What are libertarians?

[Bfgrn]

Do you know ANY parent who would want to be a burden on their children???

So using your creationist logic, in order to avoid being a burden on one's children it's much better to be a burden on strangers and harm them and their families.

What is it with you magical thinkers, does this become a habit, appealing to magic in order to justify your beliefs?

Absurd idiocy. ALL working people PAY INTO Social Security, and ALL benefit. There is NOTHING evil or wrong about Social Security.

When you kid takes on a paper route and contributes the money to the household budget, your kid is now a full and equal financial partner in the family, right?

People contribute into SS & MC but they take out more than they contribute. That's a problem.

It is not a problem. Both have been solvent all these years. There is a need to address future shortfalls due to baby boomers flooding the system and medical costs.

 

[Bfgrn]

There you go, you found a new buddy...Rikurzhen is a white supremacist. I am sure someone of your character would rather associate with a white supremacist over an evil 'liberal'

I've never seen him post anything even remotely racist. I suppose you have some evidence to support this accusation?

BTW, Lincoln was a white supremecist.

Why don't you ask Rikurzhen.

THIS Abe Lincoln?

In 1863, the black activist Frederick Douglass visited the White House to discuss the treatment of black Union soldiers. ''I was never more quickly or more completely put at ease in the presence of a great man than in that of Abraham Lincoln,'' wrote Douglass, who praised the president's ''entire freedom from popular prejudice against the colored race.'' Lincoln was the first prominent white American ''who in no single instance reminded me of the difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color.'' ref

Yes, that Abe Lincoln. The same one who said the following:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Here is a good read...

Was Lincoln a Racist?
The Great Emancipator was far more complicated than the mythical hero we have come to revere.

By: Henry Louis Gates Jr.
Posted: Feb. 12 2009 9:57 AM

page 3
Three days before he was shot, Lincoln stood on the second floor of the White House and made a speech to a crowd assembled outside celebrating the recent Union victory over the Confederacy. With his troops and Frederick Douglass very much in mind, Lincoln told the cheering crowd, which had demanded that he come to the window to address them, that he had decided to recommend that his 200,000 black troops and “the very intelligent Negroes” be given the right to vote.

Standing in the crowd was John Wilkes Booth. Hearing those words, Booth turned to a man next to him and said, “That means ****** citizenship. Now, by God! I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make.” Three days later, during the third act of Our American Cousin, Booth followed through with his promise.

It is important that we hear Lincoln’s words through the echo of the rhetoric of the modern civil rights movement, especially the “I Have a Dream” speech of Martin Luther King Jr. It is easy to forget that when Lincoln made a public address, he was speaking primarily—certainly until his Second Inaugural Address—to all-white or predominantly white audiences, who most certainly were ambivalent about blacks and black rights, if not slavery. When Lincoln talked about wrestling with the better angels of our nature, he knew whereof he spoke: about his audience and, just as important, about himself.

It should not surprise us that Lincoln was no exception to his times; what is exceptional about Abraham Lincoln is that, perhaps because of temperament or because of the shape-shifting contingencies of command during an agonizingly costly war, he wrestled with his often contradictory feelings and ambivalences and vacillations about slavery, race and colonization, and did so quite publicly and often quite eloquently.

So, was Lincoln a racist? He certainly embraced anti-black attitudes and phobias in his early years and throughout his debates with Douglas in the 1858 Senate race (the seat that would become Barack Obama’s), which he lost. By the end of the Civil War, Lincoln was on an upward arc, perhaps heading toward becoming the man he has since been mythologized as being: the Great Emancipator, the man who freed—and loved—the slaves. But his journey was certainly not complete on the day that he died. Abraham Lincoln wrestled with race until the end. And, as Du Bois pointed out, his struggle ultimately made him a more interesting and noble man than the mythical hero we have come to revere.

So even though he talked exactly like a white supremacist, Lincoln didn't really mean it? Is that what you're trying to say?

Critical thinking is just not your thing. Find an adult to read and decipher it for you. I guess it is way beyond your cognitive abilities.

