reparations

[angelofdeath]

"How exactly does one survive without a job? I am confused, are you talking about homeless people or something? That is hardly living. I do not think you could find many people to agree with you on this statement."

 

how about retired people? how about people who are independently wealthy? how about people who simply live self sufficient lives that own thier own land and grow thier own food?

 

"But not being able to pursue a career is a limit on your liberty plain and simple. Not everyone can start their own business. "

 

that is a retarded statement. it is not an employers responsibility to employ someone. just like it is not a persons responsibility to work for an employer. what next "well child porn costs money, so i want child porn for free and it want it legalized because i believe in liberty, got dang it!" you are right, not everyone can start thier own business, but every one does have an equal chance at trying. AKA liberty to try. you cannot trample property rights, which are the foundation of freedom, in the name of fixing a supposed injustice.

 

"Like I said before, the declaration of independence says life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It doesn't say liberty for property and business owners to do whatever they want and screw everybody else"

 

you must not have a good background in your john lockean principles. the principles spelled out in that line of the declaration of independence, drawn from such thinkers as john locke, adam smith, hume and others, literally mean LIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTY. yes, pursuit of happiness is property. i think i laid this out on here before. it does not mean you have the right to be happy and the government will guarantee that right. it means, you have the right to your property, and you have the right to ALL of it. you are also missing the point. business owners, dont own anyone. they are not coercing people with threat of violence to sign these contracts you keep talking about. if there is no violent coercion, there is no injustice. you do not possess a right to go onto someone elses property to work. the business owner invites you to work on his property. you can agree or disagree with his terms. plain and simple.

 

"I am confused, why is it theft if the federal government regulates toxic chemicals but not when the local government does it?"

 

dont get me wrong, its still theft, any way you cut it. the thing is with a system of decentralized government, you dont have a single state imposing tyranny on teh whole country. you have the political system decentralized, and limited and this guarantees the right of self government to everyone. DC cannot simply centrally plan all of society and make things perfect, no matter how hard they try. in the true system of federalism, if a law is passed, it only imposes tyranny on a small population, rather than the WHOLE damn country.

 

"Except that in your free society the patrons have no way of knowing that lead based paint was used in the building, because there is no regulation therefore no reason for the bar owner to tell anyone anything at all. The patrons would only know that lead based paint was used when they realize that their kids are learning disabled or having other health problems. "

 

this plays on emotions, but is full of fallacy. again, no one is forcing the person to go this place, unless the business owner is herding everyone in sight into his lead painted shack. do you really think that the owner of the bar would subject himself to things that would kill him IF he valued his life? still, the property owner can do what he wants, unless this paint some how leaked into the air, and was making people drop dead like flies. but this isnt the case.

 

a similar 'for instance' is the smoking bans that are in vogue these days. im straight edge, and i am 100% against smoking bans. why? because they are a invasion of property rights. cigarette smoke is not violating anyone, because people who come to places that allow cigarette smoking, do so voluntarily. they are subjecting themselves to the smoke, and they must deal with the consequences. non smokers should seek a smoke free restaurant, eat at home, shut the fuck up, and mind thier own business.

[russell jones]

"How exactly does one survive without a job? I am confused, are you talking about homeless people or something? That is hardly living. I do not think you could find many people to agree with you on this statement."

 

how about retired people? how about people who are independently wealthy? how about people who simply live self sufficient lives that own thier own land and grow thier own food?

.

 

Now this is a retarded statement. Retired people have already worked their whole lives. Define independently wealthy. You need to have the land first to be self sufficient. Without money or inheritance how exactly does one do this? You are using few exceptions to justify the rule.

[russell jones]

"Except that in your free society the patrons have no way of knowing that lead based paint was used in the building, because there is no regulation therefore no reason for the bar owner to tell anyone anything at all. The patrons would only know that lead based paint was used when they realize that their kids are learning disabled or having other health problems. "

 

this plays on emotions, but is full of fallacy. again, no one is forcing the person to go this place, unless the business owner is herding everyone in sight into his lead painted shack. do you really think that the owner of the bar would subject himself to things that would kill him IF he valued his life? still, the property owner can do what he wants, unless this paint some how leaked into the air, and was making people drop dead like flies. but this isnt the case.

