The Race Card

The spirit of liberty has always been inside me as far back as I can recall, but it took me a while to find the correct path towards liberty. That will happen to a person with all of the nonsense we are bombarded with each day and the muck you have to push through to find the truth.

The works of Mises et al have taught me new ways to think, learn and analyze. I couldn't be more thankful. But I have trouble with the way people interpret the philosophy of liberty. Here are a few examples:

- if you are against state run education, you are against eductaion

- I am a white male and have no idea how freedom would work for blacks, hispanics, etc because I was fortune enough to have a nice upbringing, supportive family and, oh, I am a white male (in case I didn't say that already; apparently we can't have opinions)

- liberty means no equality

- how do we care for our poor without government

- monopolies would take over the world

- libertarians just talk, they never actually do anything

- because I have never actually worked in a certain environment (let's say public schools) I have no idea, nor do I have the right, to criticize that area

The list could go on and on and many people on here have answered my posts regarding some of these statements. Nevermind the fact that the entire statist system is predicated on immoral practices (theft, murder, slavery, etc). My friends on the left and right don't want to hear that.

The most recent one that really struck the wrong cord with me were the comments about race and my upbringing. To imply that I am in some way not entitled to an opinion because I am white and have been fortunate and lucky enough to have a nice upbringing really ticks me off.

Has anyone ever dealt with this situation? Besides the fact that it is basically a personal attack, what they are trying to say is: "You only promote liberty because you know that you won't have it that bad without the government's help. Other people, namely blacks, hispanics, etc will suffer and ultimately won't be equal. People will die and the whole world will explode (okay, I made that last sentence up but who hasn't heard some version of that before).

But, do you all understand my point? What do you say in a situation like that? I want the best for EVERYONE, but I don't believe that the government can create that. Somehow that point never gets across. There are obviously many different areas of discussion here, but any insight that you could provide would be great. 

Thanks!

dreamingoffreedominma:

- I am a white male and have no idea how freedom would work for blacks, hispanics, etc because I was fortune enough to have a nice upbringing, supportive family and, oh, I am a white male (in case I didn't say that already; apparently we can't have opinions)

I am a person of "color", I am not going to say which color, because it really does not matter.  While growing up, we are taught to subject ourselves to geo-political/ethnic/racial identity of Black, White, Brown, Asian, etc.  I never felt comfortable checking any box sans "Decline to State/Other" for two reasons.  One, the boxes are not an accurate portrayal of my true ethnic identity, but rather an indication of geo-political lines.  Two, and more importantly, I am more concerned with individual rights as opposed to group rights.  Checking a box will not fulfill that goal.

dreamingoffreedominma:

What do you say in a situation like that? I want the best for EVERYONE, but I don't believe that the government can create that.

It is difficult to provide counterarguements to some statements because the statements other individuals make are covert ad hominem attacks.  I have noticed that many liberals (not to mention conservatives) will sway a discussion by throwing in personal attacks rather than discuss the topic at hand.  It's an elusive device that many times win arguements in the eyes of an audience and in the eyes of your opponent. 

One way I can think of is calling them out on the ad hominem attack.  The catch is that calling them out on a logical fallacy may lead to them "calling you out" on using a fallacy-fallacy (which has little merit).

Another is to disregard the attack, but bring the conversation back to the topic at hand with sound, reasonable arguements.  Just remember to keep your cool.  You may not win the battle in the first round.

That is basically the arguement that I used. The fact that race was even brought into the discussion is absurd to me. I argued personal/individual liberty over group rights.

What about the way that racial groups are divided here in the US

It's a rather weak argument. I hear it too - "you only say that because you're privileged and white" &c. I'm not sure in what sense I'm "privileged" or what being white has to do with it. Freedom works for everyone, demonstrably. Unless, of course, they think blacks, asians &c. think differently to whites, i.e. they're advocates of polylogism, the "argument" is groundless and without merit. And mind you, I'm not even American but European and these stupid "arguments" still come up.

-Jon

Jon Irenicus:

It's a rather weak argument. I hear it too - "you only say that because you're privileged and white" &c. I'm not sure in what sense I'm "privileged" or what being white has to do with it. Freedom works for everyone, demonstrably. Unless, of course, they think blacks, asians &c. think differently to whites, i.e. they're advocates of polylogism, the "argument" is groundless and without merit.

 

Mind you that I'm not advocating this argument, but I'm not sure a belief in polylogism (rather a stupid belief) is quite necessary. To coin a phrase, methinks it's more polynaturism, that is, the best ends of humans differ by race. Maybe, by such an idea, freedom really does have the best results for Europeans, but East Asians thrive better (are happier) under a socialist system, for instance. Not a particularly convincing example, that, but still.

