Well done Nemisis2010!

I.

By Ethan, May 25 at 6:03 pm

”Ugh. you didnt even get my post, and beyond that your misinformed.  first of all, im not a libertarian, i just think a bit…and Ayn Raynd was more of an individulist than a libertarian…”

Ugh, yes I did. Your first statement was that I refuted my own ideology. Ugh, I didn’t.

Ugh, Ayn Rand was a frickin loon.

Ugh, I’ll presume that you know who Nathaniel Branden is. Ugh, let’s see what he has to say about Objectivism and Libertarianism, okay?

”When I first heard the term “libertarianism” in the early 1950s, I mentioned it to Ayn Rand as a possible name for our political philosophy. She was suspicious of the term and inclined to dismiss it as a neologism.

Later still, when she saw that libertarians often supported their position with aspects of her philosophy, without necessarily subscribing to the total of Objectivism, she became angrier still and decided that all libertarians were ‘whim-worshipping subjectivists.’”

Then we have the words of Libertarian founder David Nolan:

”Without Ayn Rand the libertarian movement would not exist.” –Branden, The Passion of Ayn Rand” pg. 414

And once again to Branden:

”In any event, today libertarianism is part of our language and is commonly understood to mean the advocacy of minimal government. Ayn Rand is commonly referred to as ‘a libertarian philosopher.’ Folks, we are all libertarians now. Might as well get used to it.”—Nathaniel Branden, PhD

http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/objectivism_and_libert.html

II.

Laissez faire economics cannot help but end up a rigged game; especially if your ideology is based on greed (selfishness if you prefer), minimum government, and NIOF. This is exactly what we are seeing in the economic crisis of today. Avarice, greed, and amorality run amuck. And what made way for this? Deregulation! Laissez faire—leave us alone—economic policy. It’s akin to asking the Mafia to clean up crime.

Libertarianism and Objectivism have differences but they’re basically two sides of the same coin.

The problem with any “ism” and the reason none of them work well for very long is due to all being ideologies of apes. No “ism” will work well for very long until we as a species start dealing with the truth about who and what we are. There has to be a system in place that checks the power of the super-wealthy and its henchmen class. Every “ism”, regardless of the word that precedes it, ends up with a shamefully disproportionate distribution (<- that’s not redistribution) of wealth throughout the society.

There must be safeguards in place to insure as much as possible a level playing field. And one of the most effective means to do that is to redistribute that wealth, probably through heavy taxation, of the wealthy class. When we have economic criminals with 5 or 6 mansions, yachts, car collections, more money in the bank than the U.S. government, etc., all of it financed by schemes f—king over the little guy, the middle and working class losing their homes, working longer hours with increased work loads, unable to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads without having two incomes, taxpayer subsidizing of corporations that ship our manufacturing base to other nations, and destruction of unions—the only voice of the working class—there is a serious problem. Libertarianism isn’t going to fix that. Every system can and eventually will be subverted by the super-wealthy.

You can have 10 winners all experiencing different levels of success and eventually end up with 2 winners making an alliance and turning the other 8 winners into losers. We’ve seen this with the automobile industry, the media, banking, high finance, etc. The libertarian view is that if the gains were made honestly why penalize the biggest winners. The answer is simple; for the benefit of the whole of society over the few. Libertarians also believe this to be impossible in a free market. I believe it to be pure unadulterated bs because it matters not what system is in place Homo sapiens will do whatever is necessary to game the system and the advantage.

Ugh, wasn’t Rothbard—as well as his lowness Alan Greenspan—part of the Randian cult until Branden ex-communicated him because he married a Christian and refused to leave her when she didn’t give up her Christian beliefs? You know what they say… if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck then…

”Ideology deludes, inspires dishonesty, and breeds fanaticism, Facts, experience, and logic are much better at leading you to truth.”—Daniel J. Flynn, “Intellectual Morons”

We need corporations for they are tools like fire and electricity. But we need to go back to evaluation of them for public good. If they don’t measure up they are dissolved, if they do they have 5 years to continue to prove it. Not since 1885 though they have been given super-human status with a chance of nationhood. That needs to end. It would be like giving rights to a car motor or calculator. Groups don’t have rights just individuals.