 

[gipper]

.

Pure Libertarian ideas just aren't workable or reasonable at a macro level, and the influx of libertarianism into the GOP has caused the party quite a bit of damage by introducing so much libertarian absolutism into widespread political thought and debate.

That said, I used to like having them around as a reminder that we can't stray too far from the power and benefits of individualism. Right now, though, the reminder is a little too loud.

.

Your wrong here Mac. This is not a problem with libertarians but rather a problem with purists and those do not exist solely within the libertarian concept.

Those purists in all political stripes cause the same problems be it from democrats, republicans or libertarians.

Libertarian thought is quite workable as long as it is adapted with reality in the same manner that capitalism, republicanism or any other political/economic theory. NOTHING works in a 'pure' form.

I wonder at what you think is too loud though - from where I sit we are not nearly loud enough - not by a million miles. If we were there would be more than just the token speaker on the concept of freedom every once in a while while virtually every single government action works to the complete opposite end.

I understand your point - three thoughts on this:

First, the Libertarians have always been fairly absolutist, at least as far back as I can remember. I liked Harry Browne and voted for him, not because I agreed with everything he said, just mostly because I like the idea of having libertarian thought sprinkled into the conversation.

Second, Libertarians and Republicans are, or at least should be, two different sets of people. There as a time (Harry Browne's era) in which they were pro-choice and did not fold religion into their conversation. Once the Palin/Bachmann/Beck/Levin brigade took the movement over, that was no longer the case. Smashing these two parties together is just not a natural fit.

Finally, the libertarian element has most of the energy in the party, and their absolutist opinions are just not helping. End social security, Medicare, shut the IRS, close this agency, close that agency? Holy crap, that's just madness, and it was madness even before the country started moving left. People hear that crap and figure, "well, at least the Democrats haven't lost their freaking minds".

Just me - I liked it much better before the two parties weren't crammed together. Every time a Republican/Libertarian/Tea Partier screams "social security is a ponzi scheme!" and "get government out of my Medicare", the Democrats can just point and say "holy shit, LOOK at THAT!"

.

I must disagree with the thought that Libertarians are Republicans. I can't stand Republicans. For the most part, they are liars and criminals. At least the Ds will tell you they love socialism. The Rs like to claim the mantel of limited government, but then they go along with the Ds in expanding government whenever possible.

I see the Rs and Ds as essentially the same. They both like big government, the welfare/warfare state, and primarily act to increase their wealth and power above all.

Libertarians may have more in common with what the R party says, but they have little in common with what the R party does.

 

[Bfgrn]

Do you know ANY parent who would want to be a burden on their children???

So using your creationist logic, in order to avoid being a burden on one's children it's much better to be a burden on strangers and harm them and their families.

What is it with you magical thinkers, does this become a habit, appealing to magic in order to justify your beliefs?

Libertarianism is a philosophy that, among other things, subscribes to a doctrine that a free people, unencumbered by authoritarian restrictions, requirements and demands, will accomplish far more for their own benefit and for the general good than anything government will ever accomplish. And you nailed one of the basic rationales. When that authoritarian government makes requirements and demands re what the people are required to do for others, whatever the motives, the net result will include far more unintended negative consequences, and whatever good is accomplished will be inferior compared to what the private sector will accomplish if left free to do what they choose to do.

The pro-government crowd always assume that for whatever reason, even as those in government increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth, those elected or appointed to serve in government will be more wise, more noble, more compassionate, and more effective than will people acting of their own volition.

Why are you avoiding answering my question?

Critical thought? Seriously. Critical thought would include actually considering ALL the ramifications of actions proposed here. I know you have said on previous threads that you would end Social Security and Medicare.

Did you really use critical thought to consider how much pain, suffering and anxiety that would cause elderly folks? You said you would replace it with charity. Let's consider that for a moment...currently seniors receive a monthly SS check. These seniors know EXACTLY how much money they have coming in each month, so they can set up a budget. HOW would your 'charity only' society work? Would elderly Americans have to rise every morning not knowing if they can pay their bills, buy food and pay their utilities? Would you provide them a CUP so they could stand on a street corner and beg for money??

