genuineoriginal
New member
You must be a new kind of idiot for believing the Civil Rights Act created segregation.
The Difference between Libertarian and Conservative.
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
You must be a new kind of idiot for believing the Civil Rights Act created segregation.
You're back to inventing weird things and insisting that other people believe them. As you now realize, your initial error was in assuming that there were no conservative democrats in the 1960s. And as you see, southern republicans were more likely to favor segregation than southern democrats, and northern republicans were more likely to favor segregation than northern democrats.
But regional differences were the biggest issue. This is why the formerly solid democratic south became solidly republican, after the democratic party moved to end segregation.
But you just assailed the idea of freedom for everyone, decrying this:
For libertarians, this principle can be applied in almost every circumstance, including in ways that many conservatives find socially destructive or morally consequential. For instance, when it comes to prostitution, abortion, illicit drug use, porous borders, etc., conservatives don’t simply think in market terms. We think about the kind of society that will be conducive to preserving liberty and the good life in the long run.
In other words, libertarians think the government shouldn't be in the business of forcing people to be "good" and conservatives want to use the government to make people "good" (which conservatives define as being whatever they want).
Conservatives want freedom for themselves and other like them, and the power to force anyone not like them to comply with their idea of "good."
Libertarians want freedom for everyone, so long as they don't abuse anyone else.
genuineoriginal
New member
I have quoted the conversation to show that the issue in the conversation is which party (Democrat or Republican) created the segregation (Jim Crow) laws.
You are the one that tried to paint the civil rights act as a Jim Crow law.
Maybe you should go back to trolling the Trump threads, since that doesn't require any rational thought.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
So are laws outlawing murder conservative? These laws force people to comply, even if they personally think that there's nothing wrong with murder.
So then laws against murder are libertarian?
It seems like according to your definition that laws against murder are both conservative and libertarian.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Good! Then you know what I'm talking about.
Do you think that, had Caligula or Nero wanted to marry their horse, that if you were a baker, and you refused to bake a wedding cake for a marriage between a man and a horse, that you would be executed for your refusal?
genuineoriginal
New member
You seem to have suffered "brain-lock" when you read that passage that I quoted.
The conservative that wrote it stated: "We think about the kind of society that will be conducive to preserving liberty and the good life in the long run."
He did not say the government should be 'in the business of forcing people to be "good"'.
He was saying that conservatives believe in preventing people from destroying the very things that enable all of us to have liberty and the good life.
You misspelled "liberal".
Liberals (Social Justice Warriors) want freedom for themselves and other like them, and the power to force anyone not like them to comply with their idea of "good." They call this "tolerance".
Unrestrained Libertarianism leads to anarchy.
| How Democracy Leads to Tyranny From Plato’s Republic In his Republic (mostly in book VIII), Plato presents a theory of five types of governments (what we can call Plato’s five regimes). Specifically he explains how Monarchy/Aristocracy (a government based on wisdom) is stable, but how over time Timocracy (a government based on honor and merit; like a military), leads to Oligarchy (a government based on wealth; a capitalist state), leads to Democracy/Anarchy (a government based on liberty and equality), leads to Tyranny (a despotic authoritarian state devoid of liberty and law and with extreme inequality) in a Republic. A main ideas here are:
In simple terms, although this can be said many ways and is in the book (mostly using metaphor), pure oligarchy and pure democracy are bound for tyranny due to their very nature (as is timocracy to some extent) and thus these forms require the checks and restraints offered by the more principled and orderly forms. |
genuineoriginal
New member
You need to learn more about why Christians were executed by the Romans.
| Pliny's Letter to Emperor Trajan I have never taken part in the trials of Christians: hence I do not know for what crime nor to what extent it is customary to punish or investigate. I have been in no little doubt as to whether any discrimination is made for age, or whether the treatment of the weakest does not differ from that of the stronger; whether pardon is granted in case of repentance, or whether he who has ever been a Christian gains nothing by having ceased to be one; whether the name itself without the proof of crimes, or the crimes, inseparably connected with the name, are punished. Meanwhile, I have followed this procedure in the case of those who have been brought before me as Christians. I asked them whether they were Christians a second and a third time and with threats of punishment; I questioned those who confessed; I ordered those who were obstinate to be executed. For I did not doubt that, whatever it was that they confessed, their stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy ought certainly to be punished. |
A Christian baker did not have to refuse to bake a cake to be executed.
