Page 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 715161718 LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 180

Thread: Media Exaggerate Tea Party's Sway

  1. #161
    Walk with me in hell.
    stekim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Atlanta
    Last Seen
    09-21-10 @ 12:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,106

    Re: Media Exaggerate Tea Party's Sway

    Quote Originally Posted by Mellie View Post
    The Libertarian Party hosts some Tea Parties, ya know......
    Yep, I do. Don't care much for the "extra" visitors.
    Wow. Am I awesome or what?

  2. #162
    Walk with me in hell.
    stekim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Atlanta
    Last Seen
    09-21-10 @ 12:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,106

    Re: Media Exaggerate Tea Party's Sway

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    Make no mistake about it my left wing friends, the Tea parties will back the Republican candidates running for seats in the congress as well as President in 2012....
    Exactly. Thanks!
    Wow. Am I awesome or what?

  3. #163
    Student
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Chinle, Arizona
    Last Seen
    11-29-10 @ 03:28 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    276

    Re: Media Exaggerate Tea Party's Sway

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    I've never oppressed you. what right do you think you have to my money?
    It's already been said here: "It's fallacious to believe that personal complicity is a necessary condition of being in possession of stolen property. If Joe steals John's property and passes it down to his grandson Jim, that hardly changes the fact that it rightfully belongs to John's grandson Jones, regardless of the fact that Jim didn't steal anything. That he's in possession of stolen property is the issue."

    Any consistent and logical libertarian would come to the same conclusion that I have, as Murray Rothbard, Roderick Long, and some other libertarians around the Mises Institute have. You haven't because you're clinging to your underlying conservative emotional sentiments instead. Lakoff describes them this way:

    The idea that the rich have moral authority over the poor fits American Strict Father morality very well. Start with the American Dream, the stereotypic assumption that America is truly a land of opportunity where anyone with self-discipline and talent can, through hard work, climb the ladder of success. It follows that anyone who has been in the country long enough and is not successful has either not worked hard enough, or is not talented enough. If he has not worked hard enough, he is slothful and morally weak. If he is not talented enough, then he ranks lower than others in the natural order and hence lower in the moral order. The rich (who are disciplined and talented enough and who have worked hard to become rich) deserve their wealth and the poor (either through lack of industry or talent) deserve their poverty. The rich are thus not just more powerful than the poor, they also have moral authority over the poor and with it the moral responsibility to tell the poor how to live: build self-discipline, work hard, climb the economic ladder, and so become self-reliant.
    That's nowhere near reality, though. There are severe constraints on social mobility, market power that creates barriers to firm entry and undercuts competitive enterprise, and all the other trappings of corporatism. The difference between you and me is that I don't pretend that free-market capitalism is at fault, because I'm aware of its nonexistence. So answer what I've said: The lines of acquisition are blurred; effectively all habitable land and usable resources were gained through aggression at some point. Effectively all existing property was either directly gained through aggression at some time in the past or created by some other resource or capital good that was itself gained through aggression, and so on and so forth. Doesn’t this demand massive redistribution of wealth and property to “rectify” matters? It seems obvious that it invalidates complaints about progressive taxation being “theft from the productive,” since existing property distribution is inherited from feudalism, mercantilism, slavery, aggressive dispossession of indigenous populations, a long history of state interventionism, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    none what so ever. I find it funny however that you would claim I was using the race card, where that was his m.o., along with your "poor indians are owed money from pale face" "libertartianism"....
    You've built your impressions on some stereotypes in your head. I don't stand to gain from Indian reparations, which were simply one example I advanced because I thought it would be obvious. I'm a non-Navajo on the Navajo Reservation. Why don't you explain Murray's racism?

  4. #164
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,159

    Re: Media Exaggerate Tea Party's Sway

    Quote Originally Posted by Cochise View Post
    It's already been said here: "It's fallacious to believe that personal complicity is a necessary condition of being in possession of stolen property. If Joe steals John's property and passes it down to his grandson Jim, that hardly changes the fact that it rightfully belongs to John's grandson Jones, regardless of the fact that Jim didn't steal anything. That he's in possession of stolen property is the issue."

