|
VitalSigns posted:Technically the officials prosecuting Americans for speech are overt not secret Not sure why you are talking about people "prosecuted for speech" and then trying to talk about Edward Snowden, spy contractor, or Chelsea Manning, troop. Or why you're trying to allege there was special secret police involved. You're really sunding exactly like a native libertarian.
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 06:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 11:49 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Aluminum tubes The government hacked those years ago.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 06:45
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Not sure why you are talking about people "prosecuted for speech" and then trying to talk about Edward Snowden, spy contractor, or Chelsea Manning, troop. Didn't notice the "unless they had it coming" clause in the first amendment, very freedomy
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 06:46
|
|
|
Seriously though dude bringing up Dr. King, a man so heavily lionized he has a national holiday named after him, whose writings are part of schools' curriculum, is an odd choice as an example of speech repressed by the government. I'm not saying it's wrong, just odd.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 06:49
|
|
|
You're talking about the guy who is lionized by a government that murdered him and then stripped out all the revolutionary ideas from the writings that it propagates through education and media and turned them into "be nice and don't make waves" Murdering dissidents and then rewriting history to claim they were on the government's side all along, the truest expression of freedom.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 06:53
|
|
|
It's a different kind of political control but yes, the US does a very good job of giving just enough ground when its abuses become unsustainable while preserving as much of the spirit as possible. So sure, now it's technically illegal to make black people second class citizens, and MLK has a national day. But you still get murdered by the police with impunity and incarcerated and enslaved and disenfranchised and kept in poverty if you're black, but the law says you're equal, so it's all fine, the change is forestalled a few more decades. The core rules that black people are less than white people, poor people are less than rich people, and everywhere else on the planet is less than the USA, are all preserved. You can read about the terrible things the US does, but you can't effectively organize against them because the society is structured to deter interest. It's OK, you technically have the freedom to do something about it, the law assures you that you can vote against it, it's a coincidence that nobody does. It's a more stable, more effective form of political control, I think. Though it sacrifices absolute control for aggregate control it gains a huge amount of durability in the process. Because levels of protest below a certain mass simply don't do anything and consume political energy, a sort of pressure valve on the desire for change. They also get people to focus on small changes because they seem more achievable and thereby stymie large scale changes. It also requires less central effort to maintain, as a lot of it is just baked into the society. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 08:39 on Feb 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 08:32
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Seriously though dude bringing up Dr. King, a man so heavily lionized he has a national holiday named after him, whose writings are part of schools' curriculum, is an odd choice as an example of speech repressed by the government. I mean....yeah, sure everyone knows about MLK, but almost no one knows about his radical economic policies. The Democrats that DO know about him most likely only know about poo poo like him trying to pass the Civil Rights Act, and the Republicans that know about him think he fought to make sure white people could use the n-word at Denny's.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 10:34
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Seriously though dude bringing up Dr. King, a man so heavily lionized he has a national holiday named after him, whose writings are part of schools' curriculum, is an odd choice as an example of speech repressed by the government. The government surveiled, harassed, and threatened him until the day he died. They didn't tell him "hey you should spread your message to school children," they told him "hey you should kill yourself so we don't release these documents we have on you."
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 11:27
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:The government surveiled, harassed, and threatened him until the day he died. They didn't tell him "hey you should spread your message to school children," they told him "hey you should kill yourself so we don't release these documents we have on you." How is this not general knowledge? Even I know that and I'm a dumb dumb.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 11:43
|
|
|
If someone wanted to spin this conversation off into its own Death to America thread I'd be happy to follow. Not going to start it myself, partially because I'd call it the Death to America thread and partially because I'm basically a guest in these parts of the forum.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 12:40
|
|
|
Statist roaming the halls while banging on sauce pan with the communist manifesto: libertarians! What are they, who are they? Are they free? How do we find them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 14:08
|
|
|
White dudes, white dudes, not free of ideology, and defend age of consent laws, respectively
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 15:33
|
|
|
