How Libertarians Win Friends And Influence People With Their Positions on the Civil War - Page 43 - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

How Libertarians Win Friends And Influence People With Their Positions on the Civil War

...

Page 43 of 150

First

23 33 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 53 63 93 143

Last

Page 43 of 150

First

23 33 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 53 63 93 143

Last

12-04-2009 , 12:58 AM

#1051

ElliotR

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 30,029

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

Regardless of what the "point of the thread" is, there is still broad-brush smearing going on.

Quote:

And, Daxx aside, you can stop the strawmanning "omg you're calling us all racists".

12-04-2009 , 12:59 AM

#1052

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,097

Quote:

Originally Posted by Money2Burn

I'm drunk, sorry. Is this directed at me?

Nielso, though it applies to a ton of people in this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SI

So the point he is trying to make isn't that black Americans score lower on IQ tests than white Americans. That is basically a fact. The point he is trying to make that the difference is due to genetics and not, or at least more than due to environmental factors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LEVIN HIMSELF!!!

My main concerns in Race, as its title indicates, are the implications of genetic race differences, not their existence per se

Dude I don't know how why you decided to argue against the author of a book about what the point of that book is, but stop.

12-04-2009 , 01:00 AM

#1053

vhawk01

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,866

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

I'd actually be interested to learn what evidence Nielso is citing to make the fairly outrageous claim that Lincoln was racist.

The man signed the 13th amendment and wrote the Emancipation Proclamation, after all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vixticator

Nielso, please reply to this. Lincoln freed the slaves.

Fly, I think I get what you were going for with some help from vix. You were basically going for the biggest "some of my best friends are black" in American history?

12-04-2009 , 01:01 AM

#1054

ElliotR

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 30,029

Quote:

Originally Posted by vhawk01

Fly, I think I get what you were going for with some help from vix. You were basically going for the biggest "some of my best friends are black" in American history?

It'll get clearer when you get to 1042.

12-04-2009 , 01:04 AM

#1055

Money2Burn

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,628

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

Nielso, though it applies to a ton of people in this thread.

But not me, I hope. I've employed many black people...

Quote:

Originally Posted by vhawk01

You were basically going for the biggest "some of my best friends are black" in American history?

Bwa hahahahah!

Sorry once again, druck. on a tee.

12-04-2009 , 01:05 AM

#1056

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,097

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

lol, srsly?

why would a super-swell non-racist guy word the EP such that it didn't actually free any slaves? Why wouldn't he free the slaves in his own country?

ps: slavery and racism are two different issues. you can quite obviously want to end slavery and still be a racist.

Yes, why didn't Lincoln free the slaves in the United States? That's a tough question that has baffled historians for 150 years.

Wait, "historian" is the wrong word there. I meant "complete and total ******s":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirtee...s_Constitution

12-04-2009 , 01:11 AM

#1057

SL__72

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 16,499

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

Dude I don't know how why you decided to argue against the author of a book about what the point of that book is, but stop.

????? You can't see the difference between this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levin

My main concerns in Race, as its title indicates, are the implications of genetic race differences, not their existence per se

and this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

Levin is exploring the social/policy ramifications of black people being dumber, more impulsive, and more prone to criminality than white.

??? Really?

You don't see how implying that the observed differences in IQ testing/crime/pregnancies are inherent and not due to environmental factors, like blacks for whatever reason making up a relatively larger portion of the lower class than whites, might be a controversial thing to say?

The "ramifications" of this, in his opinion, are that since differences are "genetic' rather than due to slavery or racism towards blacks that affirmative action is bs.

Last edited by SL__72; 12-04-2009 at 01:17 AM.

12-04-2009 , 01:13 AM

#1058

vhawk01

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,866

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElliotR

It'll get clearer when you get to 1042.

I think we all know that's not how I roll. Thank god I just skipped to last page though. How was this thread anything other than " yeah dude I know poisoning the well is sadly an effective strategy, that's depressing but thanks fly for taking a principled stand against such ignorance even though it doesn't directly benefit you. It's admirable....oh wait you aren't actually bemoaning the idiocy of succumbing to tnhe poisoning th well fallacy but are instead gloating about it? Nm"

12-04-2009 , 01:13 AM

#1059

Money2Burn

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,628

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

aparently you didn't read all of PVN's post?

12-04-2009 , 01:14 AM

#1060

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,097

SI- What aspect of my paraphrase is unfair?

12-04-2009 , 01:18 AM

#1061

SL__72

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 16,499

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

SI- What aspect of my paraphrase is unfair?

