From the HACER website: "Lacking traditions that consistently uphold the rule of law, the free society remains a work-in-progress throughout the Spanish-speaking countries of the Western hemisphere."
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Byzantine: From the HACER website: "Lacking traditions that consistently uphold the rule of law, the free society remains a work-in-progress throughout the Spanish-speaking countries of the Western hemisphere." Also, by your own admission, Latin American countries continue to pursue socialist policies.
From the HACER website: "Lacking traditions that consistently uphold the rule of law, the free society remains a work-in-progress throughout the Spanish-speaking countries of the Western hemisphere." Also, by your own admission, Latin American countries continue to pursue socialist policies.
Latin American governments do not differ from any other government. What's your point? Are you really this racist? Srsly?
Goddamn.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Byzantine: Stolz2525:One-fifth of adult Americans still believe in government by consent, i.e., the right of secession, according to a Zogby/Middlebury Institute poll. The highest percentage of believers in peaceful secession was among Hispanics (43%) and African-Americans (40% The poll reflects the ethnic loyalties of the respondents. The US government and electorate is dominated by whites, and so they perceive their self-interest in the preservation of this polity. Hispanics and African-Americans see themselves as on the outs with the US government, and thus would be more willing to transfer their loyalties to their own ethnic nations. After all, Hispanics aren't coming here to pay Social Security for a bunch of stupid white people who can't reproduce themselves, and African-Americans remain eternally and bitterly resentful of the white-dominated US polity. These are the centrifugal forces that will bring the American Experiment to its end. The trend worldwide is dissolution of the market-states along ethnic and cultural lines, and the US is no more immune to this trend than was the old USSR.
Stolz2525:One-fifth of adult Americans still believe in government by consent, i.e., the right of secession, according to a Zogby/Middlebury Institute poll. The highest percentage of believers in peaceful secession was among Hispanics (43%) and African-Americans (40%
The poll reflects the ethnic loyalties of the respondents. The US government and electorate is dominated by whites, and so they perceive their self-interest in the preservation of this polity. Hispanics and African-Americans see themselves as on the outs with the US government, and thus would be more willing to transfer their loyalties to their own ethnic nations. After all, Hispanics aren't coming here to pay Social Security for a bunch of stupid white people who can't reproduce themselves, and African-Americans remain eternally and bitterly resentful of the white-dominated US polity.
These are the centrifugal forces that will bring the American Experiment to its end. The trend worldwide is dissolution of the market-states along ethnic and cultural lines, and the US is no more immune to this trend than was the old USSR.
Wasn't Hoppe's point ironically to increase the amount of homogenous ethnic city states?You racists reallly like to contradict yourselves, don't you?
What does it matter what they want to secede for? They want to secede! They support secession! More than I can say for you WASPs.
Paleocons have been more vocal than any other group regarding Roosevelt and Churchill. In fact, a paleocon like Pat Buchanan has made it the mission of his recent books to expose Churchill for what he really is.
It's easy for you to throw around blame, but I don't see Libertarians saying squat about Churchill or Roosevelt. In fact, I don't see them commenting politically very much at all!
LibertyStudent: It's easy for you to throw around blame, but I don't see Libertarians saying squat about Churchill or Roosevelt.
Niccolò:Please! Do the koolaid thing! It will give everyone on this forum a break from having to see your avatar pop up.
Hush now Nicky. The grownups are discussing things.
Instead of thwop-thwopping around in your clown shoes, desperately trying to be the center of attention, have a seat and pay attention.
Juan:You are purposely missing the point, no ?
No, not purposely.
Juan:The American experiment in self-government is an almost complete failure.
I agree.
Juan:The people who destroyed liberty in America were and are mostly WASP.
You're probably right, although I am sure there are contingents that have plenty of blame for Jews, Catholics and secular statists as well.
Juan:Get it now ?
I think so. I don't necessarily agree with your racial profiling, but I get where you are coming from.
Juan:Racism is a double edged-sword.
Indeed it is. I can honestly say that I am barely racist if at all. I'm part asian, part eastern european. I try not to judge people by race or religion groups, because I don't like people seeing me that way. I think you have been race baiting the illegal immigrant issue, because you are trying to use it to bolster a preconceived position on Ron Paul, not because it has any particular merit.
