• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why does Dr. King get a national holiday?

A

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
He advocated redistribution of wealth and he advocated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so I don't get why he's so popular. People can get locked up if they refuse to follow a Federal quota system or if they refuse to serve people they may not want to serve.

I don't dislike him, as he spoke out against the Vietnam war and was a good man, but why do so many people hold him in such high regard?

My point is, is that if you're not an anarcho-capitalist, then you advocate aggression.
 
Because he was a leader of the Civil Rights Movement. You know, that thing that got people actual rights besides just the right to be fucked by those more powerful than themselves, like you anarcho-libertarians are obsessed with.
 
Anarchist420 said:
He advocated redistribution of wealth and he advocated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so I don't get why he's so popular. People can get locked up if they refuse to follow a Federal quota system or if they refuse to serve people they may not want to serve.

I don't dislike him, as he spoke out against the Vietnam war and was a good man, but why do so many people hold him in such high regard?

My point is, is that if you're not an anarcho-capitalist, then you advocate aggression.
Click to expand...

For all his faults he and his contemporaries were the reason that blacks don't have to ride in the back of the bus anymore. It isn't all about money.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
For all his faults he and his contemporaries were the reason that blacks don't have to ride in the back of the bus anymore. It isn't all about money.
Click to expand...
If buses were private property, blacks wouldn't always have to ride in the back of the bus. Was there a federal law that said blacks had to ride in the back of the bus?

If so, I must have missed it🙂
 
Not sure about the link. I just picked something from google, but the point still stands:

Mean Annual Earnings of Wage and Salary Workers

Shown as a ratio. So a 0.5 would mean that a Black person made half of what a White person made.

1939: Men (.44), Women (.43)
1959: Men (.55), Women (.59)
1969: Men (.63), Women (.85)
1979: Men (.68), Women (.99)
1989: Men (.67), Women (.95)

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/maloney.african.american
 
Anarchist420 said:
If buses were private property, blacks wouldn't always have to ride in the back of the bus. Was there a federal law that said blacks had to ride in the back of the bus?

If so, I must have missed it🙂
Click to expand...

More to the point- was there legal protection that prevented it from happening? No, not until people raised enough of a stink to make it so. I have a great many problems with how entitlements were created and how they are implemented, but that is a different issue than people being treated as less than human, that term being determined by the color if their skin. Now if it were a privately run business, would you argue that they ought to have that right?
 
randomrogue said:
Not sure about the link. I just picked something from google, but the point still stands:

Mean Annual Earnings of Wage and Salary Workers

Shown as a ratio. So a 0.5 would mean that a Black person made half of what a White person made.

1939: Men (.44), Women (.43)
1959: Men (.55), Women (.59)
1969: Men (.63), Women (.85)
1979: Men (.68), Women (.99)
1989: Men (.67), Women (.95)

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/maloney.african.american
Click to expand...
What are the wages for like positions and experience?
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
More to the point- was there legal protection that prevented it from happening? No, not until people raised enough of a stink to make it so. I have a great many problems with how entitlements were created and how they are implemented, but that is a different issue than people being treated as less than human, that term being determined by the color if their skin. Now if it were a privately run business, would you argue that they ought to have that right?
Click to expand...
Well, you have a point about Jim Crow (where the States forced segregation upon private property owners), but Dr. King advocated federal intervention.
 
Anarchist420 said:
Well, you have a point about Jim Crow (where the States forced segregation upon private property owners), but Dr. King advocated federal intervention.
Click to expand...

14th Amendment

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...

Note the italicized portion. The Federal government is expressly obligated to ensure that states cannot legally sanction discrimination of the kind widespread at the time. Since the states did not do so the Feds stepped in as required. Note I'm not a supporter of creative arguments used as the means to and end to expand federal power, but I don't see a Constitutional argument against this.
 
Now I understand why the OP likes Ron Paul. He just doesn't get it. Ron Paul apparently just doesn't get it either.
 
Anarchist420 said:
He advocated redistribution of wealth and he advocated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so I don't get why he's so popular. People can get locked up if they refuse to follow a Federal quota system or if they refuse to serve people they may not want to serve.

I don't dislike him, as he spoke out against the Vietnam war and was a good man, but why do so many people hold him in such high regard?

My point is, is that if you're not an anarcho-capitalist, then you advocate aggression.
Click to expand...

He and his contempories helped the US become a more civilzed country. Also I see the day as a way to help people remember what this country was like two generations ago.

How old are you?
 
IHateMyJob2004 said:
Anarchist, are you a troll or stupid?
Click to expand...

88721563.png
 
RabidMongoose said:
I think that you should be more respectful to him. He has unorthodox opinions and views, but that shouldn't be a reason to attack him, IMO.
Click to expand...

By unorthodox you mean downright retarded, correct?
You are right, though. It isn't nice to pick on the mentally disabled.
 
Last edited:
CrackRabbit said:
By unorthodox you mean downright retarded, correct?
You are right. It isn't nice to pick on the mentally disabled.
Click to expand...
From my perspective I would have to say that while I disagree with most of what the OP believes he doesn't go about saying things as if Zeus gave him free license to thunderbolt the internet. I allow considerable leeway to the opinions of those I do not accept if they can do so without formulating their responses in an adversarial way at least initially.

YMMV
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top