Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Libertarians should abandon the Right Libertarians should abandon the Right

11-11-2012 , 07:46 PM
Aaaaaaand we're back. Election? What election?
11-11-2012 , 07:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by la6ki
It's true that his voting history shows no evidence of any sort of racism. This whole made up scandal was brought up to kill his momentum in the race and stupid people fell for it. He was the only person to threaten the establishment (both the Left and the Right) who had a legitimate chance to win the race and both sides united against him quite successfully.
Haha wow. This is what paul fans actually believe?
11-11-2012 , 07:54 PM
No gubment = pedos gone wild.
11-11-2012 , 07:54 PM
Quote:
No, the source matters alot also. Tons of smart people are not going to take the time to judge something based on it's content if it comes from a ludicrous source.

Quote:
Originally Posted by la6ki
Only dumb people would reject good content only because of the source. There are several logical fallacies associated with this type of "reasoning" (as well as with its inverse).
Only dumb people can't read a sentence and understand what it means imo
11-11-2012 , 08:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by la6ki
Can you get any more ignorant, seriously? Who told you that according to voluntarism it's allowed to buy/sell children?
Murray Rothbard
11-11-2012 , 08:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomdemaine
Aaaaaaand we're back. Election? What election?
I almost suspect this la6ki guy to be a statist plant.
11-11-2012 , 08:15 PM
To the seastead!
11-11-2012 , 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dessin d'enfant
Only dumb people can't read a sentence and understand what it means imo
Fair enough, misread what you said.

Still, if you engage somebody in an argument and they give you a response to a question you raised, it's silly to refuse to even take the time to look at it just because the source seems "unserious" to you (I already pointed out that Youtube videos are not unserious by default, as there are many really high quality channels on many topics, including science and politics). Because if you're going to reject his sources as unworthy of your time, then the question arises as to why you engage that person in an argument in the first place.

The whole "point" about Youtube not being a serious source and that's why Phill didn't take it seriously is just stupid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
Murray Rothbard
Where?

Last edited by MrWookie; 11-12-2012 at 02:04 PM.
11-11-2012 , 08:37 PM
Oh man are we really going to get to play the "teach people their own political beliefs" game?

Before we start, can we establish that a flourishing free market in children is, in fact, a bad thing? You clutched your pearls in shock at the suggestion, I don't want you backtracking and ending up saying that buying and selling children is a good thing after all.

Last edited by FlyWf; 11-11-2012 at 08:50 PM.
11-11-2012 , 08:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dessin d'enfant
This was already explained before you started posting itt

"He [paul] didn't get anything rolling. Even stuff like marijuana legalization isn't get passed because of his "states can do anything they want from banning sodomy to legalizing pot" logic. It's from liberals and middle of the road people who don't think the federal government is evil but just think pot isn't either."

Libertarians are against the federal government putting people in jail for marijuana and they are against states doing so for the exact same reasons. States rights nutbags think it's fine when state governments arrest people for drug use.
LOLobliviosaments
11-11-2012 , 09:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by la6ki
I don't know who "we guys" are supposed to be, but I'm not responsible for what other Ron Paul supporters have said.

It's true that his voting history shows no evidence of any sort of racism. This whole made up scandal was brought up to kill his momentum in the race and stupid people fell for it. He was the only person to threaten the establishment (both the Left and the Right) who had a legitimate chance to win the race and both sides united against him quite successfully.

In any case, EVEN IF he really turned out to be a racist or not a racist but appealing to racists 40 years ago to make money, I honestly couldn't care less in the context of today's politics. The person you support is responsible for the deliberate deaths of hundreds of civilians and the indirect deaths of thousands of others. You have no problem voting for a murderer but otherwise are the most self-righteous bigot - "LOL how can you support a racist?!"

I'd pick a racist over a murderer any day.



Oh, you've gotta be pretty ignorant to say that. His political history shows no evidence of volyntarism? He hasn't voted to raise taxes a single time, he's always been pro-choice on 99% of the issues. No evidence? Do you even know what the **** you're talking about?
Do I know what I am talking about?

I am talking about Ron Paul showing no evidence he is an anarchist which is what the entire point of this sub-discussion was about. WTF are you talking about? Not voting to raise taxes doesnt make you an anarchist.
11-11-2012 , 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by la6ki
Still, if you engage somebody in an argument and they give you a response to a question you raised, it's silly to refuse to even take the time to look at it just because the source seems "unserious" to you (I already pointed out that Youtube videos are not unserious by default, as there are many really high quality channels on many topics, including science and politics). Because if you're going to reject his sources as unworthy of your time, then the question arises as to why you engage that person in an argument in the first place.
Sure there is a ton of good content on youtube, but I don't think it's unreasonable to have a short lease just because there is so much absolute crap on youtube.
11-11-2012 , 09:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeBlis
LOLobliviosaments
Expert play in not trying to understand or respond to anything.
11-11-2012 , 09:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
Pedo-Vegas though - with well-funded DROs. Visit anytime! Spend plenty while you're here.