I am aware of reverse racism, and do not approve of that either. Seems to me that Paul gets blamed a lot for being white, if he was black like Walter Williams, would everyone be holding him to the same standard on immigration? I highly doubt it.
Stolz2525: Ryan, just so we're clear, I didn't say you shouldn't criticize Paul's positions, and I thought I made it clear I disagreed with him on several issues. I just think he does more good than harm, which you can't say about most of the politicians. Obviously Nic would disagree on that, and I honestly hadn't thought of latinos as a strong base for libertarian ideas before, so I'll be thinking about it.
Ryan, just so we're clear, I didn't say you shouldn't criticize Paul's positions, and I thought I made it clear I disagreed with him on several issues. I just think he does more good than harm, which you can't say about most of the politicians. Obviously Nic would disagree on that, and I honestly hadn't thought of latinos as a strong base for libertarian ideas before, so I'll be thinking about it.
I am glad to hear you will think about it. Unlike one person on this thread you seem to be open minded and willing to explore new ideas. I appreciate that in you. J
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
I am getting a feeling of déjà vu but here goes. Is your goal the “rule of law” or is your goal “liberty”?
Byzantine: Hispanics and African-Americans see themselves as on the outs with the US government, and thus would be more willing to transfer their loyalties to their own ethnic nations. After all, Hispanics aren't coming here to pay Social Security for a bunch of stupid white people who can't reproduce themselves, and African-Americans remain eternally and bitterly resentful of the white-dominated US polity.
It is not often that I outright call someone a racist. That term is used too lightly in our ultra-P.C. society today. I tend to be very cautious when using this term. However, I am thinking I may do so before this thread is over.
Byzantine: ryanpatgray:I am getting a feeling of déjà vu but here goes. Is your goal the “rule of law” or is your goal “liberty”? You linked to the HACER site in support of your arguments, so you tell me. I would venture to say though that without a common ethic of rights in property, then property goes to whoever can muster the most machete-wielding family members. In such an unpredictable environment, people don't invest in upkeep or technology and capital flees in search of more stable business environments. You are then at perfect liberty to die of infectious disease in your impoverished, subsistence-level economy.
ryanpatgray:I am getting a feeling of déjà vu but here goes. Is your goal the “rule of law” or is your goal “liberty”?
You linked to the HACER site in support of your arguments, so you tell me. I would venture to say though that without a common ethic of rights in property, then property goes to whoever can muster the most machete-wielding family members. In such an unpredictable environment, people don't invest in upkeep or technology and capital flees in search of more stable business environments. You are then at perfect liberty to die of infectious disease in your impoverished, subsistence-level economy.
Do you equate "common ethic of rights in property" with "rule of law"? Why or why not?
LibertyStudent: I think you have been race baiting the illegal immigrant issue, because you are trying to use it to bolster a preconceived position on Ron Paul, not because it has any particular merit.
Byzantine: ryanpatgray: It is not often that I outright call someone a racist. That term is used too lightly in our ultra-P.C. society today. I tend to be very cautious when using this term. However, I am thinking I may do so before this thread is over. Won't bother me a bit. "Racist" is what they call you when they can't say you're wrong or a liar. "They" is not who I am. I have stated I think the term is used far too often and too lightly. I have stated that I think our society is far too P.C. Here is my test: Can you back up this claim you made in an earlier post with facts. Not opinions, not anecdotes, but facts: Byzantine: Hispanics and African-Americans see themselves as on the outs with the US government, and thus would be more willing to transfer their loyalties to their own ethnic nations. After all, Hispanics aren't coming here to pay Social Security for a bunch of stupid white people who can't reproduce themselves, and African-Americans remain eternally and bitterly resentful of the white-dominated US polity.
Byzantine: ryanpatgray: It is not often that I outright call someone a racist. That term is used too lightly in our ultra-P.C. society today. I tend to be very cautious when using this term. However, I am thinking I may do so before this thread is over. Won't bother me a bit. "Racist" is what they call you when they can't say you're wrong or a liar.
ryanpatgray: It is not often that I outright call someone a racist. That term is used too lightly in our ultra-P.C. society today. I tend to be very cautious when using this term. However, I am thinking I may do so before this thread is over.
