Saturday, April 26, 2014

Oh Boy, Los Angeles Clippers' Owner Doesn't Want His Hot GF to Bring Black Guys to Clipper Games



V. Stiviano
The media is once again going racist charging crazy. They are accusing LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling (81) of being a racist.

He was secretly tape recorded by his half-Mexican/half-black former(?) girlfriend, who was clearly trying to set him up.

That said, Sterling does say some decent things about blacks in the recording, but the media is is ignoring that. It's all about Sterling being a racist, you see.

The tape really sounds like Sterling having troubles with his girlfriend, more than anything else.

But even if Sterling is a racist, so what?

He is not violating the non-aggression principle.This year the payroll for the predominantly black Clippers' team is $72 million ($14 million over the salary cap). If anything, the black community needs more racists like Sterling, if he indeed is racist. The man ignores his own racism to pay million dollar salaries to a group of very talented blacks.

That's what free market economists teach, that even if someone is a businessman and a  racist, he still is very likely to pay market wages in order to compete in the market. Sterling is Jewish, can you imagine him being so racist that he hires just a bunch of 5'9" Jews to play for his team?

"Now starting at center, Walter Block and in the backcourt Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises."

The first  lesson here, again if we assume Sterling is a racist, is that people can do very well, when free market exchange is involved, even if one party to the exchange doesn't like the other, for any reason. It's all about the exchange. I make exchanges, with the Asian lady at the cleaners to the Arab operating a nearby convenience store, on a regular basis, and with many other people. I have no idea as to what their views are on whites. It doesn't matter. Again, the exchange is the thing. The second lesson that should be taken away from this episode of "He's a  racist" is that that there really is nothing wrong with a person wanting to hang around with a group he feels comfortable with and there is nothing wrong with  a person having such a conversation with his girlfriend. Nothing. Contrary to the delusional thinking of MSM, sports writers and libwaps that all people are equally fun to be with. Sports writers and libwaps really don't believe this anymore than anyone else. They are just politically correct posers.

24 comments:

  1. All this and more from the nuance community of nonjudgemental judges.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bwahahaha, that hypothetical line-up was some funny stuff Bob.

    Also, lol at the Black woman marrying a racist. What a mooch.

    ReplyDelete
  3. if Sterling is a racist, so what?

    if Ron Paul is a racist, so what?

    if Walter Block is a racist, so what?

    Why the need to pretend these people are not racists?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: Anonymous,

      Where's your evidence that any of the people you named are racists? Especially Ron Paul or Walter Block (Walter Block of all people!)

      Nobody pretends like RP or WB are not racists because of the fact they're NOT racists.

      Delete
  4. He also paid a heavy price in a 1st round draft choice to get a black coach who he is paying 7 million a year for.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow, Wenzel you have to be one of the most clueless people on the planet. "He is not violating the non-aggression principle..." Wow, good for him. How about when he refused to do repairs on the apartments of black tenants in a building he owned in Los Angeles so they would get fed up and leave? Does that violate the holy NAP?

    And "Sterling does say some nice things about blacks in the recording..." Seriously? Only telling his girlfriend not to take pictures with them. "There's nothing wrong with a person wanting to hand around with a group he feels comfortable with..." Yeah, sorry, there is something wrong with someone who isn't comfortable hanging around with someone for no other reason than the color of their skin. That's called being a racist.

    I get that you think you're just trying to rage against "political correctness", but you're actually just a jackass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: Anonymous,
      -- How about when he [Sterling] refused to do repairs on the apartments of black tenants in a building he owned in Los Angeles so they would get fed up and leave? --

      Don't tell me, don't tell me - they all paid their rent on time. Right?

      No? I thought so.

      -- Does that violate the holy NAP? --

      "Holly"? You mean you don't believe in non-aggression? I pity your neighbors.

      Delete
    2. "How about when he refused to do repairs on the apartments of black tenants in a building he owned in Los Angeles so they would get fed up and leave? Does that violate the holy NAP?"

