Limits of Editorialism

Sunday 23 May 2010 - Filed under Dumbassery + Government + Journalism

An unsigned editorial at The New York Times, and a fine example of the exceedingly rare Double Fail:

It was only government power that ended slavery and abolished Jim Crow, neither of which would have been eliminated by a purely free market.

It was only government power that ended codified slavery and abolished instituted Jim Crow, neither of which would have been eliminated were given the opportunity to be eliminated by a purely free market [because the government was actively working against the free market].

There.  I fixed it for you.

As Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute points out, neither of these huge “government” victories were works of government itself, but ushered about by the very private sphere the automaton author of this article is attempting to decry. I guess until the revisionist historians at the Times claim that the abolitionist and civil rights movements are products of the big brains in government.  Were it not for these private institutions and their exercising of their rights of free speech and free association, it’s fair odds that the government wouldn’t have done a goddamn thing to rectify these institutions which it ushered in and protected by law.  In the case of civil rights, Jim Crow laws and state sanctioned (as in laws passed by the government for the libertarded among us) segregation were actively and aggressively protected by the government (unless you think a 7-1 Supreme Court decision in favor of upholding Jim Crow laws can’t somehow be construed as aggressive and active government protection).

According to your world view, government is the savior of mankind, but even the simplest of google searches would have shown you that you are completely wrong on both accounts, that government saved us from discrimination while the private sphere pushed discrimination upon us without any regard for minorities.  Not only did government institute government mandated slavery and, later, oppression, but it was the private sphere which was the impetus to act against them and force the government to act lest they face the wrath of voters.  It wasn’t the beneficience of government which caused it to act, but people marching in the streets by the thousands, sometimes violently, which prompted government to actually do something about the disparity between whites and non-whites.

Your argument is akin to an argument stating that, by abolishing alcohol prohibition, government single-handedly lowered the crime rate.

It is you, Mr Anonymous Editorialist who has “made it clear that he does not understand the nature of racial progress in this country.”

Nor does Paul claim to be “a longtime libertarian” you ideology twisting fucktard.

There is a very good reason that this “piece” is an editorial and not news; most of it is patently false and absofuckinglutely NONE of it can be verified according to the rules of journalism.  This tripe is little more than completely misleading, anti-libertarian propaganda.

Good try New York Times.  But in accordance with the laws of basic fucking logic, you receive a grade of Double Fail.

2010-05-23  »  madlibertarianguy