Taking Judge Richard Posner's skeptical side in the debate with Malcolm Gladwell over the ethical rectitude of car salesmen, a commenter calls attention to these catchy low-rent commercials from the good old days of the Bush Bubble. Starring Washington D.C.-Baltimore area pro athletes like LaVar Arrington and Ray Lewis, they were hugely successful at increasing sales at Easterns Motors, a D.C. used car lot chain run by cousins Robert and Eiman Bassam:
At Eastern Motors/Your job’s your credit!At Eastern Motors/Your job’s your credit!
Fords, Hondas, Chevys, Beamers,/And minivans
Over 600 cars, trucks, SUVs/ Are you listenin’ man?
Let Eastern Motors/Put you in a car today!
Let Eastern Motors/Finance it all the way!
And here is a civic-minded commercial from Easterns educating its black customer base on how to negotiate to get the best price possible. Make sure to act aloof about the car you really want in front of the salesman!
The commenter adds:
BTW, as you can probably tell from the commercial, Eastern Motors is like the Countrywide of car dealers. The founder and CEO, who is a "gold-chainer" type, sounds like Angelo Mozilo:
The would-be buyers he spoke with were looking for quality used cars, and many had been turned down by area dealerships. For Bassam, the trend was too obvious to ignore. “We realized very quickly that the subprime market was underserved and mistreated,” he says."
Fortunately, these days we all understand that immigration is sacred. What could be more morally uplifting than the sight of people from all over the world -- from the Levant to Korea -- coming to America to outsmart and rip off African-Americans, to reduce black American citizens to debt peonage?
Posts
107 comments:
Steve,
The strong indication in your article is that American blacks are eternal victims and gulls, forever prey to sharp minded asiatic types who know a mug when they see one.
The implication is, for wahtever reason, blacks don't have the nous to realize when they are being ripped off blind (kind of like children) and thus need special protection, from themselves, rather like children.
This further implies even further dilemmas.If you accept the proposition that one segment of society lacks intellectual maturity and prove it by legislating to protect them, then why allow them to serve on juries, to vote? etc.
If the idea that certain race are natural born predators (of gulie and cunning,not street thuggery and drive-bys, mind you)just waiting for the chance to con the mugs and fleece the gullible, then doesn't that open another can of worms itself?, why accept a nation of swindlers and cheats amongst you?
"Fortunately, these days we all understand that immigration is sacred. What could be more morally uplifting than the sight of people from all over the world -- from the Levant to Korea -- coming to America to outsmart and rip off African-Americans, to reduce black American citizens to debt peonage?"
Wow, American commercials are incredibly shitty, vulgar and tacky.
Anyway, what do you suggest, Sailer? That we should hold black Americans by the hand like we do to toddlers, and "potty train" them on the very simple concept that, if you have "2" and you spend "3", you owe "1"?
It's not those "foreigners" fault that black Americans have these extroverted personalities that makes them want to live far beyond their means and demand instant gratification - again, like toddlers. Kick out the foreigners, and native born car salesmen will do the same thing.
And do you need to turn this into an anti-immigration thing? Holy shit, you use any angle you can find to attack immigration, even things that are merely extremely remotely related to it.
I have obseerved that Sailer has patriarchal tendencies. He always seem to believe that people must be saved from themselves, from gay men having curfews and gay bars being forbidden to stop gay men from contracting AIDS, to car dealers being punished for taking advantage of the willingness of black people to live far beyond their means. Of course, in the case of gay men Stve's concern is cynical: he uses that as an excuse to disenfranchise gay men because he is a conservative who believes that heterosexual married people should come first. But I digress...
The greatest fallacy in history is that control of the individual is the road to "collective" happiness. Nazism, fascism, communism, conservatism and to a lesser extent, liberalism, all have in common this fallacy as the prime axiom of their thinking. What is a "collective"(society, nations, etc) if not an amalgamation of individuals? And since happiness is most effectualized at the individual level, why should the individual be controlled in the name of a collective since this will result in him and other people being less happy than if there were no such controls? Putting aside the issue of individual rights, even the most benign collectivist utopia results in lots of people feeling limited and frustrated in their aspirations and dreams and a lot of people finding the conformity of such utopia a dystopia. Even if the rest of the population is perfectly happy, how can you justify the misery of even ONE individual if giving this individual freedom would not harm others in any way? The only rational control of the individual is positive control, defined as not harming others. As long as you don't committ homicide, rape, theft and arsony, doing whatever you want has no negative effect on others. We are all human and only we know what is best for us. Let us be who we are, instead of being a control freak like a parent watching over his small child.
I am Lugash.
LOL. The Biz. That made my evening.
You've been on a roll Steve. Keep them coming.
I am Lugash.
The "Bush Bubble"? What ever would that be? Surely you do not mean the very real growth under GWB.
Shame on you for your misrepresentation of the facts.
Golly, you sound like a Democrat.
So were subprime car loans "implicitly" guaranteed by the US govt?
How about...
"Why buy it when you can steal it?"
"This further implies even further dilemmas.If you accept the proposition that one segment of society lacks intellectual maturity and prove it by legislating to protect them, then why allow them to serve on juries, to vote? etc."
That's no dilemma for the those on the left. They've been promoting tax-payer-funded rights without the corresponding acceptance of personal responsibility for decades now.
Bye Bye Obamaville.
How about affirmative motion? Free cars for blacks. 40 gallons of free gas and a car.
Eastern Motors is legendary here in DC and they did try to grab the poor, white market at one time by featuring Chris Cooley (TE for the Skins) in their ads.
I actually knew a person who bought a car from them and he had a device installed in the car that didn't allow it to start if he did not make his payments. Once his check was a day late the car became a one ton paperweight.
I believe this business model is more similar to car rental than selling because the majority of vehicles sold are repossessed within a year or two and then sold again.
So were subprime car loans "implicitly" guaranteed by the US govt?
Real ghetto used cars places have timed switches in the car that can only be reset at the dealership. Payments are weekly. The owner has to bring the car to the dealership with his payment and then the dealer resets the timer. Failure to do so results in the timer shutting down the car and rendering it undrivable.
This is how to make money off human refuse. No government intervention needed.
Car dealers are going to stick it to anybody who isn't an aggressive, sophisticated negotiator- which is almost anybody. Their goal is to make the process as unpleasant as possible so you will eventually give up in disgust just to get away from them. The auto dealership business model seems to be a relic from many decades past, maintained by the great political influence of auto dealers.
