Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"A satisfying slap in the face to racism and parochialism"
Left-libertarian Roderick Long offers some good reasons why he's "more pleased than not" with Tuesday's election results:
Sure, Obama is a corporate liberal whose policies are not really any less fascistic or imperialistic than McCain's, but a) he at least seems less trigger-happy than McCain; b) culturally, his election is a satisfying slap in the face to racism and parochialism (it's great to see a black person at last in the nation's highest-profile and most influential job—I just wish the nation's highest-profile and most influential job weren't the goddamn presidency)...
More here. Gene Healy on how the goddamn president became so influential here.
Hogan|11.7.08 @ 6:18PM|#
...his election is a satisfying slap in the face to attitudes
some other people have that i don't like!
oh yeah, sure he'll be just as bad for freedom (and probably worse
for expanding government).
i'm a libertarian der der der
|11.7.08 @ 6:23PM|#
One can not be a leftist and a libertarian. They are mutually exclusive as leftism requires taxes.
Elemenope|11.7.08 @ 6:24PM|#
...his election is a satisfying slap in the face to
attitudes some other people have that I don't like!
Yeah. Because all attitudes and beliefs are morally equal, and
we're not allowed to decide when it's a good or bad thing that some
get slapped down.
Relativist bastard.
Elemenope|11.7.08 @ 6:25PM|#
One can not be a leftist and a libertarian. They are
mutually exclusive as leftism requires taxes.
Whereas the true libertarian believes that the minimal state will
be supported by the good will and love of its citizens, rather than
taxes.
Okaaaay.
Hogan|11.7.08 @ 6:33PM|#
lmnop - ?? nothing to do with the validity of disliking racism or parochialism. just if you make that a political priority over restraining government activity, it's a stretch to consider you a libertarian. i didn't rtfa, so perhaps it comes heavily qualified. but it seems in keeping with weigelism.
|11.7.08 @ 6:33PM|#
"One can not be a leftist and a libertarian. They are
mutually exclusive as leftism requires taxes."
But in today's climate, rightism requires wiretapping.
|11.7.08 @ 6:36PM|#
I gotta agree with Elemenope. I wouldn't mind dukin' the government a few grand on my way out as long as they stay out of the way while I'm here.
Travis|11.7.08 @ 6:41PM|#
"One can not be a leftist and a libertarian."
Who made you the decision maker for who is or isn't a
libertarian?
|11.7.08 @ 6:42PM|#
"They are mutually exclusive as leftism requires taxes."
Enjoy the time in the woods there...a lot more than leftism
requires taxes. This is the kind of shit my eight-year-old nephew
went on about until he realized he made use of public (leftist,
taxed) goods within seconds upon leaving his house on a daily
basis. It shut him up pretty quick, others, not so much.
nj|11.7.08 @ 6:44PM|#
Last time I checked, most libertarians support a night-watchman state. A state that requires taxation.
Elemenope|11.7.08 @ 6:49PM|#
Hogan,
Perhaps I was a little harsh, but I thought the first sentence of
the quoted section of the article was qualification enough to
assume he didn't think that defeating racism and parochialism were
to be the first priorities of a libertarian.
Colonel_Angus|11.7.08 @ 6:56PM|#
The posted excerpt of the article, which I did not read the rest
of, is at least better than Steve Chapman having an orgasm all over
himself about Obama....
I agree with Hogan. I don't give a shit about the race bullshit.
Obama's policies are going to suck, especially the economic
policies, but also probably the ones regarding individual freedom.
I would kill for a big, fat, blind, gay, black, scientologist
democrat as long as they would get the government to fuck off.
|11.7.08 @ 7:01PM|#
The fact that the government "provides" something, often with a compulsory monopoly, is in no way an argument in favor of the idea that the government's the best way for people to get that something.
Argon|11.7.08 @ 7:01PM|#
It's also a nice slap in the face to the coal industry,
apparenrly.
http://finance.google.com/finance?catid=63467772
|11.7.08 @ 7:02PM|#
There are a lot of different strains and schools of libertarian thought. Some are anarchist, some are minarchist, some are purely utilitarian. There's really no reason why they shouldn't all be considered to fall under the umbrella term "libertarian", though.
Jerry|11.7.08 @ 7:09PM|#
To be fair, libertarians were the original left, that was, until the socialists of different stripes came around.
Orange Line Special|11.7.08 @ 7:19PM|#
Roderick Long doesn't appear to be too very bright.
Part of his argument is dealt with in my list of twenty
non-partisan reasons to oppose Obama. For the rest, note that
white racists in the U.S. have very little power, while the
non-white racists have at least a little more power because of
BHO's win. And, the non-white ethno-centricists have a great deal
more power and are currently competing for spots.
But, all that is OK with me, since I'm special
too!
Yes, I'm not as special as others, but at least I'm more special
than Regulars like Matt Welch.
|11.7.08 @ 7:19PM|#
Roderick Long is not a "leftist" in the sense that he wants taxes or anything like that. The guy is a free market anarchist. Left libertarians are not "pro-state" libertarians, they are of the left in the sense that they take issues like racism, feminism, and severe economic inequality seriously and argue that these issues can only be dealt with justly in a libertarian society. Further they argue that the problems to which most on the left point to criticize the free market actually have their roots in the actions of states. Long is one of the best minds in the libertarian movement, it's a shame that more libertarians aren't familiar with his work.
|11.7.08 @ 7:23PM|#
"I agree with Hogan. I don't give a shit about the race
bullshit. Obama's policies are going to suck, especially the
economic policies, but also probably the ones regarding individual
freedom."
Look, you are really missing the point. Democrats and Republicans
win elections back and forth in this nation. Both sides suck as far
as libertarianism goes. Perhaps Obama sucks worse than McCain, but
it was surely debatable. Given that, and given that racism has been
a horrible stain on our nation's history, it is actually a good
thing that this nation, which would not have let Barak Obama attend
most law schools mere decades ago, elected the man as the leader of
the nation. I feel sorry for anyone who can't see the silver lining
in that...
|11.7.08 @ 7:25PM|#
"Roderick Long doesn't appear to be too very bright."
It's a bird! It's a plane! It's SuperUnintentionalIronyMan!
Franklin Harris|11.7.08 @ 7:26PM|#
I just wish the nation's highest-profile and most influential job weren't the goddamn presidency...
If Obama weren't so convinced he's
Superman, he could be the goddamn Batman, I
guess.
Franklin Harris|11.7.08 @ 7:28PM|#
Roderick Long doesn't appear to be too very bright.
That's it. Show's over! Goodnight, everybody. Be sure to tip your
waitress on the way out.
Hogan|11.7.08 @ 7:28PM|#
they take issues like racism, feminism, and severe economic
inequality seriously and argue that these issues can only be dealt
with justly in a libertarian society.
then how much can you celebrate the likely illusory racial progress
represented by the election of a social democrat?
i would be more enthused about obama's election if i thought it
actually was "transcendant" or "post-racial" or something. his race
and the historic nature of his candidacy was (cue joe or whoever
else to snit about it) his biggest selling point. not to be
entirely dismissive of his considerable political skills, but this
makes him a bit of an affirmative action candidate, which i don't
think is meaningful progress towards colorblind meritocracy.
Hogan|11.7.08 @ 7:32PM|#
something to be said for black republicans is that they are typically judged by their works (and their UNCLE TOM HOUSE SLAVERY) rather than their symbolism
|11.7.08 @ 7:36PM|#
Hogan
African Americans make up about 10-20% of our population throughout
our history. We've had 40+ Presidential elections. If we were a
colorblind meritocracy then we, by chance, would have had a black
President by now.
We have not. That fact would make me, were I black, that the stuff
about this nation being a colorblind meritocracy think that was all
bullshit. And I think I would have a point.
Now that point is less effective, right? So Obama's election
negates a major argument against seeing this nation as a colorblind
meritocracy...
And if you're going to have affirmative action then give me a
Harvard Law Grad who is so eloquent any day. It's not like they put
Fred Sanford in office just to say we had a black guy. The guy is a
pretty effective orator which is often associated with good
Presidents...
|11.7.08 @ 7:40PM|#
It's hard for me to buy the argument that all those white folks in Iowa voted for Obama just cuz they wanted to say they voted for a black guy. Because there were plenty mostly white states that did not vote for him. I think some voters held his race against him, so used it as a reason to vote for him, but most asked if the guy was the better candidate and wanted to give him a chance.
Mad Max|11.7.08 @ 7:41PM|#
Was Janice Rogers Brown becoming a member of the California
Supreme Court a slap to racism and parochialism? What about her
nomination to the Ninth Circuit federal appeals court? She's not
only black, she's a woman, too!
Janice Rogers Brown for President! I'm sure that the tingly-legged
Obama supporters would be happy to get behind that, right?
Elemenope|11.7.08 @ 7:42PM|#
The guy is a pretty effective orator which is often
associated with good Presidents...
Though not always. Kennedy could string some nice words together,
but he was a fairly useless president.
And I personally am not into Reagan-worship, but he also had a way
of delivering lines that could be compelling, despite the fact he
ballooned the size of our government, escalated the War on Drugs,
and screwed AIDS patients on the way out.
Lee Elia|11.7.08 @ 7:43PM|#
F*ck those f*ckin' fans who come out here and say they're Cub
fans that are supposed to be behind you, rippin' every f*ckin'
thing you do. I'll tell you one f*ckin' thing, I hope we get
f*ckin' hotter than sh*t, just to stuff it up them 3,000 f*ckin'
people that show up every f*ckin' day, because if they're the real
Chicago f*ckin' fans, they can kiss my f*ckin' ass right downtown
and PRINT IT.
They're really, really behind you around here...my f*ckin' ass.
What the f*ck am I supposed to do, go out there and let my f*ckin'
players get destroyed every day and be quiet about it? For the
f*ckin' nickel-dime people who turn up? The motherf*ckers don't
even work. That's why they're out at the f*ckin' game. They oughta
go out and get a f*ckin' job and find out what it's like to go out
and earn a f*ckin' living. Eighty-five percent of the f*ckin' world
is working. The other fifteen percent come out here. A f*ckin'
playground for the cocks*ckers. Rip them motherf*ckers. Rip them
f*ckin' cocks*ckers like the f*ckin' players. We got guys bustin'
their f*ckin' ass, and them f*ckin' people boo. And that's the
Cubs? My f*ckin' ass. They talk about the great f*ckin' support the
players get around here. I haven't see it this f*ckin' year.
Everybody associated with this organization have been winners their
whole f*ckin' life. Everybody. And the credit is not given in that
respect.
Alright, they don't show because we're 5 and 14...and
unfortunately, that's the criteria of them dumb fifteen
motherf*ckin' percent that come out to day baseball. The other
eighty-five percent are earning a living. I tell you, it'll take
more than a 5 and 12 or 5 and 14 to destroy the makeup of this
club. I guarantee you that. There's some f*ckin' pros out there
that wanna win. But you're stuck in a f*ckin' stigma of the f*ckin'
Dodgers and the Phillies and the Cardinals an all that cheap sh*t.
It's unbelievable. It really is. It's a disheartening f*ckin'
situation that we're in right now. Anybody who was associated with
the Cub organization four or five years ago that came back and sees
the multitude of progress that's been made will understand that if
they're baseball people, that 5 and 14 doesn't negate all that
work. We got 143 f*ckin' games left.
What I'm tryin' to say is don't rip them f*ckin' guys out there.
Rip me. If you wanna rip somebody, rip my f*ckin' ass. But don't
rip them f*ckin' guys 'cause they're givin' everything they can
give. And right now they're tryin' to do more than God gave 'em,
and that's why we make the simple mistakes. That's exactly why.
Hogan|11.7.08 @ 7:44PM|#
didn't say we were a colorblind meritocracy, just that that's where progress should ideally be headed. does requiring less accomplishment from a black candidate for a position (because of the moral satisfaction involved) advance that cause? or is it pretty patronizing? obama hasn't done anything but tell whoever he's speaking to that they'll get whatever they want. he does it with a strong voice and good diction. i don't consider that all that great, all that promising of executive ability, or all that indicative that we are 'getting past' race. just that we're fetishizing it a bit, as we've been doing for the past few decades.
Elemenope|11.7.08 @ 7:44PM|#
Mad Max --
Oh come on, that's simplifying the point to the end of silly. It's
an amalgamation of policy and race that got people
on the left excited.
It would be like me expecting you to really like a Social Democrat
candidate just because he happened to be Catholic.
|11.7.08 @ 7:46PM|#
"One can not be a leftist and a libertarian. They are mutually
exclusive as leftism requires taxes."
I suppose you never heard of the anti-state Left during the Soviet
Union days?
Is it just me, or do most libertarians in America not give a shit
about personal liberty? It seems, whenever I read some column or
article or posting on a message board online, or read the LP
website, they talk a big game about economic freedom, but only
about 1/3rd of the time do they ever talk about SOCIAL freedom (gay
marriage, private drug use, abortion rights, etc.). Why is this??
Is individual liberty in private somehow less important than
economic freedom for your finances or business?
Both are essential. I'm not averse to pro-growth and pro-freedom
economics, but the thing I have a problem with is that most
libertarians don't seem to understand how much deregulation
oftentimes has an effect on tipping the scales towards fatcats and
against workers. Libertarians should be more like Ron Paul on
economics- believing in pro-growth policies but still being able to
criticize excessive corporate power and being FOR small
entrepeneurs and citizens, not giant CEOs making billions.
Mad Max|11.7.08 @ 7:48PM|#
LMNOP,
I don't support Judge Brown because she's black. I don't support
her because she's a woman. I support her because she denounced the
New Deal for what it was, and because she upholds the constition
and the laws.
Leftoids and neocons oppose her for the same reasons. Her color and
race don't help her because she is the *wrong* kind of black person
and the *wrong* kind of woman.
Sam Grove|11.7.08 @ 7:50PM|#
Tell me what and how much government we absolutely cannot do without, and maybe we can think of a way to pay for it without giving it the absolute power to tax.
Elemenope|11.7.08 @ 7:54PM|#
Mad Max --
And the point you're seeing fit to miss is that almost nobody
supported Obama *because* he is black. That's just a bonus for
history's sake. They supported him because rhetorically he's the
Anti-Bush and policy-wise he's to the left of where we've been the
past eight years.
SIV|11.7.08 @ 7:54PM|#
he at least seems less trigger-happy than McCain
LBJ "seemed less trigger-happy" than Goldwater
I certainly hope that "left-libertarian" doesn't mean
collectivist-libertarian 'cause that doesn't mean anything at
all.
|11.7.08 @ 7:55PM|#
Hogan
If people voted solely on race then Alan Keyes would be
President.
He ain't.
I mean, c'mon. You don't think it's a showing of improvement in
this nation when it can elect a man from a group that was so
ill-treated mere decades ago that they were not allowed to drink
from the same water-fountain as you and I?
Hogan|11.7.08 @ 7:57PM|#
lmnop - john edwards is rhetorically skilled and tacked further to the left than obama during the primaries. how'd that work out? i'm not saying it's the only thing, but the enthusiasm many white people felt to Make History was huge. if you don't believe that, i will refer you to the election night status updates of all of my white facebook friends.
|11.7.08 @ 7:57PM|#
I certainly hope that "right-libertarian" doesn't mean theocrat-libertarian 'cause that doesn't mean anything at all.
|11.7.08 @ 7:59PM|#
Are there any people on the right who are not theocrats these
days?
I think I'll just use the word theocon for the right from now
on...
Daniel Reeves|11.7.08 @ 7:59PM|#
This is the kind of shit my eight-year-old nephew went on about until he realized he made use of public (leftist, taxed) goods within seconds upon leaving his house on a daily basis. It shut him up pretty quick, others, not so much.
Wait wait wait, your eight year old nephew spews political
diatribes?
Elemenope|11.7.08 @ 7:59PM|#
Brandon --
I think it's a function of a few things.
First, economic liberty has always been more marginal in American
political discourse than social liberty, and so it requires more
effort to fight for.
Second, since libertarians have by-and-large been closely snuggled
with the GOP since 1964, they have had to restrict their public
arguments on social liberty so as not to piss off their erstwhile
social conservative political allies.
Third, the history of the US has for reasons both coincidental and
substantial caused the fight for social justice to be associated
directly with the strength of the State. After all, the free market
did not give Blacks or women the vote, end slavery, or much else
for that matter in the realm of social liberty. A strong state put
troops in classrooms to desegregate the South. A weak state would
not have been able to do so.
Elemenope|11.7.08 @ 8:00PM|#
LBJ "seemed less trigger-happy" than Goldwater.
