAN REDEFINED — April 20, 2012 @ 12:15 pm - April 20, 2012

  42. Moreover, DGA, the Barack Obama Party government now supports and endorses people who call for Jews, Asians, and white people to have their homes and businesses destroyed and their families killed.

    And who support laws discriminating against people in hiring, training, promotion, contracting, and advancement based on their skin color.

    This is what makes you hilariously delusional. You and your fellow Obamabots scream about “civil rights” even as you and your party leaders in governmental power openly support, endorse, and protect those who use racial slurs like “cracker”, “Hymietown”, “kike”, and so forth, and advocate for people to be attacked, vandalized, and even killed based on their skin color and ethnic origin.

    That is again because you are not against racism; it’s because you are a fascist, who wants to use governmental power to impose YOUR racist hate and racist worldviews on society.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 20, 2012 @ 12:15 pm - April 20, 2012

  43. [...] Can government make life fair for gay people? (Should it?) [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Marriott Offers Discounts, Benefits to Gay Guests — April 20, 2012 @ 6:40 pm - April 20, 2012

  44. The government cannot make anyone’s life better, no matter what their circumstances. Happiness flows through one’s family, friends, career, outside interests, and hobbies. One can never attain contentment in life through government or others; only you can determine how your life turns out.

    Comment by davinci — April 20, 2012 @ 11:40 pm - April 20, 2012

  45. DGA ‘n’ GP: Our time was brief.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 21, 2012 @ 1:21 pm - April 21, 2012

  46. [...] Can government make life fair for gay people? (Should it?) [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Romney appoints qualified man* as foreign policy spokesman* (who happens to be gay) — April 21, 2012 @ 4:36 pm - April 21, 2012

  47. On the topic of child labour, I am opposed to laws restricting child labour as they prevent children in poor families from having an income (among other reasons). I doubt the demand for child labour would be very high, though.

    And as for all those gay people who live and have families in the majority of states that don’t prohibit discrimination in employment, housing and adoption… again, the market will solve for them, too.

    It sure will. If a gay person had enough foresight to train in a high-demand field, there should be no problem with discrimination on the part of employers. Even still, I would imagine the vast majority of employers are not concerned with the sexual orientation of their employees, and there is no need for the gay employees of discriminatory employers to make their sexual orientation known. As for housing, I would imagine there are plenty of landlords that don’t care about their tenants’ sexual orientations, even in places like Utah or Mississippi. As for adoption, that is an entirely unrelated matter, so I’m not sure why you brought it up.

    And what finally stopped Jim Crow? Government or “private companies?” That’s the sixty-million dollar question.

    Huh??? How could private companies stop a law? Private companies don’t write and enact laws.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — April 21, 2012 @ 6:41 pm - April 21, 2012

  48. @ Daniel Blatt

    I think it’s you who is missing the point. The Jim Crow laws that were preceded by black codes were enacted to keep black people as second class citizens following . . . .what was it again? . . .oh yeah . . .slavery.

    The de facto slavery that took place starting in Virginia in the early 1600s (and continued until the mid 1800s) was not enacted by the government. It was later proliferated by the government, but it was also the government that ended it. It was not Big Brother that profited most from slavery. It was the plantation owners and slave traders who stood to gain the most from dealing in human bondage because of the seemingly endless agricultural market. The money they made was more important than the means they used to acquire it. Sound familiar? Child labor, anyone? The government may have turned its back on slavery, the government may have kept slavery going, but the government didn’t start it. It was, in all instances, started by individuals who wanted good cheap labor. Capitalism at its finest.

    And is someone really trying to act like the Civil War Era Republicans are comparable to the Repulicans now? Are you really going to ignore the fact that since LBJ blacks and racist whites flip flopped in part affiliation?? Is that supposed to just slip by everyone? Do you also ascribe to what Eisenhower said about the military industrial complex, or the fact that he expanded Social Security and other New Deal policies? After all he was a Republican. . . . .50+ years ago. When are you guys going to stop acting like the Republicans circa 2012 ain’t Abe Lincoln’s Republicans? Gimme a break.

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — April 21, 2012 @ 10:26 pm - April 21, 2012

  49. It’s interesting that liberal get so worked up over child labour… but they are completely comfortable and supportive of illegal immigrants being shipped into the country to be exploited and abused.

    I guess white children are worth more than brown children… to liberals.

    Comment by V the K — April 21, 2012 @ 10:59 pm - April 21, 2012

  50. Thank you for the facts and citations, gentlemen.

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 21, 2012 @ 11:05 pm - April 21, 2012

  51. And how, Another_Jeremy, pray tell am I missing the point?

    Every issue you cite, be it Jim Crow or black codes, are policies set by the state depriving certain individuals of their liberty because of the color of their skin.

    And the point of the post is that government should live us alone to determine our own destinies. Slavery prevents the enslaved from doing that. If, in the early days of slavery, the state did not sanction it, but allowed the practice which denied human beings their rights by allowing others to treat them as property. In times like these, government should step it to secure their liberty (see, e.g., Mr. Jefferson and those inalienable rights).

    And no, slavery is not capitalism at its finest, but the antithesis of the very idea at the core of the economic system–the free (as in uncoerced) exchange of goods and services.

    As should be clear from the post — and everything I’ve written on this blog — I favor repealing laws which deprive individuals of their liberty. And, like Mr. Jefferson, believe it the purpose of government to secure such rights. You and DGA seem to miss that basic point.

    So, no, the government didn’t turn its back on slavery, it allowed it. And it was wrong when it did.

    And my, my, you have to resort to accusing Republicans of racism. Wow, just wow.

    And yes, we are Abe Lincoln Republicans still today.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 22, 2012 @ 1:27 am - April 22, 2012

  52. And is someone really trying to act like the Civil War Era Republicans are comparable to the Repulicans now? Are you really going to ignore the fact that since LBJ blacks and racist whites flip flopped in part affiliation??

    The Democrats were the party of slavery and segregation in the civil war era, and they still are today. They don’t come out and say they are, but they are. They keep inner-city blacks dependent upon the government (for welfare, housing, etc.) in exchange for power. They oppose laws that allow law-abiding blacks to own firearms for self-defense, and oppose vouchers that would allow them to attend schools that don’t suck. And they call anyone who opposes these policies “racist” to shut them up. It is slavery, albeit implicit slavery.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — April 22, 2012 @ 1:43 am - April 22, 2012

  53. [slavery was] started by individuals who wanted good cheap labor. Capitalism at its finest.

    No, actually: Feudalism. And/or tribalism. Both early forms of socialism.