By Ethan, May 25 at 3:34 pm

” Jeez nemesis2010, you refute your own ideology in that last line…the super wealthy are in a position to exploite the current political and economic complex, which is exactly why libertarianism is gaining momentum.  people are confused by the notion of libertarian ecomomics, it doesn’t mean letting companies run free, it means subjecting them to the laws of the people directly, rather than by having meaningless govt. regulation that is bypassed anyway…if our court system were built for people to directly challange corporate interests, i think alot more avenues of “regulation” would be opened. 
Of course, this is all theoretical as the pleutocracy has the population so well trained in their two-party faith this experiment will never come to pass in its pure form. 
maybe a few libertarians will find office, but they will be in a corrupt system and even if they avoid corruption themselves will likely be overpowered by propoganda and protectionists (see maddow.)
libertarian ideology didn’t cause the financial crisis, a lack of forsight combined with greedy banking policies did…i mean, if the ripped off homeowners could sue the bank for those shitty loans, would the bank be able to afford offering them in the first place? Libertarianism at is essence is about taking responsibility for the shit you do, do not do and want to get done.”

he light of scrutiny.”

No I didn’t. I simply stated facts. The super-wealthy set up private clubs with exorbitant membership fees and other criteria to either completely block out non-desirables or to severely limit their ability to membership. Libertarianism isn’t going to stop that. Simply read Freddy’s posts and what R. Paul said.

Libertarianism is the dumping ground for all those disenchanted republicans, that’s why your numbers are increasing. Jeebus on a cheese sandwich you count Bob Barr among your ranks. You even ran him for president! Bob Barr! How much more Republican establishment can you get? Who’s next Jeb Bush?

Libertarian ideology is a major player behind the current crisis. The so-called free-marketers have adopted that Ayn Rand “greed is good” objectivist philosophy while deregulating the market and for the past 40 years we’ve seen and suffered the devastation of our middle class and living standards. To make matters worse that same insane ideology has been drafted into Republican Jesus evangelicalism making for the strange alliance of Big Corp and the idiots that they screw over most. You even have a bunch of those that are libertarian too. What’s the name of the son-in-law of the evangelical that wants to return to stoning homosexuals? He made all those Y2K predictions that went south. I can’t remember his name.

Corporations have to be completely dismantled and prohibited from existing. Anything that a corporation can do can still be accomplished with partnerships and without the immunity afforded corporations.

Wexler got it 100% right in his post:

William W. Wexler, May 25 at 10:00 am

”Libertarian beliefs look good as bullet points but when you have to explain them, they don’t stand the light of scrutiny.”

By Fat Freddy, May 23 at 7:26 pm

”What is so disturbing about freedom? What is disturbing about the idea that I should be allowed to do what I want as long as it does not infringe on the freedoms of others?”

Nothing is disturbing about freedom to most people Freddy. The problem is how do you define freedom and there has to be a point where personal freedom takes a back seat to what is best for society as a whole.

Libertarianism is just as much bs as any of the other “isms” out there. In many ways it’s much worse. You’d think that the current economic crisis caused principally by Ayn “Greed is Good” Randism—predator capitalism—would help you to see the light. This economic crisis has exposed the flawed thinking behind libertarian economic thought… well I prefer to call it insanity because that Russian was as loony as they come and anyone foolish enough to take anything that came out her as serious deserves what they get. The key to all the “isms” Freddy is that we’re dealing with monkeys –homo sapiens.

In this country we have decided as a people, a society, that if you want to have a business you cannot discriminate because of race, religion, etc. That’s an example of where one’s personal freedom is somewhat limited for the overall good of society.

There are loop holes around all of those obstacles for the pure-at-heart racists Freddy. The super-wealthy know exactly how to work around those laws in order to practice their exclusiveness.

Rachel Maddow never called him a racist directly or indirectly.

Bullshit. She sandbagged him. And now she can pat herself on the back for exposing Rand Paul as a racist, right? What a fucking joke. She’s no better than Limbaugh or Billy O.Fat Freddy

Now that is bullshit. For 20 minutes she tried to get a straight answer out of him but he equivocated and deflected. She could have been far harsher. I know I would have to nail that slippery wiggler down. She was seeking the truth unlike Bill’O & Limbaugh whose agenda is something else. One isn’t the other and her actions show it. It’s not her fault how Rand Paul answered so buck up and take it as it really is. Don’t blame the interviewer for doing her job. Blame him.

I found Libertarians too cold, selfish, greedy and atomistic. The Republicans liked the corporation to be free idea then added the tax payer funded failure supports. Do do many Democrats. So what Paul & company want are the freedoms of business without regulation and if you don’t like it you can take them to court. Good luck with that. Every road will be a toll road how wonderful! No thanks. Gov’t needs to be brought back under control and there is little in ways and means to do it right now considering the undue influence of the business sector propping it up.

