|
DrProsek posted:Let's get this thread back on track. Only when the innocent people involved, or their ancestors, or their duly elected political representitives (or the political representatives of their ancestors), signed a document agreeing to allow said state to weild said force. Of course, there's no such document in American history, bearing the signatures of representatives of discrete cultural groups: as we all know, the USA sprang perfect and fully-formed from the head of Andrew Jackson some 219 years ago.
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
Caros posted:Nope, he made a lot of outright racist or otherwise hilariously awful statements in this one. Excellent catch. I'd never really taken Hoppe for a Randist before, but a lot of that post just screams Ayn Rand at me. I want to say a few comments on this article by Hoppe. This position has created a great deal of in fighting among libertarians. For those that like to criticize us for being some monolithic cult, it should be noted that Hoppe is specifically criticizing other libertarians in this article. There is an argument going on among libertarians which is called the "thick" vs "thin" debate. A thin libertarian is a libertarian who adheres strictly to the primacy of the non aggression principle, with no other ancillary concerns or cultural values being integrated into his libertarianism. He may take other views and positions on a variety of topics but, as a libertarian, he confines his political theory to the statement that aggressive force is unjust and private property rights should be enforced. On the other hand, "thick" libertarians would argue that adhering to the non aggression principle is not enough. They seek to augment the non aggression principle with other cultural values and concerns and integrate those into libertarian theory. These are the left-libertarians and the right-libertarians. Left libertarians argue that, while we wouldn't use force to get our way, libertarians should be concerned with other sorts of inequalities and use the market and peaceful social movements to oppose certain types of discrimination, to promote various leftist concerns and values. The right-libertarian is the opposite, looking to augment the non-aggression principle with right wing values. Many members of the Mises Institute have criticized Hoppe on his view that libertarianism has a natural ally on the "right" and that right-wing values are, at least partially, logically consistent with libertarianism. Walter Block has been critical of this view. As Hoppe said in this article, you can be a perfectly consistent libertarian so long as you respect private property rights and don't accept the use of violence against others. But he is arguing that, especially regarding discrimination and egalitarianism, the libertarian position is more compatible with a right wing view. I don't consider this article racist in the least. I'll grant that Hoppe is not particularly politically correct but this business about "Western white male" culture being the engine of civilization has obviously to do with certain cultural values and political ideas about the free market, industrialization, classical liberalism and family values that have created a great deal of prosperity for society. I don't know that the "white" part has much to do with it, but it is a matter of historical fact that Western values and ideas regarding the division of labor, free market capitalism, private property rights, and a great deal of economic thought has emerged from intellectuals who shared certain cultural values and backgrounds. Hoppe is not suggesting that "white" elite ought to dominate everyone else because they are naturally superior. What he is actually saying is that other cultures and societies can and should adopt the values and ideas that have empirically proven to be most beneficial to the development of society and the creation of wealth and prosperity. Most people probably would have phrased certain things differently, especially if you are PC obsessed, but I know Hoppe to not be a racist. Yes he believes that libertarians ought to adopt certain right wing cultural values, but he also respects each individuals self ownership and right to be free of aggression as do all libertarians. I personally think that libertarianism is neither left nor right. I think appeals can be made to both sides because there are elements of the philosophy that should have appeal to each. But the notion that libertarianism necessarily implies adopting right or left wing social values seems absurd to me. I disagree with that part of what Hoppe is saying. But I think this article is nonetheless very well written and thought provoking. Hoppe has a very brilliant deductive mind. Even those who disagree with some of his conclusions nonetheless must reckon with his arguments. Everyone would be better off for having exposed themselves to his writings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I want to say a few comments on this article by Hoppe. This position has created a great deal of in fighting among libertarians. Does this make you more or less likely to repost portions of it verbatim as though they were your own words in the future? Paul Michael Levesque posted:Realistically, then, a right-libertarian does not only recognize that physical and mental abilities are unequally distributed among the various individuals within each society and that accordingly each society will be characterized by countless inequalities, by social stratification and a multitude of rank orders of achievement and authority. He also recognizes that such abilities are unequally distributed among the many different societies coexisting on the globe and that consequently also the world-as-a-whole will be characterized by regional and local inequalities, disparities, stratification and rank orders. As for individuals, so are also not all societies equal and on a par with each other. He's literally saying that it only makes sense for white people to be better than black people, which we can tell because white Europe did better economically than Africa or Asia. There's no equivocation there--he's saying it's the logical conclusion. Muscle Tracer fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't consider this article racist in the least. I'll grant that Hoppe is not particularly politically correct but this business about "Western white male" culture being the engine of civilization has obviously to do with certain cultural values and political ideas about the free market, industrialization, classical liberalism and family values that have created a great deal of prosperity for society. I don't know that the "white" part has much to do with it, but it is a matter of historical fact that Western values and ideas regarding the division of labor, free market capitalism, private property rights, and a great deal of economic thought has emerged from intellectuals who shared certain cultural values and backgrounds. Given that you claim a kind of epistemological superiority over the rest of us, I'd like to know why you claim to know this. But only after you justify your plagiarism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
Caros posted:Jrodefeld, are you planning on addressing the fact that you were caught blatantly plagurizing an article from Mises.Org in a post two days ago? At times when I engage in these discussions with you all I get greedy and I want to respond to every reply. It makes more sense to take my time and get my links in order, check my sources and make sure I am not making any errors. When I go too fast, I sometimes make errors, link to the wrong article or quote the wrong source. If I remember correctly, what I pasted on that reply that I didn't attribute to the article of origin was a list of dates and facts of about a dozen different State interventions into the healthcare market over the past century. It was a list of facts. I still should have attributed it as I normally do, but I got sloppy and I didn't do that. The real main point of that post was to show the exponential rise in healthcare costs that have outpaced the consumer price index started almost precisely after Johnson's Great Society programs were put into place in the late 1960s. This data point combined with economic theory about monetary expansion and the effects of inflation on State spending in specific markets AND the reduction or elimination of price competition through over reliance on third party payer systems is, to my mind, more than enough to prove a correlation between State action and the fact that medical costs have spiraled out of control. Yeah, I did not attribute part of that post as I should have. I got sloppy trying to answer too many people too quickly without taking the time I should have to say precisely what I wanted to say without error. Contrary to what some have suggested, I don't rely on links to prove my points. Everything I write that is not clearly quoted is a collection of my own thoughts and my own arguments. I hope this is sufficient to move on and debate the substance of the issues at hand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
