Is this the "she shouldn't have dressed slutty" clause of the communal contract?

well i never really seen such libertarians; i should have said "most libertarians on this board"

Again, I am 100% they have not picked the ugliest branch. No where near close, try googling for 5 minutes and I bet you could find a decent size group of cooks who make mises look like a large collection of articles with a singular connection to one and another and that's a principled dedication to limited government that apparently shows little dedication to censoring it's producer's words.

And no, you can't buy entertainment like this thread. <3 Politics =D

no; she just should have simply chose to live in a state which does not have such bizarre rules.

But she didn't. Her parents agreed to these rules and bequeathed their property to her.

Thank you for illustrating the problem with democracy.

She should move to a new state! I love that we can say that for made up places but not the real world.

yes she did; this discussion is about what libertarians consider to be a "legitimate" libertarian state.

which ones, and do you think they are racists?

No, she never agreed to any of it. Was born and raised in the state. If you say at a certain age she must decide to love it or leave it my head will literally explode.

So wait what are the rules? It this a state that has closed borders and doesn't allow any black people in it? Doesn't seem very libertarian to me.

sightless--

This is a great opportunity to just back down and admit that closed borders are in opposition to libertarian goals. You could use your same logic to demonstrate how libertarian principles allow for drug prohibition, communist empires, military industrial complexes, and on and on and on. The point you're making is so theoretical and nitty that it hurts to think you actually think it's a fruitful objection to what I was saying earlier.

Should have checked the rules before you moved in.

I agree. sightless thinks this is compatible with libertarianism though.

And if it's like a small commune or whatever in a libertarian state that allows for voluntary-self segregation, she only owns the property if she abides by the rules of the commune. If she doesn't like the rules of the commune, obviously she would have to leave. This is true of any commune. If you were born into a socialist commune and don't like it and don't want to abide by the rules, it's time to go. There would have to be some mechanism for cashing out the equity stake you inherited in the commune, but there is nothing wrong with saying "love it or leave it" in a commune situation. I mean if you inherit a condo and don't like how the condo association is run, your only choice is to leave as well.

edit: and yeah, if a white girl from a racist white commune comes back from a Jamaican vacation carrying a half-black baby and she wants to carry it to term, time to hit the road, ldo.

Did Lysander Spooner support slavery? By your logic, he did, because he supported the Southern states rights to secede. Problem is, if you knew anything about Spooner you would see how saying that is pretty absurd.

http://lysanderspooner.org/node/44

davaut,

I know that was the summation of one of your larger posts earlier in the thread. I disagree with the conclusion then and I still stand by that. Also, you keep trying to make remarks as though you're at a pulpit addressing libertarianism as a whole. You are not able to discern between the abstract principles being argued between yourself and myself.

Still, it shows itself here. Slavery is an issue man is/was and will be dealing with for some time. If the south had one they still would have had to deal with slavery. But I don't actually know what would have happened if the south had one, I just know what happened to other slave states...and it was not good for them. Every seen someone struggling to swim...but just can't seem to stay afloat no matter how hard they beat their hands against the water? It looks something like that.

It does not matter what the south was fighting for. We could have had this discussion by using a variable in our discussion to represent slavery and it would have been the same for me.

Not what I said...or at the very least I will concede that what you've written here is not what I implied. Slavery is the condition, but that does not mean that secession is the only potential answer for that condition. Slavery being the root cause for the disruption does not necessarily imply how the condition should be resolved. As I understand you think the response to secession based on slavery is a war, and that it is suitable. I think correct response to secession based upon almost anything is going to be allow them to leave, yet still try to keep solid foreign relations with them. That's what the issue is. We're looking at a point in time where the government made an action and how it could have been fixed or prevented by allowing people to fix their own problems.

Alright, if we follow this logic then supporting the north's war to end slavery you support the rest of the slaughter of the native american people, right? If I support secession do I also support the tariff issues and other minor aspects of the secession argument of the day?

I support secession because it is a means to solve the problems they had without bloodshed because I know something they could not have know about the progression of slavery. I support not going to war and I also support a better path towards racial equality(civil war being an epic failure which really hurt race relations because of lol government projects)


I don't support slavery, and neither do you. No one here does, I just think there was a better way to do what was being done in the 1860s than what the current thoughts of the day told people. We can learn a lot of we are able to distance ourselves from the problem and not try and look at something from the winning side.

The South not seceding also implies that people will be enslaved. In fact, it implies that people will be enslaved EVEN LONGER!

That's the "answer" the South took, right?

I think I've been as clear as I can be ITT that I'm not talking about generic secession.

We're talking about the South's secession from the US federal government in the middle of the 19th century, and support of that. Why are we talking about the potential answers for that "condition" of slavery that aren't secession? You really think an honest way to interrogate the consequences of supporting the South's secession is to consider the stuff they DIDN'T do?

Actually I've not answered this question. I have no idea of the most just way to end slavery in the South in 1860. That's a tough question and I wouldn't pretend to be able to answer it.

What I've maintained is that if I say I support the North waging war on the South to end slavery and maintain the union, I can't also say I don't support total war, forced conscription, suspending habeus, etc. That stuff was part and parcel of the war against the South. Inseparable. Sucks to be human, these are tough choices, but let's not pretend we can "support the North" and hand-wave away Sherman burning down Georgia and Lincoln trampling on the Constitution and silencing war critics in the press and making poor people go die while rich people bought their way out for what was ostensibly a shared burden, just as we can't "support the South's secession" and deny all the pragmatic realities of it, like supporting the right to enslave people and not be bothered by interloping former patron governments.

Good point. Apox on 19th century America, on Lincoln, on anyone who wasn't a hardline abolitionist, on anyone that would compromise with slave holders so that they'd stick around in the club.

I decided to go back and bump all the questions I've asked (many of specific, named posters) that got ignored, but I found so many that I've decided to give up. You guys win, please apply whatever label you want to whoever you want, since it's perfectly clear that you're not going to do anything other than that.

Well I know you know that it was about the club the whole time and had little to do with slavery. That is my only point about the Civil War in any case. And the Lincoln in popular culture -- "The Great Emancipator," the stoic and courageous warrior for freedom and liberty -- is wholly a fabrication designed to deify the state. Lincoln could have ended slavery without a war by allowing the south to secede and then granting citizenship to any escaping slaves who came across the Mason-Dixon line. This is something that the myth of Lincoln might have done, if he was "The Great Emancipator," but something that the actual Lincoln had neither the desire or political ability to do.

In fairness, most of those questions were completely irrelevant or answered.

hi. Of course it's trolling, but then seemingly reasonable people like adanthar and buddyq make posts like this:

and it makes me very frowny face. I guess I will just never understand hero worship and all of it's ugly little bastard offspring. For what it's worth I don't read Mises or Rockwell but it's not because I'm afraid that if I do I won't be able to separate the wheat from the chaff and will accidentally be brainwashed into being a racist by all their 'tainted' prose. It's mostly because in my limited exposure I've found them to be in general poor writers who write about specific issues which I don't really care about. I have no opinion on whether they are hockful of racists or not. Just a mild opinion on how sad it is to care, I guess.