Being an obstinate Christian was enough to justify execution in the minds of the Romans.
Last edited:
You're just trying to find a way to justify using the power of the state to force people to be what you are.
And he defines "liberty and the good life" to be "making everyone like me." I get that. That's the difference between conservatives and libertarians.
He let it slip here:
"For libertarians, this principle can be applied in almost every circumstance, including in ways that many conservatives find socially destructive or morally consequential."
It is not the function of government to make us moral. This is why conservatives cannot be trusted with government, and why they always have power taken away from them in the long run.
Conservatives (Social Justice Warriors) want freedom for themselves and other like them, and the power to force anyone not like them to comply with their idea of "good." They call this "preserving liberty and the good life in the long run."
You misspelled "freedom." We all understand why freedom is objectionable to you. But consider that you might very well find yourself in a nation where the powers that be don't agree with your notions of morals and order. Then you would really, really want them to be libertarian.
In a conservative regime, murder is only bad if it's not done to maintain the status quo. As I showed you, libertarians say the state has no right to restrict freedom unless that would lead to abuse of others.
This is one of the important differences between libertarians and conservatives.
Which is why libertarians object to murder in any case.
Yes, because murder is the ultimate denial of freedom. Conservatives, if killing is done to maintain their notion of morality, don't consider it to be murder.
Only in the sense above. It's an absolute with libertarians, but for conservatives, it's also a matter of who is doing the killing, and who is killed.
As you learned, it was conservatives. Notice also that liberals were the ones who tore those laws down.
You tried to paint the civil rights act as a Jim Crow law, but you now realize that it wasn't that at all. This is why the conservatives who supported Jim Crow laws, opposed the civil rights act. Every republican congressman from states in the old confederacy voted against civil rights. Most republicans from other states voted for it.
As you have learned, it was conservatism, and regional factors that determined opposition to the civil rights law.
As hard as it is to believe today, republicans were once generally favorable to civil rights. Following Nixon's "southern strategy", the republicans gradually shifted to the right, and became generally hostile to civil rights for minorities.
Maybe you should go back to trolling threads where you actually know what you're talking about.
genuineoriginal
New member
And once again you are lying out of both sides of your mouth.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
And at the end, when you run out of excuses, you fall back on "They're lying! All of them are lying!"
Next time, think before you put yourself in that position.
As you now realize, conservatives opposed outlawing segregation, and liberals were for outlawing segregation. Instead of getting angry and tossing accusations, make sure you know what you're talking about, next time.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Have you read Eusebius? He was the bishop of Caesarea who wrote a history of the whole Church leading up to the Nicaean council. One of the accounts he gave was of Christian women in the flower of youth and fertility, who were going to be raped first, then killed, for their confession of faith in Christ. Rather than subject themselves to debasement, they instead killed themselves first, denying their murderers and rapists the wicked desire of their hearts.
But mostly the martyrdom accounts were men, and very many of them bishops, who were variously burned, eviscerated, dismembered, stabbed or otherwise cruelly punished, while still alive, all of whom ultimately succumbing to their injuries. The one that really spoke to me was when martyrs were dismembered, finger by finger, toe by toe, limb by limb, all while carefully kept alive and conscious, and their pieces were fed to wild animals right in front of them, until they died.
This was all because they wouldn't call Caesar "Lord," and wouldn't participate in sacrifices offered to emperors and to pagan deities. They only called Jesus of Nazareth "Lord," and they only offered the sacrifice of the Mass (the Eucharist; the Lord's body and blood) to God the Father.
It's helpful to learn about history so that we can interpret our current reality in the light of relevant context. Things could be far, far worse than they are for Christians right now.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
it strikes me that we (in america) live in such a different environment than the early Christians
i wonder how the letters from Paul would read if they were written to an early Christian church forming in modern america, an america where we are expected to participate in government
genuineoriginal
New member
The Democrats are the party that created segregation.