Hoppe is grotesque even given the most sympathetic viewing. jrod supports his nonsense concerning "white" people, but even if you were to stipulate that (which I do not) jrod provides no justification for Hoppe's fetishization of males and heterosexuals. That this doesn't bother jrod is appalling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:But what if the market decides not to punish them? It wasn't the market that punished the South into giving up slavery. What do you do if and when the market fails? What if the market is working too slow? Why should we allow someone to keep slaves until the market has thoroughly punished them? Why is it moral to stand aside when someone's rights are being abused by someone else? We are not talking about slavery, which is a categorically different sort of thing than a person excluding you from their private property. Slavery was a violent act of subjugation and denial of peoples humanity and property right in their own bodies. Violent action against the perpetrators of such injustice was not only warranted but is morally required. What if the market fails and most people are still racist and choose to exclude minorities from public businesses? In the first place it should be pointed out that discrimination and segregation in public businesses had already been dying out, with holdovers mostly in racist parts of the South. Without State subsidy for such discriminatory policies, economic pressures tend to break up such discrimination. A business that excludes people faces a distinct competitive disadvantage vis a vis a business that serves everyone. But even if there still existed a great deal of discrimination based on race, you should continue to try to change peoples minds. Open up your own business. Encourage solidarity among the discriminated against classes. People can be assholes. And as long as they express their rear end in a top hat opinions with their own justly acquired property, no one should be able to use violence against them regardless of how reprehensible they may be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
I'm confused. Was discrimination in the South dying out, or did it have such overwhelming popular support that politicians were running on segregation platforms to get elected and impose Jim Crow?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
So jrodefeld, do you agree with us that "thick" libertarianism is basically white supremacy and colonialism? Hell in some cases it appears to be straight up feudalism or slavery. It's real interesting how the "other values" that get included into "thick" libertarianism are ideas like "black people are genetically predisposed to have lower intelligence" and "people who endorse homosexuality and multiculturalism should be killed or sold as slaves." Those statements are paraphrasing Hoppe without even the slightest embellishment, by the way. The correct response to them is to kick him out of your movement, not to say he represents one part of it about which others disagree. He should be anathema to you, unless you agree with him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
Oh good, you're posting again. Are you going to address your plagiarism or not? Because I am willing to dog you with it in every single post you make on these forums until the loving sun swallows the earth if that is what it takes to get you to admit you did something wrong. Edit: Oh hey, you did, in a really haphazard and lazy way. See below.jrodefeld posted:I want to say a few comments on this article by Hoppe. This position has created a great deal of in fighting among libertarians. For those that like to criticize us for being some monolithic cult, it should be noted that Hoppe is specifically criticizing other libertarians in this article. There is an argument going on among libertarians which is called the "thick" vs "thin" debate. A thin libertarian is a libertarian who adheres strictly to the primacy of the non aggression principle, with no other ancillary concerns or cultural values being integrated into his libertarianism. He may take other views and positions on a variety of topics but, as a libertarian, he confines his political theory to the statement that aggressive force is unjust and private property rights should be enforced. I don't think anyone is criticizing libertarians for being a monolithic cult. We absolutely criticize you for being cultish in your behavior, such as making up new words or redefining existing words to mean something outside of typical human usage. I am well aware that there are as many different types of libertarians as there are stars in the loving sky, as one of the standard libertarian tactics, one you yourself have used, is to declare someone else as being 'not a libertarian' because they don't share your specific views. This stems from the fact that you have the ideological equivalent of vaporware. Your policies have never been tested in the real world, and frankly run no risk of doing so anytime in the near future, meaning you can endlessly spin them and make wild claims about them without being easily disproven. At the same time, there are no outside forces urging compromise, so you can remain ideologically pure as all gently caress despite how impractical that is in every day life. For the record this is the same problem that many groups, such as north american socialists have, not something unique to libertarians. quote:On the other hand, "thick" libertarians would argue that adhering to the non aggression principle is not enough. They seek to augment the non aggression principle with other cultural values and concerns and integrate those into libertarian theory. These are the left-libertarians and the right-libertarians. Left libertarians argue that, while we wouldn't use force to get our way, libertarians should be concerned with other sorts of inequalities and use the market and peaceful social movements to oppose certain types of discrimination, to promote various leftist concerns and values. The right-libertarian is the opposite, looking to augment the non-aggression principle with right wing values. I don't give a gently caress what Walter Block's view on Hoppe is because I frankly view Walter Block as ignorant as gently caress when it comes to issues such as race, culture, politics, chili cooking and even economics! We give a gently caress about what you think. Moreover, here is the start of the document in which Walter Block 'disagrees' with HHH: "HANS-HERMANN HOPPE IS CLEARLY one of the most creative, inventive, and insightful libertarians now writing. This claim would be true if his only contribution was his “argument from argument” (1993, pp.204–07), which placed the entire corpus of libertarian theory on an undeniable praxeological-like basis. But he has done more, far more. He has made sterling and original contributions to the theory of anarchism (2001), private property rights (1993), homesteading (1993), socialism and capitalism (1989), and insurance(2000)" I'm surprised he managed to chide him at all around that mouthful of cock. Walter Block basically said "I love HHH, but I think he might be a little wrong here." Whupty-loving-do. quote:I don't consider this article racist in the