    Any consistent and logical libertarian would come to the same conclusion that I have, as Murray Rothbard, Roderick Long, and some other libertarians around the Mises Institute have. You haven't because you're clinging to your underlying conservative emotional sentiments instead. Lakoff describes them this way:



    That's nowhere near reality, though. There are severe constraints on social mobility, market power that creates barriers to firm entry and undercuts competitive enterprise, and all the other trappings of corporatism. The difference between you and me is that I don't pretend that free-market capitalism is at fault, because I'm aware of its nonexistence. So answer what I've said: The lines of acquisition are blurred; effectively all habitable land and usable resources were gained through aggression at some point. Effectively all existing property was either directly gained through aggression at some time in the past or created by some other resource or capital good that was itself gained through aggression, and so on and so forth. Doesn’t this demand massive redistribution of wealth and property to “rectify” matters? It seems obvious that it invalidates complaints about progressive taxation being “theft from the productive,” since existing property distribution is inherited from feudalism, mercantilism, slavery, aggressive dispossession of indigenous populations, a long history of state interventionism, etc.



    You've built your impressions on some stereotypes in your head. I don't stand to gain from Indian reparations, which were simply one example I advanced because I thought it would be obvious. I'm a non-Navajo on the Navajo Reservation. Why don't you explain Murray's racism?

    Cochise, what if archeology turned up that, tens of thousands of years ago, the Ainu were here in America before being run off the continent by the ancestors of the Amerinds. Would you be in favor of giving everything "back" to the Ainu?

    (The Ainu are an aboriginal people of Japan, relatively caucasiod, now found in very small and dwindling numbers on some of the northern islands of Japan. As of my last reading on the matter, their origins remained something of a mystery.)

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  5. #165
    Student
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Chinle, Arizona
    Last Seen
    11-29-10 @ 03:28 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    276

    Re: Media Exaggerate Tea Party's Sway

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Cochise, what if archeology turned up that, tens of thousands of years ago, the Ainu were here in America before being run off the continent by the ancestors of the Amerinds. Would you be in favor of giving everything "back" to the Ainu?

    (The Ainu are an aboriginal people of Japan, relatively caucasiod, now found in very small and dwindling numbers on some of the northern islands of Japan. As of my last reading on the matter, their origins remained something of a mystery.)
    If you have any such evidence, please post it. The only link to the Ainu that I’m aware of is the fossilized skeleton of Kennewick Man, which was radiocarbon dated to about 9,300 calendar years ago, well after the latest possible date of paleo-Indians’ migration of America via the Beringia land bridge (eleven to thirteen thousand years ago), as it had been submerged underwater. (I’d suggest a coastal boat route for arrival of these first immigrants myself, but whatever.) Kennewick Man is certainly not “tens of thousands” years old, if that’s what you were referring to.

    But aside from that, I’m not certain what you mean by your use of the word “Caucasoid,” which is an ambiguous term that isn’t necessarily a reference to whites of Europe. Anthropologist James Chatters used the word to refer to the skull structure of the Ainu and Polynesians, such as the population of Easter Island. The misinterpretation of "Caucasoid" as interchangeable with "Caucasian" or "European" was and is the case for permanent misconception that whites (to the extent that a "white race" even exists) were the first persons to populate America on white supremacist forums such as Stormfront. Reference to that fossil as evidence of whites’ existence in America prior to Native Americans is usually repeated by those white supremacists permanently deluded about its identity:

    Kennewick Man - Stormfront

    Kennewick, is in the long line of European lineage of the (PNW) in Washington. Leif Erickson, is our state figure who was one of the Viking patriarchs of Washington. There is numerous bronze statues of Leif Erickson, across Washington including other Germanic heroins. Because of "Kennewick Man" discovery that proves us Europeans were the real "Native Americans", my fathers mothers family suffers as well, and anyone else they find.