Let's snap this discussion back to reality, shall we. It's hard for me to grasp why you favor taxing the poor in order to send the benefits to the rich.

So you premise is elderly are self sufficient? How much earning potential does someone 65 have?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Do you know ANY parent who would want to be a burden on their children???

So using your creationist logic, in order to avoid being a burden on one's children it's much better to be a burden on strangers and harm them and their families.

What is it with you magical thinkers, does this become a habit, appealing to magic in order to justify your beliefs?

Libertarianism is a philosophy that, among other things, subscribes to a doctrine that a free people, unencumbered by authoritarian restrictions, requirements and demands, will accomplish far more for their own benefit and for the general good than anything government will ever accomplish. And you nailed one of the basic rationales. When that authoritarian government makes requirements and demands re what the people are required to do for others, whatever the motives, the net result will include far more unintended negative consequences, and whatever good is accomplished will be inferior compared to what the private sector will accomplish if left free to do what they choose to do.

The pro-government crowd always assume that for whatever reason, even as those in government increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth, those elected or appointed to serve in government will be more wise, more noble, more compassionate, and more effective than will people acting of their own volition.

Why are you avoiding answering my question?

Critical thought? Seriously. Critical thought would include actually considering ALL the ramifications of actions proposed here. I know you have said on previous threads that you would end Social Security and Medicare.

Did you really use critical thought to consider how much pain, suffering and anxiety that would cause elderly folks? You said you would replace it with charity. Let's consider that for a moment...currently seniors receive a monthly SS check. These seniors know EXACTLY how much money they have coming in each month, so they can set up a budget. HOW would your 'charity only' society work? Would elderly Americans have to rise every morning not knowing if they can pay their bills, buy food and pay their utilities? Would you provide them a CUP so they could stand on a street corner and beg for money??

Let's snap this discussion back to reality, shall we. It's hard for me to grasp why you favor taxing the poor in order to send the benefits to the rich.

So you premise is elderly are self sufficient? How much earning potential does someone 65 have?

Consider these two graphs in unison.

Now tell me how it is fair for poor young people to have to subsidize rich old people, people who've had an entire life to plan for their retirement while these young people are paying a higher share of their income in taxes than did the old people when they were at the same age.

You do understand that when poor young people are taxed at high rates, the money that goes to taxes delays their ability to start a family, buy a house, etc.

This eating of the seed corn, this plundering of the young in order to make the lives of the rich elderly even more comfortable is immoral. Look at those subsidies that go to retired people who didn't "save" enough to PREPAY their own retirement/medical bills. And the burden is falling onto strangers rather than family. I'm young and I find this utterly detestable. I have to sacrifice the wellbeing of my family in order to keep old people I don't even know comfortable because they consume more in benefits than they prepaid via taxes.

I have a duty to care for my parents, not your parents.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Do you know ANY parent who would want to be a burden on their children???

So using your creationist logic, in order to avoid being a burden on one's children it's much better to be a burden on strangers and harm them and their families.

What is it with you magical thinkers, does this become a habit, appealing to magic in order to justify your beliefs?

Libertarianism is a philosophy that, among other things, subscribes to a doctrine that a free people, unencumbered by authoritarian restrictions, requirements and demands, will accomplish far more for their own benefit and for the general good than anything government will ever accomplish. And you nailed one of the basic rationales. When that authoritarian government makes requirements and demands re what the people are required to do for others, whatever the motives, the net result will include far more unintended negative consequences, and whatever good is accomplished will be inferior compared to what the private sector will accomplish if left free to do what they choose to do.

The pro-government crowd always assume that for whatever reason, even as those in government increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth, those elected or appointed to serve in government will be more wise, more noble, more compassionate, and more effective than will people acting of their own volition.

Why are you avoiding answering my question?

Critical thought? Seriously. Critical thought would include actually considering ALL the ramifications of actions proposed here. I know you have said on previous threads that you would end Social Security and Medicare.