least. I'll grant that Hoppe is not particularly politically correct but this business about "Western white male" culture being the engine of civilization has obviously to do with certain cultural values and political ideas about the free market, industrialization, classical liberalism and family values that have created a great deal of prosperity for society. I don't know that the "white" part has much to do with it, but it is a matter of historical fact that Western values and ideas regarding the division of labor, free market capitalism, private property rights, and a great deal of economic thought has emerged from intellectuals who shared certain cultural values and backgrounds. We know you don't consider it racist Jrodefeld, because you are the sort of person who doesn't laugh when Steven Colbert makes a joke about how he doesn't see race at all. I want to go back and quote that section specifically for you: "More specifically, he realistically notices that libertarianism, as an intellectual system, was first developed and furthest elaborated in the Western world, by white males, in white male dominated societies. That it is in white, heterosexual male dominated societies, where adherence to libertarian principles is the greatest and the deviations from them the least severe (as indicated by comparatively less evil and extortionist State policies). That it is white heterosexual men, who have demonstrated the greatest ingenuity, industry, and economic prowess. And that it is societies dominated by white heterosexual males, and in particular by the most successful among them, which have produced and accumulated the greatest amount of capital goods and achieved the highest average living standards." Read the bolded section again. Read it again. Now read it one more time and really think about what he is saying. No, Hans Hermann Hoppe is not going out of his way to say "White people are better than black people." Or that gay people are subhuman. Do you know why? Because that would discredit the gently caress out of him and his work for a generation. Let Lee Atwater explain this to you: "You start out in 1954 by saying, "friend of the family, friend of the family, friend of the family." By 1968 you can't say "friend of the family" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "friend of the family, friend of the family." Hans Hermann Hoppe is smart enough not to say friend of the family, friend of the family, friend of the family. Instead he just lauds how great the white heterosexual man is doing. He talks about how important the white heterosexual man has been for the world, and how they have demonstrated the greatest blah blah blah. I'm sorry if you are incapable of realizing that someone is being racist unless they are screaming friend of the family, friend of the family, friend of the family, but for fucksake, why do you think he included the word heterosexual multiple times there? Its because Hans Hermann Hoppe thinks gays are lesser than straights, but he can't say that. quote:Hoppe is not suggesting that "white" elite ought to dominate everyone else because they are naturally superior. What he is actually saying is that other cultures and societies can and should adopt the values and ideas that have empirically proven to be most beneficial to the development of society and the creation of wealth and prosperity. Because these people are genetically superior, and because of social/civil advantages, these Natural Social Elites will typically have children that will continue their line. Go back to page 86 where I discussed this and you ignored it after talking about loving benevolent monarchies. Hoppe absolutely believes that people are naturally superior than others. The loving post you're quoting here has him talking about how people aren't equal and some are naturally superior. And it is heavily implied that those people are white. quote:Most people probably would have phrased certain things differently, especially if you are PC obsessed, but I know Hoppe to not be a racist. Yes he believes that libertarians ought to adopt certain right wing cultural values, but he also respects each individuals self ownership and right to be free of aggression as do all libertarians. No Jrodefeld, you don't 'know' hoppe not to be racist. You don't have any special information about this situation, and I doubt you are actually him. You 'hope' that he is not racist in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Hoppe wants to discriminate against people. If Hoppe were given the choice, america would stop allowing immigrants from non-white countries because white people would just 'mesh' better and thus make everything better. He is a racist, deal with it. quote:I disagree with that part of what Hoppe is saying. But I think this article is nonetheless very well written and thought provoking. Hoppe has a very brilliant deductive mind. Even those who disagree with some of his conclusions nonetheless must reckon with his arguments. Everyone would be better off for having exposed themselves to his writings. Hey everyone, its Walter Block! "I disagree with what Hoppe is saying, but the article is really good and thought provoking, he's a really smart guy and we are all better off for having read an article by a guy who believes in natural social elites and their genetic superiority over others.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:Jrode refusing to discuss a topic anymore because it's coming dangerously close to him being forced to admit fault with libertarianism is about as close as you guys are gonna get to him actually admitting he was wrong. Savor it, Caros et al. I have absolutely no problem going back to speaking about healthcare or discussing economics or any other topic. But the whole "racism" thing is not productive. We have gone around that circle many times now. But let's take a summary of libertarian thinkers. Because the assertion is not merely that Hoppe and Rothbard said some potentially racist things at one time or another but that libertarianism itself is fundamentally racist and supremacist. That is what many of you have been arguing. I want to list a few of my biggest intellectual teachers and I want you to tell me which ones you think are racist. Surely most of them must be racist, right? Surely they are all closeted KKK members and white supremacists? Okay, here goes: Frederic Bastiat, Lysander Spooner, Sheldon Richman, Jacob Hornberger, Anthony Gregory, Scott Horton, Tom Woods, Walter Block, Gary Chartier, Robert Higgs, Jorge Guido Hulsmann, Ralph Raico, Joseph Salerno, Mark Thornton, Will Grigg, Robert Nozick, Stephan Molyneux, Henry Hazlitt, Leonard Read. Which ones are racist?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:At times when I engage in these discussions with you all I get greedy and I want to respond to every reply. It makes more sense to take my time and get my links in order, check my sources and make sure I am not making any errors. When I go too fast, I sometimes make errors, link to the wrong article or quote the wrong source. Good to see that you will actually address something if half the thread calls you out on it for four days in a row.  