    Capitalism is: the economic and political system of individual initiative. It assumes, and requires, that people have actual freedom – including actual property rights. As such, it is quite the opposite of slavery. Historically, it played a great role in ending slavery.

    Socialism, or leftism, is the system of human slavery.

    Either Another_Jeremy opposes such things as individual initiative, property rights and other freedoms, and therefore he spreads ignorant socialist propaganda with merry abandon… or Another_Jeremy *is* ignorant.

    This is not ad hominem, because I do not presume to say which it is. I only point out that it must be one or the other.

    Child labor, anyone?

    Already dealt with. See comment #14.

    The de facto slavery that took place starting in Virginia in the early 1600s (and continued until the mid 1800s) was not enacted by the government, blah blah blah

    More ignorance. Actually, slavery dates back beyond Roman times. Slavery was not an invention of the Virginia plantation owners. Not even close. And in every time and place where it has ever been practiced systematically, it has required – and has had – government recognition and support. Whether that governmental recognition and support were ‘de facto’ makes no difference to the basic fact of its existence.

    So government ended slavery, only in the sense that government created it to begin with. Government decides what is legal. Private (i.e. non-governmental) actors do not. By definition it takes, and always has taken, **government** to legalize and enforce slavery – whenever and wherever the practice of slavery has been, shall we say, systematic.

    Capitalism, by contrast, created the economic and moral pressures that led modern governments to abolish slavery. (Note: Many abolitionists stressed Christianity as the basis for their anti-slavery – but so did pro-slavery people, and before them, the feudalists who virtually enslaved the peasantry. Christianity’s first 15 centuries or so took slavery for granted. It was only in recent centuries, under the influence of capitalism both as an economic system and as a moral ideology of individual initiative and natural rights, that Christianity has turned predominately anti-slavery.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 22, 2012 @ 2:33 am - April 22, 2012

  54. (continued) As a thinker once said:

    It is characteristic of the enemies of capitalism that they denounce it for evils which are, in fact, not the result of capitalism but of statism: evils which result from and are made possible only by government intervention in the economy.

    We swim in examples. One is, statists/leftists blaming the housing bubble on capitalism (when in fact it was caused by the Federal Reserve, which is a central planning agency of the government, plus the Community Reinvestment Act and other actions wherein the government basically ordered banks to make bad loans en masse). Another example is Another_Jeremy blaming slavery, which is the opposite of capitalism, on capitalism.

    Sometimes it helps to anchor a discussion in reality (for the sane people, at least) by defining terms. Slavery:

    Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold… held against their will… Historically, slavery was institutionally recognized by many societies; in more recent times slavery has been outlawed in most societies… Slavery predates written records and has existed in many cultures… [today,] Human trafficking is primarily used for forcing women and children into sex industries… [whereas] In pre-industrial societies, slaves and their labour were economically extremely important…

    “Held against their will” means, naturally, held by physical force. Now from the same source, Capitalism:

    “Free enterprise” redirects here [in other words, capitalism is by definition one and the same as FREE enterprise]… Capitalism is a philosophy of economic systems that is generally considered to favor private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit or income by individuals or corporations, competitive markets, *voluntary exchange, wage labor, capital accumulation, and personal finance.*… there is not complete consensus among scholars on the definition nor which economies can historically be properly considered capitalist… There is, however, agreement that capitalism became dominant in the Western world *following the demise of feudalism*.

    Emphases added for clarity. For example, note the importance of “voluntary” exchanges, including voluntary labor (a.k.a. wage labor). And the contrast with feudalism, a contrast that I drew earlier.

    But since, as it says, “there is not complete consensus” on the definition, I shall supplement it with the definition that I use in practice:

    Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships… no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights… from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use…

    Capitalism begins with individual rights, which in turn begin with SELF-OWNERSHIP. Slavery is the opposite of self-ownership; that is why it is the opposite of capitalism.

    Ancient historical evils, such as slavery, did not of course -instantly- die under the influence of capitalism; it took a few centuries to work it out. Capitalism did not -instantly- create Heaven on Earth; in fact, we still have yet to see even one country in human history give it a consistent try. (The U.S. in the 50 years after the Civil War came closest and produced an explosion of prosperity and progress, but even that was marred by statism, such as the government giving special privileges in certain industries, State governments enacting Jim Crow to oppress the former slaves, etc.)

    Therefore, we are treated to individuals like Another_Jeremy claiming that capitalism somehow favors or involves slavery. I shall repeat my conclusion from #14:

    Child labor, like slavery, died largely -because of- capitalism. The very point of capitalism, the very thing that gives it its name, is: to intelligently replace grinding, soul-crushing labor with CAPITAL (e.g., machines). As capitalism raises both general living standards, and business technology, it squeezes out firms that rely on inferior forms of labor – such as slaves or children.

    … and add that that is a big part of why -I love- capitalism.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 22, 2012 @ 11:17 am - April 22, 2012

  55. Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold…

    And now for an ever so slight revision:

    A woman’s right to privacy or to exercise choice is a system under which a child in the womb is treated as property (chattel) to be nurtured and cared for or killed….

    A woman’s right to privacy or to exercise choice has given rise to the capitalism involved in providing the service of killing the child in womb. People in the abortion industry are paid for their services and and have a vested interest in supply and demand and market forces. They are also deeply involved in acquiring federal money as a means to insure that their income pipeline flows steadily.

    I wonder why liberals are always so ready to do piety dances over the broad history of the practices of slavery, bondage, indenture, feudal “contracts” and the like, but they just do not want to face the facts and truth about abortion.

    Killing the unborn is such an important right for liberals that it is almost as if life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to them is entirely conditional. Like slavery.

    Unjust_Jeremiah will undoubtedly scamper far, far away from this example of bold hypocrisy in the liberal doxology.

    In all good faith, I do not understand why liberals are opposed to infanticide up to the age of, say, 26.

    Comment by heliotrope — April 22, 2012 @ 2:34 pm - April 22, 2012

  56. Had George Zimmerman been killed rather than Trayvon Martin, at least a few lefties would probably excuse his killing as a mere post-partum abortion. But I digress.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 22, 2012 @ 3:07 pm - April 22, 2012

  57. @I Love Capitalism

    Um . . .my point was not that slavery was created in Virginia. It was that the slavery in Virginia was carried over from the UK where it had already been ruled illegal in 1569. And yet, oddly those darn Virginians took to enslaving Indians and blacks.