Did you really use critical thought to consider how much pain, suffering and anxiety that would cause elderly folks? You said you would replace it with charity. Let's consider that for a moment...currently seniors receive a monthly SS check. These seniors know EXACTLY how much money they have coming in each month, so they can set up a budget. HOW would your 'charity only' society work? Would elderly Americans have to rise every morning not knowing if they can pay their bills, buy food and pay their utilities? Would you provide them a CUP so they could stand on a street corner and beg for money??

Let's snap this discussion back to reality, shall we. It's hard for me to grasp why you favor taxing the poor in order to send the benefits to the rich.

So you premise is elderly are self sufficient? How much earning potential does someone 65 have?

Consider these two graphs in unison.

Now tell me how it is fair for poor young people to have to subsidize rich old people, people who've had an entire life to plan for their retirement while these young people are paying a higher share of their income in taxes than did the old people when they were at the same age.

You do understand that when poor young people are taxed at high rates, the money that goes to taxes delays their ability to start a family, buy a house, etc.

This eating of the seed corn, this plundering of the young in order to make the lives of the rich elderly even more comfortable is immoral. Look at those subsidies that go to retired people who didn't "save" enough to PREPAY their own retirement/medical bills. And the burden is falling onto strangers rather than family. I'm young and I find this utterly detestable. I have to sacrifice the wellbeing of my family in order to keep old people I don't even know comfortable because they consume more in benefits than they prepaid via taxes.

I have a duty to care for my parents, not your parents.

I'm opposed to Social Security as well, but I will point out one thing: Most old people did not have their entire lives to plan for their retirement. The government's promises regarding Social Security pretty much precluded that. You can say that they could have regardless, but if the government is telling you that you'll be taken care of after you retire most people aren't going to see through the propaganda. Now that's not justification to continue robbing young people, but it is important to note nonetheless.

 

[FA_Q2]

I understand your point - three thoughts on this:

First, the Libertarians have always been fairly absolutist, at least as far back as I can remember. I liked Harry Browne and voted for him, not because I agreed with everything he said, just mostly because I like the idea of having libertarian thought sprinkled into the conversation.

?

I am one and certainly am not an 'absolutist.' Methinks you are equating the loud minority with the general movement. That is always a bad idea.

If I thought republicans in general were like Glenn Beck and Democrats were like Ed Shultz I would move out the country tomorrow and join another society that was more sane... like China!

Ill give you that there is likely a larger majority of absolutists within libertarians mostly because they don't have any real influence yet. Pragmatism really isn't required when your not at the table anyway.

Second, Libertarians and Republicans are, or at least should be, two different sets of people. There as a time (Harry Browne's era) in which they were pro-choice and did not fold religion into their conversation. Once the Palin/Bachmann/Beck/Levin brigade took the movement over, that was no longer the case. Smashing these two parties together is just not a natural fit.

Well... they ARE 2 different people.

I have to ask what in the heck gives you the idea that Palin/Bachman/Beck are libertarians? That is the silliest thing I have heard in a long time. They are not even on the same planet. Ill give you Levin, but then again he is not even remotely Republican. I think he labors under the false assertion that you have to side with one or the other to gain any real power (an assumption shared by many here as well) but he hates the republican party in general.

Reading the above makes me wonder if you actually know what libertarians are. The real data (not the republican horse manure that thinks libertarian votes are always stolen from them) shows that libertarians actually draw voters from both the left and the right pretty equally. There is zero indication that libertarians are 'mashed' together with republicans that does not have a disgruntled republican behind it whining that they are not getting votes they think they are entitled too.

Finally, the libertarian element has most of the energy in the party, and their absolutist opinions are just not helping. End social security, Medicare, shut the IRS, close this agency, close that agency? Holy crap, that's just madness, and it was madness even before the country started moving left. People hear that crap and figure, "well, at least the Democrats haven't lost their freaking minds".

Just me - I liked it much better before the two parties weren't crammed together. Every time a Republican/Libertarian/Tea Partier screams "social security is a ponzi scheme!" and "get government out of my Medicare", the Democrats can just point and say "holy shit, LOOK at THAT!"
.