Are there a lot of Native American Libertarians? Because if there were a group of people with a grudge against the government and a desire to do things their way without outside interference, it would be indigenous people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 21:05
|
|
|
I'd imagine the whole "the only legitimate way to acquire land is to pay an agreed price for the deeds" thing might put them off given how most of it is just trading in stolen property. If you're a libertarian without an obsession with private ownership of landed property or industry then you're closer to Kropotkin or Bookchin than anything called libertarian itt
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
Well let's check mises.org https://mises.org/library/libertarians-and-indians-proprietary-justice-and-aboriginal-land-rights quote:Lysander Spooner in the mid-nineteenth century asserted that those lands which the Indians merely roamed over in search of game, could not be said to have been rightfully owned by them." Rightful ownership of unoccupied lands is established by either actually living upon the land, or improving it, or bestowing other useful labor upon it. "Nothing short of this actual possession can give any one a rightful ownership of wilderness lands, or justify him in withholding it from those who wish to occupy it." He based his assertions on the principle that occupation and use meant more than standing upon a portion of the North American continent and claiming possession of it. To establish ownership a person must bestow some valuable labor upon the land. In these cases he holds the land in order to hold the labor which he had put into it. Similarly, Rothbard has written that the bulk of Indian claimed land was not settled and transformed by the Indians, and that the new European settlers were justified in ignoring the Indians' vague abstract claims because they knew they were the first to actually cultivate and enclose the lands upon which they settled. I'm gonna guess 'no' OP, probably aren't a lot of Native Americans who buy into the philosophy that it was right to drive them off their lands
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
Jesus H Christ; it's a corollary to the mound builders legend. I've "read mises.org" in the recent convert to libertarian sense, i.e. if it seems stupid, it's because you haven't read enough mises.org and this is getting close to as dumb as I've seen on that site. How in the actual gently caress were they not mixing the labor and land?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
They weren't white.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Jesus H Christ; it's a corollary to the mound builders legend. I've "read mises.org" in the recent convert to libertarian sense, i.e. if it seems stupid, it's because you haven't read enough mises.org and this is getting close to as dumb as I've seen on that site. How in the actual gently caress were they not mixing the labor and land? Homesteading and enclosure would also remove First Nations’ access to the animals and trails noted in the quote, which feels like a violation of the NAP to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 23:05
|
|
|
I'm going to create a socialist utopia that borrows the land resetting thing but only applies it to people with more than $10M in assets Would love to be able to legally set up a farm on some rich dude's huge unused lawn lol Likewise for golf courses, this weed farm is generating far more value than what used to be a lawn that people sometimes walk across sorry bro
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:They weren't white. You have to accept that they accept their premise, or it can't really be discussed because ultimately, we all know its naked greed and tribalism and they are either lying about their ideology or making it up as they go. The mythical "nuanced debate" coexisting with praxology is also fascinating. Mises.org could change their homepage to "white people created everything of value, and can lie and steal with impunity" and the practical effects of their philosophy would be the same as the pseudoscience.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2019 00:05
|
|
|
They justify it by just retroactively defining "how European colonists used land" as conferring ownership and "how Native Americans used land" as not conferring ownership. If Native Americans were the farmers, and Europeans killed them all because they wanted uncultivated spaces to hunt deer then hunting would be the intellectual labor that confers property ownership and farming wouldn't because idk "how much intelligence does it take to sneak up on a plant." If both were the farmers then they'd say Native Americans were doing it wrong somehow, there will always be some excuse. The whole point of the NAP is that it's a completely empty maxim that depends entirely on how you define "aggression" and whoa big surprise the stuff they like, such as honor-killing insurance contracts on your daughter's virginity isn't aggression but disagreeing with absolute monarchy is. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Feb 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2019 00:11
|
|
|
The recent discovery about the earth cooling because of Native American lands going wild after the first epidemics brought by the Europeans would seem to disprove that dumb mises.org thing, even on its own dumb terms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:They justify it by just retroactively defining "how European colonists used land" as conferring ownership and "how Native Americans used land" as not conferring ownership. It's also another classic case of libertarians denying reality, since Native Americans were prolific farmers. "Well they didn't mix their labor with the land" is total bullshit. There's nothing that any of the Native Americans could have done to result in modern libertarians recognizing Native American sovereignty "hey get the gently caress off of my farm" - what a vague abstract claim of ownership!
