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.
Oh goodie, here comes another True Libertarian™ pseudo-intellectual here to tell the rest of us rubes what we're doing wrong. :roll:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I figured that, I wouldnt think a Navajo would take the name of a Chiricahua Apache in any form. :shrug:
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.
Taking money from one group and giving it to another, is not libertarianism, no matter how you spin it. :shrug:
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?
