|
jrodefeld posted:The issue I was trying to raise in my last post was that I find it absurd that anyone could understand the healthcare economy and not understand the substantial role the State had in artificially inflating healthcare costs. This argument is well documented and expressed by many libertarians and non libertarians alike. This is what we call "an assertion." In order to back it up properly, we would expect you to: 1) present data 2) present a meaningful analysis of why that data leads to you conclusion, and finally 3) respond to the disputaitons of your analysis. You have certainly fulfilled bullet 1, which is where "documented" comes into play, but 2 and especially 3 are very much lacking. You have shown a correlation, but you have not made a specific argument for cause, only a general one, and you have not connected with the specific criticisms against the general arguments you have made.
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 03:42 |
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:Also there's the thing that medicine that works costs more than medicine that doesn't, in much the same way a jet liner will cost more than a rusty old Civic with cardboard wings glued on. So you haven't looked much at the costs of alternative "medicine", right? Say that after busting out hundreds of dollars for "crystals" that will "improve" your "chakra". This is a sign that capitalism works.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:And I greatly resent the insinuation that I cannot argue for myself or express libertarian ideas without the use of quotes or links. ...Caros has come the closest and indeed his effort to engage is appreciated, but I can write a dozen paragraphs in my own words any libertarian concept you want to list. Two things. First, when you plagiarize once, it puts the whole of your work into question. That's why dishonesty is such a big thing in a lot of organizations. How do I know that you didn't plagiarized when you just got caught doing it blatantly. It puts your credibility and ethics into doubt. Maybe I'll come up blank, or maybe I will never look, but come on. What you did was in terrible faith. Secondly, the fact you can write 12 paragraphs on any libertarian subject is precisely your problem. You always have something to say on any subject, and you constantly show off how little you really know. Finally, you don't listen to opposing arguments. We just ripped your ideas to shred, and you still won't admit you're wrong. You're something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Caros posted:The number in particular I pulled from Matt Taibbi's book Griftopia Ugh, I just read this book for the first time today and it was thoroughly depressing  jrodefeld posted:Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. Subsidies for the ill and diseased promote carelessness, indigence, and dependency. If we eliminate such subsidies, we would strengthen the will to live healthy lives and to work for a living. In the first instance, that means abolishing Medicare and Medicaid. Ahahaha you are literally Supply Side Jesus  We can't just cure the sick! Then they'll have no incentive not to get sick! Everyone knows the best way to deal with disease is to make sure the consequences are as horrible as possible so people act in their rational self-interest and avoid it! Really all of medicine is just subsidizing people's poor life choices to get sick. Christ, this sounds like those bible-thumping nuts who complain about AIDS research because if we really cared about the gays we'd let them all die of AIDS and thus everyone would have the maximal incentive not to get infected. Liberals who coddle AIDS victims with HAART are the real gay-haters! VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Christ, this sounds like those bible-thumping nuts who complain about AIDS research because if we really cared about the gays we'd let them all die of AIDS and thus everyone would have the maximal incentive not to get infected. Liberals who coddle AIDS victims with HAART are the real gay-haters! *plagiarizes a mises.org article* So inconclusion, that is how fiat money created AIDS, a fact that I have unequivocally proven is true
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:The "state's rights, not slavery" argument is easily debunked by almost every governing document produced by the confederacy. The confederate constitution removes the state's right to abolish "negro slavery" and most of the states wrote declarations of independence that listed their primary grievance as the abolition of slavery. It's open and shut for anyone who isn't a complete moron. There isn't that much depth to it. I don't want to spend much time on this subject because that could take away from more important topics of discussion, but I'll restate my views for those that don't know them. You are correct that slavery was the primary reason why most of the Southern States seceded. There were disputes over tariffs and other issues that caused increased tensions between North and South but anyone who sides with the Confederacy is incorrect. With that said, you can simultaneously find the Confederacy to be despicable and anti-liberty as a governing body yet still recognize the Constitutional right of secession