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2019 01:22
|
|
|
If you read the whole piece, they do acknowledge some Native Americans farmed and had title to their property, but it was the minority and it was all the King's fault they got murdered anyway. The true Libertarians were only murdering the Savage hunter tribes so like 99% of the land was rightfully taken by Europeans. If course if 100% of the land had been farmed then yeah they'd just make up some other reason it didn't count
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2019 01:30
|
|
|
The logical endpoint is Rhodesia. Insisting colonialism was okay because the natives didn't have civilization, while dynamiting their ruins so nobody could prove you wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2019 01:36
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:The logical endpoint is Rhodesia. Insisting colonialism was okay because the natives didn't have civilization, while dynamiting their ruins so nobody could prove you wrong. The only way to make that situation more libertarian would be if they didn't blast the ruins themselves, nor paid someone else to do it, but listed an ad in the paper reading "We bet $X that no one would destroy these ruins!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2019 02:05
|
|
|
Sax Solo posted:The recent discovery about the earth cooling because of Native American lands going wild after the first epidemics brought by the Europeans would seem to disprove that dumb mises.org thing, even on its own dumb terms. Well you might think so my friend, but let me introduce you to a little concept called praexology which is totally immune to disproof via empirical means and evidence. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2019 02:05
|
|
|
Was Lyndon Larouche considered a libertarian at all? Cause he dead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2019 04:45
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Was Lyndon Larouche considered a libertarian at all? Cause he dead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2019 05:07
|
|
|
IMO, LaRouche is one of those truly uncategorizable people. He drew from all different kinds of political movements. But libertarian, probably not, if only because he was vehemently against the drug war. He took the term literally, in that drug traffickers were the other side in a literal war and thus were committing treason. I had to check this just to make sure I wasn't talking out of my rear end, and https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/strategic/war_on_drugs/lar_fight_drugs.html I seem to recall somewhere where he said that even if you just advocate for legalization, that means you're giving aid and comfort to the enemy and thus are guilty of treason, but I can't find that off the top of my google.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2019 16:37
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:The logical endpoint is Rhodesia. Insisting colonialism was okay because the natives didn't have civilization, while dynamiting their ruins so nobody could prove you wrong. They did exactly the same in Australia. Smashed the stone buildings down, then took the stone to build their own homes while crying "terra nullius!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 10:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If you read the whole piece, they do acknowledge some Native Americans farmed and had title to their property, but it was the minority and it was all the King's fault they got murdered anyway. Golbez posted:IMO, LaRouche is one of those truly uncategorizable people. He drew from all different kinds of political movements. But libertarian, probably not, if only because he was vehemently against the drug war. He took the term literally, in that drug traffickers were the other side in a literal war and thus were committing treason. quote:2. Law-enforcement methods must support the military side of the War on Drugs. The mandate given to law-enforcement forces deployed in support of this war, must be the principle that collaboration with the drug traffic or with the financier or political forces of the international drug traffickers, is treason in time of war.  That's a good way to get yourself a Forever War, so I can see why they were enthusiastic to apply it post-9/11.Also a healthy lol at quote:The object is to eliminate every field of marijuana, opium, and cocaine, in the Americas, excepting those fields properly licensed by governments. I'm glad he lived long enough to see the proliferation of licensed recreational marijuana fields in several US states and the legalization of coca growing in Bolivia. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
Golbez posted:IMO, LaRouche is one of those truly uncategorizable people. He drew from all different kinds of political movements. But libertarian, probably not, if only because he was vehemently against the drug war. He took the term literally, in that drug traffickers were the other side in a literal war and thus were committing treason. Larouche was incredibly authoritarian. Calling him a libertarian is a simple mistake.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 16:25
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Larouche was incredibly authoritarian. Calling him a libertarian is a simple mistake. Libertarians tend to get authoritarian as hell as soon as they start talking about people who aren't them. Their "freedom" is the right to oppress others without restraint.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 16:36
|
|
|
That's why all 00s libertarians that didn't become anarchists tended to drift into the dark enlightenment, which became part of the alt-right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
Libertarians traditionally have been those who were equally distrustful of the draft as well as civil rights for black peoples. Both of these were actions of the federal government, therefore statism is bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
Aha thanks, yeah, it was the "advocating leniency in anti-drug military or law-enforcement policy toward the production or trafficking in drugs, is guilty of the crime of giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war." line that I was looking for. loving crazy. On the other hand, the Schiller Institute's Eurasian Land Bridge proposal, while insane, is at the very least interesting to read: https://web.archive.org/web/20020601103348/http://schillerinstitute.org/economy/maps/maps.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 18:23
|
|
|
Libertarians are dumb and bad, but I'll concede that LaRouche's weird Synanon-style control over his followers would probably turn them off, and that's before you get into his plans for central banking. Horseshoe theory is as facile as libertarianism, but LaRouche was an extremely weird guy who really did draw from both the far left and far right and pivoted in every direction over a decades-long career. Truly baffling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Libertarians tend to get authoritarian as hell as soon as they start talking about people who aren't them. Their "freedom" is the right to oppress others without restraint. Yes this is true. I still don’t think Larouche is fairly described as a libertarian, his one abiding conviction seems to have been that every aspect of American life should be controlled by Lyndon Larouche.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 19:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 11:49 |
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Yes this is true. I still don’t think Larouche is fairly described as a libertarian, his one abiding conviction seems to have been that every aspect of American life should be controlled by Lyndon Larouche. That doesn't sound libertarian to you?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 20:43
|
|