And he probably was.
Scary, no?
Hogan|11.7.08 @ 8:01PM|#
ced - or shirley chisholm. gosh it's almost like you have to be minimally plausible and they'll sweep you in. sharpton, et al... not so much. sure i guess it's an improvement, but i'll keep from getting too excited until a minority gets elected based on the content of his character, the strength of his ideas and the nature of his accomplishments. rather than his ability to get people to Believe.
SIV|11.7.08 @ 8:01PM|#
African Americans make up about 10-20% of our population
throughout our history.
As Crow Eating Dumbass is a Virginian, and I am a Georgian, I'll
remind him that African- Americans made up 40% of our population
between 1861-1865.
SIV|11.7.08 @ 8:03PM|#
LBJ "seemed less trigger-happy" than Goldwater.
And he probably was.
And how did that work out?
|11.7.08 @ 8:09PM|#
Brandon,
It's not just you. For me, if it were "personal freedom or economic
freedom - choose one", it would be a no brainer for me to pick the
first, even though a lot of the freedoms (smoking weed, hiring
prostitutes, entering into a contractually recognised gay
relationship) are not freedoms that I would personally choose to
enjoy. Every time I read "there's no such thing as a libertarian
Democrat", etc, it comes across to me as "I would cheerfully toss
gay rights in the trash if I could wipe 10% off the top tax
rate".
Elemenope|11.7.08 @ 8:10PM|#
I'll keep from getting too excited until a minority gets
elected based on the content of his character, the strength of his
ideas and the nature of his accomplishments. rather than his
ability to get people to Believe.
Getting people to believe is no mean feat. I mean, put it this way:
could *you* get millions of people to fawn over you while using
little but vague rhetoric? If not, you gotta respect the skillz,
even if you don't respect the man.
|11.7.08 @ 8:10PM|#
Uhh, yeah SIV, but I think you're fellow "enlightened"
Georgians, kind of, uh, kept them as slaves. They did not vote.
Nationally they were 10-20% of the pop, and I was using that to
show how strange it must seem that no black man won a position of
prominence. Can I point out that although blacks were 40% of the
Georgia pop there were not any elected to high office. It kinda had
to do with a wholesale denial of their human rights by your
ancestors...
And I moved from VA to more civilized Northern climes long
ago...
Mad Max|11.7.08 @ 8:13PM|#
LMNOP,
President-elect Obama's victory involves more than race, but there
are those who were greatly influenced by his race.
To find racial obsession from then-candidate Obama's supporters, I
only had to go to a
front-page article in my own home town's alternative weekly
newspaper.
Elemenope|11.7.08 @ 8:14PM|#
And how did that work out?
Poorly. But if you're suggesting we would have done better electing
a guy who would as like as not nuked Indochina off the face of the
Earth, I'd say you were completely cracked.
Less hawkish than Goldwater does not mean dovish, by any means!
Hogan|11.7.08 @ 8:17PM|#
lmnop - oh i definitely don't hate the player, i hate the game.
and am unimpressed with the implications of his race.
as for the other conversation in this thread, i'd just point out
that thinking that dems are going to do something like jack or shit
about letting people smoke weed or hire prostitutes is pretty
misguided. and both obama and biden (and plenty of other national
democrats) claim to oppose gay marriage. thinking the dems are
going to go culturally libertarian on these things (and commit
complete suicide), is i think somehow even less realistic than
thinking the gop will actually embrace small government.
|11.7.08 @ 8:18PM|#
"but there are those who were greatly influenced by his
race."
Both ways though, for sure.
"But if you're suggesting we would have done better electing a guy
who would as like as not nuked Indochina off the face of the Earth,
I'd say you were completely cracked."
Indeed. Because Goldwater would have pulled us out of Nam and
legalized drugs (sarcasm)
|11.7.08 @ 8:26PM|#
"i'd just point out that thinking that dems are going to do
something like jack or shit about letting people smoke weed or hire
prostitutes is pretty misguided."
Like publicly saying they will oppose the fed raids in CA where MJ
is practically legal?
"thinking the dems are going to go culturally libertarian on these
things (and commit complete suicide)"
So you recognize that liberals only act against such things because
conservatives attack them on it when they act for such things?
thanks, that proves us left-leaning guy's point: it's the cons that
are the fucking problem.
Mad Max|11.7.08 @ 8:28PM|#
"I'd like to know if North Carolina is a 'Peoples Republic'
now."
Yes, if you mean that most of the voters voted for the two
pro-nationalization candidates. The same can be said of all of the
other states.
Interstingly,
Obama's margin of victory was less than the vote for Barr.
|11.7.08 @ 8:42PM|#
Hogan's point about liberals not supporting Janis Rogers Brown
refutes Hogan's point about why people allegedly supported Barack
Obama.
Even if he uses the phrase "the wrong kind of black person" to make
disagreeing with her politics sound sinister.
Hogan|11.7.08 @ 8:43PM|#
point about CA is probly valid. i've never lived out West so it seems possible that Dems actually do something about drugs out there. in the east and on the national level, doesn't happen. and it's not conservative opposition that tables things like legalizing prostitution. when complete democratic control of the federal government (and most northeastern states) leads to liberalized laws about prostitution and reduced penalties for hard drugs, i'll retract. those aren't the democrats real priorities.
|11.7.08 @ 8:44PM|#
Regarding people's attitudes, that's their persona private
business. As long as their racism and parochialism aren't coerced
onto others, libertarians should not have a problem with them as a
matter of policy. Yeah, some racists are likely to impose their
racism on others through gummint, but many others would be just
happy building a wall around their compound to prevent the
enlightened outside world from intruding.
p.s. Last I checked the party thrown out of power is definitely
parochial, but it is no more racist than the party gaining
power.
Hogan|11.7.08 @ 8:45PM|#
thanks for the requisite speculations about subliminal racism, though. you're always good for that.
|11.7.08 @ 8:46PM|#
You want to know why, and how, supporting a black candidate is a
big deal?
This is why.
http://ashpolitics.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/richard-trumkas-excellent-speech/
This kind of thing happened all across America.
It's all well and good to talk about how much you want race not to
matter. Oh, wouldn't it be nice...?
But that's something that has to be brought about, because we've
got issues in this society.
After the past couple of years, maybe we've got a little
less.
I'm happy about that. Sue me.
|11.7.08 @ 8:54PM|#
You know what else makes me happy? All the race-baiting done in
this campaign to tear Barack Obama down. The Kenyan thing, the
madrassa thing, the birth certificate thing, the backwards B, the
implausible evocation of welfare during the Joe the Plumber
episode, the "real America" shtick - all of it.
You know why that makes me happy? Because it fucking failed. Huge,
epic fail.
I love that. It was awesome to see, and that kind of thing is going
to play much less of a role in our politics in the future...because
it failed so spectacularly.
But I guess it's "obsessive" of me to notice that. I'm just
supposed to pine for a racially-just, equal society without racism,
but only silently, because talking about it or even noticing when
something good happens towards that end is wrong. So terribly,
terribly wrong.
Abdul Alhazred|11.7.08 @ 8:57PM|#
"One can not be a leftist and a libertarian. They are
mutually exclusive as leftism requires taxes."
Democrat tax-and-spend policy is better than Republican
borrow-and-spend.
Mad Max|11.7.08 @ 8:57PM|#
joe,
I can't seem to locate Hogan's posts about Janice Rogers Brown.
Perhaps you could give me a link? I would love to find an example
of Hogan supporting my points.
It seems that you are so determined to find inconsistency in
Hogan's positions that you are imputing my statements to him. One
non-liberal is pretty much like another, I suppose. After all, they
all look pretty much alike, don't they?
Mad Max|11.7.08 @ 8:59PM|#
"You know why that makes me happy? Because it fucking failed.
Huge, epic fail."
I think it helped get Obama elected. Further evidence of Republican
fecklessness, if you ask me.
|11.7.08 @ 9:07PM|#
Wow, you're getting all worked up because I misattributed to you
an argument exactly like your own?
Mmm-kay. Wow, you reallly got me there.
I'm going to go back to being happy now.
|11.7.08 @ 9:10PM|#
One non-liberal is pretty much like another, I suppose.
After all, they all look pretty much alike, don't they?
I love it when people who are really awkward discussing racial
issues misuse terminology they've heard from liberals.
It's cute. Seriously, what is that even supposed to mean? I used
the wrong handle, so, that's kinda sorta like thinking black people
all look alike?
One again, chastened am I.
Sam Grove|11.7.08 @ 9:15PM|#
Certainly there are those who are happy an African-American won the election, but I think the GOP worked mighty hard to lose this election and they should get credit for that.
Mad Max|11.7.08 @ 9:17PM|#
I haven't been "awkward discussing racial issues," I simply
haven't been singing off your hymnal. You simply assume that anyone
who disagrees with you is an apologetic Republican who is
constantly insisting "I'm not a racist, I'm not a racist, please
don't criticize me!"
*You* have expressed a great deal of awkwardness on the subject of
racial discrimination. cf, "Affirmative action."
You confused a poster who identified himself as "Hogan" with a
poster who identified himself as "Mad Max." I can see how you might
blur the distinction, because those two names both seem very
similar. It's curious that nobody else manifested similar
confusion. But that's OK - it's a perfectly normal
misunderstanding, which anyone else could have made.
If you're not feeling awkward about this, that says a *lot* more
about you than about the white supremacists of your fevered
imagination.
Hogan|11.7.08 @ 9:24PM|#
Mad Max - it just so happens i am settling down with a bottle of Jim Beam black to watch your namesake film.
Mad Max|11.7.08 @ 9:28PM|#
Hogan,
Say what you will about Mel Gibson's atrocious personal behavior,
as an artist/director/actor he *rules.*
Elemenope|11.7.08 @ 9:28PM|#
Democrat tax-and-spend policy is better than Republican
borrow-and-spend.
I've been saying that shit for years.
Not that either one is, like, good at all, but one is certainly
better than the other.
|11.7.08 @ 9:40PM|#
My God, the "they all look alike" thing didn't work! Quick, find
a way to say "affirmative action!"
Still coming! "White guilt! White guilt!"
Are there any more cliches in here? Load the silverware into the
cannon!
Mad Max|11.7.08 @ 10:12PM|#
joe,
Damn, you are *good.* You get caught with your pants around your
ankles, and you can still say that the moral obloquy attaches to
those who presume to take note of your pantsless condition.
Just to recap: I made some points about Janice Rogers Brown, and
you said this:
"Hogan's point about liberals not supporting Janis Rogers Brown
refutes Hogan's point about why people allegedly supported Barack
Obama."
Bear in mind, as joe himself (belatedly) acknowledges, Hogan said
*nothing* about Janice Rogers Brown. That kinda, sorta, cuts the
ground out from joe's point that Hogan is being inconsistent. Hogan
didn't make any "point" about Judge Brown, so of course, he didn't
refute himself. joe's entire point was that Hogan had refuted
himself with his (comletely nonexistent) "point" about Judge
Brown.
Caught in this "terminological inexactitude" (as Churchill would
call it), what is joe's response? Not an apology to Hogan for
falsely accusing him. No, indeed, joe basically makes the Dan
Rather defense - I might have relied on bogus information, but that
bogus information expressed a higher truth.
Realizing that this would not be fully persuasive, joe then relied
on the "look over there" method. "OMG, people who criticized me for
my totally fake and defamatory statements have themselves made
statements which, with enough huffing and puffing, I can make to
look controversial!"
Just to emphasize the bottom line here. joe attributed to Hogan a
statement which Hogan never made, which had in fact been made by
someone else (me) with an entirely different handle, and instead of
saying "opps," or "sorry," like a gentleman, joe tries to throw
sand in everyone's face by invoking the Dan Rather defense.
Kolohe|11.7.08 @ 10:13PM|#
As Crow Eating Dumbass is a Virginian, and I am a Georgian,
I'll remind him that African- Americans made up 40% of our
population between 1861-1865.
Don't you mean 24%?
|11.7.08 @ 10:22PM|#
No, Mad Max, YOU'RE being inconsistent. I just called you the
wrong name.
You're still trying to save face by waving the bloody shirt of
being called "Hogan?"
Do you think you're fooling anybody? Just stop. It's sad.
economist|11.7.08 @ 10:24PM|#
Don't worry, joe. I'm not planning to sue you for disagreeing with me. That said, the argument that it's a good thing to elect "because of what it says about race relations in America" is stupid. Symbolism isn't worth shit, when you get right down to it. Some (I would personally say most) Americans are not racists. Some are, and make a big fucking deal of it. Electing a black man doesn't change any of that.
Seward|11.7.08 @ 10:24PM|#
Kolohe,
The CSA had a population of roughly nine million upon its birthing;
five million of them were free citizens. So it was a bit above
24%.
CED,
The guy is a pretty effective orator which is often associated
with good Presidents...
Good rhetorical skills are dangerous, that's why a liberal
education is a must for those who have been taught them or have a
knack for them.
|11.7.08 @ 10:27PM|#
What's with all the squabbling about whether the Republicans or Democrats are better? Ostensibly most of us here share similar principles, so why can't we just agree that neither party satisifies our needs?
economist|11.7.08 @ 10:27PM|#
Excuse me while I get drunk. Joe and some other poster seem to have latched onto a incredibly minor argument, which will probably go on throughout the night. I should make some popcorn first.
Orange Line Special|11.7.08 @ 10:28PM|#
Q. Where in the world is Dave Weigel?
A. Filling out forms! First, he's going to write "Democrat" into
this PDF (h/t
this), then it's off to apply for a job.
economist|11.7.08 @ 10:29PM|#
kusterdu,
Joe and CED have decided that because some of us think that the
hoopla over Barack Obama being (omg *swoon*) TEH FIRST BLACK
PRESIDENT is rather overblown, that we must just not be as
enlightened as they are.
economist|11.7.08 @ 10:30PM|#
My point in the previous post being that that's what most of this thread has been about.
Mad Max|11.7.08 @ 10:32PM|#
"No, Mad Max, YOU'RE being inconsistent."
In other words, "I know you are, but what am I?" I stand abashed
before your eloquent, well-reasoned rebuttal.
Your M.O. involves lengthy denunciations of those who allegedly
misunderstand and misrepresent your profound points. Now you are
caught in a falsehood about someone else's position, and your focus
is on damage control.
economist|11.7.08 @ 10:37PM|#
Ah, dammit OLS, stop with the "liberal racism" thing. Isn't it enough to say that they're being condescending twits about their supposed racial enlightenment, without resorting to ridiculous crap like saying it must mean they're racists?
|11.7.08 @ 10:39PM|#
economist,
Did you go the link I posted. It's not about what it symbolizes,
it's about what such a campaign and victory do.
Political campaigns are important conversations. They play a large
role in shaping our society's character.
But as far as the symbolism goes, yeah, I get a big old thrill when
I see racism lose. Yippee! In your face!
Oh, and for the record, I'm the not the one who disparaged anyone
over their reaction. I don't give fig how you or anyone else feels
about it - but for some reason, it drives you and a lot of other
people to distraction to watch people like Roderick Long or myself
get too happy about seeing the color barrier at the highest levels
of government broken.
economist|11.7.08 @ 10:39PM|#
And by the way Damon Root I still haven't forgotten your calling Barack Obama's election "a victory for classical liberalism". I'm going to bring that up every time he does something that pisses you off for the next four years. You, at least, should know better. Steve Chapman gets off because he's, well, "special". You know what I mean.
punk7|11.7.08 @ 10:39PM|#
every reasonable person here knows that joe is an unreconstructed, irredeemable ass . . . a point that I've attempted to make many, many times. I think it's about time we ignored him . . .
|11.7.08 @ 10:41PM|#
economist,
In this thread I've seen discussions about whether you can be a
leftist libertarian, about whether economic or social freedoms are
more important, which of the two parties is more appealing, etc.
But I've seen similiar discussions in other threads. I kind of just
wonder, "What's the point?" I also wonder if many of us are still
sympathetic to the parties we supposedly gave up for libertarianism
and that that's the reason people are arguing.
|11.7.08 @ 10:42PM|#
In other words, "I know you are, but what am I?"
No, dipshit, actual words. What I wrote at 8:42? I was accusing you
of inconsistency; I just called you Hogan.
Is this actually eluding you, or is it some kind of pathological
squirming condition you have?
Here, let me make this really easy for you:joe | November 7, 2008,
8:42pm | #
Mad Max's point about liberals not supporting Janis Rogers
Brown refutes Mad Max's point about why people allegedly
supported Barack Obama.
