The writers here at Independent Political Report post information to keep you up to date about activity in the United States regarding third parties and Independents. We try to limit our articles to that criteria, and certainly keep busy trying to pass along what we find as news. Lately, however, there have been some excellent articles about the general theme of libertarianism aside from the Libertarian Party. Also, the topic of anarchy is getting quite a bit of media attention. This thread, then, is dedicated to those articles that don’t really fit into the usual parameters of actual political parties and Independents and the ballot box.
We like to start open threads with a video, and I can’t think of a better one than this one:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/09/open-thread-iii-for-discussions-of-small-l-libertarianism-and-anarchy/
green: Any capitalist ownership model requires coercion–eg the dreaded ‘government’. Such a model is not justifiable on principle but rather by pragmatics (eg, better than the alternatives).
Me: I may agree with this. Please expand.
I think the way I’d put it is capitalism requires a legal system, and a legal system implies a government. For me, the problem is not “capitalism,” but rather the legal system. Without a system based on fairness and transparency (and hopefully efficiently provided), capitalism becomes exploitative and malleable.
I’d go further to say that a truly fair legal system is impossible. This makes capitalism wobbly.
I was going to chime in on it some more but hadn’t got around to it yet.
Sure, go ahead. I was kind of waiting until the current conversation died out, which might have happened already.
Jill, do you want to put up the new thread? I can do it if you don’t.
As far as the Nap goes, maybe I could get behind some version of it in a “freed market”, post-revolutionary situation–eg where there is rough equality of authority and people do not earn profits merely through ownership. Any capitalist ownership model requires coercion–eg the dreaded ‘government’. Such a model is not justifiable on principle but rather by pragmatics (eg, better than the alternatives).
The government corruption and imperialism we experience today are outgrowths of the capitalist system–eg rampant inequality of ownership and rampant inequality of authority. As long as there are concentrations of wealth as we see them today, the police and army are necessary to maintain them.
Talk to me about non-aggression when you’ve worked out an economic philosophy that is not based on the coercion of the many in the service of the few insiders who happen to hold ownership of the land and means of production.
Frankly, I wish that every Democrat and every Republican would leave the country (except for any Ron Paul types). This country would be a much better place without them.
There is NO right to be a Democrat. There is no RIGHT to be a Republican, There is NO right to be anything other than a libertarian. Any ideology that is not libertarian is ultimately an anti-freedom ideology to one degree or another (and yes, I acknowledge that some ideologies are more toxic than others, and that some within a given ideology are more toxic than others within the same ideology, but still, libertarianism is the only ideology that consistently favors individual freedom).
“Jill Pyeatt Post authorSeptember 2, 2014 at 11:16 am
As far as closing the country to non-libertarians, doing so would violate any principle of live-and-let-live. We have to allow people to not live as libertarians.”
Closing the country, or any territory, off to non-libertarians most definitely does NOT violate the live-and-let-live principle. Why? Because libertarians are the ONLY ones who really believe in the live-and-let-live principle.
Democrats, Republicans, Greens, socialists, fascists, monarchists, theocrats, etc…, are all ultimately a threat to freedom, precisely because they are not libertarians, as in they do not adhere to the NAP concept.
Libertarians are the only truly peaceful people. A person can not live as a Democrat, Republican, Green, socialist, fascist, monarchist, theocrat, or anything else that is not a libertarian, without infringing on the right of others.
A person has NO right to be anything other than a libertarian. Why? Because being anything other than a libertarian means that one wants to infringe on the rights of others.
A Democrat or a Republican or etc…, (insert whatever non-libertarian ideology) wants to take my money and boss me around. How in the hell is this consistent with libertarian principles, and why would I want people like this living anywhere near me, or having any kind of control over my life? Why would I want to live in a place where people like this can register to vote, and then vote to take away my freedoms?
As far as closing the country to non-libertarians, doing so would violate any principle of live-and-let-live. We have to allow people to not live as libertarians. Perhaps that’s ironic, but absolutely necessary if we are going to practice what we preach. ,
Starchild said: “After all, they can argue, like New Hampshire the U.S. offers such an obvious choice for where freedom has the best chances of success in the world — a small jurisdiction where an influx of libertarians could easily make a difference, in which current political conditions are already so strongly libertarian.”
I don’t really see the Free State Project as working in New Hampshire (at least not yet). There are not enough libertarians there to take over a state with over 1.3 million people (at least not without a lot more libertarians moving there), plus there is nothing to stop non-libertarians from moving there.
Instead of having small numbers of libertarians spread out across New Hampshire, why haven’t they concentrated their efforts on one county or town? It seems to me that after 11 years, they could have taken over one county or one town by now.
The closest thing they have to a libertarian society is Porcfest, but that’s only a one week event, held once a year. Why not set up a full time community at Porcfest and make it a year round settlement?
“Starchild September 2, 2014 at 3:23 am
Andy – If there were a government in power that was libertarian enough to adopt a policy of barring immigrants who didn’t hold libertarian views, the ban would be unnecessary, since any government willing and able to take such an extreme step would presumably also have the political convictions and freedom of action to scrap the welfare state.”
This is all covered in my Libertarian Zone concept (see the link above).
Andy – If there were a government in power that was libertarian enough to adopt a policy of barring immigrants who didn’t hold libertarian views, the ban would be unnecessary, since any government willing and able to take such an extreme step would presumably also have the political convictions and freedom of action to scrap the welfare state.
Within the United States, evidence suggests there is a fair amount of political self-sorting that goes on — Democrats disproportionately seek out blue states and cities and neighborhoods within those states, to call home, while Republicans do the same with red states, cities, and neighborhoods. And of course Libertarians have the “free state”, New Hampshire.
But this is only possible with freedom of movement. When border controls prevent free migration, as is generally the case internationally, people are less able to seek out jurisdictions in keeping with their beliefs. Thus a “free nation project” along the lines of the Free State Project — or a “Libertarian Zone” if you prefer — becomes a less viable endeavor.
Of course some libertarians might say that we should only be concerned with maximizing the ratio of libertarians to non-libertarians in the United States, and not bother thinking about the effect of border controls on other countries.
After all, they can argue, like New Hampshire the U.S. offers such an obvious choice for where freedom has the best chances of success in the world — a small jurisdiction where an influx of libertarians could easily make a difference, in which current political conditions are already so strongly libertarian.
If one is not an anarcho-capitalist / voluntaryist, or at least a small government constitutionalist, they are a threat to individual freedom. They are NOT peaceful people. People who are not libertarians do not really believe in live and let live, they believe in using the force of government to cram their agenda down the throats of everyone else. Therefore, libertarians are not really compatible with non-libertarians.
“If immigration is to be limited to those who hold libertarian views, should we also deport citizens who don’t hold libertarian views?”
Ideally, yes.
What percent of immigrants who come to America today are really looking for individual freedom, and what percent would prefer to live in some kind of socialist state?
Since we are losing freedom in this country, many of the wrong kind of people are attracted to come to America.
“On the political views of immigrants ? they sound a lot like the political views of many Americans.”
Yes, this is part of the problem. You can’t have a free society when the majority of people in a society do not believe in individual freedom.
This problem is covered in my Libertarian Zone concept which has been posted about here before: https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/andy-jacobs-the-libertarian-zone/ .
JP, I’ve not said anything about a “free pass.” I’m a radical, originalist L who finds far more wisdom in Lao Tzu’s radical words than Rothbard or Konkin. In fact, I don’t find Rothbard or Konkin radical at all.
If Cheney killed all those people, then he should be stripped of his wealth, I’d say, with the funds dispursed to his victims. I have reasonable doubts that he did. You may be sure he did it, but your beliefs may or may not be true, yes?
RC said: ” History is at once interesting and completely irrelevant in the here and now, for me. What’s past is past, as I see it. Whether Cheney called the shots on 9/11 or the CIA killed Kennedy, it seems these are footnotes. If there are deathbed confessions on these and other conspiracies, I say, So what? There were bad actors in the past as there are now. ”
It is utterly beyond me how anyone claiming to be a “radical Libertarian” would think mass murderers should get a free pass. I’ll fight to expose the perpetrators until the day I die.
jp: People evolve. Circumstances change. So what if he kept his thoughts to himself while he was a Congressman? Many of us do stay quiet at times when it might be dangerous to say too much to much to the wrong people.
me: Agreed. RP is positioned as the pol with candor and “principle.” A is right that RP made vague references in a Truther direction previously. He’s a guy that defends heroin legalization on national debates, so I’m not sure what that sez about his either holding back on a more strident Truther position OR an evolution in his thinking.
I favor evolution in thinking. Very much so. I’m a Randian/Rothbardian in recovery, after all. In my youth, for about a week, I thought there is a right to private nukes, as I ran the question through my NAPsolutist circuits, and couldn’t find a NAP case against such a right.
Nowadays, I favor some calibration of the positions one takes. It’s a fine line, though. I support taking measured positions, but keeping an “out.” Wiggle room is useful. So is open mindedness!
Neck-vein-bulging: Not so much.
pf: By peacenik approach do you mean in substance, in style or both?
me: Both. It’s been said to have peace teach peace to learn it. Jones and many Ls sincerely want peace, but the offer peace with ballistic rhetoric. I suggest that the best way to have peace is to offer it peacefully.
s: Please show me where Alex Jones is anti-peace. Or are you saying that supporting the right to self-defense is anti-peace?
me: No. I find his presentation hysterical and his conclusions often wild accusations and interpretations.
s: In other words, you don’t generally get involved in arguments about history, except to argue with people who are pro-freedom when we stray too far from the more statist conventional wisdom!
me: No. I’m down with challenging conventional wisdom, be it statist or the Auburn party line! My commitment is to truth and peace in all things.
s: If you don’t have enough doubts about these and other aspects of 9/11 to favor a full, open, independent investigation (i.e. to be for 9/11 Truth), then it seems to me that for all intents and purposes you have accepted the government’s conspiracy theory. Do you really think that theory is close to 100% bullet-proof correct, such that you would rather effectively side with it than with expressing skepticism and calling for a full, open, independent investigation, by being dismissive toward the latter and not the former?
me: History is at once interesting and completely irrelevant in the here and now, for me. What’s past is past, as I see it. Whether Cheney called the shots on 9/11 or the CIA killed Kennedy, it seems these are footnotes. If there are deathbed confessions on these and other conspiracies, I say, So what? There were bad actors in the past as there are now. And…?
I’m not saying to get past it, and I do think people would at least try to change things (although power dynamics wouldn’t change all that much.) What I want to know is why. Why would the average person be more upset to hear that the government killed 3000 than they already are to know it killed hundreds of thousands since? What I mean to say is – everyone who would be outraged when this is proven should already be outraged now.
Sure, they used it to justify violations of our freedom – but again, people who would be outraged to learn that this was done under false pretenses should already be outraged to learn that it was done at all.
I’m surprised at people who think we should just get past the death of 3000 people–even if our own government did it, which many people suspect. The events of 9/11 have made it possible for the Powers That Be to impose the Patriot Act, unbelievably stupid and unnecessary TSA harrassment at airports, and countless other violations of our liberty. If we could prove we were lied to, I’m sure many people wouldn’t care, but enough people would to profoundly change the power of our government. Since they got away with that, what other things are planned to further the chosen agenda? Dick Cheney himself has said to expect something worse than 9/11 anytime now. If anyone in this country would know, it’s him.
I find it disturbing that, if incontrovertible proof were offered that the US gov carried out 9/11 (not that I believe that, just saying) it would have any impact on the political scene. Why does that bother me? Because 3,000 people died – a tiny fraction of those the US gov openly admits to killing since then. It bothers me that most Americans have such a myopic view that they are more concerned about the gov killing 3,000 Americans than hundreds of thousands of people in other places.
On the political views of immigrants – they sound a lot like the political views of many Americans. If immigration is to be limited to those who hold libertarian views, should we also deport citizens who don’t hold libertarian views? The difference is essentially the difference between not buying a stock and selling it, right?
Here is an article from an Alex Jones critic who accuses Alex Jones of be a “shill for the Jews.” (I consider this accusation to be absurd on multiple levels).
http://www.dailyslave.com/jew-shill-alex-jones-promotes-jew-libertarian-neil-schulman-while-ignoring-jew-war-crimes/
Green_w_o_Adjectives said: “As far as Christianity etc, while Jones seems relatively secular, religious identiarianism (eg, right-wing identity politics) is consistently being reinforced in the background.”
Alex Jones does call himself a Christian, and he does talk about religion occasionally, but so what? A person can be a Christian and still be a libertarian.
Paul said: “I think he’s a mix of the two. He seems to have right wing views on immigration, abortion, homosexuality, and such cultural questions.”
I’ve followed Alex Jones since 2001 and I have not heard him call for any legislation against homosexuals. He is against abortion, but so are a lot of libertarians (remember Libertarian Party member Doris Gordon, who passed away recently for just one example). Alex Jones is also not really against immigration, he just knows that immigration is being used as a weapon by the political controllers (aka-“the New World Order”) to flood the country with more people who hold a socialist ideology, or who will not resist the march toward totalitarian socialism, in that they support welfare programs and also favor gun control and the the United Nations (surveys indicate that most immigrants who come to America today are in fact for bigger government and gun control). Alex Jones has gone on record as saying that he SUPPORTS any immigrants who are libertarians or constitutionalists coming to America. Alex Jones has also consistently opposed foreign wars of aggression, NSA spying, and the Patriot Act. He has also favored legalizing marijuana and ending the War on Drugs.
Alex Jones is officially an independent, as in he is not a member of any political party, I would call him a small “l” libertarian, and he has in fact referred to himself as a libertarian on multiple occasions. Alex Jones did in fact endorse Gary Johnson for President in 2012, and he endorsed Michael Badnarik for President in 2004, and he also endorsed Ron Paul for President in 2008 and in 2012.
Alex Jones did start out as a Republican back in the early 1990’s, but he quickly left the Republican Party after he found out how corrupt the Bush family is, and ever since then he has considered the mainstream Republican establishment to be a part of the problem in this country.
The thing about Alex Jones is that he’s a Drama King. However, most of what he writes about has at least a kernel of truth to it, IMO. I don’t really pay attention to him much anymore because his vigilance against immigration and homosexuality I find to be off-putting. I think he’s changed over the past couple years, though, and I’m not sure why that happened. For this reason, I don’t trust him.
“Green w/o Adjectives – I don’t agree with the Christian-oriented nationalism of the John Birch Society (although I think they’re not as bad as they used to be on that stuff), but it seems unfair and inaccurate to call them “controlled opposition”. Controlled by whom? What’s your conspiracy theory on that? :-)”
Fair enough. Let’s just say they are/were (with some exceptions, of course) “controlled by big money”. While I don’t have direct evidence that Alex Jones is controlled by big money (I’m sure he’s already made millions pedalling products to his listeners…)–it is clear that Jones’ agenda gives aid and comfort to the oil and gas interests whose agenda (profit) is contrary to our agenda (survival). By making the scientific community, environmental activists, and social justice activists into the enemy, Jones helps to divide and conquer the masses.
As far as Christianity etc, while Jones seems relatively secular, religious identiarianism (eg, right-wing identity politics) is consistently being reinforced in the background. In classic Bircher language, he often to refers to ‘us’ as ‘christian’ ‘libertarian’ ‘god-fearing’ ‘gun-owning’ ‘property-owning’ Americans vrs. ‘them’—the godless evil commie NWO conspiracy.
It’s sometimes said that when you are dealing with misinfo, the idea is to present 90% useful news and 10% bullshit. With Jones, you get plenty of good info, but there’s more than 10% bullshit, and there’s plenty of avoidance of the most important topics.
For me, the “fraud” consists of misinformation pedalled as truth. Some of the misinfomation includes polemics against science and scientific consensus, paranoid resentment of intelligensia, misrepresentations of socialism and green politics, misinfo about history, absurd obsession with figureheads like Bush, Obama, Paul(s), etc.
“However, it may be true that someone in the establishment is paying him to make the anti-establishment opposition look crazy, conspiracy-obsessed, half-cocked and ranting and raving. I don’t have evidence of this, nor can I rule it out.”
This may be overly pessimistic, but I don’t see someone like Alex Jones getting as much MSM, google, and youtube play as he does if he didn’t serve the agenda of the some faction of the monied establishment. It’s clear enough that he does serve the interests of the energy industry, regardless of whether or not he’s in their pocket.
To be clear, all the above is merely an opinion and not meant to be swallowed as gospel.
Paul said: “So from what I can glean from this, Ron Paul now is apparently of the “US government let it happen” mind frame, and two years ago he was either unwilling to question the government’s theory or unwilling to question it publicly as a political candidate; I’m not sure which.”
Ron Paul did in fact express skepticism about the official government story about 9/11, and did in fact call for re-opening the 9/11 investigation a few years prior to this (I think it was in 2007 and/or early 2008), but then he was attacked for it and ended up back-peddling on the issue. Given the position that Dr. Paul was in as a candidate for the Republican Party’s nomination for President, I can understand why he did this.
I think he’s a mix of the two. He seems to have right wing views on immigration, abortion, homosexuality, and such cultural questions. Other than immigration I don’t think he makes a big issue of those. For the most part he claims to be beyond left and right, although I’m not sure whether that is true. He’s definitely against the military-industrial complex, wars abroad, espionage at home, drug war, corporate-government collusion, and police-prison-industrial complex, so he’s closer to being a libertarian or at least constitutionalist than a right winger/Republican type.
Good point.
However, it may be true that someone in the establishment is paying him to make the anti-establishment opposition look crazy, conspiracy-obsessed, half-cocked and ranting and raving. I don’t have evidence of this, nor can I rule it out.
There are also people further out field in the conspiracy world who believe he is “controlled opposition” who is paid to keep people from taking even more extreme/far out conspiracy theories than the ones he espouses seriously. I don’t have any evidence of that being true, either.
RC: ” If he WAS holding back, what does that say about Trutherism and RP’s candor?”
People evolve. Circumstances change. So what if he kept his thoughts to himself while he was a Congressman? Many of us do stay quiet at times when it might be dangerous to say too much to much to the wrong people. Perhaps he needed Rand to stand strong without him first. Maybe he’s getting older and his filter is wearing off (one of the reasons I love old people)!
I know you don’t believe me, but where I am the majority of people are “truthers”, including grandparents and junior high school. kids. Personally, I believe the families of the victims deserve to have their questions answered, so it should be a no-brainer to find out what really happened.
Yes, there are people who question that. However, I think most people who ask questions about 9/11 tend to accept that there were in fact planes that got hijacked with Al Qaida people on board. The questions tend to be more along the lines of whether the US government knew about it ahead of time and/or is “behind” Al Qaida and/or had other operatives who set off explosives in the towers.