and injustice of violently preventing secession. Just because the Confederacy was pro slavery, that does not mean that the primary motivating factor for Lincoln and the North was the abolition of slavery. You can criticize DiLorenzo all you want, but a great deal of his work on Lincoln merely centers on reprinting historical facts and Lincoln quotes without commentary designed to make excuses, to provide post facto justification for all his unconstitutional actions as president and his private racists and supremacist views. It is furthermore important to recognize the difference between the people who live under a government and the government itself. As libertarians keep explaining, "we" are not the government. Government does not usually reflect the will of the people. So by speaking about the views and actions of the Confederacy, which is comprised of an elite, privileged class, that does not equate to condemning all of "the South". Remember, that only 6% of white men in the South owned slaves. Ascertaining the percentage of the rest of the population who supported the institution versus those who were abolitionist or at least open to that view is hard to tell, just as it is hard to determine in the North. It, of course, is entirely legitimate to use violence against those 6% who were enslaving black people and denying their self ownership and dignity, but waging war on "the South" because the political classes in those States decided to secede is not compatible with any concept of morality imaginable. What if 6% of people in an apartment complex conspired to run an underground sex slavery racket, which is the closest modern day parallel to the slavery of old? Suppose the police department started indiscriminately killing everyone in that apartment or dropped a bomb on that complex and destroyed it all at once, killing 85% of ALL residents. That is what waging war against other nations or against states within a nation amounts to. Furthermore it is important to recognize that motivations matter. The fact that Lincoln was NOT motivated to abolish slavery but instead to preserve the Union is important. The fact that he was personally quite racist and maintained private thoughts of deporting all Africans from the United States even after emancipation because he could never seen the races mixing is important. The reason some libertarians focus on revisiting our assessment of Lincoln and the Civil War is that the legacy of Lincoln and the undue praise heaped upon him in reality does more than anything else to grant legitimacy to the Federal government. Lincoln successfully removed any practical possibility for secession or the States standing up the Union in any meaningful way through what amounted to a violent coup. He successfully promoted Hamilton's vision of a powerful central State and changed the meaning of the Constitution towards greater centralization of power. By simplifying a complex history into prejudices like "if you favor secession or state's rights, you must be a racist" the mainstream court historians for the regime have dealt a blow to any subsequent efforts to abolish or reduce the power and influence of the central State. Correcting the historical record is thus vitally important if you care about liberty. WIth that said, the reason I don't want to dwell upon this issue much is that it has little practical importance. Whether or not Lincoln was "our greatest president" or a vile racist and tyrant has little bearing on how we deal with the problems we face in 2014. I think you would agree that we should prioritize discussions of current policy over academic discussions of the Civil War. We have people being killed today by the police or being thrown in jail for ingesting a forbidden substance or for peacefully protesting the IRS and we shouldn't forget them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:... Jrod, remember when I mentioned that Libertarianism pretends to care about the exploitation of the working class through taxes, but then their solutions to current day problems seem to be obsessed with loving over the poor as hard as possible? Yeah, this is the kind of poo poo I'm talking about. "If healthcare were cheap, everyone would be getting diabetes for funsies and there would be no market incentive to not lop off your limbs every other week! End medicare and medicade, let the bloated corpses of the poor and elderly who were too stupid and weak to resist the temptations of cancer flood the streets, as a warning to all others of the fate that will befall them! Oh but it kinda sucks that people go into extreme poverty due to medical bills, I totes wish that didn't happen" So which is it, is there a market incentive to not be sick because it will bankrupt me, or should everyone be able to afford treatment for their sickness without having to fall into extreme poverty, or even die of treatable illness? Or is this you quoting someone while disagreeing with them again? E: This question by the way is not a trap to get you to say it should be affordable and therefore you must support UHC, I am asking because these two quotations seem to be in conflict; either getting cancer bankrupts me and so I have a financial incentive to not get cancer, or people going into extreme debt to pay for medicine is