The Goat Pen

Something profound needs to change. I just watched "Inside Job" and it completely confirmed my growing distaste and distrust of Obama as he is bought and sold by Wall Street.

Interesting. My interpretation was that Matthews slammed Ron Paul. It demonstrates the problem of being a perfect idealogue to any base belief. Just my opinion of course.

Stormaktstiden wrote:Something profound needs to change. I just watched "Inside Job" and it completely confirmed my growing distaste and distrust of Obama as he is bought and sold by Wall Street.

Sounds like a Ron Paul libertarian there.

My only thing about Libertarianism, in its purest form, is that it works great in a theoretical environment. However, I do wonder if it begins to breakdown in small town/rural environments where a monopolistic enterprise can truly disenfranchise a discriminated minority.

In history, it hasn't just been rural. A majority under libertarianism can always collectively decided to disenfranchise a selective group.

you mean like BET?

No. Generally, they'll let anybody bet on stuff.

Then again, there was segregation in Vegas

I think he means "Black Entertainment Television" which is kinda hilarious, as anyone could tune in, regardless of ethnicity (and definitely do now, as BET consistently pulls higher programming ratings than MTV). And it was only created because MTV would not play any Michael Jackson or Rick James videos (well, until Thriller).

Don't miss this movie:

Funny thing is, Crow has to work late counting all that money.

Kenobi definitely was not dumped from an airlock. Shoddy journalism.

AugustWest wrote:http://www.galacticempiretimes.com/2011 ... illed.html

I call shenanigans!

Owlman wrote:In history, it hasn't just been rural. A majority under libertarianism can always collectively decided to disenfranchise a selective group.

first, how can you say "in history" about anything regarding libertarians? setting that statement aside, you're missing the issue here

the question isn't about a majority, its about an individual - an individual making the decision - which is where people lose the distinction. While I can't say that libertarians would or would not allow a group to make a decision to discriminate against a group, RP's focal point is about individual rights. Barry Goldwater was also against the '64 civil rights because of the wording ignoring the rights of an individual to decide about how to conduct business on their own property. Previously he was a vocal supporter of the concept of civil rights - until the wording included mandates to individual property owners.

as in - I own my business therefore why do I not have the right to exclude anyone under any criteria that I choose to not do business with? It may be stupid, it may be detrimental to the fiscal well being of my business, but it is my business to run as I see fit.

The only libertarian I respect:

[youtube]Q7QXI79SJzw[/youtube]

[youtube]FOzOxPtYFsg[/youtube]

Bklyn wrote:I think he means "Black Entertainment Television" which is kinda hilarious, as anyone could tune in, regardless of ethnicity (and definitely do now, as BET consistently pulls higher programming ratings than MTV). And it was only created because MTV would not play any Michael Jackson or Rick James videos (well, until Thriller).

I knew what he meant.

Barry Goldwater was also against the '64 civil rights because of the wording ignoring the rights of an individual to decide about how to conduct business on their own property.

Yeah, thank God to high heaven he lost. I can say in history, because it was in history that people banded together to collectively decide to disenfranchise groups. Some states decided to privatize their elections because they were informed under the law that they couldn't disenfranchise African-Americans. So they decided not to have any primary elections. All elections in Texas were then done by the Democratic Party, a private organization.

Individual liberites, you have them, until you operate in commerce. You can be as biased or racist as you want, until you engage in commerce. The primary purpose for the Constitution as opposed to the Articles of Confederation was to promote Commerce. Like everything else in the Constitution, such as the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and every other Amendment of the Constitution which are not absolute, individual liberties are also not absolute. Idealists deal in absolutism which is why pure libertarians like Ron Paul would be terrible for the country.

AugustWest wrote:http://www.galacticempiretimes.com/2011 ... illed.html

Hah. There is no way that Obi-wan Kenobi was the top rebel. First, for a person that couldn't be much older than 50, he has aged tremendously. Plus he in no way carries the weight of Master Yoda.