If it negatively affects people in general, tough luck. If it negatively affects a protected group, only then is it a problem. Gays are more powerful now than blacks, hence the current campaign against school bullying.
It is not just blacks being ripped off; the whole economy runs on debt repaid at interest (usury is the old-fashioned term) which is nothing but thievery.
Steve Sailer: What could be more morally uplifting than the sight of people from all over the world -- from the Levant to Korea -- coming to America to outsmart and rip off African-Americans, to reduce black American citizens to debt peonage?
Anonymous: Holy shit, you use any angle you can find to attack immigration... I have obseerved that Sailer has patriarchal tendencies. He always seem to believe that people must be saved from themselves... As long as you don't committ homicide, rape, theft and arsony, doing whatever you want has no negative effect on others...
Two points [where I am going to make the possibly mistaken assumption that your post was not meant to be entirely satirical]:
1) I'm pretty sure that Steve is worried about very high IQ people who commit "homicide, rape, theft and arsony" against not individual citizens, but rather against ENTIRE NATIONS [& EVEN CIVILIZATIONS] of individual citizens [primarily by attacking, corrupting, and destroying their fiat money supplies].
2) As far as immigration policy is concerned, I'm pretty sure that, given a pre-existing citizenry with a long & cherished tradition of deference to the rule of law*, an almost innate sense of fair play*, and what seems like an instinctive desire to nurture a general climate of Marquis-of-Queensbury-isms in their day-to-day interactions with one another*, Steve probably feels that such a "people must be saved from" A MASSIVE TIDAL WAVE OF IMMIGRANTS WHO DO NOT SHARE THOSE VALUES.
PS: And lest poor Steve Sailer be accused of the cardinal sin - the Hate which dare not speak Its name - of anti-Presbyterianism, kindly note that there are plenty of sketchy Levantine-men who are not Scots-Irish [cf Carlos Slim Helú, Manuel Moroun, or Nido Qubein].
*PPS: I seem to recall that you Ayn-Randian nihilists tend to file all of that quaint old-fashioned nonsense under the heading of "moral capital".
PPPS: Or was it all really just satire?
"The strong indication in your article is that American blacks are eternal victims and gulls, forever prey to sharp minded asiatic types who know a mug when they see one."
Yup, or someone came up with a good ad campaign.
More black racial hoax. The comedy never ends.
Private GDP is where it was in the late 1990s, before Bush took office. The Greenspan/Bernanke/Bush bubble happened. We are now in the Bernanke/Obama bubble. Imagine, a bubble with no free cars. What a world!
Memphis has a dealer catering to this market, and they call themselves It's All Good Auto Sales. I have not heard a word from local blacks complaining about being condescended to by either the dealers name or it's AA market targeted ghetto fabulous commercials.
The commercial looks like something out of the movie Idiocracy. The music sounds similar to the music used in the film.
Raising oneself on the backs of black men is an American tradition that made the country great.
Jingles and bad, cheesy commercials really do seem to work, especially in local markets. You always hear about some local business in some area that's notorious for its bad commercials but that does well in business.
The comments thus far are disappointing. Of course some paternalism is a good idea and of course people - whatever their race - should be held back by the government from going out and manipulating and exploiting others.
Though we all descend from immigrants (don't annoy us with your tales of being 1/385 Cherokee), the fact is that immigration was always fostered upon the locals by an elite and traitorous enemy. Those who allowed you in were enemies of mine and those who allowed my ancestors in were enemies of the locals at the time. It's always been true and it's still true today. People who grew up in harsher places arrive in this land of opportunity with old world elbows and are a threat to the locals. Furthermore, we're all threats to ourselves once we've been tempted enough which is why there ought to be greater limits on gambling, public slutiness, advertising for big item purchases, etc.
Is what I'm saying "Democrat"? Or "Socialist"? Or "{insert insult here whose purpose is to shut off discussion}"?
So what? A nation takes care of its weaker members, and we're all weak in one thing or another. The cannibalism of the "free market" is disgusting.
White Folks.
@Anonymous 2:20 AM who was too lazy to make up a name - (see that there? Name/URL? Just roll your fingers across the keyboard if need be - others can still search for even that.)
> Even if the rest of the population is perfectly happy, how can you justify the misery of even ONE individual if giving this individual freedom would not harm others in any way?
? Well, but usually one person's misery /does/ affect others - a father misspending his money, a son getting into trouble - these affect others. Sure, in the sky where your argument lives it's correct, but, we need arguments for this world.
Some of the commentators have read too much into Sailer's pointing out the facts of the matter. Describing the true facts of the situation does not make one guilty of racial hatred -- the world is as we find it not as we wish it were. Sailer did not record these tv commercials he just provided a link and some thoughtful commentary upon them.
Biz Markie? Surreal.
The greatest fallacy in history is that control of the individual is the road to "collective" happiness.
No, the greatest fallacy in history is the libertarian fancy that the world can be properly understood in terms of "the individual" vs "the collective". Libertarians acquired this mistaken idea, along with a lot of other mistaken ideas, from Marxism.
Both "the individual" and "the collective" are nonsensical terms in the sense that libertarians employ them. In fact it is the goal of trying to create more libertarian-style "individuals" which has led to the collectivist state, via the destruction of all other forms of association.
The only rational control of the individual is positive control, defined as not harming others. As long as you don't committ homicide, rape, theft and arsony, doing whatever you want has no negative effect on others.
That's a political philosophy for children, and not very bright children at that. It's easy to think of a great many things which an "individual" can do, apart from homicide, rape, theft and arson, which have a negative effect on others. Child abuse is just one example.
The strong indication in your article is that American blacks are eternal victims and gulls, forever prey to sharp minded asiatic types who know a mug when they see one
No, the strong implication of the article is that you can't have a country which contains a wide spread of different groups of people with different IQ levels without also having some method to protect the different groups from each other. This applies to people besides just blacks.
In theory a common religion can fill this role. This is how things worked in America for a long time. In practice in modern America it has to be done via laws or not at all.
"We are all descended from immigrants..."
Not accurate at all. Someone who came here in the 16, 17 and 18 hundreds arrived in a totally different manner and into a totally different situation. No airports, welfare, etc. Talk about an orange and apples comparison.
"Raising oneself on the backs of black men is an American tradition that made the country great."
Yup, but unfortunately now you have to pay'em.
"That's a political philosophy for children, and not very bright children at that. It's easy to think of a great many things which an "individual" can do, apart from homicide, rape, theft and arson, which have a negative effect on others. Child abuse is just one example."