      Not if he didn't violate a contract it doesn't....I know you don't like that thought, and maybe it's not honorable...but what you just typed is a perfect example of what hardcore libertarians fear by this humanitarian movement within right now, the transition to POSITIVIST RIGHTS-you are awfully close right now.

      Delete
  6. "But even if Sterling is a racist, so what?"
    .
    Exactly.
    In a Freed society, one may ignore racists.
    Statism forces you to acknowledge them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. -- That's what free market economists teach, that even if someone is a businessman and a racist, he still is very likely to pay market wages in order to compete in the market. --

    But Bob, as you may have gathered from some of the comments placed here by anonymous cowards who won't even bother themselves with putting a name to their posts, leftists (and maybe a few PC libertarians) want all people (ALL) to be pure of heart and pure of mind before they can accept freedom with all its implications.

    For instance:

    -- Yeah, sorry, there is something wrong with someone who isn't comfortable hanging around with someone for no other reason than the color of their skin. That's called being a racist. --

    I guess a person cannot exercise his or her Freedom of Association without people judging and sentencing them. You see, if Koreans want to hang out only with Koreans, is because them Koreans are racists!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where did I say Sterling--or anyone else--wasn't *free* to be a racist? He is free to associate or not associate with whoever he wants. I am also free to say that someone who bases who they want to associate with on their racial or ethnic composition is a racist.

      Has anyone said that Donald Sterling should be locked up for having these opinions? No. But where does the non-aggression principle prevent us from saying that an asshole is an asshole?

      Delete
    2. Re: Anonymous,
      -- I am also free to say that someone who bases who they want to associate with on their racial or ethnic composition is a racist. --

      Being free to say things does not make those things true. That is the point of my comment, not that you can't say those things.

      -- But where does the non-aggression principle prevent us from saying that an asshole is an asshole? --

      Absolutely not. At the same time, before starting out lashing against a person in such a perfunctory way and calling him a "jackass", you should consider the points being made first. At least for the sake of not looking ridiculous.

      Delete
    3. Quote: "..........comments placed here by anonymous cowards who won't even bother themselves with putting a name to their posts,........"

      I have my doubts your real name is Old Mexican. Please provide a signature at the bottom of your posts with your real name so you don't look like a coward. :)

      Delete
  8. Some super nasty comments on her instagram now.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I made it almost 4 minutes into that video.

    As a libertarian, I have nothing to say about this, that is between them, and the way he thinks in his head have no relationship to any form or stretch of libertarianism.

    Now, as a person, she did him wrong. However, she felt like he was wronging her, and I get that, because, as a person, I thought what he was saying was god awful, yes racist, and wrong. As a person, I say eff him.

    However, that doesn't mean boycotts or force, I believe in appropriate response, ya know? So if I ran into him in the street maybe I would be unpleasant or not have much to say (if hypothetically, haha, he wanted to speak to me), but I don't wish him personal harm, financial, emotional or otherwise. To do so would be immoral and wrong as both a person and a libertarian. I hope he changes his mind, is all I hope for him, and I hope he gets through this extremely tough time for him by the PC police. As a Christian I should pray for him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see nothing wrong with boycotts myself, it's not a NAP violation.

      Rick Fitz had a great comment in this regard the other month, basically saying "why would I want to give business to someone that doesn't like me?".

      I think he's right on the mark. Sure, there are times when you do business with people you don't like if the exchange is good enough, but the point is you don't have to, you have a choice.

      Delete
    2. That's a personal boycott and I morally have no problem for that. Calling publicly for others to do as you wish to cause him personal harm, to me, is immoral and too harsh of a punishment for thoughts and viewpoints he held privately- up until this "lovely" young lady stabbed him in the back.

      This is my opinion as a person, not as a libertarian. I think it would be immoral to try to harm him for "bad thoughts," but by all means, as I said earlier, disassociate with him on a personal level, avoid him on the street, etc. but calling for some kind of retribution to make yourself feel better, to get joy out of publicly spanking him for his "crime," to me, is immoral.

