15
Apr
2014
Josie the Outlaw Is Happyyyyyy
This is great. First she establishes her street cred with tough videos like this (over a quarter million views and counting), and now she reveals that she wants people to be happy. I imagine the hardcore libertarians will soon denounce her.
Excellent video! On a similar point, Jeffrey Tucker has this wonderful article in this month’s Freeman: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/against-libertarian-brutalism
I agree that it’s a very good article by Jeffrey, but he’s been getting a ration of shit from the usual crowd. They apparently missed the point of the article and fell right into the trap.
I think both sides have people going too far in this debate. Which seems to always happen anytime I see libertarians debating thick vs thin libertarianism.
What is the trap?
Except there is no trap. Jeffrey Tucker simply misdefined libertarianism. You can be a libertarian ‘brutalist’, whatever that means, and you are completely within the bounds of libertarianism.
“Jeffrey Tucker simply misdefined libertarianism.”
No, proposed definitions can’t be incorrect: they can be more or less at variance with common usage, more or less useful to adopt, but not incorrect.
“You can be a libertarian ‘brutalist’, whatever that means…”
Did you not read the article?
” and you are completely within the bounds of libertarianism.”
Well, if libertarianism means, as you apparently wish it to mean, strictly a doctrine about when it is justified to use force, you could even be a libertarian serial killer, as long as you believe your use of violence is not justified and you ought to be caught and punished!
Well, if libertarianism means, as you apparently wish it to mean, strictly a doctrine about when it is justified to use force, you could even be a libertarian serial killer, as long as you believe your use of violence is not justified and you ought to be caught and punished!
Gene, that sounds like the serial killing born again Christians, who read the comments here every Sunday and then saw the loophole.
I think it’s funny how people are pretending they understand what Jefferey meant in that article. Every time I challenge someone to elaborate on the article, they evade.. I have no idea what Jefferey is talking about. He gave no detailed explanations, no definitions of his terms, no examples.. I think this is the worst article written by him ever. It’s one only he understands.
Someone here in the comments said Walter Block and Hoppe are examples of Jefferey’s brutalists… Really? Is this what Jefferey meant? How does he know this?
He clearly defined what a brutalist was. You may want to re-read the piece. Then he said that nobody was a pure brutalist.
You might be referring to my comment, where I claimed that both Hoppe and Block sometimes meet this definition. I also said Tucker had sometimes met this standard – as HE HIMSELF has admitted to. He named no specific names on purpose. He was pointing out a tendency in the libertarian movement.
I can give examples of Block and Hoppe both meeting the definition Tucker put out at various times. Block clearly is a libertarian, and went out of his way to say that feminists and gays are not libertarian. It’s true that if you don’t understand that this is bigotry, and as Tucker said, being a “jerk,” then you wouldn’t understand the piece. But, the vast majority of people outside of the libertarian brutalists are horrified when the read things like that. For example, imagine the outcry if a Republican senator said that feminists and gays are not conservative. As for Hoppe, read “On Free Immigration and Forced Integration,” especially the end (“with the predictable result of a systematic pro-European immigration bias”). This piece was so “brutalist” it went beyond even being libertarian.
This was one of the best works I have ever read.
Reece, can you define bigotry? I’m not sure you’re using that term the same way most people do.
I would just use the one from Wikipedia: “Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person’s ethnicity, evaluative orientation, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, opinion, or other characteristics.”
So you think saying “Gay people are not libertarians” is a comment that shows fear, distrust, or hatred based on their sexual orientation?
Yes. I think that statement is pretty clearly hateful toward gay people. If I was gay, I would be pretty upset to hear I wasn’t a libertarian because I was gay. Considering Block’s other (great) comments on how wonderful libertarianism is, this was quote a poor statement.
But he didn’t say gay people aren’t libertarian because they are gay. He explained that he was saying that gay people weren’t libertarian because of their unlibertarian actions.
Now, true, this is a generalisation, but I don’t see how it expresses fear, hatred, or distrust because of their sexual orientation.
Did I miss something where he attacked their sexual orientation? If not, you’re misusing the term bigotry.
Okay, so he said gay people aren’t libertarians because they do unlibertarian things. I fail to see how that is any better. He took all people that were gay, as a group, and said they did unlibertarian things. Any person that was against the initiation of violence would suddenly not be a libertarian because they were gay, and gay people are not libertarians. It may not be directly saying that you can’t be libertarian because you are gay, but that is certainly the result of the statement.
Saying “people of a certain sexual orientation act in an unlibertarian manner” is bigotry toward that sexual orientation. It doesn’t matter if you don’t attack the sexual orientation itself. The problem is saying they are unlibertarian on the basis that they are gay. Kind of like barring someone from a restaurant on the basis that they are black. It doesn’t have to specifically attack the characteristic, it attacks the person on the basis of the characteristic.
“Okay, so he said gay people aren’t libertarians because they do unlibertarian things. I fail to see how that is any better. ”
What? So, based on your logic, I’m being a bigot if I point out that socialists are not libertarians because they do unlibertarian thing.
“He took all people that were gay, as a group, and said they did unlibertarian things.”
OK, so he’s guilty of generalizing. That’s not the same thing as bigotry.
“Any person that was against the initiation of violence would suddenly not be a libertarian because they were gay, and gay people are not libertarians.”
1. He didn’t say any person against the initiation of violence is gay. That is a preposterous interpretation of his words.
2. He said gay people (which he later clarified to most gay people) are not libertarian because they do unlibertarian things.
“It may not be directly saying that you can’t be libertarian because you are gay, but that is certainly the result of the statement.”
Well, only if you are one of those people who doesn’t realize that when someone generalizes that they are not dumb enough to not understand that they don’t mean that literally everyone in a group believes what you generalized that group to believe.
“Saying “people of a certain sexual orientation act in an unlibertarian manner” is bigotry toward that sexual orientation.”
Not unless you are saying the reason they act unlibertarian is BECAUSE of their sexual orientation.
“It doesn’t matter if you don’t attack the sexual orientation itself.”
It does if you are claiming bigotry. I refer you to the definition you posted for bigotry.
“The problem is saying they are unlibertarian on the basis that they are gay.”
Well good thing he didn’t say that, and instead said they are unlibertarian based on their unlibertarian actions.
“Kind of like barring someone from a restaurant on the basis that they are black.”
What Dr. Block said isn’t even remotely like that.
“What? So, based on your logic, I’m being a bigot if I point out that socialists are not libertarians because they do unlibertarian thing.” Socialism is not libertarian by definition. Gay people can be libertarian. There’s a clear difference between saying, “Gay people are not straight” and “Gay people are not smart.”