Your child counts as "other". Your child is an individual in his own right. You are simply filling in for him in making decisions regarding his person until he is able to do so himself. Therefore, child abuse counts as violence against others. Really, what are the negative consequences of a society that restraints people from nothing but imposing on others?
I believe this business model is more similar to car rental than selling because the majority of vehicles sold are repossessed within a year or two and then sold again.
Guaranteed-credit used car dealers also sell the cars at vast markups over book value. In some cases, their prices are so hyperinflated that the down payments are enough to cover their acquisition costs and operating expenses, so anything collected in interest is pure profit. Combined with the endless repossess-resell process you describe, this sort of business is basically a license to print money.
Though we all descend from immigrants (don't annoy us with your tales of being 1/385 Cherokee)
Actually, I am descended from SETTLERS, but not to ruin your rant and all. . .
Eastern Motors ads were awesome. The prime time DC equivalent to Afro Sheen ads on Sooouuullll Train.
I think they sent Ray Lewis over to personally stab you if you were late on a payment.
Your child counts as "other". Your child is an individual in his own right. You are simply filling in for him in making decisions regarding his person until he is able to do so himself.
So your political philosophy allows you to make decisions for others, but you are upset at allowing some people to make decisions for others? You're not making a lot of sense.
child abuse counts as violence against others
Yes, it does. But "violence against others" does not appear in "homicide, rape, theft and arson", as I pointed out.
Really, what are the negative consequences of a society that restraints people from nothing but imposing on others?
It's not a society. That strikes me as a rather serious negative consequence. It's not a polity at all. Even John Locke acknowledged that people had to give up some freedom to live in society. Libertarians want a free lunch. They want something for nothing. In this they reval their left-wing roots.
Not accurate at all. Someone who came here in the 16, 17 and 18 hundreds arrived in a totally different manner and into a totally different situation. No airports, welfare, etc.
That's idiotic. Being an immigrant is not contingent on airports, welfare, etc. Since these things did not exist until the 20th century, the logic of your position is that there were no immigrants prior to this anywhere in the world in all of human history.
As long as you don't committ homicide, rape, theft and arsony, doing whatever you want has no negative effect on others.
So if I buy the house next door to yours in a quiet tree-lined suburban neighborhood and turn it into a pig farm or nightclub, it will have no negative affect on you?
Libertarianism is the triumph of ideology over commonsense.
I don't think we need to take those commercials too seriously. Just hold them in reserve for the next time that Gladwell gets too self-righteous.
Though we all descend from immigrants (don't annoy us with your tales of being 1/385 Cherokee)
Actually, I am descended from SETTLERS
The distinction between an immigrant and a settler is nothing but semantics. From the point of view of the American Indians all Europeans were immigrants, regardless of whether they come before or after the US War Of Independence.
Re Dennis Dale:"Biz Markie surreal". I hear Heidi Klum has her eye on him...
Lily-white Bangor Maine has its share of car-sale hucksters, too, although it is true that they aren't quite as stupid sounding as Biz Markie and don't have ads saying "let the dealer know you're desperate."
Bangor Car Care.
Is there anything that's not about immigration?
"The distinction between an immigrant and a settler is nothing but semantics. "
The British and Irish who came here prior to 1776 simply moved from one part of the UK to another; they weren't immigrants in any sense of the word.
"So if I buy the house next door to yours in a quiet tree-lined suburban neighborhood and turn it into a pig farm or nightclub, it will have no negative affect on you?"
It will certainly have a negative effect on the homeowner but it doesn't violate his rights (unless he has a deed restriction) and it's not a legally a tort.
The publication of Murray and Hernstein's "The Bell Curve" (and a lot of what we write here for that matter) surely had a massive "negative effect" on many thousands of people; does the state have a compelling interest in silencing HBD research/discussion to prevent "harm" to the delicate psyches of liberal imbeciles?
"It's easy to think of a great many things which an "individual" can do, apart from homicide, rape, theft and arson, which have a negative effect on others."
He was using "murder, rape, arson, and theft" as a synecdoche for crime in general. You're being a real pedant.
"Of course some paternalism is a good idea and of course people - whatever their race - should be held back by the government from going out and manipulating and exploiting others."
Promote paternalism all you like, but just don't be suprised when Tim Wise and Morris Dees are running the show and decide that, for the good of society, evil nasty racists such as us need to locked up for "the good of society." It's already happened in literally every other developed Western nation, whereas the type of traditionalist WASP "paternalism" people on this board seem to favor is found practically nowhere in the West. There's no logical reason at all to believe America will be an exception to this trend.
Seriously, do you honestly think you'll be the one cracking the whip of this paternalist superstate? What victories have paleocons/WNs had in the last 40 years? (None.) How much power do they have in the current system. (Again, absolutely none at all.) Is this going to change in the near term? I'd bet against it.
NB: It would be a good idea to prohibit posting as "Anonymous." It's hard to discuss anything when 60% of the posts are written by "Anonymous." Really, how hard is it to spend five seconds to type in a fake name?
Anonydroid at 12:49 said:
The distinction between an immigrant and a settler is nothing but semantics. From the point of view of the American Indians all Europeans were immigrants, regardless of whether they come before or after the US War Of Independence.
Hunsdon replied:
How's that immigration thing working out for the American Indians?
The British and Irish who came here prior to 1776 simply moved from one part of the UK to another; they weren't immigrants in any sense of the word.
This is incorrect. The American colonies were not part of the UK, or "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". For one thing, they were obviously not Great Britain or Ireland. More importantly, the UK did not come into being until the Act of Union of 1800.
Bangor Car Care.
Okay, but those Bangor commercials of white used car salesmen dancing are awful compared to Easterns rapping NFL superstars. The Easterns commercials are so effective they make _me_ want to ruin my life buying a blinged out Escalade at a 21% interest rate.
"So if I buy the house next door to yours in a quiet tree-lined suburban neighborhood and turn it into a pig farm or nightclub, it will have no negative affect on you?"
It will certainly have a negative effect on the homeowner
Which is precisely the point I was making, thank you for conceding it.
but it doesn't violate his rights
That's a matter of debate, not something you get to unilaterally declare.
He was using "murder, rape, arson, and theft" as a synecdoche for crime in general. You're being a real pedant.
And you're arguing like a real liberal. The meanings of words matter. The meaning of "crime" matters. Everyone is against "crime", the important thing is figuring out what crime is. if libertarians had their way local zoning laws would constitute "crime". So would immigration laws. It's not pedantic to notice this disagreement over the meanings of important terms.