Even if he uses the phrase "the wrong kind of black person" to make
disagreeing with her politics sound sinister.
What are you doing?
economist|11.7.08 @ 10:42PM|#
punk7,
No, we can't just ignore him, because unlike Lefiti/Edward, CO, MCW
(who thankfully seems to have disappeared), and co., he's actually
intelligent enough to be a problem.
|11.7.08 @ 10:43PM|#
economist,
This link:
http://ashpolitics.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/richard-trumkas-excellent-speech/
Seward|11.7.08 @ 10:43PM|#
joe,
I don't give fig how you or anyone else feels about
it...
Then why are you going on about it?
My prediction: In about six months Obama being the first black
President and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee. That would be
the best of all possible outcomes.
economist|11.7.08 @ 10:44PM|#
kusterdu,
Of course some people here are sympathetic to the parties they
*left* for libertarianism. Most people continue to influenced by
points of view they held earlier in life, even if their attitudes
change.
ref|11.7.08 @ 10:44PM|#
joe lost this one for sure, but I've seen him wipe the floor with dozens of people, In fact, his record is pretty good. I certainly wouldn't ignore him, he just lost one, that's all.
|11.7.08 @ 10:46PM|#
Seward,
http://ashpolitics.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/richard-trumkas-excellent-speech/
Because when people take a poke at me, I poke back, and this thread
has consisted mainly of people taking pokes at those of us who
actually appreciate the significance of this election.
None of this conversation happens if certain people don't decide
it's incumbent on them to talk trash about people who were too
happy about the first black president being elected.
|11.7.08 @ 10:48PM|#
economist,
Sure, but in the case of libertarianism it produces the bizarre
spectacle of people who supposedly agree with each other arguing
over nonsense.
economist|11.7.08 @ 10:49PM|#
Well, joe, I went to the link, and I fail to see what's so
special about it.
Perhaps you can grant me some of your great enlightment.
Kaiser|11.7.08 @ 10:50PM|#
....and this thread has consisted mainly of people taking pokes at those of us who actually appreciate the significance of this election.
If we were truly past racism in this country then the race of the
President elect would have no bearing. Unfortunately it is the
liberals and th PC police who won't let us get past it now, not the
incredibly small minority of people who actually are racist.
economist|11.7.08 @ 10:51PM|#
kusterdu,
I agree that some of our arguments can get a little ridiculous.
Being generally of a more moderate libertarian bent, I occasionally
get raked over the coals by the an-caps (and once by joe, who
claimed that my position was logically inconsistent, and that I
either had to be an anarcho-capitalist or a liberal).
economist|11.7.08 @ 10:53PM|#
Kaiser,
In that case, don't respond. Just don't bother with it. So, would
you agree that minarchism can be a logically consistent position?
That seems to be relevant to the topic of this thread.
Seward|11.7.08 @ 10:53PM|#
joe,
Because when people take a poke at me, I poke
back...
So you do care?
The funny thing is, I never thought about Obama being the black
candidate until it was pointed out to me. I thought about him as
the candidate proposing a number of of what I consider terrible
economic policy proposals. And now he is the President-elect who is
proposing some more terrible proposals. When does this post-racial
society start for everyone else?
punk7|11.7.08 @ 10:54PM|#
good points . . . and I do not deny that he is intelligent. It just seems that he is so easily transformed into the type of debater that squabbles about semantics and moot points - in addition to being reduced to schoolyard babbling. I suppose we must attempt to vaporize him with our collective wits!
economist|11.7.08 @ 10:58PM|#
punk7,
You caught him at a bad moment. Joe takes great pride in his
superior race relations acumen. I only deign to challenge him
because my mixed racial background automatically gains me points
against his white ass.
|11.7.08 @ 11:00PM|#
economist,
Perhaps you can think about what it means that the political
efforts of the labor movement are being focused on calling out its
own like that over racism.
That wasn't some speech about how great "our side" is on race. That
was Trumka talking to his own people. That was somebody
leading.
I suppose you probably just saw a fat union guy.
Kaiser,
Unfortunately it is the liberals and th PC police who won't let
us get past it now, not the incredibly small minority of people who
actually are racist. Yeah, liberals like Ashely Todd and the
guy who put together the "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" emails. You're
really good at pretending not to see actual racism, but imagining
it in people who are fighting it. That must take a lot of
effort.
Seward,
I care about people insulting me. I don't care how they feel about
Barack Obama's election.
This is also not hard.
How did playing dumb come to be seen as clever?
When does this post-racial society start for everyone
else? When we get there. You could get off your ass and try to
do something about that.
economist|11.7.08 @ 11:00PM|#
Seward,
Admit it. You were afraid of him. You said, "My God, he's a n*****!
This country can't be led by one of THOSE people! I don't care what
his policy positions are, if he's black he must be evil!"
You were practically out of your mind with racial animus. Your hate
at seeing a black man climb so far above "his place" drove you
mad.
|11.7.08 @ 11:01PM|#
What's the deal with joe and CED? (note to joe and CED: feel free to respond yourselves)
economist|11.7.08 @ 11:02PM|#
joe,
It seems to be saying "He'll give you goodies if he's elected, so
don't blow it by being racist and voting for McCain".
Nothing too special there.
|11.7.08 @ 11:02PM|#
I only deign to challenge him because my mixed racial
background automatically gains me points against his white
ass.
WTF does this even mean?
You know we can't see you, right?
Mad Max|11.7.08 @ 11:02PM|#
joe,
I really don't understand your irritation. I wasn't aware that your
criticism was directed against me rather than Hogan. What do you
think is the reason for this misunderstanding? Perhaps because you
said "Hogan," which is a handle which (a) I have never used, and
(b) was used by someone else on this very thread.
Now you say I should simply have *known* you were referring to
me.
Very well, as soon as you *explicitly* apologize to Hogan for
accusing him of inconsistency and who known what else, and you
repeat your accusations against me using my own handle, then maybe
I'll respond, but that all depends on (a) whether I've gone to
sleep yet (and I need to work in the morning), (b) whether I
remember to check this particular thread for the latest irruptions
of your wisdom, (c) whether I still care enough about this
particular thread to keep posting on it, (d) whether I decide that
*even doing my job* is preferable to spending time on this
thread.
Just as a random remark, I am why the tingly-legged exaltation of
certain individuals (no, joe, I'm not referring to you at all) at
the election of a black president - "white people have finally
shown their open-mindedness!" hasn't already been triggered
by
- the appointment of the first black Chief of Staff of the armed
forces
-the appointment of two successive african-americans to the high
bench (bearing in mind that the U.S. Supreme Court is in certain
areas more powerful than any President)
-the appointment of two successive african-americans to the post of
secretary of state
-the development of a black middle class in America which is
collectively wealthier than many African nations
-the ability of a black talk-show hostess to make or break *white*
authors by granting or whthholding her endorsement from their
books
-the large number of white honky Americans who have black bosses or
supervisors, a situation which doesn't strike them as in any way
unnatural
-the large number of black *Republican* men who have interracial
marriages - we all know that Republicans are the white-supremacist
party, so why are they so willing to put up with such
miscegenation?
People who were blase about these developments, while creaming
their shorts about a black President, are either (a) worshippers of
the Imperial Presidency, or (b) very hard to impress.
Nonetheless, I am glad that Americans showed themselves able to
elect a black President. Too bad the President wasn't Judge
Brown.
Kolohe|11.7.08 @ 11:03PM|#
Seward-
multiply the 0.6 fudge factor to the 40% and you get 0.24.
Although to be fair, while that fudge factor was used (for the last
time) in the 1860 census, it was likely no longer used by the govt
in the timeframe SIV refered to.
|11.7.08 @ 11:04PM|#
joe,
It seems to be saying "He'll give you goodies if he's elected, so
don't blow it by being racist and voting for McCain".
How sad it must be to be you, economist.
News Flash: there are things going on in the world, in politics,
other than your own fringe-cult political ideology.
economist|11.7.08 @ 11:05PM|#
Well, kusterdu, CED (Crow-Eating Dumbass) normally posts as MNG
(Mr. Nice Guy). He is posting as CED because he bet that McCain
would win Virginia, and said that if he was wrong he would post for
a month as Crow-Eating Dumbass. I have taken him to task for the
fact that he sometimes uses the acronym CED, since it doesn't have
the same punch as the full handle.
As for joe, it's because in real life his name is Joe Boyle.
|11.7.08 @ 11:06PM|#
Mad Max,
I skimmed that long-assed comment just enough to notice that you
STILL haven't figured out a response to my argument.
Seward|11.7.08 @ 11:07PM|#
joe,
The best and really only way to get to a post-racial society is to
be a capitalist. So yeah, I engage in making this a post-racial
society every day.
economist,
Heh. I'm not an Aristotelian. :)
|11.7.08 @ 11:07PM|#
...which is pretty much the theme of the this thread; I make
actual points, and everybody else talks shit about me and ignores
them. I can't see a single substantive response to anything I've
written.
So, buh bye.
Kaiser|11.7.08 @ 11:07PM|#
joe I am not claiming liberals are racist, I am merely pointing
out that by constantly bringing race, sex, age, religion to the
front of peoples minds you force them to see it, and be afraid to
mention it without fear of repercussion. By asking us to ignore
what makes us different, you perpetuate the problem. I think most
liberals would like us to be autonomous amorphous blobs. What makes
us different is what makes use great, having us try to ignore that
would make this one hell of a boring place to live.
economist excuse my ignorance please but I am not sure I understand
your question.
economist|11.7.08 @ 11:08PM|#
Yes, joe, I am perfectly aware that you can't see me. But I automatically gain wisdom about race relations *sarcasm* because over a century and a half ago my ancestors lost their property and their homes to the US government and white Georgians, and were sent to live on a reservation in Oklahoma. I've mentioned it in threads where Andrew Jackson has been mentioned.
|11.7.08 @ 11:08PM|#
Except you, Seward.
It wasn't capitalism that drove the civil rights revolution, and
I'm pretty sure that did a bit more to bring about a post-racial
society than you buying a coffee.
|11.7.08 @ 11:10PM|#
economist,
No, I meant that despite the fact that they're so contrarian, I
can't figure out what their general political philosophy is. I like
the added discussion (because nothing is more boring than a bunch
of people who agree with each other), but I don't see what's in it
for them.
|11.7.08 @ 11:10PM|#
Kaiser,
By asking us to ignore what makes us different
OK, how do I get accused of talking too much about racial issues,
and of asking people to ignore racial issues, in the same
comment?
economist|11.7.08 @ 11:10PM|#
Kaiser,
I was trying to change the subject of the thread, which is
currently going around in circles.
|11.7.08 @ 11:12PM|#
But I automatically gain wisdom about race relations
*sarcasm* because over a century and a half ago my ancestors lost
their property and their homes to the US government and white
Georgians, and were sent to live on a reservation in
Oklahoma.
See, I hadn't noticed that. You pretty much just seem like
thoroughly unwise, ignorant person, who's determined to stay that
way.
None of what you wrote matters to me in the slightest, or
influences my thinking, or makes anything you write any more
compelling or well-argued.
I know you imagine that it's supposed to. See the unwise, ignorant
bit.
economist|11.7.08 @ 11:13PM|#
kusterdu,
CED and joe are both conventional center-leftists. They believe
that taxes are too heavy on the poor and not heavy enough on the
rich, that there should be a more extensive welfare state, that we
should make a withdrawal, within a year or so, of most of our
troops from Iraq (a view I agree with), and that all white people
besides them and those that agree with them have unresolved issues
about dealing with people of other races.
Kaiser|11.7.08 @ 11:13PM|#
joe, I am not accusing you of anything kind sir. What I typed may or may not be true of you, however what I typed was just my personal opinion on liberals and "progressives."
economist|11.7.08 @ 11:16PM|#
Thanks for that, joe. Your opinion of me is so very important. I admit that I really didn't have a point, other than talking that favorite of subjects...
Seward|11.7.08 @ 11:20PM|#
joe,
It wasn't capitalism that drove the civil rights
revolution...
The civil rights revolution was a response to government efforts.
There is plenty of historical evidence from the 1870s and 1880s to
demonstrate that barring said interference that the market would
not have created the sort of situation as developed by 1900. It
takes government action to create things like Jim Crow, the Black
Laws, etc.
...and I'm pretty sure that did a bit more to bring about a
post-racial society than you buying a coffee.
There would be no such revolution if those leading and backing it
lacked the economic resources to create it. That required a heck of
a lot of economic activity.
|11.7.08 @ 11:21PM|#
I've mentioned it in threads where Andrew Jackson has been
mentioned.
OK. Do you recall me saying or doing anything that could have given
you the impression I was impressed, or was somehow going to defer
to you on all things race-related, regardless of poorly thought out
they were?
Because honestly, I would remember doing that.
Also, joe, you did notice the "sarcasm" bit, right? Yes,
and incredibly impressed with your own wit as you seem to be, it
was actually pretty clear that you were being sarcastic, and even
that you were doing so in order to make the point that I'm supposed
to be impressed, deferential, and respectful about anything you say
on racial issues because your ancestors blah blah blah. Cuz, like,
I'm a liberal and, like, that's totally what liberal white guys are
like har har har.
Don't worry, chief. You're not going over my head. One less thing
for you to worry about.
economist|11.7.08 @ 11:22PM|#
Kaiser and Seward,
Would it really be so much to ask that you admit joe is wiser than
you are about race relations? It would be a huge time-saver, and we
all know here that you just did it to make him shut up.
punk7|11.7.08 @ 11:24PM|#
back to the point . . . I do agree that the election of a black
president is an undeniably positive milestone in American
history.
I do not agree that this will automatically sink racism (from all
sides), stereotyping, race-baiting, race-hucksters, outmoded
programs (affirmative action, etc.), race-coddling, cross-burning,
or any of the other number of painful vestiges of our legacy with
race in this country.
In fact, I think that in many ways it will exacerbate tensions.
|11.7.08 @ 11:25PM|#
Seward,
As inarguable as it is that wealth is good, and that the government
was implicated in the Jim Crow/slavery state, it isn't really
relevant.
Political action and organizing matters. They're a large part of
how our society improves itself. They're our public
conversations.
Your points don't really have anything to do with this.
economist|11.7.08 @ 11:25PM|#
Last comment in response to joe's 11:21 post.
And seriously, joe, you don't have to get so huffy.
Seward|11.7.08 @ 11:25PM|#
joe,
Or let's put it this way: all those folks who founded the NAACP -
most of them had to have a means of employment to help them found
it (and even those who didn't had to get their funds from somewhere
like a trust, which was likely founded by someone who engaged in
the market). Indeed, they had to have had some measure of wealth to
afford the educations that aided them in founding that
organization. Capitalism is integral to the growth of human
freedom; without it, it will not exist.
|11.7.08 @ 11:27PM|#
joe,
Mostly I just like to make fun of your smug
self-satisfaction.
So it's sort of "I could, like, totally prove you wrong if I felt
like it. I just don't feel like it," kind of thing.
You know, my cat does the same thing when he falls on his ass.
economist|11.7.08 @ 11:27PM|#
"Political action and organizing matters. They're a large part
of how our society improves itself."
HahahhahahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Seward|11.7.08 @ 11:28PM|#
joe,
Political action and organizing matters.
And those cannot take place without a certain requisite amount of
economic resources.
Your points don't really have anything to do with
this.
They directly deal with the issue at hand. Consider how many
wealthy people gave money to the Civil Rights movement and what the
movement would have done without that money.
|11.7.08 @ 11:28PM|#
Seward, are you familiar with the term "necessary but not
sufficient condition?"
Yeah, wealth! Still, that's not really the point.
|11.7.08 @ 11:30PM|#
Civil rights activists needed drinking water, too, Seward.
Still: not really the point. A bunch of well-hydrated slackers
wouldn't have brought about the civil-rights revolution. Ditto
wealth.
economist|11.7.08 @ 11:30PM|#
"So it's sort of 'I could totally prove you wrong if I felt like it'". No, not really. Once again, I'm mostly making fun of how you seem to full of yourself when talking about race relations. I threw in the aside, I admit, mostly out of puckishness.
Seward|11.7.08 @ 11:30PM|#
joe,
I would note, BTW, that the primary way that people organize
themselves is in the marketplace. Which is why the vast majority of
people spend most of their time in the marketplace (at a job, at a
store, etc.) and not in the political realm.
|11.7.08 @ 11:32PM|#
HahahhahahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Wow, compelling.
I'll give you this: the type of political action your team engages
in doesn't really make much of a difference in our society, or
shape it to any observable extent.