Doesn’t say anything about “trutherism,” which is a rather ambiguous concept. As for Ron Paul:
So from what I can glean from this, Ron Paul now is apparently of the “US government let it happen” mind frame, and two years ago he was either unwilling to question the government’s theory or unwilling to question it publicly as a political candidate; I’m not sure which. If the former, there’s nothing wrong with rethinking an issue, even at his age. If the latter, I suppose you can call that dishonest, but you yourself above seem to be suggesting, if I understand it correctly, that proposing alternative theories of 9/11 is not politically wise. So what would you recommend a political candidate do if he or she genuinely believes alternative theories about 9/11 and is asked about that – refuse to answer the question, state his or her true beliefs honestly, or pretend to unquestioningly believe the government’s official conspiracy theory rather than be honest about it?
That depends on what you mean by “trutherism”. If you mean asking questions and calling for a new investigation, I don’t agree (and what would 100% bullet proof correct even mean in regards to asking questions?). If you mean stating with certainty the belief in some conspiracy theory, whether it’s the government’s official one, the “inside job” hypothesis, the “Israelis did it,” the “US government let it happen but it was done by independent terrorists” or “the US government used Al Qaida as a subcontractor to carry it out” I agree. I would rather not express certainty publicly about what I think may have happened when there are a lot of unanswered quesions.
Again that depends on what you mean by peacenik approach. Jones is certainly not a mellow fellow, but he seems to be pretty consistently against the warmongers and spymasters at home and abroad. By peacenik approach do you mean in substance, in style or both?
Green w/o Adjectives – I don’t agree with the Christian-oriented nationalism of the John Birch Society (although I think they’re not as bad as they used to be on that stuff), but it seems unfair and inaccurate to call them “controlled opposition”. Controlled by whom? What’s your conspiracy theory on that? 🙂
Anyway, Christian nationalism is not where Alex Jones is coming from. And he’s generally libertarian, not right-wing. Sure he’s a rabble-rouser, and a hothead — but I think he’s doing a lot to raise opposition to empire, and radicalizing a lot of people who wouldn’t necessarily have been reached by other commentators with a more conventional, low-key style. I’m not seeing any “fraud” there. Lots of people think Greens are crazy and alienating ordinary Americans too, but that in and of itself doesn’t mean the Greens are wrong.
As the old saying goes, if you’re not pissing some people off, you’re probably not being very effective.
I don’t see Alex Jones as authentic opposition. He’s basically a decendant of Bircherism–arguably a controlled opposition movement. He tries to convince his audience that environmental advocates and social justice advocates are participants in an evil conspiracy. When he appears on mainstream outlets, he goes out of his way to appear crazy and alienate ordinary Americans. Via this behavior, he discredits many of the causes he publicizes, including the Truther movement. He foments hatred and undermines the international solidarity that will be necessary to bring down the empire. In short, his purpose seems to be confusing the people and further dividing into left-right cults. It ought to be easy to see through this fraud, but these days ordinary people are alienated from the system and uneducated in critical thinking.
Robert – You write, “Alex-Jones-type positioning seems 180 degrees away from the peacenik approach that I believe is optimal.”
Please show me where Alex Jones is anti-peace. Or are you saying that supporting the right to self-defense is anti-peace?
You write, ” I don’t really find it productive to take sides on interpretations of historical events UNLESS there’s a critical mass of people on my team who cling to a position that is self-sabotaging.
In other words, you don’t generally get involved in arguments about history, except to argue with people who are pro-freedom when we stray too far from the more statist conventional wisdom!
With political friends like you, who needs enemies?
Personally yes, I think there was an Al Qaeda conspiracy involving people who hijacked planes and rammed them into the World Trade Center. However I’m (a) far less sure about what happened at the Pentagon, (b) not convinced the planes were the only things that brought down the twin towers, (c) deeply suspicious about Building 7, (d) believe people in government knew about the attacks in advance and deliberately allowed them to be carried out anyway, etc.
If you don’t have enough doubts about these and other aspects of 9/11 to favor a full, open, independent investigation (i.e. to be for 9/11 Truth), then it seems to me that for all intents and purposes you have accepted the government’s conspiracy theory. Do you really think that theory is close to 100% bullet-proof correct, such that you would rather effectively side with it than with expressing skepticism and calling for a full, open, independent investigation, by being dismissive toward the latter and not the former?
P.S. – “Trutherism” is a linguistic abomination, and not even accurate because there’s no “ism” there, except for a healthy skepticism about the government’s conspiracy theory about what happened on Sept. 11, 2001.
S, I don’t really find it productive to take sides on interpretations of historical events UNLESS there’s a critical mass of people on my team who cling to a position that is self-sabotaging, like trutherism and Civil War revisionism. If trutherism is correct, I would be very careful to get it as close to 100% bullet-proof correct before trotting it out in the Public Square. The screaming, Alex-Jones-type positioning seems 180 degrees away from the peacenik approach that I believe is optimal.
Frankly, I don’t really worry about whether AQN did it or not. However, to the extent the question is interesting, is there any doubt that AQN operatives were on the planes?
JP, I always had the sense that RP was a Truther, or Truther sympathetic. Was he holding back when in Congress and running for prez or has he changed his mind? Couldn’t say. If he WAS holding back, what does that say about Trutherism and RP’s candor?
RC, since you brought it up: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/08/29/ron-paul-us-government-hiding-truth-about-911-did-more-harm-than-bin-laden-141979
Robert – That’s not the government’s conspiracy theory. The government’s conspiracy theory is that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were an Al Qaeda conspiracy.
S, no, I agree with the author of the piece that holding high the belief that the US government orchestrated 9/11 is a) a self-marginalizing position and b) most likely not true. Anything is possible, but getting one’s knickers in a twist over such wild speculation seems like a bad idea on a lot of levels.
Robert – Are you implying that you don’t believe the government’s conspiracy theory about 9/11?
money quote: But sometimes, especially as a political movement grows, such people can actually do real damage. Perhaps they believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/29/what-ron-paul-republicans-can-learn-from-mitch-mcconnells-ex-campaign-manager/#ixzz3C150VJaR
No.
Here’s an example of opportunism to bash libertarians. Does anyone think Benton was libertarian?
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/29/what-ron-paul-republicans-can-learn-from-mitch-mcconnells-ex-campaign-manager/
http://thoughtsonliberty.com/the-truth-about-stefan-molyneux
http://www.fdrliberated.com/the-day-joe-rogan-discovered-the-real-stefan-molyneux/
http://dana.nutter.net/blog/?date=2014-08-18
Probably about time for a new one tomorrow.
What does the group think: should we start a new thread on this topic for the last third of the year, or just keep this one going? It hasn’t had much interest lately.
http://www.voicesofliberty.com/article/libertarianism-can-end-world-poverty/
Jill, you ask what we think. I think I just read a collection of hand picked straw men designed to obscure the fact that libertarians must oppose oppression wherever it is found.
Here is an interesting discussion of the power struggles within the libertarian movement from someone I often agree with, but not always. I personally am more aware of the people on the right trying to hijack the movement. What do you all think?
http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/35540/Wendy-McElroy-A-Letter-to-My-Father/
Money line from KC: We are extremists in both our libertarian absolutism and our commitment to economic and social justice.
me: Don’t disagree.
http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/30/amashs-likely-primary-win-will-vindicate
http://c4ss.org/content/29297
How Libertarians Should — And Should Not — Approach Millennials
Kevin Carson | July 13th, 2014
http://jon.liberty.me/2014/07/19/libertarians-image-problem/
I’ve joined Liberty Me. So far, it seems to have interesting possibilities.
“The alternative to this extremism is an evolving blend of freedom and cooperation.” Sounds like something Ben Swan quotes Mussolini as saying, for those of you who have seen the presentation.
In reality of course freedom involves plenty of voluntary cooperation, and tyranny involves a great deal of selfishness on the part of those who accrue power. Even in a perfectly “egalitarian” society, someone is around to enforce that artificial equality, and the power of that enforcement tends to get to their heads. The idea that libertarians are more selfish than statists is completely wrong.
http://libertariancarguy.com/2014/07/05/heres-turducken/
I’m all for keeping the archy in archy pods only, although archists should be free to leave archy pods whenever they want as long as they don’t bring their archy with them. Maybe some of the archy pods could sign some sort of Hitler-Stalin pact or maybe a League of United Archy Pods or something.
pf, yes, although I’m not sure you agree that the nation surrounding the Pod can restrict the Podster to his or her domain. Blanton’d have to stay in Blantonia, for ex.
At first, at least. If there were a lot of Pods and they were contiguous, they might allow for passage among the Pods. If they all signed Murphy contracts, they might start to resemble the EU.
Of course it is plural. Individuals is also plural, and means the same thing. There is no reason that the right of the people should have to be considered collective rather than plurally individual.
Any individual who is one of the people (as we all are) should be free to withdraw the consent of the governed and secede from political arrangements destructive of the “inalienable rights” of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”; while certainly some people would like to impose such arrangements on others, they do not have an equivalent right to do so (otherwise we could just argue that the King and his loyal followers had such a right).
Neither Roderick nor myself would argue that the founders took their ideas to such a logical conclusion, and he explicitly says that they did not live up even to the extent that their ideas took them, which is amply true. But, we do contend that the logical conclusion of those thoughts is indeed that it is no better to be governed by three thousand tyrants a mile away than one tyrant three thousand miles away.
And since you agree with your idea of nonarchy pods, there is really nothing to argue about. I happen to think that it would be more like archy pods, but the question of which arrangement would be the outlier pods in the long run is just guesswork and really besides the point. As long as people are free to choose either arrangement that is all that really matters.
PF, OK, but since RL is quoting the DoI, I’m curious whether the word “people” was considered singular in the 18th century. Nowadays, it’s plural, last I checked
people=individuals. If some of them want to form archy pods with SS fine, as long as they only include those who ask to sign up in their archy pods.
rl: it was about the right of the people to “alter or abolish” any political arrangements destructive of the “inalienable rights” of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” or not resting on the “consent of the governed.”
me: Yeah, sure. But “of the people” gets a mite tricky, don’t it? Paulie feels Social Security violates his inalienable rights (and I don’t disagree), but it certainly appears to me that “the people” (most at least) disagree with Paulie.
Does Paulie have the right to “alter or abolish” Social Security?
Now, me, I say Yes, since I advocate Nonarchy Pods, where Paulie can establish his own autarchic world. Sadly, I am not emperor. 😉
http://hnn.us/blog/27638
by Roderick T. Long
A Thought for the Fourth
How should we think about the American Revolution? I suggest we should think of it as an uncompleted project. The Revolution, after all, wasn’t just about separation from Britain; it was about the right of the people to “alter or abolish” any political arrangements destructive of the “inalienable rights” of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” or not resting on the “consent of the governed.”
Those were the principles on which the Revolution was based. But the political system the founders established never fully embodied those principles in practice; and its present-day successor no longer respects them even in theory. (Slogans, need I add? are not theory.)
Over the years since 1776, the fortunes of American liberty, and indeed of liberty worldwide, have risen and fallen; most often some aspects have risen while others have fallen. But every increase in liberty has involved the logical carrying-out of the principles of ’76, while every decrease has involved their de facto repudiation. (And if the average American is on balance more free than his or her 18th-century counterpart, this is small reason for complacency when one views the matter counterfactually. To paraphrase my comments in an L&P discussion last year: “For me the point of comparison is not USA 2006 vs. USA 1776, but USA 2006 vs. the USA 2006 we would have had if the USA had stuck consistently to those principles.)
From an establishment perspective, the Fourth of July is a day to celebrate the existing American system. But that approach to the Fourth is, I suggest, profoundly counter-revolutionary. Far better to regard Independence Day as a day to rededicate ourselves to forwarding the ongoing Revolution whose true completion, as Voltairine de Cleyre and Rose Wilder Lane argued …. will be libertarian anarchy.
http://wconger.liberty.me/2014/06/30/why-are-libertarians-so-friggin-depressing/
Via FB
Joe Kopsick
Yesterday · Edited
On this Fourth of July, we should celebrate the PRINCIPLES of secession, rebellion, and insurgency, as instrumental to achieving the colonies’ independence.
We must not allow the horrors of slavery to mar the reputation of these principles, nor those of nullification and interposition.
As Lysander Spooner wrote in 1867 in his essay LNo Treaon”, “…the South has held that a man was (primarily) under involuntary allegiance to the State government; while the North held that he was (primarily) under a similar allegiance to the United States government; whereas, in truth, he was under no involuntary allegiance to either.”
Here’s an excellent write-up for this speacial day
http://thoughtsonliberty.com/lets-celebrate-americans-instead-of-america
Don’t feel bad. They never include me on lists either. Unless “they” are the government, or telemarketers or something.
And, another one that forgot to mention me. 🙁
http://dailyweekly.net/2014/06/21/ten-libertarian-women-who-are-libertarian-women/
YMMV:
http://libertyviral.com/top-10-things-libertarians-are-tired-of-hearing
Funny and, in my opinion, true:
http://thoughtsonliberty.com/how-to-know-youre-not-a-true-libertarian
Marc Stevens: How to Gut Governments’ False Perception of Legitimacy – CoS 11 June 20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7KctbDeUd0
Well, I don’t feel so bad. There’s this list today, but they left off Benn Swann:
http://www.libertyviral.com/20-of-the-hottest-libertarian-men-alive/#axzz35D1a3Kzl
It seems to be written by someone with a Rand Paul swordfighting fantasy, or something. No ownder they left some real Libertarians off the list…
I was surprised and hurt to find that I’m not included in this list:
http://libertyviral.com/20-of-the-hottest-libertarian-women-alive/#axzz350Rd8o9l
It appears L. Neil Smith isn’t an Obama fan:
http://ncc-1776.org/tle2014/tle775-20140615-02.html
http://thoughtsonliberty.com/what-is-left-libertarianism
Larken Rose knocks one out of the park, again.
Larken Rose – Free Your Mind 2 Conference 2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SRKOcC1saI
Here’s a worthwhile read regarding the Batman couple from last weekend.
http://www.libertychat.com/2014/06/persuasion-powerful-violence-robert-murphy/
Thanks Jill, great articles!
Here’s Part Two:
http://thoughtsonliberty.com/millennials-and-left-libertarianism-part-2-the-economy
Quite thought-provoking:
http://thoughtsonliberty.com/millennials-and-left-libertarianism-part-1-they-need-community
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/30/charles-and-david-koch-the-minds-behind-libertarianism-3-0.html
http://trailtoliberty.com/2014/05/three-anarchism/
Saturn makes a reasonable point, so here’s some reflections on Vernon’s post:
V: 1] Both doctrines require thinking outside the box and an ability to resist pervasive propaganda. In any society, only a minority of people have these capabilities and amongst them, only a minority are willing to openly espouse such views. A person who has reached the conclusion that he has been fed lies, when it comes to the role of government, may also ask himself, “what others matters have they been lying to me about?”
me: Here I agree. Extremists can have overlapping extreme views and perspectives. Hence my call for moderation in advocacy and a clear distancing of the center of the LM’s gravity away from haters and other extremists.
v: …As for Negro, Melanesian and mestizo populations – it does not appear that building such societies is in their nature, at least not on a large scale.
me: This is just weird. People of color have integrated into western societies quite well. Making the transition in many Asian places was done at gunpoint (e.g., Japan) so Vernon’s dot connecting is again full of holes.
v: Western governments have been aggressively importing “people of color” into traditionally white lands. This causes increases in crime, especially violent crime. Such crime then serves as an excuse to increase government power. Actual crime is only one of several byproducts of “diversity” that is used to justify government power grabs.
me: Yes the tragedy of slavery still haunts us to some extent. To say slavery and importation “cause” crime is a stretch. All white places have crime too, for ex. The rest of this is not worth commenting on.
Addendum:
Vernon appears to have copied his statement above from this blog. Maybe I’m challenging the wrong person to debate.
Vernon makes a compelling argument above. Unfortunately, the refutation thus far is entirely ad hominem. That doesn’t help.
I challenge Vernon to a debate over the matter. Details can be worked out further, but I propose it take place at Saturn’s Repository over a certain period of time with clearly defined rules and space limits.
“Race realists”, huh? It’s funny to see you bigots employing the same kind of politically correct terminology that you so stridently criticize the Left for using. You talk about how much courage it takes to stand up and speak out for unpopular views, so why not have the courage to admit what you really are: a straight up racist, simple and plain. (Motherfuck you and John Wayne!)
“Vernon May 22, 2014 at 8:39 pm
Many race realists are also libertarians. There are several reasons for this:”
The saboteur/provocateur “Vernon” is back trying to conflate libertarians with racists in order to scare people away from the libertarian movement. This sounds like it comes out of a COINTELPRO hand book. Who do you work for, NSA, CIA, FBI, the DOD, Homeland Security, or some other group?
Many race realists are also libertarians. There are several reasons for this:
1] Both doctrines require thinking outside the box and an ability to resist pervasive propaganda. In any society, only a minority of people have these capabilities and amongst them, only a minority are willing to openly espouse such views. A person who has reached the conclusion that he has been fed lies, when it comes to the role of government, may also ask himself, “what others matters have they been lying to me about?”
2] The concept of liberal democracy was built upon Western (read “white”) culture. Like so many other inventions, the Asians never originated it for themselves in any meaningful way – but they borrowed it from the Europeans. Asians seem perfectly capable of maintaining Western-style societies just as they are capable of adopting Western technology and building upon it. As for Negro, Melanesian and mestizo populations – it does not appear that building such societies is in their nature, at least not on a large scale. Western governments have been aggressively importing “people of color” into traditionally white lands. This causes increases in crime, especially violent crime. Such crime then serves as an excuse to increase government power. Actual crime is only one of several byproducts of “diversity” that is used to justify government power grabs. Other byproducts include conduct that is not truly criminal but is considered criminal by government. These are “hate-speech”, ethnic intimidation, housing discrimination, employment discrimination and lack of “sensitivity” in education. These are some of the issues that give greater meaning to libertarianism in the eyes of a race realist.
3] Many, in Western lands, confuse prosperity with liberty. They see clean streets, manicured lawns, well-staffed law enforcement, well-equipped hospitals etc. and they are happy. They enjoy their new cars, large homes, exotic vacations, fancy cloths and electronic gadgets and they are happy. Since they are happy, they reason, they must also be free. A person can maintain such illusions for his entire life. However, when a large influx of “diversity” makes its way to his own neighborhood, he is confronted with a new reality. Suddenly, his streets are not so clean anymore. Graffiti, drug use, prostitution, gangs, loud music and threatening stares infest his once civilized society and he finds it more difficult to convince himself that he is free. He continues to pay his taxes and yet government is not there to clean up the mess. He may ask himself, “are not the taxes I pay the fruits of my own labor? Am I not paying them in vain? If government is taking my labor, but giving me nothing in return, does this not make me a slave?” He pays property taxes each month and they are used primarily for public schools – yet his own children are not safe in those public schools. He has no means of withholding those taxes. There is no impartial court that will hear him plead that, since he cannot safely send his own children to public schools, he should not have to pay those property taxes. There is no recourse – because he is a slave. He is a slave both to government and to the diversity that it has forced upon him.