Juan:I wasn't attacking Paul in particular.
Juan, you are really starting to drive me crazy. This is an attack Ron Paul thread. You can't just post anything you want anywhere. That would be anarchy. We need order!
Juan:What I find almost ridiculous is the argument that illegal immigrants are the reason why the welfare state is a problem. The fact is, the welfare state was created by the mostly 'WASP' elites for their own ends.
I agree! We agree Juan! You can put down the shotgun and give me a big hug fella! We're on the same side. In fact, Ron Paul is too, but he's old and skinny, so if you hug too hard, he might get hurt.
Paul argues that the welfare state creates illegal immigration, not the other way around! He doesn't want to round up people and throw them out, he wants to shut down the welfare state, but particularly as it pertains to illegal immigrants, and trusts that without that incentive, many will return home. This is because he recognizes that welfare in this scenario, comes before immigration! Smart man!!
Juan:If America was a laissez-faire society, then it would attract libertarian minded people. However, if the rules of the game are mostly statist rules (and those rules have been laid out by the local oligarchy) it seems a bit unfair(and misleading) to blame immigrants.
Paul doesn't blame immigrants, advertisements or flyer from his incompetent staff notwithstanding. Paul blames the system. As do I. We're all here to Rage Against the Machine. Not to Rage Against the Mexicans.
Byzantine: The American Experiment is not in self-government but in credal nationhood or, more specifically, multicultural democracy.
It is a time-limited experiment, and it is coming to an end, and with the American empire's break-up into its constituent nations, we will finally be reversing a two-century process of centralization begun, as you note, by American WASPs.
The point being missed though is that the very process of centralization is a manifestation of WASP nationalism.
Since white ethnic pride has been effectively outlawed, they transfer their loyalties to the white-dominated US central state. As their hold on power in the US central state decreases, so too will white loyalty to the US state.
liberty student: Niccolò:Please! Do the koolaid thing! It will give everyone on this forum a break from having to see your avatar pop up. Hush now Nicky. The grownups are discussing things. Instead of thwop-thwopping around in your clown shoes, desperately trying to be the center of attention, have a seat and pay attention.
I just suggested you have a drink.
Koolaid is delicious. By the way, don't you have a job to be at? I mean, you're such a big man taking care of your family... Or are you just sitting here receiving welfare.
Niccolò:Koolaid is delicious.
Finally, something we can agree on!
Niccolò:By the way, don't you have a job to be at? I mean, you're such a big man taking care of your family... Or are you just sitting here receiving welfare.
Yes, I am sitting here receiving welfare. I am receiving welfare intravenously.
So I've noticed today that Ron Paul has Grover Norquist speaking at his upcoming rally, and apparently serving some kind of leadership role in the Campaign for Liberty. I'm a Paul supporter, even though I disagree with him on certain issues, and I think his campaign was the largest and most important libertarian event in decades. That said, what the hell? How can you have a libertarian organization with a Karl Rove associate, Bush supporting, pro-war neocon in a leadership position?
They also have that meathead Barry Goldwater Jr., whose most significant accomplishment is springig from Barry Goldwater's loins.
The people managing the C4L are terribly in over their heads. I read on the Ron Paul forums that it would be a conservative family event. Great idea if you want to alienate all of the young people who produced videos, canvassed hard and promoted Paul on the web and in polls.
Byzantine: Byzantine:Hispanics and African-Americans see themselves as on the outs with the US government, and thus would be more willing to transfer their loyalties to their own ethnic nations. After all, Hispanics aren't coming here to pay Social Security for a bunch of stupid white people who can't reproduce themselves, and African-Americans remain eternally and bitterly resentful of the white-dominated US polity. Read La Raza and the Aztlan websites. Listen to Jeremiah Wright's sermons. Ethnic pride is alive and well among Hispanics and African-Americans, and they sure as hell don't want to answer to white-dominated government--can you blame them? And do you seriously think Hispanics will shell out payroll taxes so the USG can bail out Social Security for a bunch of old white people who decided to abort babies rather than have them?