It isn’t just the threat against liberty we have it is also of a too powerful gov’t too. Also corporations have super human powers and aren’t under the Bill of Rights. That too needs to be changed if we are ever going to survive this with any kind of semblance of a Republic intact.

ardee

Funny you should mention Fat Freddy’s Cat. There’s an interesting story about him.

One day FFC had enough. FF forgot to feed him, again, and he had to wait for FF to wake up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0ffwDYo00Q

So, FFC left. He eventually found a very nice lady that took him in. She fed him all of the best food, as much as he wanted. She gave him all sorts of neat, shiny toys to play with, and gave him all the attention he could stand. She wouldn’t let him outside, but that was OK, because FFC was content to stay inside. Then one day, FFC heard his new owner talking to her friend. She was saying how wonderful this new cat that she had found was. Then, she said she had made an appointment with the vet to have him neutered and declawed. Well, as soon as FFC heard that he tore ass out there the first chance he got, and returned to FF. (Of course, FF didn’t even realize he had been gone). Because even FFC realizes that freedom is far more important than any materialistic comforts, even if it means having to fend for yourself, occasionally.

Frankly I would welcome a fringe ideology making inroads into the turgid, cynical two-party system.  The two parties are like twin black holes that compete with each other to annihilate anything and anyone of substance.  The two parties maintain the unspoken status quo mantra: greed is good.  But the status quo, having sucked up the working poor, is about to suck its own ass out of existence.

It drives me crazy that the majority of bozos on the left still think that their black hole is better.  It drives me crazy that lefties (like Rachel Maddow) are so gripped with the need to vilify someone outside the political mainstream because he questioned the civil rights act (shock, horror).  It drives me crazy that so many lefties are calling Rand Paul an out-and-out racist and joining the MSM in ridiculing him.  You guys are no better than the crazy right-wingers that will say anything to score a point.

A lot of sacred cow principles on the left and the right are going to be barbecued as the black holes suck the ground out from under our feet.

The Typical Libertarian is hated by conservatives  because he wants the freedom to snort coke off a teenaged hookers ass while smoking pot and watching a movie full of boobies and cuss words in preparation for sodomizing his illegal immigrant housekeeper, Carlos. The Typical Libertarian also wants criminals, terrorists and Mexicans to roam freely about causing all manner of social chaos, and has no interest in forcing people to love Jesus Christ. The Typical Libertarian is a traitor to the GOP and America because he failed to support the war in Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, the Stimulus, and both Bush and McCain, despite the fact that both men once said something at a cocktail party about maybe possibly lowering taxes on some people some day.

The Typical Libertarian is hated by liberals because he is a crypto-archconservative who wants poor people to go without education, medical care, police protection, food, shelter, and oxygen. The Typical Libertarian spends his weekends running down endangered species in his monstrous, gas-guzzling SUV before stopping off to smoke a pack of cigarettes in a daycare. The Typical Libertarian wants the world to be run by unaccountable multinational conglomerates instead of unaccountable governments. The Typical Libertarian is a racist, sexist, profit-driven nihilist who failed to mark the ascendance of the Chosen One, and has never protested for Union rights nor worn a T-shirt with the word Darfur on it.

Despite clinging to a hopelessly unworkable, idealistic and marginal political philosophy, the Typical Libertarian has recently been discovered as the cause for the downfall of Western Civilization.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/164502

Correction. I referred to NJ State Senator Bob Sweeney. That is incorrect. It is Steven Sweeney that is State Senator. His brother, Bob, is president of Iron Workers Local Union No. 399 in West Deptford, NJ.

ardee

Do you really want to start a discussion about regulatory controls? Should we begin with the ICC?

You twist and distort your definitions to attempt to make Libertarian politics something it is not, fair, equitable and just. Is it any wonder, Fat Freddy, that your cat shits in your shoes?

Where did I say that? I implied that it is more fair than anything else out there. Life is not fair, and it never will be. Holding a gun to someone’s head, and forcing them to do, or not do, something, is not fair by any stretch of the imagination, regardless of intent. The most fair system is where people have the freedom to make choices for their own best interests and be willing to accept the consequences of those actions. In our current system, there is no freedom, no consequences, and no responsibility, personal or otherwise. Libertarians do not say freedom for freedoms sake. We are well aware that freedom without responsibility is not freedom at all. It is the people who do not act responsibly, or do not want to be held responsible that attack the concept of individual liberty.

