Grand Theft Autobot posted:

At any rate, Lincoln wrote this letter with a loving draft of the Emancipation Proclamation in his loving desk. He was persuaded to wait to unleash it until the situation in the Eastern Theater was improved, lest it look like an act of desperation instead of an act of moral and legal force. Note the date, August 22, 1862, a few weeks before the massive turning point of the war at Antietam. Lincoln issued anlimited Emancipation Proclamation after that battle and the full thing on January 1, 1863.

President Kucinich posted:

Please tell me you have a source for this. I must have it.

Nessus posted:

I'm pretty sure the tenets of praexology say that history only counts when it agrees with his preconcieved notions.

quote:

As the title suggests, Hoppe intends to take the reader through a history of social forms. You might think this would entail going through a good chunk of historical sources to document the actual historical shifts between these identified epochs. But no.

From the very first sentence of the introduction of the work (graciously provided by Mises Fellow David Gordon), the reader is informed that this isn't your grandfather's history book. Hoppe explains that he does not intend "to engage in standard history, i.e., history as it is written by historians, but to offer a logical or sociological reconstruction of history, informed by actual historical events, but motivated more fundamentally by theoretical — philosophical and economic — concerns." Gordon refers to this method as "theoretical history" and counts Hoppe as one of the masters of the genre, but others may know this method by its more familiar name — "just making stuff up" — and observe that Hoppe is the master of the genre only because he's the sole person writing in it.

Grand Theft Autobot posted:

Page 74 of This Mighty Scourge by McPherson. Here is the essay in question, The Saratoga That Wasn't.

Read it and weep, jrod.

edit: Library of Congress has a copy of the manuscript, dated July 22, 1862. https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trt025.html

Ograbme posted:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=559372

jrodefeld posted:

But let me clear up a misconception you may have (you hinted at it): Libertarians are incapable of being racists.

Dr Pepper posted:

Grand Theft Autobot posted:

Page 74 of This Mighty Scourge by McPherson. Here is the essay in question, The Saratoga That Wasn't.

Read it and weep, jrod.

edit: Library of Congress has a copy of the manuscript, dated July 22, 1862. https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trt025.html

President Kucinich posted:

Incredible!

Grand Theft Autobot posted:

Jrod, by Tom Woods, do you mean Thomas E. Woods, Jr?

If so, I'm a big fan of his works and would like to partake in an intellectual discussion of them. What have you read by Tom Woods? What talks of his do you find most interesting?

jrodefeld posted:

Surely you're being disingenuous about your alleged "fandom" of Tom Woods, but I certainly don't mind discussing his books or articles.

I am a fan of his daily podcast called "The Tom Woods Show". I don't agree with everything he says, of course, and I think his sympathies are more with conservatism than are mine, but nonetheless he is unfailingly polite, intellectual and informative with each and every guest he has on his show and each and every topic he addresses. Therefore, i do think he runs one of the best libertarian talk shows around.

I'll let you go first. What do you think about Tom Woods and what would YOU like to discuss? Hopefully we won't be talking about how he is somehow a "neo-confederate" (he certainly is not) or that he dares to speak about forbidden topics such as State Nullification and, gasp, even Secession! Surprise me for once and bring up another angle.

Your Dunkle Sans posted:

Here's a question for jrode:

Why are you still here? I mean this sincerely: what do you hope to still accomplish here?

If it's to still try and convince people about the merits of libertarianism or win people over, I don't understand how you could rationally see that's still possible. You've been posting here literally for years now. Pretty much anyone who posts or has posted in DnD knows about you by now. Despite spending countless paragraphs and pages of posts to (selectively) debate people, there's little if any evidence of you winning people over to your side; if anything, you've only managed to alienate more people and drive people away from libertarianism by demonstrating it as an intellectually and morally bankrupt ideology.

At best, you've served as a rhetorical punching bag for people to flex their debating muscles and practice as a living strawman for libertarianism while they still remain unconvinced. At worst, you're a constant target of scorn and contempt as people outright disparage you for your racist, sociopathic views and mock you for being publicly scammed multiple times and illegally selling bootlegged movies while still praising the values and ideology that abused you in the first place.

So, again, if you haven't seen any positive gains in your efforts at all in the past several years, why do you still post here? What do you see that you've accomplished from being here at SomethingAwful? What is your rationale for continuing to stay despite being very blatantly unwelcome here?

