do you think Pvn has been notifying mods? Because you are doing that thing again where you address pvn and use you but are just vaguely lumping him in with some unknown notifier. When pvn used the schema you are mocking, he really meant YOU when he said you. Not just the weakest sister that happens to share some of your views that he could lump in as 'you.'

I have no idea if pvn actually is notifying so if he is or if you genuinely believe that he is then of course this doesn't apply.

The cognitive dissonance between Mises.org being the citation source of choice 2 weeks ago and never having been read today is incredible. We seriously had a Cato vs. Mises thread where people were debating between the merits of joining both or just joining Mises because Cato is a tool of the neocons acting to hurt libertarianism.

Then, even more bizarre, we go from "I don't read Mises" to these furious and at time hilarious defenses of the racist things people prominently involved in Mises write. It's very contradictory.


Also, for those of you who legitimately don't read Mises but came to ACism because of Borodog/Nielso posts, nearly every idea they post on this forum is a paraphrase of the Rothbardian strain of libertarianism exclusively championed by Mises. It is the dominant source of discussion material here. I know it might seem weird that we have this thread focusing on an obscure "think tank" in Alabama, but that's why this thread has 1300 posts.

they were not answered, which is why I used the word "ignored" in my post.

as for their relevance, I suppose you could call them irrelevant if you wanted to ignore them.

WHO (specific names) is being contradictory?

If there is anything more sad than your version of hero worship, it's when people couple it with the firm belief that everyone else thinks like they do.

Are you SERIOUSLY responding to my post about how dumb it is to believe things just because you admire the guys on a website who say it(and the logical converse of this) by saying "ok fine you don't read the website but boro does!"

I care if boro is racist way more than I care whether Rockwell is, but it's not so I can sleep at night when I agree with his arguments.

Then she does not live in a libertarian state. Libertarians generally consider the only states to be legitimate which actually derive their power form the consent of the people and give a viable option for those who disagree to leave.
If she does not like belonging to a state or any other organization which she does not agree with, she can leave it. What is wrong with this?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Having the freedom to decide who you can associate with, does not violate any libertarian principles. having the freedom to prohibit drugs, communists or associate yourself with people who deal with weapons is also not against libertarian principles.

I said:

I don't know what you mean, but my post is decidedly not concern trolling. It's my sincere advice and I mean it. It's not poison pill advice. I don't think it will actually harm you. I'm not asking the libertarians who focus on the Civil War stop talking about the Civil War because I really just want them to stop criticizing Lincoln or something. It's because it's in your best interests if you want to convert people. This thread is a good example why.

I wish feltstein were still around. Man would I get some sweet mileage out of some pronouns.

Love it or leave it, right? If you don't understand the irony already it's not going to be explainable.

yeah, you either like the voluntary organization to which you belong to, or if you don't you can leave it; that is a standard and accepted practice in our daily lives. as someone mentioned ITT earlier, i do not see any irony, because it exits solely in your head.

Ok maaaaaybe I can give you credit and assume this is true, but you are pretty much the only one. There are three ways to interpret this thread. I pick three because I believ that false dichotomies are for scumbags but when it three it's not a dichotomy so I can do what I want. The three are:

what you claim here, that this is genuine advice for how we can trick more ******s into agreeing with us

that it's very sarcastic, obv false condescending 'advice' meant to be mocking

that some people superficially recognize that poisoning the well is a tactic of the feeble but they can't resist doin it anyway, so they want to vaguely speak about some other group of people that will inevitably make this error as a way to make the error themselves, but all sneaky like

I'm willin to put you into the first group if you insist although I would have probably put you fifty fifty the first two groups. Fly obv isn't in the first group, probably 90/10 second/third groups.

So just to be clear, are you talking about a self-segregated racist commune or Condo board or something in a libertarian society like I posted above, or an actual government?

vhakw -- having a tough time parsing out that post. What are the three groups again? If it's obvious, humor me and explain them again, because I honestly didn't quite comprehend that.

FWIW my honest opinion is that libertarians would win some non-******s over libertarianism by never talking about the Civil War again. These people are otherwise turned off by the "South will rise again!" stuff they see. And that's one of their big impediments to getting into the "movement", because they're afraid of being associated with those kinds of guys. Seriously. This is my honest, non-sarcastic opinion. I admit that it's a small group of people and that not every or even most articles on Rockwell.com or mises.org are racist dogwhistle fests, but it doesn't take much to poison the well.