Suppose a business doesn’t refuse to serve black people, but it refuses to serve a specific individual black person, then what? Are they still racist, in your mind?

Rachel Maddow never called him a racist directly or indirectly

Bullshit. She sandbagged him. And now she can pat herself on the back for exposing Rand Paul as a racist, right? What a fucking joke. She’s no better than Limbaugh or Billy O.

In my own opinion a person who preaches that the Civil Rights Act should be rescinded and that individual store owners should have the right to deny service based upon skin color, or any other such delineator for that matter, is ,indeed, a racist.

You twist and distort your definitions to attempt to make Libertarian politics something it is not, fair, equitable and just. Is it any wonder, Fat Freddy, that your cat shits in your shoes?

I agree that it was needed at that time in history, now I’m more worried about preserving individual rights and wish the govt. would backtrack to the good ol’ days, protecting Americans from corporate interests.

When, I wonder, were those good old days when govt protected the individual from the corporation? Why, I wonder, does Ethan endorse the politics of Freddy when it leads directly to freeing those very corporations from any sort of regulatory controls?

are you that naive?

Did you read all of my comments? I grew up in these segregated towns. I know exactly what goes on, and the real estate agents that facilitate it. You see, I also own a small construction company that operates in these segregated, “liberal” towns. I know the politicians, I know the real estate agents, I know the inspectors, I know the “public relations” companies (power brokers), and I know the judges (unfortunately). I live in NJ. NJ is considered one of the most “liberal” states in the union.

So, if the government passes a law, that makes it all better, huh? Thank God for government. Who’s being naive? The government need only enforce the Constitution. It is the courts that are fucked up, and the judges are nominated by the same politicians that wrote the anti-discrimination laws. It’s called appeasement. They pass the laws to get votes from minorities, then nominate judges that won’t properly enforce them, to get votes from whites. But you keep on voting for those same politicians.

Night-Gaunt.

No different from Ron Paul,

WRONG Ron Paul believes that abortion rights should be handled at the state level, while Rand supports a Constitutional Amendment banning all abortions. You don’t see a difference? Personally, I don’t agree with either position. Most Libertarians support a woman’s reproductive rights.

Rachel Maddow never called him a racist directly or indirectly

Bullshit. She sandbagged him. And now she can pat herself on the back for exposing Rand Paul as a racist, right? What a fucking joke. She’s no better than Limbaugh or Billy O.

What made them “Liberal” to you? You never told us the details that showed they were and not conservative corporate Capitalists who also speak that language if “revitalization.”

Let’s just say, I live in NJ. Even Conservatives in NJ are considered “liberal” by the rest of the country’s standards. I’d post the link, but it’s been “archived” by the local paper, which means you have to pay for it. This is not the only case of “revitalization” takeovers in NJ by liberals. Democratic State Senator Bob Sweeney, and Democratic power broker George Norcross III, hijacked the Pennsauken Mart, some 50 odd businesses were forced to relocate, mostly minority owned, to build an arena for a minor league hockey team. Haddon Township, which I can assure you is an extremely liberal town, hijacked a Dollar Store for revitalization.  Liberals have no respect for small businesses unless they fit into their plan. In Philadelphia, former Democratic Mayor John Street threatened to take a bunch of businesses and residences from the Asians in Chinatown, to build the new baseball stadium. The fact of the matter is, Democrats love eminent domain, and they hate minorities. Their entire “social justice” plan is built on coercion and appeasement. But you keep following them. I’m sure there’s a place in their “plan” for you.

Go to his web site and you will find that Mr. Paul also has decided that women are slaves to their bodies as others designate if they are pregnant. So much for the 14 Amendment eh? I wonder what other exceptions he has made? That is a rather large one.

By Fat Freddy, May 23 at 10:36 pm #

Kerryrose

I’ll agree that Rand is not nearly as Libertarian as his father. All you have to do is look at his position on abortion.

http://www.randpaul2010.com/

LIFE

I am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being.
I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life. Read More about my Pro-Life stance HERE…

No different from Ron Paul, Fat Freddy so how did you miss that one? Such violates the 1st Amendment too considering it is religiously based interference. I am 100% people controlling their own bodies—-he isn’t. Are you?