But most of American politics isn't the esoterica of a fringe
cult.
Seward|11.7.08 @ 11:33PM|#
joe,
I am well of that term. Capitalism is a necessary and sufficient
condition for freedom. Name me one country which is high on any of
the freedom indices which is not capitalist.
economist|11.7.08 @ 11:33PM|#
Seward,
joe actually has a point, there. I speak as one of the "wealthy"
(not really) slackers.
|11.7.08 @ 11:34PM|#
I would note, BTW, that the primary way that people organize
themselves is in the marketplace.
Sure. Just not in the way that brings about the important political
and social breakthroughs necessary to overcome major problems, like
America's racial history.
I mean, markets are wonderful. They're just not everything.
Seward|11.7.08 @ 11:35PM|#
joe,
I'll give you this: the type of political action your team
engages in doesn't really make much of a difference in our society,
or shape it to any observable extent.
Is that an argument from popularity?
economist|11.7.08 @ 11:35PM|#
Well, joe (11:32), it's mostly your idea that political action and organization are a positive good. You seem to take yourself a little too seriously, is all.
|11.7.08 @ 11:36PM|#
Seward,
Name me a country high on the freedom indices that doesn't have a
good drinking water supply.
Not. The. Point. There is something else to talk about, besides how
wonderful capitalism is.
punk7|11.7.08 @ 11:36PM|#
Seward ... while every thing in my being wants to believe that
what you are saying is a truth, I must posit this: Sweden.
My point is . . . what sort of freedoms are we speaking of?
|11.7.08 @ 11:37PM|#
Is that an argument from popularity?
No, just an explanation of "economist's" (he's not really an
economist, he just assumes he's always right about economics
despite not being one) dismissive attitude towards political
progress.
economist|11.7.08 @ 11:38PM|#
Seward,
In politics, popularity is everything. That's why engineers will
never rule the world. Or maybe because Hoover was an engineer. I'm
not sure.
Lefiti|11.7.08 @ 11:38PM|#
"I just wish the nation's highest-profile and most influential
job weren't the goddamn presidency)..."
Oh yeah, some fucking plutocrat with a private army would be so
much better. I wish you morons could get your wish without taking
the rest of us down with you. Thankfully, you're a marginal little
cult of fuckwits.
Hogan|11.7.08 @ 11:39PM|#
1. joe should just make a post that says "it must be sad to be
you, so incapable of accepting the SCARY BLACK MAN." if he wants,
he can post it as Ashley Todd and he should include a reference to
a dog whistle. then he can just post links to it, the five times a
day he accuses people of closet racism. would save him time. joe,
can't speak for others here, but the reason i myself don't care
about responding to your brilliant points is that you turn
everything you touch into tedious, pointless, never-ending
meditations on the futility of trying to talk with you. a few
threads a day, it seems, die Bonnie and Clyde-like under the hail
of "joe for the love of christ i am not racist" "suuuuuuuure"
bullets. which you never seem to get tired of. it's crazy.
2. so i just watched mad max. movie is fucking great. tough,
though, with movies that have their antisocial gangbangers walk the
line between behaving like thugs and just behaving like theater
students. clockwork orange, the warriors, jeff goldblum in death
wish, etc...
economist|11.7.08 @ 11:40PM|#
Well, joe, if my handle really bothers you so much, I guess it can't hurt to change it. The fellow who was posting as "engineer" when I first came here seems to have disappeared rather shortly afterwards, so apart from losing name recognition (no biggie), I guess posting as such couldn't hurt.
engineer|11.7.08 @ 11:45PM|#
What I find strange, Lefiti, is that you spend so much time coming here to call us fringe political nuts. Do you really have nothing better to do? Hell, drinking, eating,and trying to get some all sound like things I would enjoy more than going online just to teach those evil people that aren't important and yet seem to consume so much of my attention a lesson in their irrelevance. All I can say, Lefiti, is that if this is how you like to spend your time, I won't stop you, but I can always give friendly suggestions about more fruitful ways to spend your time.
engineer|11.7.08 @ 11:47PM|#
I sort of imagine Lefiti as an angry fat man in his thirties complaining about how the world "never gave him a chance".
Seward|11.7.08 @ 11:50PM|#
joe,
Sure. Just not in the way that brings about the important
political and social breakthroughs necessary to overcome major
problems, like America's racial history.
Most major American problems have been solved by the market and not
by government. Indeed, we lived in society which is quite different
from that of say thirty years ago largely because of technological
changes which no one in government could have ever foreseen
(Schumpetarian growth). Honestly, try to imagine a government
bureaucracy trying to develop the P.C.
Furthermore, what government does more often than anything is
simply fail - in large part because government efforts pick vested
winners. A very good example of this the catalytic coverter which
was demanded by the CAA of 1977. At the time there were automobiles
which ran cleaner without that device but they were made by foreign
cars. Guess who objected to a market based regulation (that's where
government does some good - re: general rules) which would have
allowed car companies to design their own solutions to the issue of
air pollution caused by cars?
Now maybe that effort made the air cleaner, but it did it far less
effeciently than a vastly better method, and thus it is a good
example (among hundreds of them) of government failure.
One last point: it isn't terribly surprising that real and
significant change in politics comes out of the realm of politics.
As for society, or culture, or what have you, that is largely the
realm of the marketplace. No government could have ever created
something as awesome as the type of retail, restuarant, etc.
oppurtunities we have, nor the music we listen to or the devices we
listen to them on, etc. You live in a world where the marketplace
and the wishes of individual consumers and producers are the
primary agents of societal change.
Engineer|11.7.08 @ 11:51PM|#
Hogan,
It's obvious that you are a racist. You might not know it, but
whenever you accuse Barack Obama of being a socialist, what you
really mean is that you can't stand the thought of a black man
having a position of power. It tears you up inside. Admit it. All
your posturing about how you really don't think his race is a big
deal is really just proof of your racial animus. And the fact that
you will think I'm crazy for posting this merely shows that you are
unwise and ignorant.
|11.7.08 @ 11:51PM|#
No, joe, the market isn't everything, but voluntary action is. That's why Jim Crow laws and affirmative action are both bad.
Engineer|11.7.08 @ 11:54PM|#
Seward,
kusterdu's post is closer to the point. Honestly, do I have to fill
in for joe?
Seward|11.7.08 @ 11:57PM|#
joe,
Name me a country high on the freedom indices that doesn't have
a good drinking water supply.
If capitalism isn't a necessary and sufficient condition for
freedom my suggestion is that you move to a nation where capitalism
isn't the primary mode of economic operations.
There is something else to talk about, besides how wonderful
capitalism is.
As any disinterested party would note, one of the primary things
that liberals do is disparage capitalism - as that is the case I've
got no problem singing its praises.
Engineer|11.8.08 @ 12:00AM|#
Seward,
I think joe was agreeing that "markets" are a necessary component
of society (Don't know how that squares with his other statements)
but that society also needs political organizers and activists. My
cynicism on this point tends to cause me to disagree, but you
should really address joe's actual point, or else you will get
pwned.
Engineer|11.8.08 @ 12:02AM|#
I would be perfectly okay with this thread dying, myself. I just happen to have a morbid fascination with watching train-wreck exchanges (and occasionally snarking at the participants).
Seward|11.8.08 @ 12:02AM|#
Engineer,
Be my guest. I'm not adverse to being proven incorrect.
kusterdu,
Well, these days at least markets arise in large part because of
the rules that governments create (though there are some examples
of markets arising ex nihilo). As long as those rules do not
involve government failure they are likely appropriate. However,
and this is a big however, the best rules are those which are so
general that they do not pick winners and losers when it comes to
Schumpterian, Smithian, etc. growth.
Engineer|11.8.08 @ 12:04AM|#
I wasn't really arguing with you, just giving a suggestion on what line of argument you might want to pursue.
Engineer|11.8.08 @ 12:05AM|#
Of course, the second I say I think I killed the thread, it comes back to life.
Seward|11.8.08 @ 12:08AM|#
Engineer,
...but that society also needs political organizers and
activists.
And my response is that they would not exist without some measure
of economic prosperity.
Anyway, I did address his point. As I stated, markets are a
necessary and sufficient condition for freedom. joe seems to think
they are only necessary.
|11.8.08 @ 12:09AM|#
Seward,
Yes, but joe, I think, believes that actions of a non-financial
nature are also important for bringing about change. Hence, the
disagreement between you two. Once the government does favor
certain people, the only way to deal with it is by changing the
government (through activism or whatever). My problem with leftists
is that while they admit certain problems created by government are
bad (Jim Crow, etc.), the government should also actively solve
society's other problems (affirmative action). Libertarians support
neither of those things.
Seward|11.8.08 @ 12:10AM|#
Engineer,
I think in order to get pwned I'd have to agree to joe's ground
rules about what is necessary and sufficient.
Seward|11.8.08 @ 12:12AM|#
kusterdu,
Well, governments have a very hard time creating neutral rules
regarding the regulation of the behavior of individuals. Now in
some circumstances that is a feature, but in most it is a bug.
Seward|11.8.08 @ 12:14AM|#
kusterdu,
Indeed, governments even have a hard time enforcing those rules
neutrally.
|11.8.08 @ 12:18AM|#
Yes, the fighting with Joe seems to be what kept it going. Well, now that it's dead, I guess I'll have to go do something productive as it's only 2:30 in the afternoon here.
The Wine Commonsewer|11.8.08 @ 1:21AM|#
"One can not be a leftist and a libertarian. They are
mutually exclusive as leftism requires taxes."
But in today's climate, rightism requires wiretapping.
WRONG ANSWER!
The correct response is: DRINK!
The Wine Commonsewer|11.8.08 @ 1:26AM|#
Oh yeah, some fucking plutocrat with a private army would be
so much better. I wish you morons could get your wish without
taking the rest of us down with you. Thankfully, you're a marginal
little cult of fuckwits.
Is that why you keep coming around? To spend time with marginal
fuckwits? What, exactly, does that say about your social life?
|11.8.08 @ 1:36AM|#
I also like how people come here just to call us "a fringe cult." That's like hanging out with Jim Jones and saying, "Screw you! You're just a cult! Now can you pass me some kool-aid?"
wengdongqin|11.8.08 @ 1:36AM|#
Welcome to wow gold our wow Gold and wow power leveling store.
We wow gold are specilized, wow power leveling professional and
reliable wow power leveling website for Wow power
leveling selling and wow gold service. By the World of
Warcraft gold same token,we offer wow power leveling the best WoW
service wow power leveling for our long-term and wow powerleveling
loyal customers. wow powerleveling You will find the power leveling
cheap
the benefits and value powerleveling we created powerleveling
different from other sites. As to most people, power leveling they
are unwilling to power leveling spend most of wow power leveling
the time WOW
Gold grinding money Rolex for mounts or rolex replica
repair when replica rolex they can purchase Watches Rolex what they
Rolex Watches are badly need. The Watch Rolex only way is to look
Rolex Watch for the best place rs gold to buy WOW Gold . Yes!
You find it here! Our WoW Gold supplying service has already
accumulated a high reputation and credibility. We have plenty of
Gold suppliers, which will guarantee our delivery instant.
Actually, we have been getting Runescape Gold tons of postive
feedbacks from our loyal RuneScape Money customers who really
appreciate our service.
Famous Mortimer|11.8.08 @ 2:12AM|#
"Why is this?? Is individual liberty in private somehow less
important than economic freedom for your finances or
business?"
You're not the only one. I've been through this before on here.
After reading Libertarian sites for years, I've come to the
conclusion that the movement is dominated by disgruntled anti-tax
activists. Libertarianism, as a whole is not what it appears to be
on the surface.
In order to validate the movement, many anti-tax Libertarians get
on board, in theory, with civil Libertarians, when in reality, such
things tend to rank low on their list of priorities.
You can see this manifested when many Libertarians claim that
Abortion, and the Gay Marriage issue should be left to the states.
These are predominantly Liberal issues.
For better understanding, Libertarians, correlate the existance of
virtually every other freedom, with the existance of absolute,
unregulated economic freedom, even though there is no historical
precedent for it. It's merely a theory that sets their hearts
alight.
What they don't understand is that the issue is relevant to but a
small minority of people in the world. It will never be a primary
politcal motivation on its own. You would have to tie it into a
greater social movement like Republicans have with their religious
base.
And Reason isn't even dominated by the strictest of Libertarians.
You should check out the Lew Rockwell types. They won't even
entertain contradiction, and derive an almost sociopathic
gratification from castigating their opponents.
What makes this article great is that it demonstrates perfectly how
cult-like people can be about certain politcal philosophies, and
how it handicaps them when they try to relate to the general
public.
Everyone thinks that their opponent is a fake, and they are the
real enemy. Conservatives think the media is biased toward them,
and Liberals think the opposite. It never fucking ends. It's the
NFL.
The most intelligent, well nuanced people that I have spoken to
were usually moderates.
The rest are generally too involved with being right that they
ignore the complexities of the arguments that so vehemently
make.
Famous Mortimer|11.8.08 @ 2:16AM|#
"A strong state put troops in classrooms to desegregate the
South. A weak state would not have been able to do so."
Yes, but don't you realize that all of that stuff would inevitably
have occurred if the government had simply let discrimination run
its course?
You know, like a drawn out FDA trial.
"It's for the Liberty!"
It's the Libertarian version of "It's for the children!"
Famous Mortimer|11.8.08 @ 2:22AM|#
"Jim Jones and saying, "Screw you! You're just a cult! Now can
you pass me some kool-aid?"
Actually, that isn't anything like it. You're offering us Kool-Aid,
but we're not drinking. Also, if we did drink it, we could wake up
from the experience, and change our minds about our position.
Ah, Libertarians, fucking up proper analogies, since the
60's.
"It's for the Liberty!"
Famous Mortimer|11.8.08 @ 2:48AM|#
Also, the harassment that Joe is experiencing is a classic
ad-hominem swarm strategy that posters use on here when they become
frustrated.
When Joe begins to dictate an argument, it is often reduced to a
nitpicking, "you're just crazy, let's ignore him" style
attack.
It's white noise meant to distract from the argument that is
probably too nuanced to be won in any confident manner. People
underestimate the bitterness that often arises when Libertarians
are contradicted.
Trust me. I'm a connoisseur of Libertarian debate tactics.
Again, they do this because Joe usually flies solo, and he usually
dominates many of the debates. It's easy because he's fairly
moderate, yet well versed in their strategies.
A person like that will always have an advantage over extremists
when debating them.
|11.8.08 @ 4:03AM|#
Famous Mortimer,
I think you misunderstood my analogy. I am perfectly fine with
people of other persuasions coming on here to argue their point of
view. In fact, I welcome it because as I said earlier on the
thread, nothing is more boring than a discussion between a bunch of
people who agree with each other.
That having been said, I don't understand people coming on to a
libertarian site just to call us a fringe cult. What's the point of
coming here just to insult us? And if we are a "fringe cult", that
means we are irrelevant, and there's no point in coming to this
site in the first place. I wasn't trying to insult everybody who
comes here with different ideas -- just the people who come here
and start out with ad-hominem attacks from the beginning.
P.S. I am also a fan of Mr. Show.
Famous Mortimer|11.8.08 @ 4:14AM|#
"P.S. I am also a fan of Mr. Show."
You see, now that's just too damn disarming.
|11.8.08 @ 4:27AM|#
Joe was really a horse's ass on this thread. I'm putting him on permanent scroll-through mode.
|11.8.08 @ 4:32AM|#
"You see, now that's just too damn disarming."
Heh, isn't it, though?
I see your point about civil liberties. However, I think many
libertarians think federalism is important as well. Keep in mind
that in saying that gay marriage should be left to the states, they
are also opposing would be constitutional ammendments that would
prohibit gay marriage everywhere. Also, many libertarians would
probably prefer government not be involved in marriage at all (as
it wasn't for most of our history).
|11.8.08 @ 5:03AM|#
Sure, Obama is a corporate liberal whose policies are not
really any less fascistic or imperialistic than McCain's, but a) he
at least seems less trigger-happy than McCain; b) culturally, his
election is a satisfying slap in the face to racism and
parochialism (it's great to see a black person at last in the
nation's highest-profile and most influential job-I just wish the
nation's highest-profile and most influential job weren't the
goddamn presidency)...
Wow. Talk about setting the bar low. If you're less trigger happy
than McCain (you know, like 95% of the population) and you have
black skin, then the alleged left-lib quoted above supports you,
even while acknowledging a bunch of non-libertarian stuff you'd
do.