a problem. If treating cancer is just kinda annoying financially but still very affordable, I'll have no reason to stop choosing to get cancer! burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Just because the Confederacy was pro slavery, that does not mean that the primary motivating factor for Lincoln and the North was the abolition of slavery. You can criticize DiLorenzo all you want, but a great deal of his work on Lincoln merely centers on reprinting historical facts and Lincoln quotes without commentary designed to make excuses, to provide post facto justification for all his unconstitutional actions as president and his private racists and supremacist views. So....you're a Confederate apologist now too? Holy gently caress, I can't stop laughing. Yes. Lincoln was not pressing the Civil War because of slavery, more because states decided to start a war by bombing For Sumter and rebelling because 'States rights to regulate Slavery' But in the end, slavery WAS the deciding factor, because it gave Lincoln the tool he needed to keep the European powers from interfering in the war by making it the key factor. Regardless if Lincoln was a raving racist (and history does not support this view), and despite being a product of his time, he did propose the 13th amendment that ended it. So, you can stop pushing Von Mises BULLSHIT about revisionist history. Oh, and states literally committing treason to uphold the Antebellum South that made their wealthy class what they are is far more unconstitutional than anything Lincoln might have done.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Honestly I wish Von Mises were alive today, so we could tar and feather the bastard for inflicting this blight on us all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:
Glorifies violence, is imposed on us by an authoritarian dictatorship with the cooperation of plutocrats who are terrified of a communist revolution, is only made available to white people, has snazzy dress code. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Oh, and states literally committing treason to uphold the Antebellum South that made their wealthy class what they are is far more unconstitutional than anything Lincoln might have done. Hey, it's not about defending slavery, it's about ethics in states' rights journalism!!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
I had to read up on DiLorenzo, and to do it properly, I had to goto Rational Wiki: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thomas_DiLorenzo quote:Thomas DiLorenzo is an Austrian school "economist" and pseudohistorian who holds a post as a professor of economics at Loyola College, Maryland. DiLorenzo is a fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and formerly worked for the neo-secessionist League of the South Institute. DiLorenzo's revisionist history has made him a popular "scholar" within libertarian circles and among some of the nuttier Teabaggers. You have GOT to be loving kidding me. This is the poo poo stain you argue has a 'better' view of Lincoln? Hell, here's 'Unbiased' Wikipedia quote:DiLorenzo writes about what he calls "the myth of Lincoln" in American history and politics. He has said, "[President] Lincoln is on record time after time rejecting the idea of racial equality. But whenever anyone brings this up, the Lincoln partisans go to the extreme to smear the bearer of bad news."[16] DiLorenzo has also spoken out in favor of the secession of the Confederate States of America, defending the right of these states to secede.[17] So, basically, you are REALLY bad at judging sources. quote:Controversy arose in 2011 when DiLorenzo testified before the House Financial Services Committee at the request of former U.S. Congressman Ron Paul. During the hearing, Congressman Lacy Clay criticized DiLorenzo for his associations with the League of the South, which Clay described as a "neo-Confederate group".[30] In Reuters and Baltimore Sun articles about the hearing, a Southern Poverty Law Center story about DiLorenzo's connection with the League was mentioned.[31][32] Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank wrote about Clay's remarks and he said the League of the South was listing DiLorenzo on its Web site as an 'affiliated scholar' as recently as 2008.[33][34] LewRockwell eh? Surely a trustworthy and valid source Protip: Never use DiLorenzo again. Ever. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The reason some libertarians focus on revisiting our assessment of Lincoln and the Civil War is that the legacy of Lincoln and the undue praise heaped upon him in reality does more than anything else to grant legitimacy to the Federal government. Lincoln successfully removed any practical possibility for secession or the States standing up the Union in any meaningful way through what amounted to a violent coup. He successfully promoted Hamilton's vision of a powerful central State and changed the meaning of the Constitution towards greater centralization of power. Once again, the devil known as the State exerted its authority over free men making free decisions to own subhumans. Libertarians need to revisit his legacy because the Great Statist known formally as Abraham Lincoln removed any practical possibility of a new nation forming based on the right to own slaves being formed from the southern states. God drat dude, even Karl Marx himself had to overlook the fact that Lincoln stubbornly refused to totally overhaul the USA to use the form of government he preferred and congratulated Lincoln on ending one of the worst injustices of the capitalist state he ruled over. It's okay to say Lincoln ending slavery was good without having to make up lies about him and the war to keep up your Libertarian cred. burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:"if you favor secession or state's rights, you must be a racist" This is literally true. jrodefeld posted:Correcting the historical record is thus vitally important if you care about liberty. Ah Confederate apologism. Slavery is Liberty!