Good point,p6. No argument here.

I sure don't support Clarence Thomas because he's a black man, I support him bacause I agree with his rulings. It makes perfect sense that those who disagree would oppose him.

I do find it a bit ironic that many of the best libertarian thinkers and writers are black. I surmise that they put themselves through an intellectual analysis not really wanting to abandon liberalism. That they fought an internal battle of colossal proportion. And when they emerged as a libertarian, they had their arguments lined up in a way which would be incredibly difficult for someone who had never seen the other side quite as well as they had.

There is a possibility, not at all remote, that the conversion of blacks who are liberals to alleged libertarians is nothing more than the flip side of the same coin. What I suspect is that many of them were vociferously liberal when they were liberals and now they are vocifereously libertarian. The same cast of mind is at play but the convert has just substituted one false god for another. Their "internal battle of colossal proportion(s)" was probably no more exacting than a member of the AME church converting to Catholicism. One of the things that troubles me about the current generation of black libertarians is that I have read any political critiques by them in which they directly confront and challenge the desire of the current Administration to increase the police powers of the state under the guise of conducting a war on terror or question the wisdom of our so-called preemptive invasion of Iraq. The libertarians who I read during my youth were fairly consistent fellows. They were opposed both to the New Deal and its various iterations and they were just as much opposed to the creation of a national security state. (The Reader's Digest, for example, was printing pieces opposed to the war in Vietnam while the New York Times and Time Magazine were routinely printing the blather coming out of the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations.) These noveau black libertarians, in my humble opinion, are only consistent about their opposition to Democrats and the so-called black civil rights establishment. They appear only to desire to shrink the state's ability to protect poor black people.

These noveau black libertarians, in my humble opinion, are only consistent about their opposition to Democrats and the so-called black civil rights establishment.

They're cosistent with most libertarians in desiring the government to not restrict commerce.

They're not alone among Americans including libertarians in feeling ambivalent about the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq. It's not a lack of caring or lack of passion. Rather it's a lack of seeing a better way, and seeing the need to do something. We would all do important things differently.

Thomas Sowell is a very broad based libertarian; he eloquently explains libertarian philosophy regarding a huge range of topics. He may well be the best read contemporary libertarian.

Shelby Steele also is a broad libertarian, but Shelby Steele indeed focuses more on race, both in America and the world, as his primary topic.

I don't think either one of them can be dismissed as people who flip thoughtlessly between extremes.

I may have misunderstood your point but libertarianism, at least as I have understood it for the past four decades, encompasses a great deal more than simply a reflexive opposition to so-called efforts of the government to restrict commerce. The late libertarian economist Gabriel Kolko, for example, was opposed to efforts on the part of the business community to try to have government assist commercial endeavors. One of his many interests entailed highlighting how the federal government and business interests had colluded in establishing the nation's railway system beginning in the 19th Century, which he saw as a classic example of corporate statism.

The meaning of words and terms does tend to shift over time but I am continually amazed at how many people today will don the cloak of libertarianism in an effort to defend the alleged attributes of "free-market capitalism" while blithely ignoring or being ignorant of the role that government has played throughout the history of this country in order to create market dynamics beneficial to these so-called rugged individualists entrepreneurs. It is not enough to feel ambivalent to the Patriot Act and other recent efforts of the federal government to restrict and supress our rights as citizens of a democratic republic. Many of these same so-called libertarians, although operating at a lower frequency, did not feel similarly constrained in voicing their public opposition when Congress relying on the interstate commerce clause passed the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights Bills.

None of them, as I recall, had any other viable alternative to ending America's apartheid system but libertarians like Barry Goldwater. Robert Bork and William Rehnquist still voiced their public opposition to these bills. Clarence Thomas, another libertarian, has, of course, gone them one better by publicly expressing his displeasure with the Warren Court's 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Justice Thomas, too, has never quite articulated what black people and their supporters should have done to address the problem of separate but unequal public schools. Perhaps, under his conception of a libertarian state there would be no public schools not even for the second or third generation descendants of former slaves who, of course, never received a nickel for their labors under a free market system and, consequently, had no significant assets to pass along to their children and grandchildren. Ah! C'est la vie!

Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele both achieved and continue to derive notoriety because of the issue of race. This is not to imply or suggest that Dr. Sowell, who is obviously quite intelligent and well learned, does not have other interests and concerns that do not pertain to racial matters. The facts are, however, that despite Dr. Sowell's eurdition and range of opinions it is his pronouncements on racial matters that continually earn him the attention of the mass media and their listeners and readers. The case for Dr. Steele in this regard is so strong that I see no point in making the argument. In terms of their intellectual developments and histories I believe both men were at one time card carrying liberals and emphatically so. Over time their opinions on various issues changed. This happens to all of us. Today, they are as emphatically on the right as they were once on the left. I don't for a moment accept that their conversions were of heroic proportions. They simply changed their minds.

Hard core libertarians (aka Libertarians) have been consistent for 50 years or more. Even though I'd describe myself as libertarian, my disputes with them are intense. Less fun, in general, than interactions with liberals.

Libertarian philosophy applies a calculator to all decisions. No thought required. That ain't me. I'll default to a libertarian view, but I retain the duty to think about the exact situation, to listen to people I disagree with and understand what they say. I support public schools.

None of them, as I recall, had any other viable alternative to ending America's apartheid system but libertarians like Barry Goldwater. Robert Bork and William Rehnquist still voiced their public opposition to these bills.

The bills were highly imperfect. The affirmative action/school bussing era benefitted some individual blacks during a short time, but increasingly is having a negative impact on Black America following that era. That doesn't mean nothing needed to be done.

In particular, we certainly needed to get rid of Jim Crow. We had to stop governors from blocking entrance to state universities. We had to get the government out of racial discrimination, absolutely, and forever.

Re: Brown. I disagree with them, but I've heard some powerfully argued positions that what we needed was real "separate but equal". Surely the bussing era was a disaster.

Re: converted liberals. You didn't hear it from me first, p6.

A man who is not a liberal at 21 has no heart. A man who is still a liberal at 60 has no brain.

It's humorous, because the journey is not unusual. I voted for George McGovern.

For the record, I don't think we needed a real 'separate but equal," but I do feel it would have been viable. And we'd be an entirely different nation.

"The bills were highly imperfect. The affirmative action/school bussing era benefitted some individual blacks during a short time, but increasingly is having a negative impact on Black America following that era. That doesn't mean nothing needed to be done.

"In particular, we certainly needed to get rid of Jim Crow. We had to stop governors from blocking entrance to state universities. We had to get the government out of racial discrimination, absolutely, and forever."

The Civil Rights Bills' alleged imperfections were no greater or more harmful than the state laws and federal court decisions upon which the edifice of racial segregation had been constructed. While I believe that you and I would agree about the deleterious effects of busing I would strongly disagree with any efforts to conflate Brown v. Board of Education with busing. The Brown decision, in my humble opinion, was the outcome of a long effort to drive a legal and rhetorical stake into the heart of state supported racial segregation. White Americans were never going to provide separate but equal education for Black Americans and their progeny. Not in ten thousand years. And many of the architects and proponents of the legal attack on segregation were quite aware of this fact hence their desire to dispense with this absurd fiction. The fact that Clarence Thomas and others continue to worship at this altar is further proof, in my opinion, of the destructive effects of legally enforced racial segregation. Too many of its victims hanker for an order of things that only existed in their fantasies. Black people as a whole did not thrive under the terms of racial segregation that they were forced to live under for more than one hundred years.

The fact that Clarence Thomas and others continue to worship at this altar is further proof, in my opinion, of the destructive effects of legally enforced racial segregation.

I was with you PT, up until this suggestion that Clarence Thomas in particular and sincere conservatives in general support legally enforced racial segregation.