They can but then again that does not make any of that 'crazy.' I am not going to alter my core belief in freedom just because the majority of people voting today want tyranny. Sorry, but when things actually slide out of control they are going to be looking back realize what was TRULY crazy rather than pointing to the people that thought freedom might actually be a good idea to try again.

 

[FA_Q2]

Libertarians may have more in common with what the R party says, but they have little in common with what the R party does.

Couldn't have put it better myself

 

[Bfgrn]

I believe capitalism is the best economic model, but there is no "magic", "invisible hand", "religion of laissez-faire" that makes ANY sense, UNLESS you totally ignore some key parts of civil libertarian beliefs. I will highlight them for you.

What is really funny here is that YOU are the one that actually belies in the fairytale hand guiding the market - you like to call it government.

What is really not funny is you edited out my qualifiers. So tell me, should the market operate without any rules or laws? Should it be a free for all? Many corporations could maximize their profits by dumping their waste into nearby rivers, or into the air. Is THAT acceptable?

 

[FA_Q2]

I myself am no longer a minarchist because I do not believe that any government can be restrained in such a way for any sustained period of time.

I laways found this stance of yours interesting because, while it is factually correct, it makes no sense whatsoever.

Sure, government does not remain caged as it loves nothing more than to increase its own power BUT neither does anarchism. That, ALSO, does not remain as it naturally degrades into some form of government. The real question is NOT what permanent form of government (or lack thereof) can be established but rather what is the best form to try and hold onto for as long as possible.

In that I believe government is a clear necessity. Nothing is permanent. A good government or anarchy is not exempt from that simple natural fact.

Well your question rests on the assumption that that is my only reason for no longer being a minarchist, which is not unreasonable since that's the only reason I gave in the post you quoted. Regardless, I also reject the initiation of force in even a limited sense. The simple fact of the matter is that even a minarchist libertarian's dream government must still rest on the use of violence against their own citizens, and others should that government ever go to war. So even if we had the U.S. government explicitly outlined in the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. government would still tax Americans to fund itself. In other words, it would steal the property of Americans.

In response to your concerns, however, I would merely say that the argument that anarchism will inevitably lead to the creation of a state, so we might as well just create the state now isn't all that inspiring. However, my view is that society will inevitably evolve in their thought towards anarchism as the brutality of the state, even the much touted democratic state, perhaps the most blood-soaked form of government in history, becomes clearer and clearer. I don't see so much a violent revolution finally and permanently overthrowing the state, because I think if that's what was attempted it would simply fail, but assuming it did succeed I think your concerns would ultimately be validated. Using force to overthrow the state will inevitably lead to a new state, in my opinion. If, however, the state is simply allowed to die out as people stop supporting it then I see that as the ultimate good for society.

I actually agree with what you are saying in premise - that anarchy would be best WHEN mankind evolves society to a point where we no longer need it. BUT, and it is a huge but, we are not there yet. RIGHT now I think such is simply not tennable and good government (or the best that we can do) is what we need to be working on. I doubt that man will ever get to the point where we can cast off the yoke of government but I do believe that right now such a vacuum of power only leads to one thing - the strong taking up that space.


A good government takes up that hole with as little infringement in rights as possible while preventing others from entirely removing those rights. IOW, a MUCH better outcome IMHO.

Is it ideal? No. Ideal does not exist. Avoiding trying to set up proper government for now is certainly better than allowing current situations run roughshod all over our freedom because anarchy is an ideal that people and society simply is not ready for yet.

Of course you likely disagree with my premise, that people are not ready yet, but I think that history shows this to be the case. Anarchy does not last long and is usually hallmarked with the ever present threat of local warlords running things - aka the strong removing the rights of the weak.

 

[dblack]

I believe capitalism is the best economic model, but there is no "magic", "invisible hand", "religion of laissez-faire" that makes ANY sense, UNLESS you totally ignore some key parts of civil libertarian beliefs. I will highlight them for you.