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ah Confederate apologism. Slavery is Liberty! "Bu..bu...but its what George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have wanted  "
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
I want to hear about how the only injustice of apartheid was the government getting in on it. Goddamn that statist Prime Minister Verwoerd! He corrupted our fair and equitable system of racial discrimination with government! If only he'd let society continue in a voluntary moral direction of every volk achieving their own racial spirit and volkseie thanks to the civilizing and God-given principles of separate development!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
If anything Jrod, Lincoln having successfully crushed an attempt to create a new state shouldn't be something that makes alleged anarchists upset. Yeah, shouldn't make you happy neither, but even if the CSA had won the civil war, it would just mean a different state would be stealing from its people, prolonging slavery, and worse, it even added powers in its constitution for the both the federal and state governments. Really killing your Anarchist cred right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:If anything Jrod, Lincoln having successfully crushed an attempt to create a new state shouldn't be something that makes alleged anarchists upset. Yeah, shouldn't make you happy neither, but even if the CSA had won the civil war, it would just mean a different state would be stealing from its people, prolonging slavery, and worse, it even added powers in its constitution for the both the federal and state governments. States are okay as long as you form them for the express purpose of keeping blackie down and you call them something else like Kooperative Kovenant Kommunities. For more, see literally everything by Libertiarian Hero Hans Hermann Hoppe 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
You mention that only 6% of the population of the CSA owned slaves and that attacking that 6% would have been justified in your view. Let's pretend that only that 6% actually supported slavery and the other 94% only wanted to secede because of tariffs (despite this being retarded). How was the Union supposed to attack only that 6%? The Confederacy sure as poo poo wasn't going to let Union soldiers march across their lands to the slave plantations. And assassinations historically have only ever led to escalating violence incredibly quickly rather than stopping it, just look up Archduke Franz Ferdinand. So let's say that you, jrodefeld, are supreme commander of the Union army. How do you stop slavery?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
It's almost like a whole lot of that 94% voted to secede in referendums to keep slavery around and also supported the war effort from the minute the South started attacking federal forts. Nah, that's crazy-talk. Reasoning from first principles we can deduce the South was totes ready to deliver up those 6% of slaveowners but Lincoln was like "Nah I'm coming for all of you and your liberty and your little dog too"
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's almost like a whole lot of that 94% voted to secede in referendums to keep slavery around and also supported the war effort from the minute the South started attacking federal forts. Don't forget that in JRod's analogy, apparently the North started the war, totally genocided the South after the war, and basically when you think about it, there's no difference between war and genocide. jrodefeld posted:It, of course, is entirely legitimate to use violence against those 6% who were enslaving black people and denying their self ownership and dignity, but waging war on "the South" because the political classes in those States decided to secede is not compatible with any concept of morality imaginable. So to recap, the civil war did not start with the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter, the soldiers of the CSA are perfectly analogous with innocent bystanders living in the same apartment building as slavers, the Union killed 85% of the people in the apartment building that represents the South, and this is basically what all wars ever look like. I wish there were still Germans around today, but as we all know, in 1945, the USA together with the USSR culled their population to conclude WWII, another tragic tale of an assortment of Freemen making Free choices, struck down for the crime of simply enslaving and slaughtering the subhumans  .
burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Imagine an apartment complex where 6% of the residents want to start an illegal child prostitution business. But when the police come to put a stop to it another 80% of the residents start firing at the cops with Thompson sub-machine guns. I think at the point the cops are pretty justified in shooting back, don't you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
The Union started the war so hard at Manassas, the effects actually rippled back in time and provoked slaveholders into using defensive force against Fort Sumter earlier that year oh and it also caused the preceding 200 years of defensive force against Africans in the first place sure let's go with that. LINCOLN!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
jrod's right, though, as much as his historical revisionism and Southern apologism show an inherent lack of morality on his part, it's his abhorrent views on letting the lowest 25% of earners die in the streets of tooth abscesses and the common cold is even worse and it's what we should be hammering home.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Oh good, you've bitten deep into the apple of DiLorenzo. Lets have some fun here. But first I am going to have to google a random line from each paragraph because after getting caught plagurizing you didn't think that admitting or otherwise acknowledging the fact was worth doing. Thus I can't trust your work and now I have to check every post to see if I'm actually talking to you, or to Mises.Org Article #2384210jrodefeld posted:I don't want to spend much time on this subject because that could take away from more important topics of discussion, but I'll restate my views for those that don't know them. Couple of things. First of all, it is not 'most' it is 'all'. This is typical of your argumentative style, you acceed to a point, but you always just love to throw a little bit of doubt or factual untruths in there. If you have proof that even one southern state seceeded for reasons that are not related to slavery, then present them. The fact is that you really can't, and you know you can't, because the civil war was about loving slavery! Secondly, and more importantly, there is no constitutional right of secession. Reading this is like reading that Onion headline Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be.. Texas V. White ruled that there is no constitutional right for unilateral secession, though secession agreed upon by all parties is still up for grabs. To quote the majority in Texas V. White: "By [the Articles of Confederation], the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?" Moreover, there is a delicious irony in that the Confederate constitution explicitly did not permit secession. The idea of an amendment allowing it was proposed, and ultimately dropped during the debate over the Confederate constitution in 1863. quote:Just because the Confederacy was pro slavery, that does not mean that the primary motivating factor for Lincoln and the North was the abolition of slavery. You can criticize DiLorenzo all you want, but a great deal of his work on Lincoln merely centers on reprinting historical facts and Lincoln quotes without commentary designed to make excuses, to provide post facto justification for all his unconstitutional actions as president and his private racists and supremacist views. Correct! Lincoln made absolutely clear in his private and public works that his primary goal in the civil war was the preservation of the Union. Which is what his primary goal needed to be, because he was the president of the United States, and in addition to the confederacy border states like Kentucky were still waffling over the idea of Seceding themselves. As for DiLorenzo, I'm going to go into a big infodump at the bottom of this post, but lets take a look at just one of many of the "Quotes without commentary" from DiLorenzo's book: Lincoln Unmasked Page 25 posted:Lincoln clearly stated the real cause and purpose of the war on numerous occasions, including in his famous August 22, 1862 letter to newspaper editor Horace Greeley. There he wrote, "My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery." His objective was to destroy the secession movement by force of arms, period. Now lets take a look at the actual letter: quote:Executive Mansion, The bolding is mine. On top of his quote being a paraphrasing rather than a quote, it strips out all context to the letter. The specific context of the Horace Greeley letter is that Lincoln is responding to an editorial titled "The Prayer of Twenty Millions." by Horace Greeley, in which the latter chided Lincoln for not moving fast enough to enforce existing congressional law about freeing slaves in territory taken from the confederacy. Lincoln's response was essentially "Here is what I view as my job". Lincoln believed that as the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief of the United States his primary job was to preserve the Union at all cost. If he could do it while freeing slaves, he'd do it. If he could only do it while leaving slavery intact, he'd do it. It wasn't that he was indifferent, but that he believed that the issue of slavery was not the issue he'd been elected to decide. Moreover, despite what DiLorenzo repeatedly asserts, Lincoln makes very clear at the end of this letter what his personal opinion on slavery is. It is also important to remember that at the time of writing this letter, Lincoln already had a prepared draft of the Emancipation Proclamation, which he gave barely a month after penning this letter. quote:It is furthermore important to