"This is incorrect. The American colonies were not part of the UK, or "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". For one thing, they were obviously not Great Britain or Ireland. More importantly, the UK did not come into being until the Act of Union of 1800."
You're right that the UK wasn't created until 1800, Great Britain and Ireland were still nominally separate states in personal union under the Hanover throne with separate Parliaments.
But the broader point still stands - the islands of Sark, Jersey and Guernsey (et al.) in the English Channel aren't formally part of the "United Kingdom" either, even today, but I doubt anyone would call a Londoner who moved to one of those islands an "immigrant."
@Anonymous 12:34 PM
"So your political philosophy allows you to make decisions for others, but you are upset at allowing some people to make decisions for others? You're not making a lot of sense."
What an incredibly, incredibly stupid argument. How can you compare controlling the behavior of small children with a quarter of the brain power of the average adult and vastly inferior emotional toughness and maturity to controlling other adults who are not mentally handicapped or insane? Your thinking capabilities are just awful. The irony of you claiming others don't make sense!
"How's that immigration thing working out for the American Indians?"
Probably not as bad as it worked out for the Mexican ones (the Aztecs) or the Peruvian ones (the Incas). They got slaughtered by the millions by the conquistadors. But Mexico doesn't invite the whole world to settle there and has tight borders and deports illegals from Guatamela all the time. Likewise i don't see people in China, India, the mideast, etc, talking about "their right" to move to Peru because there were Indians there before the Spanish arrived.
As for that other poster saying my comment about people arriving in the 16, 17 & 18 hundreds being very different from newcomers today being "idiotic", you are very wrong. Those people came under far harsher conditions, arrived to much less and created much more. People come today to get the benefits they created.
@Anonymous 11:39 AM
"No, the greatest fallacy in history is the libertarian fancy that the world can be properly understood in terms of "the individual" vs "the collective". Libertarians acquired this mistaken idea, along with a lot of other mistaken ideas, from Marxism.
Both "the individual" and "the collective" are nonsensical terms in the sense that libertarians employ them. In fact it is the goal of trying to create more libertarian-style "individuals" which has led to the collectivist state, via the destruction of all other forms of association."
What? These are probably the two most convoluted, inane paragraphs I have ever read.
Libertarians did not get the concepts of individuals and collectives from Marx: they got them from ancient Hellenic writers such as Plato in his "Republic" and Aristotle, just like Marx did.
And of course you can divide the Human worls into individuals and collectives just like you can in the case of animals or even numbers in mathematics.
@Anonymous 11:44 AM
"That's a political philosophy for children, and not very bright children at that. It's easy to think of a great many things which an "individual" can do, apart from homicide, rape, theft and arson, which have a negative effect on others. Child abuse is just one example."
Well, mistreating a child OBVIOUSLY falls into the category of infringing upon the rights of others. Duh!
A lot of these conservatives who read Sailer are not the sharpest pencils in the box. Funny that they love to brag about IQ ad nauseum, whilst they don't seem to have very high IQs themselves.
Actually, I am descended from SETTLERS
Let's assume that people who were in America prior to 1776 count as "settlers", and that those who came after this count as "immigrants".
The average American alive today has in excess of 1000 ancestors from the late 19th century. You are only "descended from settlers" if all 1000 of your ancestors from this period were already in America. The vast majority of people (including me) have a few of those thousand ancestors who were in America prior to the Revolution, and hundreds of others who arrived after it.
The number of Americans alive today who can trace all 1000+ ancestors back to people who were in America prior to the Revolution could probably share a taxi together.
Our culture is certainly running out of intellectual capital when someone can write (and be serious):
"Of course some paternalism is a good idea"
Really? So some adults have the right and obligation to treat other adults as children? And how do you identify the former and the latter? I'll bet you always put yourself outside of the "child" group, no matter how foolish some of your decisions turn out in hindsight.
Someone who went to Harvard always makes better decisions than the average Joe. Witness how the ten largest banks in America are insolvent. And how the Federal Reserve is in such a corner that lowering interest rates does nothing, it cannot raise interest rates without imploding the government, and it needs to withdraw trillions in liquidity without a plan if inflation grows white hot.
My uncle, who never attended college at all but lived through the Great Depression, had more sense then all of them, and no one would ever give him power over another adult human being "for their own good".
Well, mistreating a child OBVIOUSLY falls into the category of infringing upon the rights of others. Duh!
Well, that's identical to saying that "It's easy to think of a great many things which an "individual" can do, apart from homicide, rape, theft and arson, which have a negative effect on others. Child abuse is just one example."
For some reason you did not realize that you were agreeing with me and disagreeing with the libertarian, who said a big fat nothing about "infringing on the rights of others". But then, I guess that a lot of libertarians who read Sailer are not the sharpest pencils in the box.
Duh!
The average American alive today has in excess of 1000 ancestors from the late 19th century.
That should read "late 18th century", of course.
NB: It would be a good idea to prohibit posting as "Anonymous." It's hard to discuss anything when 60% of the posts are written by "Anonymous." Really, how hard is it to spend five seconds to type in a fake name?
We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.
I actually knew a person who bought a car from them and he had a device installed in the car that didn't allow it to start if he did not make his payments.
This is how anyone should sell used cars, but with a largely black clientele, I don't see how you could get away with it. Cries out for a NAACP disparate impact suit.
How can you compare controlling the behavior of small children with a quarter of the brain power of the average adult and vastly inferior emotional toughness and maturity to controlling other adults who are not mentally handicapped or insane?
What is the "brainpower" of the average American black compared to the average American Jew? Does it make any sense to pretend that they are all just "individuals" who can and should compete on an equal playing field?
The people who need to be "controlled" as you put it are not the blacks, but those who take advantage of them.
Here's how they do it down my way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88JB6tzDzOc
And of course you can divide the Human worls into individuals and collectives just like you can in the case of animals or even numbers in mathematics.
You can do all sorts of things in your imagination. Most of them are things you really don't want to do in real life though.
People are not "individuals" who are oppressed by big bad "collectives". The lucky among us come from a collective called a family. The intelligent among us seek to preserve a collective called "America" from those who seek to make it the home of all the people in the world. Not all "individuals" are good - plenty of them are a waste of oxygen. Not all "collectives" are bad - many of them are a necessity for civilized life.
