Jerry Manderbilt posted:Google "jrodefeld posted". He's been doing this across multiple sites (some of which have banned him) since 2010. Wow he really has projectile vomited this weak poo poo all over the internet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 21:12 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:We don't know what sort of racist attitudes and beliefs those specific cops might have had. What we do know is that they were under the command of a black female police officer who participated in the choke-hold that killed Garner. There may still have been racial intent or there may not have been. Why do you think the murderers in this case ( and the Michael Brown case) were found not guilty? It seems that, logically, if over 80% of the population are white there should be plenty of examples of similar instances of police officers shooting unarmed white teenagers or choking white men to death without consequence if your belief that this isn't a racial issue is true. Can you find any examples of white people being killed in similar circumstances to these two black men and the officers who killed them being found innocent? If you don't even try, it basically proves the point of the people calling you racist. Strawman fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Are you actually asking why wanting to break off and form your own country where the US federal government can't come in and abolish slavery, ban lynching, enfranchise blacks, and stop criminalization of lgbt people is bigoted and racist? Okay we need to step back and be very clear on what secession actually is. Secession is when a larger political unit is broken up into smaller political units. It is the redrawing of the lines specifying sovereignty and political authority. There can, and indeed have been, many examples of the seceding state doing so to enhance personal freedom for minorities and to break away from the bigotry and racism of a centralized State. You are making the erroneous and ahistorical claim that the intentions of those who wish to withdraw from central political authority and have a smaller scale to political life are inherently racist or only want to oppress people. What would be wrong about breaking up larger political units into smaller political units? What if the United States became five separate independent and sovereign States? Who is to say that this smaller scale of political life might not be more beneficial? Maybe the political leaders that represent these five independent nations would be more accountable? Any level of political authority can institute oppressive policies. Yet if a massive central political authority institutes bad policy, it is far harder to escape. If we had five separate independent nations, then if one instituted a bad or oppressive policy, you could move easily to another State next door. The Southern States in the mid 19th century did indeed want to secede partly to maintain the institution of slavery. Yet that was but one example of secession throughout history. The United States seceded from Great Britain in the Revolutionary War. European States can secede from the European Union and claim sovereignty. Political lines are constantly being redrawn throughout the world. The funny thing is that when we look around the world, we are far more likely to cheer on independent States that break away from oppressive central political authorities. Did you all accuse the Crimeans and Ukrainians of bigotry because they wanted continued sovereignty from Russia? Secession is merely the act of redrawing lines on a map and decentralizing political authority. It is ahistorical and absurd to claim that a proponent of the idea of secession is by default a racist or white supremacist. I know that Tom Woods is one of those unspeakable men who attended this recent conference on political decentralization, but I happened to catch his speech on YouTube. I'd like to see if you could refute the substance of his arguments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTl_HDBH7Io Will you recant and concede that a principled support of the right of secession and political decentralization is not racist or supremacist?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
People already have dealt with your argument here Jrod, namely, that secessionism isn't inherently racist, but it is pretty much universally in the American context, particularly with reference to the individuals you have cited.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Secession is racist when you're talking about United States because the history of secession within the United States is completely and 100% racist, and we're talking about secession in the United States.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
It's a known fact that black people cannot participate in or perpetuate a racist system. Thus if one black cop or black Republican exists, those institutions cannot be racist. The only people capable of being racist against their own race are, of course, white-hating real-racist white liberals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Google "jrodefeld posted". He's been doing this across multiple sites (some of which have banned him) since 2010. I don't know, the idea that he's doubled over with laughter as he posts about how neo-confederates shouldn't be assumed to be racist is much less depressing to me than him typing the same thing in complete earnest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
Stop trying to get other people to make your arguments for you, if that video makes any points relevant to your argument then you can put them in your own words. No one is saying that secessionism in the abstract is racist, the issue is context. Strawman fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Okay we need to step back and be very clear on what secession actually is. Secession is when a larger political unit is broken up into smaller political units. It is the redrawing of the lines specifying sovereignty and political authority. There can, and indeed have been, many examples of the seceding state doing so to enhance personal freedom for minorities and to break away from the bigotry and racism of a centralized State. I'll be happy to once I'm finished dinner. And no you disingenuous gently caress, we a4nt saying secession is racist. We are saying that a neo confederate talking about secession in Texas probably is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 00:31