You know what voting for someone based almost entirely on skin
color is? Racism. Oh, wait, unless they don't have white skin, in
which case it's a "slap in the face to racism".
Get a fucking clue already.
|11.8.08 @ 5:28AM|#
Personally, I just have a problem with him calling the two candidates "fascistic." The word is overused and is now largely meaningless.
|11.8.08 @ 6:44AM|#
Hogan,
I didn't accuse anyone of being a racist. Not once. I made a
different point, and you're hiding behind the usual "Are you
calling me a racist?" dodge.
Seriously, look back through the thread. Who did I call a
racist?
Rather than the imaginary point you made up to try to make me look
bad, you could try to respond to the actual points I made. But I
wouldn't count on it.
|11.8.08 @ 6:46AM|#
Seward,
For all of your cheerleading for how awesome the market it, your
position is still incapable of explaining that civil rights
movement and all the good it did.
You want to say that buying soap, and not marching on Selma and
speaking the Lincoln Memorial, is how progress on racial issues
happened?
I don't buy it.
|11.8.08 @ 6:59AM|#
I don't disagree with you joe, but it seems like you and Seward were talking about completely unrelated things and not really arguing.
ed|11.8.08 @ 8:07AM|#
All of this misses the point: the horrible resurfacing of Maya
Angelou!
I say, clap hands and let's come together in this meeting
ground,
I say, clap hands and let's deal with each other with love,
I say, clap hands and let us get from the low road of
indifference,
Clap hands, let us come together and reveal our hearts,
Let us come together and revise our spirits,
Let us come together and cleanse our souls,
Clap hands, let's leave the preening
And stop impostering our own history.
Clap hands, call the spirits back from the ledge,
Clap hands, let us invite joy into our conversation,
Courtesy into our bedrooms,
Gentleness into our kitchen,
Care into our nursery.
Lord have mercy.
Seward|11.8.08 @ 8:08AM|#
Famous Mortimer,
Most libertarians that I know of readily admit that neutral ground
rules created by government are a very important factor in economic
growth.
Yes, but don't you realize that all of that stuff would
inevitably have occurred if the government had simply let
discrimination run its course?
The evidence does suggest that actually. That even despite the
various state laws which mandated quite horrible discriminatory
policies that these were largely being overcome on the ground by
the mid part of the 20th century. This is directly reflected in the
lowering rates of black poverty (a lot of that predicated on people
voting with their feet and leaving the South).
joe,
Let me answer these in reverse:
I don't buy it.
That's fine.
You want to say that buying soap, and not marching on Selma and
speaking the Lincoln Memorial, is how progress on racial issues
happened?
Actually, that is pretty clearly not what I wrote at all. I have
suggested that marching on Selma would have been impossible without
some measure of economic freedom to support such.
For all of your cheerleading for how awesome the market
it...
Even I wasn't doing that everyone else would be. Even those who
support these bailouts recognize that markets are the most
effecient system of wealth creation and societal change.
...your position is still incapable of explaining that civil
rights movement and all the good it did.
Well, my position is not as you described it in paragraph two,
so...
Seward|11.8.08 @ 8:24AM|#
kusterdu,
As best as I can tell joe wants to explain all important political
and societal comes through the realm of political action. I make
this observation based on this statement:
Sure. Just not in the way that brings about the important
political and social breakthroughs necessary to overcome major
problems, like America's racial history.
Part of this argument of course depends on what one considers
"important." I think that lowering the cost of supply distribution
is extremely important because it lowers prices for goods. I also
think that the development of the P.C. is very important. So is the
development of technologies related to how music is made,
distributed, etc. Indeed, what better way to experience the "other"
and breaking down barriers of prejudice than by listening to the
music of the "other?" None of these things would have likely
emerged out of some government program, and all three have had a
tremendous impact (via societal activity and choices independent of
the government) on how we live and interact with each other.
|11.8.08 @ 8:28AM|#
For what it's worth: this is a good article at the Cato institute about the civil war, the abolition of slavery, and capitalism: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9137
|11.8.08 @ 8:30AM|#
Personally, I am just glad Dictator Bush is OUT. I dont care
what color the winner is, as long as Bush is OUT, thats all that
matters.
Jess
http://www.anolite.echoz.com
|11.8.08 @ 8:31AM|#
Also, I agree that government programs do not accomplish important changes or advances (unless you call the constitution a government program, which is kind of a stretch). However, joe was also talking about people demonstrating or engaging in civil disobedience, which are not government programs and arguably have nothing to do with the government at all.
|11.8.08 @ 8:33AM|#
Jiffy Wiper,
Bush being out is not so great if the next guy is just as bad. Keep
in mind, Obama's foreign policy might not be much better than
Bush's, even if he does pull troops out of Iraq.
Seward|11.8.08 @ 8:40AM|#
kusterdu,
Well, perhaps joe can offer us some further explanation as to what
he is getting on about. I'll be gone the whole day so I'll miss
whatever happens in this conversation.
Miggs|11.8.08 @ 9:44AM|#
Isn't there anyway to block that damn bot? It's been in almost every thread for the last couple of months.
ed|11.8.08 @ 9:54AM|#
Isn't there anyway to block that damn bot?
Libertarianism is a big tent, Miggs.
Bots, trannies, fisters, dog-fuckers, joe...they're all welcome
here.
|11.8.08 @ 10:09AM|#
Poorly. But if you're suggesting we would have done better
electing a guy who would as like as not nuked Indochina off the
face of the Earth, I'd say you were completely cracked.
That bullshit unfounded attack ad by the LBJ campaign was 44 years
ago and LMNOP (younger than that campaign?) is still buying it.
Like it or not, that's efffective libel.
|11.8.08 @ 10:27AM|#
J sub D
I don't know about unfounded, Goldwater said some things that made
people think he was rather casual about using nukes...
"Goldwater's own rhetoric on nuclear war was viewed by many as
quite uncompromising, a view buttressed by off-hand comments such
as, "Let's lob one into the men's room at the Kremlin."
|11.8.08 @ 10:29AM|#
I stopped reading the thread from around the 2300 posts. That's
11:00 pm for you folks still using the demonstrably inferior 12
hour clock.
I note OLS is still ranting delusional theories and joe is still
giving everybody uninformed lessons on tolerance and enlightened
race relations. Would somebody with more tolerance towards idiocy
than I, someone who waded through the comments after 2300
yesterday, please let me know if any insightful comments, witty
repartee or well reasoned arguments were posted after then?
In advance,
Thank you.
Miggs|11.8.08 @ 10:30AM|#
ed, there's no reason to insult the bots, trannies, fisters, and dog-fuckers like that.
He\'s Doing It Again|11.8.08 @ 10:44AM|#
|11.8.08 @ 10:58AM|#
can somebody summarize what just happened here?
Pirates have seized control of the ship. You will all be taken to a
small island in the Caribbean, and sold into slavery in the bat
guano mines. The more comely among you might be diverted to other
uses.
|11.8.08 @ 11:40AM|#
After the "news" conference yesterday (they were called "press" conferences pre-messiah), I fear Obama will eventually crack up. Taking a jab at a former first lady isn't very presidential, especially since it was Hillary who channeled the dead. Nancy Reagan consulted astrologers, but doesn't every Californian? I don't think the Clinton's can keep their handlers close enough to save Obama from himself.
|11.8.08 @ 12:03PM|#
you guys aren't tired of arguing pedantic points with joe
yet?
See, what he does is he writes comments that emanate approval /
disapproval, but when you argue about that approval / disapproval
with him, he gets all bitchy and says "that's not what I
wrote".
Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.
|11.8.08 @ 12:06PM|#
Off topic alert -
In the news today is a
recipie for tragedy, poverty plus government corruption.
No earthquake, no flood, no terrorists, not evern a meteor strike.
Fuck, I pity those poor people.
Sam Grove|11.8.08 @ 12:32PM|#
For better understanding, Libertarians, correlate the
existance of virtually every other freedom, with the existance of
absolute, unregulated economic freedom, even though there is no
historical precedent for it. It's merely a theory that sets their
hearts alight.
Maybe everybody should just figure it out for themselves.
What free marketers call for is the regulation imposed by a market
open to competitive forces and consumer choice. The problem with a
government of much power is that those with the means will capture
government for their own self interest. Such as we have now.
By effecting bailouts, the government is merely announcing it is
responsible for the economy. Regulation of business is also an
announcement that the government is responsible for the
economy.
Regulation...Bailouts.
What they don't understand is that the issue is relevant to but
a small minority of people in the world. It will never be a primary
politcal motivation on its own. You would have to tie it into a
greater social movement like Republicans have with their religious
base.
Economic freedom seems to be a narrow interest issue if you suppose
that the purpose of it is to enable business to go about business
unimpeded by political interests.
The real purpose of economic freedom is to free people from the
evils of monopoly, the narrow interests of the political class, and
the constraints of an institutional society.
|11.8.08 @ 1:14PM|#
Yes Obama is the first Black President. But will that set back the movement towards racial equality or hinder it? The danger of focusing on his race to the exclusion of all else, is that it puts his race up on trial. If Obama ends up being an abysmal failure, bankrupting us despite trillions in new bailouts, 60+% tax rates, and 10+% inflation, along with half a dozen humanitarian military quagmires, it will be a long time before another Black gets elected president. So stop with the race thing. Let Obama succeed or fail as an individual (a corporatist paternalistic coercive individual, but an individual nonetheless).
Old Bull Lee|11.8.08 @ 1:22PM|#
I'm sorry, I just scanned the thread and nobody else has done
it, and somebody has to:
"Are you dense? Are you retarded? I'm the goddamned President."
|11.8.08 @ 1:38PM|#
I like the way
this guy thinks.
Take Obama's new chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who made $18 million in two years working for a financial firm after he left the Clinton administration. Keep in mind that Emanuel has spent nearly his entire life in politics. He has no known experience or skills not tied to political power. If he added anywhere near that kind of value to the firm that hired him, it was likely to be purely through his political connections. In short, his economic value to the firm was purely a by-product of his political value.
It's not at all clear why politicians should be allowed to extract this kind of value from their skills at manipulating the government of the people, by the people and for the people. It seems downright exploitative, privatizing public value. So why not allow the public to recoup some of this value by raising taxes on politicians gone private?
Here's how a tax directed at recapturing the public's political earning power could work. First, take the pre-public office salary of a politician, which we'll call their "market value." Subtract that from the post-public office compensation. Adjust for inflation. The result should be the "political value." Why not tax that political value? Something like a 90% tax seems about right.
Lefiti|11.8.08 @ 2:12PM|#
Brandybuck
May you succeed as a mindlessly simplistic true-believing
individual and total asshole, but an individual nonetheless.
Lee Cruz|11.8.08 @ 2:19PM|#
A slap in the face of everyone who likes to think for themselves maybe...
|11.8.08 @ 2:28PM|#
Why not tax that political value? Something like a 90% tax
seems about right.
Wow, that would be change I can believe in. Right now I'm holding
out for some kind of drug war rollback or SOMETHING different. Not
just "more money for different people than the last administration"
but "cutting back on something unnecessary" or "DHS shakeup" or
even "DOJ appointee who believes in the 4th, 5th, and 6th
amendments". Throw me a bone, Barack!
VM|11.8.08 @ 2:32PM|#
Lefiti | November 8, 2008, 2:12pm | #
Brandybuck
May you succeed as a mindlessly simplistic true-believing
individual and total asshole, but an individual nonetheless.
Eddie! If you can't say something nice, at least make the shit
funni!
Mike Laursen|11.8.08 @ 3:04PM|#
Has anybody seen Obama's new website, change.gov? It explains
how he's going to save the economy, etc. And it even has a form
where you can submit your own ideas of what he should do (I'm sure
he'll read every last one and reply to each of you
personally).
I found it pretty vague and vapid. The few places where he proposed
specific "fixes" for the economy, they sounded a lot like little
band-aid measures the Bush Administration has already tried:
another stimulus package, for example.
Sam Grove|11.8.08 @ 3:19PM|#
Blogged at Lewrockwell.com:
CNN has a news report with the following words appearing at the
bottom of the screen: "Obama's To-Do List: Taking a Cue from Abe
and FDR."
Mike Laursen|11.8.08 @ 3:35PM|#
Taking a jab at a former first lady isn't very
presidential...
I'm too lazy to go read a transcript of his news conference. Well,
not lazy so much as I don't want to read through a bunch of
rhetorical bullshit. What did he say?
Mike Laursen|11.8.08 @ 3:38PM|#
Would somebody with more tolerance towards idiocy than I,
someone who waded through the comments after 2300 yesterday, please
let me know if any insightful comments, witty repartee or well
reasoned arguments were posted after then?
That would be a great web service: users would receive a
notification when a commenter says something new and noteworthy on
Hit & Run, instead of having the same old debates over and over
again. I'm absolutely convinced the Reason writing staff makes sure
to post at least one immigration story each day just to bait
OLS.
|11.8.08 @ 4:00PM|#
Why not tax that political value? Something like a 90% tax
seems about right.
Ummm, right, enacting a confiscatory tax that would discourage
anyone with the slightest ability to earn money doing productive
work post-politics, thereby leaving the government controlled by
people so bereft of economic common sense that politics is the
best-compensated job they can aspire to -- yeah, that'll result in
good economic policy.
Unintended consequences, folks. Almost every law has 'em. Think
about everything that can possibly go wrong with a proposed law,
THEN type.
|11.8.08 @ 4:01PM|#
ed | November 8, 2008, 9:54am | #
Isn't there anyway to block that damn bot?
Libertarianism is a big tent, Miggs.
Bots, trannies, fisters, dog-fuckers, joe...they're all welcome
here.
Haven't waded through the whole thread, but I'm gonna call this the
thread-winner.
Kolohe|11.8.08 @ 4:07PM|#
I'm too lazy to go read a transcript of his news conference.
Well, not lazy so much as I don't want to read through a bunch of
rhetorical bullshit. What did he say?
Obama was asked "Have you talked to any former presidents?" And he
responded with, "Yes, all of them. I've talked to Clinton, and ...
well, all the ones that are still alive, I haven't done a Nancy
Reagan seance thing."
Word is he has talked to Nancy Reagan after this and apologized,
and Reagan thought it was no big thing.
BTW, FDR's to do list consisted of Lucy Mercer, or so Elanor has
said by way of Hillary.
(memo to firefox: Obama is president-elect now, you no longer have
to underline his name as a misspelled word.)
|11.8.08 @ 4:25PM|#
enacting a confiscatory tax that would discourage anyone
with the slightest ability to earn money doing productive work
post-politics
That Congressman-to-lobbyist revolving door has proven to be
fabulously productive for the economy.
BDB|11.8.08 @ 4:29PM|#
"The Angry Optimist | November 8, 2008, 4:17pm | #
LRC needs to knock off its childish, neo-Confederate obsession with
Lincoln."
Yeah really. It isn't 1872.
BDB|11.8.08 @ 4:29PM|#
If he wants to rail against someone who was for big government in the past, why not Hamilton? Why Lincoln? Jesus.
|11.8.08 @ 4:30PM|#
I eagerly await President Obama's announcement that he has appointed George Soros as Drug Tsar.
Sam Grove|11.8.08 @ 5:00PM|#
If he wants to rail against someone who was for big
government in the past, why not Hamilton? Why Lincoln?
Jesus.
Hamilton's
Curse
Lincoln, because the mythology around Lincoln is cited in
justification for just about every excess of the state.
Examiner: Explain the cause of the Civil War.
Apu: Well the were many factors involved...etc.
Examiner: Just say "Slavery".
Apu: OK, "Slavery".
That's all you need to know.
|11.8.08 @ 5:02PM|#
I eagerly await President Obama's announcement that he has
appointed George Soros as Drug Tsar.
Why Soros? Tommy Chong is far better qualified for the post.
BDB|11.8.08 @ 5:08PM|#
Grove--
That ultimate cause was, more accurately, the status of slavery
in the western territories.
BDB|11.8.08 @ 5:10PM|#
And the South wasn't exactly gung-ho about "states rights" when they were doing things like insisting on draconian fugitive slave laws and a federal slave code.
|11.8.08 @ 5:18PM|#
Lincoln, because the mythology around Lincoln is cited in
justification for just about every excess of the state.
That is one of the most bald-faced lies I've seen in a loooooong
time.
"every excess"? Put down the crack pipe, cracka.
BDB|11.8.08 @ 5:24PM|#
Speaking of the Civil War, here is another Ohoian rogue, TAO. To add along with Jerry Springer, Kucinuch, and Traficant.
|11.8.08 @ 5:28PM|#
BDB - that's alright, we've also got Dahmer, Manson (oh, both
Marilyn and Charles!), Custer, Charles Keating, Ted Turner...