The libertarian argument that the world is composed of "individuals", all of who should be free to come live in America unless they cause somebody immediate physical harm, is the death of society and civilization. It's also flagrantly unhistorical - Plato and Aristotle never dreamed of such lunacy. They never imagined a political philosophy which would view all the people of the world as equal and interchangeable units. They never imagined that people could be thought of as being fungible.
@Anonymous 12:43 PM
"So if I buy the house next door to yours in a quiet tree-lined suburban neighborhood and turn it into a pig farm or nightclub, it will have no negative affect on you?
Libertarianism is the triumph of ideology over commonsense."
It will have a negative effect on you. And I used murder, rape, theft and arsony as extreme examples of infringement upon the rights of others and not as the only infringements. Get real!
You guys seem to have a real misconception of what libertarianism is and is not, and it does not have all the answers. A neighbor who listens to loud music in his house has the right to do so, but he is infringing upon his neighbor's rights not to be disturbed, and thus a conflict onf individual rights ensue. The solution is a compromise solution, where the neighbor can make as much noise as he wants during the days and on weekend nights, but refrains from doing so during week nights to respect his neighbor's right to sleep. That is called being civil.
You guys act on the premise that Humans are completely unempathetic predators that must be kept on a tight leech to maintains some sort of "social order". Putting aside the fact that most people are not unempathetic predators, you ignore the fact that this social order makes millions of people misearable because this social order makes YOU(as individuals) happy. As they say, one man's heaven is another man's hell. For a normally sedate individual, a conservative lifestyle of white picket fences, an office job and church every Sunday might be heaven, but for fun-loving, extroverted, thrill-seeking people this same lifestyle is unbearably painful. Who are YOU to judge what makes others happy and how they should live their lives because YOU know it's best for YOU?
Now, there are some very, VERY nasty and vicious people out there who, if allowed to run free, would slowly torture to death small children with sheer delight for their own amusement. In this case, coercion is called for, not to remove rights, but to grant them. The child has the RIGHT not to be tortured and killed, and so the State steps in and arrests and, if need be, executes the perpetrator. His rights end where the other person's rights begin, and thus his desire to experience the thrill of torturing a toddler to death does not fall under the category of a right. He can masturbate to the thought since this harms no one, but he cannot act on it. Masturbating to this is disgusting, vile and ghastly, but it does not constitute a violation of others' rights.
the only form of control the State can exercise is positive control. It is "positive" because, although a coercion to stop individual action, it acts to ensure more important rights of others. The right of a child to not be tortured to death is infinitely more important than the sadistic pedophile on acting on it, so his arrest/death is positive control
The problem is that conservatives see the valuable control of a freak who is a pedophile sadist and occurs at the rarity of less than 1 in 100,000 individuals, and then comes with the flawed logical deduction that more and greater forms of control are even better. They see no end to their legislative pen restricting the rights of individuals, from not allowing gays to get married(which harms no one), to forbidding Darwinism in schools because it offends the sensitivity of religious people, etc. This is negative control, defined mathematically as cooercion from the State that removes more rights than it grants. Stopping a pedophile from dismembering a child grants more rights than it removes, a far cry from conservatives not allowing Adam and Steve to join their lives because they think "God" won't like it, or because it repulses THEM, or because they think it will harm the heterosexual family, which is utterly nonsensical and even if it were a valid argument it would still be a value-judgement that heterosexuals are more valuable than homosexuals, etc.
You guys seem to have a real misconception of what libertarianism is and is not, and it does not have all the answers. A neighbor who listens to loud music in his house has the right to do so, but he is infringing upon his neighbor's rights not to be disturbed, and thus a conflict onf individual rights ensue. The solution is a compromise solution, where the neighbor can make as much noise as he wants during the days and on weekend nights, but refrains from doing so during week nights to respect his neighbor's right to sleep. That is called being civil.
But why should I be "civil" to you? And where do these "rights" - the "right to sleep" and "the right to listen to loud music" - come from? Why isn't there a "right to free healthcare" as well? It sure sounds like libertarians are just pulling all of this stuff out of their ass to get to the end point which they desire. In other words, it sure sounds like they are doing what they like to accuse everyone else of doing.
For a normally sedate individual, a conservative lifestyle of white picket fences, an office job and church every Sunday might be heaven, but for fun-loving, extroverted, thrill-seeking people this same lifestyle is unbearably painful. Who are YOU to judge what makes others happy and how they should live their lives because YOU know it's best for YOU?
The majority?
You cling to this childish fantasy that the purpose of life, the purpose of society, the purpose of the state, the purpose of everything, is make you as happy as possible. And we cannot have any sort of society worth living in if it's made up of people like that. Some people can get away with being self-indulgent only as long as other people behave repsonsibly.
@Anonymous 3:06 PM
"People are not "individuals" who are oppressed by big bad "collectives". The lucky among us come from a collective called a family. The intelligent among us seek to preserve a collective called "America" from those who seek to make it the home of all the people in the world. Not all "individuals" are good - plenty of them are a waste of oxygen. Not all "collectives" are bad - many of them are a necessity for civilized life."
Yes, and a family starts with a man and a woman who VOLUNTARILLY join their lives. So how does this violate the principles of libertarianism?
As for cousins, brothers, etc, no one should be forced to live with them. You don't choose your brothers and other relatives other than your spouse. Also, how is a family a good or a bad thing? It can be either. You can be forced to live with people you don't stand just because of tradition. How is this a good thing? A family can be a source of joy, but also of misery. I, for instance, can't stand any of my relatives.
And having a family is not necessary for "civilized" life. Define "civilized"? A man or woman having no family is not more or less civilized than a man or woman having tons of kids, and having tons of kids is not a sign or posessing or lacking moral qualities.
You guys act on the premise that Humans are completely unempathetic predators that must be kept on a tight leech to maintains some sort of "social order".
You know, you make a remarkable amount of spelling mistakes. God knows I'm no spelling Nazi, but could you try to make fewer clangers like "leech" for "leash" in every single comment?
Libertarians are close cousins to liberals, and one place this manifests itself is in this "Up with people!" attitude. Under your scheme of thinking 99.99% of people are innately good and rational and if free of any outside influence will behave in a good and rational fashion. That fact that this contradicts all of human history never seems to register.
"Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without."
The conservative solution to this problem is to place it "within". The libertarian answer is that it exists "within" by nature- that is, to deny that the problem even exists. I suppose that's why in all of recorded history there has never been a libertarian country or libertarian society.
a far cry from conservatives not allowing Adam and Steve to join their lives because they think "God" won't like it, or because it repulses THEM, or because they think it will harm the heterosexual family, which is utterly nonsensical and even if it were a valid argument it would still be a value-judgement that heterosexuals are more valuable than homosexuals, etc.
