How does libertarianism go against white supremacy. If anything, it encourages it and takes the gloves off of it.This is a land of individuals acting in their own best interest... or what they perceive to be their own best interest.
Compared to what? What is being describe in opposition to libertarianism in this thread(and every other thread on the topic) is exactly what we have nowa ironclad system of white supremacy.
"Because a lot of libertarians use 'freedom' as a means to justify their racism"yes you have the right to be bigoted, as long as you are not harming anyone... I see how this could rub minorities the wrong way. But how does this differ from what we already have?
If we focus on the differences between what libertarians are offering and the status quo, the benefits drastically outweigh the cost.
"Why aren't there more black libertarians?"
- Thread starter Street Knowledge
- Start date
Govt. is its gloves friend, and libertarianism necessarily weakens it.
It also removes govt. enforced barriers and market distortions, opening the market up to those who otherwise would have no access.
Defending the freedom of the virtuous is easy. The test is in defending it for the vicious... its a tough issue and one untenable on extremely left boards like this.
Problem with economic libertarianism is that unfettered capitalism has a history of concentrating wealth. The history of slavery in this country didn't begin with the foundation of this country's government because we had slavery before the government of this country was even established. It began with wealthy landowners who wanted to maximize profits and since we have a system of government in which money influences politics, the government which was also founded by wealthy landowners helped enable this country's first experience with systemic racism through slavery for many years.
Its not anti-freedom or anti-american to look at class as an institution in the same way that we can look at government as institution. If we can look at history of governments as a measure to prove that it has a history of corruption than we should look at the history of economic class division and its history of concentrating wealth as well. The nature of elite classes in society are to concentrate wealth and in this country one of the ways wealth has been concentrated is through the foundations of racism. The system of checks and balances that we have in our government isn't just smart because it checks government, its smart because it checks power.
But power doesn't only extend to government. If we accept capitalism as a system we have to accept that their's 3 branches that associate with each other economically in the same similarly to the way that there's three branches that associate with each other in government. Those branches in capitalist economics are the owners of property, the workers, and the consumers. Under laissez-faire unregulated capitalism wealthy elites have far more power over members of the other groups because their's nothing to check their power and with their history of concentrating wealth through means of racism, sexism, etc. there has to be a referee that makes sure that the social economic ladder is not being fixed by those who have power.
The fact that we still see non-institutional segregation today in the private sector when it comes to the housing market shows that "the market" left alone won't solve all of our problems.
Slavery predates civilized society, and the ease with which some attach it to capitalism ignoring its existence in nearly ever society ever! is astonishing. Slavery prospered in centrally planned govt.'s, dictatorships, and market based economies.
Also could you elaborate on "concentrating wealth"?
First let me say that the concentration of power in govt. has been far more damaging to or species than concentrations of wealth. A quick skim through our history reveals this much.
Also you are using this word power in reference to economic entities, could you elaborate on this a bit? Cause I believe the power lies in govt. not the market, and that any market "power" must necessarily come from govt.
Last Govt. was complicit in the racism of early America. The pass it is given is baffling.
Again, explain what power it is they have independent of the state? how is it wielded independent of the state? how is the economic ladder rigged in a free market independent of the state? etc.Two things, first it hasnt*, not it won't, and it hasnt been allowed to be fair
. Second and I know many here disagree, but I think forced integration is a bad thing for all parties involved. 
Well, it's not a coincidence that most Libertarians are white and tend to make above average income.
The entire point of the philosophy is to minimize/eliminate wealth redistribution, which of course serves the interests of those who currently have the most wealth. For obvious reasons, supporting this kind of philosophy is irrational for a group of people who tend to be at the bottom of the socioeconomic latter, so nobody should be surprised that black people overall aren't big on it.
The entire point of the philosophy is to minimize/eliminate wealth redistribution, which of course serves the interests of those who currently have the most wealth. For obvious reasons, supporting this kind of philosophy is irrational for a group of people who tend to be at the bottom of the socioeconomic latter, so nobody should be surprised that black people overall aren't big on it.
If only you could see how wealth redistribution is preventing us from attaining meaningful wealth...
That said, I think the way we "redistribute wealth" is morally wrong, and looking at the results thus far for blacks, I think it is subjugating us, and reducing us to a charity case.
This notion that blacks would get slaughtered competing side by side with whites in a free market is saddening.
This notion that blacks would get slaughtered competing side by side with whites in a free market is saddening.
If only you could see how wealth redistribution is preventing us from attaining meaningful wealth...
That said, I think the way we "redistribute wealth" is morally wrong, and looking at the results thus far for blacks, I think it is subjugating us, and reducing us to a charity case.
This notion that blacks would get slaughtered competing side by side with whites in a free market is saddening.
This whole "free market competition where everything is fair" concept is naive at best and mostly imaginary. To think something like that could exist in reality, you'd have to look at the world completely devoid of racial bias, historical context, human dishonesty, social connections, nepotism, gender, stereotypes, etc. The idea of of this free market where nobody has any advantages over anybody else and everybody gets what they earn based on their own skills and how hard they work could not exist in the real world.
It isn't fair, or anywhere near perfect, its just better than what we have now... it would be full of racial bias(like reality now), full of human dishonesty(like reality now), social connections(like reality now), nepotism(like reality now), gender/stereotypes etc(like reality now).
This whole "free market competition where everything is fair" concept is naive at best and mostly imaginary. To think something like that could exist in reality, you'd have to look at the world completely devoid of racial bias, historical context, human dishonesty, social connections, nepotism, gender, stereotypes, etc. The idea of of this free market where nobody has any advantages over anybody else and everybody gets what they earn based on their own skills and how hard they work could not exist in the real world.
Stop calling it "free market" then. Speak to specific problems, instead of hiding behind meaningless catch-all ideologies. If you are against govt intervention in the economy, say that. You would probably find a lot more people who agree, than people who will cosign your parroted libertarian buzzwords. When you use the language of a prepackaged ideology it makes you look like you are incapable of thinking for yourself. Speak to problems and not ideologies... ideologies are useless.
I agree that govt intervention in various areas does more harm than good. But there is still a place for regulation as well as "centralized economic planning", given that both are done rationally. If the govt incentivized education in technology for example, we could retrench the ground we have been losing over the last few decades in that realm. But again, overarching general statements like 'govt is bad' are meaningless.
I agree that govt intervention in various areas does more harm than good. But there is still a place for regulation as well as "centralized economic planning", given that both are done rationally. If the govt incentivized education in technology for example, we could retrench the ground we have been losing over the last few decades in that realm. But again, overarching general statements like 'govt is bad' are meaningless.
So basically, it'd be just like it is now but with no policies or regulations designed to mitigate these things? And it'd be an improvement?
The thread actually has nothing to do with the 'free market' its just the extreme opponents run too.
Whats funny is 99% of the arguments made in thread(in opposition) describe exactly what we have currently as an example of how bad things would be.
It be like what we have now, but with increased opportunity, a stronger black home, less war, better* education, and less aggression towards peaceful people.So basically, it'd be just like it is now but with no policies or regulations designed to mitigate these things? And it'd be an improvement?
edit: and yes, no one would be there to tell white people to love black people
Last edited:
How would "free market" = less wars?
@ a free market somehow preventing war and aggression