There must be something in the water.
Sam Grove|11.8.08 @ 6:30PM|#
That was qualified: "just about"
The post war justification for the war was slavery, the proximal
cause was the south firing on Fort Sumter. Lincoln's reason was to
preserve the union. The south tried to secede because
industrialization had made the northern states wealthy and the
political scene was thereby dominated by northern
industrialists.
Lincoln:
1. instituted a draft
2. suspended habeas corpus
3. closed down newspapers critical of the administration
4. threw a critic out of the country
5. instituted a tax to pay for the war
And after the war, the Federal government remained much bigger than
before the war and the authority of the federal government has been
unchallenged ever since.
If slavery was the cause of the war, then why did the war begin
well before the Emancipation Proclamation was enacted?
Why did that document leave out slave states that had not joined
the confederacy?
None of this is to suggest that slavery shouldn't have been
abolished with the adoption of the Constitution, but why didn't the
federal government abolish slavery BEFORE the Civil war?
If you look at the Lincoln Memorial statue, you will see his hands
resting on fasces which were part of the symbol of the domination
of the Roman Empire.
By the mythology of Lincoln, I mean the near deification of the
office of president. All the greatest (most war mongering)
presidents like to cite Lincoln.
Show me that it is otherwise.
|11.8.08 @ 6:40PM|#
Seward wrote: "The best and really only way to get to a
post-racial society is to be a capitalist."
So slave auctions weren't capitalist?
|11.8.08 @ 6:42PM|#
If slavery was the cause of the war, then why did the war
begin well before the Emancipation Proclamation was
enacted?
Why did the Revolutionary War start before the Declaration of
Independence?
Just because the Emancipation Proclamation came after the war
started doesn't mean the root cause of the war wasn't about
slavery.
Why did that document leave out slave states that had not
joined the confederacy?
Because Lincoln only had authority over those areas in rebellion.
Only the Confederate States fell under the purview of Lincoln's
status as Commander-in-Chief.
The post war justification for the war was slavery
Not according to primary documents from the South. The so-called
"Cornerstone Speech", made by the VP of the CSA, stated (in
relevant part) that secession "rests upon the great truth that the
negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery-subordination to
the superior race-is his natural and normal condition. This, our
new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based
upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth".
Like I said, Mr. Grove, stop swallowing the bullshit line put out
by the neo-Confederates at LRC and start thinking for yourself. You
know that the war was indeed about slavery, but your ideology
blinds you to it because you want some kind of justification for
secession.
FWIW, I think peaceful secession IS acceptable. I don't think you
can secede over enslavement of your fellow man and violently do
so.
|11.8.08 @ 6:43PM|#
By the mythology of Lincoln, I mean the near deification of
the office of president. All the greatest (most war mongering)
presidents like to cite Lincoln.
It's not on me to prove the negative. YOU cite YOUR sources that
indicate Lincoln is the genesis of the modern State.
And you'll be wrong: the reason our State looks the way it does is
because of Woodrow Wilson.
|11.8.08 @ 6:45PM|#
So slave auctions weren't capitalist?
Uh, no, they fucking were not.
Capitalism rests on the cognizance of individual rights to life,
liberty and property and the dedication that the State's only
legitimate purpose is the prevention of force and fraud.
Force is the only way slavery exists. Ergo, not capitalism.
Sam Grove|11.8.08 @ 6:47PM|#
I didn't really want to get into the CW, but you asked the
question: Why Lincoln?
Your further response shows that you really don't want to know,
instead dismissing that conversation as "childish".
I understand that historical revisionism can make people
uncomfortable, what with the official version indoctrinated into
everyone by government employees (teachers).
There is this saying that "those who do not learn from history are
condemned to repeat it.
Learning from history does no good if one learns faulty
interpretations of same.
|11.8.08 @ 6:49PM|#
Mr. Grove, who the hell are you talking to?
The fact that you desperately cling to your shitty and inaccurate
revisionism reveals a whole lot more about you than me.
If you're dedicated to the religion that the CSA was pure as the
driven snow and it's all Lincoln's fault, who am I to stop
you?
Just don't wonder why you're not welcome in polite company.
|11.8.08 @ 7:02PM|#
No, the civil war wasn't about slavery. It was fought over the
designated hitter rule.
Give it up people, many bullshit lying justifications were made for
southern secession during and after the fact. All self-serving and
all an attempt to play down the fact that slavery was coming to an
end in a United States so most of the the slaveholding
states sought to swim against the tide of history and morality and
preserve their "peculiar institution".
When you argue otherwise you are just making fools of
yourselves.
Sam Grove|11.8.08 @ 7:02PM|#
And you'll be wrong: the reason our State looks the way it
does is because of Woodrow Wilson.
I did not say what you are attributing to me. There have been many
factors resulting in the ways things are, including Hamilton and
his "enablers" and their push for central banking.
You can also throw Teddy in the mix.
There is very little about the world that can be attributed to just
a few personalities.
I'm sure there were many advocates for secession over slavery, but
the federal government had given a number of protections to slavery
as an institution.
The question is: did the federal government make any attempt to
abolish these protections or to outlaw slavery at any point before
the war?
Did the federal government offer any plan to abolish slavery in a
peaceful manner?
Lincoln wrote in a letter that his purpose was to preserve the
Union and if he could do it by having slavery he would, but one way
or another, he would preserve the union.
Given that most people in the south were not slave owners, I have
to wonder how they were pulled into supporting secession.
BDB|11.8.08 @ 7:14PM|#
"1. instituted a draft
2. suspended habeas corpus
3. closed down newspapers critical of the administration
4. threw a critic out of the country
5. instituted a tax to pay for the war"
Jefferson Davis did all five too, and before Lincoln on several of
those things. Your point?
Sam Grove|11.8.08 @ 7:14PM|#
If you're dedicated to the religion that the CSA was pure as
the driven snow and it's all Lincoln's fault, who am I to stop
you?
What are you talking about?
Who maintains such an absurd position? I certainly don't.
The CSA was just another fascist organization attempting to cling
to political power which it had lost as part of the union.
Do you always ascribe positions to others which they do not
claim?
The position held by LRC folk is that the Federal government, under
Lincoln, waged the war to maintain its dominance over the U.S.
territory, and while the South likely seceded over slavery as well
as the shift of power to the north, the Federal government waged
war against the south to maintain its power, to preserve the union,
as Lincoln claimed.
BDB|11.8.08 @ 7:16PM|#
The Union did bad things but they were pretty fucking clearly
the lesser of two evils.
The Allies in WWII did questionable things like firebomb Dresden,
that doesn't make the Nazis and Japanese morally equivalent.
Sam Grove|11.8.08 @ 7:17PM|#
The point is about the mythology of Lincoln.
As far as I know, there is little mythologizing of Jefferson Davis
in public schools (at least, not in the north).
Everyone knows that the south were the bad guys and the north were
the good guys.
I mean, it's not possible for both sides to be bad guys, right?
|11.8.08 @ 7:18PM|#
If you're dedicated to the religion that the CSA was pure as
the driven snow and it's all Lincoln's fault, who am I to stop
you?
Just don't wonder why you're not welcome in polite
company.
I'm sure he'll be fine in polite company. He may not do so well in
the company of sanctimonious twits.
BDB|11.8.08 @ 7:19PM|#
"Everyone knows that the south were the bad guys "
Depends on where you're talking about. The North was the better
side, not the "good guys" but far and away better.
Just like in the Revolution the Americans were the better side, not
the "good guys" (hello, slavery) but better. There are no
"good guys" and "bad guys" in conflicts. Only better and worse.
Sam Grove|11.8.08 @ 7:19PM|#
The Allies in WWII did questionable things like firebomb
Dresden, that doesn't make the Nazis and Japanese morally
equivalent.
How about the atomic bombings of two cities?
BDB|11.8.08 @ 7:20PM|#
Atomic bombing (at least at that small level) was just an extension of strategic bombing, which both sides engaged in mercilessly.
|11.8.08 @ 7:30PM|#
There's a strain of libertarians who revel in their
contrarianism.
Ayn Rand called it "fashionable non-conformism"
Secession is always peaceful, stopping it is not.
Tell that to Fort Sumter.
Sam Grove - you got called on your "just about every excess of the
State" is attributed/justified by Lincoln by statists. It was a lie
then and it's a lie now.
How about the atomic bombings of two cities?
When wars are fought, they need to be won. The more brutal and
excessive the war, the greater the incentive to stop it.
Why do I sense a screed of "FDR knew about Pearl Harbor" in the
air?
Sam Grove|11.8.08 @ 7:30PM|#
It can be claimed that the failure to eliminate slavery at the
founding led to the aggrandizement of the federal government.
It is a sad fact that whenever we are discussing history, we are
discussing politics.
In politics, there are few good guys, only our side and the other
side.
In WWI and WWII we took the side of the largest empires of the
time.
The British empire was as brutal as any in its colonial
domination.
|11.8.08 @ 7:30PM|#
I should have said "There is a strain of libertarians that revels in its contrarianism" or "whose members revel in their..."
BDB|11.8.08 @ 7:30PM|#
I wish he had the balls to make the argument that the world would be a better place if the South (or Axis) won, rather than whining about how the wars were conducted.
|11.8.08 @ 7:32PM|#
In WWI and WWII we took the side of the largest empires of
the time.
We took the side against those who sneak attacked us and
killed our sailors.
And yes, I'm aware of the nuances and complexities of WWII, and a
LOT of mistakes were made (including, IMHO, being all gung-ho with
the USSR and against the Third Reich)....but attacking Japan was
not a mistake. It was justified.
Sam Grove|11.8.08 @ 7:32PM|#
you got called on your "just about every excess of the
State" is attributed/justified by Lincoln by statists. It was a lie
then and it's a lie now.
And that's not what I said. It's right up there, why not just copy
and paste.
|11.8.08 @ 7:37PM|#
Sure, the US forcefully occupied Fort Sumter instead if handing over to CSA. It invaded CSA territory.
Sam Grove|11.8.08 @ 7:37PM|#
We took the side against those who sneak attacked us and
killed our sailors.
Why do you suppose they did a fool thing like that?
Japanese strategists had calculated that the U.S. had 600 times the
war-making industrial capacity of Japan.
Either it was the stupidest endeavor ever or there's more to it
than meets the eye.
Did you know the FDR had sent U.S. warships into Japanese
territorial waters well before the war?
Are you aware the FDR worked, successfully, to cut off Japan from
Dutch oil markets?
Sam Grove|11.8.08 @ 7:40PM|#
And you are aware of course that we were helping England before
Pearl Harbor.
And you're also aware the England declared war on Germany and not
vice versa.
See, now I'm gonna have to dig out my sources.
do we really want to get into all this?
|11.8.08 @ 7:43PM|#
I know a lot of racists, i don't want to, but I bartend. Reason
ate my last post so I will just say this was so worth the look on
their faces the day after. That crushed "maybe everyone isn't
secretly an oppressed racist" look they had was worth whatever
happens.
Racism=stupid .fact.
yeah you can be if you want but I still consider you fucking
utterly worthless retarded if you are.
|11.8.08 @ 7:46PM|#
Oh, I must be psychic. I just KNEW that you were going to start
sliding into paranoia, Mr. Grove.
You know, I would have this argument with you, but you're too
committed to your religion to make it worth anything at all. I
already threw out at least one primary source about the
"cornerstone" for the CSA. You ignored it.
I'm not wasting any more time on you.
|11.8.08 @ 7:52PM|#
Sure, the US forcefully occupied Fort Sumter instead if
handing over to CSA. It invaded CSA territory.
Fuck off, you ignorant yokel.
|11.8.08 @ 7:58PM|#
And you're also aware the England declared war on Germany
and not vice versa.
Where's Basil Fawlty when you need him?
|11.8.08 @ 8:10PM|#
It's not worth it! Fort Sumter was clearly owned by the United
States Government. Beauregard was the aggressor, acting on "orders"
from the rebels.
This is undeniable fact.
Sam Grove|11.8.08 @ 8:26PM|#
It's not worth it! Fort Sumter was clearly owned by the
United States Government. Beauregard was the aggressor, acting on
"orders" from the rebels.
They attacked Sumter because it was the means by which the north
could continue to collect taxes on imports/exports.
Out of curiosity Sam does the south secede
if slavery never existed? :)
Which would imply the the south might have industrialized as
well.
Would the south have seceded if the government had offered to buy
them out to give up slavery?
How long do you suppose slavery would have lasted if Lincoln had
just let them secede?
That would have been the end of enforcement of the fugitive slave
acts.
I already threw out at least one primary source about the
"cornerstone" for the CSA. You ignored it.
Ahem, I said "and while the South likely seceded over slavery as
well as the shift of power to the north,"
See, I acknowledged your argument.
Paranoia? Are you referring to my citations regarding WWII?
Sam Grove|11.8.08 @ 8:28PM|#
I agree, racism is stupid.
It's hard to think of anything stupider except maybe expecting the
GOP to shrink government.
|11.8.08 @ 8:54PM|#
How long do you suppose slavery would have lasted if Lincoln
had just let them secede?
Longer than four years.
you know what? go on and argue your little counterfactuals. no one
cares. It has zero relevance to libertarianism today.
Kolohe|11.8.08 @ 8:57PM|#
They attacked Sumter because it was the means by which the
north could continue to collect taxes on
imports/exports.
Considering the customs house was across the river/bay in downtown
Charleston, that doesn't seem very plausible.
Now they could have prevented (or tried) anyone from coming in and
out; but tarriff collection would have been somewhat difficult to
administer.
(and to be pedantic, they wouldn't have collected *export* tariffs,
as these had always been unconsitutional as part of one of the
original Philly comprimises)
|11.8.08 @ 8:58PM|#
Section IX (4):No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Sam Grove|11.8.08 @ 9:05PM|#
Considering the customs house was across the river/bay in
downtown Charleston, that doesn't seem very plausible.
Collection of taxes always requires enforcement, especially if you
are collecting from a hostile agency, and as you implied, the fort
could be used to apply an embargo. I didn't mean that the collected
taxes at the fort. The fort was the gun behind the tax
collector.
they wouldn't have collected *export* tariffs
I'm quite willing to take your word for it.
Just Plain Brian|11.8.08 @ 9:06PM|#
(memo to firefox: Obama is president-elect now, you no longer have to underline his name as a misspelled word.)
Just in case this hasn't been addressed yet - the dictionary is
stored locally on your computer. If you right-click on the
"misspelled" word (in this case "Obama") you can choose "add to
dictionary" and you won't be bothered by it again.
But the dictionary file is still a local file on your computer.
Even if they make the necessary changes to the basic program
install, your computer won't make the change until you upgrade, at
a minimum, so I suggest adding it to your local dictionary (of
course being very careful that you spell it correctly when you do
so)
|11.8.08 @ 9:08PM|#
By my count, there are at least five acts of war perpetrated by the rebels prior to Fort Sumter.
Sam Grove|11.8.08 @ 9:09PM|#
Are you aware that Japan had sued for peace before the bombs
were dropped?
Their only condition was to keep their emperor, but FDR insisted on
unconditional surrender.
He let them keep their emperor anyway.
|11.8.08 @ 9:12PM|#
FDR? I wasn't aware he was the one who dropped the bombs.
When you make wild assertions like that, it's best to provide some
evidence.
Sam Grove|11.8.08 @ 9:37PM|#
Sorry, yes, the bombs were dropped on Truman's orders. I'll provide citation later. Cooking dinner now.
economist|11.8.08 @ 9:50PM|#
FM said: "The harassment joe is experiencing is classic swarm
tactic that you use when you're losing an argument."
Uh, harassment? That lots of people here disagree with him? Exactly
how are we "harassing" joe? If he doesn't like the tone of the
thread, he can leave. It's not like any of us follow him around
trying to draw him into arguments. Seriously, FM, I'll have to take
a line from joe here. You are the gift that keeps on giving. If I
were to find a more perfect example than you of the stereotype of
liberals as whiny emotionalist pansies, I think I would have to
make him/her up.
economist|11.8.08 @ 9:53PM|#
Dammit, this isn't the thread for arguments on the Civil
War.
To everyone who thinks the southern secessionists were libertarian
heroes:
Don't you think you could put the Confederate apologetics aside and
deal with more pressing problems that are actually relevant today?
Like the fact that a socialist just got elected president? Or that
his opponent was almost as socialistic, and a warmonger to
boot?
