Women and Persons of Color - Why should they be Libertarians?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I face alot of aggressive liberals who claim that neither can be libertarians because we want to "let them get oppressed". Let's discuss comebacks.

Btw, I'm sick of the "persons of color are hurt by the war on drugs" argument. I find it patronizing and weak.

Sorry if this thread has been posted before.

One can either dissolve an issue by reducing to the one true dichotomy; or, one can exacerbate an issue into a debate by elaborating from an established platform. In the end, while children always bicker, adults reduce to common ground.
In the past, when the people would progress, the king would step in to compromise their position. So, life is a game indeed. Think of it as a game of chess. To check mate the king in an attempt to include "all men" into the equation, our Founders utilized the scientific method of Natural Law to establish a new natural law. This created a whole new order while abolishing the old. They then reinforced that new order with the U.S. Constitution.
It is interesting how tyranny managed to wiggle itself out from being pinned down. At the beginning of our nation, the Supreme Court did not sit in as judges over what was or wasn't constitutional. To make that determination, the two party system was devised in an effort to win power to make that determination. Indeed, it was the creation of the two party system which corrupted the new order. It wasn't until later on that transcendental American philosophers returned Americans back to the new order by way of the American Movement.

 

[Anti Federalist]

One can either dissolve an issue by reducing to the one true dichotomy; or, one can exacerbate an issue into a debate by elaborating from an established platform. In the end, while children always bicker, adults reduce to common ground.
In the past, when the people would progress, the king would step in to compromise their position. So, life is a game indeed. Think of it as a game of chess. To check mate the king in an attempt to include "all men" into the equation, our Founders utilized the scientific method of Natural Law to establish a new natural law. This created a whole new order while abolishing the old. They then reinforced that new order with the U.S. Constitution.
It is interesting how tyranny managed to wiggle itself out from being pinned down. At the beginning of our nation, the Supreme Court did not sit in as judges over what was or wasn't constitutional. To make that determination, the two party system was devised in an effort to win power to make that determination. Indeed, it was the creation of the two party system which corrupted the new order. It wasn't until later on that transcendental American philosophers returned Americans back to the new order by way of the American Movement.

O Joy, Rapture!

I have finally deciphered and fully understood a UEW post!

 

[Danke]

O Joy, Rapture!

I have finally deciphered and fully understood a UEW post!

You read his posts?

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

O Joy, Rapture!

I have finally deciphered and fully understood a UEW post!

Hey, this has been one of my recent breakthroughs. I noticed this while listening to one of those old debates between William F. Buckley, the super conservative, and Noam Chomsky, the super liberal. In order to make the money, money being the key here, these two fellows chose to debate from established platforms. Yet, as Plato like pointing out, Socrates never elaborated. Oh, he would do so during the tarrying that would go on during breaks. At times, Socrates had to elaborate because Plato did come to learn of his theories. But Socrates rarely elaborated choosing to reduce instead.
So, according to the one in which THE ORDER of Western Civilization came out of, when having a discussion, start off by reducing. If one never elaborates, that is just fine as conflicts are always going to arise because of that unnecessary tendency.

 

[Occam's Banana]

We need to try harder.

No we don't.

Nothing that has been posted is not going to work against a liberal who is screaming at the top of his/her lungs about "white privilege, male privilege, oppression, history of segregation, America's racist past, defined gender roles, and the patriarchy".

Correction:

Nothing that has been posted is not is going to work against a liberal who is screaming at the top of his/her lungs about "white privilege, male privilege, oppression, history of segregation, America's racist past, defined gender roles, and the patriarchy"

Don't waste your time.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

You read his posts?

Like a true sophist, you rate intelligence on popularity. Wait, I take that back. I apologize.

 

[Danke]

Like a true sophist, you rate intelligence on popularity. Wait, I take that back. I apologize.

Yeah, that's it.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Yeah, that's it.

Oh? And now you just sit there trying to act cool, prissy, and all never-you-mind like? Well, I take back my apology!

 

[BAllen]

I think Herman Cain had the right idea when he called the New York Times racist. Take the marxist playbook and use it against them. The public's mind has already been conditioned for it. That Sheriff in Milwaukee should have called Pierce Morgan a racist. "I had no idea you were such a bigot, Pierce. In this day and age, too! Do you hate Mexicans, as well? How about Cubans? Would you like to see them all stoned? And women? I suppose you think all women should stay in the kitchen, huh?"

 

[dannno]

Btw, I'm sick of the "persons of color are hurt by the war on drugs" argument. I find it patronizing and weak.

That must be because you don't fully understand the argument.

The argument is that both white people and minorities use drugs with similar frequency, but that cops use the fact that drugs are illegal as a way to oppress minorities because it gives them an excuse to search them and put them in a cage when they haven't hurt anybody. The result is that many times more minorities are arrested for drugs, even though both groups use with similar frequency.

It means that cops are racist, so the only thing that argument really does is patronize cops. Are you a cop or an gov. agent?