Also doesn't vigilantism violate the NAP?
Not when you start the aggression. And go visit that place, you are never coming back alive.
11-11-2012 , 09:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by la6ki

Where?
You didn't know about the Spanish Civil War...

...and you don't really know about Rothbard....

Surprise, surprise...
11-11-2012 , 09:33 PM
Most people on the left have zero commitment to personal freedoms. This is evidenced by how jubilant people were when Obama got reelected.

Economic freedom tends to lead to personal freedom over time. Social freedom and political freedom don't necessarily lead to more economic freedom.

The focus right now more than ever should be on fiscal and monetary issues. The empirical evidence shows that economic freedom has a direct correlation to prosperity. The right is willing to at least pay lip service to less regulation, a flat tax or consumption tax, and entitlement reform. These are winnable issues.

Rothbard doesn't equate to be libertarian. Friedman, Hayek, Mises, Bastiat, and Jefferson all have differing ideas from Rothbard on the role of government.
11-11-2012 , 09:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dessin d'enfant
Expert play in not trying to understand or respond to anything.
LOL ill get to that when you post something worthwhile. Meanwhile I will sit content in a greater understanding of this subject than you can hope to fathom and laugh at your sad attempt at trolling.
11-11-2012 , 09:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by glenrice1
Most people on the left have zero commitment to personal freedoms. This is evidenced by how jubilant people were when Obama got reelected.

Economic freedom tends to lead to personal freedom over time. Social freedom and political freedom don't necessarily lead to more economic freedom.

The focus right now more than ever should be on fiscal and monetary issues. The empirical evidence shows that economic freedom has a direct correlation to prosperity. The right is willing to at least pay lip service to less regulation, a flat tax or consumption tax, and entitlement reform. These are winnable issues.

Rothbard doesn't equate to be libertarian. Friedman, Hayek, Mises, Bastiat, and Jefferson all have differing ideas from Rothbard on the role of government.
Guess we should all wait on right-wingers to give us our personal freedom. Because they always has marched with gays, blacks, and other minority groups...
11-11-2012 , 09:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borodog
Murray Rothbard, who pretty much inventented modern libertarianism,
Quote:
Originally Posted by glenrice1
Rothbard doesn't equate to be libertarian. Friedman, Hayek, Mises, Bastiat, and Jefferson all have differing ideas from Rothbard on the role of government.
I'll let you two sort this out amongst yourself
11-11-2012 , 10:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomCollins
Not when you start the aggression. And go visit that place, you are never coming back alive.
Is it aggression if the child consents?

Also why would Pedo-Vegas kill their customers? Does regular Vegas kill their customers?
11-11-2012 , 10:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeBlis
LOL ill get to that when you post something worthwhile. Meanwhile I will sit content in a greater understanding of this subject than you can hope to fathom and laugh at your sad attempt at trolling.
Lol, everybody in this forum no doubt appreciates your erudition on the rare occasions when you chose to share it.


Spoiler:
Not really though....
11-11-2012 , 10:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by la6ki
No, false. Many people take certain Youtube videos seriously, because smart people decide to take something seriously based on its content, not based on the source.



But kidding aside, I'm giving you guys some solid advice here if you're trying to persuade people to seriously think about volunaryanarcholibertariawhateverism: no one will take your youtube videos seriously, ever.
11-11-2012 , 10:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
I'll let you two sort this out amongst yourself
Borodog often uses the terms "Libertarianism" and "tinfoil hat anarcho-capitalist" interchangeably.

I wish he wouldn't. It's horrible for the movement.

He's definitely in the Noory party IMO.
11-11-2012 , 10:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by la6ki
In any case, EVEN IF he really turned out to be a racist or not a racist but appealing to racists 40 years ago to make money,
There's no "EVEN IF" to it. He let horrible race-baiting newsletters go out in his name for years. There is zero chance he didn't know about this. Which means either a) he's a racist or much worse imo b) he has no problem agitating an already unstable element of society (think Tim McVeigh crowd) for a quick buck. By use of his status as an ex-congressman, he lent an air of legitimacy to over-the-top conspiracy theories right and left. There's no telling how much damage that has done.





I tend to agree with you that RP isn't a - racist based everything his inner-circle has ever said or written about him. Which makes the newsletters much worse for me. Completely reprehensible. RP is a false profit who will follow the money to whatever group latches onto him.
11-11-2012 , 10:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by la6ki
Only dumb people would reject good content only because of the source. There are several logical fallacies associated with this type of "reasoning" (as well as with its inverse).
Formally you're correct but in practical terms any worthwhile idea will definitely have a source other than a youtube video to back it up. It's like you're having an IRL conversation and are writing your arguments on pieces of paper and making them into paper aeroplanes and throwing them at the person you're talking to. Formally you might say they should just open the aeroplanes and read what you're saying, but you can't really get up on your high-horse if people walk away.

      
m