As for the bolded part, "If you remember correctly?" Really? You know you can go back and look. I can link you the post, or my post wherein I point out exactly what you took. It wasn't just figures, it was entire sections of the work: quote:For example, the US government accounted for over 45% of all US healthcare expenditures in 2006; it spends almost 20% of GDP on healthcare; indeed, it spends more per capita than any other OECD country (see Figure 1), including those with socialist, government-funded healthcare. In short, this is not a free market. quote:One reason healthcare costs are so high is because the industry is subsidized; and one reason government intervention only grows is because you can expect more of anything that is subsidized. Doctors and physicians raise their prices on those paying privately to cover those who do not pay, i.e., those the government pays for through theft, a.k.a. taxes. Government is a poor individual's (and everyone's) worst enemy, or at least should be when recognized for what it is and does. Fortunately, there are entrepreneurs who compete in the healthcare industry, despite government's attempts to hinder competition. vs. quote:The US government accounted for over 45% of all US healthcare expenditures in 2006. It spent almost 20% of GDP on healthcare. In fact it spends more per capita than any other OECD country, including those with socialist, government funded healthcare. It should go without saying that this is not a free market. Yours is formatted, I'll give you that, but sections of this were taken verbatim or just subtly altered to try and pass as your own work. I'm sorry if you consider it a distraction that I point out you blatantly tried to pass off someone elses work as your own, but that is really loving annoying to those of us who put in the effort to debate with you and try and talk the mods down from having you banned when you say or do stupid poo poo. I think I've earned the courtesy of an apology for your dishonesty and your unwillingness/delay in admitting it, but I guess we simply disagree. quote:The real main point of that post was to show the exponential rise in healthcare costs that have outpaced the consumer price index started almost precisely after Johnson's Great Society programs were put into place in the late 1960s. This data point combined with economic theory about monetary expansion and the effects of inflation on State spending in specific markets AND the reduction or elimination of price competition through over reliance on third party payer systems is, to my mind, more than enough to prove a correlation between State action and the fact that medical costs have spiraled out of control. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. Correlation is not causation. Congrats, you've proven a correlation between State action and the fact that medical costs have gone up. I'm sure there is a correlation between the speed of computers and the price of medical care since 1960, or oil prices or gently caress knows what else. I know there is a correlation between medical prices and the advance of medical treatment, and that there is a correlation between people (such as the elderly) actually getting treatment vs being left to die. It doesn't matter that you've proven there is a correlation, because a correlation proves nothing: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
I mean, leaving aside the fact that you've already discarded some of your favorites that we have dirt on, it's been well established that Molyneux is an unrepentant misogynist. Hoppe may choose to run with the "white" bit, Molyneux runs with the "male" bit. So, OK, some of them are racists, some of them are misogynists, some of them are (probably) homophobes, they're all idiots.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I want to list a few of my biggest intellectual teachers and I want you to tell me which ones you think are racist. Surely most of them must be racist, right? Surely they are all closeted KKK members and white supremacists? Have you experienced a severe brain trauma? We've done this, with citations. I already did this, months ago, with Block and Molyneux and a bunch of other shmoes you listed back then. You immediately came back with "I don't think this racism thing is productive." You're the one taking us in circles about racism, not us. Oh and it looks like Hoppe and Rothbard have snuck out of your little club, but Rothbard hasn't managed to sneak out of your avatar. Rothbard was a defender of apartheid, by definition he was a racist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes. Secession and States' Rights in America has only ever been (explicit or coded) a tactic for racist state governments to resist and rebel against the federal government whenever it comes in and tells them they can't own/disenfranchise/lynch/discriminate against black people. You cannot remove secession from its historical context and talk about how the South has a "right" to secede but you disagree with the reasons. They don't. There's no moral right to secede so you can keep your slaves. They signed a contract, a contract called the Constitution of the loving United States of America and you don't get to just unilaterally dissolve a contract on your terms without the agreement of your counterparties, sorry. I can't even unilaterally leave my HOA and remove their easement from my deed if I don't like the neighborhood plants they're buying with my HOA dues, but you think the South should have been able to unilaterally dissolve the Constitution so they could keep their slaves? Shut the gently caress up. I posted this quote from Lysander Spooner earlier but nobody commented on it. So I want to repost it and have someone respond to what he said. I find his arguments to be very compelling. He didn't support the Confederacy. In fact he was one of the leading abolitionists who had by that point been working for decades to get rid of the institution of slavery. You should look up the rest of this writing because it deserves to be read in its entirety. But I'd like you to respond to just this section for a start. And now these lenders of blood-money demand their pay; and the government, so called, becomes their tool, their servile, slavish, villanous tool, to extort it from the labor of the enslaved people both of the North and South. It is to be extorted by every form of direct, and indirect, and unequal taxation. Not only the nominal debt and interest -- enormous as the latter was -- are to be paid in full; but these holders of the debt are to be paid still further -- and perhaps doubly, triply, or quadruply paid -- by such tariffs on imports as will enable our home manufacturers to realize enormous prices for their commodities; also by such monopolies in banking as will enable them to keep control of, and thus enslave and plunder, the industry and trade of the great body of the Northern people themselves. In short, the industrial and commercial slavery of the great body of the people, North and South, black and white, is the price which these lenders of blood money demand, and insist upon, and are determined to secure, in return for the money lent for the war. This programme having been fully arranged and systematized, they put their sword into the hands of the chief murderer of the war**, and charge him to carry their scheme into effect. And now he, speaking as their organ, says, "LET US HAVE PEACE." The meaning of this is: Submit quietly to all the robbery and slavery we have arranged for you, and you can have "peace." But in case you resist, the same lenders of blood-money, who furnished the means to subdue the South, will furnish the means again to subdue you. These are the terms on which alone this government, or, with few exceptions, any other, ever gives "peace" to its people. The whole affair, on the part of those who furnished the money, has been, and now is, a deliberate scheme of robbery and murder; not merely to monopolize the markets of the South, but also to monopolize the currency, and thus control the industry and trade, and thus plunder and enslave the laborers, of both North and South. And Congress and the president are today the merest tools for these purposes. They are obliged to be, for they know that their own power, as rulers, so-called, is at an end, the moment their credit with the blood-money loan-mongers fails. They are like a bankrupt in the hands of an extortioner. They dare not say nay to any demand made upon them. And to hide at once, if possible, both their servility and crimes, they attempt to divert public attention, by crying out that they have "Abolished Slavery!" That they have "Saved the Country!" That they have "Preserved our Glorious Union!" and that, in now paying the "National Debt," as they call it (as if the people themselves, ALL OF THEM WHO ARE TO BE TAXED FOR ITS PAYMENT, had really and voluntarily joined in contracting it), they are simply "Maintaining the National Honor!" By "maintaining the national honor," they mean simply that they themselves, open robbers and murderers, assume to be the nation, and will keep faith with those who lend them the money necessary to enable them to crush the great body of the people under their feet; and will faithfully appropriate, from the proceeds of their future robberies and murders, enough to pay all their loans, principal and interest. The pretense that the "abolition of slavery" was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of "maintaining the national honor." Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery? Or what government, except one resting upon the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable of maintaining slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general -- not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only "as a war measure," and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man -- although that was not the motive of the war -- as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. There was no difference of principle -- but only of degree -- between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon men's natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ from each other only in degree. If their object had really been to abolish slavery, or maintain liberty or justice generally, they had only to say: All, whether white or black, who want the protection of this government, shall have it; and all who do not want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in peace. Had they said this, slavery would necessarily have been abolished at once; the war would have been saved; and a thousand times nobler union than we have ever had would have been the result. It would have been a voluntary union of free men; such a union as will one day exist among all men, the world over, if the several nations, so called, shall ever get rid of the usurpers, robbers, and murderers, called governments, that now plunder, enslave, and destroy them. Still another of the frauds of these men is, that they are now establishing, and that the war was designed to establish, "a government of consent." The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this -- that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot. This idea was the dominant one on which the war was carried on; and it is the dominant one, now that we have got what is called "peace." Their pretenses that they have "Saved the Country," and "Preserved our Glorious Union," are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people. This they call "Saving the Country"; as if an enslaved and subjugated people -- or as if any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be hereafter) -- could be said to have any country. This, too, they call "Preserving our Glorious Union"; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated. All these cries of having "abolished slavery," of having "saved the country," of having "preserved the union," of establishing "a government of consent," and of "maintaining the national honor," are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats -- so transparent that they ought to deceive no one -- when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has suceeded the war, or for now compelling the people to pay the cost of the war, or for compelling anybody to support a government that he does not want. The lesson taught by all these facts is this: As long as mankind continue to pay "national debts," so-called -- that is, so long as they are such dupes and cowards as to pay for being cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered -- so long there will be enough to lend the money for those purposes; and with that money a plenty of tools, called soldiers, can be hired to keep them in subjection. But when they refuse any longer to pay for being thus cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered, they will cease to have cheats, and usurpers, and robbers, and murderers and blood-money loan-mongers for masters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I posted this quote from Lysander Spooner earlier but nobody commented on it. So I want to repost it and have someone respond to what he said. I find his arguments to be very compelling. He didn't support the Confederacy. In fact he was one of the leading abolitionists who had by that point been working for decades to get rid of the institution of slavery. You should look up the rest of this writing because it deserves to be read in its entirety. But I'd like you to respond to just this section for a start. Very compelling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I have absolutely no problem going back to speaking about healthcare or discussing economics or any other topic. But the whole "racism" thing is not productive. We have gone around that circle many times now. But let's take a summary of libertarian thinkers. Because the assertion is not merely that Hoppe and Rothbard said some potentially racist things at one time or another but that libertarianism itself is fundamentally racist and supremacist. That is what many of you have been arguing. I want to list a few of my biggest intellectual teachers and I want you to tell me which ones you think are racist. Surely most of them must be racist, right? Surely they are all closeted KKK members and white supremacists? Wow, are we doing this again? You're going to drop that exact list from the last libertarian thread? Okay then, I'm going to just copy and paste my old post: quote:JRod. I for one am actually happy to move the topic beyond the racist tendencies of your philosophers. We've reached the point where everything has been said that can be said on the matter. No one reading this thread will be convinced by your non-arguments, regarding this issue, but the thread is becoming a bit of a circle jerk. In fairness of actually giving you a new topic to stick your foot in I'm actually going to offer you several options below as to what I think would be a good source of future discussion. you can pick from them if you want, or you can try something else, I'm just going to offer them to you. However, before that I do want to touch on one teeny, tiny little thing. While I'm at it I'm also going to dig up this from earlier in this thread: quote:On Marriage: That's their entire job, 'yes' or 'no' Put some false eyelashes on, push your tits up and say yes or no. That's their loving job, yes or no. And that's the foundation of just about everything that goes on in the world, is the woman saying yes or no. quote:On Marriage again: Do you want to be this vagina parasite that inhales wallets up her cooch without even crouching? eeek, some sort of reverse vacuum cleaner that Hoovers coins out of penises? I mean that's not what you want, right? You don't want to be that! Like, we (men) don't know what it's like to get paid for having an organ. quote:On wives and children: "Well if they chose a man who's not around, then they are still responsible for that choice... the woman is the gatekeeper, because the woman is the one who suffers a lot more of the pregnancy. Historically what would hapen prior to the welfare state is the woman who got pregnant outside of wedlock... would go on vacation.. give birth to the child, the child would be given up for adoption, which was in the best interest of the child, because children who are adopted into two parent households do just fine. They do just fine relative to everybody else. quote:Stefan Molynuex about his mother:"Yes she is! That's why she's not loving DEAD now! The bond was strong enough that I didn't loving kill her, and that's my forgiveness." quote:On Megalomania - When I recognize that if it's not for this show and me, right now, for all that I can see, people might have to wait another 2000 years, or 2500 years, for someone to come along who's willing to take this stand... [...] It is a big responsibility, one I take very seriously, but it is one I have to manage. If you're a surgeon, there's always somebody that needs surgery, ... so when do you sleep? Well, its a challenge." quote:On Physicists - I frankly don't care. [About unknown phenomena] Physicists kind of piss me off, 'cause they've always got their loving pale hands in my goddamned wallet, and stealing from my child's future, indebting her. You know, go be a loving engineer, you lazy, pasty bastards. Go do something useful that people wanna buy. Stop loving around