That's nonsense.

In some contexts, both Thomas and I support voluntary segregation. That's a world away from legally enfornced segregation, and the suggestion that the two ideas might be confused needs to be confronted.

Too many of its victims hanker for an order of things that only existed in their fantasies. Black people as a whole did not thrive under the terms of racial segregation that they were forced to live under for more than one hundred years.

Neither I nor Thomas are uninformed regarding the negative effects of Jim Crow on black people, nor do we imagine that it did not have to go, totally, immediately, and forever.

The point is, we all have different, often contradictory suggestions to achieve a similar goal. You, me, p6, and Clarence Thomas. None of us are naive. None of us believe that the solution is to return to back-of-the-bus.

The Brown decision, in my humble opinion, was the outcome of a long effort to drive a legal and rhetorical stake into the heart of state supported racial segregation.

I agree with you here, PT.

Brown took effect because a lot of people, both black and white, believed that separate but equal was simply not possible. I don't know that they were wrong. It's tempting, and misguided, to analyze 1954 in a 2004 context.

Sometimes it's dead on to observe imperfect progress as, progress.

I remain compelled by the idea that no public school can ever deny admission based on race.

For the record, I don't think we needed a real 'separate but equal," but I do feel it would have been viable. And we'd be an entirely different nation.

Indeed we would. It may well have been a better nation. The question, as PTCruiser points out, is whether it was possible in 1954. Or 1964. Or 1974, after we were on a different path.

It was never possible because neither the seperate nor the equal was ever really considered.

What was NECESSARY was the "equal" part. The "seperate" part is optional.

None of us are naive.

Then some of us are unknowledgeable…or evil and manipulative.

"I was with you PT, up until this suggestion that Clarence Thomas in particular and sincere conservatives in general support legally enforced racial segregation."

I don't understand your use of the term "sincere conservatives". I don't doubt the sincerity of your motives or beliefs but I am deeply troubled at times about the things you and your fellow travelers are sincere about. You and Br. Thomas may be opposed to legally enforced racial segregation but your intellectual and political forebearers such as William F. Buckley, Jr., Russell Kirk, John Chamberlain and Barry Goldwater were extremely reluctant at best to denounce these practices and to declare them as being contrary to the principles upon which this nation was allegedly founded.

"In some contexts, both Thomas and I support voluntary segregation. That's a world away from legally enfornced segregation, and the suggestion that the two ideas might be confused needs to be confronted."

I'll keep this in mind the next time I read some conservative writer who takes exception to black high school students sitting at a cafeteria table together during their lunch period. (I also find it odd, though informative, that no one ever criticizes white high school students for eating together.)

"Neither I nor Thomas are uninformed regarding the negative effects of Jim Crow on black people, nor do we imagine that it did not have to go, totally, immediately, and forever."

I wish that Justice Thomas felt the same way about prison officials in states like Mississippi who believe that they have the right to chain another human being to a chair before tipping it over and delivering a severe beating to that same human being. I find it hard to believe that a member of the Supreme Court who does not believe, as Justice Thomas declared in his dissenting opinion delivered shortly after his appointment to the Court, that such behavior constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" really understands the totality of the effects of Jim Crow despite his having lived under this oppressive system.

In all honesty I am not sure what you and Br. Thomas believe. I know what you are opposed to but I have no clear understanding of what you stand for aside from the usual assortment of patriotic and free market bromides that your side offers the black community if they would just trade in their allegiance to the Democratic Party. I see all of you as just another group of gatekeepers who don't even recognize that none of the territory that you are guarding will ever be ceded to you no matter how loyal and persistent you may be.

I don't understand your use of the term "sincere conservatives".

I agree it's problematic. The term Conservative covers a lot of ground, and a lot of people I have no use for. I was trying to describe a line, but I now see where it wasn't a very crisp line.

I intended to exclude theocrats, totalitarians, and racial supremicists. Probably a few other ians I can't think of immediately.