    You can keep on repeating your buzz words about capitalism being all about initiative and “freedom” until the cows come home. How about a real definition of capitalism instead of an ideological one such as the following: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

    Time has shown again and again that if left to their own devices corporations will do all manner of reprehensible things to cut costs and maximize profits. As was the case with the agricultural slavery that took place in Virginia because tobacco was an extremely labor intensive crop. As was the case with inhuman child labor that took place at the turn of the century because children were cheap and were unlikely to strike. Very . . . . . “educational” post though. But I guess in a way you’re right though about “capitalism” sorting out the problem of child labor. Because during the Great Depression adults were so desperate for work that they would work for as little pay as children had. Also, what say you about the Keating-Owen Act that was passed in 1916? It was reversed by the Supreme Court, but you’re off if you mean to say that Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was the first legislative attempt to eradicate child labor. And I searched for the source of Whaples child labor stats, and have yet to find them.

    If capitalism eradicated slavery in the US, why did it take 200+ years and then curiously coincide with the passing of the 13th Amendment? Tell us how the free market ended slavery. Or will you just continue to say that it was the government’s fault it existed while conveniently ignoring that the government ended it? I’m dying to learn. Teach me.

    And Daniel, it didn’t bother you when TGC went on his racist tirade about Trayvon Martin, so why would the insinuation that the Republican party panders to racists bother you?

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — April 23, 2012 @ 1:00 am - April 23, 2012

  58. Another_Jeremy, I don’t follow all the threads, but did follow this one because there were some interesting comments early on — and because I chose to respond to DGA’s because he so clearly missed my point.

    You say your insinuation about the GOP supposedly pandering to racist bothered me. Hardly. Please don’t flatter yourself. It merely amused me how you buy into dishonest cliches about the GOP.

    As to capitalism, well, you offer your own ideological description of the system. But, one thing we should note that nation states which prefer a capitalist (i.e., free market) economic system tend to enjoy greater prosperity — across all classes, not to mention more social mobility. And greater freedom — in all aspects of life (not just economic).

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 23, 2012 @ 1:08 am - April 23, 2012

  59. @ Daniel

    I was referring to his racist tirade in the comment section of this article. The part where he said had Trayvon Martin been declared a late term abortion Al Sharpton would be shouting for joy. Not a peep of objection from you.

    And recent literature on social mobility in the U.S. finds it ranking “well below Denmark, Australia, Norway, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Germany and Spain in terms of how freely citizens move up or down the social ladder.”

    http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — April 23, 2012 @ 2:42 am - April 23, 2012

  60. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — April 23, 2012 @ 2:44 am - April 23, 2012

  61. Jeremy, as to social mobility, but of course it is; the NYT article is from January 2012, nearly three years after Barack Obama took office and after he and the Democratic 111th Congress pushed through a great variety of legislation and his appointees in the various federal agencies increased the number of regulations on small businesses. No wonder it’s harder to get ahead. And Obama followed 8 years of George W. Bush who was anything but a deregulator.

    And did you even read my previous comment? I indicated that I had followed this thread but not the other. I am unaware of TGC’s supposed racist tirade. I’m just not passing judgment on something I haven’t read.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 23, 2012 @ 2:48 am - April 23, 2012

  62. As to the OECD study, I won’t have time to consider the various metrics it uses to reach its conclusion, but will note that each of the countries cited had a relatively capitalist economy, with some (i.e., Sweden, Germany and Denmark) having deregulated their economies to some degree in recent years–that may well account for the increased social mobility–particularly given the increase in regulation in the US at least since W signed Sarbanes-Oxley in 2002.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 23, 2012 @ 2:56 am - April 23, 2012

  63. was carried over from the UK where it had already been ruled illegal in 1569.

    It wasn’t ruled illegal, it was ruled that English law couldn’t recognize slavery. Slavery wasn’t abolished in England until 1833.

    And Daniel, it didn’t bother you when TGC went on his racist tirade about Trayvon Martin, so why would the insinuation that the Republican party panders to racists bother you?

    Maybe because both are bullshit?

    The part where he said had Trayvon Martin been declared a late term abortion Al Sharpton would be shouting for joy. Not a peep of objection from you.

    It just seems that liberals can kill black kids all day long as long as it’s called abortion and defended as a “right” so’s nobody feels guilty. Liberals can kill women (War on Women, anyone?) and gays (if we truly are “born that way”) and never give it a second thought. So why not call this an extremely late-term abortion, rejoice and then shut your cake hole about it? With all the liberal hysteria about one of their own killing a black kid and all the bullshit “facts” they’ve manufactured over it, liberals must be exhausted. Do something to make yourselves happy (impossible, I know) and MoveOn, MorOn.

    Comment by TGC — April 23, 2012 @ 4:10 am - April 23, 2012

  64. It was not Big Brother that profited most from slavery. It was the plantation owners and slave traders who stood to gain the most from dealing in human bondage

    And let’s not forget the shipbuilders. Slave ships was the biggest business in New York at one time. You know, the yankees.

    Are you really going to ignore the fact that since LBJ blacks and racist whites flip flopped in part affiliation?? Is that supposed to just slip by everyone?

    Yes, because it’s not a fact. It’s revisionist history liberals tell themselves and to the blacks they fear monger to convince them that democreeps aren’t the ones who used to hang them in the trees and burn their churches. Also, apparently, why you voted for the biggest dumbass on earth. That’s also how LBJ, who called servants “n****rs” can be lauded as a hero.

    Try this:

    The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html

    It’s in the NYT, so you know it’s true. Or how about this:

    Why White Supremacists Support Barack Obama
    http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/racists-support-obama-061308

    Liberals are pretty anti-Semitic (see MediaMorons), so it’s really not that unbelievable. Y’all really haven’t come that far from Fulbright, Gore, Faubus, Barnett, Wallace etc. You’re STILL the same, despicable bigots you’ve always been. And you know you’re not proud of it, that’s why you have to lie and manipulate.

    Comment by TGC — April 23, 2012 @ 4:35 am - April 23, 2012

  65. And if all the racists became Republicans, why did Wallace do so much better in the south than Nixon in 68? It was Wallace who picked up the majority of Goldwater’s southern states. Nixon came in third behind Wallace and Humphrey in three of those states.

    And wasn’t it Nixon who cut the number of black southern students in segregated schools from 68% to 9%?

    Comment by TGC — April 23, 2012 @ 5:00 am - April 23, 2012

  66. @TGC

    Your “point” about slavery not being abolished until 1833 almost 300 years after it had already been determined that Great Britain could not recognize it only bolsters the point that if the government had not intervened “capitalism” would not have brought about the end of slavery.