“OK, so he’s guilty of generalizing. That’s not the same thing as bigotry.”
Yes, generalizing gay people as not against the initiation of violence. I explained why I think that is bigotry.
“He didn’t say any person against the initiation of violence is gay. That is a preposterous interpretation of his words.”
I think you mis-typed something here, but I’m not sure exactly what, because I didn’t say anything close to that.
“Well, only if you are one of those people who doesn’t realize that when someone generalizes that they are not dumb enough to not understand that they don’t mean that literally everyone in a group believes what you generalized that group to believe.”
I don’t think he believed it. He said it however, and it was a bigoted statement. I don’t think that when someone says that “Black people are stupid” they actually think that ALL black people are stupid. It doesn’t matter for whether the statement is bigoted.
Me: “It doesn’t matter if you don’t attack the sexual orientation itself.”
You: It does if you are claiming bigotry. I refer you to the definition you posted for bigotry.
The definition: “as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people… on the basis of…”
It is referring to treating or viewing other people on the basis of some characteristic. Like I said, barring someone from a restaurant on the basis of their skin color is not attacking the skin color. It is attacking the person on the basis of the skin color.
“Well good thing he didn’t say that, and instead said they are unlibertarian based on their unlibertarian actions.”
When I said “unlibertarian,” that is what I meant. But, okay, let me make it more clear.
Walter Block: “the [gays] are not libertarians”
Walter Block’s reasoning: gay people do unlibertarian things
Restaurant: “The blacks are not allowed in”
Restaurant’s reasoning: black people do things the restaurant doesn’t allow
The point is that Block adding an extra layer does not make the statement “the feminists are not libertarians, and neither are the gays” okay. Now, the extra layer is what is bigoted. Saying gay people do unlibertarian things is just as bad as saying gay people are not libertarian.
(As for the examples not being the same – of course not. I’m not arguing they are. I am pointing out the principle behind both is the same, even if obviously the restaurant is much worse.)
“Feminists are not libertarians, neither are gays,” even if it isn’t bigotry, is certainly not decent. So, regardless, this is an example of what Tucker was talking about.
“Socialism is not libertarian by definition. Gay people can be libertarian.”
Well, according to the way you use bigotry, then you are being a bigot. Plenty of socialists are also libertarians.
I was talking about state socialism and right libertarianism. Obviously anarcho-socialists, voluntary socialists, etc. would all be considered libertarian. But, again, that’s by definition.
Also, I don’t think Walter Block is a bigot, and although I’ve made bigoted comments in the past, I don’t think I am a bigot either – since that requires the statement to be made as a result of prejudices, which I don’t think you, Block, or I have. I think we should be careful to keep away from bigoted statements though, because they really do hurt people’s feelings and divide people. A lot of gay libertarians were insulted when Block said that – which is probably why he changed it.
“I don’t think he believed it. He said it however, and it was a bigoted statement.”
Why aren’t you as charitable with how you read Dr. Block, as you are with yourself?
“I was talking about state socialism and right libertarianism. Obviously anarcho-socialists, voluntary socialists, etc. would all be considered libertarian.”
I have two questions for you.
1. Is it bigoted, in your opinion, to say most gay people are not libertarian?
2. Is it bigoted to say politicians are not libertarian, in your opinion? If so, would it cease to be bigoted if the statement was amended to “Most politicians are not libertarians”?
What do you mean? I admitted to making bigoted comments in the past, and said Block’s comment was bigoted. I said Block himself is not a bigot (from what I know).
1) Not by itself.
2) No, because being a politician could be looked at as an aggressive job (kind of like saying a thieves are not libertarian then), and also because I wouldn’t consider being a politician as one of the characteristics for bigotry to apply. You can change or leave your job. However, that does bring the interesting question: would barring all garbage men (or something like that) from a restaurant be bigoted? I don’t know the answer to that. There are some grey areas. But, there are also some areas that are pretty clear based off this definition.
OK, so you believe it is bigoted to say gay people are not libertarian because they do unlibertarian things.
But you believe it is not bigoted to say most gay people are not libertarian because they do unlibertarian things.
Help me out here, what about the word “most” eliminates the hatred you think is exhibited in the first sentence?
Gay people are not libertarians. Bigot
Most gay people are not libertarians. Not a bigot
White people are not libertarians. Bigot
Most white people are not libertarians. Not a bigot
Politicians are not libertarians. Not a bigot
Most politicians are not libertarians. Also not a bigot
Garbage men are not libertarians. Unclear
Most garbage men are not libertarians. Not a bigot
Dan it’s a good thing the blog got back up, otherwise you would’ve missed out on this productive conversation…
Haha. I told you I was missing out on meaningless arguments.
“But you believe it is not bigoted to say most gay people are not libertarian because they do unlibertarian things.”
I believe this is not a bigoted statement, necessarily: “most gay people are not libertarian because MOST gay people do unlibertarian things.” When you say it without the “most” the second time, it’s hard to know what you are referring to, so it is more of a gray area statement. But, like I think I said before (it’s getting annoying to scroll up and down 🙁 ), it depends on the context. Is saying “Most black people are criminal” a racist statement? Most people would say no if it was in a scientific study, but most people said it was when something similar was in the Ron Paul newsletters. The context matters, I think. Why signal out a group when it isn’t necessary? This could be seen as a “hateful” statement in that context.
Yes, without the most I think it is clearly hateful (the statement, not the person). It collectivizes a group and says that they are not libertarian. When places like Salon say that libertarians are racist, we are rightfully outraged. I think it would be best if we stuck to the same decency.
Gay people are not allowed in an exclusive restaurant. Bigot
Most gay people are not allowed in an exclusive restaurant. Not a bigot
White people are not allowed in an exclusive restaurant. Bigot
Most white people are not allowed in an exclusive restaurant. Not a bigot
Politicians are not allowed in an exclusive restaurant. Not a bigot
Most politicians are not allowed in an exclusive restaurant. Also not a bigot
Garbage men are not allowed in an exclusive restaurant. Unclear
Most garbage men are not allowed in an exclusive restaurant. Not a bigot
(Each bigot/not a bigot is referring to the statement, not the person)
My point is that the same gray areas with “libertarian” exists with other things like allowing people into an exclusive restaurant (perhaps only for rich people or something). People would go crazy if you put up a sign that said “No blacks” but might run over to pay you if you had a sign that said “No kids.”
One quick question: Is putting up a sign that says “No gay people allowed” at a restaurant bigoted? If you don’t think so, then I heavily disagree with you, but I don’t think this conversation would be worth continuing. That would be a much deeper disagreement with society.