4] Not only is the concept of liberal democracy a Western one, but the concept of the primacy of individual liberty is also a Western one. The ranks of libertarian thinkers, authors and leaders are inhabited almost exclusively by whites. Of course there are isolated exceptions, but this trend is hard to escape noticing. Hence, one who is heavily involved in libertarian thought might notice this and start asking himself why this is so. From such an observation, it is not much of a leap to race realism.
Are there other doctrines that should go hand in hand with libertarianism and race realism? Most certainly there are. If you can think of any, feel free to share them with the rest of us!
JP, re: your Block link, I’m curious whether you have any reflections on it.
Here’s mine:
wb: This is my attempt to help temper the rancor I currently see in the liberty community. I am a staunch thin or pure libertarian. For me, the correct (Rothbardian) libertarianism is firmly predicated on the non aggression principle (NAP): the law should prohibit the initiation of violence against innocent people and their property. That is it. That is entirely it. There is no more to thin libertarianism, other than implications of this basic axiom; well, that’s quite a lot.
me: It’s interesting that he claims to “temper rancor,” but then proceeds to tell us what “correct” L-ism is. That sounds more like the Pope making an edict than one offering to temper a disagreement.
While I agree with Block that the NAP is, on its face, simple, his terms need all sorts of definition. What is “innocent”? What is “violence”? Who says what is “property,” presumably non-ill-gotten property? It also (I think) assumes all sorts of jurisprudential theories and practices, particularly around property. What is the “law,” and who pays for that service? Is the law justly enforced, and how is it to be enforced?
wb: Whatever it is called, it is an unwarranted and unjustified attack on pure or thin or Rothbardian libertarianism.
me: An attack, really? If someone has a different approach, it’s an “attack”? This feels awfully paranoid to me. In his mind, Rothbardian L-ism is “pure,” but no proof is offered.
wb: This article of mine was an attempt to make the case that not one but both sides are guilty of this misunderstanding of libertarianism, and to point out errors on not one but both sides:
me: The attempt didn’t work for me. These “thick” right or left Ls may well understand Rothbardian L-ism, but it just doesn’t work for them. I am amused that he finds them “guilty,” though! Block has set himself up as judge, jury and executioner!
wb: I am not sure whether or not it will temper the rancor now racing through the libertarian community to point out that not only leftists, but rightists too are guilty of thickism. I am being even handed, criticizing attacks on pure libertarianism from whichever direction they emanate, one, in an attempt to reduce hostility, name-calling, flaming, etc., but more important, because it is the truth. Both sides are guilty of making this elementary mistake, not just the lefties.
me: He plays the guilt card again. And now he claims that truth is on his side! The hubris!
Agreed!
JP, thanks. Another example of why it’s important for lessarchists to distance themselves from haters. The hate will often grow and the lessarchism abate, as in the case of this UKIP.
^
Not very (putting it mildly).
From Reason:
http://reason.com/blog/2014/05/21/how-libertarian-is-the-uk-independence-p
http://www.amren.com/features/2013/10/libertarians-and-race-realism/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/walter-e-block/pure-libertarianism/
Hmm. Wonder if there are ways to take advantage of that to market LP?
Nice image BTW but why is the guy wearing a suit? And why does he have such a good looking woman who is presumably with him? LOL.
Oh, brother. Here’s a strange one:
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/video-games-and-libertarianism-go-hand-in-hand-poll-finds/1100-6419549/
I’ve met Julie and may or may not have met Cathy. If I met Cathy it was back before I knew who she would become 🙂
I hope to be at an event sometime with both of them. I’ll bet they’re a lot of fun!
Wish I could have made that.
http://cathyreisenwitz.com/blog/2014/05/05/libertyfest-panel-julie-borowski/
Langa: Unlike you, I never attempt to hide my views for fear of offending someone.
me: Circling back to this concept…yes, I’d say if you really feel the need to speak your truth in such an unvarnished manner, I support your approach…for you. And I’d say sometimes people can be shocked into changing their minds, so as a matter of persuasion, it can be effective.
Maybe go to an AARP meeting and call for the immediate abolition of Social Security. Attend a MADD meeting and proclaim that the only “moral” stance is that drunk driving should be perfectly legal. Etc.
I use shock rhetoric with Ls as a means to challenge them to be MORE radical in approach. Turns out, being more radical philosophically often leads to more moderate stances politically.
Personally, I’m more into sharing my truth in what feels appropriate at the time. One of the most instructive stories in the NT was when JC came upon some dudes who were about to stone a woman to death.
For a variety of reasons (apparently), he didn’t say “Dudes, don’t stone her.” Instead, reports are he said something like, “Dudes, if any of y’all are without sin, cast the first stone.” (My understanding is that if JC had challenged the law for stoning adulterers, he would open himself up to being accused of heresy, or somesuch.)
Now, you, Langa, might find that move to be passive aggressive. I’d say his rhetoric worked.
JC was sometimes more direct, if we’re to believe the reportage. He kinda freaked about the money changers in the temple, perhaps was a bit more Langa-like in approach in that case.
Langa: Oh, I think you do. I also think that you realize that I have demonstrated that your position is intellectually bankrupt and logically incoherent, regardless of how much appeal it might have in a popularity contest.
me: It’s interesting that you say that, L, since I find your stretching out WAY beyond common usage the notion of freedom of association incoherent as well. But I do want to thank you for making it so plain. I’ve discussed the Insurrection with many revisionists, and none of them trotted the freedom of association argument out.
Kinsella, for ex., as I recall claims that international law at the time would have recognized SC as a sovereign state. However, he refused to point to a cite saying so. As I often find with revisionists, they liberally cherry-pick facts and refuse to consider big-picture analysis (which I attribute to the deontological approach, which distorts the entire thought system).
But it could be. Still it was my own research that found that SC’s pop had reached ~50% slave by 1860. I found that quite significant. Revisionists (somehow) dismiss it.
It really does take all kinds.
L: This realization bothers you more than you care to admit, which is why you resort to name-calling and attempting to impugn my character (indirectly, of course, owing to your persistent cowardice). Pop psychologists might call your behavior passive-aggressive.
me: Imagine for a moment that there is no objective reality. Just a moment. Then consider the possibility that all your beliefs are incorrect. That could follow logically as a possibility, yes?
Being open to the possibility may sound to you like passive-aggressiveness, when a more helpful way to think of it is “open mindedness.”
Right now, I find your freedom of association argument absurd, quite frankly. But I’ve changed my mind about any number of things, so it’s possible I will change it about that matter, too.
It’s not cowardice, it’s honesty, self honesty! (Then again, tomorrow I might agree with you that I’ve been cowardly 😉 . )
L: If you phrased them that way, you’re probably right.
me: Mark THIS one down, Chumley! 😉 Langa and Capozzi agree on something. I note, though, that L may be equivocating here, using the word “probably.” S/he may be passive aggressive! 😉
L: However, if both were stated in the abstract, such as “There is no objective reality” or “Aggression is inherently illegitimate”, I believe far more people would agree with the latter.
me: Hmm, maybe. Dunno, though, a lot of people believe it’s virtuous to be aggressive, and I’m not sure that your usage of “illegitimate” is widely grokked, except perhaps when discussing children born out of wedlock. I still don’t know what you mean by it, in part because my thought system is so radically different from yours, by all indications.
L: Or, if they were both illustrated with concrete examples, such as “There is nothing necessarily immoral about rape” or “People have the right to own private nukes”, again, I think more people would agree with the latter, although I doubt many would agree with either, since the latter is based on a flawed “interpretation” of the NAP that is not shared by me or any other “NAPsolutists” I know.
me: Odd choices there. Were I to bet, both would be disagreed with in the high-90s.
I definitely know a few NAPsolutists who’ve told me that private nuke ownership is a right. Block’s paper on the “ability to point” was unpersuasive to them. I find it somewhat persuasive, but tortured.
Paulie, that Edgerton video is quite fascinating. Like you (and RC), I don’t agree with everything that he says, but I always have a certain kind of respect for those who are willing to take highly unpopular positions, even if I disagree with the substance of those positions.
And I would be happy to support either Rockwell or Grigg for President, although I doubt that either would have any interest in running. (Ironically, that’s one reason I would support them).
Now I assume your African-American roommates knew of your revisionist views about the Civil War, yes? If so, you are obviously not an overt hater. Your most-obscure position may’ve sparked their curiosity.
Of course they knew. Unlike you, I never attempt to hide my views for fear of offending someone. In fact, one of them was, like me, a bit of a political junkie, but he was a progressive, so we obviously disagreed about a lot of things. We had many political arguments, some of which were quite heated, but they never lead to any name-calling or animosity of any sort. In fact, he was probably my closest friend in college, although I have since lost touch with him.
I only bring up all this stuff from the past to try to illustrate that anyone who knows me would find the idea that I am some sort of bigot or apologist for bigotry to be laughable. Some of the things I say may be politically incorrect, and some people may even be offended by them, but I don’t have a bigoted bone in my body. If I did, I would be the first to tell you so. As I said, I never argue in bad faith. I say what I mean, and I mean what I say, so if I really believed in slavery or racial supremacy or any other sort of nonsense, I would not hesitate to admit it.
I don’t see sharing ideas as something people win or lose.
Oh, I think you do. I also think that you realize that I have demonstrated that your position is intellectually bankrupt and logically incoherent, regardless of how much appeal it might have in a popularity contest. This realization bothers you more than you care to admit, which is why you resort to name-calling and attempting to impugn my character (indirectly, of course, owing to your persistent cowardice). Pop psychologists might call your behavior passive-aggressive.
I’d say if there were a national poll, which position is nuttier:
A) There is no objective reality
B) People have the right to own nukes
I’ll hazard the guess that B) would win, hands down. Apparently, you disagree!
If you phrased them that way, you’re probably right. However, if both were stated in the abstract, such as “There is no objective reality” or “Aggression is inherently illegitimate”, I believe far more people would agree with the latter. Or, if they were both illustrated with concrete examples, such as “There is nothing necessarily immoral about rape” or “People have the right to own private nukes”, again, I think more people would agree with the latter, although I doubt many would agree with either, since the latter is based on a flawed “interpretation” of the NAP that is not shared by me or any other “NAPsolutists” I know.
Ah. Yes, I am familiar with that one, but was not thinking in those terms. Will have to scroll up and re-read.
PF: I think you were the one who brought [the Insurrection of 1860] up though…
me: Possibly, it was on an older thread, ported here. I bring it up to test whether and to what extent revisionism has it s hooks in the LM, since I consider it SUCH a non-starter.
PF: It rarely gets trotted out even on Rockwell’s site anymore.
me: Shout Hosannas! I wonder if they’ve learned their lesson? One can only hope! Remission from that cancerous idea is among the first things that needs to happen to get the liberty train rolling, IMO.
pf: What is this frame?
me: The video frame. It’s a film and TV term.
Same here.
But also to some degree by anti-tax/self-determination, which also makes it somewhat ambiguous.
I feel the same way. I think you were the one who brought it up though…
It rarely gets trotted out even on Rockwell’s site anymore. You seem to trot it out more than they do.
Both are true to some extent.
What is this frame? Door frame? Window frame? Picture frame? Concrete frame? R U not in the frame?
U R in my frame. R and L are in my frame. But I C more than just L and R.
Who’s framing who? Who’s getting framed?
pf: But since we don’t agree with Edgerton on this point, nothing he has to say could possibly be correct or interesting, right?
me: Sorry if I’ve given you the impression that I don’t find E interesting. It’s quite interesting that an African-American would hold the CSA’s flag on the side of a highway. He has some interesting things to say, too. Some of it I agree with, some not.
Little to none of it do I find helpful today. We had one “secession” that formed a country, the Revolution. That it too may have been partially motivated by the growing recognition in the UK that slavery was wrong makes that even a bit ambiguous for me, though I generally see it as an anti-tax/self-determination event.
Not so with the Insurrection, which was primarily motivated by slavers.
Myself, I’d like to put the issue completely off the table, like a failed marriage decades ago. Rehashing why it failed seems like a waste of headspace.
An element of the LM feel otherwise, and their arguments (which L makes reasonably well) miss the forest for the trees. But, even if their revisionism was 100% correct, I still don’t see the value in trotting it out to be autopsied on a near-daily basis.
The RP “R3VOLUTION” may well have gone much further had he not had so much revisionist and hater-associate baggage.
Of course, some would (cynically) say it went as far as it did BECA– USE of those associations.
I truly hope they are incorrect.
Yep.
It’s very unfortunate that the Northern states were not the ones to secede from the Union.
For several decades prior to the war, when it seemed that the slave states had the upper hand in the struggle between states over slavery and would win the fight for the West, many northern abolitionists argued for secession…by the north.
Since it eventually happened the other way around, secession (in general) has very unfortunately been given a bad name due to the secession of slave owners (specific). Ironically, this thought process is not usually extended to the other illegal secession of North American slavers in the 1770s and 1780s.
As to whether secession by states was legal under the 9th and 10th amendments of the US Constitution and the principles of the slaver-written Declaration of Independence, I consider that to be somewhat of a moot point given the clearly illegal secession of the 1770s, the coup d’etat of the Constitutional Convention illegally replacing rather than amending the Articles of Confederation, and the hypocritical suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion that was based on the exact same ideas and grievances as the American revolution (or if you prefer elite slave owners illegal rebellion) had been.
As I have set before, in an election between Lincoln and Jeff Davis, I would vote for – or if necessary write in – radical abolitionist, northern secessionist and Lincoln critic Lysander Spooner (writing in would not have been necessary, or put another way would be necessary regardless who you voted for since there were no government printed ballots and anyone could write or print any ticket they wanted).
Nope. Absolutely not! But since we don’t agree with Edgerton on this point, nothing he has to say could possibly be correct or interesting, right?
Nah. I’d rather run Roderick Long and Charles “radgeek” Johnson. Although, as last I heard, Charles has moved back to Auburn from Vegas and thus, if they did run as a ticket, Alabama’s electors could not legally vote for them when they inevitably win the plurality of the popular vote in our state. Which of course presumes that our state is somehow legal in the first place 🙂
Maybe. I think he would probably get Will Grigg’s vote, for example. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Norman_Grigg and http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/
Although I’d rather see Will Grigg run himself, rather than Rockwell.
Will Grigg
(Maybe Will Grigg could have been langa’s roommate in college?)
If Will Grigg were on the ticket that could solve the problem of Long and C.Johnson both being Alabamans (assuming they both still are) when it comes to Alabama’s electoral votes in the College of Electors.
clarifying…when I say “U and L?” I’m asking if you share my perception that only 2 people are in the frame.
PF, thanks. While there is no objective reality, I only perceive 2 people in this frame. U and L? 😉 (Physicists and biologists would tell us that even though both appear to be solid, they are actually not! 😉 Nothing is solid. Our eyes deceive us!)
Maybe Edgerton was L’s roommate in college! 😉
As I’ve said, the Insurrection was complex. It was not a white hat/black hat event. I just don’t see that unilateral secession was justified, but L apparently does.
I have a lot of ambivalence about Edgerton’s point that the ending of Jim Crow hurt African American businesses. How about you? There might be some truth to that…in isolation.
But, do Ls REALLY want to argue that segregation was a virtuous situation? If so, maybe insert it into the SoP, right after then “objective reality” of the “cult of the omnipotent state”?
That would be an EXCELLENT way to keep Ls on the fringes for a few more decades, if not permanently!
But, since there is no objective reality, I fully admit I may be 100% incorrect. I say: Test it out. Put all this revisionist stuff at the center of L political positioning here and now. Claim it to be objectively true. Instead of Johnson/Gray, run Rockwell/DiLorenzo.
See how it all plays out.
Vote totals might well go up in pockets, btw. In a race of Bush/Clinton/Rockwell, Rockwell might take a place like Coeur d’Alene.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism#Great_Britain:
http://www.ushistory.org/us/13c.asp :
http://www.ushistory.org/us/13d.asp :
In the 1770s a bunch of slave owning colonies illegally rebelled and seceded from the British crown, which was right then in the process of abolishing slavery. Perhaps the colonial slavemasters were afraid the emancipation would spread to the colonies?
http://www.pbs.org/wned/war-of-1812/essays/british-perspective/ :
L and RC are both right. Ain’t no objective reality down heah, you heah? L and RC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvvEh8hvjz4
Langa: Why would those other people choose to live with a hater/apologist for hate/whatever it next morphs into? Are they all “insane” as well?
me: Well, on one level, yes…the human condition is insane, punctuated with moments of sanity. The term I used for you (which seems to’ve made your discourse shrill) is hater justifier. There are haters, hater apologists and hater justifiers.
Now I assume your African-American roommates knew of your revisionist views about the Civil War, yes? If so, you are obviously not an overt hater. Your most-obscure position may’ve sparked their curiosity.
But, sorry, Langa, I wish I could form much of an opinion for you, but, alas, I wasn’t there.
L: That’s because you are out of touch with reality, which is also why you don’t realize that you have been getting your ass handed to you in this debate.
me: Ya know, L, that’s possible. I don’t see sharing ideas as something people win or lose. Still, I suspect that my political ideas would generally gather FAR MORE support than yours would. My take on the Civil War would, too. You seem to think otherwise, and yet I strongly suggest you, as Ayn counseled, check your premises. Your views are not only outliers, they are WAY outliers.
You might attribute this to mass brainwashing. Your attempts at deprogramming don’t seem to be working. And is this any surprise? Justifying that the SC secession, which was designed to keep half the people there in slavery, strikes me as a poor way to win over large numbers of converts! And yet some in the L camp pound this drum daily. Oy vey!
Langa: It’s probably also the reason why you ironically worry about libertarians sounding like nuts, yet you don’t seem to realize that your own position on the non-existence of objective truth makes you sound far nuttier than even the most extreme “interpretations” of the NAP (like your pet private nuke straw man).
me: Here I completely agree with you. During my recovery from Randian Rothbardianism, I stumbled on The Tao and Indian philosophers who helped me REALLY check MY premises.
(As did Rothbard and Greenspan, who were in Ayn’s collective at one point. Rothbard has written on Lao Tzu, although I don’t think he understood The Tao. Greenspan apparently stumbled on Krishnamurti, but Ayn was having none of it. The LM could have course corrected at the outset, but sadly the prevalent deontological absolutism remains in full force, keeping L thought on the fringes.)
This more eastern, flowing, peaceful stuff can be challenging, and is not appropriate for garden-variety political discourse. Still, I’d say if there were a national poll, which position is nuttier:
A) There is no objective reality
B) People have the right to own nukes
I’ll hazard the guess that B) would win, hands down. Apparently, you disagree!