      As a libertarian, I think the regime media and leaders love that the PC police, and even some "libertarians" choose to focus on a private man's personal viewpoints instead of the state and the murders it has, and is, committing. I think libertarians trying to advance libertarianism are going backwards if they participate in this charade. P


      Thought policing > violations of coercive use of force does not equal a libertarian viewpoint.

      Delete
  10. “The second lesson that should be taken away from this episode of "He's a racist" is that that there really is nothing wrong with a person wanting to hang around with a group he feels comfortable with and there is nothing wrong with a person having such a conversation with his girlfriend. Nothing.”

    Assuming the recording is accurate….

    There may be nothing wrong with it, other than stupidity.

    Donald Sterling makes his living in an industry that employs blacks. He sells TV rights to providers whose audience is also composed of blacks. He sells tickets to many black fans.

    He (and Robert Wenzel) might be technically correct on every point, but the market will decide how they feel about this. There is no doubt that such comments will come with a backlash to both Sterling and the league – boycotts, pressure via public media, etc. It may not be technically right, but in this world it is real and in every world such a non-violent backlash would be just (and certainly no violation of the NAP in the backlash).

    “He is not violating the non-aggression principle.”

    Correct, he isn’t. But that doesn’t make this smart. It doesn’t mean he will (or even should) avoid consequences.

    The thick libertarians have a point – but not the one they are trying to make. What many of them are after (the “I-love-everybody” society) must be recognized, just not within the framework of the NAP. The NAP, after all, does not provide a complete framework for life.

    We still live in this world; ideas and statements (and actions) have consequences. These consequences must be considered if one wants to survive in this world.

    Let’s not go all PC on this. PC is another gray line; where each of us draws the line is subjective and personal, for example: There is nothing wrong with a photographer not wanting to take wedding pictures of a lesbian couple; there is nothing wrong with an anti-tax protestor not paying his taxes; there is nothing wrong with a few armed men taking on the US government.

    However, in all cases, the reality will more often than not be anything but fair. Each of us must daily decide where we draw lines; each of us realizes that those lines have consequences – on both sides. This is reality. How many willingly want to become the next Adam Kokesh, Irwin Schiff, or David Koresh? Because many choose not to means what, exactly?

    Fair very rarely wins in such circumstances. It is often written that we are in a battle of ideas – until our ideas win, rarely if ever will the photographer, the tax protestor, or the few armed men win. I write nothing about where to draw your line – this choice is quite personal, as it must be.

    Finally, we cannot preclude the possibility that Sterling has violated his voluntary agreement with the league. He owns a team within a league which has, presumably, a code of conduct and bylaws for its owners. He is subject to disciplinary actions for violating the code of conduct. I imagine that both the determination of a violation and the punishment for that violation leaves broad room for subjective judgment. Twenty-nine other owners will see to the fact that the punishment is a broad and swift as possible.

    And this will be in full accord with the NAP.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I dont think his argument with his GF was about prejudice against blacks, it was about his JEALOUSY of them. He said it himself in the audio,

    "You can do anything you want, you can have sex with them, just dont be seen with them in public..."

    When another photo of her and some big black dude goes public, his friends probably razz him mercilessly about how she's if fucking him because of "dat big black cok." :P

    It's probably not true (maybe) but he cant get it out of his mind and thats what this was all about, not prejudice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup. So once again the race card is proven bullshit. It's amazing that it STILL works isn't it?

      Ah, the low IQ of the idiot masses, eh?

      Delete
  12. Yeah, Sterling hates black people so much, he's dating one of them, and pays millions of dollars a year several more to do a job. Boy he sure hates black people. Unlike the US government, which pays black people to *not* work, which keeps black people in ghettoized neighborhoods, which imprisons black people for smoking marijuana, and which keeps black people out of the labor market through minimum wage laws.

    Give me a million "racists" like Sterling over one US government.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I couldn't say it better, exactly.

      Delete
    2. I know. All this "he's an evil racist so let's destroy him" is such bullshit. Shit, even thoughts are becoming criminalized. It's pathetic.

      Delete