Well we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I don’t think what Walter Block said was bigoted with or without the word most. I just don’t think stating generalized facts is bigoted, but different strokes.
Alright then. Thanks for the conversation, Dan.
On the other hand…
https://www.facebook.com/jeffreytucker.official/posts/701703809868595?comment_id=6699365&offset=0&total_comments=16
“I imagine the hardcore libertarians will soon denounce her.”
With good reason too, happiness is for egoists. (Unless she qualified her remarks, which she very well may have, I can’t listen at the moment.)
Wait a second KP, are you being serious?
No.
(Although, happiness is certainly for egoists)
The video is very nice. However…
I think Tucker’s article is completely misguided. Who is this group of “self-described libertarians—described here as brutalists”? Who are these people who champion ONLY the right “to assert their individual preferences, to form homogeneous tribes, to work out their biases in action, to ostracize people based on “politically incorrect” standards, to hate to their heart’s content so long as no violence is used as a means, to shout down people based on their demographics or political opinions, to be openly racist and sexist, to exclude and isolate and be generally malcontented with modernity, and to reject civil standards of values and etiquette in favor of antisocial norms”?
Where are these horrible people? Libertarians are so afraid of their own shadow (and/or the “progressives”) that they constantly fail to reach out to religious conservatives and explain that they could live their pious lives without government and “progressive” interference. Most southerners refused to vote for Ron Paul because they saw him and us as a force that would disrupt their conservative lifestyles. But that is not the case at all and no one tried to explain that to them, probably for fear of “progressive” rath. Thus, I see a problem that is the exact opposite of what Tucker describes.
I would be the first to agree that libertarianism is improperly presented when the ONLY emphasis is upon the NAP which is not really going to be much of a factor in everyday life. What will be controlling in everyday life will be the bylaws of the various voluntary communities and the possible terms of those bylaws is virtually unlimited. But the fact that libertarians fail to emphasize the importance and varieties of potential community bylaws is not the same thing as personally championing racism or anti-social behavior.
It is vitally important to explain what might be done about racists in a free society. Yes, they can go off on their own and people who have a problem with them cannot initiate force against them. But that is already the case. A possible solution is simply to ostracize the people who you think are wrongly ostracizing someone else. What’s is so provocative about that?
Further, I personally do not have a problem with religious and ethnic groups wishing to live together. Is there a problem with those living arrangements that I’m missing? Getting people to abide by the NAP is going to be hard enough without insisting that they also like everyone else on the planet. Isn’t getting most everyone understanding and abiding by the NAP all the “compassion” one might expect in the “short run”?
Finally, in the free market, people are generally going to look for the best bargains in goods and services without reference the race, ethnicity or religion. These divisions become dangerous only when the government controls substantial resources and politicians pit one group against the other. “You’re either at the table or on the menu”. Ethnicity invariably becomes the most salient issue in a multi-ethnic social(ist) democracy where the largest group wins the election and then controls the entire economy. The fewer “public goods” there are, the more benign are these ethnic divisions.
The NAP is the essential superstructure of a free society but the flowers and pretty bows are going to come from the various communities. But that’s not what Tucker is saying.
“the bylaws of the various voluntary communities”
If you’re born into one of these communities, and when you grow up you decide that you don’t like the bylaws, what can you do?
Move out of your parents’ basement and leave. You can’t be serious.
There is always this bizarre and unfounded suspicion out there that we’re hiding some horrible and monstrous surprise in suggesting voluntary neighborhoods. Like everyone who decides to live in such a neighborhood will be shocked to learn that Rothbard will rise from the dead and force EVERYONE to abandon their babies on the side of a mountain.
How just a society will be will depend upon the attitudes of the public at large. That is all that ever really protects you from being a slave or on the menu. The “state”, which is nothing more than a set of attitudes that allow arbitrary violations of the NAP, does not really protect you because the “state” can be operated by cannibals.
So you’re saying that if you don’t like the laws in your community you can always leave.
Trolling again, I see.
You mean there’s something else he does?
If suspect that if you committed murder and don’t like laws against murder, you probably can’t leave. Otherwise, why would anyone agree to live somewhere where they can’t leave? Further, outsiders can apply considerable pressure against loony rules by refusing to deal with folks who have loony rules.
This is all nothing more than a matter of contract drafting. I’m sure there will be horror stories as things get off the ground but then people will learn from others’ mistakes and corrections will be made.
So say the community you were born into was a sort of democratic community, with some property owned in common, a system of laws, and required contributions to pay for common services. If you decided that you didn’t like that community, you’re saying it wouldn’t be a problem as you could always leave?
Yes, that’s what I’m saying.
Roddis, he’s trolling you with the “If you don’t like the U.S., you can always LEAVE!” nonsense. Don’t fall for this troll’s tactics.
A hilarious juxtaposition, richie’s comment with roddis’s.
Yes, Bob, as Richie notes, if you “fall” for Phillipe’s tactics, you might notice that your situation won’t really change in Rothbard’s utopia!
I read this as asking about the applied concept of a private voluntary community in the middle of doing five other things. I was thinking of the “democratic” community as having been set up voluntarily, which is entrely possible. I was not thinking it applied to the USA. Then I was thinking how odd it was that statists were appearing to be honestly curious. My suspicions were correct. So being able to leave the USA or Rwanda does not make their systems OK.
It’s truly pointless to make any attempt to engage these people.
You guys are all missing the elephant in the room.
Philippe is insinuating that the government “is like” parents.
The government owns all the land “just like” a set of parents own a home.
It is not an embarrassment or a contradiction or an inconsistency to assert that “you are free to leave” is a legitimate response for a child who no longer wants to live by their parent’s rules, whereas “you are free to leave” is NOT a legitimate response for a “citizen” who wants to opt out of the government.
This is because of the obvious fact that the government is not a legitimate owner of the land in question. They did not homestead the land. They did not freely trade for the land.
Philippe is equivocating what “you are free to leave” is meant to refer when a libertarian utilizes that phrase. It is meant to refer to the fact that the parents own the house, not the children, and not the government either. The parent’s (owner’s) decision regarding the land and house is final.
Callahan et al believe it’s a “burn” because of the mere fact that the same “You are free to leave” statement is being used in both cases: the unjust and the just ownership claim scenarios.
But obviously, they are referring to two different things. The parents are the owners of the house, which of course means that “You are free to leave” actually applies to all those in the government who disagree with the parents.
The children are free to leave.
The government’s thugs are free to leave.
The owner can stay.
This isn’t rocket science.
It seems like Gene (and maybe Philippe too) realize that there is a huge difference between the two scenarios.