And you think you “win” this “debate.” Alrighty then…. When the tree fell in the forest, apparently THAT’S what you heard! 😉 It’s a valid enough opinion, I s’pose. Who am I to say otherwise?! 😉
Re: [Lnc-discuss] [Sdlibchat] A libertarian utopia
Starchild
Apr 29 (4 days ago)
to San, LNC, calibs, Grassroots, Bay
A terrific piece showcasing the philosophical diversity of people working together in the libertarian movement for freedom and against government, and the spirit that’s brewing in New Hampshire.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
On Apr 29, 2014, at 1:11 PM, Mark Laythorpe wrote:
> http://bit.ly/1fpUVMF
>
> 28 April 2014
>
> A libertarian utopia
> Libertarians are united by opposition to government, but when it comes to planning a new society they are deeply divided
> by Livia Gershon
>
> For a country where the national flag flies from front porches and convenience stores and where children recite the Pledge of Allegiance each morning at school, we’re remarkably resistant to the notion of being governed. In the fall of 2013, the Pew Research Center found that only three in ten Americans trust the federal government to do what’s right ‘most of the time’. The self-conception of most Americans, with their visions of pioneers and plucky underdogs fighting for independence, is all about freedom. The flip side of that vision, however, is all about distrusting government.
>
> And ‘government’, in US political discourse, is ideological. The right claims that excessive government hampers the ability of companies to create jobs; the left that it protects the public from the worst excesses of businesses. The divide is patently artificial: the vast majority of government economic policy draws no fire from conservatives. Still, by setting up ‘government’ as a dirty word in their anti-Democrat campaigns, the Republicans can claim freedom as their brand.
>
> But if you really want to talk about what it means to oppose the government, the place to start isn’t with Republicans. It’s with the one group in the US political landscape that absolutely promises to take our rhetoric about freedom seriously: libertarians. Libertarians really do believe that government is the problem, as Ronald Reagan said back in 1981, and they’ve decided to get rid of it, or at least shrink it dramatically.
>
> Enter Liberty Forum – an annual conference organised by the Free State Project, a group of activists who are trying to get 20,000 libertarians to move to the state of New Hampshire, where I live. These are people who gladly pit themselves not just against the welfare state or the regulation of business, but against military spending, state-funded schools, federal highways and government-issued money.
>
> The Free State Project began life in 2001 with a call-to-arms by Jason Sorens, then a political science PhD student at Yale. Sorens suggested that a few thousand activists could radically change the political balance in the small state. ‘Once we’ve taken over the state government, we can slash state and local budgets, which make up a sizeable proportion of the tax and regulatory burden we face every day,’ he wrote. ‘Furthermore, we can eliminate substantial federal interference by refusing to take highway funds and the strings attached to them.’
>
> Sorens’ views — which focus on problems with taxes and regulations and don’t dispute the government’s role in protecting commerce and conducting foreign policy – suggest a more-Republican-than-the-Republicans sort of outlook. But some people who’ve responded to his call subscribe to an entirely different ideology: an anarchism that sees government as a tool of wealthy capitalists. The rest fall somewhere in between. Free Staters say that what brings them together is a common belief that government is the opposite of freedom.
>
> The crowd that gathered in February for Liberty Forum 2014 at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Nashua was a pretty good reflection of the US libertarian movement: mainly male, and overwhelmingly white. A few people openly carried guns, which is thoroughly legal in New Hampshire.
>
> One of the first speakers, Aaron Day, a Republican activist and member of the Free State Project board, railed against government plans to expand Medicaid. His PowerPoint flashed images comparing President Barack Obama’s health insurance reforms to the Soviet famine of the 1930s, when Stalin shipped away Ukraine’s wheat, leaving its people to starve. Day announced he’d be running for state Republican Party chair and called for everyone in the audience to seek local office. If I was looking for the embodiment of right-wing libertarianism, here he was, a true believer in cutting the government down to size from within – starting with programmes that benefit the poor.
>
> I meet conservatives who’ve moved towards a live-and-let-live attitude that calls for government to stay out of issues such as sex and drugs
>
> Johnna and Cory Bartholomew, a couple from California who sat among the crowd watching Day, plan to join the influx to New Hampshire soon. Even at a glance, it’s not hard to recognise the Bartholomews as a military couple, despite the pink streaks in Johnna’s hair. Cory wears a crew cut, and both of them radiate a friendliness rooted in bedrock self-confidence. For their 20th anniversary, they visited Hawai’i. This year, for their 30th, they flew east for Liberty Forum, as a sort of final test before moving to the state.
>
> The Bartholomews met as Mormon students at Brigham Young University in Utah. Over the years, their conservatism on social issues dropped away and they left the Church. Cory doesn’t like to call himself an atheist. As an Air Force pilot whose job revolves around technology, he prefers ‘scientist’ – a believer in the empirically provable. ‘I’m not a person of faith,’ he says, ‘I’m a person of “show me”.’ I end up hearing many such stories at Liberty Forum: conservatives who say they’ve slowly drifted from a focus on social issues towards a live-and-let-live attitude that calls for government to stay out of issues such as sex and drugs. But if Aaron Day comes across as essentially right-wing, the Bartholomews seem different. For one thing, they talk more about free speech than taxes.
>
> ‘Our kids grew up hearing us talk about politics,’ Cory told me. When they were small, he and Johnna had their three children memorise the preamble to the US Constitution, with its promise to ‘secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity’. Now in their 20s, two of their boys have taken up political activism against government overreach. They’ll protest against police cameras that photograph drivers’ licences at traffic lights, or they’ll hold up signs warning drivers about a drunk-driving checkpoint ahead.
>
> One day in 2011, the brothers donned the Guy Fawkes masks made famous by Anonymous and held up a huge sign bearing the message ‘Taxes=Theft’ on a highway overpass. They got arrested after refusing to show their IDs to the cops. Eventually, two charges against them, relating to posting a sign on government property and wearing masks while committing a crime, were dropped. They ended up sentenced to probation for ‘delaying an officer’. To Johnna, the conviction was typical of a justice system that, despite its rhetoric, has little real respect for free speech: ‘We think “I have this little box of treasure called my rights,” but the moment you bring one of those out and try to exercise it, people are afraid.’
>
> Their sons had already signed on for the Free State Project when the Bartholomews decided to follow their lead. Johnna says that her upbringing in the Mormon Church, founded by families who crossed a continent for their faith, inspires them and makes leaving their daughter and Johnna’s mother behind seem more manageable. ‘If you really believe in something and want to be part of something, then you leave; you leave what you’re used to and you may go somewhere you’re not so comfortable.’ This is, of course, what the Free State Project depends on – people willing to adopt a frontiering mentality so that they’ll leap cross-country to get beyond the current political landscape.
>
> The Free State Project draws recruits with a mishmash of different philosophies, which isn’t surprising given libertarianism’s history. By some accounts, the first thinker to describe himself as libertarian was Joseph Déjacque, a mid-19th-century French anarcho-communist writer. Déjacque’s beef wasn’t just with government, but with capitalist bosses and religious hierarchies. Any kind of authority was an assault on individual autonomy. He even opposed families, with their elevation of husband above wife and parents above children. For about a century, this is what people meant when they said “libertarianism”: a far-left vision of autonomous individuals working as equals.
>
> Then, beginning in the 1950s, a new definition of ‘libertarianism’ emerged in America, defining its love of freedom in ways that directly contradicted Déjacque. The new philosophy drew on the classical liberalism of Thomas Jefferson, filtered through an economic lens that made property rights central. This was the libertarianism of the Cato Institute think tank, formed in 1977 by economist Murray Rothbard, corporate right-wing superstar Charles Koch, and Edward Crane, a leader of the then-fledgling Libertarian Party. Here, the government was faulted not for standing with capital against the people but for getting in the way of progress by promoting socialist welfare systems.
>
> To get a better handle on what sort of libertarianism was at play at Liberty Forum, I asked attendees what their ideal society would look like. The answer, for the most part, was that it would be completely different from the world we know. Drugs and prostitution would be legal. Education and medical care would be market commodities or gifts. In the absence of government support, individuals would be forced to help each other. Without liability protection or the ability to lobby for favours from the state, corporations as we know them would disappear in favour of smaller, more dynamic companies. The vision is so distant and theoretical that even Déjacque-style anarchists and Cato-esque reformers can work side by side in the same movement.
>
> a good thing about working with libertarians is that no one expects to coerce you into participating in something you don’t approve of
>
> James Davis, who plans to move his family to New Hampshire this fall, believes in a libertarianism that looks a bit like Déjacque’s: he wants to free regular people from oppressive institutions. When his first child was born, Davis and his wife got interested in parenting theories that advocate giving children as much freedom as possible. ‘We came upon these ideas of philosophical libertarianism,’ he said. ‘If people don’t trust adults, how can they trust children?’ The couple took over the management of a foundering summer camp in upstate New York and applied their ideas about freedom to it, giving campers as much leeway as possible to make their own choices. It’s the sort of vision that progressives have promoted for decades through democratic schools such as Summerhill, in Suffolk, England, and also one that many Free Staters embrace by home schooling their children and letting them help organise their own educations.
>
> Philosophically, Davis doesn’t believe in government-funded benefits for the poor – drawn from taxation and backed up by prisons and guns. Having worked in non-profit organisations, he’s convinced that in a post-government society people will come through to help the needy without prodding. But he believes that society is a long way off. For now, he’s moving to New Hampshire to be among a community of people who want to improve the world through voluntary action. ‘I suspect it’ll be much like living anywhere,’ he said, ‘but around people who inspire me to be better.’ Davis doesn’t necessarily expect to encounter like minds everywhere, but says that a good thing about working with libertarians is that no one expects to coerce you into participating in something you don’t approve of.
>
> The Bartholomews share Davis’s notion of building a better world outside government mechanisms. As a member of a local school board in California, Johnna recalls being faced with the question of whether to borrow money to pay for desperately needed repairs on a school. ‘I said, definitely, this school needs help, but we haven’t asked one business, we haven’t asked one person, to voluntarily give us one dollar.’
>
> To long-time New Hampshire libertarian Jack Shimek, that focus on voluntary methods is the key to libertarianism. Shimek got interested in politics as a college student in Texas around 1969, a time when young US men worried less that the government would tax them too much than that it would ship them off to a jungle battlefield where they would die. A friend introduced him to Ayn Rand’s philosophy of radical, selfish individualism. Within a few years, he had moved to New York City and into Déjacque’s branch of libertarianism, to argue that the authoritarianism of capitalist bosses is inextricably connected to government tyranny.
>
> Ayn Rand’s Objectivism contained a ‘fatal flaw’, says Shimek. She confused capitalism, a system that gives wealthy owners control over workers, with free markets, which depend on individual autonomy. ‘Capitalists are always in favour of keeping their piece of the pie through political power,’ Shimek told me. ‘When General Motors screws up, it has enough power to convince the government to bail it out.’ Another thing corporations can do, he says, is flood libertarian think tanks and magazines with money: ‘The libertarian movement, originally radical, was invaded by conservative reformers.’ Behind that, says Shimek, are corporate funders with an agenda: ‘They [just] want it to decrease regulation on them, they want it to lower taxes on them.’
>
> Shimek was already living in New Hampshire when Jason Sorens’s idea of a Free State Project took hold. He was thrilled with the influx of people into the tiny libertarian community, but not with the focus on running for office and voting. ‘I said, wait a minute, we’re libertarians, we don’t believe in government.’
>
> for libertarians, Bitcoin is a technology with the potential to circumvent a lot of what’s wrong with the world
>
> At Liberty Forum, Shimek runs Alt Expo, an unofficial series of alternative programmes, with topics such as organic farming and local currencies. The idea is not to confront the government but to live outside it as much as possible. If the power of the state comes from coercion, creating alternatives uses a different kind of power, based in example and persuasion. Though this year’s Alt Expo was sparsely attended, Shimek said it had been a success anyway, because the official programming is now full of these kinds of ideas.
>
> Plenty of people at Liberty Forum think electoral politics is a drag. Carla Gericke, president of the Free State Project, told me she finds politics ‘soul-numbing’. Sessions on farming and gardening – concrete methods of evading government-subsidised industrial agriculture – drew bigger audiences than the ones about lobbying or running for office. Ditto for presentations about technology, which expand the vision of voluntary action beyond government to a global scale. One session is run by two cousins with a start-up who envision a post-industrial economy where individuals trade goods, services and labour online, through portals such as Uber and Airbnb. Everyone is talking about Bitcoin. In the mainstream, the cyber currency comes up mostly as a curiosity, but at Liberty Forum it’s a technology with potential to circumvent a lot of what’s wrong with the world. At one session, panelists wax poetic about paying friends for rides, patronising local businesses, and buying clothes from Australia without taxes, credit card fees, or any contact with the global web of government and private banks.
>
> At another tech sessions, Jeffrey Tucker draws huge crowds. He wears a suit, bow tie, and a mischievous expression, and is prone to phrases such as ‘outrunning troglodyte systems of power’. Tucker points to his smartphone as the symbol of a new society, one with frictionless information exchange, free online education and peer-to-peer lending. To Tucker’s mind, technology is transforming both corporate structures and banking, and politics simply doesn’t much matter. The goal is simply to circumvent dull and lumbering government bureaucrats. ‘We’re going to displace all the institutions of the state,’ he promises gleefully.
>
> By the second-to-last night of the forum, Cory Bartholomew has snapped selfies with a handful of people he calls his ‘liberty heroes’. People such as Cody Wilson, who helped invent the first plastic guns that can be produced on 3D printers, and Thomas Drake and Jesselyn Radack, former government employees who became whistle-blowers, exposing domestic government surveillance and the illegal interrogation of terror suspects. Their stories make Cory wonder if he was naive about the military earlier in his career.
>
> Other delegates flock to an unofficial party at the Quill, a private club and meeting space inside an unmarked storefront in Manchester, New Hampshire. Downstairs, dance music plays and colourful lights throb between the old ceiling beams. Antigone Darling, a slight, 20-something podcaster who’s the host of the party, hands out sex toys to anyone in her audience who yells loud enough: one to Amanda Billyrock, an anarchist who became a libertarian star after she met allegations of drunk driving with counter-allegations of police misconduct; another to ‘Objectivist Girl’, who wears dramatic eye make-up and makes videos explaining the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
>
> Upstairs, a late-night dinner is for sale: grass-fed beef burger with grass-fed bacon and broccoli slaw salad – technically illegal since the cook refuses to get a food service permit. A group of young men stand in a circle talking about their tech start-up, a company that facilitates the use of Bitcoin.
>
> J J Schlessinger, the Quill’s manager, explains a plan to distribute blankets to homeless people who live near the club. He’s also interested in discouraging vandals, not by calling the cops but by keeping an eye on them, maybe asking if their mothers would approve of what they’re doing. Schlessinger uses the word love a lot. He runs the Quill out of love, and wants to help his neighbours with love. The important thing, he says, is for people to reach out to each other in person, not delegate the job to government.
>
> It’s easy to see the Free State Project as a sort of outsize version of the government-hating right. There are issues that libertarians and the left oppose together – high defence spending, corporate subsidies – but they are hard to get at: mostly legislated at the federal level and protected by wealthy interests. It’s much easier to get elected to the local school board and slash local budgets, or to lobby the state legislature against the expansion of health benefits. Republican Party-style libertarians are thus much more visible, and they spend a lot of time trying to cut taxes and reduce spending, invoking the revolutionary spirit of 1776 as they go.
>
> But, looking at the party at the Quill, there’s the suggestion of another American myth: the one about pioneers, often bearing wildly idealistic notions, who come together to build new institutions. Anyone with a passing knowledge of US history knows how fraught with missteps and malice the realities of that process have been, but the myth is a powerful one: if we distrust the government, then we have to trust each other. It’s a notion around which anarchists, Republicans and almost anyone else can find common ground, given sufficient optimism about building a new society.
>
> As Liberty Forum winds down, Johnna and Cory Bartholomew are excited about moving. Johnna’s just seen a panel of volunteers who started charitable organisations to encourage self-sufficiency, and she thinks it’s something she’d like to do. This is the thing, ultimately, that seems to bring people to the Free State Project. They become libertarians because they hate taxes, or fear a police state, or distrust collusion between the state and corporate power. But they move to New Hampshire because they want, more than any of these things, to build something new together.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sdlibchat Chat mailing list
> Need to update your subscription? Click here:
> http://box352.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/sdlibchat_listserv.sdlp.org
>
> Interested in joining the Libertarian Party of CA? Download the following
> application and mail the completed form with your annual dues payment to the
> indicated address.
> http://www.sdlp.org/sites/default/files/sdlp_downloads/jointheSDLP.pdf
>
> Interested in making a donation quickly and easily via PayPal? Click here:
> http://www.sdlp.org/contribute
>
> Thanks for your support!
_______________________________________________
Lnc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org
Langa: Quit being evasive, and answer the question. Why would a hater choose those living arrangements, and more importantly, why would those other people choose to live with a hater?
Me: Again, I’ve seen no evidence that you “Langa” are a hater. However, a hater is by definition insane. There is no making sense of the senseless.
Then answer the second part of the question. Why would those other people choose to live with a hater/apologist for hate/whatever it next morphs into? Are they all “insane” as well?
I’ve not heard of anyone making such a claim (any criticism of Obama can be dismissed by accusing the critic of racism.)
That’s because you are out of touch with reality, which is also why you don’t realize that you have been getting your ass handed to you in this debate. It’s probably also the reason why you ironically worry about libertarians sounding like nuts, yet you don’t seem to realize that your own position on the non-existence of objective truth makes you sound far nuttier than even the most extreme “interpretations” of the NAP (like your pet private nuke straw man).
Your “logic” is that the slavers of SC had the “moral” authority to secede since the government of SC had signed the Constitution.
That’s an obvious misrepresentation of my position, but I’m not going to get back into the weeds on this. I have explained my position thoroughly numerous times, and anyone curious about it can readily discern it from this thread (as long as they have the patience of a saint, which would be required to wade through all the tedious drivel you have littered it with).
Larry Smart posted in Denver Liberty on the Rocks
Larry Smart
Larry Smart 6:43pm May 2
Kick off the “Agorism in Action Weekend” with these 6 Simple Activities
http://lifewithoutrulers.blogspot.com/2014/05/6-simple-and-fun-ways-to-begin.html
Join the Agorism in Action Weekend Event Page here: https://www.facebook.com/events/241874359335795/?ref=br_tf
Langa: Quit being evasive, and answer the question. Why would a hater choose those living arrangements, and more importantly, why would those other people choose to live with a hater?
Me: Again, I’ve seen no evidence that you “Langa” are a hater. However, a hater is by definition insane. There is no making sense of the senseless.
L:Of course I’ve heard it before, from idiots like you who think that it’s an adequate way to save face when getting their intellectual asses handed to them, as you have been doing throughout this thread.
Me; That’s not even close to my perception.
L: These are often the same idiots who think that, for example, any criticism of Obama can be dismissed by accusing the critic of racism. Hey, wait. I seem to remember you having criticized Obama, so by your own preschool logic, you must also be a “hater”, right?
me: Hmm, I’ve not heard of anyone making such a claim (any criticism of Obama can be dismissed by accusing the critic of racism.) So, I have criticized BHO and have NOT been accused of being a hater.
L: Besides, (Capozzi’s recognition that their is no objective truth) undermines your own arguments as much as mine.
me: Kinda, sorta agree, my angry friend. The main difference is since I don’t claim there to be an “objective truth,” I’m far less invested in being “right.” If you could present irrefutable evidence of your position, I’d be more than happy to adopt Langanian revisionism. Of course, you cannot, since it’s nowhere near infallibly true.