True, that's another way of looking at it. But I've yet to see a real defence of that offered up, and it still does not prove that the rest of us ought to live in slavery.

-Jon

Different races tend to have different qualities. I find it hard to believe a fact such as that, and not be looked at as a racist by others. I think the whole " white liberty" thing is the charred remains of imperialism and old race theory that other people needed to be" freed" from their culture. Native peoples or other non- Anglo Europeans despise the imperial "white man's" rules and then associated liberty with oppression because Europeans came up with most theories of modern government, or the race superiority complex that anyone who cannot understand liberty does not deserve it. And the " white person" was the primary advocate of liberty.

I'm not a racist, but there are things that are noticeable. Most Latin American governments tend to be socialist. Is this very surprising with their people's attribute of having large and strong family ties and associated that trait to nations as a " were all in this together " kind of attitude that socialism spreads. Maybe, maybe not.

As for teaching of culture and history in public schools, of course culture and history are going to be primarily based on European culture, because America is the fruit of Europe. The idea that American schools are now teaching African American History, or Asian studies disturbs me, turning everybody into a "them" instead of a person. Having things like Black History month, I find more racist than some people I know who are really bad racists. The fact that an accomplishment should be celebrated based on what color or gender the person was, degrades the merit of that person and accomplishment, and it also embraces mediocrity by celebration of lame accomplishments because they were done by a minority. "Jhon Doe was the first black man on the moon", instead of looking at who was the First person on the moon. That fact that the first guy on the moon was white makes no difference. Some say that we teach the history of Whitety in school( by focusing on Jefferson,Einstein,Newton, Plato and Aristotle) and this is because this is Whitey's curriculum. But all those people were great and had a profoud impact on civilization, but so did MLK, DuBois, Cleopatra, ect.

Okay, the lack of minorities above may give them evidence that this is true, but it is not. Most of modern civilization (science, democracy, philosophy) comes from the bowls of Europe. But most of human civilization comes from Africa and central Asia. If races and cultures of Asian and African descent want to take pride in that, go ahead, but don't expect modern civilization to be teaching the culture of the Kingdom of Kush over the philosophy of logic or calculus.

And that is a perfect argument to get rid of government schooling if you believe Whitety is trying do discredit your culture and history by focusing on it's own.

 Positive racism is still racism

Ideas have no culture or color, they are either good or socialism.lol.

Andrew:

I think the whole " white liberty" thing is the charred remains of imperialism and old race theory that other people needed to be" freed" from their culture. Native peoples or other non- Anglo Europeans despise the imperial "white man's" rules and then associated liberty with oppression because Europeans came up with most theories of modern government, or the race superiority complex that anyone who cannot understand liberty does not deserve it. And the " white person" was the primary advocate of liberty.

 

 Positive racism is still racism

.

I think that this is the struggle most people have when they try to come to terms with liberty. Our founding fathers wanted liberty, but then they turn around and enslave people. I always have to explain that that was a flaw in their understanding of liberty.

 

Cleopatra was white too - she was a Ptolemy, i.e. part of the Greek haegemons that came to rule Egypt. Egypt a couple of thousand years ago was different to Egypt today.

-Jon

Andrew:

Different races tend to have different qualities. I find it hard to believe a fact such as that, and not be looked at as a racist by others. I think the whole " white liberty" thing is the charred remains of imperialism and old race theory that other people needed to be" freed" from their culture. Native peoples or other non- Anglo Europeans despise the imperial "white man's" rules and then associated liberty with oppression because Europeans came up with most theories of modern government, or the race superiority complex that anyone who cannot understand liberty does not deserve it. And the " white person" was the primary advocate of liberty.

 

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by all this. That being said, I will base a rant off of it anyway.

{rant}

Well, now some cultures just aren't worth the dung-fires that fuel them. I always find it amusing how "enlightened" and "tolerant" thinkers basically treat people from primitive cultures like animals. Television censors, for instance, will fine a station for displaying the nudity of people from modern cultures, but that nature documentaries are free to show the elaborate phallic jewelry and wrapping of various tribesmen, and dangling mammaries that have never known a bra all around. These "tolerant" people like to say that we should not interfere, not contaminate the culture. As if these particular humans are better off living until 30 losing half their kids in infancy, plagued with worms and various terrible forms of creeping crud and clubbing each other for sport. Yessir, such a valuable culture it must be preserved.