Ron Paul was against such acts then back tracked and specified the 1964 one. Leaving out the 1965 Voting Rights Act and 1968 Civil Rights Act too. So he demands gov’t take over from a woman’s right to their bodies but not in relation to businesses? Do you see the same disconnect I do? {Note: Rachel Maddow never called him a racist directly or indirectly just pressed him to clarify his position through its natural conclusion. It isn’t her fault his position supported racism, not hers for asking the questions. But you got that one wrong too. Need to scrutinized it a bit more closely sir.

Let me give you an example of present day liberal governmental racism. What made them “Liberal” to you? You never told us the details that showed they were and not conservative corporate Capitalists who also speak that language if “revitalization.”

Jimnp72

Rand Paul, stupid? You either have no clue as to who Rand Paul is, or you have a very strange definition of stupid. Sarah Palin? No argument here. Sarah Palin is nothing more than a neo-con in Libertarian clothing, and a knit-wit.

Rand Paul is an ophthalmologist. He performs surgery on people’s eyes. I guess that would certainly classify him as stupid. Granted, Rand Paul is a political novice. He has not been “groomed” for success in politics the way most Democrat and Republican candidates are. He is quite inexperienced, but stupid? I don’t think so. I’m sure that if you were to put Albert Einstein in front of a seasoned reporter, he could made to look like an idiot.  That is why we are stuck with the government we have. Back and forth between Democrats and Republicans, and nothing ever really changes. The MSM has sealed our fate. Only properly groomed candidates who are very good at evading the real issues, and telling people what they want to hear, are the only people who will ever be elected.

mrfreeze

Libertarians, opportunistic? I’m afraid you have Libertarians confused with Democrats and Republicans.

What I find nasty, is that all of you educated “intelligentsia” think that all of your viewpoints are correct, and anyone who disagrees with you is a stupid, racist hick. This “holier than thou” attitude you have, is about par with the Moral Majority. The moral superiority that you claim is no different than the claim of superiority of the Christian Conservative movement of the 1980s. In fact, you employ many of the same tactics to force your beliefs on others. Your arguments are as easily taken apart with logic and reasoning as the religious arguments. Libertarians are people of principle. The underlying principle to Libertarianism is that coercion is wrong, no matter how well intentioned. Today, you hold a gun to a store owner’s head and force him to serve a black man. Tomorrow, someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to go to church. There are better ways to solve social injustices than coercion.

Why would it be a surprise that the “intelligentsia” of American Conservatives/Libertarians would be so utterly and completely morally corrupt?  And who is really surprised that there are so many Americans who, in spite of their veneer of “freedom loving compassion,” are nothing more than nasty,self-serving opportunists?

Just remember with Rand Paul, as with Sara, when they are silent it isnt still
waters running deep it is just that they are too friggin stupid to answer the
question.

kerryrose

I’ll agree that Rand is not nearly as Libertarian as his father. All you have to do is look at his position on abortion. But I guess all you liberals are too busy trying to paint him as a racist, and overlooked the fact that he wants a Constitutional amendment banning all abortions, including cases of rape and incest, and that makes the statement that “scientifically”, life begins at conception.

The free market absolutely determines these things. What would happen to a business today if it hung a “whites only” or “blacks only” or “No Irish need apply” sign in the window?  There would be boycotts, protests, and possibly violence against the business. A business in South Philly (Geno’s Steaks) hung a sign in the window that said” “Please speak English when ordering”. Do I need to tell you what happened? They weren’t taken to court. The government didn’t need to get involved. The sign came down.

Fat Freddy
The issue is the violation of freedoms which the Civil Rights Act tried to rectify in the 1960’s.  The issue is whether a private business can refuse service to a black person.  The ‘free’ market does not determine these things, and Rand Paul is a fool who is backpedaling like crazy.  You talk about hypocritical liberals.  What about hypocritical Libertarians?  From what I hear Rand is not a disciplined Libertarian, but more of an opportunist.

Look, Rand Paul is the silent voice of the Tea party that makes everything the movement stand for make sense. Think about it. Most ppl’s taxes were lowered from the stimulus package and its a fact, but no thanks from the tea partiers. The jig is up!! They are just a bunch of confederates. Screaming about states rights and holding up civil rights. History repeats itself and the South, which is really the leadership in the republican party, Newt (georgia) Mich McConnell (Kentucky) Cantor (virginia) I mean need I say more other than they resemble the confederacy? I mean look at Tea Party, which is a recreational outlet for republicans, against health care, against being under the authority of a BLACK man. Check the story

http://apleblog.com/2010/05/18/the-south-will-rise-again/

Let me give you an example of present day liberal governmental racism.