It’s not to say that revisionism is without merit. The observations of Lincoln’s shifting motives, for ex., are helpful datapoints. And the longstanding tax and tariff disputes.
The Confederate Elite Insurrection was not a simple incident. It was complex.
L: There’s nothing cowardly whatsoever about the desire for privacy. I have never posted here under any other name, so what the hell difference does it make whether it’s the name on my birth certificate? I say what I mean and mean what I say. You, on the other hand, constantly shift your position, and are too much of a coward to even launch your insults directly.
me: I don’t see the point of insults, L. I see us as all brothers and sisters, often confused, sometimes a bit angry and off kilter. I am an angrytarian in recovery, sharing experiences and perspectives.
L: Where does it say that personal attacks and smear tactics are a substitute for sound logic?
me: Nowhere. Your logic is not sound, though. Your “logic” is that the slavers of SC had the “moral” authority to secede since the government of SC had signed the Constitution. That’s just an opinion, one that I and most find highly unpersuasive. You can repeat over and over that that’s “sound logic,” but it doesn’t make it so.
Deep down, you surely know that, Langa.
I don’t believe I’ve ever noticed any apologizing for haters in Langa.
Thanks, Jill. It’s nice to see that someone around here actually listens to what I’m saying.
Methinks that Langa doth protest too much!
Wrong, as usual. I am simply sick of your garbage. I have tried to be patient with you, since, as far as I can tell, you are a lonely, pathetic old man whose only joy comes from acting as an Internet gadfly. But these repeated personal attacks on my character have really started to get on my nerves, which was the point of my previous post. So, do you do the decent thing and apologize? No, you just dig in your heels and continue the mudslinging. So, that’s it. No more Mr. Nice Guy for you, you fucking prick. From now on, I’m going to call you on your bullshit.
Since Shakespeare and certainly since the 60s, the culture has recognized that accusations (in this case of either racism or rationalizations of hateful behavior) should not be met with the equivalent of “some of my best friends are blacks/Jews/etc.” It makes one look defensive and guilty.
Nice try. Quit being evasive, and answer the question. Why would a hater choose those living arrangements, and more importantly, why would those other people choose to live with a hater?
I do get the sense that you’ve heard before that your views on the Confederate Elite Insurrection are very close to rationalizing slavery, which is an extreme form of hate, as I see it.
Of course I’ve heard it before, from idiots like you who think that it’s an adequate way to save face when getting their intellectual asses handed to them, as you have been doing throughout this thread. These are often the same idiots who think that, for example, any criticism of Obama can be dismissed by accusing the critic of racism. Hey, wait. I seem to remember you having criticized Obama, so by your own preschool logic, you must also be a “hater”, right?
You claim that your position is the “truth,” yet it’s quite obviously not, since my take on the Insurrection of 1860 is just as true as yours is.
Bullshit, as the entirety of this thread ably demonstrates. And don’t even start with all that nihilistic garbage about there not being any objective truth, either, as you’re the only one here who believes that bullshit. Besides, it undermines your own arguments as much as mine.
Now that’s rich, coming from a pseudonym!!! On its face, that positioning seems far more cowardly.
More bullshit. There’s nothing cowardly whatsoever about the desire for privacy. I have never posted here under any other name, so what the hell difference does it make whether it’s the name on my birth certificate? I say what I mean and mean what I say. You, on the other hand, constantly shift your position, and are too much of a coward to even launch your insults directly.
Where does it say that it’s good politics to offend people?!
Where does it say that personal attacks and smear tactics are a substitute for sound logic?
JP, no, he’d be a hater justifier with his position that it was “moral” for the SC Elites to claim they had the power to “secede.” They were haters in my book since they were motivated by the desire to maintain slavery.
Sorry if my initial statement was not clearer.
“You can almost guarantee with Rand more discussion of the dark side of the LM – the haters and the hater apologists/justifiers, like Langa”
I don’t believe I’ve ever noticed any apologizing for haters in Langa.
Langa: Fuck you, Capozzi. I am not and have never been a hater, and I’m getting tired of your attempts to insinuate otherwise.
me: Methinks that Langa doth protest too much!
L: If you want proof, consider that when I was in college (when my views on Lincoln, the Civil War, etc., were exactly the same as they are now), I voluntarily chose to share an apartment with three black guys, one of whom was also openly gay. Does that sound like something that a “hater” would do?
me: Since Shakespeare and certainly since the 60s, the culture has recognized that accusations (in this case of either racism or rationalizations of hateful behavior) should not be met with the equivalent of “some of my best friends are blacks/Jews/etc.” It makes one look defensive and guilty.
I do get the sense that you’ve heard before that your views on the Confederate Elite Insurrection are very close to rationalizing slavery, which is an extreme form of hate, as I see it. Like many in the LM who hold similar views to yours on the matter, my suggestion has been to either rethink your position entirely, or to at least recognize that you poke a hornet’s nest when you say anything that seems to justify the actions by the Confederate Elites. Instead, some double-down on the issue, e.g., associates of Rockwell’s.
I maintain this hurts the broader cause of liberty. You claim that your position is the “truth,” yet it’s quite obviously not, since my take on the Insurrection of 1860 is just as true as yours is.
L: And I’m not surprised that you are a Rand Paul supporter.
me: Nope, not true. I’ve said I’d likely vote for him if he somehow gets the nomination in 2016. I’ve also expressed my reservations about him.
L: The two of you seem to be a lot alike. You are both spineless cowards who would rather tell people the bullshit they want to hear than risk offending them with the truth.
me: Now that’s rich, coming from a pseudonym!!! On its face, that positioning seems far more cowardly. Then again, I do think we’ve established that we march to the beat of very different drummers!
Where does it say that it’s good politics to offend people?!
You can almost guarantee with Rand more discussion of the dark side of the LM – the haters and the hater apologists/justifiers, like Langa. Most unfortunate.
Fuck you, Capozzi. I am not and have never been a hater, and I’m getting tired of your attempts to insinuate otherwise. If you want proof, consider that when I was in college (when my views on Lincoln, the Civil War, etc., were exactly the same as they are now), I voluntarily chose to share an apartment with three black guys, one of whom was also openly gay. Does that sound like something that a “hater” would do?
Nor am I an “apologist” for haters, unless you consider anyone (like all those guys at the ACLU) who supports the KKK’s right to free speech to also be an “apologist” for haters.
And I’m not surprised that you are a Rand Paul supporter. The two of you seem to be a lot alike. You are both spineless cowards who would rather tell people the bullshit they want to hear than risk offending them with the truth.
We’ll have to disagree what the clear implications of the quoted article are whn applied to partisan elections.
pf, it’s impossible to not read between the lines. Projection makes perception.
My projections aren’t as paranoid as yours, at least not today!
I would say, though, that were Rand Paul to somehow get the 2016 R nomination, I would probably have to vote R for the first time in my life. This is despite the fact that I don’t agree with him on many things. And this is also despite his picking up where his Dad left off, hiring haters like the Southern Avenger. Oy!
It won’t happen, though. No more than a 5% chance, as I see it.
You can almost guarantee with Rand more discussion of the dark side of the LM – the haters and the hater apologists/justifiers, like Langa. Most unfortunate.
OTOH, my sense is Rand has the good sense to NOT answer like his Dad did on MTP, that Lincoln should have let the CSA “secede” “in peace.”
Progress, I guess….
Read between the lines.
pf, yes, I agree. It doesn’t say the LP should not run against Cruz, though. That’s different than “curse and sabotage.” I don’t see the point of doing that ever, actually.
I can’t say I agree with a lot of this dude’s arguments, and I think he makes it murkier by including Cruz. But my Inner Lao Tzu certainly agrees that flowing with the flow while trying to bend it in a more virtuous direction makes far more sense than piously and sanctimoniously condemning others who don’t share one’s moral constructs.
Direct quote from the article:
Ted Cruz is part of the liberty movement? I don’t think so.
PF, perhaps my link is broken, then. It doesn’t even mention the LP, that I could see.
It does make 2 points:
1 The deeper falsity perpetrated by the Nolan Chart is the thought that economic freedom and social freedom are separate. In truth, there is only freedom.
2 many libertarians spend a great deal of time and energy resisting liberals and conservatives. But no one ever used walls of resistance to help another individual recognize his innate libertarian impulses and heal his faulty thinking. It doesn’t work that way. Resistance creates resistance coming back at you.
It suggests also that economic matters are the root, social ones the branch. I’m not sure I buy it.
Maybe you disagree with the last part:
“Will I flow with the flow of this natural movement … or will I buy into the curse and sabotage those who would help far more than hurt my cause?”
Yes, I read the link. It says Cruz is sort of libertarian and we should not have the LP undermine him and others like him by running against them. I don’t agree.
pf: Will LP be sabotaged by silly libertarians falling for Rand Paul and Ted Cruz?
me: Cruz, no. Rand running in 2016 may suck L resources like Ron did in 2012 and 2008. But that’s not the sort of (self)sabotage JP’s link is referring to.
I doubt that will happen, but you never know.
I certainly hope not. I personally think we need a better candidate than Gary Johnson, though.
Will LP be sabotaged by silly libertarians falling for Rand Paul and Ted Cruz?
Will Rand Paul and Ted Cruz Be Sabotaged By a Libertarian Curse?
http://spirituallibertarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/will-rand-paul-and-ted-cruz-be.html
langa: So, are you really going to claim the U.S. was not designed to be a loose association of sovereign states?
me: Yes. The Articles were. That was dissolved with the Constitution.
L: IF (as you seem to believe, although you’ve changed your position so many times it’s hard to tell what you really believe) the government of SC had the moral authority to join the Union in 1787, THEN they also had the moral authority to exit the Union in 1860.
me: Actually, I don’t use the same linguistic silos as you do. I’d say the state governments had the legal authority to join the Union, and did not have the legal authority to exit unilaterally.
I have said I reject that governments are anything like the right to privately associate. As I’ve pointed out, you yourself in this thread have used this phrase: “also who one legally associates with (e.g. the right to choose who one does business with).”
So, I guess that’s the nub of the disagreement. You are using a non-standard definition of the freedom of association, then hiding behind that definition to justify the Insurrection.
I really don’t find the existence of governments all that “moral,” but then I notice that without them, domestic tranquility is unsustainable. Governments are the least bad option. They seem more “moral” when they are small, when they recognize individual rights, and when the laws are generally just.
L: I have maintained this same position throughout this entire discussion, and if you check my first comment, you will see that I have also maintained that the morality of such an action has nothing to do with their motivation for taking such an action.
me: Yes, I get that you are saying that (i.e., hiding behind a non-standard usage of freedom of association to justify an illegal insurrection). I point out the motive of the Confederate Elites as a way to pile on, to make plain what the events of 1860 were all about, to set the context.
L: ….saying that someone has freedom of association no more implies agreement with the way they use it than saying that someone has freedom of speech implies agreement with what is being said.
me: Nice try! Yes, individuals have the right to privately associate with Klansmen or say ugly things. Government actions are not the same. Governments don’t have rights. Better governments recognize the people’s rights and put in place institutions to protect rights.
L: However, that would also mean that by 1860, the Constitution itself would have been null and void, since everyone who signed it was long dead by then.
me: Ya know, if one wants to claim that, they can. I’d say that the Constitution was in place in 1860. It was the law of the land, including the insurrection clause. I’d say it still is. Personally, I disagree with much of it, but I accept that it’s in place and it doesn’t strike me as useful to adopt Spooner’s approach, except perhaps on a highly theoretical plane.
L: Finally, with regard to your repeated reference to me as a “Rothbardian”, I am not sure what this means, or what it has to do with this conversation.
me: Sorry, then. Your arguments and approach sound exactly like Rothbard’s to me. My bad.
What it has to do with the conversation is that IMO the cause of lessarchy is damaged by the association with revisionism and much of Rothbardianism. It associates L with haters, which may be unfair, but is my perception of the Public Square. I point it out in the hopes that free-thinking Ls turn away from revisionism with all deliberate speed.
Wow, RC, you’re really grasping at straws now! Not only have you resorted to cherry picking arguments and ignoring the context in which I originally made them, you have even accused me of sophistry, which is hilarious, given that you have repeatedly demonstrated, not only on this thread, but on virtually every thread you have ever posted in, that you are a master of it.
SC was not a “group.” Nor was the US. They instead are governments.
I did not say that the government of SC was a group. I said they were acting as an agent for a group (specifically, for the citizens of SC). As for the U.S. government, it was indeed designed as an association (or group) of sovereign states united for a specific purpose. Hence, the name “United States”, or as Lincoln repeatedly referred to it, “the Union”. This notion of a union of state governments, rather than an all-encompassing national government, was the whole basis of the federal system and the crux of the debates between the Jeffersonians and the Hamiltonians. So, are you really going to claim the U.S. was not designed to be a loose association of sovereign states? Good luck finding any evidence to support that claim!
…when the representatives of SC signed the Constitution, this was NOT an act of “moral authority.” Rather it was politicians who were delegated certain legal powers.
If you claim otherwise, you would need to make the case, which you haven’t, you’ve just asserted it.
No, I didn’t “assert” it, I assumed it, which is very different. In fact, I have said repeatedly that I do not believe that any government has any moral authority to even exist, much less make any decisions for anyone. Instead, I have been clear throughout that I am making an “if…then” statement: IF (as you seem to believe, although you’ve changed your position so many times it’s hard to tell what you really believe) the government of SC had the moral authority to join the Union in 1787, THEN they also had the moral authority to exit the Union in 1860.
I have maintained this same position throughout this entire discussion, and if you check my first comment, you will see that I have also maintained that the morality of such an action has nothing to do with their motivation for taking such an action. Yet you continue to point out that they were motivated largely by the desire to continue slavery, as if that somehow undermines the logic of my position. But, as I pointed out way back at the beginning of this thread, saying that someone has freedom of association no more implies agreement with the way they use it than saying that someone has freedom of speech implies agreement with what is being said.
…you don’t seem to recognize the massive flaw in your analogy…the people of SC were not the same in 1787 and 1860.
This only undermines my argument if you accept the idea that decisions made by governments are not binding on future generations. However, that would also mean that by 1860, the Constitution itself would have been null and void, since everyone who signed it was long dead by then. If that’s the position you want to take, I will gladly agree with you, since, as Lysander Spooner pointed out, it means that the Constitution, and hence the entire U.S. government, has no authority (either moral or legal). Congratulations, you have just become an anarchist!
Finally, with regard to your repeated reference to me as a “Rothbardian”, I am not sure what this means, or what it has to do with this conversation. While I do consider Rothbard to be a brilliant thinker, and I agree with him about a lot of things, I considered myself a libertarian long before I ever heard of him. Furthermore, there are numerous issues where I strongly disagree with him, including this very issue. Rothbard believed that the Confederates were fighting a Just War. He also thought the same thing about the Colonists. As I said earlier, while it is possible in theory, I do not believe there has ever been an example of a Just War in practice.
Other areas where I disagree strongly with Rothbard would include abortion (he was for it, while I’m against it); fractional reserve banking (he thought it was inherently fraudulent, while I am opposed to it only when it is backed by government-funded deposit insurance); and the basis of law in a hypothetical anarchist society (he believed in the necessity of a universal libertarian legal code, while I consider such a code to be another form of central planning and to be incompatible with a true free market in law). I could probably give other examples, but I think these should be sufficient to demonstrate that I don’t worship at the altar of Saint Murray!
Start by looking up definitions of “education.”
PF, OK, if it’s not years of schooling, government or otherwise, what exactly DO you mean?
I don’t really know why Langa’s (=Rothbard’s) revisionism has such sway in the LM. It doesn’t seem to be a function of education, but more of attitude. There seems to be an attraction to the contrary in the LM, that everything we learned in school was wrong, or something.
On some levels, I completely agree. A lot of blue pills have been dispensed, “common knowledge” is very often incorrect.
And yet Langa and other Rothbardians see to think that alternative interpretations are therefore correct. This, I submit, is also incorrect. The Civil War was not about freeing the slaves (at first), but that doesn’t mean that the slavers had a “moral” right to secede, either, to keep their slaves.
This either/or stuff is for the birds….
It was a genral point at all sides of libertarian argumentation.
And I don’t mean “years of government schooling” by education level.
Oh, yes, not unlike Rothbard’s “logic” when he praised the fall of S. Vietnam to N. Vietnam as “one less state,” Langa does this:
Here he says freedom of association “also who one legally associates with (e.g. the right to choose who one does business with).” He defines what is “moral” with what is “legal.” With chutzpah, he suggests that I conflate! Of course, “doing business” is voluntary, while government ultimately isn’t.
Later in this same thread, Langa further undermines his own (specious) argument. He says this: “this mob is obviously not the legally recognized government of RI.” So, again, even for the non-positivist, the moral rests on the legal!
A double shot of chutzpah!
Put another way, when the representatives of SC signed the Constitution, this was NOT an act of “moral authority.” Rather it was politicians who were delegated certain legal powers.
If you claim otherwise, you would need to make the case, which you haven’t, you’ve just asserted it.
Similarly, when — decades later — another set of SC politicians signed the ordnance of secession, they asserted legal powers they didn’t have. Nothing “moral” was going on there. Indeed, since their motive was to maintain slavery, I find it shocking that you describe this as a “moral” act.
Hiding behind “freedom of association” doesn’t work and is easily seen through sophistry.
l: If a person or a group of people (or an agent acting on their behalf) has the moral authority to voluntarily join some sort of union or association, that same person or group (or that agent) has the moral authority to later decide to voluntarily leave that same union or association.
me: I get what you are saying. You are twisting words and def.s to suit your narrative.
SC was not a “group.” Nor was the US. They instead are governments. On top of it all, you don’t seem to recognize the massive flaw in your analogy…the people of SC were not the same in 1787 and 1860. One need not be a legal positivist to see your error. It’s available for all free thinkers to see!
This is nothing like the neighborhood Methodist Church deciding which national Methodist association to affiliate with.
As for whether you have avoided both state brainwashing and Rothbardian brainwashing, I can’t know for sure. But my earnest feedback is that you don’t seem to know what the word “same” means in your own definition. While you are at it, you might ponder the word “voluntarily,” too.
RC, I really think you are (intentionally?) overstating the complexity of my position. In fact, I think I can summarize it in a single sentence that goes something like this:
If a person or a group of people (or an agent acting on their behalf) has the moral authority to voluntarily join some sort of union or association, that same person or group (or that agent) has the moral authority to later decide to voluntarily leave that same union or association.
Is that simple enough for you?
Oh, and as I’ve tried to make clear, I really don’t give a damn about legal authority. I will readily concede that the Confederate rebellion was illegal, as was the Colonial rebellion (for the same reasons) and even the Constitution itself (given that the delegates at the Constitutional Convention were only authorized to amend the Articles of Confederation, rather than to replace them entirely). But, since I’m not a legal positivist, that doesn’t bother me at all.