In 2008, Congress enacted the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Act that imposes a penalty—an “exit tax” or expatriation tax—on certain people who give up their U.S. citizenship or long-term permanent residence.[34] Effective June 2008, U.S. citizens who renounce their citizenship are subject under certain circumstances to an expatriation tax, which is meant to extract from the expatriate taxes that would have been paid had he remained a citizen: all property of a covered expatriate is deemed sold for its fair market value on the day before the expatriation date, which usually results in a capital gain, which is taxable income.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renunciation_of_citizenship
“Philippe is insinuating that the government “is like” parents.”
er, no. If you read my comments I am referring to a community, not a family.
Community with a government.
You weren’t referring to an anarchist society.
Community = Government in other words.
Or the “common services” minded people could limit revenue to only that which is received voluntary. If sufficient amount of people did not pitch in, the “common service” folk could move to an area populated with only like minded folk who don’t mind gun point motivation.
See how fun this is. Weeeeee.
Beautiful, Phillipe!
Great example of the expression “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”
Uh huh. BTW, have called anybody “mentally retarded” lately?
Tucker said in that article: “Of course the brutalist as I’ve described him is an ideal type, probably not fully personified in any particular thinker.” The point was that some people go out of their way to insult other people (see: Cantwell or Hoppe – if you can even consider them libertarians). If you want other examples, I could name plenty (look at Block’s position on how feminists and gays are not libertarians before he edited it or even some of Tucker’s old stuff). Not that this is all the brutalists do. If you think this was a specific attack, you’re missing the point. Tucker even said that he had been a brutalist on and off in the past.
Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. are all wrong in their own right. They put humans in groups not based on their individuality, but on how they were born. The goal isn’t to get everyone to like everyone else, it’s to get people to not treat others differently because of their skin color or similar things. It’s basic etiquette, really. I don’t want any community treating people like this, voluntarily or not. As for strategy, I think the bigger problem will be getting people to agree with libertarianism when there are people like Gary North (totalitarians) being given freedom medals. And what about children living in that community? Do we really want them learning this horrible stuff? We can defend the right for them to be allowed while still attacking it as horrendous.
“We can defend the right for them to be allowed while still attacking it as horrendous.”
Yes, but the point is that whether you praise it as wonderful or attack it as horrendous, neither has anything to do with libertarianism.
Tucker wrote a piece attacking the brutalist mindset. He never said they weren’t libertarians. Then, a group of people went crazy over it, sometimes to the point of saying Tucker wasn’t a libertarian, because he had the wrong definition of what libertarian means.
And, it does have something to do with libertarianism, even if you don’t have to accept it to be a libertarian. The movement is very connected with bigoted individuals. This has clearly hurt the movement before (Ron Paul Newsletters, for example). It could hurt it again in the future (I’m mainly worried about Gary North). It allows for hit pieces. So, while it doesn’t matter to the philosophy, it does matter to its future.
The newsletters are a good example. Paul’s best excuse — the best spin he could put on it — was that he sold his name and didn’t even bother to read what went out under it. I cannot recall details, but there is a widespread belief amongst those who believe him that his partner and campaign manager Lew Rockwell wrote them. Rockwell started the LVMI. Bob announced a while ago he was going to zap comments linking to stories about that, and about other people at LVMI.
When I pointed out that Paul was bad for libertarianism the claque got angry.
Yeah, it was a pretty weak excuse. I bet he would have won Iowa if that didn’t happen. I’m assuming you’re familiar with the Gary North problem by the way? If anything, that could become even worse. (If not, Google “Gary North stoning” and then “Gary North Rothbard medal.”)
Do you really think Paul was bad for libertarianism over all? I’ve considered him a net positive, although I could be wrong. There were a ton of new-comers.
If the Paulines are right there should be fewer newcomers since his retirement, or at least slower growth. If I am right there should be more, or faster growth.
I’m renouncing my support for Ron Paul this very moment. Thanks to Ken B for finding this shocking statement:
The June 1996 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report refers to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms officers as “Jackbooted Thugs.”
I’m so ashamed.
There were some pretty bad comments there though, Bob (obviously not that!).
Not enough to renounce support, because it really doesn’t change the fact that he would be far better than the others and would actually limit the state. But enough to be annoyed and realize that he really didn’t have any chance of winning.
I’d say just by the increased number of “libertarians” Paul has been been an obvious good for libertarianism.
At least so far.
Gene says that most insiders who’ve examined the writing style of the newsletters have concluded that Murray Rothbard was the ghostwriter, not Rockwell.
I haven’t seen that.
This is interesting
http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter/singlepage
I read that the style and content matched a fellow named James Powell. That was a good two years ago though so I don’t know if that’s been bunked or debunked since.
I’ve never seen Rothbard either. Did he even write at all for them? Just from my personal readings, it doesn’t seem like his style, although I could be biased.
Regardless, until the actual writer is revealed (if that ever happens), the responsibility lies completely with Paul (who did accept responsibility to some extent) and the editor (Rockwell – I can’t see how he would not have read it).
The scans do not work for me, but the collection of quotations is interesting. Bob calls them not very racist, but your mileage may vary.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/98883/ron-paul-incendiary-newsletters-exclusive
More from Paul’s newsletters
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/99666/ron-paul-newsletters-part-two
Is that what I said? (Maybe.) I recall thinking that *I* thought it sounded like Rothbard, for sure.
Gene, at least that’s my recollection of what you said. This is all I could find on a quick Google search:
gene-callahan.blogspot.com/2012/01/ron-paul-newsletters.html
“I have received more evidence (which I am not at liberty to disclose) indicating that Rothbard wrote the offending passages, enough that, for me, I can say “case closed.”
Am I the only one to note the irony? Bob peddles his so-called private law as being better because, amongst other reasons, it is allegedly more open. Gene’s information will have come from secretive libertarian insiders.
The apostles of openness have been stonewalling on the newsletters for 20 years.
I notice a double irony in your inability to understand that if openness is valued by protectors of liberty, as you suggest it is, then it will pay a person to be open in a free society, because protectors of liberty would themselves be faced with competition for protection. Two otherwise identical protectors, where one is more open than the other, will be more highly valued and earn higher profits.
On the other hand, the incentive to be secretive is maximized when there is no other competition for protection, i.e. a territorial monopolist, i.e. a state.
And oh would you look at that, the state is the most secretive institution ever created by mankind.
Coincidence.
Also, what violation of property rights took place with the newsletters? And why did the state not subpoena LVMI to court? You’re looking at an example of an institution in a statist world, and concluding that because it took private investigators to release the information, while the state did nothing, that we’re supposed to conclude statist law is superior. That’s so hilariously stupid.
