How Libertarians Win Friends And Influence People With Their Positions on the Civil War - Page 37 - Politics and Economics

Yeah that's an exaggeration, it was just pvn (of course) and SL_72 that copped to not reading much by any of the authors under discussion.

I am also far too lazy to Google or even link you to lmgtfy so here are some more quotes from earlier ITT :

Quote:

Originally Posted by vixticator

Here the not-at-all-racist Thomas DiLorenzo defends the League of the South, a southern nationalist organization that says the following in it's freakin' FAQ: "The Anglo-Celtic peoples settled the South and gave it its dominate culture and civilisation. We believe that the advancement of Anglo-Celtic culture and civilisation is vital in order to preserve our region as we know it. Should this core be destroyed or displaced the South would be made over in an alien image — unfamiliar and inhospitable to our children and grandchildren. We, as Anglo-Celtic Southerners, have a duty to protect that which our ancestors bequeathed to us. If we do not promote our interests then no one will do it for us."

Thomas Woods is a former member of their board of directors.

edit: Apparently Rockwell and Tucker were founding members of this organization as well. Shocking!

lulz

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVaut1

sigh, what they mean by the Anglo-Celtic peoples settled the South and gave it its dominate culture and civilisation. We believe that the advancement of Anglo-Celtic culture and civilisation is vital in order to preserve our region as we know it is that the South had a legal right to secession. Simple as that. Quit conflating.

12-03-2009 , 06:54 PM

#902

adanthar

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 20,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMACM

Especially when you seem to only be interested in character assassination and disagreeing with Rothbard on one issue which is whether there should be state run social services the lack of which II think which you term a market in child slavery.

Haha you haven't read a thing by Rothbard either:

Quote:

In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children.

12-03-2009 , 06:57 PM

#903

SenorKeeed

mew mew mew

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 37,478

How in the world is Woods defending the League of the South racist? Is that the best you can find? Just that out of the daily racist garbage he is allegedly spewing? Was there anything actually racist in his article you linked to?

edit: you could start by showing that the League of the South is a racist organization. Just because it advocates secession from the American Empire doesn't make it racist. Is the secession movement in Vermont racist?

12-03-2009 , 07:00 PM

#904

DMACM

banned

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,917

I get it you've read one thing by Rothbard I already acknowledged that. I've seen you post this just about everytime you post so while I havent read a ton of Rothbard I've certainly read that.

"But surely the mother or parents may not receive the ownership of the child in absolute fee simple, because that would imply the bizarre state of affairs that a fifty-year old adult would be subject to the absolute and unquestioned jurisdiction of his seventy-year-old parent."
Take you back to being a 1L?

12-03-2009 , 07:00 PM

#905

ElliotR

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 30,029

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjkidd

Why haven't you banned yourself?

I'm excellent at thread titles.

12-03-2009 , 07:03 PM

#906

DMACM

banned

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,917

Doesn't he also say children have an absolute right to run away? If parents really wanted to sell their children into sexual slavery I guarantee they could do that now. Its such a fringe bizarre non-issue that you focus 100% of your effort on.

Edit: In context hes clearly talking about adoption.

12-03-2009 , 07:04 PM

#907

Case Closed

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 19,112

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMACM

BAD THINGS HAPPEN IN THEIR VISION OF GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

12-03-2009 , 07:06 PM

#908

DVaut1

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 30,005

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjkidd

edit: you could start by showing that the League of the South is a racist organization. Just because it advocates secession from the American Empire doesn't make it racist. Is the secession movement in Vermont racist?

Guys are you even reading the ****ing thread at this point? Sheesh:

Quote:

the League of the South, a southern nationalist organization that says the following in it's freakin' FAQ: "The Anglo-Celtic peoples settled the South and gave it its dominate culture and civilisation. We believe that the advancement of Anglo-Celtic culture and civilisation is vital in order to preserve our region as we know it. Should this core be destroyed or displaced the South would be made over in an alien image — unfamiliar and inhospitable to our children and grandchildren. We, as Anglo-Celtic Southerners, have a duty to protect that which our ancestors bequeathed to us. If we do not promote our interests then no one will do it for us."

Quoted like 5 times too already.

I know, I know -- NOT RACIST AT ALL.

12-03-2009 , 07:07 PM

#909

SenorKeeed

mew mew mew

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 37,478

I read that. It doesn't seem racist to me. Why is it racist? What is your definition of racism?

12-03-2009 , 07:08 PM

#910

DVaut1

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 30,005

Something like "the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others"

That stuff like "he Anglo-Celtic peoples settled the South and gave it its dominate culture and civilisation" doesn't "seem racist to you" speaks volumes. Sorry.

12-03-2009 , 07:10 PM

#911

adanthar

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 20,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVaut1

Guys are you even reading the ****ing thread at this point? Sheesh:

Quoted like 5 times too already.

I know, I know -- NOT RACIST AT ALL.

I don't really think any of these guys "get" dogwhistling. There's a serious disconnect going on here between what we're reading and what they're reading.

Maybe you need to have been exposed to it as a child or read some Lee Atwater interviews or something, I dunno.

12-03-2009 , 07:10 PM

#912

SenorKeeed

mew mew mew

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 37,478

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVaut1

Something like "the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others"

You are arguing that it is racist for someone to want to take action to preserve their culture? Really? Are the Welsh racists for attempting to preserve their language?

edit: The Anglo-celtic peoples DID settle the south and give it its dominant culture. I mean are you disputing this?!?

12-03-2009 , 07:10 PM

#913

AlexM

ignored

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 20,655

Quote:

Originally Posted by adanthar

Anyone want to take me, Dvaut, and FlyWf vs. any 3 AC posters for $100 in a battle of "who has read more about libertarian political theory?" place your bets

After his posts in this thread, I'd say associating yourself with Fly is as bad as associating oneself with Rothbard.