**** for some reason ing words are hard to type on my iPhone and I keep leaving off g's. It's not intentional.

Change your settings newb

Dude I JUST found out you can change songs without unlocking by double clicking the menu button. I suck at iPhone. What setting do I change

this kind of makes them automatically tards IMO. If social darwinists were as prevalent as creatinists make them out to be, you'd still be a tard if you were afraid to learn about the ToE because of the association.

any voluntary commune

I guess?

Let's put the Civil War aside for one second, kind of.

Let's pretend I walk by a campus and I see a political rally going on. Let's say 50 people are there. Let's say it's a rally against the War in Iraq, circa 2002. And of those 50 people, there's just one guy there running around screaming that it's the Jew Bankers who are trying to start this war and handing out pamphlets that thinks there's a secret Zionist cabal running the White House, agitating for war. Let's say I'm sympathetic to the anti-war movement.

Now, how would I react to encountering this group if:

1) the other 49 people at the rally were all like: "this dude is ****ING CRAZY, he's got NOTHING TO DO WITH US, he's a CRAZY ****ING LOONEY TOON"

versus

2) the other 49 people post his pamphlets on your website along with your reputable work regarding anti-war stuff. All of the other 49 people claim that he's wrong about the Jewish secret conspiracy controlling the White House, but he's very right about the legal and ethical principles behind the separation of church and state and that's why we keep him around. Claim that the other anti-war people who criticize the crazy anti-semitic guy are really just secretly trying to destroy the anti-war movement. Etc. Claim that the group he lectures to, the League of the Anti-Semetic Jew Haters, is maybe just a little racist but not terribly racist. Claim that 20 years ago the anti-war movement needed the support of Jew Haters, so alot of Pro Peace people sounded like that, but now we don't.

I'm sure I can get the apologetics of group 2 for crazy anti-semitic guy's behavior be closer to the libertarian movement and the people on this board's apologetics for Rockwell and Rothbard's "drumming up the racist vote" period. I admit it's not perfect but it's besides the point.

Am I ******ed if I encounter group 2 and I'm like "ehh you know what, I'm kind of uncomfortable about becoming Group Member 51"? I don't think so.

Back to teh Civil War: When the topic comes to the Civil War, libertarians should just be like "I strongly, 100% disavow all the **** about the South, every bit. I don't support the South's secession. I don't support their cause. I think the Confederates were some of the world's worst pieces of **** to ever inhibit the planet. That guy over there saying the South will Rise Again? He's a ****ing whacko loon job, nothing to do with us. Let's talk about something else, the end". Any time you stray even close to defending the lunacy, lots of non-******s are going to think you're not their cup of tea.

And yes I sincerely believe this. No concern trolling.

The problem with letting the Civil War slide is that it established a precedent for extremely abusive invasive and disruptive big government policies. I dont think anyone in this thread "supports" the South in the way you are suggesting, we are merely recognizing the fact that Lincoln's policies were egregious, reprehensible, and unjustifiable. Does that mean we don't think the same of the South's policies? No. But when we see the vicious consequences of fascist doctrines being implemented in the United States we call it out. A spade is a spade, and a Republican President who kills 600,000 people, suspends the writ of habeus corpus, issues an arrest warrant for the CJ of the US, imprisons the mayor of Baltimore, locks up some 30,000 political dissidents, shuts down hundreds of opposition newspapers, and authorizes the burning of an entire countryside, is a fascist warmonger. That's all "libertarians" have been trying to say.

Why is it so hard to believe that both sides in a conflict are wrong?

ahahahahahaha

ur the man

Then yes I agree with you.

edit: and it would be interesting to see people who are disagreeing with you respond to this post:

Because, according to exemplary Civil War historian from the libertarian perspective and Mises Institute fellow Thomas DiLorenzo, that is muddle headed confusion:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo82.html

In the words of Rothbard, the South was fighting for honor, while the North just the opposite:

So yeah, you can say both sides are wrong, but your opinion is not shared by DiLorenzo and Rothbard, who think that's muddled headed confusion and hope that someday the South's Fight For It's Honor will be recognized with Nathan Bedford Forrest statues.

You've translated "still actually happens" to "still ongoing".

You've changed the original "appealing to racists" to "white supremacist political outreach".

You've changed the sentence into a question.

And then you've inserted "by Rockwell et al", even though one person you quoted earlier specifically said that we don't have evidence he was responsible for them.


So explain to me how this is not a version of "have you stopped beating your wife yet" to disingenuously get me to agree with your assumed conclusion, and thus, Rockwell bashing.

After all, there is nothing ambiguous about what I said.