with the essennce of who gives a crap and go make me a loving iphone. You guys are worse than academics. quote:On 'Female Sadism' - I assume your mother, right, I mean, she was attempting to achieve some sort of grim, ungodly, bloody satisfaction through her cruelty. [...] When you realize that your caregiver is deriving intense, possibily orgasmic satisfaction over beating you, you can't feel safe ever again. [...] Yeah, female sadism is at the icy root of so many of the world's problems; It's so unacknowledged. This is to me why women, when women pretend to be victims in the world... it is so deeply offensive to so many hundreds of millions of us who were victims of extreme female sadism. The idea that women... cry victim, victim, victim... gently caress! Try being one of these bitch's kids, and see what kind of patriarchy we had access to. quote:On Megalomania AGAIN - This show, it is not going to fail. It is not going to fail because it is not up to me whether this show succeeds or fails because I don't have the option of failure. Because the kind of communicator who can turn complex philosophical concepts into emotionally actionable to do lists for people is so rare that they come along every couple hundred years if they are lucky. I don't have the choice to fail, I don't have the option to fail. Not because I want to be front and center in the moral progress of the species, but because the moral progress of the species is aboslutely essential and because I have a child. So... Jrodefeld. Before we dig into your list, please explain to me how Stephan Molyneux is not a reprehensible, Misogynistic piece of human excrement with a god complex. Why the gently caress should I trust your opinion on whether someone is racist, white supremacist, misogynistic or anything else when you have repeatedly refused over multiple threads to admit that Mr.Molyneux is an awful human being with awful ideas about women.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Does this make you more or less likely to repost portions of it verbatim as though they were your own words in the future? But this has nothing to do with race. He is just saying that we, as human beings, are not equal to each other in many different ways. Some are smarter and others dumber. Some good looking and others ugly. Some athletic and others not. Some ambitious and hard working while others are lazy and unmotivated. The differences occur between people within a society and culture and between different cultures. This is just a description of observable reality. The issue is that you all have come to the conclusion that Hoppe and libertarians are racist so you are making logical leaps, filling in the blanks, and attributing the motivation to various passages like the above to racism. But that is not what is being said. You may not like Hoppe or his arguments, but you at least should have the honesty to state his positions correctly and fairly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
Caros posted:On Molyneux jrod claims to be morally superior to us. But if this is morality, morality is worthless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:And now these lenders of blood-money demand their pay; and the government, so called, becomes their tool, their servile, slavish, villanous tool, to extort it from the labor of the enslaved people both of the North and South. It is to be extorted by every form of direct, and indirect, and unequal taxation. Not only the nominal debt and interest -- enormous as the latter was -- are to be paid in full; but these holders of the debt are to be paid still further -- and perhaps doubly, triply, or quadruply paid -- by such tariffs on imports as will enable our home manufacturers to realize enormous prices for their commodities; also by such monopolies in banking as will enable them to keep control of, and thus enslave and plunder, the industry and trade of the great body of the Northern people themselves. In short, the industrial and commercial slavery of the great body of the people, North and South, black and white, is the price which these lenders of blood money demand, and insist upon, and are determined to secure, in return for the money lent for the war. "Corporate money in politics corrupts the process and gives capitalist interests undue voice"? Yeah, I agree. "Capitalists subjugate the working class into wage slavery"? Totally with you! So how an argument that capitalists and the unlimited flow of money will induce negative outcomes support libertarianism again? Also, just a friendly typographical note, generally bolding is used for emhpasis, not to make a wall of text even more impenetrable. jrodefeld posted:But this has nothing to do with race. He is just saying that we, as human beings, are not equal to each other in many different ways. Some are smarter and others dumber. Some good looking and others ugly. Some athletic and others not. Some ambitious and hard working while others are lazy and unmotivated. And the differences are genetic, as he explicitly states, and the ones that are better are white, as he also explicitly states. Isn't your entire philosophy supposed to be based on deductive reasoning? How can you not see that this is what he's saying? Like, when he says later on that white men are better at everything, and that follows him saying groups are better than others because of genetics........? Muscle Tracer fucked around with this message at 07:51 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:
And with that I think we can be done.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
I will say it: libertarianism and libertarians promote racism and unfair outcomes for minority peoples enough that white supremacy is core to their belief system. Because they never put a color to the chaff pruned by the power of the capitalist class in an unrestrained free market is immaterial in light of the white supremacist views of nearly all the notable contributors to anarcho-capitalist and paleoconservative thought.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:But this has nothing to do with race. He is just saying that we, as human beings, are not equal to each other in many different ways. Some are smarter and others dumber. Some good looking and others ugly. Some athletic and others not. Some ambitious and hard working while others are lazy and unmotivated. However, funnily enough, he keeps hapring on about white, heterosexual males as the ones who are, overall, more advanced, more upright, less evil, etc. etc. For gently caress's sakes, Caros alerady pointed this out to you, but you know what? I'll happily do it again: Hans Hermann Hoppe posted:More specifically, he realistically notices that libertarianism, as an intellectual system, was first developed and furthest elaborated in the Western world, by white males, in white male dominated societies. That it is in white, heterosexual male dominated societies, where adherence to libertarian principles is the greatest and the deviations from them the least severe (as indicated by comparatively less evil and extortionist State policies). That it is white heterosexual men, who have demonstrated the greatest ingenuity, industry, and economic prowess. And that it is societies dominated by white heterosexual males, and in particular by the most successful among them, which have produced and accumulated the greatest amount of capital goods and achieved the highest average living standards. It's not even subtext in this paragraph. He's out and out saying that white, heterosexual males are inherently superior to everyone else. Note, also, that it is only white males who are singled out as being inherently superior. Not only is HHH a racist homophobe, but like most racist homophobes he's also a misogynist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
quote:No Jrodefeld, you don't 'know' hoppe not to be racist. You don't have any special information about this situation, and I doubt you are actually him. Wouldn't it be fantastic if he was, though?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