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:I don't know, the idea that he's doubled over with laughter as he posts about how neo-confederates shouldn't be assumed to be racist is much less depressing to me than him typing the same thing in complete earnest. Agreed. It's always better if someone being detestable is just a troll and you're just a sucker, but there's no way someone could troll that many websites unless he was certifiable. Jrod, you could consider earlier and more reputable examples of liberal thinkers who have considered this problem, e.g. An old lovely undergrad essay I wrote posted:[Herbert] Spencer argued that men should either have a universal right to suffrage or else a right to escape the political association: “we cannot choose but admit the right of the citizen to adopt a condition of voluntary outlawry.” (Social Statics, 1851) However, Spencer argued, in 1894, since citizens “cannot avoid benefiting by the social order which government maintains”, they should not be able to adopt a condition of outlawry – particularly since it would be impossible to have any state if citizens felt able to leave it whenever they felt like it. Spencer, reviewing himself: posted:Unquestionably Mr. Spencer has the courage of his opinions; for in a chapter entitled The Right to Ignore the State he actually contends that the citizen may properly refuse to pay taxes, if at the same time he surrenders the advantages which State aid and State protection yield him! But how can he surrender them? In whatever way he maintains himself, he must make use of sundry appliances which are indirectly due to governmental organization; and he cannot avoid benefiting by the social order which government maintains. Even if he lives on a moor and makes shoes, he cannot sell his goods or buy the things he wants without using the road to the neighboring town, and profiting by the paving and perhaps the lighting when he gets there. And, though he may say he does not want police guardianship, yet, in keeping down footpads and burglars, the police necessarily protect him, whether he asks them or not. Surely it is manifest—as indeed Mr. Spencer himself elsewhere implies—that the citizen is so entangled in the organization of his society that he can neither escape the evils nor relinquish the benefits which come to him from it. Here you see an argument against the right of an individual to excise himself from the state - he cannot do so without continuing to benefit by the state from which he liberates himself. He would therefore always be in a condition of possessing rights without corresponding responsibilities. The argument extended to larger states is not hard to work out in the likely context in which a state might secede de facto. This also squares a big circle in contractarian thinking, because children are massive beneficiaries of the existence of the state without any reciprocal effort or understanding on their part. Moreover, the question of how to continue to organise a state if any part of it could easily remove itself from the state thoroughly undermines the sovereignty of the state and its continued existence and organisation, and thus is quite clearly not to be undertaken lightly. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
Hey libs, what if the Confederacy had seceded to form a socialist workers' paradise, bet you would support it then, hypocrites! And what if the n-word means "my good gentleman"? Can we ever really know someone doesn't mean that? No,so please stop your ad homs against anyone who chooses to use that respectful term. Now let me refer you to this article coincidentally hosted on https://www.slaverywastoogoodforthem.org titled "Apartheid: does it mean 'segregation', or 'snuggles'?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 00:45
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hey libs, what if the Confederacy had seceded to form a socialist workers' paradise, bet you would support it then, hypocrites! If you transfer Jrod's latest argument to the 'friend of the family' debate it becomes: 'hey, it just meant black originally. I mean, of course some people who used that word meant it in a racist way, but if you look at it in abstract and logical terms, it's inoffensive - really, what's wrong with it? And even black people say it!'.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
You'd think jrod would be against a new Confederacy because we all know they're not planning to make an aggression-free Libertarian paradise. Jim Crow, contraception bans, and the death penalty for sodomy are nothing if not big government, but I suppose (much like Libertarian support for apartheid in the 70's and 80's), such measures are a regrettable necessity because black people voting is the end of civilization.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Will you recant and concede that a principled support of the right of secession and political decentralization is not racist or supremacist? No, not in America. The only Americans who want to secede are outright and undeniable racists. America is a very key qualifier to this, Jrod. Don't try to obfuscate this by bringing up other nations that aren't the one being discussed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Will you recant and concede that a principled support of the right of secession and political decentralization is not racist or supremacist? Considering the people that want to secede are the same people that long for a return to the 'Good Ol' Days' Yeah, its overwhelmingly racists and white supremacists. That include Ron Paul, who LOVES speaking at Neo-Confederate meetings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
Caros posted:I'll be happy to once I'm finished dinner. Let's not mince words here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The Southern States in the mid 19th century did indeed want to secede partly to maintain the institution of slavery. The defense, and indeed extension, of slavery was the existential and explicit reason the southern traitors cited, time and again, as to why they were seceding. All other reasons that occasionally got mentioned all loop back to slavery itself, and to attempt to claim they wanted to secede only "partly" to maintain the institution of slavery is ahistorical garbage at best, and craven apologia for one of the most revolting regimes in the history of western civilization at worst. We know it was all about slavery because, and I want you to pause for a second and read this sentence slowly and carefully because I don't think much of your cognitive abilities and you've shown a startling capacity to misunderstand simple terms, they openly and proudly proclaimed it so to be at the time, unprompted, in the sure and certain expectation that victory would validate them. It's only after the war that the Old Confederates suddenly remember that nope, it was some abstract constitutional dispute over distribution of power within the union, which they never once brought up during the secession crisis itself, save as a subordinate argument and handmaiden to defending slavery itself. We don't care about other examples as we're talking about modern American secessionists, more specifically ones who proclaim themselves heirs and successors of those original Confederate traitors, so if you want to claim they're not motivated by the same racist ideology then you've got a pretty goddamn high burden of evidence to get over. So either put or shut up, the latter being preferable as I can't imagine you adequately can supply the former.