I think I'm getting delusional...

Post Reply New Topic

How does opposing segregation necessitate and justify the extensive police and nanny state? Big government also was the one that put a lot of those those policies in place, we need to respect everyone as individuals regardless of your color, religion, sexual orientation, economic status, whatever. The War on Drugs imposed on use by your infallible federal government is as racist as anything that happened Jim Crow south, we imprison more people than any country in the world and it is disproportionately blacks and hispanics. The world isn't the same place that it was 50+ years ago, I don't think it is a relevant argument from that perspective. I would like to think we've evolved in our thinking since that is the only way things ever change.

The elites are the ones that own the government, giving it more power is giving them more power. You're deluded to think that your one vote matters as much Rockefeller or a Vanderbilt. Government is best kept small and as local as possible, it must be accountable to the people.

Many of he same people who b*tch and moan about the nanny state are the same ones who complain about government overreach regarding states rights, which is just code for ending federal interference with racist laws.
And Jim Crow had been implemented by local and state governments in the south, not by the federal government. It was the federal government that put an end to segregation.
And yes, I agree, the war on drugs has had terribly racist results, but I don't believe that had been the original intent.

That's not true, progressive icon Woodrow Wilson brought Jim Crow to Washington and institutionalized a segregated civil workforce and military. Plessy v Ferguson upheld Jim Crow by the Supreme Court.

As for the original intent of the War on Drugs, you have too look at how it sold and it definitely racial component to it. Maybe there was ulterior motives but racial fears played a huge factor in its creation. It can't be described as anything besides a racial holocaust, it is as evil as anything our country has ever done.

The federal government isn't going to what ends the drug war and it isnt what is going to end discrimination against, that's entirely coming from the states and changing beliefs of individuals.

Sure, there were a few cases where the federal government had been guilty of instituting Jim Crow - such as Woodrow Wilson, who despite his rep as a progressive had been born and raised an old timey southern good old boy, with all the prejudices that entails. It should be noted that the progressive era came to a screeching halt under the Wilson administration, primarily due to his wartime domestic policy that had singled out German Americans, organized labor, the political left, and eventually even blacks. This had led to the right wing political upswing following WWI, which saw the first Red Scare, and the resurgence of the KKK.
And I am willing to concede that the characters who had dreamed up the war on drugs probably had had racial preconceptions about who and what race constituted drug abusers. When I think of the war on drugs, I think of lights of the political right such as Nixon and Reagan. And I actually agree that states should take the lead with dismantling much of the idiocy associated with the war on drugs - my own state of Washington has legalized marijuana; something opposed by conservatives here.
So yes, the feds have done bad things regarding race, and the states have done good things in that regard, particularly where the war on drugs are concerned. But in these cases, it's almost always about right vs. left. But I still stand by my assertion that the fight against racism has been carried on for the most part by political liberals at the federal level, while the champions of Jim Crow and segregation have usually used states rights as a rallying cry.

Yep, that is liberty. Coercing people to give a hoot about people they don't give a hoot about is not liberty.

Look at the racism/hate caused by the government, from taking money from some people and spending it on programs for other people. In my state of Michigan there is anger that Detroit gets a bailout of like 200 million dollars from other residents. This anger can become racism, because the city of Detroit comprises 90% black people, so people may lay the blame on the race of the people in the city.



The "nanny state" means the government has inserted itself into overseeing people's lives, so freedom is lost.




Mr. Chomsky believes they need "caring" because he sees them as sheeple.

Do you know how heartless that sounds like - making people "give a hoot about people they don't give a hoot about?" That goes against the very essence of Judeao-Christian teachings that I am my brother's keeper - and yes, I'll go the extent of conceding that conservatives a right in that our American culture does in fact have it's roots in the Abrahamic faiths. But wait, that's right - - libertarians are followers of St. Ayn Rand, who was openly contemptuous of Christ.
As for that "giving a hoot" about others being the cause of racism - I sincerely doubt that people would be tolerant and loving to everyone else only if the wicked nanny state didn't take their money and give it to the poor (which includes more than just black people, by the way). Rather, it sounds more like just an excuse by people who were already racists.
And as far as sheeple are concerned - do you think Christ, who called for caring for others, regarded people as sheeple?