How about we let them decide, huh? Let them know what's available and then let them choose. Strangely enough, whenever that happens, such cultures eventually die. Why? Because living as a primitive sucks. But the precious, tolerant progressives want to make sure that somewhere in the world, some people still live in "harmony" with "nature". Because, in the end, to the "progressive" each person is a part of the global community, rather than an individual.

As for the "I'm not a racist" comment, you might as well not bother. Such statements are, as in this case, only made before making a statement some will view as racist. I certainly understand the desire for disclaimers, though. I actually think it's getting better, but even in America where, unlike pretty much every other industrialized nation on earth, you won't get thrown in prison for saying something perceived as racist or "inciting hatred", consequences can be dire for breaking PC rules.

{/rant}

dreamingoffreedominma:

The most recent one that really struck the wrong cord with me were the comments about race and my upbringing. To imply that I am in some way not entitled to an opinion because I am white and have been fortunate and lucky enough to have a nice upbringing really ticks me off.

 

Firstly there is no direct counter-argument that would be copasetic to your interlocutor because such claims (like all politically correct attacks) are fundamentally anti-rational, said only to obfuscate people's thinking.

I am a somewhat indelicate and asocial individual so am not especially skilled in handling such situations, but I would recommend replying that their "unfortunate" state of affairs is not a necessary actuality but in fact the result of and perpetuated by state planning; also explain that you have no intention of building, or rather razing, Rome in a day but prefer that the state be downsized over time to allow people addicted to government aid to recover.  At any rate, act at your own discretion.

dreamingoffreedominma:

- if you are against state run education, you are against eductaion

Depending on who you are.

dreamingoffreedominma:

- I am a white male and have no idea how freedom would work for blacks, hispanics, etc because I was fortune enough to have a nice upbringing, supportive family and, oh, I am a white male (in case I didn't say that already; apparently we can't have opinions)

So they would have to figure it out for themselves.

dreamingoffreedominma:

- liberty means no equality

Thank You, my Lord!

dreamingoffreedominma:

- how do we care for our poor without government

In whatever way we want.

dreamingoffreedominma:

- monopolies would take over the world

For there are no 210+ monopolies ruling the world now.

dreamingoffreedominma:

- libertarians just talk, they never actually do anything

Not all of them, just the agorists.

dreamingoffreedominma:

- because I have never actually worked in a certain environment (let's say public schools) I have no idea, nor do I have the right, to criticize that area

I do not criticize them, just want them abolished.

 

We all know where you`re coming from. We`ve all had some self-righteous fool mouth off to us disrespectfully. In fact, I`m ashamed to admit it, I used to be that type of person. I think the reason behind this is that we all have an ideological identity. We see ourselves in the world as being symbollically for some ideas and against other ideas. When it comes to ideological issues, they aren`t interested in the truth. They`ve already decided what idea they are for. They just look for reasons to support it or ways to stop you from attacking it.

 

Personally, I think there`s only one way to respond to this. When people engage in ad hominems, it is an appeal to moral cowardice. They are expecting that you will back down because you don`t want to see yourself in a negative light or others to see you in a negative light. You should respond in a way which lets them know that you don`t take their attack seriously, and you should appeal to their moral cowardice as well. It`s the only language they really understand in an ideological argument. You should be firm, confident (cocky even), and disrespectful if they are.

 

As for race cards. They are always double edged swords that work both ways. Pose the question,”Why should it be the case that I don`t get an opinion because I`m white? Why not the other way around? Obviously there is no fundamental difference.”   ”Maybe I am a better judge than you in these matters because I had a better upbringing.” 

 

Just my thoughts.

 

 Those of you talking about "racial qualities" such as having large families and other behaviours are falling for the Pat Buchanan propaganda. Race has very little to do with actual behaviour. The next target is "culture", which itself is never in stasis or universal.

So when Mr. Buchanan and other racialists say that the West is doomed because Hispanics are breeding faster, it is complete nonsense. It is complete ignorance of evolution and mutation. The humans of 300 years ago were different than the humans of today, and the humans of the future will also look different.

Telpeurion:

Those of you talking about "racial qualities" such as having large families and other behaviours are falling for the Pat Buchanan propaganda. Race has very little to do with actual behaviour.

 

That has yet to be firmly established. Indeed, much extant evidence is to the contrary.

Telpeurion:

So when Mr. Buchanan and other racialists say that the West is doomed because Hispanics are breeding faster, it is complete nonsense.

That bit is absolutely true. Indeed, hispanic culture is pretty much a Western Culture, and every Mexican alive today except some rare tribes up in the mountains is at least a good chunk Spaniard. Spanish culture may not be Buchanan's grumpy, hard-drinking Irish Catholic descent, but it is still Western.