It’s almost as if you’re saying that your ideal vision of statist society is a panopticon, big brother one. Where the state has spies everywhere, including inside homes, so that they can publicize “unapproved” comments being made between individuals.
Ken B is losing his mind.
They’re not racist comments.
Most black people believe that all black people belong to a special community.
So, except that white people are doing it, too, they don’t have a problem with “grouping all black people”.
The so-called racist comments are generalizations. They aren’t meant to claim that ALL black people can be described in such and such a way.
And the reason it makes sense to generalize in this fashion is because there does in fact exist a community of people who self-describe as a community based on race.
[Commentary removed. “guest” I don’t agree with what you wrote, but that’s not why I edited it out. I deleted it because to the casual observer it would sound pretty racist. I’m not saying it was, but I know for sure I don’t want those types of observations sitting here for people to quote as occurring on my blog with tacit approval from me. –RPM]
Please consider these videos:
Walter E. Williams: The Effect Of Affirmative Action on Poor Communities
[www]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GGTliL1wxo
How Much Can Discrimination Explain? | Walter Williams
[www]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKgHc6bWqZ4
I think it took someone that actually tried to find out who wrote the letters almost an hour to get to the bottom of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6C-mU2dVy0
Ken B. wrote:
Bob announced a while ago he was going to zap comments linking to stories about that, and about other people at LVMI.
Ken this is a
lie[edited to say: statement that is false upon a plain reading, and moreover which is quite provocative and was made with reckless disregard for the light in which it cast its target. Since your offhand remarks on others’ positions often leads to Clinton-esque parsing to prove that you weren’t deliberately slandering them, but merely presenting them in a very misleading and disparaging light, one almost gets the sense that you do this on purpose. But no one can prove what’s in your mind.]I am sure there is something that I did that falls in the same hemisphere as your statement above. For example, one of the trolls here would often say that Ron Paul holds religious views that Gary North has advanced. If someone takes a swipe at North, I let it go because shucks he did wrote those things, there ya go. But when someone says “Ron Paul believes…” and puts in stuff that he doesn’t believe, I zap it yes.
I may have said I’m not going to let people make unsubstantiated claims without links about people who are my personal friends. Perhaps that’s what you are referring to, in your lie above.
Here is the link
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2012/11/ron-pauls-farewell-address.html
Here is the comment
“OK you guys have had your say, but I’m deleting future comments on the newsletters. I don’t want to have to go research every link etc. and some of you are making accusations about people I work with so I don’t want to deal with this.”
Deleting future comments on the newsletters, period. No proviso about unsubstantiated, and you envision deleting even comments with links or other substantiation (etc) in them. The people you work with are LVMI people.
I am more charitable than you Bob. When my recollection differs From someones I don’t assume they are lying and i don’t pitch a fit. Landsburg challenged my memory on this blog. I checked. He was right and I apologized.
That is probably another way we differ, but we shall see shan’t we?
It’s not a lie Bob. You said what I said you said. You announced you would zap comments on “that”, ie the newsletters. Your own words are right there.
Yes, Bob. Do not feed THIS troll.
The libertarians will denounce her because the role of women int the “liberty” movement is to express sexist comments on behalf of white men. She should be arguing that there is no pay gap because white men are superior to everyone and get the higher pay they deserve.
My troll-dar just went off.
joe I really wonder what your deal is. I troll people on Facebook but only because (a) I am pretty sure they at least get that I mean well and (b) for sure, some of the people reading will chuckle.
Neither of these conditions holds for you.
Joe’s allegation is preposterous and baseless. He just made it up. I’ve yet to see the slightest evidence of sexism or racism among libertarians. At worst, there might be a geek factor that impairs properly explaining the NAP to fashionable soccer moms and others of the female persuasion. But that’s a completely different problem.
Well, if you go to certain sites *coughEPJ* you’ll notice in the comments that popular female “libertarians” (the issue of contention is whether they really are or not) are often the targets of some pretty heavy vitriol.
There’s a somewhat sad cycle in that a libertarian putting their ideas out there on the Internet is much more likely to get famous and noticed and shoved onto large platforms if they also happen to be an attractive woman. But this also gets noticed by men who can become resentful that some 21 year old college girl who hasn’t even read Rothbard is now being promoted as the face of libertarianism because she did a couple videos about how libterarianism and feminism are totally the same thing and now has thousands of youtube subscribers.
So basically, the same thing that helped them get famous in the first place (being an attractive woman marginally interested in liberty) also gets them their own personal flock of trolls who bemoan the fact that these relatively unaccomplished lightweights are getting all the publicity while advocating a version of libertarianism that seems quite watered down, like John Stossel only more willing to compromise with the radical left.
now being promoted as the face of libertarianism because she did a couple videos about how libterarianism and feminism are totally the same thing and now has thousands of youtube subscribers.
Whoa whoa whoa. Cathy R. has a few hundred subscribers on YouTube, unless I’m looking at the wrong page. That’s who you mean, right?
Honestly, I don’t really pay attention to any of them (does this make me a sexist?) and tend to get them all confused.
At least Amanda BillyRock had the common sense to give herself a really unique nickname. But her, Cathy R. and Julie B. are all pretty much the same aren’t they? I don’t really know. I’m still too busy trying to sort out the Cantwell/Tucker feud…
The nerve of those women, using their real names and confusing everybody when they look so similar.
It’s all about marketing! You of all people should know that. I probably wouldn’t have ever remembered your name if you didn’t have that shirtless bathroom mirror video!
For the record, the issue isn’t that they look similar, it’s that (as far as I can tell) they’re all covering similar topics in similar ways. But I readily admit I don’t follow their work closely and could very well be wrong about that.
“But her, Cathy R. and Julie B. are all pretty much the same aren’t they?” Not at all. Cathy R and Julie B heavily disagree on feminism. They even debated it on Stossel.
Cantwell thinks the mailman can be shot and you can shoot someone over a petty crime. He has no theory of proportionality. He also happens to make lots of sexist comments. Jeffrey Tucker has normal views. That should help there.
Doesn’t a “sense of prortionality” implicitly assume interpersonal utility comparisons?
Why would there need to be comparisons? If you come and steal my paperclip, I can’t shoot you, because it is unreasonable to assume I would not be able to get it (or something I value similarly) back without resorting to deadly force. If you sold the paperclip when the court found you guilty, you would owe me something that I valued at the same amount as the paperclip. This is pretty much how the court system operates right now anyway (how much was this person damaged because he broke his arm because of your faulty equipment?). This is really a basic societal method; comparing values would be a radical shift which I think would be impossible. The value is totally on the victim’s side of things in the current scenario. Cantwell thinks people have the right to shoot people over a paperclip – I assume you agree with me that this is crazy.