Rothbard posted:How can we in the United States help South African blacks? There is no way that we can end the apartheid system. But one thing we can do is the exact opposite of the counsel of our misled crusaders. Anybody who can read this without letting out a fart from laughing too hard should be either sold as a free good or controlled as a pest
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
I love Murray Rothbard. I am not a big fan of him having supporters of his ideas, but he's produced such amazing treatises. Everyone's favorite is obviously the Free Market In Children one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I have absolutely no problem going back to speaking about healthcare or discussing economics or any other topic. But the whole "racism" thing is not productive. We have gone around that circle many times now. But let's take a summary of libertarian thinkers. Because the assertion is not merely that Hoppe and Rothbard said some potentially racist things at one time or another but that libertarianism itself is fundamentally racist and supremacist. That is what many of you have been arguing. I want to list a few of my biggest intellectual teachers and I want you to tell me which ones you think are racist. Surely most of them must be racist, right? Surely they are all closeted KKK members and white supremacists? And just for shits and giggles before bed. Racist or Majorly associated with Racists Sheldon Richman - Wrote for Reason magazine which as I've mentioned, posted numerous examples of Aparthied support and Holocaust Denial. More damning is the fact that he was a temporary board member for the Institute for Historical Review, which is pretty much the Holocaust Denial think tank (insofar as that is basically all they do). Also you have never quoted an article or made any mention of Sheldon Richman except when you are trying to appear to have thinkers who are not racist. Tom Woods - An easy one. An avowed member of the League of the South which the Southern Poverty Law Center describes (for good reason) as a neo-confederate hate group. Absolutely a racist. Walter Block - Argued that "Otherwise, slavery wasn't so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc. The only real problem was that this relationship was compulsory." Yeah... And look! An actual libertarian you've quoted in this thread! Probably Racist and definitely Associated with Racists Jacob Hornberger - Massive associations with Ron and Rand Paul, which basically puts him in the same typical social circle as two dog whistle racists. More the the point, he's close friends with Rand Paul's fired advisor "The Southern Avenger." He goes in the maybe only because I can't find proof that he has attended League of the South meetings in person. Also you have never quoted an article or made any mention of Jacob Hornberger except when you are trying to appear to have thinkers who are not racist. Scott Horton - League of the South connections. Somewhat tenuous, but I'd say anyone who interviews multiple members of the league of the south in a positive fashion is probably on the borderline. He'll go in the maybe. Also you have never quoted an article or made any mention of Scott Horton except when you are trying to appear to have thinkers who are not racist. Might not be Racist. Anthony Gregory - I can't find poo poo about this guy other than a spartan wikipedia, so you get a pass. Also you have never quoted an article or made any mention of Anthony Gregory except when you are trying to appear to have thinkers who are not racist. Not Racist Gary Chartier - I actually can't find a bad thing about him, and a lot of positive stuff. So good on you! I'm going to get the rest in the morning as it is 1:00 here. Anyone else want to field some, go nuts. Caros fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Stephan Molyneux Ugh, fine. I'll amend my original declaration to racist and/or sexist. I was starting on the rest of it but realized by the time I got 1/10th into it someone like Caros or SedanChair would have a list with examples ready to drop, and lo and behold, there it is above me! jrodefeld posted:But this has nothing to do with race. He is just saying that we, as human beings, are not equal to each other in many different ways. Some are smarter and others dumber. Some good looking and others ugly. Some athletic and others not. Some ambitious and hard working while others are lazy and unmotivated. "The white man's culture is just better by every possible metric, it has nothing to do with skin color." ~ a non-racist Wolfsheim fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 08:10
|
|
|
jrod, what happens in libertopia if everyone else is using leaded gasoline but I don't like breathing lead all day? Can I somehow sue everybody? What if no one will respond to my summons? What if all of the DROs just laugh at me and drop me from coverage? This feels like a situation where I'm going to get aggressed upon all the time despite everyone voluntarily following the non-aggression principle, and it makes me want to turn to the loving embrace of statism, where I can force everyone to stop forcing me to breathe excessive amounts of lead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:Ugh, fine. I'll amend my original declaration to racist and/or sexist. I was starting on the rest of it but realized by the time I got 1/10th into it someone like Caros or SedanChair would have a list with examples ready to drop, and lo and behold, there it is above me! He is trying to argue that hoppe is making a qualitative statement, that 'white men' made our current society, and objectively we are better because of it. This is perhaps tangentially true, but when you look at the rest of that article and some of Hoppe's other work it is abundantly clear that hoppe believes that this means the white man is just 'better'
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 08:15
|
|
|
Scott Horton is a friend of a friend, he seems like a decent guy who is mostly focused on the military-industrial complex. He wastes a lot of time and effort by trying to tie it to Austrian monetary theory, however. Or wait, I'm talking about the radio show Scott Horton. Isn't there another Scott Horton in the movement?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 08:18
|
|
|
Sorry, if you think that talking about the innate superiority of western cultures of freedom while ignoring the racist, hypocritical colonial legacy that created them, then you are a racist. You, jrodfeld, are a reprehensible racist and your ideas are morally bankrupt. That is c clear by your defense of plainly biased and racist readings of history.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 08:19
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I posted this quote from Lysander Spooner earlier but nobody commented on it. So I want to repost it and have someone respond to what he said. I find his arguments to be very compelling. He didn't support the Confederacy. In fact he was one of the leading abolitionists who had by that point been working for decades to get rid of the institution of slavery. You should look up the rest of this writing because it deserves to be read in its entirety. But I'd like you to respond to just this section for a start. Before I respond to this, I'm going to just do this to show you how it's actually done: Lysander Spooner posted:And now these lenders of blood-money demand their pay; and the government, so called, becomes their tool, their servile, slavish, villanous tool, to extort it from the labor of the enslaved people both of the North and South. It is to be extorted by every form of direct, and indirect, and unequal taxation. Not only the nominal debt and interest -- enormous as the latter was -- are to be paid in full; but these holders of the debt are to be paid still further -- and perhaps doubly, triply, or quadruply paid -- by such tariffs on imports as will enable our home manufacturers to realize enormous prices for their commodities; also by such monopolies in banking as will enable them to keep control of, and thus enslave and plunder, the industry and trade of the great body of the Northern people themselves. In short, the industrial and commercial slavery of the great body of the people, North and South, black and white, is the price