What is really funny here is that YOU are the one that actually belies in the fairytale hand guiding the market - you like to call it government.

What is really not funny is you edited out my qualifiers. So tell me, should the market operate without any rules or laws? Should it be a free for all? Many corporations could maximize their profits by dumping their waste into nearby rivers, or into the air. Is THAT acceptable?

This kind of nonsense has been answered too many times to be taken seriously anymore. Reread the previous 467 times you've accused libertarians of being anarchists. And then go **** yourself. Again.

 

[FA_Q2]

I believe capitalism is the best economic model, but there is no "magic", "invisible hand", "religion of laissez-faire" that makes ANY sense, UNLESS you totally ignore some key parts of civil libertarian beliefs. I will highlight them for you.

What is really funny here is that YOU are the one that actually belies in the fairytale hand guiding the market - you like to call it government.

What is really not funny is you edited out my qualifiers. So tell me, should the market operate without any rules or laws? Should it be a free for all? Many corporations could maximize their profits by dumping their waste into nearby rivers, or into the air. Is THAT acceptable?

No, nor have I EVER argued for a society without rules. The ever present straw man of extremes is rather strong in your 'points.'

 

[FA_Q2]

I believe capitalism is the best economic model, but there is no "magic", "invisible hand", "religion of laissez-faire" that makes ANY sense, UNLESS you totally ignore some key parts of civil libertarian beliefs. I will highlight them for you.

What is really funny here is that YOU are the one that actually belies in the fairytale hand guiding the market - you like to call it government.

What is really not funny is you edited out my qualifiers. So tell me, should the market operate without any rules or laws? Should it be a free for all? Many corporations could maximize their profits by dumping their waste into nearby rivers, or into the air. Is THAT acceptable?

This kind of nonsense has been answered too many times to be taken seriously anymore. Reread the previous 467 times you've accused libertarians of being anarchists. And then go **** yourself. Again.

Only a picture can tell you how funny this is!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I believe capitalism is the best economic model, but there is no "magic", "invisible hand", "religion of laissez-faire" that makes ANY sense, UNLESS you totally ignore some key parts of civil libertarian beliefs. I will highlight them for you.

What is really funny here is that YOU are the one that actually belies in the fairytale hand guiding the market - you like to call it government.

What is really not funny is you edited out my qualifiers. So tell me, should the market operate without any rules or laws? Should it be a free for all? Many corporations could maximize their profits by dumping their waste into nearby rivers, or into the air. Is THAT acceptable?

Since in the free market that would violate private property rights, no.

 

[Bfgrn]

I believe capitalism is the best economic model, but there is no "magic", "invisible hand", "religion of laissez-faire" that makes ANY sense, UNLESS you totally ignore some key parts of civil libertarian beliefs. I will highlight them for you.

What is really funny here is that YOU are the one that actually belies in the fairytale hand guiding the market - you like to call it government.

What is really not funny is you edited out my qualifiers. So tell me, should the market operate without any rules or laws? Should it be a free for all? Many corporations could maximize their profits by dumping their waste into nearby rivers, or into the air. Is THAT acceptable?

Since in the free market that would violate private property rights, no.

Oh, so THAT would stop a polluter. Nice to know. I can't decide if you folks are stupid or naive.

 

[Bfgrn]

I believe capitalism is the best economic model, but there is no "magic", "invisible hand", "religion of laissez-faire" that makes ANY sense, UNLESS you totally ignore some key parts of civil libertarian beliefs. I will highlight them for you.

What is really funny here is that YOU are the one that actually belies in the fairytale hand guiding the market - you like to call it government.

What is really not funny is you edited out my qualifiers. So tell me, should the market operate without any rules or laws? Should it be a free for all? Many corporations could maximize their profits by dumping their waste into nearby rivers, or into the air. Is THAT acceptable?

This kind of nonsense has been answered too many times to be taken seriously anymore. Reread the previous 467 times you've accused libertarians of being anarchists. And then go **** yourself. Again.

It hasn't been answered. I have asked you to answer it, and each time you run away.