You are right about one thing, though. Those who have suffered through the largest amounts of government brainwashing are indeed the most likely to cling to statist propaganda, and to become offended by the mere questioning of it. In fact, given my own level of “education”, I consider myself quite fortunate to have retained any capacity for critical thought whatsoever.
This is hilarious! I probably could post it as a real article, because I think it’s written about members of the LP, but it works here, too:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/23-libertarian-problems
pf: A big part of the problem is overestimating the education level and attention span of most people….
me: Great point, too. I’d say it has less to do with “education level,” though, since I’d venture the guess that the more educated are less likely to buy Langa’s revisionism. But certainly it takes a lot of patience to sit through, process and absorb the tortured logic to at least “get” Langa’s take on the Insurrection.
Given that most are not so inclined to sit through the Byzantine rationizations and gyrations to get to the Langa conclusion: “Half the people were justified in claiming they could secede (regardless of motive) “morally” if not legally,” it would seem wise to consider more fruitful topics to broaden the case for lessarchy.
And yet the entire LM is burdened with this dysfunctional tradition. There’s even a think tank that promotes these notions on a daily basis, damaging the brand in incalculable ways.
So we shake our heads, still hopeful for what might be when cooler heads prevail….
L: your repeated attempts to imply that my position is somehow motivated by support for slavery are truly laughable, given that my well-known “NAPsolutism” (as you call it) makes me about as opposed to slavery as one can possibly be.
me: No, that’s not what I’m implying. What I am suggesting though is that you are blinded by the desire to self associate that you misapply the principle in this case, calling it a “moral” matter, not a legal one, given that it was conducted politically, not privately. Yes, that does open you and your fellow revisionist Ls to being soft of slavery. You may not care. Some revisionists will say, “Oh, well, slavery would have eventually withered away,” which certainly sounds to me to be some kind of ex post rationalization, but I – and most – find that a weak, irrelevant argument.
L: They are also quite ironic, as I’m almost certain that if you were one of Lincoln’s advisers in 1860, you would have been urging him to downplay the slavery issue, for fear of alienating the Southern voters.
me: Heroic assumption. A campaign adviser is a technician, one whose job it is to get the candidate elected. So, yes, Langa, if today you were running, I would advise you to come up with a vague, deflecting statement to avoid putting your wrong-headed beliefs about the Insurrection into the public domain. Or I would advise you not to run, to spare yourself of the embarrassment.
It’s hard to say what I would have done in 1860. Were I an abolitionist, I would not have run for national office, since it appears that the country was not quite ready for that much sanity.
Of course, I’d probably be dead, since so few lived to my age then.
L: This is what I’m referring to when I talk about your hypocritical posturing. You make a big show of your opposition to slavery, now that it’s safe to do so, but when it comes to the issues that really matter in today’s world, you’re afraid to take a stand, for fear you might offend somebody.
me: I dunno, L, when I was a Rothbardian, I once wrote that fetuses are parasites, just as the Great One told me they are! On reflection, I now disagree with that 20th century Moses, and my younger self. But, yes, for example, I consider it unwise to advocate, say, legalizing heroin tomorrow IF running for office, even though I don’t believe that that law is moral. Rather, if someone felt the need to advocate for immediate heroin legalization, I’d suggest they form a NORH(erion)L.
Yet I don’t find my approach “hypocrisy” at all. Adults recognize that there is a time and a place for things. This issue, in my judgment, is not ripe, not appropriate in this time and place.
Sometimes, it’s wise to keep things to yourself. I don’t think acting like the Unabomber – who practiced what he preached – was wise.
In short, I have no problem with having a private philosophical discourse that differs from a public campaign for office. If that makes me a hypocrite in your mind, well, thanks for the feedback, but I disagree. Alternatively, I accept and embrace that label, and I suggest the approach for all! Perhaps being an adult requires some hypocrisy, otherwise known as “discretion.”
A big part of the problem is overestimating the education level and attention span of most people….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsHON9_bewQ
First principle: Don’t enslave. Can’t think of a higher one off hand, actually.
RC, your repeated attempts to imply that my position is somehow motivated by support for slavery are truly laughable, given that my well-known “NAPsolutism” (as you call it) makes me about as opposed to slavery as one can possibly be.
They are also quite ironic, as I’m almost certain that if you were one of Lincoln’s advisers in 1860, you would have been urging him to downplay the slavery issue, for fear of alienating the Southern voters.
This is what I’m referring to when I talk about your hypocritical posturing. You make a big show of your opposition to slavery, now that it’s safe to do so, but when it comes to the issues that really matter in today’s world, you’re afraid to take a stand, for fear you might offend somebody.
http://c4ss.org/content/17879
Center for a Stateless Society » The Network Economy as New Mutualism
LOL, Jed! I haven’t watched that show, either. I guess it’s time to break away from TLC and The Animal Planet–
My treasury of priceless Ron Swanson quotes, most of them libertarian-oriented. Ron is a fictional character on the NBC show Parks and Recreation. If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend it. Except the first season. Season one was terrible.
“I accidentally told them what you’re doing in an attempt to save some government jobs. It’s been a very strange day for me.”
“I’m not big on charities. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Don’t teach a man to fish, and you feed yourself. He’s a grown man. Fishing’s not that hard.”
“The whole point of this country is if you want to eat garbage, balloon up to 600 pounds, and die of a heart attack at 43, you can. You are free to do so. To me, that’s beautiful.”
“My idea of a perfect government is one guy who sits in a small room at a desk, and the only thing he’s allowed to decide is who to nuke. The man is chosen based on some kind of IQ test, and maybe also a physical tournament, like a decathlon. And women are brought to him, maybe…when he desires them.”
“I’ve been quite open about this around the office: I don’t want this parks department to build any parks because I don’t believe in government. I think that all government is a waste of taxpayer money. My dream is to have the park system privatized and run entirely for profit by corporations, like Chuck E. Cheese. They have an impeccable business model. I would rather work for Chuck E. Cheese.”
“The three most useless jobs in the world in order are: lawyer, congressman, and doctor.”
“History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.”
“I believe in cutting useless government projects. I also believe in cutting useful government projects.”
“Capitalism, God’s way of determining who is smart, and who is poor.”
“I’m an official member of a task force dedicated to slashing the city budget. Just saying that gave me a semi.”
Mark: “You’ve got hazardous chemicals over here.”
Ron: “Yeah, which only I am breathing. It’s the same liberty that gives me the right to fart in my own car. Are you going to tell a man that he can’t fart in his own car?”
Diane: “Hey, am I interrupting something important?”
Ron: “Impossible. I work for the government.”
Yes, if the extremism, histrionical rhetoric and wacky revisionism gets lost.
More…
Not to mention, L, that your “principle” of freedom of association involves not only an agent (making it dubious), but a POLITICAL one at that. That transfers the matter from a moral to a legal one.
So you hand wave, clinging to a weak argument that finds only a few adherents and much incredulity if not outright antipathy!
more…
There’s nothing ad hoc, though, about my take on the Insurrection. The Constitution specifically empowers the federal government to put down insurrections. The Constitution also provides for the ability to change the Constitution. SC had the option of pressing for a change to the Constitution. Instead, crazed as the plantation class was to protect their cash cow and the slavery that allowed it, they opted to insurrect.
Quite linear, actually.
l: the need for having a solid set of guiding principles,
me: yes. First principle: Don’t enslave. Can’t think of a higher one off hand, actually.
L: ad hoc rationalizations and hypocritical posturing. Have you ever been accused of that?
me: Off hand, no.
It is indeed a complex world, which just underscores the need for having a solid set of guiding principles, as opposed to a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants approach that’s based on little more than ad hoc rationalizations and hypocritical posturing. Have you ever been accused of that?
Langa, sure, some appreciate a narrowly-framed consistency more than a coherent big-picture approach that weighs sometimes conflicting principles. Others recognize that it is a complex world and appreciate the necessity for moral judgment and discernment.
Funny, though, I’ve never been accused of being conventional!
You call them technicalities, I call them principles.
And yes, there are some people who are more persuaded by intellectual consistency than by the parroting of conventional wisdom.
Andy, I simply offer my opinion that IF the LM is associated with the sort of revisionist technicalities that Langa offers, my belief is that large swathes of the population will be turned off to the cause of liberty.
The notion that the slavers were empowered to secede to maintain slavery is – in these times – a curious and, for most, odious interpretation, sure to alienate most fair-minded people.
Your opinion may differ. You may think that such positioning make liberty MORE attractive…somehow!
“Marc Montoni April 22, 2014 at 7:19 am
Andy, you are exactly right. For the 4,345th time, RC has BROUGHT UP his favorite war of conquest, completely wasting his time and that of langa’s as well.
Meanwhile, he hasn’t even organized his own home precinct to help elect a county official or two who will work towards reducing the slavery we have *today*.”
Yes, if people like Robert Capozzi spent as much time going out and building the Libertarian Party/movement as they do arguing with other libertarians we’d have a bigger Libertarian Party/movement right now.
“Robert Capozzi April 22, 2014 at 5:48 am
Andy, thanks, ‘dormant’ is an overstatement on my part. There probably are more self-IDed Ls, that’s true. Whether liberty is on the rise, though, I guess we’re viewing a different set of metrics. By most measures, government’s bigger than even. Yes, there’ve been a few pluses in an otherwise ineffective movement.”
Yes, government is bigger than ever. What I meant is that the number of people who identify as libertarians, and who are sympathtic to libertarians, has increased in recent years. Also, there have been some victories on the side of liberty recently, such as the marijuana legalization initiatives that passed in Colorado and Washington in 2012.
If the liberty movement continues to increase I expect more victories in the future. It is up to people like us to make sure that the liberty movement increases.
Andy, you are exactly right. For the 4,345th time, RC has BROUGHT UP his favorite war of conquest, completely wasting his time and that of langa’s as well.
Meanwhile, he hasn’t even organized his own home precinct to help elect a county official or two who will work towards reducing the slavery we have *today*.
I trace any lack of progress for the movement back to alleged “libertarians” who hold few actual libertarian positions and who refuse to lift a finger to replace modern-day slavers with people who want to abolish slavery to the state.
The movement for liberty is on the rise, but so is big government. Yes, both can happen at the same time. We have not won yet, but we will.
Andy, thanks, “dormant” is an overstatement on my part. There probably are more self-IDed Ls, that’s true. Whether liberty is on the rise, though, I guess we’re viewing a different set of metrics. By most measures, government’s bigger than even. Yes, there’ve been a few pluses in an otherwise ineffective movement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYAurVuDi0I
Also, I don’t think that the cause of liberty is dormant. There has been a big upswing in libertarianism over the last 7 years. More people than ever are familiar with the term libertarian, and a large percentage of people have a generally positive view of the term. A lot of the general public supports libertarian views on several issues, such as marijuana legalization and gay marriage, etc… Liberty is on the rise.
Robert Capozzi April 21, 2014 at 5:28 am said: “It is self-sabotaging positions like this which will keep the cause of liberty dormant.”
A bigger reason is a lack of activism from people who claim to be supporters of individual liberty.
“Robert Capozzi April 20, 2014 at 9:39 am
JP, I’d put it this way:
It can be very difficult to get people to question their assumptions about ‘government’ and ‘politics’ without them feeling attacked and getting defensive. (I’ve been on both sides of that discussion.) However simple the principles and concepts may be, if someone is psychologically invested in his viewpoint, changing his mind is not easy. After [many] years of having one-on-one discussions with many hundreds of nonarchists, their defensiveness and fear about going to truly radical places in their minds has proven possibly impossible for them to even consider changing how they see the world. Their primary tool for their defense mechanisms is evasiveness and denial.;)”
This sounds like the typical big government supporter, and it is also why government employees, government contractors, welfare recipients, and others who have a vested interest in big government are usually not good prospects for libertarianism.
https://www.facebook.com/libertarians
langa, OK. I’d always thought contracts had terms for ending of the contract. For ex., the marriage contract used to be “til death do you part.” Since then, other terms, including however joint properties would be divided, have arisen. Or pre-nups.
Being on the wrong side of history for the technicality you cling to may work for you personally.
It is self-sabotaging positions like this which will keep the cause of liberty dormant.
RC, sorry, I have been busy and had forgotten all about this debate. I might return to it at some point when I have more time. For the moment, however, I will answer your last question:
Every argument that you make against the decision to secede could also be made against the ratification of the Constitution, which was also designed to allow for the continuation of slavery, and was also decided with no input from the slaves, from South Carolina or anywhere else.
Now, I personally don’t view the Constitution as legitimate, but you evidently seem to, as you have a major problem with South Carolina violating it, which indicates you think it has validity. I also do not personally view the government of South Carolina (or any government, anywhere, throughout history) as legitimate, but again, you have indicated that at some point prior to 1860, you believe that it was legitimate, even though, again, it was designed to allow slavery.
So, my view if that IF the government of South Carolina was legitimate, in, say, 1787, and the U.S. Constitution was a valid contract legitimately entered into by the government of South Carolina (on behalf of its citizens), then yes, the same government that legitimately entered into that union has the right, by virtue of freedom of association, to later exit that same union.
As I said, I’ve been pretty busy lately, so I don’t know when I might have the time or inclination to continue this line of discussion, but in the meantime, I hope that helps to clarify my position.
JP, I’d put it this way:
It can be very difficult to get people to question their assumptions about “government” and “politics” without them feeling attacked and getting defensive. (I’ve been on both sides of that discussion.) However simple the principles and concepts may be, if someone is psychologically invested in his viewpoint, changing his mind is not easy. After [many] years of having one-on-one discussions with many hundreds of nonarchists, their defensiveness and fear about going to truly radical places in their minds has proven possibly impossible for them to even consider changing how they see the world. Their primary tool for their defense mechanisms is evasiveness and denial.;)
From Freedom’s Phoenix:
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/153994-2014-04-16-featured-project-by-larken-rose-on-the-freedoms-phoenix-funding.htm?From=News
Libertarian Summer Internships for Credit (College)
Or for Experience (High School)
Starts: Flexible Start Dates. Primary start date is June 1.
Location: Washington, DC
Overseen by: Arvin Vohra, LNC-At Large
Pay: Unpaid, for Credit
Time: Part Time
Possible Focus Areas: Graphic Design, Marketing, Political Strategy, Writing
This summer, learn about political messaging, campaign strategy, and social media strategy in a Libertarian Party summer internship. You will have the chance to go head to head against experienced statists and authoritarians, as we work to cut government and advance liberty. For more information: http://buff.ly/1n2zLDF
Libertarian Party
Posted by Arvin Vohra · Yesterday
Fellow Libertarians,
Almost two years ago, we began using our facebook page more aggressively. As part of that, we developed large volunteer teams. Those teams have gone through quite a few evolutions.
Now we’re introducing the next evolution.
This team is innocuously called the Candidate Support, Design, and Messaging Team. Despite its harmless name, this will become our most powerful team to date. This will be the team that cuts government and advances liberty. This is the team that strikes fear into the heart of every crony capitalist and nanny statist.
To get on this team, you must first go through Who’s Driving Messaging Training. This training is personally overseen by Carla Howell, the Libertarian Party’s National Political Director, and Arvin Vohra, at-Large representative to the Libertarian National Committee.
The following people should join this group:
1. Candidates
2. Graphic Designers
3. State Chairs
4. Writers
5. Serious Volunteers.
The first step: join this group to get involved in Who’s Driving Training: http://buff.ly/Q6sA1G
Those who complete the training will be invited to the new group.
If you are in a current social media volunteer group, please consider joining this new one. This group will be several times as important as all of our old groups…combined.
To get started, go here: http://buff.ly/Q6sA1G
Sorry, Langa, I was getting frustrated with your view.
But, let me get this straight: Technically, the SC government had been serving as agent for the SC people for decades. Even though a great immorality (slavery) had grown into a full-blown moral crisis, where fully half the people in SC were not only disenfranchised, but in fact slaves, this matters not at all to you, technically speaking. Even if we imagine that these people would have likely changed the makeup of the secession convention delegates (whom I refer to as the Elites), and chosen against secession, this is technically immaterial in your mind.
That the secession convention was called hastily, with almost no deliberation, this too is immaterial, technically.
Despite the fact that you agree that slavery is immoral, and the move to secede was designed to maintain slavery, that too is immaterial, technically speaking.
The agent of record was empowered to declare secession, and you believe that’s the only relevant moral question, since you believe that the decision BY AN AGENT to secede is simply a matter of freedom of association. These “means” were in your mind technically justified, even though the motive was to continue slavery. Because of the primacy of the right to free associate, there can be no other considerations in this matter.
Is this accurate and fair?
I’d note that many were damaged in this process. The slaves and those who wished to remain US citizens for starters. The US was damaged as well, as the state of SC took its property, citizens and charges.
And yet you maintain your position, on technical grounds.
Breathtaking, if so.
Just a bit more….
It’s ironic that your concern, Langa, is with “means,” since the means for SC’s secession is the core of my critique! Redefining terms to suit your narrative is done all the time, but when it’s so easily seen through, it undermines your credibility. As is out-of-context cherry picking.
Langa: But my point all along has been that any person (or anyone acting as an agent for a group of people) is always morally justified in exercising their freedom of association (for example, by severing ties with a group that they have previously been a part of), regardless of their motives for doing so, and regardless of whether it’s “legal” to do so.
Me: Yes, I guess I find that view so wrong-minded that I keep hoping that you’ll rethink that view. I was hoping you’d see how it SO misses the forest for the trees. It seems that you (somehow!) believe that “freedom of association” is the highest value you hold; that your HIGHLY uncommon application of the principle of freedom of association stands up to any reasonable scrutiny; that the outcome (secession to continue the institution of slavery) is in any way, shape or form “moral,” when it’s self evident that it is not! Since your highly elastic use of the principle of F of A is already way, way out there, could the government of SC deport all those who disagreed with the secession? Jeez Louise, where do it all end?
L: This logic sounds similar to the kid who argues that he shouldn’t be punished for misbehaving because “all the other kids were doing the same thing”. Personally, I don’t believe that the popularity of an action has anything to do with the morality of that action.
Me: Actually, it sounds NOTHING like it. Have you been reading too much Rothbard, L? 😉 (He was given to wild extrapolating non sequiturs as well.) Now, if you’d said “all the other kids since the dawn of time,” you might have a leg to stand on! So, yes, I agree with you that mere popularity has nothing to do with my view of morality in history either. To me, slavery has always been wrong, as I’ve said several times. I’m not sure slavery was popular, per se, though. I merely make the point that the prevailing cultural norms did not find the institution to be wrong. Similarly, I find capital punishment to be wrong, too, and it always has been. As an adult, though, I recognize that even today people find it to be appropriate punishment. Indeed, many Ls are in favor of capital punishment. I disagree with them, but I see why they uphold that tradition.
L: Regardless of what the Constitution says about secession, by your own standard, all the people living in SC (whether citizens or not) have agreed to the rule that whatever is decided by a majority of citizens (or, more accurately, the representatives chosen by those deemed to be citizens) is considered to be the will of the people, and everyone (again, citizen or not) is expected to go along with that, to “keep the peace”. Therefore, they weren’t hostages, but willing participants.
