FREEDOM FORUM: Discussion

Make a Comment

Comments in Response


Comment by GrandPoobah
Entered on:

A corporation is a creature of the state. Yes, if it is your business --- that is a sole proprietorship or partnership --- then you can do whatever you want. But if you go to the government and ask for the privileges from the state in the form of becoming a corporation, then you should be prepared to live under whatever rules that the government wants to impose.  


Comment by Freed Radical
Entered on:
Spot on essay as usual, Larkin! "Civil rights" laws are all about the application of government violence to divide and conquer the Sheeple. Rand Paul was much too wimpy in his response to Maddow's lame ambush, and Ron has already addressed this issue effectively many times without taking a lot of heat for it. Ron always stuck to the freedom principle and scared the collectivists away by pointing out the coercive roots of "civil rights" legislation. Lew Rockwell re-ran Ron's excellent 2004 piece on this very subject today. Ron made no apologies for his position, and this is why he consistently wins the argument and scares the hell out of the collectivists.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

It's becoming readily apparent that Rand is not Ron--He has taken a weenie position on war and is apologizing for what could have been a principled position on civil rights like a pussy. If Rand had stuck to his guns like his Dad, collectivist media hack Maddow would have been made to appear the statist shill that she is and would have slunk away with her tail between her c*** lips like the bitch that she is...

You miss the larger point, Grand Poobah--The State doesn't really care about the particular corporate or sole proprietor structure of a business. They will act like they own your private property regardless and screw you any way they can. I do understand your philosophical point about corporations though. There is certainly no reason why evil and negligent company owners should be able to hide behind their corporate skirts when they harm people.

  ERIC NEW


Comment by freedomfighter
Entered on:

she is an Idiot ,  and she a taco short of a combination, I think she is the one that is a racist, As Morgan Freedman once said "how to fight racism, is to stop talking about it". end of story, but some idiots like Rachel, just like to kindle a fire that is been dead for some time.  and I not saying its totally dead, but,because we all have some racism in us, sometime against our kind of people, it will never end, but to promote it openly like Rachel, I think she is trying to push the race card so as to slander Mr Paul.......  In my book its a dead issue. and I did not hear of any restaurant discriminating anybody lately have you????

 


Comment by Flajann Marcus
Entered on:

I have to say that, in principle, I agree with most of the points made here, but perhaps this is not the way to win over many to the side of freedom.

Personally, I would not want to associate with anyone who did not want to associate with me -- for whatever the reason. What would be the point?

If a restaurant did not want to cater to me due to my... See more dermal chromatics, why would I want to eat there? Perhaps they spit in my food, or put something nasty in it? Who knows? I'd rather know that up front, and the sign hanging on his front saying "No Blacks Allowed" or "No Atheists Allowed" would save me the hassle.

However, the whole issue of discrimination is very politically charged and would give the excuse for many to dismiss us as "racists" or "bigots".

It's the same reason the "Free Town Project" in New Hampshire got derailed. If we want to spread the ideas of true Freedom and Liberty to those sitting on the side lines, perhaps we don't want to start shouting stuff about freedom to have "donkey sex shows."

What makes this especially touchy for me is my own experiences with dermal chromatic discrimination. Many in the past phoned 911 on me just do to that aspect alone. And one such incident was particularly devastating.

The whole "dial 911 if you see someone that looks 'suspicious'" bit is a complete wash, and it's no fun at all being constantly  harassed by police due to no fault of my own. The worst of it led to my arrest at a restaurant where I took my entire family of wife and 3 kids! Yep. I was arrested right in front of them. In Nashua. Because some inebriated bitch of a patron went berserk over my dermal chromatics. Well, it was a mass hole. What the hell are they doing coming to New Hampshire? Maybe we should post "No Mass Holes allowed!" at the border. But then we'd miss out on all those Mass Hole Dollars being spent in our tax-free stores. So we learn to "tolerate" them.

And then there's the Nashua Police.

So even though I may agree in principle with this blog, that particular issue is a big turn-off for me. Bigots who dial 911 at the mere sight of me is not exactly whom I want to be going side by side with on our fight for Freedom!


Comment by Larken Rose
Entered on:

The trouble, "Flajann Marcus," is that this is where the debate between statism and freedom MUST take place, precisely because it is how the control freaks seek to whittle away at the PRINCIPLE of freedom. They point to some grouchy, obnoxious, bigoted boneheaded, that almost no one wants to be associated with (including me), and say, "Surely THIS guy needs to be straightened out by the law!" Likewise, when the talk about raising taxes, they always bring up evil corporate executives with their zillion-foot yachts, and say, "Surely it's okay for 'the people' to take some of THIS guy's money!" When they want to silence dissent, they bring up some yammering KKK twit, and say, "It's okay to make HIM shut up, right?"

The point is, when advocating every step towards totalitarianism, the statists will always use examples that would tempt people into abandoning the principle. And if we go noodle-spined when they do--as I think Rand sort of did--then we have abandoned the principle. And after that, we have NO rational basis for opposing tyranny. "I"m for limited oppression" is not good enough.

And yes, it is annoying to have to defend some pretty obnoxious people. So it is important to emphasize--maybe more than I did--how much we DON'T LIKE the choices those folk make, while insisting that those choices are still THEIRS to make. Furthermore, it might be good to emphasize that using violence in defense is just as important as NOT using it for aggression. For example, if the bigot with the restaurant decides to go onto a Dermal-Pigmentally-Hyperendowed-American's property to harass him, that changes everything. Then the bigot may need to have a serious discussion with a Mossberg 12-gauge.

Speaking of which, I need to finish another article, about how blacks so often get treated by their "protector" "government." While the statists want legal intervention to intrude when violence is unjustified, they also want blacks who really are being oppressed to NOT resist. Nice hypocrisy. Malcolm X, when he got over being a racist himself, got it right: if "the law" doesn't make justice, the people should damn well make it themselves.

Make a Comment