which these lenders of blood money demand, and insist upon, and are determined to secure, in return for the money lent for the war. And, like SedanChair pointed out already, and I mentioned on a previous page, quoting Socialists in defense of Libertarianism is missing the point by a mile. Read this thing again, because it does not say what you think it's saying. Spooner is raging against the Capitalist classes usurping the government to prosecute a war for economic gain, not against the State as such. He's even saying it straight out in the very first part: Lysander Spooner, again posted:And now these lenders of blood-money demand their pay; and the government, so called, becomes their tool, their servile, slavish, villanous tool, to extort it from the labor of the enslaved people both of the North and South. It is to be extorted by every form of direct, and indirect, and unequal taxation. Not only the nominal debt and interest -- enormous as the latter was -- are to be paid in full; but these holders of the debt are to be paid still further -- and perhaps doubly, triply, or quadruply paid -- by such tariffs on imports as will enable our home manufacturers to realize enormous prices for their commodities; also by such monopolies in banking as will enable them to keep control of, and thus enslave and plunder, the industry and trade of the great body of the Northern people themselves. In short, the industrial and commercial slavery of the great body of the people, North and South, black and white, is the price which these lenders of blood money demand, and insist upon, and are determined to secure, in return for the money lent for the war. All the rest of the piece flows from this premise: That the capitalists have usurped the government and the governments levying of taxes for their own ends. That they will use their power over the government to subdue anyone who dares to resist. Of course, it's also anti-government, but Spooner's main ire is focused on the bankers and capitalists that used the war to reap "blood-money", and who will use the governments power - in Spooner's view - to give themselves or entrench existing monopolies, and destroy the rights of laborers by force of arms if necessary so that everyone instead of 'just' african-americans are enslaved. Once again, JRode: Spooner's piece is, if anything, a Socialist/Anarcho-Syndicalist critique of 19th century Capitalism. It doesn't say what you think it's saying. Edit: Whoops! Sorry, I missed Muscle Tracer also pointing out the stupidity in trying to claim Spooner for Libertarianism. TLM3101 fucked around with this message at 08:39 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
Caros posted:
Inasmuch as you cannot reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into, all of your effort in this thread is wasted. But it's still pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 08:21
|
|
(concerning racists)
|
Oh, and before I sleep it is worth pointing out that molyneux is also a racist. He just doesn't make money saying racist things so it is far less prevalent in his work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
Let's all focus on one question. jrodefeld do you know what the First International was? Don't google it just answer the question. Spooner knew what it was, he was a member of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
This thread moves fast so I kinda skipped it but did anyone point out that there were four slave states fighting on the Union side in the civil war? And that Jrod's plan would in all likelyhood have grown the Confederacy, and that one of those states was Maryland meaning that the USA's capital would be completely surrounded by a hostile foreign power? All of this ignoring that the CSA attacked first, of course?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:We are not talking about slavery, which is a categorically different sort of thing than a person excluding you from their private property. Slavery was a violent act of subjugation and denial of peoples humanity and property right in their own bodies. Violent action against the perpetrators of such injustice was not only warranted but is morally required. So the NAP applies only when you decide that it does or does not. Convenient. quote:What if the market fails and most people are still racist and choose to exclude minorities from public businesses? In the first place it should be pointed out that discrimination and segregation in public businesses had already been dying out, with holdovers mostly in racist parts of the South. Without State subsidy for such discriminatory policies, economic pressures tend to break up such discrimination. A business that excludes people faces a distinct competitive disadvantage vis a vis a business that serves everyone. This is not born out by history, especially when you are talking about a minority group that institutionally has lower purchasing power. Additionally it assumes normal distribution of human action. Humans do not behave according to distributions. quote:But even if there still existed a great deal of discrimination based on race, you should continue to try to change peoples minds. Open up your own business. Encourage solidarity among the discriminated against classes. So in other words, racial discrimination is fine as long as the greater population believes it is fine. All you can do is throw your hands up and blame the whims of the free market. Just FYI, it is these sorts of acceptable outcomes that make people question your dedication to social justice. I mean, both you and my parents claim to not be racists. But my parents send me pictures of random rappers to inform me of the true nature of Trayvon Martin, and they remind me that they can't be racist because they don't dislike Herman Cain who is totally one of the good ones. You support a system that allows institutional racism and provides society with only indirect action as its only means, a means that has proven time and time again to be inadequate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:We are not talking about slavery, which is a categorically different sort of thing than a person excluding you from their private property. Slavery was a violent act of subjugation and denial of peoples humanity and property right in their own bodies. Violent action against the perpetrators of such injustice was not only warranted but is morally required. Wait, I thought that the War of Northern Aggression was completely unjustified. I thought you'd already empirically proven that Lincoln was a monster who started a war only to expand the federal government and that you would have just let the south secede peacefully until they got rid of their slaves. But now here you are arguing that violent action against people who keep slaves (the south) is not only warranted, but morally required. Which is is JRodefeld?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:We are not talking about slavery, which is a categorically different sort of thing than a person excluding you from their private property. Slavery was a violent act of subjugation and denial of peoples humanity and property right in their own bodies. Violent action against the perpetrators of such injustice was not only warranted but is morally required. Wait a second, you spent so many pages defending the Confederacy and citing a Neo-Confederate, and now you are doubling down? What happened? jrodefeld posted:What if the market fails and most people are still racist and choose to exclude minorities from public businesses? In the first place it should be pointed out that discrimination and segregation in public businesses had already been dying out, with holdovers mostly in racist parts of the South. Without State subsidy for such discriminatory policies, economic pressures tend to break up such discrimination. A business that excludes people faces a distinct competitive disadvantage vis a vis a business that serves everyone. The Market did fail. It took legal action to end segregation and to end exclusion tactics and discrimination. If it was up to the market, that would probably have never changed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 16:07
|
|
