The US didn't have any right to it either. But, eminent domain is a helluva two-edged sword.

Again, no one has said that. You said this earlier and I personally listed several people that I personally think are ahead of them. Libertarian philosophy is not some complex philosophy that requires a great Socrates like mind to become adept at it. It really just required the ability to separate yourself from what people tell you the government can do and what the government can actually accomplish.

That's just what Rothbard or DiLorenzo would say if they were using PVN as a gimmick account.

If Rothbard was so racist and pro-slavery, why exactly did he continually praise the abolitionist movements (such as the Quakers for example) before and during the Civil War?

Why did he have a high opinion of individuals like William Lloyd Garrison and Lysander Spooner, and their calls for immediate emancipation of the slaves?

Why does his four volume history of early America, Conceived in Liberty, have six chapters addressing and criticizing slavery?

Why did he defend the actions of Nat Turner, John Brown, etc?

Why did he have high words of praise for Malcolm X and many aspects and elements of the so-called "Negro revolution"?

Why did he support the right of blacks to arm themselves and protect themselves against abuse and violence at the hands of white cops?

Hmmm...Could it be that Rothbard’s defense of the Confederacy was narrow and did not extend to its domestic policies, but simply its right to withdraw from the federal union? He did not rationalize slavery in the South as a unique social order or defend Confederate statism at all, and people trying to paint it as such are loltastically ignorant on the man's writings, tbh.

lol egoaments

because that's what the thread is about.

ZOMG YOU GUYS DON'T HIJACK ENOUGH LOL

Montius,

I don't think Rothbard was a racist, but you must concede that he was pandering to them with his "South will rise again," and "when it does we'll tear down statues of Lincoln and put up statues of Forrest," comments.

It should also be added that Ft. Sumter is located in the Charleston harbor, where the Union would collect the ridiculous taxes and tariffs of incoming and outgoing ships.....

Well if you read the part before what was quoted in that whole deal, I think you will see he was referring to the idea of rebellion against the Federal government, not anything to do with the system of slavery or racism.

Basically, telling the federal government to go and **** themselves en masse.

His inclusion of Forrest in his list of confederate heroes was almost certainly deliberate. Forrest is a great hero among neo-confederates, and a rather obscure figure that most other people would not have recognized.

Well tbh he is probably more recognized than Bragg or Johnston or other Generals of the Confederacy (also, I wonder how many of those neo-confederates know Forrest's apparent stance on blacks after the war.)

Either way, I still don't see how someone could call Rothbard a racist and have a straight face when doing so.

"Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks"

-who wrote that?

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/1...uls-newsletter

this is the most (unintentionally) accurate statement in the thread.

Here is, in my opinion, why I think there is now and probably always will be some type of racist or otherwise illogical meme associated with anti-government messages. Quite simply when someone thinks of the potential for what could be once the government does not decide what action should take place in a certain area they fill it in with their own concept of what they would want it filled with. If someone incorrectly thinks that if we remove government regulation and have free competition amongst the "races" then whites will sift towards the top since low concentrations of melanin causes people to have higher market productivity(lol) then is he still someone worth trying to get into the political movement?

We all have own little political moments in our life I am sure. I've worked a lot with the Green Party trying to work to get some solid progress. I worked with all kinds of people who were various places on the political spectrum and various places on the intellectal spectrum. But if you're trying to build a movement sometime you have to associate with some odd fellows to get your work done.

Did various anti-government thinkers try and go after racists to bolster their movement? Yes they did, and it looks like they gave it a pretty honest effort. It all comes back to the issue of where you want to compromise to get your movement going. The main stream parties have no interest in being philisophically consistent, they need to get their votes and they need to get **** done. That's all well and good and it's part of the game that they(we) must play.

We've rehashed the mises/cato split, but I think it's a good example of why this all went down like it did. Cato is heavily libertarian and they are so libertarian that they are still not really granted acess to mainstream success because they are still too cooky for the general public. As far as it looks to me the mises et all crowd made the concious decision that the philosophy was the most important aspect of the movement. Well, when you're going to try and make an unpopular point(lol libertarianism in the 90s) then you're going to have to hang out with unpopular people.

Can we figure out the specific libertarian authors who are racist and expell them? Well it would be down right impossible to do, and frankly the numbers are so limited that I don't think it would be a prudent expenditure of time. The whole concept of not wanting the government to decide for us is so that we can come to our own conclusions on life. Also, the main and most compelling point as to why racism does not matter if it exists in the libertarian party...RACISM IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT THAT EXISTS WITH THE REINFORCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS!!!!!

That point can not be reiterated enough times in my opinion. And I guess this is the time where I try and go for a last ditch analogy/hypothetical before I send this text off into the ether.

What if someone who was a in the [insert your party/group/affiliation here] and you guys were off to the [insert means by which decisions are made] where you both were going to make the same choice on [insert complex hot button issue here]. You two have a bit of a chat and he states he is only going to [insert action here consistent with your personal political philosophy] because he thinks that in the end it will allow [insert disasterious illogical nightmare scenario] to happen. You explain to him the actual implecations of his actions and that his nightmare scenario is never going to happen without doing the opposite of what [insert your party/group/affiliation here] stands for. He is obviously not getting it, but still enthusiastically supports [insert your party/group/affiliation here] anyway. The question part being, do you ever conciously manipulate these people to try and gain that popularity you need to try and prevent things like the nightmare scenario from happening?

I ask this because that's the game ladies and gents. It's not now and never has been about being right, it's about being popular. I can't imagine trying to get a libertarian movement working in the mid 90s before the real internet explosion while a Keynsian bubble is giving everyone free ponies. It must have been a rough point for the whole libertarian crew, but that was them in the 90s. We're all here right now and we all know that RACE IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT DEVISED TO REINFORCE A SLAVE TRADE so why does it matter if people who agree with you on one point are wrong on so many other ones.

....quite a ramble imo

Not following this thread closely, but Borodog does from time to time call the most prominent libertarians the "greatest economic/ethics/political mind of the century".

I have no idea.

You have no idea if you think that any AC posters are racist?

Case Closed has so totally pwned this topic it's scary.

Can you start awarding special, one-day gold stars under our names, to signify the poster-who-most-pwned-for-the-day?

I would say that would be a job for the King of the Politards. Best to keep ephemeral accolades tied with ephemeral titles. Something along the lines of being knighted for the utmost pwnership of a thread.

imo

OK!

Count me in if the Rothbard/Rockwell/DiLorenzo Axis of Dixie knock off the Bo & Luke Duke act.

Also who ever wrote the racist drivel in RP's name should fess up:
http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/003165.html

....and stop the denial/smear campaigns against libertarians who call you out.. eg: "Beltway libertarians (Cato?), for whom .. politically correct left-neoconism is fine and dandy"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/018420.html

then I'm in! Kumbaya: Reason/Cato/Misis/LRC ... onward and upward toward the brave new (free) world!

First article, today at LRC - old Dixiephile Woods (former director at the League of the South) doesn't want to perpetuate a fued, but, what the heck - lets keep fueden'

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods126.html

Two things to take away from that...

1. Lew Rockwell, who is absolutely a committed and terrible racist, does heroic work.

2. Implicitly smearing all the young kids? Man, when some ****** on the internets tries that rhetorical trick, whatever. It's fascinating, if nothing else, just how awful Woods' arguing is. I guess that's where many of the ACists pick up their tactics, but when it's transplanted from a forum post to an allegedly serious article the strawman use and goalpost shifting really stands out.

This guy shouldn't be one of the intellectual leaders of the movement(speaking of Woods here) not just because he's a racist, but because he's DUMB.