Me: No, they didn’t agree to any such thing. The slaves surely didn’t! Non-slaves could be viewed as agreeing to a rule of law, NOT majority rules in all things!
L: Here we come to what I believe is the real crux of our disagreement. It’s something I mentioned earlier in the thread (or actually, back on the other thread) when I said that I don’t understand how any libertarian could think that the ends justify the means.
Me: You talk out both sides of your mouth. The means the Confederate Elites used to attempt to secede was fake means. You, somehow, fall back to a majority rules argument! Sheesh!
L: You seem to think that the primary difference between the Colonial rebels and the Confederate rebels was the morality of their motive for rebelling. You seem to agree with me (although for different reasons) that the means employed in both cases were questionable (at best), but you think that in the case of the Colonial rebellion, the righteousness of their goals justified their actions, while in the case of the Confederate rebellion, the evil of their goals made their actions even less justifiable.
Me: I’m beside myself that you find this somehow controversial.
L: I, on the other hand, judge the morality of an action strictly on its face, without regard to the motives professed by the people taking the action.
Me: Intent and state of mind are cornerstones of jurisprudential theory.
L; In short, I don’t think that libertarian ends can justify the use of non-libertarian means.
Me: Cute. You attempt to port freedom of association’s meaning completely inappropriately. It seems more like an “end” than a “means,” anyway. In fact, I don’t know what a L “means” is. L allows things, it doesn’t cause things. People cause things.
L: In fact, I would go so far as to argue that there are no such things as “libertarian ends”, unless you are referring to whatever ends naturally occur as the result of libertarian means. Thus, if I am correct in stating that your position is largely based on the ends justifying the means, I doubt that we will ever agree on this subject.
Me: Yes. Could be. Associated Ls with this idea that the Confederate “secession” was allowable will keep the movement on the fringes. You may not care about popularity, but persuasion in politics requires it.
The government of SC (and any government) is only justified in making decisions for its citizens that it’s empowered to make. No state was empowered to secede unilaterally.
Again, you are conflating what’s legal with what’s moral. When you say, “… is only justified in making decisions for it’s citizens that it’s empowered to make”, you mean it’s only legally justified in doing that. But my point all along has been that any person (or anyone acting as an agent for a group of people) is always morally justified in exercising their freedom of association (for example, by severing ties with a group that they have previously been a part of), regardless of their motives for doing so, and regardless of whether it’s “legal” to do so.
Slavery was not invented in SC. It was a practice for thousands of years, if not throughout human history. More and more people were waking up to the fact that slaves were humans, entitled to equal rights.
This logic sounds similar to the kid who argues that he shouldn’t be punished for misbehaving because “all the other kids were doing the same thing”. Personally, I don’t believe that the popularity of an action has anything to do with the morality of that action. Slavery was no more or less wrong in 1860 than it was in 1760, or in 1960, or any other year you might choose.
This is a sleight-of-hand, and it doesn’t work. Here’s why. The rules here are ALL the rules in place, not just some of them. The superior law here is the Constitution. Under the Constitution, yes, who can vote in states WAS INDEED in effect, and near as I can tell, adhered to. What was NOT adhered to was the “insurrection clause” in the Constitution. Nowhere in the prevailing law does it say a state is empowered to secede. Therefore, it isn’t. Period.
It’s not a sleight-of-hand, it’s a response to your “hostage taking” argument. Regardless of what the Constitution says about secession, by your own standard, all the people living in SC (whether citizens or not) have agreed to the rule that whatever is decided by a majority of citizens (or, more accurately, the representatives chosen by those deemed to be citizens) is considered to be the will of the people, and everyone (again, citizen or not) is expected to go along with that, to “keep the peace”. Therefore, they weren’t hostages, but willing participants.
None of the motives stated by the Revolutionaries were anti-liberty that I recall, at least, unlike the Confederate Elites’s primary motive. It was a right-minded cause…
Here we come to what I believe is the real crux of our disagreement. It’s something I mentioned earlier in the thread (or actually, back on the other thread) when I said that I don’t understand how any libertarian could think that the ends justify the means. You seem to think that the primary difference between the Colonial rebels and the Confederate rebels was the morality of their motive for rebelling. You seem to agree with me (although for different reasons) that the means employed in both cases were questionable (at best), but you think that in the case of the Colonial rebellion, the righteousness of their goals justified their actions, while in the case of the Confederate rebellion, the evil of their goals made their actions even less justifiable.
I, on the other hand, judge the morality of an action strictly on its face, without regard to the motives professed by the people taking the action. In short, I don’t think that libertarian ends can justify the use of non-libertarian means. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that there are no such things as “libertarian ends”, unless you are referring to whatever ends naturally occur as the result of libertarian means. Thus, if I am correct in stating that your position is largely based on the ends justifying the means, I doubt that we will ever agree on this subject.
langa: OK, I see at least two problems with this response. First, as I mentioned earlier, you’re employing circular reasoning. You’re saying that the government of SC was not justified in making decisions for its citizens (e.g. whether to secede) because it was not a legitimate government, but when I asked you why it was illegitimate, you say because it tried to secede!
me: Hmm. Funny. It sounds to me like you’re playing Who’s on First with me. So, in order to get caught up on the meaning of a word, let’s just set aside “legitimate.” It doesn’t seem to add anything to the conversation.
So, let my rephrase YOUR summary of MY view. The government of SC (and any government) is only justified in making decisions for its citizens that it’s empowered to make. No state was empowered to secede unilaterally.
l: So, in your mind, attempting to secede in order (partially) to maintain slavery is worse than actually allowing slavery in the first place? Again, I find this standard to be really bizarre, especially for a self-described libertarian.
me: It’s not bizarre at all. I’m not an absolutist. I see context as being relevant, you may not. Slavery was not invented in SC. It was a practice for thousands of years, if not throughout human history. More and more people were waking up to the fact that slaves were humans, entitled to equal rights. I’ve explained this before in this thread…did you miss it? Do you disagree?
l: Does this standard not also apply to the people of SC? Don’t they also have to play by the rules? In this case, the rules (i.e. the law) said that only certain people in SC were considered citizens, and only those people had any say in how the government was to operate. Now, I don’t approve of those rules, and I’m sure many people in SC back then didn’t either. But under your standard, don’t they still have to play by those rules, or at least try to change them through legal channels, rather than just ignoring them when they prove to be inconvenient?
me: This is a sleight-of-hand, and it doesn’t work. Here’s why. The rules here are ALL the rules in place, not just some of them. The superior law here is the Constitution. Under the Constitution, yes, who can vote in states WAS INDEED in effect, and near as I can tell, adhered to. What was NOT adhered to was the “insurrection clause” in the Constitution. Nowhere in the prevailing law does it say a state is empowered to secede. Therefore, it isn’t. Period.
If a state/territory DID wish to secede, the Constitution allows for negotiation over any number of matters. The SC Elites opted against that, and in effect mounted an insurrection.
langa: Furthermore, your argument about “taking hostages” would seem to apply to any attempt by any state to secede from any political union. For example, when the colonies seceded from Britain, there were many people in the colonies (some of whom were citizens and some of whom weren’t citizens) who opposed the decision and wanted to remain a part of Britain. Did the existence of these “hostages” make the colonies’ attempt to secede illegitimate as well?
me: Yes. The Revolution did take hostages, in a sense. There certainly were loyalists in that time frame. There were also slaves, although far fewer. The Revolution didn’t even have the support of a super-majority, near as I can tell. It was not a legal act.
Was the Revolution justified from a moral standpoint? On balance, I would say yes. They attempted to negotiate. They were measured: “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.” They stated why rule by the Crown had become intolerable. None of the motives stated by the Revolutionaries were anti-liberty that I recall, at least, unlike the Confederate Elites’s primary motive. It was a right-minded cause, generally, although in retrospect I would have preferred a clear super-majority in this historical event of self-determination.
Like much of history, it was not a black-and-white event, though.
Summing up, the Revolution was not legal, but on balance was moral. A new set of laws were put in place, replacing the old laws, since the Revolutionaries won the war.
The Insurrection was not legal, and on balance was not moral. The prevailing rule of law continued, and was improved on balance as a result. Slavery was abolished. The Insurrectionists lost the war.
langa: This history lesson does not answer the questions that I posed. You said earlier that the government of South Carolina was not legitimate, at least not in 1860; presumably, it was at some earlier point. So, when and why did the government of South Carolina lose its legitimacy?
me: Umm, when it broke the law and attempted to secede. It actually fails BOTH authority tests. A) It wasn’t legal, B) It wasn’t justified, given the motive, which was maintaining slavery.
OK, I see at least two problems with this response. First, as I mentioned earlier, you’re employing circular reasoning. You’re saying that the government of SC was not justified in making decisions for its citizens (e.g. whether to secede) because it was not a legitimate government, but when I asked you why it was illegitimate, you say because it tried to secede!
Also, if it lost its legitimacy in 1860, when it tried to secede, that means that it had legitimacy prior to 1860, even though it was a slave state. So, in your mind, attempting to secede in order (partially) to maintain slavery is worse than actually allowing slavery in the first place? Again, I find this standard to be really bizarre, especially for a self-described libertarian.
L: and if those citizens have the moral authority to decide whom they want to associate with (which any libertarian would obviously agree that they do),
me: Not cutting the mustard, Langa. This was not a case of self determination. This was not Crimea opting to rejoin Russia. SC was a case where hostages were being taken. How that could be considered “moral” is beyond me. Part of “keeping the peace” involves honoring the rules, even if you disagree with the rules.
Does this standard not also apply to the people of SC? Don’t they also have to play by the rules? In this case, the rules (i.e. the law) said that only certain people in SC were considered citizens, and only those people had any say in how the government was to operate. Now, I don’t approve of those rules, and I’m sure many people in SC back then didn’t either. But under your standard, don’t they still have to play by those rules, or at least try to change them through legal channels, rather than just ignoring them when they prove to be inconvenient?
Furthermore, your argument about “taking hostages” would seem to apply to any attempt by any state to secede from any political union. For example, when the colonies seceded from Britain, there were many people in the colonies (some of whom were citizens and some of whom weren’t citizens) who opposed the decision and wanted to remain a part of Britain. Did the existence of these “hostages” make the colonies’ attempt to secede illegitimate as well?
langa: Actually, I suggested that there was a distinction between “legal authority” (a descriptive term that simply means the law gives you the power to do something) and “moral authority” (a normative term that means you are justified in doing something).
me: Great, we’ll go with those, then.
langa: Do you understand the distinction? As for “legitimacy”, I basically mean a combination of legal and moral authority. In other words, in order for a government to be legitimate, it must not only have the legal authority to rule, but that authority must be accepted as just by its citizens (although not necessarily by all of them).
me: OK…legal’s what the law says, moral’s what’s justified, legit is both…check.
langa: This history lesson does not answer the questions that I posed. You said earlier that the government of South Carolina was not legitimate, at least not in 1860; presumably, it was at some earlier point. So, when and why did the government of South Carolina lose its legitimacy?
me: Umm, when it broke the law and attempted to secede. It actually fails BOTH authority tests. A) It wasn’t legal, B) It wasn’t justified, given the motive, which was maintaining slavery.
L: Governments constantly make decisions that not all of their citizens agree with. Are you saying that alone makes them illegitimate? If so, it sounds like you are finally coming to see the light!
me: Ah, no. I would say that the moral justification for government is to maintain a semblance of domestic tranquility. That means, setting basic groundrules for acceptable behavior.
It’s true that not everyone will agree with every groundrule. Bummer. It’s also the case that there may be the “very eccentric,” as Bob Murphy might say, would disagree that domestic tranquility is desirable. I feel their pain.
L: I’m arguing that if governments have the moral authority to make decisions on behalf of their citizens (which I do not personally believe, but I’m assuming here for the purpose of the argument),
me: Sneaky! No, governments have moral authority to make SOME decisions to KEEP THE PEACE. That’s what’s justified, as I see it.
L: and if those citizens have the moral authority to decide whom they want to associate with (which any libertarian would obviously agree that they do),
me: Not cutting the mustard, Langa. This was not a case of self determination. This was not Crimea opting to rejoin Russia. SC was a case where hostages were being taken. How that could be considered “moral” is beyond me. Part of “keeping the peace” involves honoring the rules, even if you disagree with the rules.
Without rules, you have a state of nature, where there is no property. There, might makes “right,” for the lack of a better term.
L: then, by definition, the government has the moral authority to decide to secede from any political union or organization which it deems to no longer be beneficial to the interests of its citizens.
me: Again, no. A government should be an AGENT, not a PRINCIPAL. In its role as AGENT, it is delegated certain powers to keep the peace. If a super-majority of the principals wanted to self-determine, the agent would act as an advocate for doing so, taking into account the prevailing laws and contracts in place. It would not act precipitously, as the Elites did.
SC’s action fails on both counts. A) a super-majority didn’t exist, or wasn’t determined. B) the agent usurped authority it didn’t have.
This was a hostage taking, not an act of self determination. Hostage taking is not moral or legitimate from where I come from. YMMV.
Part of the problem is your notion of “legitimacy,” either “legal” or “moral,” esp “moral.” I don’t know what they mean.
Actually, I suggested that there was a distinction between “legal authority” (a descriptive term that simply means the law gives you the power to do something) and “moral authority” (a normative term that means you are justified in doing something). For example, I (and many others, I’m sure) would say that in the antebellum South, a slave owner had the legal authority, but not the moral authority, to forbid his slaves from leaving his property. For a more modern example, many people today would argue that doctors have the legal authority, but not the moral authority, to perform abortions. Or, on the other hand, you could argue that gay people have the moral authority, but not the legal authority (in some states), to decide whether to get married to another person of the same sex. Do you understand the distinction? As for “legitimacy”, I basically mean a combination of legal and moral authority. In other words, in order for a government to be legitimate, it must not only have the legal authority to rule, but that authority must be accepted as just by its citizens (although not necessarily by all of them).
To my knowledge, throughout most of history, there have been slaves in many, many places. The peculiar institution didn’t start in the 1780s in the US. Many felt the Articles were dysfunctional, so the representatives of non-slave men decided to reconfigure the form of government and the delegation of powers to sign and enact the Constitution. They considered banning slavery at the time, but that was a deal-breaker for some of the state representatives who crafted the new Constitution.
This, again, was a rather major example of poor judgment in history, to be clear.
As the decades rolled by, the economies of some of the states became increasing dependent on slavery. In that same timeframe, more and more were people in the US and elsewhere were FINALLY waking up to the fact that slavery was severely dysfunctional on every level. Both sides to this debate become more and more assertive of their relative positions. This led to the Confederate Elites to lead an Insurrection against the Constitution, with the expressed purpose of maintaining slavery in perpetuity, as well as to express their belief that other national economic policies were regionally lopsided, e.g., trade and tariff policies.
This history lesson does not answer the questions that I posed. You said earlier that the government of South Carolina was not legitimate, at least not in 1860; presumably, it was at some earlier point. So, when and why did the government of South Carolina lose its legitimacy?
SC was making that decision for the slaves and non-slaves who didn’t want secession.
Governments constantly make decisions that not all of their citizens agree with. Are you saying that alone makes them illegitimate? If so, it sounds like you are finally coming to see the light!
SC was a signatory to the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say a state can secede. Therefore, this attempt to secede was COMPLETELY inappropriate. The motive was wrong-headed. The procedure was a massive usurpation of powers that the Elites didn’t have, by law.
Here, you are conflating legal authority with moral authority. I’m not arguing whether the Constitution permitted secession. From a moral standpoint, the Constitution is just another piece of paper. I’m arguing that if governments have the moral authority to make decisions on behalf of their citizens (which I do not personally believe, but I’m assuming here for the purpose of the argument), and if those citizens have the moral authority to decide whom they want to associate with (which any libertarian would obviously agree that they do), then, by definition, the government has the moral authority to decide to secede from any political union or organization which it deems to no longer be beneficial to the interests of its citizens.
langa: This is quite a bizarre argument, as you seem to be saying that the legitimacy of the government, and thus their moral authority to make decisions on behalf of their citizens, hinges on the percentage of the population that are slaves.
me: Not sure HOW you get there, Langa. Is the statement: “However, a profound error was made in not abolishing slavery at the outset” somehow unclear for you?
Part of the problem is your notion of “legitimacy,” either “legal” or “moral,” esp “moral.” I don’t know what they mean. Strikes me as obvious that governments are in place to provide a foundation for domestic tranquility. Some do it reasonably well, others not so much. Some have the broad consent of the citizenry, some don’t. (Meaning, most people recognize that the government they live under is more or less appropriate, although likely most have some aspect of government that they object to in some way.
L: So, allowing a few people to be treated as property does not remove legitimacy, but allowing a lot of people to be treated as property does.
me: Not even in the neighborhood of what I think. I was providing context. To my knowledge, throughout most of history, there have been slaves in many, many places. The peculiar institution didn’t start in the 1780s in the US. Many felt the Articles were dysfunctional, so the representatives of non-slave men decided to reconfigure the form of government and the delegation of powers to sign and enact the Constitution. They considered banning slavery at the time, but that was a deal-breaker for some of the state representatives who crafted the new Constitution.
This, again, was a rather major example of poor judgment in history, to be clear.
As the decades rolled by, the economies of some of the states became increasing dependent on slavery. In that same timeframe, more and more were people in the US and elsewhere were FINALLY waking up to the fact that slavery was severely dysfunctional on every level. Both sides to this debate become more and more assertive of their relative positions. This led to the Confederate Elites to lead an Insurrection against the Constitution, with the expressed purpose of maintaining slavery in perpetuity, as well as to express their belief that other national economic policies were regionally lopsided, e.g., trade and tariff policies.
L: Given that, is it fair to say that, in your opinion, if South Carolina had adopted a very aggressive “birth control” policy like the one China has today (using forced abortions and/or infanticide to keep the slave population relatively low), then they would have maintained their legitimacy, and been within their rights to secede? That strikes me as a very odd claim.
me: Ah, no.
L: Well, that depends. If you’re asking for my personal opinion, then yes, any individual or group of individuals have the moral authority to secede from any union that they no longer wish to be a part of. Of course, they aren’t allowed to make that decision for anyone but themselves.
me: Right. SC was making that decision for the slaves and non-slaves who didn’t want secession. SC was a signatory to the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say a state can secede. Therefore, this attempt to secede was COMPLETELY inappropriate. The motive was wrong-headed. The procedure was a massive usurpation of powers that the Elites didn’t have, by law.
L: On the other hand, if we’re speaking in the hypothetical context where I accept the legitimacy of governments making collective decisions for all of their citizens, then no, as this mob is obviously not the legally recognized government of RI. But I don’t see what that has to do with the government of SC in 1860, as no one was denying that they were the “real” government.
me: Both SC and this hypothetical RI mob were not empowered by law to secede. Both are cases of unjustified (mal) intentions.
So, as the pop of SC shifted toward slaves, the legitimacy of the government has to be called into question. As the decades rolled by, the sick practice of slavery became more and more obviously wrong.