 

[bripat9643]

There you go, you found a new buddy...Rikurzhen is a white supremacist. I am sure someone of your character would rather associate with a white supremacist over an evil 'liberal'

I've never seen him post anything even remotely racist. I suppose you have some evidence to support this accusation?

BTW, Lincoln was a white supremecist.

Why don't you ask Rikurzhen.

THIS Abe Lincoln?

In 1863, the black activist Frederick Douglass visited the White House to discuss the treatment of black Union soldiers. ''I was never more quickly or more completely put at ease in the presence of a great man than in that of Abraham Lincoln,'' wrote Douglass, who praised the president's ''entire freedom from popular prejudice against the colored race.'' Lincoln was the first prominent white American ''who in no single instance reminded me of the difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color.'' ref

Yes, that Abe Lincoln. The same one who said the following:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Here is a good read...

Was Lincoln a Racist?
The Great Emancipator was far more complicated than the mythical hero we have come to revere.

By: Henry Louis Gates Jr.
Posted: Feb. 12 2009 9:57 AM

page 3
Three days before he was shot, Lincoln stood on the second floor of the White House and made a speech to a crowd assembled outside celebrating the recent Union victory over the Confederacy. With his troops and Frederick Douglass very much in mind, Lincoln told the cheering crowd, which had demanded that he come to the window to address them, that he had decided to recommend that his 200,000 black troops and “the very intelligent Negroes” be given the right to vote.

Standing in the crowd was John Wilkes Booth. Hearing those words, Booth turned to a man next to him and said, “That means ****** citizenship. Now, by God! I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make.” Three days later, during the third act of Our American Cousin, Booth followed through with his promise.

It is important that we hear Lincoln’s words through the echo of the rhetoric of the modern civil rights movement, especially the “I Have a Dream” speech of Martin Luther King Jr. It is easy to forget that when Lincoln made a public address, he was speaking primarily—certainly until his Second Inaugural Address—to all-white or predominantly white audiences, who most certainly were ambivalent about blacks and black rights, if not slavery. When Lincoln talked about wrestling with the better angels of our nature, he knew whereof he spoke: about his audience and, just as important, about himself.

It should not surprise us that Lincoln was no exception to his times; what is exceptional about Abraham Lincoln is that, perhaps because of temperament or because of the shape-shifting contingencies of command during an agonizingly costly war, he wrestled with his often contradictory feelings and ambivalences and vacillations about slavery, race and colonization, and did so quite publicly and often quite eloquently.

So, was Lincoln a racist? He certainly embraced anti-black attitudes and phobias in his early years and throughout his debates with Douglas in the 1858 Senate race (the seat that would become Barack Obama’s), which he lost. By the end of the Civil War, Lincoln was on an upward arc, perhaps heading toward becoming the man he has since been mythologized as being: the Great Emancipator, the man who freed—and loved—the slaves. But his journey was certainly not complete on the day that he died. Abraham Lincoln wrestled with race until the end. And, as Du Bois pointed out, his struggle ultimately made him a more interesting and noble man than the mythical hero we have come to revere.

So even though he talked exactly like a white supremacist, Lincoln didn't really mean it? Is that what you're trying to say?

Critical thinking is just not your thing. Find an adult to read and decipher it for you. I guess it is way beyond your cognitive abilities.

Making excuses for the despicable behavior of your tarnished heroes is your thing.

Bottom line: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. Lincoln talked just like a white supremacist his entire life. Until the final days of his presidency he was trying to devise a scheme to ship off all the blacks to Africa.

Yeah, now there's an angel for ya.

 

[Bfgrn]

I believe capitalism is the best economic model, but there is no "magic", "invisible hand", "religion of laissez-faire" that makes ANY sense, UNLESS you totally ignore some key parts of civil libertarian beliefs. I will highlight them for you.

What is really funny here is that YOU are the one that actually belies in the fairytale hand guiding the market - you like to call it government.