recognize the difference between the people who live under a government and the government itself. As libertarians keep explaining, "we" are not the government. Government does not usually reflect the will of the people. So by speaking about the views and actions of the Confederacy, which is comprised of an elite, privileged class, that does not equate to condemning all of "the South". Remember, that only 6% of white men in the South owned slaves. Ascertaining the percentage of the rest of the population who supported the institution versus those who were abolitionist or at least open to that view is hard to tell, just as it is hard to determine in the North. First and foremost, cite your 6% of white men in the south owned slaves statistic because I call bullshit. Your 6% number doesn't even make sense if you look at all states in the union, where it was 8% in 1960. If you add up only the slave owning states you'll find that 29% of families owned at least one slave in slave owning states. If you limit it to just confederate states it is in the mid thirties. I suspect that you read that figure somewhere and just took it on faith without ever checking it. As for your second assertion, that we somehow can't ascertain the percentage of the population who supported slavery and/or secession? Yes we can. To take just one example, Virginia was arguably the most divided state in the union on the subject of the civil war, what with the whole splitting in two thing, but they still voted overwhelmingly in favor of secession when given the option, and elected a majority of representatives for a secession convention even before that. You are trying to suggest that the Civil war was brought on by a small group of elites demanding secession, when in fact they had a massive backing of public support. You can see this by looking at nearly any vote from the time period, even the vote the ultimately elected Lincoln tells you a lot, because a pro slavery candidate was his primary opponent in the south (not that he was on the ballot there anyways.) quote:It, of course, is entirely legitimate to use violence against those 6% who were enslaving black people and denying their self ownership and dignity, but waging war on "the South" because the political classes in those States decided to secede is not compatible with any concept of morality imaginable. 6%, 6%, 6%! Research your loving statistics before you trump them up Jrod. It is also important to remember that the south started it. The south fired the first shots in the Civil war Jrodefeld. For your example to work, imagine if 35% of a condo board conspired to run an underground sex slavery racket in 1/3rd of the complex. Then imagine they declared that they were no longer going to abide by longstanding rules and regulations of the condo board. Then imagine they bludgeoned someone to death for being on "their side" of the public playground, and said that any attempt to collect their condo fees or deliver mail to them would result in more violence. Also remember that they are running an underground sex slavery racket. That part is really important. Its not a perfect metaphor, but it gives you a good idea of why yours is loving stupid. Oh, and the North didn't kill 85% of the southern population. Total casualties in the civil war were no more than 850,000. That isn't even 85% of the population of Virginia. That isn't even 85% of the conservative army, even though that is total deaths from the war. Are you loving serious with that number?  quote:Furthermore it is important to recognize that motivations matter. The fact that Lincoln was NOT motivated to abolish slavery but instead to preserve the Union is important. The fact that he was personally quite racist and maintained private thoughts of deporting all Africans from the United States even after emancipation because he could never seen the races mixing is important. [Citation loving Needed]. I'm going to go into why DiLorenzo was an idiot, but to suggest that Lincoln was this huge racist who was going to support deporting africans etc etc is absurd. The irony of you playing the race card while supporting people like HHH, Murray Rothbard and even DiLorenzo is insane to me. Yes, Lincoln's primary motivation was preserving the union because that is arguably the most important aspect of the job he was elected to do. He didn't set out to abolish slavery because that would have disturbed the union. Once poo poo was already on however, you better believe he freed every goddamn slave in the country from the racist slaveowning southerners. quote:The reason some libertarians focus on revisiting our assessment of Lincoln and the Civil War is that the legacy of Lincoln and the undue praise heaped upon him in reality does more than anything else to grant legitimacy to the Federal government. Lincoln successfully removed any practical possibility for secession or the States standing up the Union in any meaningful way through what amounted to a violent coup. He successfully promoted Hamilton's vision of a powerful central State and changed the meaning of the Constitution towards greater centralization of power. Libertarians like to focus on revising your assessment of Lincoln and the Civil War for the same reason the Reason magazine supports holocaust denial, because it allows you to cast doubt on the successful examples of force being used to correct injustice in the world. If Lincoln was a bad guy, then it is okay to hate the government and talk about secession. If the holocaust wasn't real, then FDR can be called a warmonger and we can talk about how horrible food stamps are. There was never meant to be