    Oh I see. The black populace has been brainwashed about which party to vote for by the evil revisionist historian democrats who have tricked them into voting against their own interests. They’re simply too stupid to know which party to vote for, right? If they had any sense at all they’d vote for the Republicans who are the ones who freed them from bondage. Well. . . .they did. Once they were allowed to vote of course. This didn’t begin to change until FDR’s race in 1932 in which he got 71% of the “black vote” even though most blacks still considered themselves Republicans. In 1948 Truman got 77% of the “black vote,” and then LBJ got 94% of the “black vote” after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed and since then no Republican has gotten more than 15% of the “black vote.” So what was your insinuation again? That blacks have been duped into voting against their interests? Because the facts don’t seem to support that.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/blacks-and-the-democratic-party/

    But yes. Obama is the one who is racist.

    http://thephotographer4you.com/news/wtf-moments-dont-renig-in-2012/

    So it’s revisionist history that Southern, Democratic, racist whites began to vote Republican in protest to the progress being made with Civil Rights legislation huh? Goldwater didn’t win his home state of Arizona in addition to five states in the deep south that had voted Democratic since Reconstruction because of anger over the Civil Rights Act passing? Fascinating. I really want to meet your high school American History teacher.

    And what of James Hart, and Haley Barbour, and Jesse Helms? Particularly Helms since he was in office from 1973 to 2003. But do tell us how Helms’ opposition to the Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act, and every other piece of anti-segregation legislation and the fact that he was a US Senator who was elected five times by the Republican Party is really more evidence that contemporary Democrats are the ones who elect and pander to racists.

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — April 23, 2012 @ 11:17 am - April 23, 2012

  67. Oh I see. The black populace has been brainwashed about which party to vote for by the evil revisionist historian democrats who have tricked them into voting against their own interests.

    Indeed. Democreeps have kept blacks as slaves even after the Civil War through social engineering. Tell me, how is massive poverty, dependency on the state, a massive illegitimacy, forced into shitty schools, high abortion rates etc. etc. etc. in their own interests?

    “They’re simply too stupid to know which party to vote for, right?”

    Which is exactly how the left views blacks (and anybody else for that matter). That’s why they won’t campaign on what they really stand for. That’s why they have to convince everyone that Republicans are racist, sexist, bigot, anti-Semite homophobes to keep their voters afraid and dependent on Uncle Sugar. That’s why we get fear-mongering campaigns like alleged stolen elections, vote for Bush and more black churches will burn, vote for Bush and he’ll restart the draft, Republicans want to shove grandma over a cliff, Republicans want to take little Johnny’s lunch away (except liberals actually did it just a month or so ago), Global Warmism, raaaaaaaacist! etc.

    Fear-mongering is exactly what ObaMarx is running his campaign on because he knows his record sucks big floppy donkey dick. Same with my Sen. Nelson. Same with quite a few liberals. If the left actually considered their voters intelligent, they wouldn’t rely on endless fear mongering. They wouldn’t resort to telling blacks that they need them and can’t get anywhere in life without them. They wouldn’t resort to attacking blacks who wander off the plantation. They would allow people to do what they wanted with their own money instead of flushing it down the Socialist Stupidity shitter.

    It doesn’t take much digging to find that liberals are the true racist, sexist, bigot, anti-Semite homophobes. Democreeps have been and always will be the party of slavery segregation and the Klan. That’s just the way it is and there ain’t a damn bit of spin that you can throw out there that can change that.

    Comment by TGC — April 23, 2012 @ 5:43 pm - April 23, 2012

  68. And recent literature on social mobility in the U.S. finds it ranking “well below Denmark, Australia, Norway, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Germany and Spain in terms of how freely citizens move up or down the social ladder.”

    The United States is hardly a capitalist country. It has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, for example. And, while countries like Sweden and Denmark have extensive welfare systems, they have relatively free markets in other areas.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — April 23, 2012 @ 6:42 pm - April 23, 2012

  69. Time has shown again and again that if left to their own devices corporations will do all manner of reprehensible things to cut costs and maximize profits.

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — April 23, 2012 @ 1:00 am – April 23, 2012

    And time has shown again and again that statist do-gooders like Another_Jeremy will, when left to their own devices, do all manner of reprehensible things to suppress dissent, channel all resources to themselves, and impoverish a population in the name of sheer power lust masquerading as “fairness” and ranting about the evils of “capitalism”.

    See Imperial Japan. See Nazi Germany. See Fascist Italy. See Soviet Russia. See every government in the former Communist bloc. See North Korea. See Cuba. See Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. See Ho Chi Minh and his disciples. See Mao and his Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward. See Saddam’s Iraq. See post-revolution Iran. See Chavista Venezuela. See Peronist Argentina, and now Kirchner’s Argentina.

    In short, government’s track record for reprehensible behavior is far longer and far more destructive than corporations and capitalism. Mao Tse-Tung enslaved, starved, and outright erased millions of people, but you and your Obama Party still worship him and cite him as your guiding ideal.

    That’s the problem, Another_Jeremy. What this demonstrates is that leftist anti-corporation anti-capitalists like yourself are not at ALL opposed to slavery or forced labor; indeed, you believe with all your heart that other people SHOULD be forced to labor for your benefit and profit because they are of a different skin color/gender/sexual orientation and that you, because of your superior skin color/gender/sexual orientation, have every right to enslave them so you need do no work. They deserve nothing; they should instead be required to give you everything and thank you for it.

    What you are upset about is that capitalism leaves you no outlet to do so. You must use the power of government to FORCE people to obey you because you have neither the skills, inclination, or work ethic to compete in the capitalist space. Hence you trash capitalism because it represents the very thing that opposes your goals of enslaving people and forcing them to work on your behalf.

    Nope, sorry. We have seen you and your fellow wanna-be Pol Pots before, and the answer is no. We are aware of the fact that those who will not respect others’ right to earn a living and keep what they earn will respect no other rights at all.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 23, 2012 @ 8:06 pm - April 23, 2012

  70. But do tell us how Helms’ opposition to the Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act, and every other piece of anti-segregation legislation and the fact that he was a US Senator who was elected five times by the Republican Party is really more evidence that contemporary Democrats are the ones who elect and pander to racists.

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — April 23, 2012 @ 11:17 am – April 23, 2012

    I could just instead show you how the contemporary Obama Party is the one who elects and panders to racists.

    Repeatedly.

    Over and over again.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 23, 2012 @ 8:09 pm - April 23, 2012

  71. And of course there’s this example of the contemporary Obama Party electing and pandering to racists.

    At the highest levels, even.

