Yeah, I was never defending the LotS per se, I was just saying that the quote from the FAQ wasn't necessarily a racist statement. Although if they are calling for only allowing voluntary self-segregation rather than forced segregation by the state once it's free from Federal control, I would say that the goals of the organization are not exactly racist, but the members who want to pursue that goal and start up a whites-only voluntary community are racist. So if the LotS is not actually advocating forced segregation by the state but rather only the allowing of voluntary self-segregation, then I would say that it is possible to support the goals of the LotS and not be a racist. This would require that you wouldn't want to pursue any racist activity like starting a business with a "whites only" sign in the window. But I think that if that sort of segregation is actually the goal of the LotS, then the onus is on them to explicitly say that they are against segregation imposed by the state and only want to implement voluntary self-segregation.

http://mises.org/daily/614

Here is a book review about a book that charges against Rothbard some of the stuff that has been charged in this thread. The author replies to it in a lot of the same ways we did. Unless this is some giant conspiracy paleoconservative sneak attack I am not too worried about Rothbard's views on freedom.

They might well plan to use 7 & 8 for racist reasons, but on face value, they are goals in common with libertarianism. I would have thought 7 was about evolution and the 6,000 year old planet and not racism though.

We agreed on this on like page 2. Often being right isn't what's important.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chosen_people

Also, everyone thinks they are the chosen people. It's just human nature, it's pretty absurd to you've proven anything negative about a group for feeling this way(and being wrong).

I can tell you that for me, a long-time libertarian sympathizer, the Ron Paul phenomenon gave me hope that the cause of liberty was not lost after the general disillusionment I suffered at the hands of the Republican party who cynically, in word, but clearly not in deed, 'embraced' a libertarian plan of limited government and individual liberty.

Turns out, as soon as they gained power they were either immediately corrupted by it, or, finally having to govern as the majority party, their true colors as wolves of corporate/government power grabbing in libertarian sheep's clothing were exposed. [Same as the Dems, only they came at it from the other side]

Enter Ron Paul. I was I was a huge fan of Paul, sent him donations, and continue to do so, and voted for him. A true libertarian was actually having some success 'getting through.' I was dismayed when those newsletters put Paul on the defensive as a 'racist'. Other libertarian outfits, like CATO, I believe, had a right to be pissed off. So they were not huge fans of Paul before the letters hit CNN, maybe because they knew of the dark underbelly at RP's main man's - Rockwell and Rothbard's Von Mises, and Rockwell's LRC? I believed Paul when he said he did not write them, and I don't think he has a racist bone in his body. But someone close to him did.

Not knowing much about Mises or LRC other than that they are a constant source of linking by the ACers on this site, I was floored by the past and present bigoted drivel that seemed to seep out of them, evidenced by the racially charged (in my opinion) diatribes unearthed by reporters and bloggers engaged in commenting on the newsletter controversy. Rockwell and LRC started to attack in an ugly, personal, and unhinged manner those asking questions that I rightly thought should be asked.

These are my observations and my opinions from what I have read, I don't think they are something 'provable,' reasonable people can disagree on what constitutes racism. However, in my opinion, any reasonable person would agree that there is something 'rotten in Denmark' vis-a-vis race with Rothbard, Rockwell, and co and their charges at Mises and LRC, and that it has hurt the cause of libertarianism.

Outside of that I'd probably agree with at least the thrust of most of the content unrelated to race on Mises, or LRC. But I resent the way they have conducted themselves, and I think that Paul should unequivocally renounce and disassociate himself from them, and although I considered doing it, I will not donate any money to Mises, but will send my money to other libertarian causes.

I think the reason for this thread's length and passion is that it centers on a wedge issue, accusations of racism, that is at base of an ugly ongoing feud in libertarianism. Pretty obvious which side I am on.

I don't believe that a word of what any of those right wing talking heads says is their actual beliefs. One time I was listening to Hannity on the radio like 3 years ago, he was talking to a caller and got a little frustrated and said, concerning homosexuals, "I don't care what people do in their bedrooms, I'm a liber..." and then quickly cut himself off and changed what he was saying. Everything that they do is for ratings and money.

BuddyQ,
I agree with you. Also do not appreciate the general tone in this forum that one is either an all out anarcho-capitalist rugged individualist or a frothing at the mouth communist. And I don't think this is an unfair characterization of many threads here at all.

I certainly don't think that libertarians who want a state are treated in the manner you describe in this forum. I certainly think I treat statist libertarians with respect.