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:First, it's not about dehumanizing anyone. And please let's not start speaking of agents of the State as if they were a racial minority. I am making a deontological ethical argument that committing aggression against the innocent is both immoral and indefensible. Why do you talk like this? Seriously, this is how I would imagine Frasier at his most insufferable talking. The reality is that you are using these big words because you don't really know exactly what you're talking about, but you know you don't like it. quote:So the only thing I have against someone who works for the State is the fact that they endorse the use of aggression against the innocent. Here's a thought. What if they didn't think that what they or the state is doing could be considered aggression against the innocent? It's amazing when you think about what you say for more than five seconds. Maybe people don't think like you do. quote:No, everyone in government is not some sociopathic monster, though some are. Those who rise to the top in politics and get to have real influence are those who are the most deceitful and duplicitous as a rule. That's can be true in a lot of places. Anywhere where you need influence, you need to have a lot of people on your side. And often, these people have contradictory needs. quote:Think of what it honestly takes to run successfully for president. There is a reason that, especially today, no moral and decent person is able to get close to the White House. If you have too much honor and integrity you get weeded out of the process early in the primary season (see Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich). Ron Paul didn't get his rear end handed to him in the primary because he had too much honor and integrity. He got his rear end handed to him in the primary because he is a fanatic with insane views. He has a history, and those racist articles published in his magazine just can't be conveniently waved away. He's a kook. A political sideshow that naive people flock to hear because he's old and he's saying things that freshmen in college think is profound. Like, what if we got rid of the federal government! Whoa! It could work! quote:Yes there are small time contractors who do work for the State and there are individuals who receive unemployment benefits and other taxpayer funded largess. While in a strict sense these are immoral because the money you receive is not earned honestly or given freely, these low level government employees and contractors are not the real problem. gently caress you. I mean, when I had to miss a few months of work to get surgery, I really appreciated having access to disability. It ensured that I could live in my apartment, that I could buy food and clothes, and have a little left over for me to enjoy life a little. My grandparents right now are able to live in a nursing home, thanks to Medicaid, social security, and various other "taxpayer funded largess." When my brother lost his job, he wasn't destitute due to taxpayer funded largess like unemployment. You are a miserable little oval office and an utter poo poo heel. quote:Your explanation of taxation is severely lacking. The principle for the State is that they claim ownership over a persons income. Yes democratic elections or changes in policy can change how much income they take in a given year but any right that can be taken merely by democratic whim or legislative flight of fancy is certainly not a right in any real sense. Income taxation for the upper bracket has been as high as 91% and as low as 25% in the last century and it has been plenty high for everyone else too. They don't claim ownership over a person's income. They don't care about the value of your assets. quote:Your analogy that taxation is like a bill for services rendered is absolutely absurd. If that were the case, then every persons individual tax rate would be calculated based on the State services that individual consumed and used annually. There would be no redistribution of wealth and each would be paying precisely for what he got out of the system. Jrodefeld, let me ask you a question. Do you know why the government exists? Do you know why states became the norm, and libertarianism became a wet-dream? Why don't you live in a libertarian society? The state exists to provide security. While there is an idea of natural rights that most people would ascribe to, everyone recognizes that rights have to be recognized and protected. Simply put, a right is how we formulate our society. After all, lions don't care about your right to life. No amount of you preaching the Non-Aggression Principal at them is going to prevent that lion from eating you. Your property isn't recognized by other animals. When a bird shits on my car, I can't chase that bird down and demand restitution to the damage done to my property. When a motherfucking tornado rolls through town and destroys a house, do you think those people take the storm system to their DRO and demand adjudication? Rights are something that have to be protected. If we lived in a truly unstable society, your rights would be meaningless. There would be nobody there to protect you from the threat of bodily harm. There would be nobody there to protect your home. Your property that you value so much would be worthless in an unstable society. So, the states provide security. And many of the things that the states provide are in fact, for general security. Take the idea of "unemployment insurance." You work for a company, and they close down and you lose your job. What do you do? Most people can't afford to lose their income. There are many people who live paycheck-to-paycheck. It could be months before you find another job. Having unemployment helps ensure that while you search for another job, you are able to maintain some semblance of a lifestyle, and afford the things you need to get another job. Whether it is gas so you can drive to a car interview, clothes so you can look good at your interview, or internet service so you can find a job. If you had no way of maintaining your lifestyle, things would go south pretty fast. At some point, you will break. Ultimately, what is going to happen when you can't afford food? You're going to steal so you can survive. Imagine if you had large numbers of people who couldn't afford food. The numbers that would exist in your stateless society. What's going to happen? Well, you can't be a grocer. Too many people are stealing your food. So you shut down the grocery store. Well, you need food in order to live, so