 

a similar 'for instance' is the smoking bans that are in vogue these days. im straight edge, and i am 100% against smoking bans. why? because they are a invasion of property rights. cigarette smoke is not violating anyone, because people who come to places that allow cigarette smoking, do so voluntarily. they are subjecting themselves to the smoke, and they must deal with the consequences. non smokers should seek a smoke free restaurant, eat at home, shut the fuck up, and mind thier own business.

 

No one is forcing you to go there, but if you don't know it's dangerous, how do you know not to go there? Also, lead in paint effects children and the ability of people to have healthy children. The bar owner may not care because this would not effect him personally. As an adult, lead paint would not have to much of an effect.

 

I do not think that smoking bans are the same situation, since someone can cleary see the danger as soon as the walk in the room.

 

But, I can see why smoking bans in public places are justified for the same reasons that I explain below. I think people should be able to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own home, smoke, do drugs, set themselves on fire, whatever they want to do. But when you run a business, whether you like it or not, you are creating a public place, for people to gather and meet. Sure, you can say people should just stay home but what about the people who work there? I already know your answer, they can get another job. Or maybe they can just buy a plot of land and live off it, according to you, like that could ever happen on a mass scale. Or maybe just become independently wealthy? Yeah that's it, it's all so easy.

 

Just because Locke and others have stated that property rights are the basis of liberty does not make it so. In my opinion, your insistance on unlimited property rights limits the ability of individuals to move from place to place, to conduct business and to live their lives. I think this is more of a llmit on freedom than regulating a certain amount of safety minimums for business owners. That's just my opinion, you are free to disagree with it, but please stop acting like it is some kind of empirical maxim that cannot be debated or refuted.

[russell jones]

Maybe we should start a new thread on this one AOD, this is a serious case of thread jacking. Feel free to come up with a title.

[angelofdeath]

yeah, your logic is what is justifying state intervention on peoples property. the lead paint example, wouldnt necessarily piss me off as much as other things. but still i must protest it. see, im arguing from an anarcho capitalist prospective on much of this, im really more of a minarchist than an advocate for a stateless society. which is why i stick by limited government instead of anarchy dude. however to be consistent you must understand anarcho capitalism in my line of beliefs. what makes me more of a conservative than a libertarian is the fact that i believe local governments can step in and say 'hey if you have children coming in here, get rid of the lead paint, or in a christian community, hey you cant have that strip club here, etc etc.' but nonetheless any intervention in property rights is theft.

 

but i disgress.

back to the business example, it does should not matter one iota if the public is going in the place or not. it is still unjust to regulate someones property just because people enter it. it is still thier own property.

 

for instance if i own an auto shop in a free society. i might not allow customers into my service bays. why? liability. if someone walks in and gets crushed by a car, im responsible, if i invited them onto the property to do business, by allowing people to come onto my property to seek my services. they could sue me in court for damages and i would lose and have to pay up. same with lead paint, if a child came onto my business and i allowed him, and he got cancer from my lead paint, i could be sued, unless i had him sign a waiver before entering.

 

another example would be a private road. im sure if people owned private turnpikes, you would have to sign a waiver saying that if you got in an accident the road owner was not liable.

 

there a bunch of junk yards around my way that do this. you have to pull your own parts, but you also have to sign a waiver saying that if you get fucked up in the yard, its not thier fault.

most places are enter at your own risk.

[angelofdeath]

Now this is a retarded statement. Retired people have already worked their whole lives. Define independently wealthy. You need to have the land first to be self sufficient. Without money or inheritance how exactly does one do this? You are using few exceptions to justify the rule.

 

i can go on...

what if you are a stock investor and you made it big on stocks. you dont actually have to 'work' anymore. you can own your own business and have others work for you. you arent actually 'working.'

what if you were given a gold mine. you most likely wouldnt need 'a job.' the examples can go on, your statement would be correct if you said ..." for most people to live today, they need a job."

[russell jones]

I should probably concede this point since my wife, who is a massage therapist, doubled her income by quitting her job.

[fermentor666]

America will never be and has never been the way you want it to be, AOD. Only a fool would truely believe there to be a chance of that.

[nino1]

all of you white devils owe me twenty bucks

reparations now

[fermentor666]

Since my ancestor's never owned slaves, you'd have to pick some cotton for that 20 bucks.