Ugh! A value judgement! How icky! How awful!
You come across as some 22 year old who has just emerged from many years of liberal brainwashing. Your belief that homosexuals have a value equal to that of heterosexuals is a likewise a "value judgement". The difference between us is that you think you have scored a telling point in using that term while I do not.
And having a family is not necessary for "civilized" life. Define "civilized"? A man or woman having no family is not more or less civilized than a man or woman having tons of kids
A necessary but not sufficient condition for having a civilization is having people. In libertarian theory the existence of people, like the existence of so many other things, is just assumed. In reality people only come into existence via sex, and good people only come into existence via sex within what is known as a "family'.
There are zero known instances of a civilization based on men and women who did not have kids. This is not an optional extra - if there are no families with children then there ends up being nothing at all.
This is why your beloved homosexuals are less valuable - they don't do the most necessary thing of all, which is reproduce.
I don't think you are a bad person, but you are young and naive and it will take you a long time for you to shed the nonsense they hammered into you in school.
Anonymous Coward:
Though we all descend from immigrants (don't annoy us with your tales of being 1/385 Cherokee)
SGOTI:
Actually, I am descended from SETTLERS, but not to ruin your rant and all...
Anonymous Coward:
The distinction between an immigrant and a settler is nothing but semantics. From the point of view of the American Indians all Europeans were immigrants, regardless of whether they come before or after the US War Of Independence.
This is precisely what open-borders fanatics are on about when they get up to their "we're all immigrants" hijinks; they want to blur the distinction between settlers, colonists, pioneers, early immigrants, and today's immigrants.
First it's "we're all immigrants," or "we're all descended from immigrants," which is either untrue, or a statement signifying nothing, then we're grammar Nazis for objecting.
Today's immigrants are largely free-loaders. They shouldn't be compared to earlier immigrants, who in turn should not be compared to settlers, colonists, and pioneers.
Mestizos can't colonize, settle, or pioneer jack squat.
All-white Bangor, Maine has a high poverty rate and a high rate of property crime. Meaning the the average IQ level of the city is probably very low.
"I have observed that Sailer has patriarchal tendencies"
ah ha ha ha.. thanks for that one, made my day, it did.
First it's "we're all immigrants," or "we're all descended from immigrants," which is either untrue, or a statement signifying nothing, then we're grammar Nazis for objecting.
You don't read too good. I said I'm not a spelling Nazi. I did not say that you were a grammar Nazi.
This whole "settler vs immigrant" argument is dumb. For one thing it's a meaningless distinction. But even if it were a meaningful distinction, there are no people in America today who can claim to be descended solely from "settlers".
"Real ghetto used cars places have timed switches in the car that can only be reset at the dealership. Payments are weekly. The owner has to bring the car to the dealership with his payment and then the dealer resets the timer. Failure to do so results in the timer shutting down the car and rendering it undrivable."
This is hilarious and completely untrue. Did a dealer tell you this?! The vehicles have a kill switch installed which is part of the GPS unit.
The problem is that conservatives see the valuable control of a freak who is a pedophile sadist and occurs at the rarity of less than 1 in 100,000 individuals, and then comes with the flawed logical deduction that more and greater forms of control are even better.
The real problem is that on the one hand libertarians think that individuals are wonderful, on an individual basis. But on the other hand they are horrified at the thought of these wonderful individuals forming a government and ruling themselves. That's "collectivism" and a Very Bad Thing. That's why libertarians hate the whole idea of democracy, or of representative government. Because the people are scum who can't be trusted not to violate other peoples rights.
Koreans starting businesses in America are fairly respectable. I think of two off the top of my head.
The guy who started Forever 21.
And the guy who started Pinkberry, the frozen yogurt chain that trendy types follow.
"Pinkberry co-founder pleads not guilty to tire iron assault"
Los Angeles Times - Jan 30, 2012
I suspect there are more juicy stories about Pinkberry that will come out eventually.
Don't hate on us Levantines. We've even figured out how to make money out of West Africa. And those are the Lebanese Shi'ites-- the dumbest and most backward social caste in the Levant-- making out like bandits. That's got to count as a feat of some sort.
http://www.economist.com/node/21256166
There's an "urban" clothing line run by Koreans:
http://members.forbes.com/global/2006/0213/020A.html
Anon 5:18:
The argument works the same way in reverse, though, If we aren't bright enough to make our own decisions individually, where we know our own situation better than anyone else and have every incentive to get those decisions right, then how are we bright enough to impose decisions on others via elected officials?
One plausible answer is to think in terms of the population, where there's a wide range of levels of intelligence, education, knowledge, experience, common sense, etc. A democratically elected government can probably manage some kind of relatively sensible paternalism when we're trying to keep the dumbest, least experienced, least knowledgable people from getting screwed over. (We already do this wrt children and the mentally incompetent.). But that's probably not going to work to keep the 140 IQ guys from screwing the 110 IQ guys, because the majority of the population is dumber than the 110 IQ guys--they're unlikely to be any better at avoiding getting fooled than fhe intended targets of the scam.
"At Eastern Motors/Your job’s your credit!"
Maybe I am the dumb one, but what does this slogan even mean?
Don't hate on us Levantines. We've even figured out how to make money out of West Africa. And those are the Lebanese Shi'ites-- the dumbest and most backward social caste in the Levant-- making out like bandits. That's got to count as a feat of some sort.
Carlos Menem was president of Argentina during the whole 90s. He's of Syrian Muslim background. He's Catholic religiously, but was born a Muslim.
"'At Eastern Motors/Your job’s your credit!'
Maybe I am the dumb one, but what does this slogan even mean?"
I think it means you don't have to have a good credit score, just the fact that you have a job is the "credit" that qualifies you to buy a car from them.
"We are all descended from immigrants..."
Bullshit.
Talk to - if you could - the folks who arrived in Jamestown in 1607 or in Plymouth in 1620, or pretty much anytime, anywhere in the country's first century or so. They weren't immigrants to a country, because there was no country to immigrate to. They built this place up from scratch - they had no homes, no roads, no sewers, no hospitals, no schools, no welfare state waiting here for them.
F-ck you and your "we're all immigrants" talk. It's just your way of dismissing the sacrifices made by this country's founders, of dispossessing this country from its true owners. Americans are all supposedly immigrants, but somehow Mexicans are entitled to the Southwest US because they claimed it first, but never did jack shit to settle it or turn it into something useful.