| Jim Crow Jim Crow was the system of laws passed by Democrats promoting racial segregation in the Southern U.S. from the 1880s to 1964 in which African Americans were segregated (separated) in public schools and public places, so that they could not mingle in public with whites on equal terms. In addition to segregation, Jim Crow also assured that blacks had little or no political power. It was a low point in Black history after the euphoria of Reconstruction. In the first stage of "Presidential Reconstruction," from 1865–66, the all-white southern legislatures abolished laws regarding slavery but passed the black codes, which gave new rights to the freedmen but fewer than whites possessed. The codes were not actually enforced but they caused a sharp reaction in the North. The Radical Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which gave freedmen legal rights (but not the right to vote). The country passed the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution by 1870, guaranteeing civil rights and the right to vote. The southern states came under Republican control— a party comprising the Freedmen, white Southerners ("Scalawags") and migrants from the North (Carpetbaggers). The Ku Klux Klan and related groups reacted violently, but they were suppressed by President Ulysses S. Grant using the federal courts and troops. By 1877, the Democrats, forming a Redeemer coalition, ousted all the Republican governments. From 1877 until the 1970s, the Southern Democrats largely controlled every southern state. Redeemers After 1877, the Redeemers reversed many of the civil rights gains that African Americans had made during Reconstruction, passing laws that mandated discrimination by both local governments and by private citizens. Since "Jim Crow law" is a blanket term for any of this type of legislation, the date of inception for the laws varies by state. The most important laws came in the 1890s with the adoption of legislation segregating railroad cars in New Orleans as the first genuine Jim Crow law. By 1915, under the Democrats, every southern state had effectively destroyed the gains in civil rights and liberties that blacks had enjoyed from the Reconstructionist efforts. Many of the discriminatory Jim Crow laws were enacted to support racial segregation in everyday life. They required black and white people to use separate water fountains, public schools, public bath houses, restaurants, public libraries, buses and rail cars—even without legal segregation. In the South, before the resort to widespread legal segregation around 1890, de facto segregation had replaced exclusion in Southern race relations. The integration stage was largely bypassed. Radical measures helped to institutionalize this shift to segregation. Both white Republicans and Redeemers came to embrace the new segregation policies, though often for different reasons. Even the attitudes of blacks helped to assure the shift. Lack of white support, black self-respect, economic pressures, tactical emphasis on securing better "separate but equal" facilities, and the development of group identity all shaped blacks' attitudes.[2] Virginia Governor James L. Kemper (1874–77) and like-minded conservatives sought interracial peace and implemented racial policies which were less anti-Negro and which gave fuller recognition than historians have conceded. The Virginia Redeemers attempted to shape race relations to conform to what C. Vann Woodward has defined as the conservative philosophy. Kemper and the Virginia Redeemers deserve to rank in history alongside the Wade Hamptons and other proponents of the conservative philosophy. The Redeemer system of Jim Crow meant that for the first time black teachers and principals controlled black education. Rabinowitz (1974) studies the transformation from white to black teachers in southern schools in the post-Civil War years, using the experiences of five Southern cities to provide a cross-section: Atlanta, Georgia; Raleigh, North Carolina; Nashville, Tennessee; Montgomery, Alabama; and Richmond, Virginia. Among the problems the Redeemers confronted were such matters as the removal of Northern missionary ties and teachers in order to reassert Southern control of the school system, the black demand for black teachers which was often accepted since it meant cheaper teachers, and the resultant black demand for equal salary for equal work, a demand usually denied. African Americans tried to obtain better quality instruction for their children, more administrative positions, and positions on the school board, but were usually unsuccessful. Ironically, since some schools became entirely black, insistence upon black instructors made it easier for the whites to discriminate. Voting disfranchisement Between 1890 and 1920, many state governments under Democrat control prevented most blacks from voting by various techniques, such as poll taxes (a person had to pay a voluntary tax to vote) and fake literacy tests (that whites always passed but blacks always failed). Of 181,000 African-American males of voting age in Alabama in 1900, only 3,000 were registered to vote. Typically, the ministers and ten to fifty prominent blacks in every county were allowed to vote. |
genuineoriginal
New member
It is also helpful to learn about prophecy (in addition to history) so that we can know that things will become far, far worse than they are now before the return of Jesus.
(I feel sorry about the Dispensationalists who insist they will be removed before the persecutions begin in earnest.)
Right Divider
Body part
I feel sorry for you, since you'll not be 'caught up' to be with the Lord.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
of course you're right, but barbie has hijacked the conversation - from conservatives and libertarians to conservatives and liberals
and now he's pretending that the democrats, wrt civil rights, were conservative :dizzy:
it's hard to follow if you're not familiar with his style, if you don't expect him to argue dishonestly, if you don't recognize from the start that he's a troll