    "Kennewick Man" is the link to our lineage and we must never let them desecrate it, vilify it, and ultimately destroy it.
    This isn't your land - Stormfront

    The next time some brain-dead uninformed uneducated scumbag tells you this is 'native' land, ask them if they have ever heard of the Kennewick man. the Kennewick man and his people were here thousands of years before the red-man came from China. When the Kennewick man was first discovered ALL said he was Caucasian. Now because of political pressure, they now say he was not White, nor was he an 'native' either.
    It's simple, the 'natives' ethnically cleansed the Kennewick man from his land, and we took it back.

    "...The Ainu were originally White. If you google older pictures of the Ainu, you can see that they were originally Nordic people. They were called the “Hairy Ainu” because of the massive ZZ-Top style beards wich the men wore. They were tall, blonde and blue eyed.

    The Ainu were the original people of Japan and the originators of the Samurai culture. They were also the same people as those of Kenniwick man wich were the first inhabitants of the Americas, these were the ancient lost White peoples who once inhabited many parts of the globe..."
    So-called Stealing of Indian Land - Stormfront

    "Native Americans" - Stormfront

    In reality, Kennewick Man probably represents a paleo-Indian person prior to genetic shift in the American population. The Asiatic origins of Amerindians are well-known; their closest genetic relationship to any other human race or sub-race is still with the indigenous peoples of Siberia and Mongolia, though they are certainly distinct (as each respective group is internally diverse, also). For example, the frequency of Y chromosome DNA haplogroup C3 (strongest in that region) in the Ainu and the Cheyenne and Apache are within three to four percentage points of each other.

    But this is all idle talk anyway. Native Americans are the relevant parties because of their establishment of societal organization and settlements and the impact of unjust dispossession on their current conditions. The problem is the influence that the aggression inherent in primitive accumulation had on the presently existing distributions of income, wealth, property, and opportunity of modern economic actors. As I said in my immigration thread, if there was evidence that Navajo raids on Pueblo communities had impacts on the current welfare of and Pueblo, that would be a cause for reparation. I’ve not seen any, and the examples that I refer to (unjust dispossession of the indigenous, enslavement of blacks, and the like) are far more obvious and clear-cut.

    Said Rothbard of land reform:

    We at the Lib. Forum have long been advocates of land reform, but not, obviously, because we are socialists or egalitarians, or because we are simply pro-peasant or anti-landlord. "Land reform" is a portmenteau concept that covers a lot of sins and virtues, and so is a virtually meaningless term. What we favor, here as always, is justice and property rights, and we favor the return of stolen property to its rightful owners. In many areas of the world, arable land was stolen by conquest and government expropriation from the peasants and handed to a favored group of "feudal" landlords, and we consider it not only just but essential to restore this property to the rightful peasant owners. In these cases, the "rent" extracted by the unjust landlords is really a form of tax paid by the peasantry. This of course is not true of all peasants and all landlords, since in many cases the land was justly owned by the landlords and then rented out to the peasantry. How do we know which is which? Obviously, in the same way we know whether any property-a watch, a horse, or whatever-is justly or criminally owned by its current possessor: by engaging in a "historical" inquiry into the source of its current title. The proper analysis is not "peasant" vs. "landlord" but just vs. criminal possession of current property.

    The contrasting cases of Portugal and Mexico, recently in the news, provide an instructive case study in very different attitudes that libertarians should have toward concrete landed property and land reform.

    In Portugal, there is no land problem north of the Tagus River, where no land conquest or expropriations took place, and where the land is consequently marked by private peasant proprietors and there is no call for land reform. Southeast of the Tagus, however, is a land conquered centuries ago from the Moslems, with the peasants expropriated by State creation of large feudal estates. It is in southern Portugal, then, where land reform is a very live issue. It is not surprising, therefore, that southeastern Portugal, in the Alentejo district, was the major source of Communist strength during the 1974 revolution and since, for only the Communists came out strongly for seizure of the feudal estates. The Communists, of course, are not really interested in peasant property; what they desire is their own confiscation of peasant estates and domination over these peasants on state-owned collective farms. In Portugal, the headstrong Communist party quickly proceeded to confiscate the large estates in 1975, and turned southern Portugal into a land of state-owned rather than feudally-owned estates.
    Implicit in the belief that reparations steal from the productive to subsidize the unproductive, undercutting incentives for self-discipline, is the flawed assumption that economic actors are currently paid according to their abilities and productivity. Since corporate rather than free-market capitalism exists, and since its legacy is colored by various forms of aggression and state intervention, there is no basis for such an assumption.

