|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:
Please tell me you have a source for this. I must have it.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 03:50 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 06:14 |
|
President Kucinich posted:Please tell me you have a source for this. I must have it. 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 Grand Theft Autobot fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Feb 9, 2016 |
# ? Feb 9, 2016 04:04 |
I'm pretty sure the tenets of praexology say that history only counts when it agrees with his preconcieved notions.
|
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 04:06 |
|
Nessus posted:I'm pretty sure the tenets of praexology say that history only counts when it agrees with his preconcieved notions. Theoretical history, that is, what you think must have happened based on what you already believe, is the method you're describing. 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.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 04:54 |
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Page 74 of This Mighty Scourge by McPherson. Here is the essay in question, The Saratoga That Wasn't. Causing jrod to weep violates NAP, y'know!~
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 05:37 |
|
jrodefeld posted:But let me clear up a misconception you may have (you hinted at it): Libertarians are incapable of being racists.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 06:27 |
|
"Now let me tell you about how white civilization is objectively better than every other and how the negro can't be allowed to live in our towns."
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 06:30 |
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Page 74 of This Mighty Scourge by McPherson. Here is the essay in question, The Saratoga That Wasn't. Incredible!
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 06:35 |
President Kucinich posted:Incredible!
|
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 06:51 |
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Jrod, by Tom Woods, do you mean Thomas E. Woods, Jr? 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.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 07:30 |
|
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. get a job
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 07:32 |
|
Hi Jrode! Please answer this: Your Dunkle Sans posted:Here's a question for jrode:
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 07:43 |
|
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. 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?
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 07:43 |
|
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? How's that honeydew you been seeing on the side, daddy watermelon has been waiting for ya.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 07:58 |
|
Jrod stop talking about other libertarians because you'll weasel out of defending them anyway. Argue for and defend your own positions. You can easily find dozens of substantive questions directed at you, about your views of libertarianism, throughout the thread(s). Pick some and answer them without referencing or quoting anybody else. Don't take bait about racism and watermelons. Stop talking about bullshit and linking to radio shows. Answer some questions. gently caress.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 08:07 |
|
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. Tom Woods is a straight up plantation-loving racist, and you are either hiding it because you're also a racist or failing to notice it because you're dumb. Here's a hint: when a whole herd of racists congregate they don't need to make continual reference to how they love being racist, because they share an understanding. That's why when Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul get together they probably only talk about golden guineas.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 08:17 |
|
Nolanar posted:Actually, I think this: 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.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 09:18 |
|
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. LA LA LA I DONT HAVE A FEDERAL TAX LIABILITY WHO WANTS TO TALK ABOUT SKIN COLOR?
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 09:29 |
|
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. What's your favorite black movie? This is going to sound a little ridiculous but I am torn between Malcolm X and Black Dynamite.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 09:44 |
|
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?
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 11:26 |
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? While you're at it, can you explain how it is possible for something reasoned out through praexology to be, even in principle, proven incorrect? I can think of all sorts of ways that other things could be disproven. If we found "pranked by satan lol ps jesus sucks" repeating in the DNA of all fossil animals, for instance, we'd probably have to wonder. Even small and lovely psychic abilities would revolutionize understandings of physics. Yet if I understand correctly, a conclusion reached through praexology is completely immune to disproof, transcending even the Pope speaking ex cathedra -- even there, he is limited to teachings of faith and morals that don't contradict established belief, he could be considered to be misquoted, perhaps suffering from mental disorder if he decided to advocate for mass conversion to Islam or your own faith of Libertarianism...
|
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 11:41 |
|
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. You dumb, ignorant gently caress. You actually tried to play that loving card. "Oh, boo-hoo, you are all bullies!" Grow some loving skin, argue the merits of your beliefs in your own words, and maybe learn a little about what censorship really loving is, by visiting one of my favorite law blogs, Popehat. Also, please answer my question, Would an airplane built by Libertarians have square windows? Or if that's too broad, Would you build an airplane with square windows?
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 11:55 |
|
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? Yes that would be unreasonable and yes that would absolutely make you a bigot. It's been years since I was a libertarian but I thought you were supposed to see people as individuals and not as groups, collectively one might say. What criteria allows this sort of thinking? Would you say that you're just being realistic about race?
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 12:08 |
|
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? Yes, it would, just like your lovely mother.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 12:12 |
|
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? "I feel fear around everybody of a certain ethnic group, because I suspect them all of terrorism. Next you're going to be calling THAT racist."
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 12:26 |
|
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? Yes, this would absolutely make you a bigot. That's like the exact literal definition of bigotry you ignorant loving slime!