The town I live in is going through a process of “downtown revitalization”. There’s an old, historic movie theater that has just recently been refurbished. Which was nice. The problem is, to the white liberal local government, are two businesses that are adjacent to the new theater. One, is Crown Fried Chicken (The Soulfood Kitchen), and the other is Auto Customizations (The Puerto Rican Chop Shop). These two businesses serve the surrounding neighborhood which is predominately, you guessed it, black and Hispanic. These two properties are owned by an elderly couple, who lease them to the businesses, and they are their sole source of income (besides Social Security). But apparently, these businesses do not fit into the “Master Plan”. Even though they are profitable businesses that serve the community, pay their rent on time, and pay taxes, the City Council decided that these businesses need to go, and they’ve made that very clear in no uncertain terms. The properties are to be sold to a developer, torn down, and new businesses are to be built. However, the city is only willing to pay them the assessed value of the property, not the appraised value. The city went so far as to pass a resolution declaring these properties as “blighted”. Now, the city is using this resolution to force the sale, for the assessed value, or they will take them through eminent domain. It is not the NAACP, ACLU or even the Southern Poverty Law Center that is standing up for these businesses, it is Libertarians. So, when Ms Marcus, and Ms Maddow accuse Libertarians of being racist, they need to take a good, long look in the mirror, and a good. long look at the liberals they support.

Correction, it wasn’t our government that legalized discrimination, it was specific state and local governments. Either way, it was not the free market. The free market would not support a business (or businesses) that discriminate. It is only with government support, that businesses are allowed to function while embracing discrimination.

Don’t you understand that discrimination IS an infringement of the freedom of others?????

Yeah, and….

You’re speaking to a Libertarian, of course I understand that discrimination is an infringement of liberty. I never condoned discrimination. It was our government that not only condoned discrimination, but legalized it.

‘What is so disturbing about freedom? What is disturbing about the idea that I should be allowed to do what I want as long as it does not infringe on the freedoms of others?’

Don’t you understand that discrimination IS an infringement of the freedom of others?????

What is so disturbing about freedom? What is disturbing about the idea that I should be allowed to do what I want as long as it does not infringe on the freedoms of others? What is so disturbing about letting businesses conduct their business the way that they see fit? It was government interference into the free market that created Jim Crow laws, in the first place.

First and foremost, Jim Crow was a legal regime, one that relied on state and local laws to restrict the political, social, and economic liberty of African Americans. Those laws interfered with the right to vote, to acquire property, to contract, to travel, to associate, to marry, and to keep and bear arms. Under the 14th Amendment, state and local governments are forbidden from violating such rights. Yet as we all know, the courts only selectively enforced the 14th Amendment during the Jim Crow era. But none of that changes the fact that we’re talking primarily about state action, not about some failure of the free market.

It’s also important to acknowledge that economic rights are not in some inherent conflict with civil rights. In fact, we have significant historical evidence showing that legally enforced property rights (and other forms of economic liberty) actually undermined the Jim Crow regime. Most famously, the NAACP won its first Supreme Court victory in 1917 by arguing that a residential segregation law was a racist interference with property rights under the 14th Amendment.

Finally, keep in mind that Plessy v. Ferguson, the notorious 1896 Supreme Court decision that enshrined “separate but equal” into law and become a symbol of the Jim Crow era, dealt with a Louisiana law that forbid railroad companies from selling first-class tickets to blacks.That’s not a market failure, it’s a racist government assault on economic liberty.

I can’t stand when liberals attack Libertarians for being racist. I saw in your bio Ms Marcus that you are from Livingston, NJ. Tell me, how many blacks live in Livingston, NJ? I grew up in Haddonfield and Haddon Heights, NJ. There’s about the same percentage of blacks in those towns as in Livingston, less than 2%. Why is that? The local municipal governments are mostly liberals. I know why there are no blacks in those communities, I used to live there. Blacks cause property values to go down. Blacks cause the educational system to go down, ain’t that right? Racial profiling by the local police? Nah, that doesn’t happen, not in those liberal towns, does it? I am sick and tired of the intellectual dishonesty of liberals. Go back to your all white neighborhood, and keep telling yourself, you’re not a racist, and leave us Libertarians alone.

As unfit for that appointment as was Bork the success of Paul in Kentucky is a horse of a different color. In the case of Bork the system exposed him and he failed to gain the highest court. Paul, it seems, according to polling data, is far ahead of his democratic opponent. Even among registered democrats Paul gathers about 38% support.

I despair of the future of this nation.