News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

GOP Primary Debate #1

Started by jimmy olsen, August 04, 2015, 10:28:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Barrister

Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2015, 03:43:55 PM
Why would it be worth one's time to act like racist views are ratio.al points up for debate?

Well presumably one engages in discussion because they want to exchange views.

If you want to just stop talking to people who you feel are racists that's fine.  But if you want to further the discussion...
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

garbon

Fair and yeah I've no desire to exchange views if what I'm getting in return is racist commentary.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Razgovory

Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2015, 03:13:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2015, 03:05:51 PM
Couple of things.  Time and scale should be considered.  The Women's Suffrage movement was enormous and happened about a hundred years ago, so naturally there would be some racism.  The libertarian thing is quite small, and the racism I'm talking about is from 1970's to the 1990's.  So theorists and politicians being racist are a bit more relevant since they make up a larger portion of libertarians and it occurs in a period where this sort behavior becomes taboo.  I think everyone who wrote on women's suffrage when it was an issue is dead.  People like Lew Rockwell and Charles Murray are still alive.

Raz, I find this kind of "hidden agenda" political debate to be completely futile.

You can't know what's in another man's soul.  You can't know whether Ron Paul, or Murray Rothbard, or whomever, is truly a racist or not.  That's a matter of their own beliefs.  Short of being able to read people's minds, you can't know what someone thinks.  Even if someone says at one time something explicitly racist, it may not reflect their current beliefs, or they may have had some other motive for doing so.

What you're trying to do is read the tea leaves - go looking through scattered writings and ancient speeches to attempt to determine a person's motives.  I find it's much better instead to take people at their word, and criticize them for things their actual policy positions, and what they say they actually believe in.  After all for Libertarians it's not hard to find plenty of substantial matters to criticize them for!

Can we tell if Murray Rothbard or Ron Paul are truly libertarian?  If we go by the idea that we can't know what's truly in a man's soul then anything they say is questionable.  Sure, they said libertarian things in the past, but is Ron Paul at this very moment a libertarian?  Am I to doubt that you are Patriotic Canadian because you aren't saying so at this very moment?  This line of argument is absurd.  My argument that the libertarians courted racists actually comes from the arguments that Reason magazine made about Ron Paul's Newsletters.  That people like Lew Rockwell (who they claimed wrote Ron Paul's newsletters), was deliberately trying to court "social conservatives", by using racist language.  They called this "Paleolibertarianism".
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Barrister

Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2015, 05:09:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2015, 03:13:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2015, 03:05:51 PM
Couple of things.  Time and scale should be considered.  The Women's Suffrage movement was enormous and happened about a hundred years ago, so naturally there would be some racism.  The libertarian thing is quite small, and the racism I'm talking about is from 1970's to the 1990's.  So theorists and politicians being racist are a bit more relevant since they make up a larger portion of libertarians and it occurs in a period where this sort behavior becomes taboo.  I think everyone who wrote on women's suffrage when it was an issue is dead.  People like Lew Rockwell and Charles Murray are still alive.

Raz, I find this kind of "hidden agenda" political debate to be completely futile.

You can't know what's in another man's soul.  You can't know whether Ron Paul, or Murray Rothbard, or whomever, is truly a racist or not.  That's a matter of their own beliefs.  Short of being able to read people's minds, you can't know what someone thinks.  Even if someone says at one time something explicitly racist, it may not reflect their current beliefs, or they may have had some other motive for doing so.

What you're trying to do is read the tea leaves - go looking through scattered writings and ancient speeches to attempt to determine a person's motives.  I find it's much better instead to take people at their word, and criticize them for things their actual policy positions, and what they say they actually believe in.  After all for Libertarians it's not hard to find plenty of substantial matters to criticize them for!

Can we tell if Murray Rothbard or Ron Paul are truly libertarian?  If we go by the idea that we can't know what's truly in a man's soul then anything they say is questionable.  Sure, they said libertarian things in the past, but is Ron Paul at this very moment a libertarian?  Am I to doubt that you are Patriotic Canadian because you aren't saying so at this very moment?  This line of argument is absurd.  My argument that the libertarians courted racists actually comes from the arguments that Reason magazine made about Ron Paul's Newsletters.  That people like Lew Rockwell (who they claimed wrote Ron Paul's newsletters), was deliberately trying to court "social conservatives", by using racist language.  They called this "Paleolibertarianism".

I tried.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

Admiral Yi

Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2015, 04:01:01 AM
I'm not sure that is the core belief of libertarianism.  The core belief appears to be freedom from government, particularly federal government.  Freedom from starvation doesn't seem to be big on their to do list.  Freedom from discrimination isn't big on their list either.

If we're going to rehash the old negative/postive rights thing, we might as well break out the soda/pop map.

Savonarola

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on August 11, 2015, 04:21:22 AM
Quote from: Savonarola on August 10, 2015, 03:33:58 PM
I was in Colombia again last week.  The Colombians call Trump "El Maduro de Los Estados Unidos."

He should try to win the Hispanic vote with that: Donald Trump un caudillo norteamericano

Donald Trump
Un pueblo, una patria, un caudillo
Better. :)

:lol:

Much better

Though when I first read this I thought "Oh, so 'Volk' would be pueblo not gente."  Only on Languish could you casually pick up totalitarian slogans in a foreign language.
In Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace—and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock

Razgovory

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2015, 05:28:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2015, 04:01:01 AM
I'm not sure that is the core belief of libertarianism.  The core belief appears to be freedom from government, particularly federal government.  Freedom from starvation doesn't seem to be big on their to do list.  Freedom from discrimination isn't big on their list either.

If we're going to rehash the old negative/postive rights thing, we might as well break out the soda/pop map.