Etalommi posted:

So Scott Horton seems a little more palatable than most at first glance, with his consistently anti-war, anti-drone, and anti-cop-overreach stance. Let's take a bit of a deeper look at his twitter.

Oh, look. He constantly hates on Sanders, Hillary, and (Rand) Paul, for their "hawkish" foreign policy, but not Trump, Cruz, or Rubio. And supports a Bloomberg run. Shocker, I know. He also cheerleads Trump insulting people, argues with people insulting Trump, and hates Megyn Kelly. He is campaigning for Ron Paul 2016. He calls the government the enemy and calls for it's end without anything I can find (I'm not going to go through all his tweets) about what things look like without it.
.
.
.
Yeaaaaaaah, I can see why he's Jrod's favorite.

jrodefeld posted:

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I recognize you are nearly entirely ignorant of Scott Horton, AntiWar.com and the positions he holds. Scott Horton actually hosts a radio show/podcast and you can listen to it at scotthorton.org. If you don't immediately see that he is as devoutly anti Trump, Cruz and Rubio as he is anti Sanders, Clinton and Rand (?) then you don't have much of a clue. Do you even think through the logic of what you are saying before you say it?

If Scott Horton blasts Rand Paul for being too hawkish on foreign policy, what on earth would make you think he'd be more favorable towards Trump, Cruz or Rubio who are in every way more hawkish than Rand is?

jrodefeld posted:

Surely you're being disingenuous about your alleged "fandom" of Tom Woods, but I certainly don't mind discussing his books or articles.

I am a fan of his daily podcast called "The Tom Woods Show". I don't agree with everything he says, of course, and I think his sympathies are more with conservatism than are mine, but nonetheless he is unfailingly polite, intellectual and informative with each and every guest he has on his show and each and every topic he addresses. Therefore, i do think he runs one of the best libertarian talk shows around.

I'll let you go first. What do you think about Tom Woods and what would YOU like to discuss? Hopefully we won't be talking about how he is somehow a "neo-confederate" (he certainly is not) or that he dares to speak about forbidden topics such as State Nullification and, gasp, even Secession! Surprise me for once and bring up another angle.

Nolanar posted:

Actually, I think this:


Pretty definitively proves you're a racist! I've actually tried to defend you from this poo poo in the past, saying that you're just oblivious to the implications of defending the Confederacy and quoting Hoppe and Rothbard. But this is you, saying that it's somehow not racist for Zimmerman to stalk and murder a black kid for being black, because other black people have committed crimes. This is you saying that it's totally not racist for you personally to decide that some random black guy you know nothing about is "probably a gang member" because the two gangs you know of off the top of your head are majority black.

So I'm done trying to give you the benefit of the doubt on this. You don't just quote racists. You don't stumble into defending racist causes. You aren't just obliviously defending law and order policies. You, personally, hate and fear black men, and openly admit to assuming they are all violent criminals.

And then you have the loving sack to claim that you not only support Black Lives Matter, but support their cause more than the people actually protesting do! You accuse them of being "infiltrated and co-opted by leftists" for not supporting your vile Jim-Crow-born ideology, and then when push comes to shove you accuse us (and all of BLM!) of being racist for "jumping to the defense" of black kids being murdered in the street.

And it's little doubt why you keep quoting Hoppe despite everything we've pointed out about him. You don't see his racist rants about "negroid time preference" as a liability to be glossed over, you agree with every loving word of it. You want his Covenant Communities to come about, so you can forcibly eject all the homosexuals and democrats rather than try to defend your beliefs against them.

So put up or shut up. Either go have some deep introspection on why you consistently support white supremacist causes and thinkers, or embrace your white supremacism outright and post all the vile invective you've been holding back.

jrodefeld posted:

You, frankly, don't have a clue what you are talking about. I want to caution people that somehow think that I am somehow obsessing about race, that you all do fine obsessing about race without me. The reason I react so strongly to this character assassination attack against me, is that I personally focus a great deal on the systemic racism and discrimination that the State and private citizens inflict upon minority communities in the United States. This is a passion of mine. I love black culture, black music, black comedy and so forth. And I'm not just saying that. Since middle school, I've idolized black role models and I've identified with civil rights causes as long as I was ever politically aware.

We should call this line of character assassination what it truly is. It is a twenty-first century attempt at censorship. If you can assassinate a person's character, you don't have to bother with refuting their arguments.

I serious thinker faces an argument head-on without resorting to special pleading.