    But honestly, the best example? The Obama Party’s embrace of this, especially ironic given what they would do to a non-Obama-supporting group that called for people to go out and kill others based on their skin color.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 23, 2012 @ 8:16 pm - April 23, 2012

  72. @TGC

    You love to alternate the terms progressive and conservative with Democrat and Republican. Slavery was ended by progressives, who at the time, were Republicans. The Civil Rights Movement was headed by progressives, not conservatives. You can wax poetic about the Klan being down with the Dems in the first half of the century until the cows come home. No one cares. Cuz during and after the height of the Civil Rights movement, the Republican party became the party of white supremacy. Anyone who maintains that conservatives lead the way with civil rights is a flat earther. Period.

    @ Rattlesnake

    Your ridiculous comment about how the US is not capitalist anymore has even been rebuked by the Conservative Heritage foundation.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/12/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-gets-another-pants-fire-saying-were-in/

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — April 23, 2012 @ 8:28 pm - April 23, 2012

  73. Anyone who maintains that conservatives lead the way with civil rights is a flat earther. Period.

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — April 23, 2012 @ 8:28 pm – April 23, 2012

    Nope.

    Obama supporters like yourself openly advocate for discrimination, openly support racial hate groups, and openly state that people should be judged based on their skin color rather than their character.

    The problem is that you no longer have any rational understanding of what racism is; that has been replaced by blind partisan bigotry in which you state that racism is based solely on political affiliation. Therefore, even those who openly make racial slurs and call for people to be killed based on their skin color are not racists when they support Obama, and those who advocate for judging people on their character rather than preferential treatment based on skin color are called racists when they don’t support Obama.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 23, 2012 @ 9:03 pm - April 23, 2012

  74. Your ridiculous comment about how the US is not capitalist anymore has even been rebuked by the Conservative Heritage foundation.

    The United States might have a “free economy,” but that does not equal capitalist. Suggesting that the United States, with its crony capitalism (think Solyndra, GM bailouts, etc.), welfare state and vast entitlement programs, and high tax rates, is a capitalist country is laughable on its face.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — April 23, 2012 @ 9:13 pm - April 23, 2012

  75. @ North Dallas Thirty

    Obviously my understanding is based on party affiliation. That’s why I’ve highlighted the history of the “black vote” switching from supporting Republicans to Democrats. And my warped understanding of racism is what makes me think that characterizing Obama as a monkey and a shaman and making bumper stickers that say “don’t renig” are racist. I notice you didn’t even attempt to address TGC’s colorful revisionist history of the Civil Right Movement.

    Andrew Breitbart as a source for a legitimate instance of racism? Eric Holder’s affiliation with Al Sharpton (who holds no public office) again? Gee. Must be slim pickins.

    http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/nobody-likes-to-talk-about-it-but-its-there/

    http://www.alternet.org/election2012/153895/the_10_most_racist_moments_of_the_gop_primary_(so_far)?page=1

    And since you’re so concerned about the government coming to take drag us from our kicking and screaming from our beds, I guess we should cut military spending? Think about it. What better way for Obama to ensure his plan to exterminate all of the hard working white folks than to turn his huge army on us all?

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — April 23, 2012 @ 10:05 pm - April 23, 2012

  76. breitbart’s website*

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — April 23, 2012 @ 10:14 pm - April 23, 2012

  77. The U.S. is not capitalist anymore. Only an ignorant dolt could think otherwise.

    The U.S. is sort of a centrally planned corporate socialism. In earlier eras, centrally planned corporate socialism was known by its right name, “fascism”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 23, 2012 @ 11:07 pm - April 23, 2012

  78. (continued) The centrally-planned corporate socialism in the U.S. has been building for decades. Obama is its latest and greatest practitioner. He has upped it enormously: with the bailouts (proposed by Bush yes, but ratified and extended by Obama), with ZIRP and QE from Bernanke (whom Obama chose to re-appoint), and with the enormous increase in bureaucratic central planning of the economy in the form of “green” policy (Solyndra, anyone?), the Dodd-Frank bill that preserves and enshrines the “too big to fail” financial institutions, and of course, Obamacare.

    As I quoted earlier:

    It is characteristic of the enemies of capitalism that they denounce it for evils which are, in fact, not the result of capitalism but of statism: evils which result from and are made possible only by government intervention in the economy.

    Leftists offer poison as food, poison as antidote. Capitalism was ended in the U.S., if not decades ago (and I would argue that it was decades ago), then certainly by Obama’s actions in 2009-10. Leftists look at the wreckage of the intentional destruction of capitalism BY BIG GOVERNMENT, and say “Ooh look, capitalism failed – that means we need more government.

    LIARS!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 23, 2012 @ 11:13 pm - April 23, 2012

  79. Also from what I quoted earlier:

    Sometimes it helps to anchor a discussion in reality (for the sane people, at least) by defining terms… Capitalism [is]:
    “Free enterprise” …a philosophy of economic systems that is generally considered to favor private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit or income by individuals or corporations, competitive markets, voluntary exchange, wage labor, capital accumulation, and personal finance… there is not complete consensus among scholars on the definition…

    … since, as it says, “there is not complete consensus” on the definition, I shall supplement it with the definition that I use in practice:

    Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships… no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights… from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use…

    Again, only ignorance – or else, malicious leftism: the tactic of offering the poison of Big Government as both food and antidote – could account for a person trying to claim with a straight face that EITHER of those definitions describe the present U.S. economic and political system.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 23, 2012 @ 11:25 pm - April 23, 2012

  80. Time has shown again and again that if left to their own devices corporations will do all manner of reprehensible things to cut costs and maximize profits.

    Wrong again. Profit-seeking entities (whether individuals or corporations) do want to cut costs and maximize profits – yes, that is indeed the point; it is indeed the motive that CAUSES economic progress and higher physical living standards – but in a capitalist system, profit-seekers can only maximize profits by serving their customers well. Doing “reprehensible” things is not, repeat NOT, an effective business plan.

    Most people find that obvious, of course. But with leftists, you have to explain it because of the kind of bullcrap that here, we see spewed by Another_Jeremy.

    Time has shown again and again that GOVERNMENT VIOLATION OF CAPITALISM leads to profit-seeking entities doing dysfunctional things. Take regulation. When you introduce it, then it is the government, NOT the marketplace, which holds life-and-death power over companies. So it is the regulators, NOT the consumer, whom the company serves from then on. And usually, the regulators and the company get cozy together – for the purpose of shutting out new competitors, i.e., lessening competition in that market. The “fear of God” vanishes from the market.