What is really not funny is you edited out my qualifiers. So tell me, should the market operate without any rules or laws? Should it be a free for all? Many corporations could maximize their profits by dumping their waste into nearby rivers, or into the air. Is THAT acceptable?

No, nor have I EVER argued for a society without rules. The ever present straw man of extremes is rather strong in your 'points.'

And I have never argued for total government control. I believe there needs to be common sense regulations of industry. So the straw man resides in your court.

 

[bripat9643]

I believe capitalism is the best economic model, but there is no "magic", "invisible hand", "religion of laissez-faire" that makes ANY sense, UNLESS you totally ignore some key parts of civil libertarian beliefs. I will highlight them for you.

What is really funny here is that YOU are the one that actually belies in the fairytale hand guiding the market - you like to call it government.

What is really not funny is you edited out my qualifiers. So tell me, should the market operate without any rules or laws? Should it be a free for all? Many corporations could maximize their profits by dumping their waste into nearby rivers, or into the air. Is THAT acceptable?

Since in the free market that would violate private property rights, no.

Oh, so THAT would stop a polluter. Nice to know. I can't decide if you folks are stupid or naive.

Getting hit with massive lawsuits stops pretty much anything.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I myself am no longer a minarchist because I do not believe that any government can be restrained in such a way for any sustained period of time.

I laways found this stance of yours interesting because, while it is factually correct, it makes no sense whatsoever.

Sure, government does not remain caged as it loves nothing more than to increase its own power BUT neither does anarchism. That, ALSO, does not remain as it naturally degrades into some form of government. The real question is NOT what permanent form of government (or lack thereof) can be established but rather what is the best form to try and hold onto for as long as possible.

In that I believe government is a clear necessity. Nothing is permanent. A good government or anarchy is not exempt from that simple natural fact.

Well your question rests on the assumption that that is my only reason for no longer being a minarchist, which is not unreasonable since that's the only reason I gave in the post you quoted. Regardless, I also reject the initiation of force in even a limited sense. The simple fact of the matter is that even a minarchist libertarian's dream government must still rest on the use of violence against their own citizens, and others should that government ever go to war. So even if we had the U.S. government explicitly outlined in the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. government would still tax Americans to fund itself. In other words, it would steal the property of Americans.

In response to your concerns, however, I would merely say that the argument that anarchism will inevitably lead to the creation of a state, so we might as well just create the state now isn't all that inspiring. However, my view is that society will inevitably evolve in their thought towards anarchism as the brutality of the state, even the much touted democratic state, perhaps the most blood-soaked form of government in history, becomes clearer and clearer. I don't see so much a violent revolution finally and permanently overthrowing the state, because I think if that's what was attempted it would simply fail, but assuming it did succeed I think your concerns would ultimately be validated. Using force to overthrow the state will inevitably lead to a new state, in my opinion. If, however, the state is simply allowed to die out as people stop supporting it then I see that as the ultimate good for society.

I actually agree with what you are saying in premise - that anarchy would be best WHEN mankind evolves society to a point where we no longer need it. BUT, and it is a huge but, we are not there yet. RIGHT now I think such is simply not tennable and good government (or the best that we can do) is what we need to be working on. I doubt that man will ever get to the point where we can cast off the yoke of government but I do believe that right now such a vacuum of power only leads to one thing - the strong taking up that space.


A good government takes up that hole with as little infringement in rights as possible while preventing others from entirely removing those rights. IOW, a MUCH better outcome IMHO.

Is it ideal? No. Ideal does not exist. Avoiding trying to set up proper government for now is certainly better than allowing current situations run roughshod all over our freedom because anarchy is an ideal that people and society simply is not ready for yet.

Of course you likely disagree with my premise, that people are not ready yet, but I think that history shows this to be the case. Anarchy does not last long and is usually hallmarked with the ever present threat of local warlords running things - aka the strong removing the rights of the weak.

Well I think the fact that society isn't ready is self-evident, as the state has yet to fall of its own accord. Regardless, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't point out that this is the best possible outcome for society. In the meantime we can absolutely be pragmatists, but we shouldn't lose sight of the real goal.