It isn't "unfair." It is just that you left out one really really important word. The one I bolded in his quote. If anything it is too "fair." His description sounds more like racism than yours other than the fact that used more inflammatory language.

Also, why do you keep calling me SI? It is clearly an "L," not an "I." It is even capitalized...?

Last edited by SL__72; 12-04-2009 at 01:23 AM.

12-04-2009 , 01:24 AM

#1062

The Gold Rush

journeyman

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 200

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

The EP didn't free the slaves in the US. It freed them in states then in rebellion. Symbolically it meant a lot, but really didn't accomplish much.

The Thirteenth Amendment did indeed free the slaves, but Lincoln was dead when it was passed.

Lincoln was certainly racist by modern standards. Like most white people in the 19th century, he did not believe in racial equality. He did not agree with slavery, but he did not think blacks were equal to whites.

12-04-2009 , 01:26 AM

#1063

Money2Burn

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,628

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Gold Rush

Thank you, you sober articulate SOB!

12-04-2009 , 01:26 AM

#1064

AlexM

ignored

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 20,655

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sholar

Well, Alex, there's a difference between reading a racist book and writing one.

Seriously, now, is this really so hard?

Not according to the people in this thread labeling libertarians as a whole as racist.

12-04-2009 , 01:27 AM

#1065

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,097

Quote:

Why do you keep calling me SI? It is clearly an "L," not an "I."

Seriously wow that's insane. Definitely an L. I guess I've been merging the underscore into the vertical part of the L.

Levin's book is taking the genetic inferiority of blacks as a given and thinking about how society/government should respond. You seem to think it's science, but it is policy. For example,

Quote:

If we must have welfare, Race suggests, blacks should be denied it or held to more stringent criteria. A general caution for libertarians is that institutions which don't work in black or multiracial populations (public education is an example) need not, by that token, be intrinsically flawed. The problem may not be the institution, but the population.

12-04-2009 , 01:32 AM

#1066

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,097

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Gold Rush

The best response to this post is to post a link to the wikipedia article about the 13th amendment, but I already did that, so I actually give up.

Cliff's: Lincoln freed the slaves, so asking why he didn't free the slaves is ******ed.

12-04-2009 , 01:34 AM

#1067

vixticator

clutch

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 117,339

Let's pretend that Lincoln and the Republicans had no intention of freeing the slaves.

1. Why did the South secede?
2. Why did they actually free them after the war?

On point 2, if the ONLY reason was to preserve the union, once this happened why weren't things returned to pre-war status? Could it be that slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War? Nahhhh, crazy speak.

12-04-2009 , 01:36 AM

#1068

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,097

****, in the event a non-American(and thus justifiably unaware) lurker who inexplicably cares, the reasons the EP freed the slaves only in the rebellion states are:

1) Desire not to piss off whites in border states while the war was ongoing
2) Fear that he couldn't free the slaves constitutionally through executive order. Obviously nobody in the CSA was going to sue over it.

In 1864 Lincoln made passing the 13th amendment part of his Presidential campaign. It wasn't ratified until after he died, but HE SIGNED THE GODDAMN THING.

12-04-2009 , 01:38 AM

#1069

vixticator

clutch

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 117,339

Yeah but he didn't want to free them or anything.

12-04-2009 , 01:41 AM

#1070

Nichlemn

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 9,479

Suppose it turned out there were genetic differences between blacks and whites. Would this really matter? It's not like such a revelation would debunk all arguments against slavery or segregation. There are vast genetic differences between people today - are people with lower IQs enslaved?

It wouldn't necessarily make-or-break affirmative action either. There might be environment and genetic differences. The environmental differences may partially be a result of past discrimination, but there might be many non-discriminatory environmental differences too.

12-04-2009 , 01:44 AM

#1071

adanthar

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 20,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElliotR

So let's remember how this discussion started. Someone posted in the thread something along the lines of "hey, I'm new, how can I learn more about some of these libertarian ideas". He was pointed to, of course, mises.org.

Dr.Modern mentioned that he personally wished there were less links to mises and LRC. When asked why, he cited mises' tendency toward polemics. Fly chimed in saying the same thing and pointing out that Cato does a far better job of "gatekeepering the racist/neo-Confederate/black helicopters crowd". And we were off to the races.