In all honesty I am not sure what you and Br. Thomas believe. I know what you are opposed to but I have no clear understanding of what you stand for aside from the usual assortment of patriotic and free market bromides that your side offers the black community if they would just trade in their allegiance to the Democratic Party.

Personally P6, I don't imagine myself as offering anything to the black community in exchange for their abandoning the Democratic Party. I'm a highly disloyal Republican. Not too tempting.

Personally p6, I don't imagine myself as offering anything to the black community in exchange for their abandoning the Democratic Party.

Lost track of who you were talking to?

I'll not make the obvious joke.

Well, if you note revisions, you'll see I saw that too late, and changed it. Then I see your comment, so I had to change it back...

I'll keep this in mind the next time I read some conservative writer who takes exception to black high school students sitting at a cafeteria table together during their lunch period. (I also find it odd, though informative, that no one ever criticizes white high school students for eating together.)

This occurs in high schools of all racial makeups. Kids of a particular race hang out together. It even happens in college.

As adults, we'd like to see more mixing, but then there's other things we'd like teenagers to do that they don't do also. I think what is informative is to analyze this question from an attempt to recall what we thought as high school students.

The thing which the vast majority of us would say about ourselves as high school students is "social reject". It overstates the case, but it accurately describes how we felt at the time.

It's that feeling of overall rejection which precipitates gang bonding. A small society where one is a true social success. The overall feeling of rejection fades with actual successful social experience, including interracial experience.

Adults would seem an excellent force for good here. However, it's complicated by the parallel, and somewhat independent rejection of adults by teenagers. This natural rejection, part of defining one's unique self, can result in treating adults with near hostility. Adults generally are willing to socially interact with kids, but don't enjoy the hostility. And of course, plenty of adults limit their interaction with teenagers to a series of firm lectures. Thus, the resource which we adults can be in developing social confidence in teenagers is difficult to harness. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

I'll take responsibility for having introduced the behavior of black high school students into this discussion but our interpretations of their alleged lunch perod activities speaks volumes to me about the problems of race in this country. Let's suppose, for example, that the behavior of these students' has absolutely nothing to do with white people, white tornados or white lighting to paraphrase Gil Scott Heron. That is, their reasons for sitting together are as many and as varied as any other group of adolescent school children living in, say, China, Sweden, Japan, Argentina or Nigeria. What I am suggesting is that we not look at their behavior through the framework of sociology or social psychology but through the more multifaceted prism of the novel. Yes, some elements of group cohesiveness or group protection may account for what you term as "gang bonding" but these motivating elements are only efficient causes, not sufficient causes of these school cafeteria gatherings. These students, after all, may be sitting together because they enjoy each other's company or may have formed close bonds in elementary or middle school. In fact, some of them may belong to the same church or live on the same block. A few of them might even be related by blood or marriage to each other. The reasons for their choosing to sit at the same table are not infinite but they may certainly have little to do with race, i.e., white folks, than with the lines of social intersection that emerge from people who share the same neighborhoods, informal histories and cultural norms and interests.

I basically agree with you, PT.

I've done lunch with "the same" group of people for 15 years. The same is in quotes, because if you compare 15 years ago to today, you see maybe 20% really the same. But it's the same from day to day, week to week. With some important exceptions.

Outsiders get to pick the restaurant. They get treated like royalty. Well, they at least get to pick the restaurant.

I understand the issue, and actively pursue outsiders (particularly women, eh?) to join us. And the group itself is maybe 50% for any given day. But my active desire to keep this group from seeming exclusive is rare among high schoolers. Maybe even frequently contradicted.

High school kids are not noted for their caring for, um, fellow man. They're more inclined to care for their own pleasure, period (which is the basis for the anti-social downspiral). However, within this context, it seems desirable to be exclusive. And what better a criterion than an obviously visible one.

However, if everyone were clones, we could bet that the exact same social phenomenom would continue to occur.