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 12:59 |
|
"Around <specific ethnic group> never relax" ~jrodefeld, definitely not a racist For real though jrode do you ever wonder why the only people other than libertarians who think the federal government should be abolished and advocate hard for states rights are pro-Confederacy groups? Is it just all a big coincidence or what
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 13:08 |
|
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. Jrod lists Tom Woods, a senior fellow at Mises.org, as his 10th most influential thinker. I too like Tom Woods. Here's my favorite talk from him, found at Mises.org. Tom Woods at 00:15 posted:So, you're all familiar with Plessy v Ferguson, which established the rule of separate but equal... Go on.... 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.” You see, we can't forget that the 14th Amendment says: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. So Tom Woods is right. As long as the schools and water fountains and restaurants are equal, and there's no evidence they aren't, then segregation is perfectly constitutional. You can't argue with the constitution, folks! We're stuck with it. Tom Woods at 01:36 posted:But then we got in 1954, this Brown v Board of Education decision.... I agree. It's like, what if some egghead professor came up tomorrow and said “Free speech is actually harmful to people!” and had a bunch of data and studies showing it. Would we just overturn the First Amendment? No, and we shouldn't have soiled our constitution with Brown v Board either. 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. You see? The Constitution knows best, and all-black schools are what blacks crave. I'm only looking out for the blacks here, and our Constitution. Did you know that mixing in black kids to a school with a majority of white students can be harmful to their self-esteem? I wonder why that is. We'll probably never know. 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.' Shout out to my black friend, which proves this lecture is Not Racist. 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.... Exactly. Those damned activist judges imposed their salacious values of ending Jim Crow, and allowing women to choose what to do with their bodies. We should have just done the peaceful thing and let some states have segregation and illegal abortion. 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! Exactly. We don't like desegregation and access to safe legal abortion. Just imagine if the Supreme Court ever hears a case about gay marriage! 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... 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. 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. Go on.... 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. This is why I love Tom Woods. He gets right to the point: re-segregate the schools, they weren't that bad, and having socioeconomic disadvantages is much worse than being a member of a given race. And, we all know that those things aren't correlated, nor are they essentially the product of a system of institutional racial prejudice. 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. You see? Redlining was and is a purely innocent practice, as I've been saying for years. 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. Tom Woods at 20:13 posted:Are we seriously to believe that an anti-black, pro-Asian bias permeates the American Education System? So the negroid race simply cannot learn. What is to be done, Dr. Woods? 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. 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. I agree with this in its entirety. Resegregate the schools now! Dr. Woods goes on to explain how the barbarous Civil Rights Act of 1964 unduly restricts businesses, because they can't base hiring on racial discrimination. No good employer would ever do that, but Activist Judges expanded the CRA to outlaw intelligence tests because they have a disproportionate racial impact. But that clearly isn't any fault of society! That's blacks' own fault! Jrod, what do you think about Dr. Woods' conclusions? Surely any true Libertarian agrees that the state should be able to forcibly separate the races into distinct schools, that the state should use its men with guns to prevent women from seeking abortions, and that employers should be able to discriminate in hiring based on racially prejudicial factors.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 13:08 |
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:My favorite part is how every Confederacy Apologist quotes Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley selectively. 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.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 13:09 |
|
According to jrod, are states good, or just lesser evils? Does he actually agree with the idea of 'state's rights'?
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 13:14 |
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:According to jrod, are states good, or just lesser evils? Does he actually agree with the idea of 'state's rights'? There's a continuum. Pinochet's Chile and apartheid South Africa are much better than, say, Denmark.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 13:17 |
|
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. It is one of the key arguments that immediately identifies a Confederate Apologist. The letter to Greeley was widely hailed across the North because it illustrated Lincoln's respect for his office and his ordeal. He also reaffirmed his personal abolitionist sympathies. And, hilariously for Apologists, he had written the Emancipation Proclamation a month earlier and already shared it with his Cabinet! Basically, any learned historian knows this poo poo. If they neglect to mention it and just use parts of the Greeley letter they are trying to trick you. Jrod is completely misted by white supremacists, and it is honestly pretty sad.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 13:27 |
|
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! I was all set to start talking about Bayesian statistics and what happens when you have minuscule priors, but honestly this is a much better response.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 13:30 |
|
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.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 13:37 |
|
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? Nearly all ISIS members are Muslims of Middle Eastern descent, therefore nearly all Muslims of Middle Eastern descent are ISIS members, can't argue with that logic. Now I just chant the magic talisman 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. There now I'm not racist and I can presume the content of someone's character by looking at the color of his skin all I like! Eat poo poo, Arabs.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 13:40 |
|
Jrode you're a bitch. A racist bitch. Bitchy McPusserson the eighth, noted coward and wimp. Eat a dick
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 13:45 |
|
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? This can't be harped on enough. Yes, absolutely 100%, being scared of middle eastern men for being middle eastern is racist behavior. Taking that implicit bias and trying to justify it with lovely logic instead of trying to mitigate it is bigotry in its purest form. And for the record, Mr. Pure Logic Deduced from First Principles, "All X are Y" does not imply "All Y are X," or even "Most Y are X." That little jump is exactly how all manner of discriminatory ideas perpetuate themselves.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 13:46 |
|
I'm sure
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 13:50 |
|
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. Well I guess this is consistent since Zimmerman stalked and executed Martin as a private gun owner and landowner so since it wasn't state violence against black people it's all right. It's commendable that you're opposed to state-backed violence against blacks, but I've got to say that's somewhat diminished whenever I remember that your solution is to completely dismantle the federal government and turn over all law enforcement to
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 14:01 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 06:14 |
|
Serious question jrod: once we dismantle the federal government, what would stop the KKK from becoming the law in large parts of the country just as it was before the FBI infiltrated and largely destroyed it? Is racism just over now and people will create a free multicultural society if left to their own devices? If so, does that mean that libertarianism would have failed in the 1880s-1960s when people were racist enough to want the KKK in charge? Does that mean we need a few hundred of years of statism and coercion to force liberal values on everyone before they're ready for pure libertarianism, the ends justify the means you might say. Or was the KKK all a creation of statism that never would have been necessary if Lincoln hadn't unconstitutionally freed the slaves by executive order and then coerced the South into amending the constitution to give a veneer of legitimacy to his illegal expropriation of southern property rights?
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 14:08 |