12-03-2009 , 07:11 PM

#914

Case Closed

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 19,112

I have not read that league of the south stuff, before. Pretty lol, sounds like run of the mill made up religious nonsense about promised land bull ****.

Can we shift this conversation to making fun of libertarians who happen to be religious as well? Religion is another fabricated social construct that now hides in the shadow of the state it once owned. Ron Paul believes in an invisible monster that once flooded the planet when angry with or current moral climate. It's pretty lol, but at least the dude has some manageable foreign policy ideas.

12-03-2009 , 07:12 PM

#915

DVaut1

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 30,005

Quote:

Originally Posted by adanthar

I don't really think any of these guys "get" dogwhistling. There's a serious disconnect going on here between what we're reading and what they're reading.

This **** isn't EVEN DOGWHISTLING. It's not. This:

Quote:

The Anglo-Celtic peoples settled the South and gave it its dominate culture and civilisation.

Is explicitly, unequivocally racist. I'm not conceding these people are just ignorant and lived in alternate universes where books didn't exist and stuff. That happens to kids, I understand. That's not what's going on here.

12-03-2009 , 07:13 PM

#916

AlexM

ignored

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 20,655

Quote:

Originally Posted by adanthar

Why should I make the effort when we've just found out that the Mises detractors around here are far more knowledgeable about the stuff coming from Mises authors than their supporters?

We have? When did we find that out?

12-03-2009 , 07:15 PM

#917

adanthar

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 20,109

Quote:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Whites Only.” By 1968 you can’t say “Whites Only”—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like dominant culture and civilization and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cultural advancement and promoting our interests, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to promote this,” is much more abstract than even the cultural pride thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Whites Only.”

12-03-2009 , 07:16 PM

#918

AlexM

ignored

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 20,655

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVaut1

Guys are you even reading the ****ing thread at this point? Sheesh:

Quoted like 5 times too already.

I know, I know -- NOT RACIST AT ALL.

If you consider that racist, you must also consider all of China racist? Cause that's pretty much the party platform over there, just substitute the cultures. If you do, fair enough.

12-03-2009 , 07:16 PM

#919

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by adanthar

Yeah that's an exaggeration, it was just pvn (of course) and SL_72 that copped to not reading much by any of the authors under discussion.

YOU GOT ME!

except I never claimed anything to the contrary, I haven't defended what they wrote, etc etc etc so your point here is ___________?

12-03-2009 , 07:17 PM

#920

MvdB

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,562

Quote:

Originally Posted by adanthar

Haha you haven't read a thing by Rothbard either:

I haven't read that book by Rothbard so I am not taking a position on what he writes in it, but from reading what you linked, he is not talking about a market for slave children like you suggest. The possibility of slavery being permissable is denied in this same chapter.

Here is the entire paragraph, for context on what you quoted:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rothbard

Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway-freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. But closer thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market. For we must realize that there is a market for children now, but that since the government prohibits sale of children at a price, the parents may now only give their children away to a licensed adoption agency free of charge.[12] This means that we now indeed have a child-market, but that the government enforces a maximum price control of zero, and restricts the market to a few privileged and therefore monopolistic agencies. The result has been a typical market where the price of the commodity is held by government far below the free-market price: an enormous “shortage” of the good. The demand for babies and children is usually far greater than the supply, and hence we see daily tragedies of adults denied the joys of adopting children by prying and tyrannical adoption agencies. In fact, we find a large unsatisfied demand by adults and couples for children, along with a large number of surplus and unwanted babies neglected or maltreated by their parents. Allowing a free market in children would eliminate this imbalance, and would allow for an allocation of babies and children away from parents who dislike or do not care for their children, and toward foster parents who deeply desire such children. Everyone involved: the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing the children, would be better off in this sort of society.[13]

Obviously you may disagree with the above and think this would work out completely different than how Rothbard argues, but I really don't see the above as the same as, in your words:

Quote:

Originally Posted by adanthar

(Rothbard) presupposes child slave markets as a necessary evil of a libertarian utopia,

especially since this is in the same chapter:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rothbard

Parents may try to persuade the runaway child to return, but it is totally impermissible enslavement and an aggression upon his right of self-ownership for them to use force to compel him to return. The absolute right to run away is the child’s ultimate expression of his right of self-ownership, regardless of age.

12-03-2009 , 07:18 PM

#921

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by adanthar

Haha you haven't read a thing by Rothbard either:

lol

we have a "market in children" NOW. Just not a free one.

12-03-2009 , 07:19 PM

#922

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,257

The thread needs to be moved away from ad homenim attacks, broad stroking ideologies, and d*** measuring contests with "who knows the most about..." ideas. That really killed it for me

12-03-2009 , 07:20 PM

#923

adanthar

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 20,109

Marnix, we had a really long thread on this at some point. Without rehashing that, Rothbard qualifies that sentence through forbidding force, but denies the possibility of non-physical coercion as force. In other words, it's not okay to stop an eight year old from running away, but it's okay to tell the eight year old that he will starve to death unless he goes away with the nice man. The outcome is identical.

12-03-2009 , 07:20 PM

#924

AlexM

ignored

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 20,655

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVaut1

This:

Quote:

The Anglo-Celtic peoples settled the South and gave it its dominate culture and civilisation.

Is explicitly, unequivocally racist.

So, the following are also racist?

The Chinese peoples settled China and gave it its dominate culture and civilisation.

The Vietnamese peoples settled Vietnam and gave it its dominate culture and civilisation.

The Indian peoples settled India and gave it its dominate culture and civilisation.

Seriously, what about that statement is racist? I don't get it. I feel like I'm Stan in the South Park flag changing episode.