    It has been a very grave mistake for libertarians to not adopt clear and powerful stances against poverty, limited social mobility and opportunity, market concentration, and the like, because the consistent application of our principles demands it, since current income, wealth, and property distributions have been created by incarnations of statism in various forms rather than competitive free markets where participants rise and fall based on their own merits and willingness to work hard. And what ignorance of that and dismissal of the consequences of that statism have done is provide a platform for authoritarian statists more interested in their own power than furthering liberty, because they do inspire sympathy and support from those currently harmed by past aggression.

  6. #166
    Voluntary Resignation

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    11-30-10 @ 05:20 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,059

    Re: Media Exaggerate Tea Party's Sway

    Why do you think repeatedly posting links to Stormfront proves anything? Guilt by association is a specious argument no matter how many times you do it.

    If you have a problem with Stormfront, take it up with Stormfront.

  7. #167
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,159

    Re: Media Exaggerate Tea Party's Sway

    First of all, I have no connections to Stormfront and no intrest in that kind of crap. I was unaware anyone affiliated with them had said anything about this topic... frankly I just pulled the Ainu out of my memory bank as a "what if" example.

    And you neatly sidestepped the question, which was intended as a hypothetical, not an assertion. Well done. Best evasion in a while.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  8. #168
    Hard As A Rock
    Strucky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Minnesota
    Last Seen
    10-19-17 @ 08:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    2,074

    Re: Media Exaggerate Tea Party's Sway

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    Hilarious, but didn't you know this already?
    I don't know,other polls show that woman are the majority-

    [ame="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=90c_1269922088"]LiveLeak.com - Poll: Women Make Up Majority of Tea Party Ranks[/ame]



    EDIT-For some reason the url keeps coming up as a video.
    Last edited by Strucky; 04-28-10 at 09:27 PM.
    "The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without."

    ~Dwight D. Eisenhower

  9. #169
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,571

    Re: Media Exaggerate Tea Party's Sway

    Quote Originally Posted by Cochise View Post
    You've built your impressions on some stereotypes in your head. I don't stand to gain from Indian reparations, which were simply one example I advanced because I thought it would be obvious. I'm a non-Navajo on the Navajo Reservation. Why don't you explain Murray's racism?




    I figured that, I wouldnt think a Navajo would take the name of a Chiricahua Apache in any form.


    Taking money from one group and giving it to another, is not libertarianism, no matter how you spin it.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  10. #170
    Student
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Chinle, Arizona
    Last Seen
    11-29-10 @ 03:28 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    276

    Re: Media Exaggerate Tea Party's Sway

    This is the disagreement hierarchy that I’ll be referring to for the purposes of classification of some of these comments, since I’d like to have a real dialogue instead of all this nonsense.



    Quote Originally Posted by Coronado View Post
    Oh goodie, here comes another True Libertarian™ pseudo-intellectual here to tell the rest of us rubes what we're doing wrong.
    Name Calling.

    There are consistent libertarians, and there are conservatives who pretend to be libertarians to gain a little street cred or whatever. Rothbard's the former kind. Harry Guerrilla and geopatric seem to be the former kind. The "libertarians" who have started screeching here seem to be the latter kind.

    Have you actually read the libertarian classics and learned how to consistently apply principles of non-aggression? Most of the costumed Republicans don't seem to have done so. That's why so much of the most consistent and principled libertarian dialogue is on mises.org: https://mises.org/Community/forums/t/1343.aspx

    Your content is interesting. Libertarians could distinguish themselves from conservatives perhaps by focussing on the ending of corporate welfare as a key issue. This would also attack the military industrial complex "where it lives".
    So why is it that some (but not all!) "libertarians" here seem more interested in serving as cheerleaders for statism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Coronado View Post
    Here's a newsflash: two wrongful initiations of force do not make a right. No amout of loquacious sophistry changes that.
    Contradiction.

