Here you go.

Nope and that's where the ignorance of the Mises/Rothbard/Lost Cause shows through. Lincoln fought to preserve the union and his idea of why the union should be preserved hinged on an ideology that was very congenial to freeing the slaves, likewise the South's secession was hinged on the fear that the Republican ideology would eventually disassemble slavery. The ideas of some universal ability to secede was the reason came after the South lost and the Lost Cause intellectuals knew that basing the secession on slavery was a moral non starter.



No I said the Republican view was that secession based on the right to keep the slave/slave master economic paradigm was illegitimate. Frankly there is no need to rehash the Rothbard/Calhoun arguments that were in the Civil War thread.



Have people not explained to you the Lost Cause arguments and Rothbard welding them to libertarianism? How are the losers of a war who invented a narrative to remove their guilt and to repaint them as noble Republicans fighting against Federal tyranny? Is that a neutral reading of the facts? Of course not and yes when you paint it as "Lincoln didn't want to free the slaves he was a tyrant" you are only repeating the words of racist slave holders and following a train of thought propagated by racists to the current day. History has plenty to do with current race relations. If you truly wanted to discuss secession you'd learn about the metaphysics of the State and sovereign will and any number of the post modern, and of course not tied to the Lost Cause, attacks on the concept of the State.

In a culture like today's US race needs to be brought into everything. The dominant thought patterns are white-centric. Those who enjoy White Privilege have an undeniable intellectual 'blind-spot' when it comes to matters of race. People of good faith really should make a conscious effort to bring racism (and sexism) into every single damn conversation as a way of doing an intellectual 'head check' of that blind spot.

The cheap political tactic is to whine about 'race hustlers', 'race baiters', complain about 'race being brought into everything' (as if it shouldn't), cry about the 'PC police', and try to make conversation about the 'hurt feelings of the real victims'.

Those who employ this tactic are willfully trying to squash and stifle any conversation about race. They are attempting to derail the entire conversation just to make sure that conversation doesn't happen. The goal of shutting down any and all conversations of race is obvious... it's to ignore/trivialize/deny institutionalized racism.

LOL, no. The members of team #Ill-do-anything-to-derail-a-conversation-about-race have already polarized themselves from civil-society. They come pre-equipped with their pernicious notions of 'race hustlers', there pitiful outbursts about the 'PC Police', the idiotic idea that race doesn't need to be brought into everything, their canned spiels about how they are the 'real victims', and a working knowledge of how derail any genuine conversation.

There is nothing even the slightest wrong with having an adversarial attitude against this highly pernicious derp. In fact, some might say not having an adversarial attitude against this derp is wrong.

How would you deal with him? Frotting might set him off.

There's another thread designed for making friends, fellas.

Every part of this I understand, I agree with. I don't understand wtf you're talking about with saying that a universal ability to secede was the reason... reason for what? The South seceded because of slavery. The secession was based on slavery. I have never said otherwise, so I don't understand what your point is.


Nope. I barely know anything about Rothbard. I've never cared a fig about the dude.

I agree with all of that. It doesn't go against anything I've said. To repeat, I dislike the way the North behaved, but they were FAR less evil than the South. I have never once made any sort of claim that the South was in the right or anything remotely like that, so why are you trying to paint me as if I did?

Okay, but I never did that. Lincoln did want to free the slaves in general theory, but that was not his goal with the war.

And this has nothing to do with following any train of thought. It's a matter of objectively looking at the things that Lincoln said and going with that. I totally accept the possibility that there might be more to it than that, but since no one has ever once shown me any evidence of that nature, I can't exactly just trust your opinion.

Dude, I'm not the one who started the conversation. If I had started a big ass thread about the Civil War, then you might have a point. If I enter an existing thread and respond to what I see as factual errors, you do not. I don't even know what this Lost Cause nonsense is, and I don't really care. It has nothing to do with anything I've ever said. I'm supposed to go out of my way to learn about racists and then not talk about things where they happen to say things similar to things that I've said? That's ****ing absurd.

My take is that Bruce believes that certain races/cultures have a higher probability to act in a certain way (he seems to have a stronger belief that culture or race have an effect on a lot of actions) . So he is attacking the problem from a math/probability stand point i.e if a Mexican moves in there is a higher probability for them having outside parties then a white person.

Now if he said pick out a random black person and I would bet he is a Democrat, few would take that bet.

Being against welfare isn't a racist position. Anyone calling you racist just because you are (or were) against welfare isn't arguing fairly.

But a lot--and I mean a LOT--of the conservative rhetoric around welfare is racist. If you were to use that rhetoric in your argument, you would be the one injecting race into the discussion.

Yeah, exactly. "Why do liberals keep making everything about race?" sounds a whole lot like "Why do all these homosexuals keep sucking my cock?"

There's plenty of derp going around on all sides of this issue. Not sure trying to measure whose derp is largest helps... also, I think "derp" is racist

second best onion piece after **** everything, we're going to five blades.

(if there is a link shortener that 2+2 does not filter, someone should tell me :P)

I'll skip the rest but the last part. Ummm yea you have a responsibility to find out where you're information is coming from, or else you going to constantly bombarded with people saying the line of reasoning with regards to the Civil War is pretty congruent with what a bunch of racists said. If that doesn't bother you then oh well you just have to get used to it.

I also have a soft spot for "Holy ****! Man Walks on ****ing Moon!" but it's like choosing a favorite kid.

MY INFORMATION IS COMING FROM THE FACTS THAT I HAVE SEEN. IF YOU HAVE OTHER FACTS BEYOND JUST YOUR PERSONAL OPINION, PLEASE SHOW THEM TO ME.

Seriously. Cite me some evidence that shows that what I've said is wrong. Stop trying to make this about dumbass racists and give me evidence. That's what I need to form a different opinion. EVIDENCE. All you harping on about what racists think is completely and totally irrelevant. I want HARD FACTS.

So, uh, where did you personally see a Constitutional right to secession?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Pretty obvious to anyone who isn't trying to mangle the Constitution for their own purposes.

lol

Excellent evidence you provide in support of your position there. Very convincing.

The fact that states have powers does not imply that the states have the right to secede.

Oh Alex. Love, not hate please. Capital letters express anger in this context and can be hurtful and offensive to others

#lovenothate
#propercapitalizationplease

LOL no.

But even so, how would we know? Team #whine-about-the-PC-police don't ever attempt to point out this alleged derp from team #anti-racist. That would be having a genuine conversation regarding race... exactly the last thing team #whine-about-the-PC-police is going to allow to happen.

Team #whine-about-the-PC-police's only goal is to stop & stifle any such conversation... in an effort to ignore/trivialize/deny institutionalized racism.

Secession is a power. The power over secession is not granted to the feds. Thus, it is left to either the states or the people. It's really very straightforward.

Yelling isn't hate. I have nothing but love for all of you.

rofl

Quit stealing our argument. Injecting race/racism into discussions where it doesn't belong is what stifles discussion.

Another example. Any person/judge/jury knows if a group of people, say a neighborhood or town, having been oppressed by another, say the police, were to give statements/recollections of an alleged crime committed by a member of the oppressor, these statements must be evaluated for bias, ie, cannot be trusted out of hand. This is true regardless of race. So injecting race into the argument, claiming it is false and evidence the person making the point is racist is plain derp, even if it is unfortunately true that it contributes to systematic racism in cases where one race the primary victim in that particular case.