GOP Primary Debate #1

[Barrister]

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...

[garbon]

Fair and yeah I've no desire to exchange views if what I'm getting in return is racist commentary.

[Razgovory]

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".

[Barrister]

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.

[Admiral Yi]

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]

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.

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.

[Razgovory]

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.

[viper37]

When did racism get a religious exemption?

Around the time when the Egyptians kicked the Jews out of Egypt.

[Admiral Yi]

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]

Fair and yeah I've no desire to exchange views if what I'm getting in return is racist commentary.

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?

[Berkut]

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.

[Berkut]

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.

[Razgovory]

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.

[Berkut]

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.

[Razgovory]

Have you ever thought about trying with out wild hyperbole and abusive language?