From the outset, there were at least a couple of libertarians who quite sensibly agreed that the pandering-to-racists stuff was indeed unfortunate and likely to turn others off. But a bunch of other libertarians instead took the tack of doing some or all of (a) arguing that stuff that is plainly racist pandering is somehow not racist at all; (b) trying to distance Mises from the racist Michael Levin by falsely suggesting that Levin just wrote "one book review" for mises (HINT: Check the bibliography in his cv, available online, ffs); or (c) crying that they were being all unfairly smeared as racists by the all of the non-ACists in the thread. Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Stuff like what has been quoted from MURRAY ****ING ROTHBARD (thanks Dvaut1!) is a message to racists saying that "we are on your side". No two ways about it. Suggesting otherwise is like suggesting that NYC rent-control laws don't result in lower property values -- it requires a convoluted explanation to even try and even with such an explanation is plainly false to anyone who knows anything about 20th-century politics.

And that stuff is clearly all over mises. Still. Is there non-racist stuff on mises? Sure. But they haven't gotten rid of the "the South will Rise again", yay Forrest, yay League of the South stuff. It's not "one book review". Not even close.

And, Daxx aside, you can stop the strawmanning "omg you're calling us all racists". Bull****. The point of this thread -- that some people who are referred to mises to learn about libertarianism or ACism are going to be turned off by the plainly racist stuff there -- is true regardless of whether the libertarian/AC posters on this board are racist or not.

Now, personally, I don't think for a second that all libertarians are racist, though some undoubtedly are. Certainly a refusal to acknowledge the the type of race-signaling repeatedly cited ITT is something that racists do. But it is also something that those that are clueless about 20th-century US politics do. Or there may be another explanation.

But it certainly seems to be the case that regardless of the evidence there are some libertarians on here who are just not going to admit that Rothbard said what he said and did what he did and that it means what it means. And ditto for the rest of mises. And the reaction of others to your failure to do so is going to be exactly what Dr.Modern, Fly, and others have said.

21 posts after this one (probably 30 by the time I'm done posting it), we've got:

a)3 SL_72 posts arguing that what Levin stated his book was about was not what his book was about;
b)4 Money2Burn posts mostly being drunk so he gets a free pass;
c)1 Nielsio "but Lincoln was more racist" dodge;
d)2 vhawk posts seeing a tarp;
e)1 AlexM post re-setting up the strawman ElliotR knocked down.

No replies to it, though.

f) oops, I missed a pvn post. How broad a brush is "Mises is full of racists?" Because I brought up Cato and (post-Nixon) Buckley as examples of non-racist, more mainstream libertarian branches about a dozen times.

Last edited by adanthar; 12-04-2009 at 01:51 AM.

12-04-2009 , 01:57 AM

#1072

The Gold Rush

journeyman

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 200

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

I guess you could say that, if it didn't bother you that Lincoln was dead when the 13th Amendment was made law.

He did want to free the slaves. And that's basically what the EP was about. It was Lincoln saying that the abolition of slavery was now a war aim.

So I guess did he or did he not free the slaves is just semantics. I have no problem saying he freed the slaves. But I thought your main issue with the post I originally replied to was to show that Lincoln was not racist. And even if I concede that he ended slavery, it doesn't mean he thought blacks and whites were completely equal. Very few white people did.

This shouldn't be seen as a criticism against Lincoln, however. He was a man of his times. And unfortunately he lived in a racist century.

12-04-2009 , 02:00 AM

#1073

vixticator

clutch

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 117,339

^^ lolque?

Last edited by vixticator; 12-04-2009 at 02:00 AM. Reason: sorry, but duuuude

12-04-2009 , 02:05 AM

#1074

HomerNoonJr

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 6,161

Quote:

1. Lincoln was dead when the 13th was passed.
2. The author who is quoted in the wiki article saying Lincoln pushed the 13th amendment is a Lincoln fanatic and has written very skewed portryals of Lincoln which can be found here: http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/library.htm
3. Lincoln didn't free a single slave. As others have stated the EP was a military tactic and only "freed" slaves that Lincoln had no jurisdiction over. From the wiki: "The Emancipation Proclamation consists of two executive orders issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War. The first one, issued September 22, 1862, declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. The second order, issued January 1, 1863, named ten specific states where it would apply. " Reading is fundamental.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vixticator

Answer to 1: Lincoln's Tariff War. Listening is fundamental.

2. "They" is not Lincoln. And no one said that no one in the GOP wanted to free the slaves. Many did, others didn't. With the Southern states no longer in the Unioin the GOP had a super majority and the abolitionists could get their legislation through without much trouble.