Byzantine:Hispanics and African-Americans see themselves as on the outs with the US government, and thus would be more willing to transfer their loyalties to their own ethnic nations. After all, Hispanics aren't coming here to pay Social Security for a bunch of stupid white people who can't reproduce themselves, and African-Americans remain eternally and bitterly resentful of the white-dominated US polity.
Read La Raza and the Aztlan websites. Listen to Jeremiah Wright's sermons. Ethnic pride is alive and well among Hispanics and African-Americans, and they sure as hell don't want to answer to white-dominated government--can you blame them? And do you seriously think Hispanics will shell out payroll taxes so the USG can bail out Social Security for a bunch of old white people who decided to abort babies rather than have them?
First of all, I don't appreciate the fact that you quote me as using your words. Please edit that post to either have no one quoted or to quote yourself. Is there a forum rule about this? Does anyone know? I do not want to be quoted as having said words I did not say. I do not want some poor person to think I said those words. Secondly, those are individuals, not groups. I am an individualist and judge individuals by individual accomplishments and failures.
Byzantine: Calm down. It was inadvertent, however it happened. Who are all the poor people reading mises.org? And what exactly do you take issue with in those statements or find so horribly offensive?
And what exactly do you take issue with in those statements or find so horribly offensive?
Thank you for editing that post. I take issue with collectivism in all its forms. If you want me to criticize a specific statement made by La Raza or Rev. Write or whoever that is a different matter. If I strongly disagree - I will criticize. But I will not use Rev. Write's words to accuse all people with a certain amount of melanin in their skin of agreeing with those statements. I will only use it to claim Rev. Write or, perhaps, members of his church who applauded when he said them of agreement. Same for any other person or group. I would not accuse you of agreeing with all statements made by Senator John Edwards no matter how much he may "look" like you. Even if he lived three doors down from you I would recognize that you and he are two separate people. I am an individualist.
ryanpatgray: I am an individualist.
And what effect does that have on the group identities that other people choose for themselves?
Peace
JonBostwick: ryanpatgray: I am an individualist. And what effect does that have on the group identities that other people choose for themselves? I believe in free association. If they choose to associate with certain people, for whatever peaceful purpose, that is their choice. I would not use or advocate the use of force to prevent any peaceful assembly of people. But, beyond that, "group identities" only exist in the minds of people who accept them. Human beings are not “The Borg”.
JonBostwick: ryanpatgray: I am an individualist. And what effect does that have on the group identities that other people choose for themselves?
Rationalthinker:I hope this is not too off topic... But with this talk of political candidates, I am truly wondering if in the last 20 years the democratic and republican administrations have essentially spent the same amount of money on "social welfare causes" - if one includes national and international spending in the equation. I would guess that at least 90 percent of my colleagues would say that they are loyal democrats; with social welfare causes as their biggest concern when it comes to who they end up voting for in elections. Does anyone know if my hunch is correct that democrats actually do not ultimately outspend republicans when it comes to social welfare? BTW, I truly hate both parties.
Oddly enough, the GOP (at least on the Federal level) has been spending more lately . . .
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3750
People don't "choose" these group identites, they're born into them and socially conditioned to believe in them.
Brainpolice:People don't "choose" these group identites, they're born into them and socially conditioned to believe in them.
Sure they do. Lots of people leave and join religions for example. I've known several people who have self-identified with a racially unlikely culture or group and joined such.
I'm not sure it is rational to say that people don't choose group identities.
liberty student: Brainpolice:People don't "choose" these group identites, they're born into them and socially conditioned to believe in them. Sure they do. Lots of people leave and join religions for example. I've known several people who have self-identified with a racially unlikely culture or group and joined such. I'm not sure it is rational to say that people don't choose group identities.