 

[BAllen]

That must be because you don't fully understand the argument.

The argument is that both white people and minorities use drugs with similar frequency, but that cops use the fact that drugs are illegal as a way to oppress minorities because it gives them an excuse to search them and put them in a cage when they haven't hurt anybody. The result is that many times more minorities are arrested for drugs, even though both groups use with similar frequency.

It means that cops are racist, so the only thing that argument really does is patronize cops. Are you a cop or an gov. agent?

Surely, you don't really believe that?

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

Nothing that has been posted is not going to work against a liberal who is screaming at the top of his/her lungs about "white privilege, male privilege, oppression, history of segregation, America's racist past, defined gender roles, and the patriarchy".

We need to try harder.

Just let whoever talks using those words that they're full of shit. They aren't ever coming our way, and they need to be exposed. Poke holes in their ideology.

 

[Expatriate]

I face alot of aggressive liberals who claim that neither can be libertarians because we want to "let them get oppressed". Let's discuss comebacks.

Btw, I'm sick of the "persons of color are hurt by the war on drugs" argument. I find it patronizing and weak.

Watch this documentary sometime and then tell me again how that argument is patronizing and weak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_House_I_Live_In_(2012_film)

 

[dannno]

Surely, you don't really believe that?

What are you talking about? Not only is it true, I have heard Ron Paul make the case several times.

 

[Expatriate]

That must be because you don't fully understand the argument.

The argument is that both white people and minorities use drugs with similar frequency, but that cops use the fact that drugs are illegal as a way to oppress minorities because it gives them an excuse to search them and put them in a cage when they haven't hurt anybody. The result is that many times more minorities are arrested for drugs, even though both groups use with similar frequency.

It means that cops are racist, so the only thing that argument really does is patronize cops. Are you a cop or an gov. agent?

I dunno if it has quite as much to do with cops being racist, I think it is more a result of there being more police in the inner-city neighborhoods and more "visible crime" for them to tackle - i.e. the cops are much more likely to see and go after some black dude in the ghetto smoking crack than some white dude in his house snorting coke.

The fact that they see certain races doing drugs more than others due to the nature of the neighborhoods they patrol may lead some cops to develop racist tendencies and start profiling, however.

I could be wrong, but that seems more likely to me than cops being racist by nature.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I think Herman Cain had the right idea when he called the New York Times racist. Take the marxist playbook and use it against them. The public's mind has already been conditioned for it. That Sheriff in Milwaukee should have called Pierce Morgan a racist. "I had no idea you were such a bigot, Pierce. In this day and age, too! Do you hate Mexicans, as well? How about Cubans? Would you like to see them all stoned? And women? I suppose you think all women should stay in the kitchen, huh?"

This might sound off the subject, but I think it goes straight to the heart of the conflict. Figure even Jesus had a serious problem with Jews, which is incredible because He Himself was a Jew. But Jesus didn't argue with them. Instead, He would deal with them by threatening to expose how they weren't truly Jews. The use of this method was how He managed to save the woman from getting stoned to death. Think about it. They were threatening to put her to death for adultery with this being her "sin." Jesus didn't argue, but said for those without "sin" to caste the first stone. None of the accusers could deny their "sin" and they all left. He then told her to "go," with this being no place in particular, where ever she would like of her own free will, with the stipulation that she not do one thing by returning to the place of "sin." In other words, there was one place she shouldn't return to which was her adultery.
As these Jews weren't truly Jews beyond the Lord's forgiveness of them, the prostitute herself was forgiven likewise. This is significant as Jesus by law could only touch a Jew and had to avoid touching the gentiles. In the end, there was no difference between these Jews and the prostitute. That was the Lord's point.
In the future, we should always remember that the kind of Jews that exist in the world would be those who are forgiven as such, as all kinds of adultery with the Gentiles has taken place in Jewish history; and also the kind who convert over to it. By conversion, I mean converts like Sammy Davis Jr..
New York City is a Jewish Loyalist stronghold. It has become ground zero for the cancer.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You get your rights because you are human, not because youre a woman, black or gay. Simple as that.

This^^

 

[MelissaWV]

Ignorant people who feel a constant need to categorize others - Why should they be Libertarians?

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

This^^

When using the term "endowed" in The Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers weren't talking about a penis. All men as in "mankind." Man is a man as a bear is a bear. Grizzly bears exist because of the ferocity grizzly mothers exhibit in the defense of their cubs. Female men eat meat. Women. Roar!

 

[sailingaway]

To OP (meaning I just read it and not the responses yet, sorry)

I think the problem is starting from the 'women and people of color' collectivist point. What can liberty do for ANYONE??? Opportunity, independence, self sufficiency, creative outlets unfrustrated, on and on and on...

I don't think 'women and people of color' are allergic to these things, I think these desires are universal.

Why SHOULDN'T women and people of color want to be the best that they can be and own every bit of that?

Just think what opportunities there would be for all without government frustrating everything you do?

Corporatism serves the special interest groups. Liberty serves the individual.