"All-white Bangor, Maine has a high poverty rate and a high rate of property crime. Meaning the the average IQ level of the city is probably very low."
I looked at the data and some pics of Bangor. Compared to any all-black or all-Hispanic town, the place is paradise.
"This whole "settler vs immigrant" argument is dumb. For one thing it's a meaningless distinction."
No, it's not. An immigrant moves to a pre-established place - roads, schools, homes, businesses, hospitals, electricity, sewers, running water, a military, and a justice system, and, today especially, a vast welfare bureaucracy. An infrastructure to provide for every or almost every need.
A settler has to start from scratch, with few if any of the above. Pretty much every man who moved to the US prior to 1800 was coming to a country poorer than the one he had left, and faced huge risks simply in getting here.
"But even if it were a meaningful distinction, there are no people in America today who can claim to be descended solely from "settlers".
Actually quite a lot of us. The term settler would apply to virtually all of my ancestors who came here, nearly all of whom arrived before the Revolution.
Troofie 10:41, what did you expect? We have a generation of kids who've spent their entire lives having the excellence of black and immigrant cultures innate superiority drilled into them. Reading and writing optional.
I'm sure some of those kids would tell you that Crispus Attucks wrote the Constitution!
Maine has the thin strip of civilization following the coast from Portland to the NH border. The rest of the state, "up in the county" as the natives say, is indistinguishable from any redneck rathole in Tennessee. Bangor has enjoyed a slight civilizing effect from UMaine's flagship campus in neighboring Orono, but it's still the left side of the Bell Curve.
The fun there will really start when the whelps of the 180-lb. native girls hooking up with the numerous Somalis, imported by church groups to Lewiston and Portland, begin to mature.
Right, John Smith was an "immigrant". So were Hernán Cortés and Erik the Red. And if Polynesian sailors made landfall on the Gulf of Guayaquil -- why, they were immigrants too!
It's like how Barbary slave raiders were "business travelers" to Ireland.
@Anonymous 5:18 PM
"The real problem is that on the one hand libertarians think that individuals are wonderful, on an individual basis. But on the other hand they are horrified at the thought of these wonderful individuals forming a government and ruling themselves. That's "collectivism" and a Very Bad Thing. That's why libertarians hate the whole idea of democracy, or of representative government. Because the people are scum who can't be trusted not to violate other peoples rights."
Another LIE.
Libertarians do not believe that all people are wonderful: they believe that all people are different on an individual basis, and that there is a small percentage of people who are vicious freaks who rejoice in the suffering of others, and that these freaks must be kept in check by whatever means necessary, including by flat out murdering them.
And libertarians have nothing against majorities electing governments; libertarians are against majorities using majority power to oppress individuals with characteristics that they deem "lesser", such as gays, atheists, women, racial or even religious minorities, etc.
EPIC misrepresentation of what libertarianism is.
@Anonymous 3:49 PM
"A necessary but not sufficient condition for having a civilization is having people. In libertarian theory the existence of people, like the existence of so many other things, is just assumed. In reality people only come into existence via sex, and good people only come into existence via sex within what is known as a "family'.
There are zero known instances of a civilization based on men and women who did not have kids. This is not an optional extra - if there are no families with children then there ends up being nothing at all.
This is why your beloved homosexuals are less valuable - they don't do the most necessary thing of all, which is reproduce.
I don't think you are a bad person, but you are young and naive and it will take you a long time for you to shed the nonsense they hammered into you in school."
Yes, people come about through sex between a man and a woman - except in the case of artificial insemination, which you cynically left out -, but it is a huge jump in logic to assume that this fact makes a man and a woman raising a child a conditione sine qua non for the child to grow up into a successful and civilized human being. I want evidence for that. There are plenty people who were raised by single mothers or single fathers or gay couples and even in orphanages who turned out be very decent people as adults. Conversely, there are people who were raised in priviledges homes by a father and a mother who turnd out despicable. Ever heard of Nathan Leopold? Ever heard of Adolph Hitler?
As for gays being less valuable because they can't reproduce, so this is what makes a person valuable to you? So a menial laborer who is heterosexual has more "value" than, say, Alan Turing, the brilliant mathematician who was of paramount importance in the invention of the computer among many other achievements? People have INTRINSEC value. To me, the manual laborer and Alan Turing have equal value by virtue of being human, and not one has more value than the other because one is a brilliant scientist and the other a manual laborer or because one is heterosexual and the other homosexual. Heterosexuals have more value in reproducing the species, although this will change soon with reproductive technologies, but the "species" cannot experience pain or joy; the species is a non-entity. Removing the rights of real people and making them inferior citizens because favoring heterosexuals "might" assure the survival of the species more is a callous jump in deductive logic. There is no intrinsec value in the species making it into 1,000,000 AD to a greater degree than people who are alive today being allowed to be happy and enjoy their lives.
@Anonymous 3:34 PM
"You know, you make a remarkable amount of spelling mistakes. God knows I'm no spelling Nazi, but could you try to make fewer clangers like "leech" for "leash" in every single comment?"
Thanks for that. English is not my first language and I do the best I can. Sorry that I can't write in English as well as you can certainly write in foreign languages. At least I can take comfort in that my English is better than that of most American "Sarah Palin" conservatives.
On a serious note, attacking the grammar and orthography of your opponents in a debate is a desperate attemtp to win intellectually when you are losing the debate badly. It is a desperate attempt to look smarter and make your opponent seem less intelligent than you. I don't care about orthography otherwise I would write with a dictionary by my side. I care about IDEAS and nothing more, and I am beating you guys badly on this front.
"Troofie 10:41, what did you expect? We have a generation of kids who've spent their entire lives having the excellence of black and immigrant cultures innate superiority drilled into them. Reading and writing optional."
Oh yeah, that's it, in rural Washington.
"The average American alive today has in excess of 1,000 ancestors from the late 19th (or is it 18th?) century."
HUH? 300+ million Americans today. Times 1,000 = 300,000,000,000. That's three hundred billion people. What a ludicrous comment. Even reducing the US population by half to account for people who arrived after say, 1880, thats still 150 BILLION PEOPLE. That is nuts.
Anonydroid at 10:41 a.m. said:
On a serious note, attacking the grammar and orthography of your opponents in a debate is a desperate attemtp to win intellectually when you are losing the debate badly.
Hunsdon replied:
Not always. Sometimes poor grammar and poor spelling are just really, really annoying.