I agree with Brainpolice that many people are socially conditioned to believe in group identities. There are, however, enough examples of people rejecting group identities to prove that it is possible. What it is not possible to do is change one's race or ethnicity (with the possible exception of Michael Jackson who used his wealth to transform himself into a space alien.)
ryanpatgray: liberty student: Brainpolice:People don't "choose" these group identites, they're born into them and socially conditioned to believe in them. Sure they do. Lots of people leave and join religions for example. I've known several people who have self-identified with a racially unlikely culture or group and joined such. I'm not sure it is rational to say that people don't choose group identities. I agree with Brainpolice that many people are socially conditioned to believe in group identities. There are, however, enough examples of people rejecting group identities to prove that it is possible. What it is not possible to do is change one's race or ethnicity (with the possible exception of Michael Jackson who used his wealth to transform himself into a space alien.)
I was speaking particularly in the context of ethnicity and nationhood. People do not choose their ethnicities or nationhoods, they are born into them. In terms of people's religions and politics, it is often the case that they are conditioned by their parents, the media, the education system and the overall culture.
People do not "choose" the pre-existing conditions that effect them, nor do they "choose" the pre-existing social conventions and cultural attitudes that sweepingly define them before they can even develope a true self-identity.
It is often the case that such group identites are labels that others "choose" for you, not the result of a rationally developed self-identity. In order to effectively communicate and function in the society, some may asquiesce to the terminology to a degree, but that doesn't mean it's a truly chosen individual identity.
Brainpolice: I was speaking particularly in the context of ethnicity and nationhood. People do not choose their ethnicities or nationhoods, they are born into them. In terms of people's religions and politics, it is often the case that they are conditioned by their parents, the media, the education system and the overall culture. People do not "choose" the pre-existing conditions that effect them, nor do they "choose" the pre-existing social conventions and cultural attitudes that sweepingly define them before they can even develop a true self-identity. It is often the case that such group identities are labels that others "choose" for you, not the result of a rationally developed self-identity. In order to effectively communicate and function in the society, some may acquiesce to the terminology to a degree, but that doesn't mean it's a truly chosen individual identity.
People do not "choose" the pre-existing conditions that effect them, nor do they "choose" the pre-existing social conventions and cultural attitudes that sweepingly define them before they can even develop a true self-identity.
It is often the case that such group identities are labels that others "choose" for you, not the result of a rationally developed self-identity. In order to effectively communicate and function in the society, some may acquiesce to the terminology to a degree, but that doesn't mean it's a truly chosen individual identity.
People cannot choose where they were born or how their parents raised them but many people DO choose their nationhoods. I work in a college and many of the professors came from elsewhere. These people CHOSE to be Americans. They had to jump through a lot of hoops but they did. I recognize that not everyone has that opportunity but many do - either through action or inaction choose. I could, if I really wanted to, rearrange my life in such a way as to move to another country. I choose not to take those actions. Partly because I like where I live now but mostly because, frankly, it would be too much trouble in many ways. As children people usually have to follow the will of their parents to a large degree. As adults we can make our own identities. People can learn a new language if they want too. They can move, they can change religions. In a society that is at least marginally free you can Choose Your Own Adventure©.
liberty student: They also have that meathead Barry Goldwater Jr., whose most significant accomplishment is springig from Barry Goldwater's loins. The people managing the C4L are terribly in over their heads. I read on the Ron Paul forums that it would be a conservative family event. Great idea if you want to alienate all of the young people who produced videos, canvassed hard and promoted Paul on the web and in polls.
Is Lew Rockwell speaking there? If not, he should.
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
I'm pretty sure he isn't, and it is the loss of the C4L. I'm so pissed at them. They are squandering a lot of opportunities pandering to the wrong people.
C4L should throw weight behind the Taxachusetts ballot as a first step imo. Would earn publicity too.
And then deal with similar initiatives for good.
Andrew:Is Lew Rockwell speaking there? If not, he should.
No, the event seems designed to pander to people who thought "well, I like Ron Paul on guns and taxes, but he's just insane if he says we shouldn't murder foreigners." Aside from Paul and Tom Woods, the most libertarian person speaking there seems to be Jesse Ventura. This event, in my mind, signifies the end of Ron Paul as a movement against the GOP agenda, and the beginning of its attempt to incorporate into conservativism. It makes me sick.
Well, Tucker Carlson will be there. We know that when he isn't pandering to the political establishment, he's a libertarian.
I'd argue that Gary Johnson is about as libertarian as Jesse Ventura.