Neo-Nazi wins Primary for GOP in Illinois 3rd congressional district

[Gen.Mannerheim]

There were Democrats who owned slaves and Democrats who didn't, just like there were Whigs who owned slaves and those that didn't. You're adding a false dichotomy to a debate that was not nearly as black or white (no pun intended) as you're implying. The slavery issue did not neatly divide Americans down neat North/South lines like the high school history books claim. The Republican party shook things up by being a successful political party who had abolitionism as a party platform, not just a faction within the party.

You seem unable to understand that even though political terms may be found throughout history, the definitions of those terms can change over time. Just wait till you try to wrap your mind around how a conservative government can run a liberal democracy...

 

[Traitorfish]

Maybe worth throwing into this discussion Marx's famously gushing letter to Lincoln on behalf of the International Workingman's Association,

We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.
[...]
The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.

So, yeah. The "libertarian" cause of abolition enjoyed the enthusiastic support of the father of international communism. Go libertarians.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The Indians (and slaves) would like a word with you about violating property rights. Will counting illegal aliens in the census improve their lives? Why...or why not? I cant call abolitionists Democrats, so libertarian will do just fine.

"Libertarian will do just fine, since I am making stuff up as I go along and assigning all good values, ever, to libertarianism while randomly assigning all evil to one or oftentimes more other groups." - Guess Who

 

[Berzerker]

Strange. From the outside the libertarians seem the direct successors of the slave holders in cultural and ideological terms while the democrats seem the direct successors of the abolitionists in cultural and ideological terms. I guess their ideologies and actions arent that important.

Why are libertarians the direct successors of the slave holders? The Democrats were the slave holders and when slavery was banned it was Democrats who replaced it with Jim Crow and followed that up with the mass incarceration of black and brown people with their drug war. The libertarians oppose(d) all 3 - slavery, Jim Crow and the drug war.

"Libertarian will do just fine, since I am making stuff up as I go along and assigning all good values, ever, to libertarianism while randomly assigning all evil to one or oftentimes more other groups." - Guess Who

Should I refer to abolitionists as Democrats instead? How did I randomly assign slavery to Democrats? Didn't the Democrats gladly wear that badge of dishonor? I just question why anyone with a functioning moral compass would join a party with so much evil in its past (and present).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Should I refer to abolitionists as Democrats instead? How did I randomly assign slavery to Democrats? Didn't the Democrats gladly wear that badge of dishonor? I just question why anyone with a functioning moral compass would join a party with so much evil in its past (and present).

My moral compass is currently busy demanding that I deny my Scottish heritage because a thousand years ago they were all a bunch of theocratic monarchists. Unforgivable! And they think that hundreds of years of parliamentary representation absolves them! The NERVE!!!!!

 

[Traitorfish]

My moral compass is currently busy demanding that I deny my Scottish heritage because a thousand years ago they were all a bunch of theocratic monarchists. Unforgivable! And they think that hundreds of years of parliamentary representation absolves them! The NERVE!!!!!

In fairness, the Scots were a bunch of theocratic monarchists until about 1962. We're kinda still in the process of getting over that.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

In fairness, the Scots were a bunch of theocratic monarchists until about 1962. We're kinda still in the process of getting over that.

It was the only parody of Berzerker's ridiculous position on history that I could come up with off the cuff. I was trying to sort out something to do with the guillotine, but I'm not that well versed in who emerges from the murky waters of the French revolution as the good guys...plus I don't think I have any French heritage to disavow.

 

[Tahuti]

This has not been my experience. Most of the (modern American) libertarian intellectual patron saints, like Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, and Murray Rothbard, were quite open racists and sexists. And even the ones who aren't nationalists tend to believe in human inequality, demarcated by something like IQ rather than race or culture. After all, the successful among us are simply our betters, and attempts to enforce any kind of social equality are tyrannical because try as we might we just can't make everyone the same. Almost without exception, right-libertarians I've interacted with have had right-wing views about social issues.