Furthermore, I think I wrote a small handful of posts about the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman trial shortly after it erupted, which was several years ago, and you have to resort to digging up those old posts out of context to attack me on this thread? That strikes of desperation.

It is as if you feel that your primary duty is to first justify calling your opponent a racist. That is why whenever I mention I libertarian thinker I learned from, your first response is to comb through their twitter feed or look through every article or book they ever published to find some rationale in order to call them a bigot of some sort. To call this disingenuous is far too kind.


The task of any criminal defense is to demonstrate reasonable doubt. With regards to the Zimmerman/Trayvon trial, the only relevant fact was whether Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force. If there wasn't sufficient evidence for murder, then according to our legal standards, he must be acquitted. I shouldn't have to mention it, but given the audience I feel it necessary, it is not a grant of immunity from any wrong doing to acquit someone from murder charges.

If Trayvon had a history of criminal abuse, that IS relevant to whether it is likely that during an altercation with Zimmerman, Trayvon became the aggressor and Zimmerman had legitimate reason to fear for his life. It is not unreasonable for the defense to bring up issues with Trayvon's past.

The idea that I am even bothering to defend multiple year old posts about a long resolved criminal trial is absurd. But what if I was concerned about an ISIS attack on Los Angeles? Would I be unreasonable in being extra cautious about Middle Eastern men who were also Muslims? Would that make me a bigot, even though the clear evidence shows that nearly all ISIS members are Muslims who are of Middle Eastern descent?

As would any reasonable person who didn't want to jump to a premature conclusion, I was attempting to see whether Zimmerman had passed the test of reasonable doubt and whether there was sufficient evidence to convict him of first degree murder. Every single question I posed was entirely relevant to that legal inquiry.

If your entire purpose is to "out the racists" or find bigotry everywhere you look, you can justify labeling anyone as such. But to a rational observer, it looks desperate and dishonest.

jrodefeld posted:

You, frankly, don't have a clue what you are talking about. I want to caution people that somehow think that I am somehow obsessing about race, that you all do fine obsessing about race without me. The reason I react so strongly to this character assassination attack against me, is that I personally focus a great deal on the systemic racism and discrimination that the State and private citizens inflict upon minority communities in the United States. This is a passion of mine. I love black culture, black music, black comedy and so forth. And I'm not just saying that. Since middle school, I've idolized black role models and I've identified with civil rights causes as long as I was ever politically aware.

sudo rm -rf posted:

Hello jrod, why are public health care systems in other industrialized nations better at controlling costs than the health care system in the United States, and how does that contend with your claim that the underlying reason for high heath care costs in the US is government intervention?

jrodefeld posted:

We should call this line of character assassination what it truly is. It is a twenty-first century attempt at censorship. If you can assassinate a person's character, you don't have to bother with refuting their arguments.

jrodefeld posted:

But what if I was concerned about an ISIS attack on Los Angeles? Would I be unreasonable in being extra cautious about Middle Eastern men who were also Muslims? Would that make me a bigot, even though the clear evidence shows that nearly all ISIS members are Muslims who are of Middle Eastern descent?

jrodefeld posted:

The idea that I am even bothering to defend multiple year old posts about a long resolved criminal trial is absurd. But what if I was concerned about an ISIS attack on Los Angeles? Would I be unreasonable in being extra cautious about Middle Eastern men who were also Muslims? Would that make me a bigot, even though the clear evidence shows that nearly all ISIS members are Muslims who are of Middle Eastern descent?

jrodefeld posted:

The idea that I am even bothering to defend multiple year old posts about a long resolved criminal trial is absurd. But what if I was concerned about an ISIS attack on Los Angeles? Would I be unreasonable in being extra cautious about Middle Eastern men who were also Muslims? Would that make me a bigot, even though the clear evidence shows that nearly all ISIS members are Muslims who are of Middle Eastern descent?

jrodefeld posted:

But what if I was concerned about an ISIS attack on Los Angeles? Would I be unreasonable in being extra cautious about Middle Eastern men who were also Muslims? Would that make me a bigot, even though the clear evidence shows that nearly all ISIS members are Muslims who are of Middle Eastern descent?

jrodefeld posted:

Surely you're being disingenuous about your alleged "fandom" of Tom Woods, but I certainly don't mind discussing his books or articles.