[russell jones]

I'm a greasy dago so my relatives were shooting and stabbing each other in Sicily during slavery times.

[Guest spectr]

all of you white devils owe me twenty bucks

reparations now

ignorance is a blessing nino enjoy it. I also hope you enjoy slaving away the rest of your life blinded to the world around you.

[fermentor666]

I don't think there will ever be reperations from the federal government because of all the people who have no connection to slavery who would still be paying for it from their taxes. Then those people could claim reperationsa and so on and so on. It's not realistic, just idealistic.

[WORDISM45]

Yo AOD its really hilarious that you keep posting pictures of blacks with confederate flags and think you're making soe kind of a point.

 

also stop conflating egalitarianism with the belief that all people are equal in ability. egalitarianism has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a persons physical or mental capacity, in fact it has everything to do with what youre always rattling on about, the fact that no matte rwhat every human being is equal in terms of their freedom to pursue their vital interests (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) its not sayign everyone should be at exactly the same level in thsi sense jsut that everyoen should have exactly the same freedom to attempt it

[angelofdeath]

"I don't think there will ever be reperations from the federal government because of all the people who have no connection to slavery who would still be paying for it from their taxes. Then those people could claim reperationsa and so on and so on. It's not realistic, just idealistic."

 

good f'ing point fermentor. i feel the exact same way. and another point is, the blacks that pay into the tax system, will essentially have thier money taken from them, then give back to them in the form of a reparation check. so yeah, those dudes are really making out. haha.

[angelofdeath]

"Yo AOD its really hilarious that you keep posting pictures of blacks with confederate flags and think you're making soe kind of a point."

 

how is it hilarious? blacks fought for the confederacy, just like whites did. it is simply to show that race relations and slavery and the south and lincoln and the noble north are not black and white. they are super complex.

 

but you'll never hear about those black confederates, alot of whom voluntarily took up arms, to fight the yankee. sort of throws a wrench in the gears of the SPLC agenda.

[WORDISM45]

nah man im down with the confederates and im not even american, you just bust thsoe fuckign flics out as if theyre relevant to try to prove black people think the same way as you or some shit

[russell jones]

"Yo AOD its really hilarious that you keep posting pictures of blacks with confederate flags and think you're making soe kind of a point."

 

how is it hilarious? blacks fought for the confederacy, just like whites did. it is simply to show that race relations and slavery and the south and lincoln and the noble north are not black and white. they are super complex.

 

but you'll never hear about those black confederates, alot of whom voluntarily took up arms, to fight the yankee. sort of throws a wrench in the gears of the SPLC agenda.

 

Not exactly. Read this article.

 

http://www2.netdoor.com/~jgh/mobile.html

[angelofdeath]

there is much debate about this topic. im sure i would thoroughly wear you out. there is some misrepresentation on the side of the 'black confederates' alot of people over estimate thier role and numbers. some people say all were voluntary, some people say all were forced into service. both are wrong. there was a mixture.

 

the sons of confederate veterans, which i am a proud member of has many black and jewish members. in case you didnt know, you have to be blood to a confederate ancestor to join the organization.

 

for instance the confederate 1st louisiana guard consisted of mostly 'free persons of color.' they saw no real military action, some even were turn coats in later years, as were many confederates, including one of my own, from virginia, what is not west virginia. the union gave you a free pass if you would take up arms against the south. to some, it sure beat prison or death.

 

the blacks who served in the war to prevent southern secession, are a long forgotton part of history. ive seen dozens of pictures of reunions of confederate soldiers, with blacks among the ranks, next to whites. and no they were not thier 'servants.'

 

the civil war is a complex subject, considering especially that the emanicpation proclamation didnt free any slaves in the north, or border states, it only 'freed' them in the south, which wasnt even under US rule at the time. it was not uncommon for non slave holding southerners to be engaged in combat with slave holding northerners. Grant didnt free his slaves till after the war. New Jersey didnt ban slavery until 1865. Northern states had black codes which forbid free blacks from entering. lincoln wanted free slaves deported. he preached in his first inaugural about not ever touching slavery, and even was behind the first 13th amendment that didnt pass that would of made slavery un touchable and legal forever. this was all done in the name of preserving the union. slavery didnt become a talking point for him until the later years, sort of like bush. how first it was WMD's, then it was freeing iraqis from genocide, now its spreading democracy. same shit, constitution trampled, habeus corpus suspended, big business/big government partnership, high tariffs, 'free elections' held at bayonet point, conscription, the first income tax, guns confiscated, war waged on civilians, and all that good stuff.

