GOP Primary Debate #1

[Berkut]

This is why it is impossible to actually have a discussion with Drazuller. They throw out something ridiculous, like "ZOMG TEH libertarians are a bunch of racists" and then you get into corner case arguments instead of actually talking about anything real.

Which, I know, is exactly their intent.

[Razgovory]

You know what my intent is?  I'm surprised.  I don't know what my intent is.  Do you really have be a jackass all the time Berkut?  You respond with hyperbole, go on ranting, and don't actually take the time to read what I post.  I posted several links, you admitted to reading one before stating the decision that you had come to before you even finished reading my first post.  "Raz is dishonestly claiming that all libertarians are racist" despite the fact I did not claim that.  I claimed that some libertarians are racist. This is almost certainly true.  I claimed that Reason magazine endorsed apartheid, which was true.  They did claim it was only because of the threat of communism (which did not materialize itself when apartheid was ended), but the fact they endorsed racial segregation and government tyranny on Africans still stands.  I claimed that influential libertarians such as Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard made an effort to enlist racists to the libertarian cause, something Reason magazine itself states.  I did claim Rothbard is a racist.  That one you can contest, he certainly said racist things but maybe he was talking bullshit.

[DGuller]

Do you really have be a jackass all the time Berkut?

He just really, really hates it when people try to read into other people's intentions.

[Berkut]

Do you really have be a jackass all the time Berkut?

He just really, really hates it when people try to read into other people's intentions.

We've had this discussion before - there is a big difference between judging what the intent of an individual is based on their posts, and deciding that it is perfectly fine to assume that entire groups of people have views that you know they would deny based on their inclusion in some group that you have ideological disagreements with - but you know that as well, of course.

Calling you lacking in intellectual integrity might be incorrect (although it pretty clearly is not), but it isn't bigotry.

Painting entire groups of people you don't even know with the same brush because it is convenient to do so is the very definition of the word.

But keep in encouraging your Razzy, he seems to like it as much as you do. You are a super team together.

[Valmy]

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

So if somebody says things that are not racist and you discover that two decades ago their name was attached to something racist you would just assume they were worthless and not even bother to give them a chance to explain? Because you are 100% sure they will respond with racist commentary? That strikes me as unreasonable. I know you insisted on fearless disrespect but surely this not some puritanical thing where one possible sin in the distant past gets you damned forever.

Have you never said anything even remotely objectionable in your entire life?

[DGuller]

We've had this discussion before - there is a big difference between judging what the intent of an individual is based on their posts, and deciding that it is perfectly fine to assume that entire groups of people have views that you know they would deny based on their inclusion in some group that you have ideological disagreements with - but you know that as well, of course.

You should really stop assuming things about what people think, know,  or intend.  Whether it's okay to do it or not is actually beside the point, just merely for practical reasons;  you are very terrible at it.  In my case anyway, I don't know about others, since I only know what I myself know, mean, or intend. 

There are many things you do while attempting discussions with people that really turn them off, but this is one of the bigger ones.  No one enjoys debating about what they think, mean, or intend, so all such discussions instantly turn hostile.  Which I know is exactly what your intent is, that's the only aspect about them that you enjoy.

[Berkut]

I suppose it is possible you do NOT know that difference, but I actually think you are pretty bright, so I don't really buy into the idea that you are just ignorant of your own bigotry.

I do find it funny that you can actually say this:

You should really stop assuming things about what people think, know,  or intend

and

In my case anyway, I don't know about others, since I only know what I myself know, mean, or intend.

followed by

Which I know is exactly what your intent is

That is rather amusing - I wonder if it is intentionally ridiculous, or are you really this incapable of understanding what you say?

In any case, this is all so over-done. You say something you know is grossly bigoted, you act all surprised and shocked that someone might object, and neatly derail the discussion into the Razullertastic bullshit about just how racist libertarians are - yawn. No amount of anything anyone can say can dissuade the dynamic duo of course. Reason magazine once argued that apartheid might be a necessary evil, hence libertarians are all secret racists. Right.

It gets boring, sure, but the only thing worse is just letting your intolerance and bigotry go unremarked *all* the time

[DGuller]

I suppose it is possible you do NOT know that difference, but I actually think you are pretty bright, so I don't really buy into the idea that you are just ignorant of your own bigotry.

I do find it funny that you can actually say this:

You should really stop assuming things about what people think, know,  or intend

and

In my case anyway, I don't know about others, since I only know what I myself know, mean, or intend.

followed by

Which I know is exactly what your intent is

That is rather amusing - I wonder if it is intentionally ridiculous, or are you really this incapable of understanding what you say?

[The Minsky Moment]

Okay, I'll give a last piece article, from Reason magazine, which as I said is the big libertarian magazine.  The authors the article are libertarians.  They describe the same strategy that I am describing.  So if it's just some conspiracy and delusion that is my head, I'm not alone.

So the big libertarian magazine is publishing an expose criticizing some big name libertarians for voicing racist views or not taking responsibility for such views being voiced under the names.  That isn't very convincing proof that libertarianism as a political ideology is inherently racist.

[Martinus]

Could it be said that (unlike certain other political ideologies, especially on the left) libertarianism does not generally consider combating racism its top priority and it is willing to tolerate racism in the name of personal freedom?

Racism is now (rightly or wrongly) considered one of the greatest evils of the world by certain portions of the public (the so-called "liberal left", for example) and it seems clear to me that libertarians do not necessarily share this view.

[Valmy]

Left wingers, theoretically, tend to put justice above everything else. Which is awesome. But they tend to discount everything else, which is where it becomes more complicated.

Especially those who believe the Rousseau-type deal that people are all naturally good and insidious outside forces corrupt them.

Libertarians, theoretically, put individual freedom above everything else with similar problems.

[Martinus]

Left wingers, theoretically, tend to put justice above everything else. Which is awesome. But they tend to discount everything else, which is where it becomes more complicated.

Especially those who believe the Rousseau-type deal that people are all naturally good and insidious outside forces corrupt them.

Libertarians, theoretically, put individual freedom above everything else with similar problems.

Actually, I would say it's more "equality" than "justice". Justice can be an aspect of equality (equality under law, for example) but there are elements to the concept of justice that are not necessarily espoused by the left (for example retributive justice is more of the right's domain, whereas distributive justice is indeed the domain of the left).

[Valmy]

Actually, I would say it's more "equality" than "justice". Justice can be an aspect of equality (equality under law, for example) but there are elements to the concept of justice that are not necessarily espoused by the left (for example retributive justice is more of the right's domain, whereas distributive justice is indeed the domain of the left).

Sure. I meant justice in the social sense not in the legal sense. I guess equality basically means that.

In France the left always did like the égalité more than the liberté.

[Martinus]

Nobody likes fraternité.

[Valmy]

Nobody likes fraternité.

I would say it is the liberté that tends to get ignored sadly. But let's not get sidetracked