It’s also a complete non-issue for everyone who won’t steal anything, even paper clips.
Crazy, maybe. But is it libertarian?
No, I don’t think so. I think you would violate their rights if you shot them for taking your paperclip.
K P has it right. It is totally crazy, but it is also consistent with the idea that no interpersonal comparisons are meaningful, and that the paperclip thief is an “aggressor” that I can use force against. That faint faint chance he might flee, that awful extra second without my paperclip are sufferings you cannot judge.
You cannot, barring IPUC even judge that he has not harmed me more than if he were throttling me or carving my eye out, and you’d agree I could shoot him then, right?
That was largely a cheap joke there but it does go back to interpersonal utility. i.e. I value my paperclip right now more than your life.
“that awful extra second without my paperclip are sufferings you cannot judge.” True, I can’t know for sure, although it’s probable that was not the case. But the arbitrator you go to would judge, and he would certainly not judge in your favor. Common sense might be a useful tool here for you.
For your second part: Again, there is something called “common sense.” I am pretty sure you don’t actually value your paperclip that much. In a free society, a private court would rule on it. In the current system, a state court would.
Ken B, you are going so far out on an extreme position, that you would also have to say that the state is wrong. State courts do exactly what I said, which you completely ignored. If someone steals some random ashes in my house, the court will award me nothing. If someone steals the ashes of my grandmother, the court will award me a large sum. Subjective value is literally what is judged. How much was the person injured from a drug? Even: How emotionally harmed was this person by some aggression? This happens in court all the time. They really do say that the person should be given the amount that they were hurt for various crimes. This isn’t a radical libertarian theory, it happens right now.
Furthermore, your logic could end all judgement of WHO committed a crime. This is something “you cannot judge” for sure. Maybe the person was framed. Maybe aliens did it and just made it seem like the other guy did. How can you know? But clearly libertarians are still libertarians despite this. So, if you are right that this is a problem, it’s much bigger than you are saying. But libertarians have written responses to this.
It doesn’t matter how much you value their life. It matters how much you value your paperclip. Essentially, it rests on using the least amount of aggression necessary to return to normalcy (not lose anything from the aggression). If a thief steals $500, you couldn’t kill the guy, because that would be more aggression than the least. The least would be to go to court. If the person is running at you with a knife, it is reasonable to believe you won’t be able to return to normalcy through the court (you could be dead or at the very least heavily wounded). So you would have the right to shoot. There are quite a few libertarians holding this position, so I’m surprised Ken B hasn’t heard of it.
No, no. I value my paper clip more than you value your life. It can’t be proven wrong.
The least amount of coercion (not aggression, as the thief initiating I’m merely retaliating) required is subjective. I say in this circumstance I couldn’t retrieve my property without ending your life. So I never aggressed.
Of course the principle of proportionality is common among libertarians, but you must be aware that there are several critiques of it and it’s objectivity.
(And this isn’t me knocking private courts, I’m sure they’d agree that what I did was “unproportional,” “unreasonable,” “beyond estoppel” or whathaveyou, and that’s probably a good thing.)
“I value my paper clip more than you value your life.” I’m saying that this doesn’t matter. Whether you hate or love the person is irrelevant to your right to use force against them, I think. It matters how much you value your own paperclip for how much you get back.
“The least amount of coercion (not aggression, as the thief initiating I’m merely retaliating) required is subjective” Okay, I agree coercion is the better word here. Yes, it is subjective, but it is subjective on the other end. You should do the least amount of damage that the thief values. A court would have to determine if you made the reasonable assumptions. (For example, if someone is running at me with a knife, and I have a gun with me, maybe I would not have the right to shoot him if there was a less coercive way. For example, maybe I can easily lock him in. The point is that even in the current system, there is some judgement on whether you could have used less coercion – but it really could rest on the criminal’s value scale without a problem. It is reasonable to think the guy with the knife would rather be locked in than shot.)
“Yes, it is subjective, but it is subjective on the other end.”
I think that’s a good stopping point, you seem to see well enough where the criticism is coming from.
“The point is that even in the current system, there is some judgement on whether you could have used less coercion – but it really could rest on the criminal’s value scale without a problem.”
This isn’t me trying to prove the superiority (or inferiority) of the current system. Just that regardless it will come down to someone comparing utility, whether it be a judge or myself makes no difference. This does pose a bigger problem (although not unsolvable) for most libertarians than, say, utilitarians.
I don’t see where the comparison is coming in. When I said “subjective on the other end,” that was in reference to how much force the person could use to defend themselves. There is no comparisons of value. (You should use the least amount of force, dependent on the other person’s value scale, to receive the amount lost due to the aggression, dependent on your value scale. That might be the best way of putting it.)
Reece, I am pointing out a logical hole in Rothbardian thinking. It is a reductio ad absurdam.
I am not endorsing the rothbardian position.
You’re not pointing out a “logical hole” Ken B.
You’re just expressing your dissatisfaction with it.
I’m pointing out why your “logical hole” isn’t actually a logical hole. There are no comparison of values between two different people.
Rothbard held a different position than me, but I don’t think he had a logical hole either.
For the record, I would be completely comfortable living in a society where it was considered acceptable to shoot someone who was stealing your paperclip.
Because I have no intention of ever stealing a paperclip.
“But this also gets noticed by men who can become resentful that some 21 year old college girl who hasn’t even read Rothbard is now being promoted as the face of libertarianism because she did a couple videos about how libterarianism and feminism are totally the same thing and now has thousands of youtube subscribers.” I have no idea who you are talking about. Cathy R is much older than 21, I’m sure has read Rothbard, and doesn’t think libertariansim and sexism are the same thing.
Look at guest’s comments about African-Americans just a few comments above you. To someone outside the libertarian community, I think it’s fair to say they would be deemed blatantly racist in characterizing African-Americans the way they do. No one here seems troubled by them so far. I guess one can always say racism is in the eye of the beholder, but from reading this site I’m not sure one can really say with confidence with there is no racism in the libertarian (or for that matter any other) community.
Joe (Jerry Wolfgang) Kicks our butts again. Not only is he the only one that can tell us libertarians what our beliefs actually are, but he does so without any hate, lies or straw men.
You only see sexist comments being a female’s “role” because you yourself are sexist.
And you only see “white” male agenda because you yourself are racist.
joe is a classic case of someone grappling with his own demons and projecting them onto others because that’s the only color lens he’s wearing.
At 3:38 she says tolerance and non aggression are the answer to oppression and domination, once everybody learns this, government will magically disappear.
How long do I have to tolerate and not aggress against oppression and domination? Seems like so long as we keep paying them(taxes), they will keep raping us.
I like the video but I sure don’t like the word “anarchy” which suggests a Mad Max existence and anomie which is the precise opposite of what would occur. “Anarchy” is not going to appeal to fashionable women. Establishing a brand name following for a particular brand and style of voluntary community in the fashion pages and magazines might help, however.
http://josietheoutlaw.com/?page=society
Hey why aren’t stock speculators being blamed for anything now, like they were in 2008? I mean, those greedy profit seekers just profiting and stuff.
Parsing time. Here is more of my comment Bob excerpted
“I cannot recall details, but there is a widespread belief amongst those who believe him that his partner and campaign manager Lew Rockwell wrote them. Rockwell started the LVMI. Bob announced a while ago he was going to zap comments linking to stories about that, and about other people at LVMI.”
What does the “that ” near the end refer to? Rockwell’s possible authorship of the newsletters. So then what does “and about other people at LVMI” mean? It means speculation or comments about others at LVMI being the authors. So I said Bob, at some point, announced he would zap comments about the idea that anyone at LVMI wrote the newsletters. And he did. In fact his wording was a blanket policy, but he probably meant (as I claimed) just stories about the people he works with.
I think Ron and Lew should be sued for plagiarism. They copied a joke that has been a joke around since before I was born.
How do you get 12 (insert freeloading group here) into a car?
Throw a welfare check in the back seat…
Parsing helps only those with basic powers of comprehension. (Trying not to feed the troll)
Reece said:
“Block clearly is a libertarian, and went out of his way to say that feminists and gays are not libertarian. It’s true that if you don’t understand that this is bigotry, and as Tucker said, being a “jerk,” then you wouldn’t understand the piece.”
Feminists (Almost all of them) are not libertarians (by any definition of the term). Is this news to you?
Gays (Almost all of them) are not libertarians. Is this news to you?
But how are the above claims statements of bigotry? Even if you disagreed on the facts, how are they bigotry?
Almost all white people are not libertarians. I guess that’s also a statement of bigotry.
Almost all black people are not libertarians. That’s definitely bigotry.
Also, what is being a “jerk” as oppose to a jerk?
He did not say almost all at first. He said feminists and gays are not libertarians. And yeah, that is a bigoted statement. Essentially he was saying that feminists and gays are not against the initiation of violence. It is true that some don’t, but making blanket statements like that is morally and factually wrong. I’m not going to argue over whether statements like “most blacks… are criminals” (I believe that was from the RP newsletters) are bigoted. Regardless of the facts, it is signalling out a single group for something that is not necessarily connected. If you think he meant most at first, then why not say, “humans are not libertarian”? Why signal those groups?
I was quoting Tucker’s piece for the word jerk. I don’t personally think that brutalists are jerks, I just think they don’t understand that their words can really hurt other people’s feelings and don’t help the movement.
“He said feminists and gays are not libertarians.”
Technically true, but based on the context it would seem that he does not mean that 100% of men who engage in romantic relationships with other men are not libertarians.
He is speaking about those who primarily self-identify as gay/feminist/etc. The obvious idea is that if you’re caught up in that sort of collectivist mindset thinking, you probably aren’t a libertarian, which rejects that sort of thinking.
You’re attempting to play “gotcha” by ignoring the obvious intent of his words.
… but making blanket statements like that is morally and factually wrong.
Blanket statements are, by definition, NOT all inclusive. They are BLANKET statements. They apply in general.
Why is that morally wrong?
And do you have a problem with a black friend telling a white friend, “Don’t walk around in this particular neighborhood”? Because the implication, in your view, if you’re consistent, would be that “ALL black people in that area would want to hurt you”.
Wouldn’t you consider that blanket statement to be good advice rather than racist?
A blanket statement is a statement that covers the whole area (hence, “blanket”). I guess you could use it either way.
I personally find it morally wrong to treat or judge people with negativity or hatred based off characteristics like race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. It hurts other people and isn’t based on anything that should matter.
No, I don’t have a problem with someone saying not to walk in a certain neighborhood. He is saying that there is a good chance of him being hurt. That is a factual thing that isn’t judging other people with negativity or hatred based on race. I don’t see how you got that implication from what I was saying.
I don’t see how you got that implication from what I was saying.
The particular neighborhood is considered to be a Black Neighborhood.
The black friend is saying not to walk around in a Black Neighborhood.
“Essentially he was saying that feminists and gays are not against the initiation of violence.”
Well at worse, such statements would be just broad generalizations. You can object to that, but that still doesn’t constitute bigotry (Does it mean he dislikes Gays and Feminists?)
But I’m sure if you ask Dr Block if he thinks that ALL feminists and ALL gays are not against the initiation of violence, then he would say NO. But YES to most of them. Even if you thought the latter is a blanket statement, even if you thought it was wrong (maybe you did a survey that showed that most gays are actually closet hardcore Rothbardians or something), that still doesn’t constitute bigotry by every definition of every dictionary that is out there.
And I still don’t see any evidence from Jefferey’s article that suggests that your interpretation of his article is correct.
“By analogy, what is ideological brutalism? It strips down the theory to its rawest and most fundamental parts and pushes the application of those parts to the foreground. It tests the limits of the idea by tossing out the finesse, the refinements, the grace, the decency, the accoutrements. It cares nothing for the larger cause of civility and the beauty of results. It is only interested in the pure functionality of the parts. It dares anyone to question the overall look and feel of the ideological apparatus, and shouts down people who do so as being insufficiently devoted to the core of the theory, which itself is asserted without context or regard for aesthetics.”
You do need to understand that statements like the one Block made are not “decent,” for example, in order to understand his piece.
Libertarianism is a positive, wonderful philosophy. People that are not libertarians are, in some manner, advocating violence. To say that “Black people are not libertarian” would be like saying “Black people are not smart.” It seems clearly racist to me.
“People that are not libertarians are, in some manner, advocating violence”
That’s right. But Dr. Block did not say Blacks are not libertarians. Nor has he ever made such statements about anybody in such a vacuum as you are claiming, that is, without context or without explanations of what exactly it is he is opposing.
To say that Block is a bigot with respect to gays, you would have to at minimum show that he is criticizing their life style as it pertains to their sexual preferences (but even that does not constitute bigotry, for you would have to show that he is engaged in some hatred towards them). Dr. Block has never made any such remarks to imply that he disapproves of their lifestyle, let alone dislikes them or hates for being gay. You are making very presumptuous baseless accusations about a brilliant man who loves freedom and humanity, who simply abhors the initiation of violence. Like most of us. It doesn’t make us bigots to point that out without any excuse or apology on the matter. If you or some people are offended when they are told that they are advocating for violence, than that is too bad for them. They do not deserve special treatement because they are gays or blacks or whites or feminists or environmentalists or whatever…
He said people that are gay are not libertarians. I was pointing out that if the “people that are black are not libertarians” is bigoted, then “people that are gay are not libertarians” would be as well. The rest of his post did not make it seem as if he was actually meaning something else. I have defended Block a lot on the slavery comment in the NYT, because obviously that was taken out of context. He really did take this position.
“To say that Block is a bigot with respect to gays, you would have to at minimum show that he is criticizing their life style as it pertains to their sexual preferences” No I wouldn’t. If I say “People that are gay are ugly, worthless, horrible people,” I’m not criticizing their lifestyle, I am criticizing them as people, but I can’t see anyone taking that statement as not bigoted. I actually think the lifestyle is not as important as them as people. If I personally don’t like the lifestyle of being gay, that doesn’t mean I’m bigoted. Once I make judgments or actions against a gay person, that’s when it becomes bigotry.
Also, this is very important: I am NOT claiming Block is a bigot. I do not think he is a bigot. I said his STATEMENT was bigoted. I also think he realized this, which is why he toned it down. This is very, very important. I am not criticizing him as a person, I am criticizing a comment he made which I found to be bigoted. One comment that is bigoted does not mean someone is bigoted. I am sure I have made dumb statements in the past that were bigoted. Tucker probably has as well. The point he was making is that we should try to stay away from that, that we are better than that. And I completely agree.
That said, Block has said that he “abhors homosexuality.” I don’t think this is bigoted because it relates entirely to the practice rather than the person. But to say he never made statements “to imply that he disapproves of their lifestyle” is simply false.
Okay, suppose I made the statement “Most black people are not smart” or “Most white people are not smart.” But, I had defined “smart” elsewhere as being in the 90th percentile or higher on an IQ test. Can you see how this would be racist? Or, suppose I said “Most black people are not smart” and then showed some data that say they had an average IQ of a few less than the average human. If you can see how this would be racist, certainly you can see how leaving out the “most” and just saying “Black people are not smart” would be even worse. That was what Block’s statement was before he edited it (because he realized it was a mean-spirited comment – remember, Tucker’s article wasn’t an attack, it was saying that “we can be better than this”).
If you can’t see how statements like these are bigoted, I don’t know how useful this conversation will be.
But, I had defined “smart” elsewhere as being in the 90th percentile or higher on an IQ test. Can you see how this would be racist?
Not if the reason most of them don’t test in the 90th percentile has nothing to do with the color of their skin.
That lower-test scores can be generally demarcated along racial lines is incidental.
The reason blacks test so low is because they hold socialist economic beliefs which affect their lives negatively, not because they are black.
And since they hold such beliefs AS A COMMUNITY (It’s part of belonging to the Black Community, otherwise you’re a “race traitor”), and since their community is self-identified as race-based (“Black Community”), those who belong to this particular community are going to be both poor AND black (You can’t be part of the Black Community if you’re not black).
“The reason blacks test so low is because they hold socialist economic beliefs…”
I’m sorry, I’m done discussing this topic with you. I don’t have the time or energy to argue over whether the statement “Black people are not smart” is a racist statement. The vast majority of people outside small libertarian circles would find that statement wrong.
Dude, look up “Black Liberation Theology”; It is socialism.
The whole reason there is even such a thing as a “Black Community” is to attack what is considered to be the White Man’s economics: the free market.
Socialism is part of their beliefs as a community.
Actually, I was unfair in this statement. I think the vast majority of libertarians would disagree with you too. I think, while there is a problem of misunderstanding bigotry in the libertarian community, most libertarians do see that these statements are wrong. And it should be noted that I do think it is a misunderstanding. I don’t think most libertarians that make bigoted comments actually mean harm by it. I don’t think you meant harm by your statement on “socialist economic beliefs,” but I do find the statement morally wrong.
And obviously there are a ton of people fine with using violence against foreigners just because they are foreigners (which is bigotry combined with violence – a dangerous combination) – the vast majority of libertarians don’t have this problem.
Obama Pastor Jeremiah Wright praises Socialism and Marxism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aakNJVGloBw
The Black Community’s economic ideology is socialist.
And no, this does not mean all black people belong to the Black Community.
I don’t think most libertarians that make bigoted comments actually mean harm by it.
Not all bigoted comments are harmful, either.
For example, when gays say they prefer men, they are being bigoted in that they don’t also prefer women.
Their statement is a matter of fact (a disgusting choice on their part, to be sure, but still a statement of fact), not a pejorative.
And if I don’t like being around gays, that’s what private property is for – I’ll just go home or somewhere else.
I have no right to use government to violate the right of others to be consentually abnormal.
Gays are funny in that they want you to paradigm them as normal, not gay, right until you ignore their special status…
All protected classes seem to be like this, HEY STOP LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT, I AM NORMAL, HOW DARE YOU REFUSE TO RENT TO ME,CANT YOU SEE, I AM SPECIAL.
The devil gets a woody tormenting us sane people…
Gays are funny…
Gamble, just stop for a minute and consider how incredibly collectivist and condescending this is. I know plenty of gay anarchists who would find it rather annoying for you to be talking about what they want, etc.
If your response is, “Oh I don’t mean ALL gay people…” then fine, please stop writing things as if you do. Our positions are already suspect enough in the eyes of our critics, without you lobbing them softballs.
Okay Bob,
I painted with an incredibly broad brush, my bad. I apologize. Maybe I should have said the false gay image created by the mainstream media?
Now yo have me wondering what the different view points held by gay people are? I have never ever seen the media show a gay rally in which the participants were demanding anarchy or no special treatment or liberty, etc.
So color me ignorant and mal-informed.
As Tom Woods noted, you’re allowed to be a jerk on your own property:
[Time stamped]
Thought Controllers Call Ron Paul “Extreme”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FFhSr1A1do#t=19m25s
Oh snap, these people do not acknowledge property…
It is all collective. Hail to the queen bee…
As Jeffrey Tucker noted in his piece on brutalism, you’re allowed to be a jerk on your own property.
I read a critique from Wenzel’s site (EPJ), but not Tucker’s article.
I don’t know why Tucker would hold the right position on property rights, but then somehow claim that libertarianism is something more than that.
I guess I’ll have to read Tucker’s article, in any case.
Good video. She even used the word “advocate” without the incorrect “for” afterward. When does that ever happen any more?
So long as enough people keep paying taxes, none of this will ever change.