This needs to be placed within strong provisos. Murray Rothbard - that libertarian with the strongest developed political philosophy - also considered allying with the New Left in the 1960s.

Also, the vast majority of libertarians probably aren't racist or sexist, though they are unempathetically uninvolved with these issues: Since most libertarians are white men, yet their viewpoints are universalistic, it's not that they believe that African Americans or women are inferior; simply that they should be able to think like white male libertarians. Rothbard himself made clear that he believed the Anglosphere had an exceptionalistic tendency towards libertarianism, however.

In fairness, the Scots were a bunch of theocratic monarchists until about 1962. We're kinda still in the process of getting over that.

Jacobitism still a thing here?

 

[Lexicus]

This needs to be placed within strong provisos. Murray Rothbard - that libertarian with the strongest developed political philosophy - also considered allying with the New Left in the 1960s.

Yeah, and he'd have fit in on the New Left really well

Also, the vast majority of libertarians probably aren't racist or sexist, though they are unempathetically uninvolved with these issues: Since most libertarians are white men, yet their viewpoints are universalistic, it's not that they believe that African Americans or women are inferior; simply that they should be able to think like white male libertarians. Rothbard himself made clear that he believed the Anglosphere had an exceptionalistic tendency towards libertarianism, however.

See, i just don't agree. My opinion is that the vast majority of libertarians are outright racist and sexist, and the few remaining ones are racist and sexist at least in terms of the consequences of their views being enacted into policy.

The libertarians oppose(d) all 3 - slavery, Jim Crow and the drug war.

Are you kidding? The modern Libertarian Party was literally created to roll back the gains of the civil rights movement and return us to Jim Crow. Its Presidential candidates have frequently said they would repeal the Civil Rights Act if they could. Meanwhile the intellectuals aligned with "libertarianism" have been defending slavery for basically the whole 20th century, but you've probably never read a single work of theory by anyone who could be considered "libertarian" so you wouldn't know this.

The drug war, I'll grant that they oppose that, but usually in a "what do you mean, it's illegal for me to sell heroin to these schoolchildren?!" kind of way rather than a "wow this policy is really failing at harm reduction and is racist in intent and impact" kind of way.

 

[El_Machinae]

Also, the vast majority of libertarians probably aren't racist or sexist, though they are unempathetically uninvolved with these issues:

They're going to be implicitly racist and sexist, at least. But I like your phrasing. They are unempathetically uninvolved. Their major cognitive error is that they think the world is a meritocracy, and so that making things more 'free' will allow improvements to scale upwards. Economically, I find that the major mistake is failing to factor in the fact that all property is already owned, and so simple Austrian economics quickly scales into a winner-take-all for the same reason why that's an endgame situation in chess and in Monopoly.

On the charity front, I found them to be mostly normal; nearly no one gives enough. There's a bias that 'poor people need more basic amenities' in order to get ahead, but I find that's a common view. My major shattering with people who self-claimed to be libertarian was during the Ebola epidemic. Every single libertarian value I held was screaming "we've got to get ahead of the ball here!", but I found that their instinctive response was mass-quarantining using armed force, if required. I realized then how much of a window-dressing it was. There was no convincing them. Mass-quarantine using armed force was the preferred option.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

Should I refer to abolitionists as Democrats instead?

How about calling abolitionists oh, I don't know...

Abolitionists! *gasp*

Take about 5 minutes to read up on the subject and you'd learn that the abolitionists movement attracted people from all across the 19th century political spectrum. Sure, some ideologies were more represented than others, but you'd find that people who would agree on the evils of slavery would often disagree on just about everything else.

We're kinda still in the process of getting over that.

What! I just don't understand that, not when you have this future rulership to look forward to!



On a side note, is possible to just skip Charles and go straight to William...

 

[Traitorfish]

On a side note, is possible to just skip Charles and go straight to William...