 

so, no, the war of nothern aggression, is not a black and white issue. plan on making this thread 98 pages if you want to continue the discussion.

[angelofdeath]

"prove black people think the same way as you or some shit"

 

not to prove that everyone black person thinks the same as me, but to prove that not all blacks are brainwashed by the politically correct agenda. for instance, take a look at the vote for the mississippi state flag, which includes a confederate battle flag. the vote included way more than 35% of the blacks voting in favor of the confederate design on the ballot measure.

[russell jones]

the sons of confederate veterans, which i am a proud member of has many black and jewish members. in case you didnt know, you have to be blood to a confederate ancestor to join the organization.

.

 

That explains alot.

 

So what's the origin of your name AOD?

[russell jones]

you are also correct in some foreign countries having more liberty. the CATO institute for example always has a list of which countries are the 'freest.'

 

 

Denmark, Sweeden and Finland all in the top 20. Score one for the welfare state.

[WORDISM45]

pelase do go on about the civil war ive been doign a lot of reading about it lately, i figured it had to be bullshit the way almost anyone anywhere aroudn the world that knew there had been an american civil war would automatically say that it occured because the north wanted t ofree the slaves and the osuth didn't.

 

ps yeah thats cool if youre going to make soem points about blacks being pro confederate but dont jsut post a flic of some dude next to a flag and think that it has any relevance.

[angelofdeath]

hey yum....

there are a couple good books that are really good on telling more of the whole story of the civil war.

 

actually the most controversial on lincoln, "the real lincoln" by thomas dilorenzo is the most hard hitting. it doesnt touch on the whole war per se, but really really explains alot about lincoln. and its not that it is totally new material. he just presents it in a way that offers no excuse for lincoln's actions, like most other lincoln books do. for instance instead of saying something like "lincoln needed to suspend habeus corpus because of X, Y, Z..." Dilorenzo will say "lincoln suspended habeus corpus and imprisoned between 14-20K northern war dissenters, under this suspension of the 1000 year old tradition of habeus corpus."

 

and im not gonna sit here and say that the war wasnt about slavery at all. i look at it as playing the same roll gay marriage played in 2004. the main concern was iraq. the main concern in 1860 was the tariff. and if people dont believe that, lincoln had most forts in the south abandoned after the south seceded. except for one. fort sumpter in charleston harbor, which he reinforced. charleston was also the busiest port in the south and where the majority of tariff revenue was collected. when the south seceded, and lincoln fortified that fort, it was taken as an act of aggression, because of a hostile enemy fort in charleston harbor and south carolina fired on it. didnt kill any one, but the first real shots of the war were fired at a US Customs house. (actually the first shots were fired on pratt street in baltimore months before sumpter, where lincoln was rounding up suspected secessionists)

[WORDISM45]

interesitng ill see if i can fidn a copy when im finished i finish up uni in a few weeks

[killakash]

where can i find current pending legislation on reparations?

[religion]

I'll say reparations are in order... but in different ways than I think most African Americans want. Native Canadian Indians have reparations. They still ;ive like shit. It's no lie. I've lived on the reservations in Saskatchewan at one point and I can definetly tell you that giving a fuckload of uneducated, poor people a wad of cash doesn't solve shit. They buy fancy cars, booze, and drugs... but nobody prospers. The educational system needs a serious overhaul. All races need to seriously intergrate. I mean as in racial freindship, not sexual relationships. I have been lucky enough to have grown up with all ethnicity of people, and I can tell you that all the color/racial bullshit dfferences are nothing compared to the bigger problem of "priority" of all north american people. Fuck, I cold go on all night. The word "success" is missunderstood. Being materially "loaded" will still leave you with a poor level of human worth.

 

Night,

Sg.

[Dawood]

well said religion. I jumped into this discussion way too late to really get in to it now.

good discussion though.

[WORDISM45]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnloMMvC_8k

chapelle show on what would happen if reperations were made

[WORDISM45]

ps i missed you dawood