I am a fan of his daily podcast called "The Tom Woods Show". I don't agree with everything he says, of course, and I think his sympathies are more with conservatism than are mine, but nonetheless he is unfailingly polite, intellectual and informative with each and every guest he has on his show and each and every topic he addresses. Therefore, i do think he runs one of the best libertarian talk shows around.

I'll let you go first. What do you think about Tom Woods and what would YOU like to discuss? Hopefully we won't be talking about how he is somehow a "neo-confederate" (he certainly is not) or that he dares to speak about forbidden topics such as State Nullification and, gasp, even Secession! Surprise me for once and bring up another angle.

Tom Woods at 00:15 posted:

So, you're all familiar with Plessy v Ferguson, which established the rule of separate but equal...

Tom Woods at 00:50 posted:

The issue before the court was whether the 14th Amendment to the Constitution in fact prohibited racial segregation. The argument was that the 14th amendment called for the expansion of the equal protection of the law for the people in the states. The court came to the conclusion that nobody who drafted the 14th Amendment seriously imagined that it prohibited segregation. So that as long as the segregated facilities were in some sense equal, then the 14th Amendment requirement was satisfied. Hence, the doctrine of “Separate but Equal.”

Nowadays, it is very fashionable to condemn that decision, and maybe for good reason. But strictly from the constitutional point of view, that was what the 14th Amendment drafters obviously believed.... They obviously didn't think the 14th Amendment was incompatible with segregation.....

If people didn't like it, they should change the constitution, but nobody did, as usual.

Tom Woods at 01:36 posted:

But then we got in 1954, this Brown v Board of Education decision....

… where students are sorted into schools by race. So, you couldn't necessarily go to the neighborhood school because you were white, and it was a black school. And in this decision, the Justices clearly wanted to overturn Plessy and Separate but Equal.... but it was clear to them that the 14th Amendment in and of itself didn't prohibit segregation. They didn't simply want to depart from Plessy, because the Supreme Court, at least at that time, thought they had to give at least some credence to tradition.

So, they had to think of some way out of this. The way they managed to do this, is that modern sociological and scientific data, unavailable to the Justices at the time of Plessy, concluded that separate educational facilities were by nature unequal. That segregated schools imbued blacks with a sense of inferiority that would impact them negatively throughout their schooling and careers. So if they were separate, they were in and of themselves, unequal.

Tom Woods at 03:39 posted:

And so this way, they could say they weren't really going against Plessy, just acting on new information. So, in a unanimous decision, they decided that the racial segregation of schools by law was not constitutional, and that the desegregation of the schools had to commence.

A key piece of evidence was the Kenneth Clark “Doll Studies” in which it was shown that blacks have lower self esteem than whites.... the problem, one of the many problems with this study, was that it showed blacks in desegregated schools scored even lower in self esteem than blacks in all-black schools.

Tom Woods at 05:18 posted:

… after the trial, an attorney for the NAACP said about the studies, “I may have described them as 'crap.'

Tom Woods at 05:43 posted:

This decision inspired a lot of activists, lawyers, and Activist Judges. They said, if the Supreme Court can get away with this, with no legal authority, then maybe they could just circumnavigate the usual legislative channels of the Republic, and impose all kinds of values on the country....

Brown emboldened the court to go on to such decisions as Roe v Wade, purporting to find the constitution, incredibly, gave unlimited rights to an abortion. This was an issue that was being settled peacefully on a state by state basis, and turning it into an intractable national controversy.

Tom Woods at 07:00 posted:

Following Brown, a number of cases reached the Supreme Court involving the desgregation of all kinds of places: beaches, golf courses, lunch counters, hotels and other public accomodations, all using the same reasoning from Brown, which obviously did not apply. But the Court ruled segregation unconstitutional in each of these instances, with nothing more than a citation of Brown. So whatever social outcome these Justices wanted, could be brought about by Judicial Fiat.... most people applauded this without thinking that someday the Supreme Court could do this in a decision that they didn't like!

Tom Woods at 08:15 posted:

Green was an integration decision.... the county had a free choice plan, where anybody could choose to go to whatever school they wanted. But none of the white students chose to go to the black school, and very few black students went to the white school. But they were perfectly free to do so...

This is basically like a baseball game, and let's suppose only 5% of the people in the stands are black. Nobody is going to say “We have to stop the game and bus in more fans that are black!”...

It seemed that this principal should hold in the schools, but according to the Court it did not...

As long as the result is that blacks and whites are mixed, you could set up a plan however you want.