Preferring kings called "William" to kings called "Charles" is a longstanding Presbyterian traditions, it's true.

---

Y'know, thinking about it, there's a certain truth to what Berzerker says, in that it's pretty messed up that a party that drove America to one of the bloodiest civil wars in history was just allowed to continue, where in any other country they would have been driven into the sea. A few slaps on the wrist for prominent figures, but otherwise allowed to go on as it had before. It shows how little weight was actually thrown behind Reconstruction.

So what should have been done to stop this? Well, you would need to eliminate the slaver class that were the backbone of the Southern Democrats before and after 1965. Freeing the slaves was a half-measure, as the swift emergence of black peonage showed. The Union needed to burn their plantation houses, redistribute the land. Hang their leaders, shoot their generals, disenfranchise their veterans and break up their institutions. Destroy the economic and social base for the Democratic Party by liquidating the rich white dickheads that were behind it all.

But when you actually suggest that, libertarians get a sort of pale and sickly look, and their previous zeal for liberty dissipates like mist.

There's no pleasing them.

 

[Cutlass]

Preferring kings called "William" to kings called "Charles" is a longstanding Presbyterian traditions, it's true.

---

Y'know, thinking about it, there's a certain truth to what Berzerker says, in that it's pretty messed up that a party that drove America to one of the bloodiest civil wars in history was just allowed to continue, where in any other country they would have been driven into the sea. A few slaps on the wrist for prominent figures, but otherwise allowed to go on as it had before. It shows how little weight was actually thrown behind Reconstruction.

So what should have been done to stop this? Well, you would need to eliminate the slaver class that were the backbone of the Southern Democrats before and after 1965. Freeing the slaves was a half-measure, as the swift emergence of black peonage showed. The Union needed to burn their plantation houses, redistribute the land. Hang their leaders, shoot their generals, disenfranchise their veterans and break up their institutions. Destroy the economic and social base for the Democratic Party by liquidating the rich white dickheads that were behind it all.

But when you actually suggest that, libertarians get a sort of pale and sickly look, and their previous zeal for liberty dissipates like mist.

There's no pleasing them.

The point being that for the South the War was about slavery. For the North the War was about the Union. The South used "LIBERTY" as a rallying cry. But only the liberty to own others. The North had some people who wanted liberty for the slave, but only some. The Northerners didn't really care about the blacks as such. Not most of them, at any rate.

 

[Lexicus]

The South used "LIBERTY" as a rallying cry. But only the liberty to own others.

Note that the Latin libertas meant the same thing.

 

[Berzerker]

My moral compass is currently busy demanding that I deny my Scottish heritage because a thousand years ago they were all a bunch of theocratic monarchists. Unforgivable! And they think that hundreds of years of parliamentary representation absolves them! The NERVE!!!!!

Jim Crow was within my lifetime... The drug war is current, the mass incarceration is ongoing - the evil continues unabated. That is your heritage as a Democrat. And Democrats want to accuse libertarians of being the fascists and slave owners?

Are you kidding? The modern Libertarian Party was literally created to roll back the gains of the civil rights movement and return us to Jim Crow.

Jim Crow was legislated by Democrats and enforced by Democrats and the KKK...who were Democrats. Libertarians believe in the free market, Jim Crow was a massive violation of the free market. They didn't believe in property either, you have that in common with them.

Its Presidential candidates have frequently said they would repeal the Civil Rights Act if they could.

They opposed infringements on the free market, including Jim Crow. Did these candidates say they'd repeal voting rights or enforce 'separate but equal'? No, they objected to politicians limiting property rights.

Meanwhile the intellectuals aligned with "libertarianism" have been defending slavery for basically the whole 20th century, but you've probably never read a single work of theory by anyone who could be considered "libertarian" so you wouldn't know this.

The author you linked wasn't defending slavery.

The drug war, I'll grant that they oppose that, but usually in a "what do you mean, it's illegal for me to sell heroin to these schoolchildren?!" kind of way rather than a "wow this policy is really failing at harm reduction and is racist in intent and impact" kind of way.

Who do we have to thank for that racist policy? Democrats. Even Democrats you supported. Before the drug wars children could buy anything, they often had to because the person in need was injured or sick. I'd advise you to tell your kid not to buy heroin if thats your concern, but kids aint into heroin.

But I like your phrasing. They are unempathetically uninvolved.

I dont like it... I've stopped to help stranded people too many times to be told I dont give a damn about others. The reason I'm libertarian - and by no means am I anything near pure - is I dont have the right to make your decisions for you. I dont have the right to take your property to pay for what I want. I dont have the right to put you in a cage because you smoke pot or use other drugs. Your life belongs to you, not me... So that means I cant hire politicians to do for me what I cant do myself - thats what 'consent of the governed' means to me. If I cant consent, my representative cant act on my behalf.

How about calling abolitionists oh, I don't know...

Abolitionists! *gasp*

Take about 5 minutes to read up on the subject and you'd learn that the abolitionists movement attracted people from all across the 19th century political spectrum. Sure, some ideologies were more represented than others, but you'd find that people who would agree on the evils of slavery would often disagree on just about everything else.

I live in the land of John Brown, I know not every abolitionist was a libertarian - I already said so. Now about these more represented ideologies, would you say the philosophy of libertarianism was among them? How about the Democrats? What did they think about slavery? Were they under represented among the abolitionists? Were the libertarians owning slaves? Hence my question for Tim.

 

[Berzerker]

"The addition of a citizenship question is to keep immigrants and their families in the shadows, it is to disenfranchise cities with large immigrant and minority populations, and it is to skew congressional redistricting that happens in 2020 to disenfranchise largely Democratic states and cities that have large immigrant and minority populations" - Alex Wagner

All that from under counting the illegal alien population in the census? What if Trump wanted them to count as 3/5ths?

 

[Traitorfish]

The point being that for the South the War was about slavery. For the North the War was about the Union. The South used "LIBERTY" as a rallying cry. But only the liberty to own others. The North had some people who wanted liberty for the slave, but only some. The Northerners didn't really care about the blacks as such. Not most of them, at any rate.

The thing is, mind, it didn't need to be about the blacks for the North to carry out a proper end to the war. It just required a will to see the war through to the end. Abolition and Union coincided in 1863 because the Union revealed itself as an effective vehicle for abolition, and abolition revealed itself as an effective weapon for the Union, but there's no clear reason why that alliance should have dissolved in 1865, with the war so clearly half-won for both sides.

 

[Lexicus]

It's a bit of a simplification to say that the North wanted to preserve the Union only. The North undoubtedly did want to preserve the Union, but significant numbers of people who were not abolitionists nonetheless opposed the Slave Power for various political reasons. Many if not most of the people who were not abolitionists also saw slavery as a moral wrong (like Lincoln himself).

 

[Tahuti]

Their major cognitive error is that they think the world is a meritocracy, and so that making things more 'free' will allow improvements to scale upwards.

I think the only mistake and the only thing that keeps me from supporting U.S. Libertarianism is that it believes in the 'right' of real estate owners to block people from using because they 'own' even though they don't use it. Go figure: If the Libertarian party would revise their view of property rights to support usufruct when it comes to real estate matters, they would be effectively anarcho-communists.

See, i just don't agree. My opinion is that the vast majority of libertarians are outright racist and sexist, and the few remaining ones are racist and sexist at least in terms of the consequences of their views being enacted into policy.

Ron Paul succesfully ran as a typical GOP congressman, which he in many ways was: He pandered to Reagan, to name an example. I would say that quite a few Libertarians hold left-wing views when economics aren't involved, though Libertarians emphasising civil rights simply fail to get elected, and this determines how quite a few people think of libertarianism.