Famous Mortimer|11.8.08 @ 9:54PM|#
economist,
Stop picking on me! You're hurting my fragile little feelings.
You're just like the people who are picking on joe. We left
liberals are so terribly persecuted in American today.
|11.8.08 @ 10:03PM|#
Kennedy could string some nice words together, but he was a
fairly useless president.
Lincoln and FDR also gave some rather stirring speeches whilst they
were power-grabbing and locking people up for their race.
-jcr
|11.8.08 @ 10:07PM|#
everyone who thinks the southern secessionists were
libertarian heroes
I don't know anyone who claims that they were. Nevertheless,
Lincoln had no constitutional authority to conquer and annex a
state that had seceded.
-jcr
|11.8.08 @ 10:08PM|#
It's hard to think of anything stupider except maybe
expecting the GOP to shrink government.
How about expecting the Democratic party to roll back recent
usurpations of power by the executive branch?
-jcr
|11.8.08 @ 10:13PM|#
How long do you suppose slavery would have lasted if Lincoln
had just let them secede?
Probably until around 1880 or so. There was quite a bit of
anti-slavery sentiment in the south, too.
Whenever the question comes up of how slavery could be ended
without a war, I simply point to the way it ended in the
northern states. It became economically untenable, and
public opinion turned against it.
In the south, I would expect slavery to end under moral pressure
from the clergy, together with political pressure from poor whites
who had to compete with unpaid labor.
-jcr
|11.8.08 @ 10:14PM|#
Lincoln had no constitutional authority to conquer and annex
a state that had seceded.
you cannot just blandly state this as straight-forward and factual
when it's extremely debatable.
|11.8.08 @ 10:19PM|#
it's extremely debatable.
Show me anything in the constitution that authorizes the forcible
annexation of foreign territory.
-jcr
economist|11.8.08 @ 10:20PM|#
"A connoisseur of libertarian debate tactics"
Right. We know that all libertarians argue in the same style. Yes,
people who hold a particular ideology tend to disagree with people
holding opposed ideologies. And libertarian is in fact based on an
ideology centered on individualism. What a shock! The same could be
said about most liberals, socialists, populists, and
conservatives.
|11.8.08 @ 10:23PM|#
It can be claimed that the failure to eliminate slavery at
the founding led to the aggrandizement of the federal
government.
Well, that and the evil plans of Alexander Hamilton and the
banksters.
-jcr
economist|11.8.08 @ 10:25PM|#
JCR,
Fine, I'm sorry I implied that. However, the attacks on Lincoln
really don't help our cause. We can argue back and forth about
whether Lincoln is responsible for the overreaching modern state,
but that really doesn't help in rolling back the all-encompassing
statist that exists today. And it causes people to look at us
funny. Perhaps after we've dismantled the welfare state, eliminated
corporate welfare, withdrawn our troops from their various
interventions in foreign countries, and stopped the drug war, we
can argue about whether Lincoln's actions in the Civil War were
justified or not.
|11.8.08 @ 10:25PM|#
JCR - you're being circular. According to the theory, the "CSA" was not foreign territory.
economist|11.8.08 @ 10:28PM|#
Also, I would argue that falling back on the constitutional relationship between the states and the federal government avoids more important points. Constitutions, like governments, are ultimately imperfect. They should be upheld respected, usually, because (at least in our country) they protect individual rights. But if a particular constitution condones an institution that flagrantly offends any consistent idea of individual rights (slavery, for example), then it would be a greater evil to defer to that constitution than would be caused by the precedent that violating it would set.
|11.8.08 @ 10:29PM|#
the "CSA" was not foreign territory.
Of course it was. Each state became foreign territory to the United
States on the day it seceded.
-jcr
economist|11.8.08 @ 10:30PM|#
JCR,
The constitution does allow the U.S. to incorporate new territory.
It is unclear as to whether it can be forcible, but presumably it
can be, since before the Civil War the U.S. forcibly annexed a
large portion of Mexican territory.
|11.8.08 @ 10:31PM|#
We can argue back and forth about whether Lincoln is
responsible for the overreaching modern state, but that really
doesn't help in rolling back the all-encompassing statist that
exists today.
I disagree. Debunking the Lincoln mythology is necessary, since
statists ever since Lincoln have cited his actions as a precedent
that justifies their own power-grabs.
-jcr
economist|11.8.08 @ 10:32PM|#
JCR,
Like I said, do we really need to argue about this at the moment?
Remember that AO and I agree with you about 95% of the time.
Shouldn't we be arguing with the assorted statists that currently
hold a rather heavy sway over our government?
|11.8.08 @ 10:34PM|#
the U.S. forcibly annexed a large portion of Mexican
territory.
That's not the way they tell it in Texas or California. Their story
is, they seceded from Mexico, and then asked to join the United
States.
-jcr
economist|11.8.08 @ 10:35PM|#
JCR,
I really heavily doubt that the question is that relevant to today.
How about we only brng this up if the people we're arguing with
bring it up? If anything, it makes us look bad because we are seen
as defending slavery. If you want to have a more fruitful
discussion of presidents who truly shat on the constitution, let's
talk about Wilson.
|11.8.08 @ 10:36PM|#
Each state became foreign territory to the United States on
the day it seceded.
Again, you're being circular, and you know it.
If secession was not allowed under the circumstances under which it
happened, the "CSA" was never foreign territory.
economist|11.8.08 @ 10:36PM|#
JCR,
SOME people in Texas and California would say that they seceded
from Mexico and asked to join. Others would say that the
secessionists dragged them along.
|11.8.08 @ 10:37PM|#
If you want to have a more fruitful discussion of presidents
who truly shat on the constitution, let's talk about
Wilson.
No, no, economist! Libertarianism is fruitfully advanced by arguing
over events that are over 150 years old.
Please, it's oh-so-important that we hash out something that is
entirely beyond our control!
|11.8.08 @ 10:39PM|#
Shouldn't we be arguing with the assorted statists that
currently hold a rather heavy sway over our government?
Of course we should. Doing one doesn't preclude doing the other,
though.
-jcr
economist|11.8.08 @ 10:39PM|#
Most of the United States was forcibly annexed from somebody. I'm not here to rip on America, because that's how most (all?) countries, territories, etc. are. I'm merely pointing out that the constitution probably would allow the forcible annexation of foreign territory.
|11.8.08 @ 10:41PM|#
If secession was not allowed
There is no language in the constitution that prohibited secession.
That was established by force of arms, not by process of law.
-jcr
economist|11.8.08 @ 10:41PM|#
JCR,
One does preclude the other if one of the views discredits the
other, at least in the eyes of the public. I'm not saying it's
right, I'm just saying that if we are serious about rolling back
the nanny state, we should avoid (at first) causes that most people
associate with something undeniably bad.
BMoon|11.8.08 @ 10:42PM|#
What the hell is a "left-Libertarian" anyway?
That's like saying "a virgin whore."
economist|11.8.08 @ 10:44PM|#
In any case, I really don't think that secession would lead to a more libertarian America. The northeastern states (with the possible exception of NH) and the west coast states would create their little socialist republics, the southern states would turn into semi-theocratic states, and the interior would probably go to ignorant economic populists.
|11.8.08 @ 10:44PM|#
it makes us look bad because we are seen as defending
slavery.
That reminds me of one thing that really gets my goat about the
Lincoln myth. Giving him the credit for ending slavery robs the
credit due to the people who took on the real work. John Brown was
a hero. Harriet Tubman was a hero. Lincoln, not so much.
-jcr
economist|11.8.08 @ 10:47PM|#
A "left-libertarian" is usually a libertarian who places more emphasis on areas of agreement between libertarians and the left than between libertarians and the right. It's essentially the opposite of conservative-libertarian "fusionism". Many of its adherents are just as libertarian in their overall beliefs as right-libertarians. Examples might include Murray Rothbard (for a while) and Karl Hess.
economist|11.8.08 @ 10:52PM|#
JCR,
Not my point. Look. The southern states seceded because they were
worried that Lincoln's abolition-y abolitionism would cause him to
abolish slavery. They were probably wrong. However, they seceded
because of that. And, in the course of opposing their secession,
Lincoln "freed" the slaves in the seceding states, and the U.S.
Congress passed (and the states in Union ratified) an amendment to
the Constitution banning slavery. Therefore, Lincoln and the Union
will always be linked, rightly or wrongly, with ending slavery, and
the Confederacy will always be linked (rightly) with defending
slavery. Please, let's get over it and fight the modern statists,
not the statists from 150 years ago.
|11.8.08 @ 10:54PM|#
JCR - Why was the Constitution of the United States
drafted?
Answer: In response to Shay's Rebellion. The Articles of
Confederation did not provide authority to quell rebellion, so the
Constitutional Convention was held.
Just Plain Brian|11.8.08 @ 10:57PM|#
That's like saying "a virgin whore."
Sorry to torpedo your simile, but that isn's so
far fetched
|11.8.08 @ 11:03PM|#
The southern states seceded because they were worried that
Lincoln's abolition-y abolitionism would cause him to abolish
slavery. They were probably wrong. However, they seceded because of
that.
In Lincoln's first inaugural address, he threatened the southern
states with invasion if they didn't comply with the tariff. During
the war, he made an offer to let them keep slaves in perpetuity if
they would stop fighting and pay the tariff.
-jcr
economist|11.8.08 @ 11:06PM|#
JCR,
Unless you can find a plausible way to explain why the debates in
the southern state legislatures focused primarily on whether the
new Republican Congress and president posed a threat to slavery,
and (at most) secondarily on the tariff, you will not convince
anyone to drop the connection between the Confederacy and
slavery.
economist|11.8.08 @ 11:08PM|#
I also did point out that they were probably wrong. While I'm pretty sure the free-soil platform would have been enacted (preventing the expansion of slavery), I doubt that the U.S. government would have abolished slavery outright.
|11.8.08 @ 11:10PM|#
The Articles of Confederation did not provide authority to
quell rebellion, so the Constitutional Convention was
held.
The convention was held because Hamilton wanted to establish a
monarchy and a central bank, and he'd been pushing for the
destruction of the articles of confederation since the end of the
revolution. He didn't get all he wanted though, which is why he
dreamed up the doctrine of "implied powers."
Shays' rebellion (which was provoked by Boston banksters, I might
add) provided a convenient excuse for increasing the power of the
central government.
If only Aaron Burr had done his greatest service to our country a
decade earlier.
-jcr
economist|11.8.08 @ 11:14PM|#
JCR,
Not everyone who thought the articles of confederation were too
weak was a Hamiltonian.Many (most?) were concerned about states
violating the rights and liberties of their citizens (for examples,
look at the debt suspensions and monetary inflation practiced by
many state governments under the articles).
economist|11.8.08 @ 11:22PM|#
Man, this thread moved twice to topics that I thought were a fruitless waste of time. What's sad is that while 85% of the time I argue with joe (5% I actually agree with him and 10% I ignore), I couldn't really find much of a reason to argue with jcr, other than I wanted to move the topic to something else.
|11.8.08 @ 11:42PM|#
Sometimes one just needs a good clean slap across the
face!
Jiess
www.Privacy-Center.net
|11.8.08 @ 11:44PM|#
We left liberals are so terribly persecuted in American
today.
Yes. But not nearly enough.
economist|11.8.08 @ 11:49PM|#
A General Late-Night Drunk Observation:
According to Lefiti and Famous Mortimer, libertarians are
simultaneously a marginal fringe cult who can only dream of one day
wielding the type of influence that eminent figures such as Lefiti
and Famous Mortimer hold and a large menacing conspiracy with the
power to implement policies that have caused the current economic
crisis.
economist|11.8.08 @ 11:51PM|#
I admit that the fake FM post was mine. But that's essentially what his response (if he had made one) would boil down to. Famous Mortimer (who I'm beginning to suspect is the alter-ego of concerned observer) is insecure that way.
Mike Laursen|11.8.08 @ 11:56PM|#
BTW, FDR's to do list consisted of Lucy Mercer, or so Elanor
has said by way of Hillary.
I threw a perfectly good straight line out there, and thought
nobody had picked up on it, until I read back through your comment.
Thanks!
Mike Laursen|11.9.08 @ 12:01AM|#
So slave auctions weren't capitalist?
Uh, no, they fucking were not.
Not. Look, I'm as big of a capitalist as anybody here, but
capitalism is simply about making stuff and trading stuff. It has
no inherent ethical objection to trading people. It's ethical
philosophy that has convinced us that we shouldn't trade people
(except between sports teams).
slime mold|11.9.08 @ 1:21AM|#
unfortunately i must reiterate an earlier post. most of you are mewling like fifteen year old quasi-intellectual douchebags, and you do us all a disservice. obamas election WAS a refreshing postracial statement by u.s. citizens. thanks for the article. and ols, you are my most favorite of them all
Sam Grove|11.9.08 @ 1:33AM|#
OK, this is from Maybury's World War II
On January 24, 1943, one week before the battle os Stalingrad, FDR
made his famous call for unconditional surrender, this after his
1942 announcement of war crimes trials intending the execution of
German leaders.
After this announcement, General Hans Halder, a member of the
German underground reported that it was no longer possible to
recruit people to rise against Hitler.
UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER by Anne Armstrong
Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, head of Hitler's intelligence service, in
June of 1943, contacted the Allies to say he would arrange an open
door for the Allies to land in Western Europe if they would give up
the demand for unconditional surrender. The head of U.S. secret
intelligence met with the German rebels in Istanbul and returned to
D.C. and asked FDR to agree to Canaris' offer. FDR refused.
THE NEW DEALERS' WAR, by Thomas Fleming
On august 8, Foreign minister Togo and Emperor Hirohito has decided
to ask the Japanese War Council to announce Japan's surrender (the
day before Nagasaki was bombed).
DAY ONE by Peter WyndenFive days after the nagasaki bomb, even
though U.S. leaders knew the Japanese were in the process of
surrendering, the U.S. hit Japan again with a thousand bombers
dropping incendiary bombs.
WHY THE ALLIES WON, by Richard Overy and
WORLD WAR II DAY BY DAY, by donald Sommerville
In May 1945, Truman was receiving reports that the Japanese were
ready to surrender if the demand for Unconditional Surrender were
dropped, but he refused to drop it.
President Truman's personal journal, discovered in 1979 and other
docuents that have come to light since the war, make it clear the
the purpose of dropping the bombs on japan was to overawe the
Russian. Truman said, "If it explodes, as I think it will, I'll
certainly have a hammer on those boys,"
Why We Nuked Japan, by Gar Alperovitz, an article from Technolgy
Review reprinted in the Sacramento Bee, Aug 19, 1990
There's much more, but that should do for now.
Sam Grove|11.9.08 @ 1:34AM|#
opps.
Five days after the nagasaki bomb, even though U.S. leaders knew
the Japanese were in the process of surrendering, the U.S. hit
Japan again with a thousand bombers dropping incendiary
bombs.
WHY THE ALLIES WON, by Richard Overy and
WORLD WAR II DAY BY DAY, by Donald Sommerville
My apologies for the typos as well.
|11.9.08 @ 2:29AM|#
So what exactly was the point of all that, Sam Grove? People
don't just do things for the sake of evil. I know you mentioned
Truman's diary (this theory is actually put forth in the Hiroshima
peace museum), but how do you explain the other events?
And what does this have to do with the Civil War or anything
else?
Seward|11.9.08 @ 6:47AM|#
So slave auctions weren't capitalist?
Slavery requires government enforcement of the condition of the
slave. So slavery is a good example of government failure.
Elemenope|11.9.08 @ 9:11AM|#
What the hell is a "left-Libertarian" anyway?
That's like saying "a virgin whore."
Ideological purity is the hobgoblin of little idiots.
Elemenope|11.9.08 @ 9:13AM|#
Slavery requires government enforcement of the condition of
the slave. So slavery is a good example of government
failure.
Technically, slavery only *requires* negative action from the
government (a promise not to act as though the slave is a legal
human). Everything else could conceivably be handled by private
power.
Seward|11.9.08 @ 9:52AM|#
Elemenope,
Show me a slave society where the rights of the slave owner were
not positively enforced by some type of government. Then again, I
can't think of a slave owning society where the slaveowners weren't
the government in part or the whole. This of course gets back to
the observation by Hobbes that property protection requires a
sovereign.
Fluffy|11.9.08 @ 10:05AM|#
Here's the real problem with the entire argument regarding
whether secession was Constitutional, and whether the CSA or the
USA was right:
In 1859, neither the United States nor any state had a legitimate
government. John Brown at Harper's Ferry was morally in the right.