    Then leftists step in to say “See, capitalism failed – we need more government” – once more offering poison as food, poison as antidote. Leftists offer nothing but poison.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 23, 2012 @ 11:40 pm - April 23, 2012

  81. Finally, just google “slavery in the british empire” to see that slavery was indeed legal (i.e. both permitted and enforced by the government) until 1833 or, if you want to get technical, 1838. Tons of articles out there.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 23, 2012 @ 11:48 pm - April 23, 2012

  82. “The establishment of the Royal African Company in 1672 formalised the Slave Trade under a royal charter…” – Golly. Isn’t it true that in the British system, the royals and their various grants and charters have something to do with the government? I forget what, exactly.

    And of course, slavery did exist in British dominions before 1672 as well – because it had existed in most countries and cultures since prehistory, under the protection of contemporary governments.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 23, 2012 @ 11:52 pm - April 23, 2012

  83. @ I Love Capitalism

    Do you still not get it?

    $64,000 question

    WHAT ENDED SLAVERY IN THE BRITISH EMPIRE?

    ANSWER: PARLIAMENT, NOT “CAPITALISM”

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — April 24, 2012 @ 12:03 am - April 24, 2012

  84. the Republican party became the party of white supremacy. Anyone who maintains that conservatives lead the way with civil rights is a flat earther. Period.

    Well Josef Goebbles might be proud of your bullshit. I suppose George Soros would be too, but that’s about it.

    Sieg heil, baby!

    Comment by TGC — April 24, 2012 @ 12:06 am - April 24, 2012

  85. BTW, don’t think I hadn’t noticed that you failed to show how my comments are raaaaaaaaacist.

    Comment by TGC — April 24, 2012 @ 12:15 am - April 24, 2012

  86. ANSWER: PARLIAMENT, NOT “CAPITALISM”

    Not in dispute. Or can you read?

    For the record, I shall quote what I already said at #53 – this time with emphasis for the reading-impaired:

    So *government ended slavery*, only in the sense that government created it to begin with. Government decides what is legal. Private (i.e. non-governmental) actors do not.

    Reading comprehension, Another_Jeremy. GOVERNMENT CREATES SLAVERY AS A SYSTEM OR INSTITUTION. THEREFORE ONLY GOVERNMENT CAN EVER END SLAVERY AS A SLAVERY OR INSTITUTION. THE TWO ROLES GO TOGETHER. NOT IN DISPUTE.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2012 @ 2:52 am - April 24, 2012

  87. WHAT ENDED SLAVERY IN THE BRITISH EMPIRE?

    ANSWER: PARLIAMENT, NOT “CAPITALISM”

    So there were no economic changes nor even the industrial revolution that had any sort of impact making it untenable? I suppose, too, that there weren’t any Christians or any sort of religious folk involved in abolition. No, it was the great, benefactor (government) who woke up one morning and said “By golly, we gotta end slavery today”.

    You must think we’re as stupid as you hope like hell blacks are. Pathetic.

    Comment by TGC — April 24, 2012 @ 2:56 am - April 24, 2012

  88. (my continuation – happens to fit somewhat with TGC’s) Now, as to capitalism’s role in the matter: Yes, Another_Jeremy, as a matter of fact, capitalism – the social system that relies on individual freedom, that can’t function without individual freedom, and that has done an historically unprecedented job of advancing living standards and the human race in general – did create much of the economic and moral pressure that led people to eventually demand that governments, for the first time in history, systematically abolish slavery.

    “You’re welcome.”

    Oh wait, I keep for getting – as a leftist, your ultimate goal is to have us all be slaves (to the government).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2012 @ 3:00 am - April 24, 2012

  89. @ TGC

    Lemme get this straight.

    When black people were voting Republican prior to FDR they were voting in their own interests. Then, at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, the Democrats that were lynching them in the streets tricked them into voting for their party and they went for it. All of this happened despite the fact that they hadn’t voted Democratic for the past 100 years or so and had nothing to do with their objective understanding of the changing political environment. It was because they just didn’t get it. They didn’t know who their real enemies were. It wasn’t the angry, white, conservative mobs screaming “Segregation Forever,” it was LBJ who passed the Civil Rights Act making it illegal for to turn them away from schools and restaurants because they had black skin. You have to remember to cut black people some slack. It’s a very elaborate trick that whole granting them equality thing. Thank God there were good honest white people to tell them what was really going on.

    Your insinuation that African-American voters collectively lack the intelligence to vote for the “correct” party is racist and offensive. And it has no basis in fact. The black populace is not a mindless orb to be educated or controlled. That they do not share your warped ideas about racism, government, history and reality does not mean they have been collectively duped. It does not mean that black people are required to listen to the well-meaning, conservative, god fearing white people who claim to have had their best interests at heart all along. In case you’ve forgotten, there are a handful of other races that vote democratic. White being among them. Why are there no calls to educate white people? Or better yet, white Evangelicals who staunchly vote Republican? Nope. Just minorities who (shockingly) don’t support conservative candidates. Gee. If only black people would vote for your team, you wouldn’t think they’re all stupid.

    @ I love Capitalism but don’t really know what it is

    The US government. Did not. Create. Slavery. It’s existence preceded its legal definition. The first slaves in the US are believed to have arrived in 1619. And the institution was legalized in 1641 AFTER it became apparent that there was a capitalistic demand for dirt cheap labor. After all Mr. Businesses-Effectively-Monitor-Themselves, how could a plantation owner who was paying all of his workers and letting them go home compete with a plantation owner who was paying his workers $0, working them until they were half dead from exhaustion and then locking them up in the back yard?

    Sorry. I keep forgetting that your goal as a conservative is to have us all as slaves. To corporations and a plutocracy.

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — April 24, 2012 @ 8:44 pm - April 24, 2012

  90. @ I love Capitalism

    It’s also fascinating that we haven’t been a capitalist country in decades, but it’s still Obama’s fault.

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — April 24, 2012 @ 8:55 pm - April 24, 2012

  91. Your insinuation that African-American voters collectively lack the intelligence to vote for the “correct” party is racist and offensive. And it has no basis in fact. The black populace is not a mindless orb to be educated or controlled.

    Tell that to the racist black leftists who call black conservatives “Uncle Toms” because they are conservative.

    After all Mr. Businesses-Effectively-Monitor-Themselves

    I’m pretty sure ILoveCapitalism never said that. I seem to recall him saying something to the effect that some government is required (in a capitalist system) to protect natural rights and enforce contract and property law.

    It’s also fascinating that we haven’t been a capitalist country in decades, but it’s still Obama’s fault.

    I’m pretty sure no one has said anything like that, either. In fact, ILoveCapitalism’s comment #78 contradicts this.