Tom Woods at 11:24 posted:

… So now you have forced busing, where in some cases, students are being bussed for over an hour one way, so as to satisfy some racial balancing requirement.

Even black families turned against busing. It destroyed their pride in their neighborhood.

Tom Woods at 12:42 posted:

So, I think its worth considering, what were the effects on black educational outcomes as a result of these policies. We would at least have to expect, that after billions spent on these busing schemes, that at least there is some good news to report in terms of educational performance.

Tom Woods at 13:25 posted:

Well, I want to begin by noting, the literature even before Brown, said that segregation in schools damages blacks' self esteem and impacts their educational performance.... desegregation would eliminate these negative impacts, and would also reduce the level of prejudice of whites against blacks.

So in 1966, the Department of Health released a study that was widely at odds with this thesis.... It found that black and white schools were roughly equivalent in terms of funding, physical plant, and that any differences between them were as likely to favor the black school as the white. The report also concluded that the difference between white and black educational performance could not be explained by differences in schools... and that socioeconomic factors are actually more important than race.

Tom Woods at 15:32 posted:

Liberal academics believed that it didn't matter if schools were segregated by law, or if they were segregated as the innocent result of racially discriminatory housing patterns.

Tom Woods at 15:47 posted:

By the 90's, billions of dollars had been spent, neighborhoods destroyed, racial harmony disrupted, and black educational performance was still low. Now we needed “culturally sensitive” materials. We had to eliminate skills-based tracking.

The statistics have not been heartening. The average black student about to graduate high school performs only slightly better than the average white 8th grader in math and American History...

The racial gaps only partially dissipate when we compare whites and blacks from similar socioeconomic backgrounds.

Tom Woods at 20:13 posted:

Are we seriously to believe that an anti-black, pro-Asian bias permeates the American Education System?

Tom Woods at 22:20 posted:

Various explanations have been adavanced.... a greater prevalence of single-parent families in the black community... as well as cultural differences... reflected for example in parents' expectations of student performance. These points are typically ignored.

Students have been asked, “What grade would you need to get before you got into trouble with your parents?”

Asian students consistently responded: anything below an A-. For whites the threshhold is B-. For blacks, they reported they would only get into trouble for anything less than a C-. You have the occasional black intellectual... like Bill Cosby... who raises these issues, but the black establishment has become so hostile to these obvious observations, that it is considered courageous when a member of the black community steps forward and states the obvious.

Tom Woods at 24:08 posted:

The largest gains for blacks students came in the majority black schools, and the highest gains for white students came in the majority white schools.

Grand Theft Autobot posted:

My favorite part is how every Confederacy Apologist quotes Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley selectively.

Here's the whole thing:

Zanzibar Ham posted:

According to jrod, are states good, or just lesser evils? Does he actually agree with the idea of 'state's rights'?

Tesseraction posted:

This was one of the things I saw in Lies My Teacher Told Me and it was rather illuminating how a single sentence can so easily reverse the narrative.

Who What Now posted:

Yes, this would absolutely make you a bigot. That's like the exact literal definition of bigotry you ignorant loving slime!

jrodefeld posted:

Given that you didn't quote any of my posts here, I don't understand what you are referring to. I WILL respond to your post if you explain what you are talking about a bit better.

jrodefeld posted:

But what if I was concerned about an ISIS attack on Los Angeles? Would I be unreasonable in being extra cautious about Middle Eastern men who were also Muslims? Would that make me a bigot, even though the clear evidence shows that nearly all ISIS members are Muslims who are of Middle Eastern descent?

jrodefeld posted:

Libertarians are incapable of being racists. The philosophy of individual liberty is incompatible with all forms of bigotry, intolerance, and prejudice. A libertarian sees all people as not members of groups but as individuals who should be judged by their character and actions, just as my personal hero Dr Martin Luther King Jr. advocated.

jrodefeld posted:

But what if I was concerned about an ISIS attack on Los Angeles? Would I be unreasonable in being extra cautious about Middle Eastern men who were also Muslims? Would that make me a bigot, even though the clear evidence shows that nearly all ISIS members are Muslims who are of Middle Eastern descent?

jrodefeld posted:

You, frankly, don't have a clue what you are talking about. I want to caution people that somehow think that I am somehow obsessing about race, that you all do fine obsessing about race without me. The reason I react so strongly to this character assassination attack against me, is that I personally focus a great deal on the systemic racism and discrimination that the State and private citizens inflict upon minority communities in the United States. This is a passion of mine.