an option for secession in the constitution. Lincoln shut down a coup, and the world was much better for it. Tada. quote:By simplifying a complex history into prejudices like "if you favor secession or state's rights, you must be a racist" the mainstream court historians for the regime have dealt a blow to any subsequent efforts to abolish or reduce the power and influence of the central State. Correcting the historical record is thus vitally important if you care about liberty. Not everyone who believes in states rights is a racist, but every racist believes in states rights. There is a huge overlap between people who talk about 'states rights' and people who are racist. The vast majority of people who talk about states rights are people who are pro-confederacy and/or racists, which makes it difficult to take anyone seriously when they go "No really, I just think states should be able to secede!" Rand Paul is a good example of this. He talks about how important states rights are, but he also hires on a guy who calls himself the southern avenger, and he personally talks about how he thinks the civil rights act went just a biiiiit too far. That all said, you need to understand that Thomas DiLorenzo is not correcting anything. He is creating a misleading narrative to support confederate apologist, either because he believes it or because it sells books. Every major historian for over a century would disagree with his findings and discussions about lincoln because they are factually untrue, misleading or simply outright lies in a lot of cases. You are being sold a bill of goods, but you are gobbling it up because it fits the world view that you want to accept. Have you ever read any other source on the subject of Lincoln? I'm just curious? quote:WIth that said, the reason I don't want to dwell upon this issue much is that it has little practical importance. Whether or not Lincoln was "our greatest president" or a vile racist and tyrant has little bearing on how we deal with the problems we face in 2014. I think you would agree that we should prioritize discussions of current policy over academic discussions of the Civil War. We have people being killed today by the police or being thrown in jail for ingesting a forbidden substance or for peacefully protesting the IRS and we shouldn't forget them. loving christ we need a begging the question Smiley. Is Lincoln "The best President?" or is he actually Double Hitler? It doesn't really matter, but he totally was Triple Hitler. If it had little importance why did you drop so many words on it? Frankly it has plenty of importance to this discussion because it shows you are easily bamboozled by even the most idiotic views so long as they comport with the worldview that you've personally accepted. If you look at any other source, or read reviews of DiLorenzo's work by actually accredited historians you will find that no one believes his work except a small cadre of racists and an even smaller cadre of libertarians. You are biting in wholesale to something that is so factually untrue and it tells us a TON about your ability to process information if you actually believe this, the same way it would if we learned you hate vaccinations (I recall you do), were a 9/11 truther, or believed in alien abductions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Caros posted:[Citation loving Needed]. I'm going to go into why DiLorenzo was an idiot, but to suggest that Lincoln was this huge racist who was going to support deporting africans etc etc is absurd. The irony of you playing the race card while supporting people like HHH, Murray Rothbard and even DiLorenzo is insane to me. He's probably going to bring up Lincoln's earlier flirtation with the American Colonization Society, which almost everyone with any abolitionist sentiment did prior to the war to one degree or another, as rock-solid proof that Lincoln was really a white nationalist who wanted them all gone. You know, among the other oceans of poo poo Jrod has gotten and, I predict, will get wrong about the War of the Rebellion. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
It is endlessly amusing that if you get a Libertarian talking long enough, they'll start the apologism for the Confederacy and Nazi Germany. They just can't help themselves!  If only the US Government had abandoned force, disbanded the military and our democracy, and we all just posted on the Internet about how Hitler's violence contradicts the NAP so he should stop.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
In light of this new information about Jrod's historical views I find myself wondering if the reason why he as so many claim that they come here to post because if offers them something they can't find elsewhere on the net ever had it occur to them that the reason for this, including misses.org is that the rest of them are in fact wrong and have wrong brains. Perhaps what is admirable of the community is a result of the way of thinking, not the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
I like how there's generally two types of conservatives when it comes to Lincoln. One side that, like Jrode, seems to paint him as the racist, while supporting the loving confederacy. And the other type who loves to brag about how Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, but still don't actually care too much about the things he actually did to help free slaves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:I like how there's generally two types of conservatives when it comes to Lincoln. One side that, like Jrode, seems to paint him as the racist, while supporting the loving confederacy. And the other type who loves to brag about how Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, but still don't actually care too much about the things he actually did to help free slaves. Its the sort of people that ignore the Southern Strategy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