Telpeurion:

It is complete ignorance of evolution and mutation. The humans of 300 years ago were different than the humans of today, and the humans of the future will also look different.

That statement betrays a complete ignorance of evolution and mutation. Humans of 300 or even 3,000 years ago, mere evolutionary blinks of an eye, were pretty well identical to what we have today, excepting environmental factors, and even in our modern culture people tend to hang out with folks what look like them. Mutations my foot. It takes A LONG TIME and a LOT of luck to get any significant mutations established in a population.

 This is an extremely interesting topic.

"The most recent one that really struck the wrong cord with me were the comments about race and my upbringing. To imply that I am in some way not entitled to an opinion because I am white and have been fortunate and lucky enough to have a nice upbringing really ticks me off."

When I was a child and my parents sent me to a Catholic school run by nuns They kept us in line using that centuries old stratagem, namely guilt. It was all about "you have no idea how lucky you are" and they tried to make us feel guilty about pretty much everything. When I read in the papers the latest victimology piece about race/wealth/education/whatever I merely shake my head and think about the nuns trying to have us eat that disgusting pork (I can assure you it was barely edible) by saying "don't you there are children starving in Ethiopia?". I can assure you that I was a very guilt-ridden child. I would have grown up into a guilt-ridden man if I had not had this insane passion for reading: I used to steal the various periodicals my father left laying around. That was how I discovered that children were starving in Ethiopia not because I was not eating my half-baked slice of pork but because their own government was starving them to death through insane politics.

"But, do you all understand my point? What do you say in a situation like that? I want the best for EVERYONE, but I don't believe that the government can create that. Somehow that point never gets across."

I used to be very idealistic in my youth; I too wanted the best for everyone. That's a great ideal for young people but sooner or later you'll realize that the number of persons you can help out is limited. If you are a very gifted pharmacologist you can come up with a drug that will save thousands, perhaps millions. If you are a wealthy person you can contribute funds to worthy causes. If you are a pious person you can offer desperate people a shoulder to cry on and perhaps hope for tomorrow. But if you are an average Joe what can you do? You resources are limited, perhaps you are not doing so well. You are not particulary pious, nor patient or skilled at anything. You see death and desperation all around you. You have to make the best you can with the time and skills you are being given, that's all. Start small, even a small gesture will make the world a better place.

"Has anyone ever dealt with this situation? Besides the fact that it is basically a personal attack, what they are trying to say is: "You only promote liberty because you know that you won't have it that bad without the government's help. Other people, namely blacks, hispanics, etc will suffer and ultimately won't be equal. People will die and the whole world will explode (okay, I made that last sentence up but who hasn't heard some version of that before)."

That's the core of the problem. Governments have always played the role of knights in shiny armours coming to the rescue. They rob to the rich to give to the poor. They "distribute" wealth. Problem is they are not so selfless. The government requires something in exchange: they are not John Frumm. A political commentator (I don't remember his/her name) once said "government wants three things from you: money, votes and blood in that particular order". Impoverished minorities of course have no money to give: that would be unethical in welfare state. But they have a couple of very useful economic roles to play: first they can provide cheap and plentiful unskilled manpower to the mixed-system economy. Second, even if they are unemployed they have a very useful role to play: how can you lower taxes when there are so many needy persons around? How can you ask for a cut in the number of social workers? We are on the good road, we just need a tiny bit more money and hiring a few more persons. This has been going on forever and works every single time. On the "votes and blood" area we need not to say anything. But there's one more role to be played. The Romans had a golden rule for their empire: divide et impera, divide them and rule them. Pit the white against the black, the have against the have not, the car driver against the oil company... the golden rule still works after all these years.

Andrew:

Most of modern civilization (science, democracy, philosophy) comes from the bowls of Europe.

I suggest you read The Mainspring of Human Progress, especially the part about the first and second human attempts at freedom, and then decide if Europe really was the main influence shaping human destiny.

 

I agree with JC for once.

-Jon

Telpeurion:

Those of you talking about "racial qualities" such as having large families and other behaviours are falling for the Pat Buchanan propaganda. Race has very little to do with actual behaviour. The next target is "culture", which itself is never in stasis or universal.

Culture is a function of race. Someone even put it into an equation like  f(x,race) = culture / actual behaviour. Since I am working with Blacks on a daily basis, I only can shake my had, when I read "Race has very little to do with actual behaviour", because what I can observe is definitly otherwise. That the behaviour differs doesn't come as surprise, as human behaviour is managed via hormones and these are literally in the blood of people. Knowledge about race and behaviour is useful to me for making decisions in business. And I think most people doing business in Africa will actually confirm what I'm saying.