    Sorry, ILoveCapitalism, I know you are fully capable of defending yourself, but this one was just too hard to resist.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — April 24, 2012 @ 9:30 pm - April 24, 2012

  92. After all Mr. Businesses-Effectively-Monitor-Themselves, how could a plantation owner who was paying all of his workers and letting them go home compete with a plantation owner who was paying his workers $0, working them until they were half dead from exhaustion and then locking them up in the back yard?

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — April 24, 2012 @ 8:44 pm – April 24, 2012

    Quite well, actually, if you look at the enormous difference in economy, available resources for production, and per-capita output in 1860 between the North, where slavery with a few exceptions had been abolished for years, and the South, where slavery was virtually ubiquitous. Northerners were across the board better-fed, better-clothed, better-equipped, better-armed, and better-supported, despite the North having no slaves and the South having veritable armies of them.

    Which nicely illustrates ILC’s point above that slavery is a ridiculously-inefficient system when compared to capitalism-driven improvements such as mechanization and industrialization, and is why capitalism makes the elimination of slavery possible.

    In short, you are completely ignorant of history. But that’s no surprise; Barack Obama supporters like yourself know nothing more than to chant “Barack Hussein Obama, mmm, mmm, mmm”. As Barack Obama himself will tell you, he’s smarter and can do your job better than you can, so you ought to just shut up and do as you’re told.

    That makes your statement here particularly hilarious.

    Sorry. I keep forgetting that your goal as a conservative is to have us all as slaves. To corporations and a plutocracy.

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — April 24, 2012 @ 8:44 pm – April 24, 2012

    Which means one of two things: either you are too stupid to realize that you are free to choose where you work, including not to work at all, or you are too lazy to work in the first place.

    My guess is the latter. You’ve gone from screaming how unfair it was that Mommy didn’t make your bed for you to screaming how unfair it is that you can’t garnish other peoples’ paychecks rather than having to work for your own. And for some reason, you think that the fact you like to suck c*ck gives you MORE right to force other people to pay your bills for you.

    Meanwhile, as for racists, you’re the one screaming the N-word at black people who don’t do what you want, and you’re the one demanding that black people be “put back in the fields” and yelling “string him up” and “hang him”, so I think it’s quite fair to state that you are the racist here.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 24, 2012 @ 10:38 pm - April 24, 2012

  93. RS, right on all counts.

    Businesses don’t monitor themselves; they need shareholders, directors, managers, employees, consumers,private industry standards boards, private watchdog groups, and a vibrant free press to do that. Plus, as you point out, they need government to prosecute crimes of force and fraud, and its court system to enforce contracts and handle torts. I have never said otherwise.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2012 @ 10:51 pm - April 24, 2012

  94. @ Rattlesnake

    1.

    As opposed to the Republicans who question the legitimacy of minority liberals no matter what their qualifications? Sonia Sotomayor? Birthers? They’re all either “affirmative action hires” or they’re not American. Except Clarence Thomas of course, who was the least experienced jurist to ever be appointed to the Supreme Court. But he’s conservative. Therefore he’s qualified, right?

    2.

    I think your memory and/or reading comprehension skills may be suspect. ILoveCapitalism said both of those things.

    “Doing reprehensible things is not, repeat NOT, an effective business plan.”

    Slavery seems pretty reprehensible to me. If it wasn’t an effective business plan why did it last three centuries and make so many people rich? Or are you going to stop floundering and acknowledge that it was an effective business plan, and that capitalism made slavery a necessity for plantation owners to compete in the “free market?” Wait, it was a free market back then right? Oh well. If not I bet that was Obama’s fault too.

    “Capitalism was ended in the U.S., if not decades ago (and I would argue that it was decades ago), then certainly by Obama’s actions in 2009-10.”

    So he did blame it on Obama. So capitalism has either been gone for several decades, or Obama did it. One or the other. No big deal. Except that it’s neither. Because the US is a capitalist country, as any sane person realizes.

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — April 24, 2012 @ 11:23 pm - April 24, 2012

  95. (continued) What businesses don’t need – and what consumers don’t need; what society doesn’t need – is a bunch of government “regulators” throwing their weight around…. picking winners and losers by political means (instead of letting the consumer marketplace decide), making companies beholden to them (rather than the formerly-sovereign consumer), and effectively shutting down new competition (while pretending not to – but in reality, their “regulations” are so burdensome that newcomers can’t hope to comply; which protects the big, established players).

    It seems that monitoring companies via “shareholders, directors, managers, employees, consumers, private industry standards boards, private watchdog groups, and a vibrant free press”, and courts to boot, just isn’t enough for Another_Jeremy. He simply must have government bureaucrats in there also. If he can’t have government bureaucrats in there, he’ll go into conniptions. That tells you his real agenda.

    What do I mean by “conniptions”? Well, Another_Jeremy’s statements are getting progressively sillier (pun intended). He’s reach the frothing-and-foaming-at-the-mouth stage, that many lefties reach, once confronted by truth and facts. For example:

    Sorry. I keep forgetting that your goal as a conservative is to have us all as slaves. To corporations and a plutocracy.

    Problems with that one:

    1) As I indicated at comment #77, we are already slaves to a plutocracy… RIGHT NOW, UNDER (AND PARTLY BECAUSE OF) OBAMA. I said that the U.S. system is “centrally planned corporate socialism, [or] by its right name, fascism.” It’s a form of plutocracy, in part. And it’s Obama. And, needless to say (because I’ve been saying it all along), it’s close to the opposite of what I want.

    2) And, I’m actually not a conservative.

    Or this one:

    It’s also fascinating that we haven’t been a capitalist country in decades, but it’s still Obama’s fault.

    What I said was that (a) America has been getting progressively more fascist for decades – again, pun intended (fascism being originally a variant of socialism/leftism); and (b) Obama has taken it to a new level. There’s no contradiction there. Except that Another_Jeremy can’t handle it, or even bother to comprehend his opponents’ ideas, before he spews his arbitrary nonsense back at them.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2012 @ 11:28 pm - April 24, 2012

  96. Doubtless I could pick apart much more of what Another_Jeremy has to say, but State-worshipping minds like his are so dull. I’m reminded of what Hannah Arendt, when confronted with the State-worshipping minds of her generation, called “the banality of evil”. In other words, I don’t want to spend all night on him. We’re all chipping in a little, which lightens the load and makes it a bit more fun :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2012 @ 11:38 pm - April 24, 2012

  97. @ North Whatever

    You can keep telling yourself that I have no job, sweetheart. And keep trying to dehumanize people who do not get up and shout “tyranny” when they see a black man on TV telling them they should pay higher taxes. But keep making up false indignations about how the poors are coming to take your piggy bank because they wanna get wasted and have orgies.