If, for ex., SC chose to not sign the Constitution at the outset, when the slave pop was maybe 5%, we’d look on this situation quite differently. If they “seceded” in 1790, we’d look at THAT differently as well.
This is quite a bizarre argument, as you seem to be saying that the legitimacy of the government, and thus their moral authority to make decisions on behalf of their citizens, hinges on the percentage of the population that are slaves. So, allowing a few people to be treated as property does not remove legitimacy, but allowing a lot of people to be treated as property does. Given that, is it fair to say that, in your opinion, if South Carolina had adopted a very aggressive “birth control” policy like the one China has today (using forced abortions and/or infanticide to keep the slave population relatively low), then they would have maintained their legitimacy, and been within their rights to secede? That strikes me as a very odd claim.
Would you say that a mob storming the RI statehouse, declaring itself the rightful government of RI, and “seceding” from the US would also have “moral authority” to do so?
Well, that depends. If you’re asking for my personal opinion, then yes, any individual or group of individuals have the moral authority to secede from any union that they no longer wish to be a part of. Of course, they aren’t allowed to make that decision for anyone but themselves.
On the other hand, if we’re speaking in the hypothetical context where I accept the legitimacy of governments making collective decisions for all of their citizens, then no, as this mob is obviously not the legally recognized government of RI. But I don’t see what that has to do with the government of SC in 1860, as no one was denying that they were the “real” government.
langa: I’m confused. Was the government of SC illegitimate because it was a slave state, or because it tried to secede from the Union? If it’s the latter, that seems like a case of circular reasoning.
me: Yes, we’d all love there to be tidy little boxes to put these sorts of things into…legitimate/illegitimate. Power usurper/empowered, etc.
I’d suggest that such clarity is exceedingly rare in any endeavor. Perhaps you’ve found otherwise, but I have not. If you think so, though, I’ll need lots and lots of evidence to change my perception!
Here’s how I respond: The US and the federal system of states was a work in progress. Some of the ideas were reasonably functional at the outset, some were clearly dysfunctional.
Adoption of the Constitution did a pretty good job of balancing the desire to maintain a semblance of domestic tranquility while recognizing the default position that individuals have rights to do as they wish, so long as they don’t harm others.
However, a profound error was made in not abolishing slavery at the outset.
In the1780s, while slavery was just as dysfunctional as it was in 1860, the practice grew from a rather limited one to the point where the plantation states, “led” by SC, the slave population was now HALF. Increasingly, non-slaves were recognizing the self-evident: that slaves were humans, deserving full recognition of their human rights.
This recognition was HIGHLY threatening in SC esp. The level of denial they were living in MUST have been profound. Like a cornered rat, they went through wild gyrations to justify what they were doing, justifying it with pronouncedly delusional thinking and rationalizations.
So, as the pop of SC shifted toward slaves, the legitimacy of the government has to be called into question. As the decades rolled by, the sick practice of slavery became more and more obviously wrong.
If, for ex., SC chose to not sign the Constitution at the outset, when the slave pop was maybe 5%, we’d look on this situation quite differently. If they “seceded” in 1790, we’d look at THAT differently as well.
In 1860, the state government of SC was half-way to full-blown totalitarian fascism. This regime went further to call into question its very legitimacy by claiming it was empowered to “secede,” exacerbated further that it claimed this power unilaterally, with no negotiation.
This is the behavior of some very sick minds.
It didn’t work so well for them, which is no surprise. Insane people may sometimes appear energetic, but they usually fall apart when they engage in grandiose endeavors like unilaterally breaking a contract like the Constitution, which is the basis for the rule of law. Claiming, as they effectively did, that they were above the law would invite chaos into their experience.
Sadly, many others died in the process.
L: I’m not arguing that they had the legal authority to secede. I’ll leave that debate to others. I’m simply arguing that they had the moral authority to secede, based on freedom of association.
me: I guess you’ll need to define “moral authority” then. I admit that I have a hard time imagining “fascist slavers” and “moral” in the same logic stream.
Would you say that a mob storming the RI statehouse, declaring itself the rightful government of RI, and “seceding” from the US would also have “moral authority” to do so?
all wars, even those that are “defensive” in theory, are still unjust in practice.
Me: I’d say, then, that you are a functionally a pacifist.
Well, that’s my position, and even though I personally wouldn’t call myself a pacifist, as you yourself might say, if labeling me that way makes you comfortable, then feel free to do so.
I’d say SC in 1860 was definitely NOT legit. Half the people were SLAVES. They had no business “seceding” (a legal invention).
I’m confused. Was the government of SC illegitimate because it was a slave state, or because it tried to secede from the Union? If it’s the latter, that seems like a case of circular reasoning.
Well, yes, the state of SC can make SOME decisions that it’s empowered to make (what constitutes murder vs. Self defense, or speed limits, for ex.). Nowhere were they empowered to secede.
I’m not arguing that they had the legal authority to secede. I’ll leave that debate to others. I’m simply arguing that they had the moral authority to secede, based on freedom of association.
Young Libertarians Aim to Be Players in 2014 Elections
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/02/21/young-libertarians-aim-to-be-players-in-2014-elections
Is Rob Lowe a Libertarian?
http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/07/is-rob-lowe-a-libertarian-i-want-the-gov
Langa: Exactly, which is why I said earlier that all wars, even those that are “defensive” in theory, are still unjust in practice.
Me: I’d say, then, that you are a functionally a pacifist. I respect that. I highly sympathetic, even. Still, it seems unwise to me that a nation should not defend itself if it’s attacked.
Langa: No, the principle that governments (if assumed to be legitimate) have the right to make decisions on behalf of their citizens.
Me: OK, then, I’d say SC in 1860 was definitely NOT legit. Half the people were SLAVES. They had no business “seceding” (a legal invention). Heck, if a mob stormed the RI capital tomorrow, killed all the legislators and governor, and claimed to “secede,” we’d not say, Oh, the State of RI has spoken. They want to secede. Let them go in peace.
No, we wouldn’t. The rest of the US would have a strong interest in reversing such an insurrection.
Langa: You seem to have an unusually narrow understanding of “freedom of association”, which, as commonly understood, includes not just the right to choose who one personally associates with (e.g. the right to choose one’s friends), but also who one legally associates with (e.g. the right to choose who one does business with).
Me: Stipulated.
Langa: So, if the state of South Carolina has the right to make decisions on behalf of its citizens, and, in its judgment, those citizens would be best served by severing ties (i.e. ending their association) with the United States government, that would seem to me to be a textbook example of the exercise of freedom of association.
Me: Well, yes, the state of SC can make SOME decisions that it’s empowered to make (what constitutes murder vs. Self defense, or speed limits, for ex.). Nowhere were they empowered to secede. When we see further that they were only half the population and that they invented their power to secede in order to keep slaves in perpetuity, we get a VERY different picture.
DT, yes, I’m quite familiar with the revisionist interpretation of the Confederate Elite Insurrection. I’ve even taken a course from DiLorenzo at GMU, although at that point he was not so obsessed with justifying the Insurrection.
While my reading of history is that, yes, there were other considerations, keeping slavery certainly seemed to be the primary motive of the Elites in inventing the power to secede, despite the fact that NOWHERE in the Constitution does such a power get enumerated.
Riddle me this, then: Why did SENATOR JAMES HENRY CRITTENDEN of KY propose to amend the Constitution to extend the old 36°30′ line to the Pacific as means to end the creation of the CSA in the period after the “ordnances” but prior to Lincoln’s inaugural? Why not propose a change to tariffs, for ex.? Could it be because he, as a border state senator, knew exactly what really concerned the Confederate Elites, i.e., the spectre of losing the power to enslave and maintain the peculiar institution, and especially the plantation economy.
Btw, some of the individual state ordnances specify that they were motivated by the threat they felt to slavery’s prospects.
Here’s an article about libertarianism rising which in NOT a hit piece!
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/04/the-libertarian-surge-105446_Page2.html#.U0QhXbX2a3E
Bystanders unfortunately get killed in wars, even defensive ones.
Exactly, which is why I said earlier that all wars, even those that are “defensive” in theory, are still unjust in practice.
langa: why should the decision of whether to secede be an exception to that principle?
me: The principle of freedom of association?
No, the principle that governments (if assumed to be legitimate) have the right to make decisions on behalf of their citizens.
…slavery and freedom of association are different things entirely. You could be friends with whomever you chose to, then and now. The Confederate Elite Insurrection had NOTHING to do with friendships.
You seem to have an unusually narrow understanding of “freedom of association”, which, as commonly understood, includes not just the right to choose who one personally associates with (e.g. the right to choose one’s friends), but also who one legally associates with (e.g. the right to choose who one does business with). So, if the state of South Carolina has the right to make decisions on behalf of its citizens, and, in its judgment, those citizens would be best served by severing ties (i.e. ending their association) with the United States government, that would seem to me to be a textbook example of the exercise of freedom of association.
RC: “The Confederate Elite Insurrection had NOTHING to do with friendships. Rather, it was a bizarre, wrong-headed attempt to maintain slavery. With the growing desire to see the peculiar institution ended throughout the nation, the plantation society of SC concocted a thin veneer of a legal justification for their sick desire to keep humans in bondage”
MOSTLY WRONG! Although slavery was one of several primary causes of Southern secession it was not their primary issue and was not the cause over which either side fought the war.
By 1860, through high export tariffs on Southern raw goods and high import duties on European finished goods the Southern States were paying 60%-70% of the Federal budget with only 10% being reinvested in the South. The majority of the Federal budget was being spent to develop the infrastructure (ports, harbors, roads, bridges, canals and railroads) necessary to support growing Northern industrialism.
“The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole…we have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe . This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually.”
>>>Daily Chicago Times, December 10, 1860<<>>Lincoln’s Tariff War by Thomas Di Lorenzo <<<
Thanks JP. some would say Lowe is a sell out statist.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/rob-lowe-i-want-the-government-out-of-almost-everything/
langa: Poland is justified in defending its citizens, as long as that defense is limited to killing or injuring the German soldiers that are attacking it, rather than German (or Polish) civilians.
me: Interesting point. Much as the term is prone to abuse, you would seem to hold the Polish government to an unachievably high standard if your test is whether there is NO “collateral damage.” Bystanders unfortunately get killed in wars, even defensive ones. I agree, it sucks. Take it up with the attacking nations.
langa: why should the decision of whether to secede be an exception to that principle?
me: The principle of freedom of association? I’m at a loss. The people one chooses to associate with has almost nothing to do with the Confederate Elite Insurrection. I know of no movement to restrict who the Elite “associated” with. Rather, there WAS a growing movement to restrict and/or abolish the institution of slavery within the context of the rule of law. In response, representatives of half the residents of the state of SC made up a procedural power to “secede,” despite the fact that the rule of law gave them no explicit power to do so. They didn’t even have the decency to negotiate, they just acted most precipitously.
The other half – the slaves – were not asked for their opinion!
dt: Disingenuous nonsense; slavery has absolutely nothing to do with “FREEDOM of association”. They are antithetical.
me: I can’t tell if you are agreeing with me or not. I certainly agree that slavery and freedom of association are different things entirely. You could be friends with whomever you chose to, then and now. The Confederate Elite Insurrection had NOTHING to do with friendships. Rather, it was a bizarre, wrong-headed attempt to maintain slavery. With the growing desire to see the peculiar institution ended throughout the nation, the plantation society of SC concocted a thin veneer of a legal justification for their sick desire to keep humans in bondage.
Why anyone buys this slaver argument today is beyond me.
RC; “The first state to “secede” was SC. Half the people in SC at the time were slaves. Freedom of association?
Disingenuous nonsense; slavery has absolutely nothing to do with “FREEDOM of association”.
They are antithetical.
langa; “Personally, I don’t believe that any state has any rights whatsoever, including the right to exist.
non-sequitur!!! Whereas the “state” is a product of the social contract, its “legitimate” authority
is derived from the consent of its citizens. Whereas our founders understood that “authority” can and will be abused unless specific limitations and prohibitions are stated clearly; it is clear that only a constitutional republic has ANY chance of surviving its own government.
And possibly, not even then!
…since nations are inherently coercive, anything nations do are not justified, from jump!
That’s true, but it’s not relevant to the point that I was making, which was that even if I grant you that nations have the right to take action on behalf of their citizens, such as defending them from aggression, that does not give them the right to kill and maim innocent third parties (or destroy property belonging to innocent third parties) in the course of doing so. In other words, Poland is justified in defending its citizens, as long as that defense is limited to killing or injuring the German soldiers that are attacking it, rather than German (or Polish) civilians.
The first state to “secede” was SC. Half the people in SC at the time were slaves. Freedom of association?
Again, in making that argument, I was proceeding under the assumption that governments have the right to act on behalf of their citizens. Personally, I don’t believe that any state has any rights whatsoever, including the right to exist. But as long as we are assuming that states are legitimate, and that they are justified in making collective decisions on behalf of their citizens, why should the decision of whether to secede be an exception to that principle?
langa: That’s basic freedom of association.
me: You don’t seem to recognize just how tin-eared and myopic that sounds. Ponder this: The first state to “secede” was SC. Half the people in SC at the time were slaves. Freedom of association?
langa: I believe that any individual is “justified in defending themselves from aggression, so long as that “defense” does not include committing aggression against innocent third parties. In theory, this would allow for the possibility of a “defensive” war, but in practice, I’m unaware of any wars that have actually been so waged.
me: This illustrates to me one of the reasons that deontological NAPsolutism doesn’t work. Yes, of course INDIVIDUALS are justified in defending themselves. But we’re not discussing INDIVIDUALS, we’re discussing NATIONS.
In a highly linear manner, the NAPsolutist come-from is: since nations are inherently coercive, anything nations do are not justified, from jump!
It’s why the LP got off to such a shaky start….”government, when instituted” reflects this construct of global nonarchy as if it is EXISTS! Poland cannot defend itself from a German invasion because POLAND is ITSELF “illegitimate,” i.e., based on “coercive aggression.” Poland can do no right, in the NAPsolutist mind.
So you are a pacifist then. Germany invades Poland, it’s not in your mind just for Poland to respond?
I guess it depends on how you define pacifist. I believe that any individual is justified in defending themselves from aggression, so long as that “defense” does not include committing aggression against innocent third parties. In theory, this would allow for the possibility of a “defensive” war, but in practice, I’m unaware of any wars that have actually been so waged.
I’m referring to RP’s disastrously damaging statement on MTP that the Union should have let the South secede in “peace.”
He’s right that they should have been allowed to secede. That’s basic freedom of association. Of course, that does not in any way endorse or condone the South’s reasons for wanting to secede, just as defending a person’s freedom of speech does not imply that you agree with the specific content of that speech. I don’t have to be a bigot to support the KKK’s right to speak.
As for such a statement being “disastrously damaging”, I disagree (as I don’t think that even Ron Paul’s harshest critics honestly believe that he supports slavery). However, even if I concede your point, I don’t think it matters much, as I am much more concerned with the truth of a statement than I am with its popularity, or its political ramifications. For example, if I had been a politician running for President in the mid-19th century, I would not have hesitated to condemn slavery, even though doing so might well have alienated many Southern voters.
I don’t think the debt has doubled during Obama’s time in office. It certainly has increased a ton, and the statement will be accurate in another year or two. But, as I recall, it was around 10 trillion when he took office, and its less than 18 trillion dollars now.
The thing about the national debt would make a good flier to hand out to or show the public.
langa [from the older thread]: In fact, my whole point is that there is no such thing as a just war.
me: So you are a pacifist then. Germany invades Poland, it’s not in your mind just for Poland to respond?
L: In theory, perhaps so [measured acts to stop genocides could be justified, all things considered]. The problem is that, in practice, these “measured acts” are nothing but a pipe dream, inspired by the propaganda emanating from the war machine. In the real world, wars are always massive violations of not only libertarian principles, but the most basic principles of human decency. The idea of a “just war” is like the idea of a centrally planned socialist economy. It may sound great in theory, but in practice, it’s an absolute disaster.
me: Yep. Practice rarely measures up to theory. I’m pleased we seem to agree, though, that being open to stopping genocides could – at least in theory – be justified.
L: If you’re referring to the idea that the South was the “good side”, that is certainly preposterous, but no more preposterous than the standard narrative that the North was the “good side”. The truth is that in the Civil War, just as in every other war I am aware of, there was no “good side”.
me; Not quite. I’m referring to RP’s disastrously damaging statement on MTP that the Union should have let the South secede in “peace.” Associating L-ism with a political move designed to keep slavery in place in perpetuity hurt, IMO, the general case for lessarchy.
Tiny bunch of wackos. Their views are warped and sick, but we have much bigger and more powerful groups with sick and twisted views to worry about and they are not anachists.
http://www.examiner.com/article/new-poll-shows-americans-often-agreement-with-libertarian-positions
Ross,
“does anyone have experience with this group?”
I’ve run into some “national anarchists.” Don’t know if they’re affiliated with that particular organization or not.
There does seem to be some level of affinity between them and some on the “right” end of the libertarian spectrum — see, for example, Hoppe’s flirtations with “race realists” (“race realism” is to racism what “creationism” is to religious fundamentalism — the same thing, falsely advertised as “science”).
It can be pretty ugly, but that’s actually it’s saving grace — it becomes apparent pretty quickly just how ugly it is, so it doesn’t have a chance to do as much damage as other bad ideas like, say, “minarchism.”
Counterpunch often has excellent articles, but this was not one of them.
Dave, I found a better video. The idea of having dreams (of a better world) was my purpose for posting it.
Ross, I stopped reading after the first sentence, when they started off by quoting the SPLC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdXXPaakJX8
Thoughts on racist anarchism? Seems frightening to me and something to watch out for, does anyone have experience with this group? http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/04/01/the-new-face-of-the-radical-right/
“Dave Terry April 4, 2014 at 10:22 am
Jill, don’t you mean “small ‘l’ libertarianism OR anarchy?”
I am also curious to know what a concert by Van Halen in L.A. has to do with either!”
Maybe it has to do with the song, as in she is dreaming about libertarian anarchy.
Jill, don’t you mean “small ‘l’ libertarianism OR anarchy?”
I am also curious to know what a concert by Van Halen in L.A. has to do with either!
Julie Borowski has a new gig:
http://youtu.be/gJSs7KRU5_4
This is what she had to say about it on Facebook;
“I’m excited to announce a new video series called “Real Talk with Julie Borowski.” It’s going to get real. Are you prepared?
As many of you probably know, I work for FreedomWorks. I started working there in January 2010. Before I ever started making YouTube videos. I started my personal YouTube channel in 2011 during the Ron Paul campaign. I’ve always created these videos in my free time outside of my day job.
So no worries. I’ll continue making videos on my personal YouTube channel whenever I have time on weekends just like I do now.
Real Talk with Julie Borowski will be a once a week video series on the FreedomWorks YouTube channel. Hopefully, fun and informative videos.
This is the first video in the series. An ad for ObamaCare.
So, basically. Expect more videos on this page :)”