Telpeurion:

So when Mr. Buchanan and other racialists say that the West is doomed because Hispanics are breeding faster, it is complete nonsense. It is complete ignorance of evolution and mutation. The humans of 300 years ago were different than the humans of today, and the humans of the future will also look different.

If I'd use a scale for the positions you assign to Buchanan and yours the scale would strongly tend to the Buchanan side. This has nothing to do with "Hispanics breeding faster", but with the fact that if the racial make up of a population changes, the culture will do so as well and this will also mean a rapid change in institutions. If the present trends are not turned around the US will become more like Mexico as it would like to be without a neighbour like the US. 

The cultural, political and economic differences between mainly White countries, Black countries and East Asian countries were not a coincides. And the strongest factor seems to be the racial identity of people. There is also a strong correlation between propensity crime and race. However there is another factor one needs to consider and these are social institutions and I think this explains the difference in crime rates between for instances countries like South Africa, Botswana and Malawi. Malawi is the poorest of them all, but has the lowest crime rate. South Africa is the richest, with the highest crime rates. It should be added that urbanization/westernization of Blacks has been progressed the most of all those countries.  

Statements like "everything is different", "nothing is static", "ignorance of evolution" are actually meaningless. Exercises in race denial also lack any credibility, since the egalitarians hardly put their money were their mouth is. If the would become active doing business in Africa they would quickly learn that what they were preaching is quite a bunch of political correct nonsense, which can further your carreer in the bureaucracies of Western countries, but will be deadly once applied anywhere else.

 

 

 

i r thread winner:

I get the exact opposite. I'm black and female, so whenever I tell other black people about libertarianism and the free market, and I that, no, I don't support Obama,lol, they flip out. They think I'm "trying to be white." This has happens ever since was in grade school; everybody though I was white b/c I didn't speak slang, b/c my mom grew up in Grenada where the British eductaion was prominent, so poor grammar was never accepted in my home. But I'd prefer to be free, I do not want anything from a government that has enslaved and oppressed blacks is what I say to those people who freak out on me,lol.

Dylangal:

I don't support Obama,lol, they flip out. They think I'm "trying to be white."

You should point out that Obama must have millions of white supporters, and in many more numbers than black ones, or he wouldn't have enough people backing him to beat Hillary. Anyway, that's some weird logic fallacious to use -- but I'm guessing a lot of them don't really think like that, they just don't care much about politics and are joking with you... That should explain some of the responses the poster got -- a lot of people don't know how and don't like to think and argue.

To the poster, the important point to make is that you agree with the other guy on the ends (maybe not exactly, but whatever), the disagreement is just on how to achieve them. Clearly these people are talking from an utilitarian POV, and if you start justifying yourself by using liberty, they'll think you're insensible to the poor, and will justify their position based on slavery of the past, the rich people owning all the good lands or whatever. And it's very important you show them the unintented consequences of their positions as well. I'm talking here of addressing ordinary people -- dunno about commies and etc.

 

".......I get the exact opposite. I'm black and female, so whenever I tell other black people about libertarianism and the free market, and I that, no, I don't support Obama,lol, they flip out. They think I'm "trying to be white." This has happens ever since was in grade school; everybody though I was white b/c I didn't speak slang, b/c my mom grew up in Grenada where the British eductaion was prominent, so poor grammar was never accepted in my home. But I'd prefer to be free, I do not want anything from a government that has enslaved and oppressed blacks is what I say to those people who freak out on me,lol....."

It is obvious that libertarianism (or for that matter any individualist philosophy) is almost exclusively a White domain. Ethnic (or familial, religious) solidarity plays some role in politics almost everywhere. It seems however to be much stronger in Black people in Africa and elsewhere.
i.e. While James Shikwati is considered a libertarian by many, he also takes a communitarian stance in many ways.

"...You should point out that Obama must have millions of white supporters, and in many more numbers than black ones, or he wouldn't have enough people backing him to beat Hillary. Anyway, that's some weird logic fallacious to use -- but I'm guessing a lot of them don't really think like that, they just don't care much about politics and are joking with you... That should explain some of the responses the poster got -- a lot of people don't know how and don't like to think and argue...."

Concerning Obama having White Supporters(Democrats) - in connection with arguments on "playing the race card". I'd reply to that is actually not Obama himself doing it that much, at least I don't see that. Or is he saying something in the line of: "I'm Black, please vote for me." Isn't it rather his White supporters trying to play the Race Card using him? They'd do so by implying:"You have to vote democrats, because we are politically correct. If you do not vote Democrats, you must be racist, because we are the ones with the "minority" candidate".