Any insurrectionist who took up arms against the USA or against any
state in 1859 could have found perfectly proper moral grounds to do
so.
That means that trying to argue legal issues from the time doesn't
really matter that much. Who cares who had the law on their side,
when the law itself was illegitimate?
Fluffy|11.9.08 @ 10:09AM|#
Technically, slavery only *requires* negative action from
the government (a promise not to act as though the slave is a legal
human). Everything else could conceivably be handled by private
power.
Unless the state defines who is and who is not a slave, this would
merely be anarchy and the war of all against all. You could be a
master in the morning and a slave in the evening. In order to
promise not to act as though the slave were a legal human, the
state would have to cease to exist - because if any person could
exert any violence on any other person up to the limit of their
ability to do so simply by calling them a slave, there would no
longer be anything resembling criminal or commercial law.
Elemenope|11.9.08 @ 10:33AM|#
Seward,
I don't diuagree that it has never happened in recorded history,
but that's only becuase we've never really had an anarchocaptialist
regime anywhere before.
My point is simply that slavery is possible in anarchocapitalism,
as a person may enslave through force of private arms.
Elemenope|11.9.08 @ 10:34AM|#
Well, yeah, fluffy. It is possible that the condition of being a
slave or a slave-owner would be more fluid than in a state-backed
servitude regime.
But it's still slavery.
Seward|11.9.08 @ 10:43AM|#
Elemenope,
I don't diuagree that it has never happened in recorded
history, but that's only becuase we've never really had an
anarchocaptialist regime anywhere before.
Because man as an animal belongs in the "city" (Aristotle is
confirmed). You are not going to see anarchocapitalist regimes, so
I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Elemenope|11.9.08 @ 10:55AM|#
I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Someone suggested that slavery is primarily a creature of the
state.
*My point* is, that is essentially an accident of history. Slavery
can exist with or without state involvement. All that is really
required for slavery is there need be conditions where one person
can bring force against another without fear of retribution. This
can be because such force is legal, or because there is no
sovereign with countervailing authority. It need not require the
state to be the primary user of force.
Fluffy|11.9.08 @ 11:17AM|#
My point is simply that slavery is possible in
anarchocapitalism, as a person may enslave through force of private
arms.
I think it would be more precise to say that slavery is a possible
feature of anarchy.
I thought the discussion was whether state sponsorship of slavery
is a positive or negative act. I was just pointing out that it has
to be a positive act, because the range of negative acts a state
would have to take to negatively create slavery would make it cease
to be a state in any meaningful sense.
Seward|11.9.08 @ 11:19AM|#
Elemenope,
*My point* is, that is essentially an accident of
history.
Well, you are in error. A sovereign is required in part because
property protection is impossible without that sovereign.
Slavery can exist with or without state involvement.
Yet it has never existed in recorded history without the state
(even in slash and burn small units of human society).
BDB,
Well, that's the difference between social science and political
philosophy.
Fluffy|11.9.08 @ 11:22AM|#
Not. Look, I'm as big of a capitalist as anybody here, but
capitalism is simply about making stuff and trading stuff. It has
no inherent ethical objection to trading people. It's ethical
philosophy that has convinced us that we shouldn't trade people
(except between sports teams).
Before capitalism is about making stuff and trading stuff, it's
about owning stuff.
Would you agree that to be a capitalist system, there have to be
prohibitions against random theft? That a system where it was legal
to pick up any property you saw and take it away would not be
"capitalistic"? Because if so, that would seem to indicate that
certain ethical concepts are required for a system to be
capitalistic - and we can then examine the question of whether the
primary concept of self-ownership is one of those concepts.
Seward|11.9.08 @ 11:22AM|#
Fluffy,
Well, more to the point, I cannot think of a situation where
slavery came about by law, as opposed to legislation.
Seward|11.9.08 @ 11:23AM|#
Fluffy,
Even when the primary means of slave acquirement is via force of
arms.
Elemenope|11.9.08 @ 11:27AM|#
A sovereign is required in part because property protection
is impossible without that sovereign.
Bull. Absent a sovereign people can defend that which they claim by
force of their own arms. Whether they are successful in this is
merely dependent upon whether they have sufficient force at their
disposal to discourage those who would attempt to procure their
claims.
Sam Grove|11.9.08 @ 11:28AM|#
And what does this have to do with the Civil War or anything
else?
Nothing has anything to do with anything else and I only know what
I experience, which includes reading what others have
written.
But the issue of WWII came up and I tossed out a comment which
someone requested I back up with some citations. However, they are
only citations. I wasn't there and I can't KNOW what really
happened...same as most everyone else.
Re: slavery
Can it only be called slavery if it is a full time thing or is part
time slavery possible?
What is our basis for judging anything?
We get desperate on weekends when there are so few postings to
comment on.
Seward|11.9.08 @ 11:34AM|#
Elemenope,
Absent a sovereign people can defend that which they claim by
force of their own arms.
Sure they can, but they cannot secure it. That's why sovereigns
come about in the first place. You cannot make some a slave and
their progeny without a state. And since - as I have told you
before - slavery requires that it be hereditary - in fact, it is
the most important aspect of slavery - slavery cannot exist without
a sovereign.
When you can come up with an example of a slave society which
existed without a state I'll be perfectly amenable to considering
your point. Otherwise it looks far less like an accident of history
and more like the "nature" of the institution.
Elemenope|11.9.08 @ 11:36AM|#
Seward,
If I kidnapped you, and placed you and your S.O. in a basement, and
locked the door, and threatened to shoot you if either of you tried
to escape, and then forced you to have children, and then threaten
to do the same to them...
How is that not slavery?
Where did the state intervene?
Elemenope|11.9.08 @ 11:37AM|#
We get desperate on weekends when there are so few postings
to comment on.
QFT.
Seward|11.9.08 @ 11:52AM|#
Elemenope,
I'll repeat...
When you can come up with an example of a slave society which
existed without a state I'll be perfectly amenable to considering
your point. I don't think it is really all that terrible for me to
ask for a bit of empirical data.
...and then threaten to do the same to them...
But then the marauding band from next door took those
offspring...
Which leads back to Hobbes' point about property in the state of
nature.
Seward|11.9.08 @ 11:56AM|#
Elemenope,
In other words, one could spin yarns and hypotheticals all day,
that still wouldn't undermine what has been observed: that slavery
requires a state, and thus slavery is an example of government
failure. You know, government failure is a real and observed
phenomenon, it is one of the reasons why libertarians are skeptical
of government activity outside of a few defined areas where such
failure is less common.
Seward|11.9.08 @ 11:58AM|#
We get desperate on weekends when there are so few postings
to comment on.
Yeah, that's a sure sign to get on with all those DIY projects on
the weekend to do list.
Elemenope|11.9.08 @ 12:02PM|#
Seward,
...and I've already conceded there is no empirical data on account
of the fact THAT WE'VE NEVER IN RECORDED HISTORY LIVED WITHOUT
STATES!!!
Your request for evidence is absurd. I'm only making a consistent
and coherent claim about the possibility of private slavery. I'm
making no claims as to history. So, show that my conception is
somehow inconsistent or impossible if you like, but try not to move
the goal-posts into ridiculous territory.
But then the marauding band from next door took those
offspring...
All you need is better fortifications or bigger guns than those
guys and it is likely they will never try. Cost/benefit, and all
that.
Elemenope|11.9.08 @ 12:05PM|#
Also, FWIW, slavery and slave trading is often a feature of life in *failed states*, such as in many areas of modern Africa, where presumably the state isn't equipped or capable of defending property rights.
Seward|11.9.08 @ 12:17PM|#
Elemenope,
I'm only making a consistent and coherent claim about the
possibility of private slavery.
And I am telling you that they are impossible. They haven't been
observed and furthermore once one starts thinking about the idea it
is obvious that because slavery is a species of property it would
be impossible to enforce without a state.
All you need is better fortifications or bigger guns than those
guys and it is likely they will never try.
Until someone with bigger guns comes along. Then again, once you
get into that territory a state is going to exist.
Also, FWIW, slavery and slave trading is often a feature of
life in *failed states*...
Even "failed states" have government bodies in them; they just tend
not to be recognized by other governments. In other words, what has
failed in that case is the officially recognized government.
Sam Grove|11.9.08 @ 12:32PM|#
Perhaps one of you is talking about slavery as an institution
and the other about slavery in a functional manner.
Is a draft slavery?
If you only have to act as a slave one month per year, or for a
year out of your life, is that slavery?
Fluffy|11.9.08 @ 12:58PM|#
Technically, slavery only *requires* negative action from
the government (a promise not to act as though the slave is a legal
human). Everything else could conceivably be handled by private
power.
LMNOP,
This was what started the "state slavery vs. private slavery"
debate.
Now, obviously it's possible for private individuals to commit all
sorts of crimes against each other, and among those crimes it's
possible to have kidnapping scenarios like the one you later
described. So, sure, private slavery is possible.
But that's not what the italicized bit I'm quoting from you above
is saying. The quote above is clearly structured as it is in order
to argue that slavery can be a feature of a minarchist or
capitalist state, because slavery can be created by the state
negatively, by simply promising not to act as if the slave is human
and by failing to act to prevent slavery.
I'm just pointing out that the state's critical function in the
institution of slavery is definitional: the state must define who
is and who is not a slave, and what actions are permitted to
masters and to slaves respectively. This is a positive act and not
a negative failure-to-act. If the state does not undertake to make
this set of definitions, any person could at any moment do to any
other person the full range of acts we associate with slavery, if
they had the physical power to do so. And since that range of acts
includes murder, kidnapping, rape, child-abduction, expropriation,
mutilation, etc., for the state to negatively create slavery the
state would have to permit any person to do any of these acts to
any other person at all times without punishment. And that state
would not be recognizable to anyone as a state.
This is why I'm arguing that slavery has to be a positive creation
of the state, and that outside of situations of total anarchy [or
of law-breaking like some psycho abducting you to his basement] you
can't have slavery without an intervention by the state.
|11.9.08 @ 1:03PM|#
There are ample illustrations of slavery during periods of
anarchy -- during the American Revolution, for example.
Anarcho-capitalism has never been tried, and absent the Singularity
where computers become smarter than humans and start running things
(say, 2030 or so), it won't happen. But, the defining feature of
anarcho-capitalism, as has already been pointed out on this thread,
is the concept of self-ownership, so by definition an
anarcho-capitalist society can't be a slave-owning society, because
if that is legally allowed, by definition it quits being A-C.
Now, there have ALWAYS been renegade individuals who enslave
others, even if legally prohibited. Happens right now in the U.S.
But we're talking about what a society allows, not about what some
criminals do despite the best efforts of law-abiding citizens to
enforce a societies' values.
Seward|11.9.08 @ 1:52PM|#
Prolefeed,
States remained in existance during the American Revolution;
indeed, one way to look at that war is two contending states
competing over the same territory. Integral to that war was which
state would support the property rights of the slave owners; with
the British taking steps (as a measure to win the war) to free
slaves who deserted their masters and made it behind British
lines.
Fluffy,
Well, my point remains that without government one cannot meet the
basic criteria for slavery - most important of those being
inheritability. Which is why no slave societies have existed
outside of a state.
Elemenope|11.9.08 @ 2:18PM|#
Which is why no slave societies have existed outside of a
state.
You'd have a hard time coming up with a society *period* which has
existed outside of a state, especially the naturalistic one you
seem to to favor for a definition (a natural consequence of the
aggregation of people, property, and the means of force, as you
seem to imply @ 12:17).
ed|11.9.08 @ 2:31PM|#
I'm about to throw some bison burgers and lamb skewers on the
grill, along with some onions, peppers and baby white
potatoes.
That is what taste is.
Yes I can!
Seward|11.9.08 @ 2:48PM|#
Elemenope,
You'd have a hard time coming up with a society *period* which
has existed outside of a state...
Why do you think I referenced Aristotle's claim re: the city and
man? I made that rather explicit some time ago.
____________________________________
Here is something a
little more topical to chew on.
|11.9.08 @ 3:10PM|#
States remained in existance during the American Revolution;
indeed, one way to look at that war is two contending states
competing over the same territory.
Seward -- I'd have to disagree with that assessment, at least on a
functional basis, though on paper that might have been what the
various competing factions claimed. The British government was
essentially kicked out of most of the colonial territory, though
wherever the British landed troops, they regained a temporary,
tenuous control over the population within the enforceable range of
those troops. In the areas not under British military rule, you had
something approximating anarchy, with each colony pretty much on
their own, with a huge chunk of the citizenry not particularly
loyal to the colony, either because they were British loyalists or
were out on the fringes of civilization beyond the effective
control of any governmental structures. And the control of the
colonial governments was tenuous at best, and the national
government even less so.
Basically, as "state" is generally defined -- a clearly defined,
generally accepted monopoly on the right to use force in a
geographically defined area that persists over significant periods
of time -- well, you didn't really have that.
|11.9.08 @ 3:14PM|#
There's a statement in that Slate article that "few economists question the need for a bailout." I find that pretty obnoxious. I imagine lots of economists have questioned the need for one.
Seward|11.9.08 @ 3:36PM|#
prolefeed,
And the control of the colonial governments was tenuous at
best, and the national government even less so.
Well, as far as I know none of the local governments
disappeared.
...a clearly defined, generally accepted monopoly on the right
to use force in a geographically defined area that persists over
significant periods of time...
Well, under that definition medieval monarchies weren't states
because there were multiple parties in such entities with the right
to use force of over overlapping geographic regions. Now maybe what
we think of a state today falls under that definition, but
historically states have often not met that criteria, though I
don't think anyone would disagree that a state in fact existed.
Kolohe|11.9.08 @ 5:03PM|#
Even "failed states" have government bodies in them; they
just tend not to be recognized by other governments.
To be nitpicky, I'd say it's reversed. Failed states have govt's
that are recognized by other govt's but not by their own
people.
|11.9.08 @ 6:27PM|#
Slavery can exist with or without state
involvement.
I concur. Slavery, like any other crime, can be perpetrated with or
without a state to facilitate it. Of course, to commit these crimes
on a massive scale, a state is essential.
-jcr
|11.9.08 @ 6:33PM|#
John Brown at Harper's Ferry was morally in the right. Any
insurrectionist who took up arms against the USA or against any
state in 1859 could have found perfectly proper moral grounds to do
so.
The moral grounds for John Brown's actions would certainly apply to
any slave state, and to the federal government, but I would argue
that they don't apply to (say) Vermont, where the local militia had
met federal troops at the border and told them in no uncertain
terms that they would not survive an attempt to enter
Vermont to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.
-jcr
MJ|11.9.08 @ 6:34PM|#
"It just seems that he is so easily transformed into the type of
debater that squabbles about semantics and moot points - in
addition to being reduced to schoolyard babbling."
joe is the Sean Hannity (left-wing version) of this forum.
|11.9.08 @ 7:06PM|#
I am not unhappy with Obama's election. He does seem marginally
better than McCain, so if you must get stuck with one, then I
suppose he is the lesser evil, etc. The idea of Joe Biden becoming
president if something befalls the president is actually kind of
scary though.
With the economic shit-storm headed our way, I think Obama is
likely to go down in history as a tremendous failure. So, from a
long-term point view I think BO's election will be a victory
(incidentally, I am not a Republican). All of this talk about
Obama's historic ascendance, etc, is likely to do great harm to
potential future black candidates, because BO will take the blame
for the coming depression.
I am fairly pleased to see the Rs get the boot because they have
failed to deliver on their supposedly fundamental core beliefs:
small government and fiscal responsibility. One should not
extrapolate this to mean, however, that the Dems will be any
better, although it is hard to see how they could do worse.
|11.9.08 @ 11:45PM|#
BO will take the blame for the coming depression.
I wouldn't be too sure of that. To this day, there are millions of
people who credit FDR with ending the depression that Hoover
started. Hell, some people don't even knock him for locking up
innocent people without charges.
-jcr
Mike Laursen|11.10.08 @ 1:30AM|#
Would you agree that to be a capitalist system, there have
to be prohibitions against random theft?
No. I could imagine an anarchist society where there is no central
authority to prohibit anything, yet I could imagine that society
having lots of commercial activity. I believe that
anarcho-capitalists would call such a hypothetical society
anarcho-capitalist.
Neu Mejican|11.10.08 @ 10:33AM|#
If Somalia is in anarchy (a debatable assumption), then this may
be on topic for this thread.
http://gvnet.com/humantrafficking/Somalia.htm
If child soldiers are slaves, state power is not the source of
their slavery as they are more frequently used by rebel forces than
state armies.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245