Civil Rights Act: Stossel Convincingly Argues For The Libertarian Stance

Stossel should run for political office. Rand should have said exactly what John Stossel said, minus pushing for the Civil Rights Act of 1964's repeal(he shouldn't have mentioned it either way, now if it comes up, he has to vote for this abhorrent bill which violates the rights of property owners, which are more sacred than a person's feelings),
 
Stossel should run for political office. Rand should have said exactly what John Stossel said, minus pushing for the Civil Rights Act of 1964's repeal(he shouldn't have mentioned it either way, now if it comes up, he has to vote for this abhorrent bill which violates the rights of property owners, which are more sacred than a person's feelings),

Rand never pushed or mentioned repealing the civil rights act.

You are being dishonest.
 
the one point I'd make is it's another case of the government attacking the symptom. Before the government wasn't enforcing the law equally. What kind of message does it send when you can beat up the blacks and suffer no consequences.
 
Rand never pushed or mentioned repealing the civil rights act.

You are being dishonest.
Why are you calling me a liar? Rather extreme no?

When did I say he did? I say Rand should not have mentioned it either way. He shouldn't have said he opposed repealing it but he shouldn't have said he supported it like Stossel did.
 
Governments shouldn't even recognize race. Period. In the 21st century we should see all people as individuals! I can't believe this is even an issue...
 
Good answer by stossel, but here's the firm line between descrimination and murder, I wish he'd pointed out: One is an attack on another person or their property, the other is not.
 
Stossel should run for political office. Rand should have said exactly what John Stossel said, minus pushing for the Civil Rights Act of 1964's repeal(he shouldn't have mentioned it either way, now if it comes up, he has to vote for this abhorrent bill which violates the rights of property owners, which are more sacred than a person's feelings),


Agreed. Why is no one talking about Rand's missed opportunity to kill two birds with one stone and turn this around into a positive? He should take two minutes and walk through the libertarian solution to racism and hammer home the slippery slope of disaster when the Feds try to regulate. Stossel's explanation in his forthright manner was well spoken and convincing.
 
Good answer by stossel, but here's the firm line between descrimination and murder, I wish he'd pointed out: One is an attack on another person or their property, the other is not.
I can't believe she even used that. What moronic example. One is refusing to sell you or allow you to partake of my property vs. the initiation of unjustified force against another individual to the point of extermination. And she's a lawyer???? :confused:
 
Last edited:
The real problem is that people don't use principles as their foundation for their thinking and actions but rather they use situations. I honestly believe that they also don't understand or fully grasp what freedom entails. Freedom is not the cure all for the ills that plagues society.
 
The real problem is that people don't use principles as their foundation for their thinking and actions but rather they use situations. I honestly believe that they also don't understand or fully grasp what freedom entails. Freedom is not the cure all for the ills that plagues society.

Cosign.
 
Governments shouldn't even recognize race. Period. In the 21st century we should see all people as individuals! I can't believe this is even an issue...

That is does is proof positive of several things:


  1. They are ignorant
  2. They are dishonest
  3. They seek to drive edges between us
  4. They seek pretexts to usurp
  5. They are assholes
Did I miss any? # 5 is sort of the "DUH" catchall.
 
Back
Top