This confederate apologism is fun and all, but to go off topic real quick, a couple of pages ago we were talking about how Keynesianism failed in the 70s. Can someone elaborate on this? The problems that happened in the 70s I thought was mainly due to the oil embargo by OPEC and the fed jacking up interest rates by the end of the decade.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:This confederate apologism is fun and all, but to go off topic real quick, a couple of pages ago we were talking about how Keynesianism failed in the 70s. Can someone elaborate on this? The problems that happened in the 70s I thought was mainly due to the oil embargo by OPEC and the fed jacking up interest rates by the end of the decade. "Externalities don't exist and BLARGLEARLGLE" 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:This confederate apologism is fun and all, but to go off topic real quick, a couple of pages ago we were talking about how Keynesianism failed in the 70s. Can someone elaborate on this? The problems that happened in the 70s I thought was mainly due to the oil embargo by OPEC and the fed jacking up interest rates by the end of the decade. My understanding as a non-economist is that pre-70s Keynesian theories held that there are tradeoffs between unemployment and inflation, so one would generally go up if you pushed the other down. The 70s had a period where both were high simultaneously, which was a major blow to that idea. That's what people are referring to there. In response, the Keynesians did the unthinkable and admitted they were wrong, and adapted their theories to this new information rather quickly. But you're hearing about this from a group of people who can't conceive of modifying a theory in response to reality, so macroeconomics is wrong and dead forever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:But you're hearing about this from a group of people who can't conceive of modifying a theory in response to reality, so macroeconomics is wrong and dead forever. And for whom, thanks to a priori assertions and praxis, we can simply reject reality when it says our ideas don't work out because deep down, I just have this feeling that Libertarianism will work out. See: the discussion on healthcare costs, where Jrod keeps asserting that state interference makes it more expensive while all empirical evidence and observation shows that states with more government interference get cheaper healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:This confederate apologism is fun and all, but to go off topic real quick, a couple of pages ago we were talking about how Keynesianism failed in the 70s. Can someone elaborate on this? The problems that happened in the 70s I thought was mainly due to the oil embargo by OPEC and the fed jacking up interest rates by the end of the decade. My understanding (I Am Not An Economist) is that the oil shocks caused higher inflation during an economic slowdown, which the model at the time didn't indicate was possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Related to jrod's opinion of Lincoln as a racist tyrant, was he the one who went on about negroids and their time preferences, or was that somebody else in one of these threads?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Related to jrod's opinion of Lincoln as a racist tyrant, was he the one who went on about negroids and their time preferences, or was that somebody else in one of these threads? He never came out and named black people specifically, but the implications were very clear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:My understanding as a non-economist is that pre-70s Keynesian theories held that there are tradeoffs between unemployment and inflation, so one would generally go up if you pushed the other down. The 70s had a period where both were high simultaneously, which was a major blow to that idea. That's what people are referring to there. Even now the orthodox position is that there is a positive correlation between growth (and with growth is reduced unemployment) and inflation, it's just that its best managed through central bank intervention as opposed to government deficit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
Caros posted:6%, 6%, 6%! This appears to come from Wikipedia, but is also a misinterpretation of the data. Wiki says 6% of the free population were slave-owners. Besides, (and this will be news only to Jrod) if I, Johnny Plantation Owner, have a wife and three minor children, plus two White foremen, the slaves are all in my single name, although there are seven people whose livelihoods depend upon slavery. Jrod also glosses over the fact that according to this same source 39% of the population were enslaved, by what comes out to about 3.5% of the total population by Wikipedia's numbers. Yeah, that totally sounds like a fair and equitable system that was upheld even though most people were against it...
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 03:42 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:He never came out and named black people specifically, but the implications were very clear. No, I mean I remember some libertarian in one of the last few threads unironically using the term negroid. I just don't remember who.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 00:36
|
|