I'm quite aware that Libertarians only recognize certain rights.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

viper37

Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2015, 03:35:35 PM
When did racism get a religious exemption? :wacko:
Around the time when the Egyptians kicked the Jews out of Egypt.
I don't do meditation.  I drink alcohol to relax, like normal people.

If Microsoft Excel decided to stop working overnight, the world would practically end.

Admiral Yi

Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2015, 06:08:02 PM
I'm quite aware that Libertarians only recognize certain rights.

I'm equally aware that progressives like to proclaim a right to anything they want to have.

viper37

Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2015, 04:18:01 PM
Fair and yeah I've no desire to exchange views if what I'm getting in return is racist commentary.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2015, 05:09:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2015, 03:13:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2015, 03:05:51 PM
Couple of things.  Time and scale should be considered.  The Women's Suffrage movement was enormous and happened about a hundred years ago, so naturally there would be some racism.  The libertarian thing is quite small, and the racism I'm talking about is from 1970's to the 1990's.  So theorists and politicians being racist are a bit more relevant since they make up a larger portion of libertarians and it occurs in a period where this sort behavior becomes taboo.  I think everyone who wrote on women's suffrage when it was an issue is dead.  People like Lew Rockwell and Charles Murray are still alive.

Raz, I find this kind of "hidden agenda" political debate to be completely futile.

You can't know what's in another man's soul.  You can't know whether Ron Paul, or Murray Rothbard, or whomever, is truly a racist or not.  That's a matter of their own beliefs.  Short of being able to read people's minds, you can't know what someone thinks.  Even if someone says at one time something explicitly racist, it may not reflect their current beliefs, or they may have had some other motive for doing so.

What you're trying to do is read the tea leaves - go looking through scattered writings and ancient speeches to attempt to determine a person's motives.  I find it's much better instead to take people at their word, and criticize them for things their actual policy positions, and what they say they actually believe in.  After all for Libertarians it's not hard to find plenty of substantial matters to criticize them for!

Can we tell if Murray Rothbard or Ron Paul are truly libertarian?
Can we tell if Obama is really a Christian?
I don't do meditation.  I drink alcohol to relax, like normal people.

If Microsoft Excel decided to stop working overnight, the world would practically end.

Berkut

Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2015, 06:02:36 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2015, 05:53:37 PM
There's nothing at all about the core libertarian belief that individual freedom is the highest good and should be as unconstrained as possible that leads inevitably to racism.
No, there isn't.  Although if there is an existing discrimination problem, the theory that under libertarian rule it will be solved by economic disincentives to continue discriminating is perched solidly in la-la-land.

Now, THAT I can agree with - and I would even go further and note that the general idea that problems can and would be solved if only there were more "libertarian" economic policies is also perched solidly in la-la land.

Human beings, by and large, are not particularly rational actors, and in fact have shown time and again that they are willing to take an economic hit in order to protect their ignorance and bigotry.
"If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven't been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

Berkut

Quote from: Marty
You could say that libertarianism - like communism or anarcho-syndicalism - is one of those systems that work well on paper when you assume human beings not acting like selfish prejudiced assholes. That is rarely the case.

I tend to agree.

I cut out the rest of your post, because I don't agree with it - but this part I think is accurate.
"If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven't been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

Razgovory

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2015, 06:15:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2015, 06:08:02 PM
I'm quite aware that Libertarians only recognize certain rights.

I'm equally aware that progressives like to proclaim a right to anything they want to have.

Without ability negative rights are meaningless.  A man floating in the middle of the ocean may have the right to a free press, but since he lacks the ability to do anything his rights are meaningless.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Berkut

Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2015, 05:09:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2015, 05:09:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2015, 03:13:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2015, 03:05:51 PM
Couple of things.  Time and scale should be considered.  The Women's Suffrage movement was enormous and happened about a hundred years ago, so naturally there would be some racism.  The libertarian thing is quite small, and the racism I'm talking about is from 1970's to the 1990's.  So theorists and politicians being racist are a bit more relevant since they make up a larger portion of libertarians and it occurs in a period where this sort behavior becomes taboo.  I think everyone who wrote on women's suffrage when it was an issue is dead.  People like Lew Rockwell and Charles Murray are still alive.

Raz, I find this kind of "hidden agenda" political debate to be completely futile.

You can't know what's in another man's soul.  You can't know whether Ron Paul, or Murray Rothbard, or whomever, is truly a racist or not.  That's a matter of their own beliefs.  Short of being able to read people's minds, you can't know what someone thinks.  Even if someone says at one time something explicitly racist, it may not reflect their current beliefs, or they may have had some other motive for doing so.

What you're trying to do is read the tea leaves - go looking through scattered writings and ancient speeches to attempt to determine a person's motives.  I find it's much better instead to take people at their word, and criticize them for things their actual policy positions, and what they say they actually believe in.  After all for Libertarians it's not hard to find plenty of substantial matters to criticize them for!

Can we tell if Murray Rothbard or Ron Paul are truly libertarian?  If we go by the idea that we can't know what's truly in a man's soul then anything they say is questionable.  Sure, they said libertarian things in the past, but is Ron Paul at this very moment a libertarian?  Am I to doubt that you are Patriotic Canadian because you aren't saying so at this very moment?  This line of argument is absurd.  My argument that the libertarians courted racists actually comes from the arguments that Reason magazine made about Ron Paul's Newsletters.  That people like Lew Rockwell (who they claimed wrote Ron Paul's newsletters), was deliberately trying to court "social conservatives", by using racist language.  They called this "Paleolibertarianism".

I tried.

Yeah, so did I - and quickly regretted it just like you. It is pointless.

Every once in a while I give it another go, and am quickly corrected.
"If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven't been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

Razgovory

Have you ever thought about trying with out wild hyperbole and abusive language?
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017