    Because you sound like a fucking moron.

    I love your take on history though. What of the years when slavery WAS an efficient system? Those little monkeys could just tell their children that in due time the Industrial Revolution is gonna come along and make it all right?!! All those black people needed to do was wait for their masters to realize that slavery had become inefficient. That the government ended it was the REAL injustice.

    Also, if you guys are so against “identity politics” and “handouts” why have a website for “gay patriots” anyway? Why not just get in line with all those “normal,” macho, heterosexual Republicans? Just seems odd.

    Cheers!

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — April 24, 2012 @ 11:40 pm - April 24, 2012

  98. slavery [was] a ridiculously-inefficient system when compared to capitalism-driven improvements such as mechanization and industrialization, and is why capitalism makes the elimination of slavery possible.

    NDT, well said.

    With that, I’m done for tonight. Maybe back tomorrow, we’ll see.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2012 @ 11:41 pm - April 24, 2012

  99. As opposed to the Republicans who question the legitimacy of minority liberals no matter what their qualifications? Sonia Sotomayor? Birthers? They’re all either “affirmative action hires” or they’re not American.

    That is an inevitable result of affirmative action.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — April 25, 2012 @ 1:45 am - April 25, 2012

  100. Except Clarence Thomas of course, who was the least experienced jurist to ever be appointed to the Supreme Court. But he’s conservative. Therefore he’s qualified, right?

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — April 24, 2012 @ 11:23 pm – April 24, 2012

    Thomas grew up in Savannah, Georgia and was educated at the College of the Holy Cross and at Yale Law School. In 1974, he was appointed an Assistant Attorney General in Missouri and subsequently practiced law there in the private sector. In 1979, he became a legislative assistant to Missouri United States Senator John Danforth and in 1981 was appointed Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan appointed Thomas Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC); he served in that position until 1990, when President George H. W. Bush nominated him for a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

    On July 1, 1991, after 16 months of service as a judge, Thomas was nominated by Bush to fill Marshall’s seat on the United States Supreme Court.

    Compare and contrast.

    Kagan was born and raised in New York City. After attending Princeton, Oxford, and Harvard Law School, she completed federal Court of Appeals and Supreme Court clerkships. She began her career as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, leaving to serve as Associate White House Counsel, and later as policy adviser, under President Clinton. After a nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which expired without action, she became a professor at Harvard Law School and was later named its first female dean.

    President Obama appointed her Solicitor General on January 26, 2009. On May 10, 2010, Obama nominated her to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy from the impending retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens.

    So yes, Thomas is significantly more qualified than Kagan, especially given that he actually had prior experience as a judge.

    Furthermore, your argument is hilarious, given that you endorse the racist Sonia Sotomayor who says that skin color and ethnicity trump education and that a “Latina” is always a better judge than a white person.

    But of course we know the problem. You want to lynch Clarence Thomas, send him back to the fields, and string him up.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 25, 2012 @ 2:13 am - April 25, 2012

  101. You can keep telling yourself that I have no job, sweetheart.

    Nope. I said you were too lazy to work. That’s probably why you moan and cry about being a “slave” so much and demand that those of us who aren’t subsidize you.

    And keep trying to dehumanize people who do not get up and shout “tyranny” when they see a black man on TV telling them they should pay higher taxes.

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — April 24, 2012 @ 11:40 pm – April 24, 2012

    Nope. I dehumanize racists like yourself who scream about sending black men back to the fields, hanging them, and stringing them up.

    That’s the difference between us. I don’t believe in murdering or enslaving black people who disagree with me politically; you and your party do.

    And in Obama’s case, since he doesn’t believe in paying taxes already owed, he has no business demanding that anyone else pay more.

    And finally:

    I love your take on history though. What of the years when slavery WAS an efficient system?

    What of them?

    Like when did they happen, and so forth?

    Libbies like yourself invariably run off into the theoretical ether when faced with facts. Since you claim slavery was the more efficient system, prove it. I provided a concrete date and testable metrics; you do the same.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 25, 2012 @ 2:23 am - April 25, 2012

  102. But keep making up false indignations about how the poors are coming to take your piggy bank because they wanna get wasted and have orgies.

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — April 24, 2012 @ 11:40 pm – April 24, 2012

    Let’s see now.

    San Francisco has paid at least $150,000 for Kenny Walters in the past year. He isn’t employed, has an arrest record as long as his hair, and can often be found passed out in a doorway on Haight Street.

    Kenny Walters’ job is to get drunk.

    He’s certainly not alone. “Chronic inebriants” are a grim and disturbing fact of life in San Francisco. They also cost the city millions.

    And wait, there’s more:

    Stanley Thornton Jr., 30, is a self-described “adult baby,” who sleeps in a huge crib, drinks from a bottle, wears diapers, lives with a former nurse who acts as his “mom”… and subsists on Social Security disability benefits.

    And don’t forget the millions spent on tax-dodging and providing subsidized welfare housing for multimillionaire Obama Party leaders.

    Now, Another_Jeremy, please state for the record why MY work should be confiscated to pay for “the poor” to get drunk, play out their sexual and emotional fantasies, and live in opulence while dodging taxes.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 25, 2012 @ 2:31 am - April 25, 2012

  103. you wouldn’t think they’re all stupid.

    Nope, just you. You keep bobbing, weaving and spinning more than my Maytag. You’ve yet to answer any of my questions and you keep ASSerting that we’ve said things that we never did. Essentially, you’re so full of shit that magnesium citrate would be useless. There’s no point to you. You don’t even want to debate or discuss. You just want to run through your lying points and make up shit about what folks say. You’re useless, dishonest and lower than a snake’s ass in a wagon rut.

    Comment by TGC — April 25, 2012 @ 3:35 am - April 25, 2012

  104. And the absolute best evidence that liberals are full of impacted shit:

    When Trent Lott made his comment, you libs went apshit spicey gonzo. He got into trouble and lost his job essentially over nothing. Chris “Countrywide” Dodd said almost exactly the same thing about your Ku Klucker “Conscinece of the Senate” and not a DAMN one of you made a peep. Dodd kept his job.

    That’s what you call hypocrisy and double-standard. It’s also a prime example of how the racist bigot liberals roll. You ARE the party of the KKK. You own it and you live it. There’s no two ways around it no matter how much you spin, lie, project and bullshit your voters. You’re the f**king worst of the worst in this country and KEEP people bound in slavery on your plantation even to this day.

    Comment by TGC — April 25, 2012 @ 3:48 am - April 25, 2012

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.381 Powered by Wordpress