you'll move to an area where you can get food. But now you have to pay more to make up for the theft. And if you're an employer, you now have to pay your staff more so they can eat, they'll be less happy and less productive. The value of your property will drop. After all, now there will be regular riots. People are hungry. They are starving. They can't find work. And they see you, with your house, your industry, your money. And they riot against you. You can't sell your house. Who wants to live in a dangerous part of town and have something that will surely be a target for the roving masses? And surely, there won't be too many safe havens. After all, anywhere you can go, they will be there. The people's who's lives have fallen apart. But hey. Why do we need social welfare. Why not just let people go hungry. I'm going to change the subject. Let's talk about the roads. Do you know that there are 4.09 million miles of road in the US. At least. If the Federal Government is to be believed. Now, it's often said that a private company could take care of the roads in the Libertarian wet dream, but could they? After all, 4.09 million miles is a lot of land. That's purty expensive. You got roads going through small towns. You got roads going through the middle of nowhere Nebraska to connect California to New York. Who's going to buy all the land, and then pay for all the roads in a private society? In a Libertarian society, it would be almost impossible to have the highway system. It's massive. It's huge. It requires a lot of roads and a lot of land and a lot of money that private industries don't tend to have. And after all, most of us don't drive long stretches of the highway. It would be almost impossible to have a for-profit highway set up like the interstate system, where you have regular exits taking you all over the place. And then there's things like standards. How do you decide if a road is up to snuff. Is it when I say it is? And without roads, how are goods going to make it from a large city to a small town? Which supports the business in that small town which sells what you need to do business in a large city. So, please, deal with my points. These are two examples of how you benefit from other people's well-being. This is some of the stuff that's paid for by taxation. Please, tell me why this is theft. quote:This unequal redistribution is a hallmark of theft. Some are benefiting unjustly at the expense of others. If each person paid in money for healthcare services, roads and infrastructure that he or she personally used and no one paid more in than the benefits they got back, you might say this is indeed not theft, or at least your analogy would hold up. What the gently caress? Do you know what theft is? quote:The whole point of the State though is to engage in redistribution of wealth. The reason for establishing the State is so that some can benefit personally without having to do honest work. The State is redistributive to its very core. Duh no. It's for security. You can see above. quote:And that is why taxation is clearly an example of theft. Well, I guess it clearly isn't an example of theft.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Okay we need to step back and be very clear on what secession actually is. Secession is when a larger political unit is broken up into smaller political units. It is the redrawing of the lines specifying sovereignty and political authority. There can, and indeed have been, many examples of the seceding state doing so to enhance personal freedom for minorities and to break away from the bigotry and racism of a centralized State. No, stop. You are not allowed to zoom out to the meta like this and talk about secessionists in general. We are talking about Neo-Confederates and not any other kind of secessionist. You might as well classify them as mammals and point out that not all mammals are racist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Considering the people that want to secede are the same people that long for a return to the 'Good Ol' Days' What's great about this is how poorly Ron Paul fits into jrode's black and white worldview. I mean, let's think about this, keeping in mind he specifically said Paul was just too moral to survive a GOP primary. At worst, Ron Paul associates with neo-Confederates so frequently because he believes in their incredibly racist cause. At best, he associates with neo-Confederates because he'll do absolutely anything to get ahead in politics, up to and including courting to white supremacy groups despite not personally holding similar beliefs. So he's either completely morally bankrupt or just doesn't see a return to Jim Crow as actually being immoral (because he's a racist piece of poo poo). Which is it, jrode? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Ron Paul was also an elected official and therefore benefited from largesse created through the State's immoral theft. Much like Hans Herman Hoppe's employment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
I appreciate your gusto but this dude is currently in the process of trying to explain why the League of the South isn't really racist. Treating him like he gives a poo poo about anything other than the rich white man is giving him too much credit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Ron Paul was also an elected official and therefore benefited from largesse created through the State's immoral theft. Regretfully adding earmarks to bills, it depleted his mana every time he did it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
WilliamAnderson posted:The French Revolutionaries. Left the slave colonies or sold them to slave owners. The French Assembly actually abolished slavery within the republic, at which point the sugar island plantation owners started offering the metropolitan government big piles of cash to let them go independent. It was Napoleon who rescinded the abolition act once he got himself elected First Consul and reignited the Haitian Revolution by having Toussaint Louverture arrested under flag of truce.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