Yeah, Troofie, I'm a fool. That's why my nephew's lily-white high school in New Hampshire (a LOT whiter than Washington) had a summer reading list including James Baldwin, Michael Eric Dyson, et al. No Herman Melville or James Fenimore Cooper anymore, baby!
You guys act on the premise that Humans are completely unempathetic predators that must be kept on a tight leech to maintains some sort of "social order".
Christianity 101.
conservatives not allowing Adam and Steve to join their lives because they think "God" won't like it, or because it repulses THEM, or because they think it will harm the heterosexual family,
If God is so powerful, self-confident, and in-control, why should He freak out over "Adam and Steve"? And why would He have created A&S in the first place, or created a universe where they could exist?
And the heterosexual family, and hetero-dominated society, must be really weak if it needs to have so much protection from homosexuals.
The real problem is that on the one hand libertarians think that individuals are wonderful, on an individual basis. But on the other hand they are horrified at the thought of these wonderful individuals forming a government and ruling themselves.
I can't speak for all libertarians, but I have noticed this very real effect, of people as individuals being essentially good; but groups and organizations somehow generating, or at least refining, at least some evil.
That's "collectivism" and a Very Bad Thing. That's why libertarians hate the whole idea of democracy, or of representative government. Because the people are scum who can't be trusted not to violate other peoples rights.
There is a difference between democracy and mob rule. And libertarians are correct, at least some of the time, in preferring no rules to democratic ones. There should be some things that are totally private, totally off-limit to any sort of laws, rules, and regulations.
There are some conservatives that are basically "unempathic predators", filled with original sin, and they know it, and they need draconian laws and enforcements to keep themselves in order. The trouble is they believe everyone is the same way.
They believe that once people have a little personal freedom, that everyone will rape preschool children, commit mass genocide, and OD on heroin.
"That's why my nephew's lily-white high school in New Hampshire (a LOT whiter than Washington) had a summer reading list including James Baldwin, Michael Eric Dyson, et al. No Herman Melville or James Fenimore Cooper anymore, baby!"
The last time you went on Netflix, you didn't order a Georges Melies film, either.
"Yeah, Troofie, I'm a fool. That's why my nephew's lily-white high school in New Hampshire (a LOT whiter than Washington) had a summer reading list including James Baldwin, Michael Eric Dyson, et al. No Herman Melville or James Fenimore Cooper anymore, baby!"
I'm against changing the cannon for the sake of diversity, but I don't see what the problem is here. James Baldwin is a literary giant who reads easily, communicating incredible depth in simple format. He wrote about the plight and agony of gays and blacks because that's what he was. He wrote of what was personal to him. His novels and essays aren't works on victimology, though. The agony Baldwin describes so beautifully comes not from some oppressor, but from the closest community, family, loved ones, and, most often, from within. James Baldwin isn't on the list because he is black.
Michael Eric Dyson
Not Freeman Dyson?
Some libertarian teenager has discovered iSteve. Libertarianism is simply the pagan position that might makes right. Any restrictions on power are regarded as anathema. (Non-initiation of force is not worth discussing, since in practice it dissolves into jesuitical rationalizations.)
While the Constitution is a negative document, addressed exclusively to the task of delimiting the power of government, that is not the whole story of the society. Private power centers are also restricted, by the common law. Constitutional restrictions on government permit a wide latitude of legal restrictions on private power (since private power is unaddressed in it); this is partly why the Bill of Rights was added by Jefferson and others, as a somewhat anti-democratic attempt to constrain this latitude.
Private power, today, particularly as constituted in corporations, is far more totalitarian in structure than anything Western governments have had in the past, say, 60 years. Read Chomsky.
None of these points will be appreciated by experience-poor and poorly-read Alissa Rosenbaum'ers. They are not on the same page. Bfecause reading Ayn Rand on government or economics is like reading Edgar Rice Burroughs on astronomy.
If God is so powerful, self-confident, and in-control, why should He freak out over "Adam and Steve"? And why would He have created A&S in the first place, or created a universe where they could exist?
And the heterosexual family, and hetero-dominated society, must be really weak if it needs to have so much protection from homosexuals.
The Naturalistic Fallacy. God created men capable of murder, therefore God must love murder. This is why idiots don't sign their posts, I guess.
Adam & Steve are free to join their lives. We are not obligated to call it marriage, or redefine marriage to include Adam & Steve's buggery/cohabitation. Let them call it an Abomination Pact, Sodomony, or something, if they want.
HUH? 300+ million Americans today. Times 1,000 = 300,000,000,000. That's three hundred billion people. What a ludicrous comment. Even reducing the US population by half to account for people who arrived after say, 1880, thats still 150 BILLION PEOPLE. That is nuts.
*Slaps forehead* Jesus Christ, son!
This whole "settler vs immigrant" argument is dumb. For one thing it's a meaningless distinction. But even if it were a meaningful distinction, there are no people in America today who can claim to be descended solely from "settlers".
I explained this to you, simpleton. You added the "solely" because it suits your purposes. I don't wrestle straw men.
I wonder if it occurs to these athletes that they are the Judas goats of their race? I suppose even Jews like Natalie Portman and Adrien Brody model Jewellery and clothes, so even though modelling expensive things you don't need is to some extent being a "Judas goat", it's something everyone does I guess.
(Real, non-BHPH) dealers don't turn customers down, the banks turn customers down. And the banks will finance about anyone on a car loan if they can come up with some down payment, usually ten to fifteen percent. Considering that you can get a stripper Hyundai or Kia for about ten thousand dollars, or a "Program" or of-rental small Chevy, Ford or Chrysler product for a tad less, this isn't that onerous.
BHPH lots are a curse on the land, like pawn shops and porno parlors. All these businesses should be made unprofitable as far as possible.
David:
Wouldn't your critique of libertarianism work better if you had some faint clue what you were talking about?
BHPH lots are a curse on the land, like pawn shops and porno parlors. All these businesses should be made unprofitable as far as possible.
Evidently the free market isn't working hard enough to make them unprofitable.
Hay,
When I buy used car I contact authentic car dealer spicily in America .The implication is, for whatever reason, blacks don't have the nous to realize when they are being ripped off blind (kind of like children) and thus need special protection, from themselves, rather like children.
Nice comments shearing.
Yes we are victims!
I bought a car from the same decietful owners/cousin of Eastern without knowing (the opened one up in Chantilly, VA and called it Snap Car Buying) and was taken advantage of!!
Legislation should be imposed against this abuse!
Post a Comment