Buddy,

I find it ironic that by many reasonable definitions you are more of a supporter of hardcore Rothbardian Ron Paul than myself.

maybe we just disagree on what constitutes racism and the extent to which it has had, or has not had, a negative impact on libertarian politics. peace

The fact that "War of Northern Aggression" is such a low percentage compared to "Civil War" actually supports the idea that they aren't very neo-confederate over there.

You must be reading some other forum.

No; the quote is clearly against forcefull integration and not for forceful segregation; it is not racist.

I'm acknowledging that I read Rothbard. I'm defending him because he hasn't said anything racist and I happen to think he is right on the issue of the Civil War. I'm rejecting that saying "the South will rise again" is racist or even defending the South's secession is racist. Go ahead, keep on asserting that it is, but you are wrong.

I do not care if all the other libertarians say they haven't read Rothbard or whatever. I have. I'm calling you out on your assertion that it is inherently racist to support the South's secession.

I'll end this with a quote from Lysander Spooner, an abolitionist AND supporter of secession:

A government that can at pleasure accuse, shoot, and hang men, as traitors, for the one general offence of refusing to surrender themselves and their property unreservedly to its arbitrary will, can practice any and all special and particular oppressions it pleases. The result -- and a natural one -- has been that we have had governments, State and national, devoted to nearly every grade and species of crime that governments have ever practised upon their victims; and these crimes have culminated in a war that has cost a million of lives; a war carried on, upon one side, for chattel slavery, and on the other for political slavery; upon neither for liberty, justice, or truth. And these crimes have been committed, and this war waged, by men, and the descendants of men, who, less than a hundred years ago, said that all men were equal, and could owe neither service to individuals, nor allegiance to governments, except with their own consent.

No, it is absolutely not. Their right to secede is not based on their right to own slaves. In fact, their right to secede comes from the very thing that makes it wrong for them to own slaves to begin with.

You have also misconstrued my position. I was stating that Lincoln did not originally get elected on a platform of abolishing slavery (this is true). Sure, he got re-elected, but it is pretty dishonest to claim that is the reason he was re-elected, particularly considering that the election occurred during the war. Nice try though.

No, but it's certainly consistent with democratic principles.

Does this mean all the people of Alabama wanted to in this hypothetical? I saw some people saying they would support its right to secede and I'm not sure if they assumed this or not. If not, wouldn't supporting their right to secede also mean you support them being able to assert their positions on the unwilling in their area? Or is it just a 'if they don't like how its going to be they can just leave' thing?

Also, if you ban immigration but support slavery some of your people might not end up too happy.

I would support the fact that they have the legal and moral right to secede for any reason they want. I would speak up against them for doing so for these reasons and certainly never want to live in such a horrid place. As I have said before in this thread, it's the same as the free speech expresion. I don't support what they say, but I support their right to say it.

Why do you think that is clear? I think both statements are ambiguous on the topic.

Montius, you're welcome to revise your position so it is less historically inaccurate, as you have done here, but let's not pretend that I misrepresented anything that you said.

If you're going to go around calling people dishonest or attacking them for misconstruing your positions, you need to get it right the first time.

It is dishonest because Fly is trying to paint Lincoln as being some ardent abolitionist his whole political career and he wasn't. He absolutely wasn't.

If you think Lincoln introduced the 13th Amendment out of some genuine interest in black liberty, I'd say you are extremely mistaken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment

edit:

When looking at why Lincoln introduced the 13th Amendment its important to look at why he did it.

When looking at why the South tried to secede it is not important to look at why they did it.

I don't recall anyone making that argument, and it definitely wasn't the context of those initial posts (which had to do with saying that Rothbard couldn't possibly be for slavery because he was a libertarian while not similarly noting the manifold evidence that Lincoln opposed slavery as well. If his politics were initially lukewarm, it was a result of the Union-first attitude of the Republican party -- a platform Lincoln eventually changed).

Well summarized.

That quote would be more compelling if it accurately reflected the article it claims to source. It does not.

From the article wikipedia cites to justify the paragraph you quoted: Lincoln, in his Union-first attitude, didn't think the Corwin amendment would change anything, and so didn't actively oppose it. Not that it matters, since he wasn't a part of the ratification process.

Here's the part which shows the inventiveness of the wikipedia editor:

and finally,

Of course this is important.

Nobody has argued this. The reason the South tried to secede has absolutely nothing to do with their right to do so. It is in the same way that what a hatemonger has the right to say has absolutely nothing to do with their right to say it. Are you about to argue that defending someone's right to say whatever they want is equivalent to agreeing with what they say?

Erm...

He has said similar things throughout this thread too.