I'm going to repeat myself, just to see if anything happens.jrodefeld posted:And why would the politicians have an incentive to pay only a little as opposed to inflated costs for the cell phones (or medical care services or whatever other example you choose)? It is not their money after all and they haven't exactly shown themselves to be paragon's of frugality in other areas. You need to account for what is currently happening before asking hypothetical questions. Drug, procedure and doctor costs are cheaper in Canada than the US directly because of the State and neither country disallows lobbyists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTl_HDBH7Io Okay, so here we go JRodefeld. I'm really wishing that there was a transcription function on youtube so I didn't have to listen through 30 minutes of this garbage. These are going to be my cliff notes because gently caress the idea of transcribing this myself so I can knock down each argument. 1:00 - He introduces everyone who was at the event. He then goes on to say that since secession isn't on the 3x5 card (title drop!) of approved opinions that Washington Post Reporter David A. Fahrenthold was there to smear them. "Rand Paul is trying to run for president and his crazy old father is talking about secession." Yeah, that seems like something that a political reporter ought to be reporting on, since secession is a not at all main stream belief and Rand Paul has achieved his current political beliefs largely on the backs of his family name. 2:00 - Woods goes on to say that since he knew the reporter was in the audience he went out of his way to tailor his remarks to that fact. He believed that he knew up front that the reporter was going to do a "Hatchet Job" by simply writing "Look at what these guys are saying." Now for one thing I don't really believe he tailored anything, since anyone with public speaking experience knows you don't go out and adlib large parts of your remarks unless you are absolutely forced to, but more interesting to me is the fact that apparently Tom Woods thinks that publishing the fact that they are attending a rally in Huston and quoting them verbatim about secessionism is a hatchet job. 3:00 - Tom Woods apparently thinks it is a punishment for a washington post reporter to sit through his talk. I'd have to agree to be honest. Tom Woods then whines that he wasn't quoted in the piece, which I find funny. He goes on to sell the podcast, blah. Next. 4:00 - There is a lot of talk about Tom Woods' pants. Not sure why. They're giving him a handjob on stage I assume from the audio, but that is pretty typical for an event like this where you have to talk up the person who is speaking. 5:00 - Yeah, work the shaft you dirty bi- This is going on for a while, next. 6:00 - Of course he loving uses Uber. Got to avoid those statist cab companies! 7:00 - I too am wondering what your pants have to do with the theme of secession Tom Woods. Oh? Nothing? Wow... Glad you go that pointless interlude out of the way. 3x5 Card line gets dropped again. For those of you who are counting this is the third time in seven minutes I've had to hear him call it that. Its a loving index card you moron. Also I'm pretty sure the allowable opinions in the USA could fill a binder, he's just mad that seceding so we can own blacks isn't on there. Once he actually starts into the meat of it, we're actually back where we started this video, with his assertion that no one refutes you if you talk about stuff outside the mainstream, they just say you are wrong. I actually disagree with this pretty much on its premise, as I can think of countless examples of libertarians, secessionists and others being refuted on the individual level. When it comes to the media it is worth pointing out that journalism doesn't refute as a matter of course. Apart from the most hard right and hard left opinion sources, your typical news article isn't going to refute a libertarian position anymore than they'd refute Mitt Romney's tax position unless there is blatant, factual evidence to the contrary, and frequently not even then. 8:00 - Twenty six minutes to go... oi. Whaaaa, the media is mean to me. 3x5 card (x4). Tom Woods considers the statement "I do not believe that a system in which 320 million diverse system are ruled infallibly by one city is the most humane system" to be imminently reasonable. Lets unpack it for a second. First, if they were ruling infallibly then it would actually probably be the most humane system. Second, I wouldn't say that america is 'ruled' as to rule is to exercise ultimate power and authority, which the US government doesn't in the fashion he implies. Governed would be more accurate. Third, that isn't the statement he is making by suggestion secession. Oh and he is back to screaming about how he is being smeared and bitching. 9:00 - I too am glad you are a heretic in this bizarro world Mr. Woods. 3x5 Card (x6). What is secession? Apparently it is just redrawing of political lines, and wouldn't at all have massive impacts on the lives of tens of millions of people. Whew, you know I actually agree with him if all we are doing is changing maps. And we round out the minute with more media whining. Whaaaa the media is ruining my career by pointing out that I am the founding member of a neo-confederate group by my own admission.  10:00 - Ooh, he is going to tell me a bunch of things you can say without being written out of polite society. The Iraq war, yeah, I agree with you Tom Woods, we should also have ruined their careers just like we do for you. Also he is somehow suggesting that the news media didn't at all try and 'smear' politicians for supporting the iraq war, or write articles detailing why they thought it was wrong. Now he is onto the Iraq sanctions from the 1990. As far as I can tell Tom Woods is upset that rear end in a top hat politicians don't get smacked around as badly for their lovely policies as he does for supporting white supremacists. Fair enough I suppose. 11:00 - He is on about the Madaline Albright segment on 60 minutes where she admitted that she thought the deaths of half a million iraqi children was "Worth it" and why no one who associated with her is being dragged through the mud. Its worth pointing out that the big bad media were the ones who embarassed her like that in the first place and that the issue was a huge black eye for the clinton administration, to the point where 60 minutes won an emmy for their reporting and it led to a slackening of iraqi sanctions. Also, what the gently caress does this have to do with secession? Seriously, I am five minutes into his speech and he is basically whining about how people don't take secession seriously, and how its really just a redrawing of lines. Are you loving kidding me? 12:00 - I think I heard someone in the audience shout long live the confederacy. It is so faint I can barely hear it. Am I going crazy or is this a real thing? Apparently state and federal boundaries are utilitarian things that don't much matter and for some strange reason he thinks that Jefferson would have been okay with the US splitting despite having said: "A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. ... The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation." But yeah, who cares about secession right? 3x5 card (x8) 13:00 - Okay, I'm getting really loving bored here. He is just repeating himself over and over that no one ever refutes someone when they talk about secession, they just say "You are wrong". Which is wrong. Secession advocates get slapped down all the time, but we have been dealing with this for a century and a half, so it shouldn't be any wonder that people have gotten sick and tired of explaining it to ignorant assholes like Tom Woods. These loving strawmen are boring. He bitches about the media and says they don't know anything about europe for the last few seconds. 14:00 - Centralized states are the enemies of diversity. I suppose this is true. If you let the confederacy or modern day south split off you'd have one state where people are equal, and one where blacks are slaves or second class citizens. See, diversity in action. Is the United States too large? He goes on to bitch about people being 'heretics' for asking that question, correctly using the word governed instead this time. I'd actually say no, but I'd also say that this isn't the point of the conference they are having. Hahaha! His book calls it the index card of the allowable opinion. 15:00 - He is now bitching about the audiobook version of his book. Jesus. Thanks JRodefeld. Ohhh here we go, "We don't care what the 3x5 card (x9) says!" You know I hear this a lot from libertarians, who are so proud of being against the man, and not being PC. I can call niggers out for being stupider than white people because I'm not going to be restrained by PC thoughts. There is no thing as the PC police, there is simply public opinion. Issues like secession have been largely settled for generations, and you look like a loving rear end in a top hat bringing them up, especially in texas of all loving places. It is apparently anti-intellectual to be pc. 16:00 - He is hocking his show now. 3x5(x10). Apparently he drives the 'bad guys' crazy with his podcast that no one listens to. Oh, I'm sorry... am I not suppsoed to point out that his podcast is probably never heard by anyone out of the libertarian movement and ultimately has no impact on the societal Zeitgeist? I feel a little petty for pointing that out. Oh, apparently the 'media' sees the writing on the walls about how podcasts are going to take them down. 17:00 - 'Practical' talk about secession. Apparently he thinks that europe consolodating from "Thousands" of individual states into just a few is a bad thing. Yeah, bring back Holsted and Gluckstad! As Hans Hawppe (lol) has pointed out germeny was 300 different countries in the 17th century. This was good? Somehow? What would the world have been like if not for german centralization is not a question that has been raised because it is not on the card! (x11) Or... you know, because it is an irrelevent question and the people of Germany have no desire to split back up into three hundred seperate countries and city states because they unified for a reason. But really it is the MEDIA who don't want you to know. I agree it might be interesting to know how history might have turned out if hitler was just a good post master general... what the gently caress does that have to do with sesssion you fucker? 18:00 - My wrist is starting to hurt. Someone make this end. Why won't anyone help me? We never got to test out the Hitler theory because of unified Germany due to the unholy alliance of progressives and liberals. And the devil I guess? Oh good he brings up Singapore and Hong Kong. News Flash you loving moron, trade ports like HK and Singapore are exceptions that could not be scaled outwards. If you made Detroit its own city it would not suddenly start booming, in fact it would be even more desperately poor than it is now. Hong Kong and Singapore's success only relates to their status as 'city states' because their unique status was what made them enticing places to invest in. God, its like explaining poo poo to a child. New York is fantastic too after all. 19:00 - People will just get up and leave if taxes are too high in a bunch of city states. It is impossible for the horrors of the Soviet Union to have been visited by a town's mayor. That is right, then again, if everyone is a tiny city state then the first group of people who gather together could just kick the everloving poo poo out of their neighbors. Which is the biggest reasons governments centralized. But why bring common sense into this. 20:00 - Apparently secession isn't backwards, it increases ethnic and cultural diversity. I guess that is right... but do we really want 400,000 different languages? Well that isn't on the card (x12) you're smeared, but not refuted. Durr. 21:00 - Florence was great, Athens was great, so we really don't need to have larger societies. Oh and there is the money shot, the reason he wants to do this is because apparently states like this wouldn't be able to get everything they need, so they would necessarily have a libertarian view of trade and commerce. Such as noted libertarian city state Sparta. Do we need large states for security? 22:00 - Nope, because Switzerland and Venice. France, Britain and the Soviet union were never safe to live in because of world wars. Now comes the oppression strawman. Well clearly if he wanted to oppress people he'd come up with an easier way to do it than ressurecting the concept of secession which has been toxified for a century and a half. Have to say that he is kind of right here. 23:00 - Think about minorities in the world, and how they've done under large centralized states. How did armenians do under the Ottoman empire? Not very good honestly, but I personally don't think they'd do all that much better if they'd succeeded. Just saying. Honestly this whole section is really boring and rambling. He isn't making any points, he's just rambling. What is most notable is that he is completely avoiding the most notable example of secession in the US, can't imagine why he'd do that.  24:00 - Representation has gone down. I agree, we should expand the number of representatives in the house. But of course that isn't on the card (x13?) so they won't refute it. I actually call total bullshit on this one, because I can think of plenty of politicans who have brought up the issue of representation. There are arguments to be had on both sides about increasing the number of representatives in the house, but it is much better for Tom Woods to pretend these arguments don't happen and instead die on the cross in regards to the subject. He is being incredibly loving dishonest here. 25:00 - The US spends a lot of money, and there are only 435 representatives, so they are each spending a lot of money. Somehow this is bad. It would be so much better if we split into 3,000 countries. There is nothing 'crazy' about talking about redrawing these lines, because its not like it is really that big of a deal. Again I have to say, this is so loving dishonest. It would take decades to deal with the political, social, economic and military ramifications of even one US state seceding, pretending as if it is just some minor thing is ridiculous. 26:00 - The mainstream left is on the card (x14) so they aren't even going to entertain the idea of splitting the US into dozens of different states with no federal government, especially in light of the fact that secession has a history of racial issues. Yeah... 27:00 - Christ, I'm almost there. Decentralization is apparently deeply embedded in america. He cites the declaration of independence and I want to take a step back here and talk about this: A lot of people go on and on about how it is hypocritical for the US to have declared independence from Britain, but to force the Confederacy back into the union. Well the key to why one is okay and the other is not actually lies in the declaration of independence. Here is how it begins: quote:When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. This part is ultimately very important because it explains why is is necessary for the states to seceed. It does not say "When in the course of human events, it becomes advantageous or profitable or popular or convenient for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another" it says when it is necessary. This necessity in turn points to what they believed to be the proper purpose of government, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is a big deal because these are limiting principles, the States didn't declare their independence 'just cuz' which would have been treason, but because they felt it was necessary to retain the good function of governance. For the confederate states to have a similar claim they would have to argue either that there were no strong bonds in the union, or that the election of Lincoln made secession necessary, that slavery itself was necessary for life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. The first has been dealt with for centuries now, and is abundantly clear that the US is a union in perpetuity, one that cannot be unilaterally dissolved. The second on the other hand, is just absurd on its face. The idea that the US has some deep roots in secession is ahistorical and wrong, and the fact that some US states had assumed what we now agree to be federal powers in the early days of the union doesn't mean gently caress all, especially in light of the fact that they later willingly relinquished those powers in the wake of the revolution. 28:00 - He quotes article two of the articles of confederation as "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence" but omits the fact that it actually reads "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated." Fun fact the preamble for the same document says that the states "agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union" He thinks that the fact that the constitution had to be ratified by the states somehow means... something. I'm not sure really. 29:00 - He asserts that the arguments are entirely on his side, and that the 'thought controllers' don't ever want to debate them. Which is of course something that is patently absurd. I think that he forgot that he had points that he wanted to bring up, he had to double back and its funny. 30:00 - He quotes a european philosopher who said that if a state wanted to leave it could and the federal government would have no means of maintaining its claims by force or by right. Generally not a good idea to quote a guy who... you know has been proven wrong. 31:00 - Its really weird that he thinks that quoting a couple of 19th century philosophers should somehow make me go "Oh poo poo, yeah we should totally talk about secession!" And now he is back to bitching about how the whole discussion is off the table. There is some irony about him bitching about the fact that he can't even raise the question while in fact, doing just that. Its almost as if he is full of poo poo. Helpful tip Tom Woods, you are allowed to say whatever you want. We don't have to listen to you. 32:00 - The enforcers of approved opinion better enjoy it while it lasts. Tom Woods has a podcast, so your days are numbered. Index card (x15), Blog plugs. There is nothing that the media complex can do about it. Muhahahahahahaha! Wait, this loving idiot is Harvard educated? He's hocking poo poo again, this time for the Mises institute. 33:00 - Oh and one last 3x5 card (x16). I'm done. His speech is over and I'm not going to listen to three more minutes of this retard talking about how great his blog is. This man is a god awful public speaker.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:I appreciate your gusto but this dude is currently in the process of trying to explain why the League of the South isn't really racist. Treating him like he gives a poo poo about anything other than the rich white man is giving him too much credit. Where did I mention the League of the South? I am genuinely curious but to my knowledge this recent event that Ron Paul and others spoke at was a regular Mises Circle event that the Mises Institute has held for years. This is the event: http://mises.org/events/houston-mises-circle-2015
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Where did I mention the League of the South? I am genuinely curious but to my knowledge this recent event that Ron Paul and others spoke at was a regular Mises Circle event that the Mises Institute has held for years. I guess you missed the one where he gave the speech about Secession in front of the Confederate Flag  Also: its hilarious you don't grasp that the only people calling for Session are White Supremacists and Tea Partiers, which is literally a nest of racist assholes, and how that relates to the fact that Mises supports them
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Where did I mention the League of the South? I am genuinely curious but to my knowledge this recent event that Ron Paul and others spoke at was a regular Mises Circle event that the Mises Institute has held for years. I did in the post that you quoted to start this off but clearly didn't read. Tom Woods, the guy who's video you linked? He is a founding member of the League of the South. Ron Paul is sharing an event with a guy who founded the League of the South, much like how Hoppe is hanging around with Racial Realists. I mean this isn't really all that new, for example, Anonymous hacked white power emails and found that A3P was meeting directly with Ron and Rand Paul in 2011. Or how Ron Paul publicly endorsed KKK Grand Wizard David Duke for the Senate. Or how Ron Paul recieved donation checks from stormfront and refused to return them. I can go on. quote:I guess you missed the one where he gave the speech about Secession in front of the Confederate Flag Hahahahahaha! Ironically, Ron Paul claimed after the speech in an interview with infowars that he isn't really interested in secession so much as liberty. Which actually does jive with what he said in the speech. On the other hand, he did come to a secession event, so I don't really feel like giving him a pass. Caros fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
Caros posted:I did in the post that you quoted to start this off but clearly didn't read. Tom Woods, the guy who's video you linked? He is a founding member of the League of the South. Ron Paul is sharing an event with a guy who founded the League of the South, much like how Hoppe is hanging around with Racial Realists. I mean this isn't really all that new, for example, Anonymous hacked white power emails and found that A3P was meeting directly with Ron and Rand Paul in 2011. Or how Ron Paul publicly endorsed KKK Grand Wizard David Duke for the Senate. Or how Ron Paul recieved donation checks from stormfront and refused to return them. Yup, Tom Woods is listed as an official speaker on their itinerary Holy poo poo, I love when Jrod links thinking it won't backfire on him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I guess you missed the one where he gave the speech about Secession in front of the Confederate Flag [jrodefeld voice] Well just because they want slaves doesn't prove they only want to enslave blacks. Looks like you're the real racists, socialists![/jrodefeld voice]
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Where did I mention the League of the South? I am genuinely curious but to my knowledge this recent event that Ron Paul and others spoke at was a regular Mises Circle event that the Mises Institute has held for years. 10:00 a.m. Jeff Deist "Secession Begins at Home" quote:“The America we thought we knew, ladies and gentlemen, is a mirage. It’s a memory. It’s a foreign country,” Jeff Deist, Ron Paul’s former press secretary and chief of staff, told the group. “And that’s precisely why we should take secession seriously.” 10:20 a.m. Brion McClanahan "Secession: The American Tradition" quote:In his new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Real American Heroes, author Brion McClanahan rescues the legendary deeds of the greatest Americans and shows why we ought to venerate heroes like Captain John Smith, adventurer Daniel Boone, General Robert E. Lee and many more. 10:40 a.m. Lew Rockwell "Secession is Libertarian" Panel and lunch break! 1:15 p.m. Tom Woods "Secession: The Reasonable Option Everyone Resists" wiki posted:In a review of Woods' Politically Incorrect Guide to American History published in The Weekly Standard, historian Max Boot criticized Woods for being a founding member of the League of the South. Boot noted that this organization advocated secession and "counsels 'white Southerners' that they should not 'give control over their civilization and its institutions to another race, whether it be native blacks or Hispanic immigrants'". A winter 2006 Intelligence Report by the Southern Poverty Law Center also criticized Woods' membership in the League, which the report described as "a Southern secessionist group with white supremacist ideology". Eric L. Muller, a professor and associate dean at the University of North Carolina School of Law, wrote that Woods was "a frequent contributor to the League's journal, The Southern Patriot, and has spoken at its conventions"; Muller also wrote that Woods, in an essay for the League's journal (the Southern Patriot), had characterized nineteenth-century abolitionists as "utterly reprehensible agitators who put metaphysical abstractions ahead of prudence, charity, and rationality". 1:45 p.m. Ron Paul "Secession and Liberty"
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:[jrodefeld voice] Well just because they want slaves doesn't prove they only want to enslave blacks. Looks like you're the real racists, socialists![/jrodefeld voice] Well, you see, the legal right to discriminate will keep the undesirable blacks, jews, and Catholics out! Problems solved! Don't forget the poor!
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yup, Tom Woods is listed as an official speaker on their itinerary Its not even that, the youtube video I have posted above contains his entire speech.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Where did I mention the League of the South? I am genuinely curious but to my knowledge this recent event that Ron Paul and others spoke at was a regular Mises Circle event that the Mises Institute has held for years. IN THE CONTEXT OF RON PAUL'S ASSOCIATION WITH NEO-CONFEDERATE SECESSIONISTS, Jesus Tapdancing Christ have you ACTUALLY FORGOTTEN WHAT THIS IS ABOUT
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No, stop. You are not allowed to zoom out to the meta like this and talk about secessionists in general. We are talking about Neo-Confederates and not any other kind of secessionist. You might as well classify them as mammals and point out that not all mammals are racist. #NotAllCollectionsOfOrganicMolecules
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Well, you see, the legal right to discriminate will keep the undesirable blacks, jews, and Catholics out! Problems solved! This could just as easily apply to a group of Hindus wanting to keep Christians out, though! I mean, it didn't and literally any specific example I could find is about white people wanting minorities to be expelled from their communities, but in theory it could!
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:This could just as easily apply to a group of Hindus wanting to keep Christians out, though! I mean, it didn't and literally any specific example I could find is about white people wanting minorities to be expelled from their communities, but in theory it could! The only justified discrimination is my discrimination.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The only justified discrimination is my discrimination. Jrod has more than once commented that discrimination, in and of itself, isn't a bad thing because sure you might think saying "no colored allowed" is morally wrong but what if instead they said "no pedophiles allows" WHAT THEN MR. LIBERAL?! This is barely even paraphrasing, in case anyone was wondering.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 21:12 |
|
|
Okay we need to step back and be very clear on what flags actually are. Flags are coloured pieces of cloth with heraldric symbols representing a group of people. They often represent a nationality or a political organization such as a state. There can, and indeed have been, many examples of flags representing states that enhance personal freedom for minorities and reject the bigotry and racism of other states. You are making the erroneous and ahistorical claim that the intentions of those who wish to fly and give speeches in front of a flag are inherently racist or only want to oppress people. What would be wrong about representing a state with a flag? So what if US politicians attend events with flags draped everywhere? Who is to say that this display of patriotism might not be beneficial? Maybe embodying a nation and its values with a flag makes it more identifiable and memorable?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 05:53
|
|