    And hell, you'd expect two-bit assertions to do even less. When property is stolen, recovery is the moral right of the owner. So, here's the issue that I've been posing: When the substantial legacy of past aggression has spawned the current distribution of income, wealth, and property, how is defense of that distribution libertarian, as it contains the false assumption that the corporate economy is a free market?

    Please answer that with an actual argument, if you can.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coronado View Post
    Why do you think repeatedly posting links to Stormfront proves anything? Guilt by association is a specious argument no matter how many times you do it.

    If you have a problem with Stormfront, take it up with Stormfront.
    Responding to Tone.

    Your comment's not accurate, though. Guilt by irrelevant association is fallacious:

    1. Hitler had a mustache.

    2. Hitler had evil goals.

    3. Men with mustaches have evil goals.

    Guilt by relevant association is not.

    1. Hitler oversaw the genocide and attempted genocide of peoples he despised, committing monstrous acts of aggression.

    2. Hitler had evil goals (and the evil goals were directly related to premise 1).

    3. Those with an interest in advocating such genocide and aggression have evil goals.

    If I point out similarities in ideological and political opinions between white supremacists and others and the similarities are related to principles foundational to white supremacist doctrines, such as the employment of authoritarian social policies against racial and ethnic minorities, that is a relevant association. It reveals what should be an unacceptably close mindset.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    First of all, I have no connections to Stormfront and no intrest in that kind of crap. I was unaware anyone affiliated with them had said anything about this topic... frankly I just pulled the Ainu out of my memory bank as a "what if" example.
    Let's not deceive ourselves: If I had been ignorant of the topic, you would have pulled out Kennewick Man and declared him a devastating refutation of the very foundations of my beliefs. I never claimed that you had connections to Stormfront; I was trying to show you the shallow nature of claims that Native Americans are not the oldest residents of this hemisphere. I was hoping that you'd be revolted enough by what's on Scumfront to reconsider.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    And you neatly sidestepped the question, which was intended as a hypothetical, not an assertion. Well done. Best evasion in a while.
    Responding to Tone.

    And wrong, at that. Telling me that I “sidestepped” anything is nothing but ironic, since you ignored the majority of my post to simply comment on Stormfront, rather than address the central point. I strongly emphasized the fact that your hypothetical situation would be irrelevant unless such aggression had an impact on the current conditions of the Ainu. This is hardly a difficult concept to understand.

    1. Aggression and its consequences are wrong.

    2. The consequences of aggression should be subject to rectification. If it means that someone has been stolen from, he ought to be repaid.

    3. The current distribution of income, wealth, and property exists in the context of the corporate economy. This was created on the foundations of unjust dispossession of the indigenous, enslavement of Africans, state empowerment of monopolists (read some Lysander Spooner), and a long history of other state intervention in the economy. As a result, that distribution is a consequence of aggression.

    4. Therefore, based on a foundational premise of the moral wrongness of aggression and its consequences, a foundational premise that the consequences ought to be rectified, and a foundational premise of the creation of current economic conditions by statism, my conclusion is that substantial redistribution and reparation is the only solution to this problem.

    The argument is laid out for you step by step. Feel free to refute the central point if you are able to. Remember that there's a very profound difference between agreeing that people have unequal abilities, talents, and motivations, and between insisting that the current distributions of income, wealth, and property are primarily due to those differences as opposed to statism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    I figured that, I wouldnt think a Navajo would take the name of a Chiricahua Apache in any form.
    I'm not a Chiricahua either; I'm simply emphasizing solidarity with others of our people. The Navajo are closely related enough to the Apache that I could conceivably do the same if I actually were a Navajo.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Taking money from one group and giving it to another, is not libertarianism, no matter how you spin it.
    Contradiction.

    When the substantial legacy of past aggression has spawned the current distribution of income, wealth, and property, how is defense of that distribution libertarian, as it contains the false assumption that the corporate economy is a free market?

Page 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 715161718 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •