Current Events

Re: Was Tim McVeigh really a libertarian?

Torsten — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 14:28:35 GMT

Well for people who consider fascism to be a species of capitalism, it isn't an illogical conclusion to drift towards.

I think it was the Marxist-Leninist tag line since the 1930s. "Fascism" is the last stage of "Capitalism".

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3234092?uid=3739368&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101513387261

http://www.dkrenton.co.uk/old/old3.html

Re: Was Tim McVeigh really a libertarian?

ToxicAssets — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:46:48 GMT

Al_Gore the Idiot:

He could be a libertatian, except for the fact that OKC was an inside job and this McVeigh dude was a decoy.

Do you have even a hint of evidence that backs up your theory?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMuo-oSk7aQ

Re: Was Tim McVeigh really a libertarian?

shackleford — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 06:33:49 GMT

You can certainly act outside of your belief set.

Re: Was Tim McVeigh really a libertarian?

Jon Irenicus — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 20:30:30 GMT

That was quick.

Well for people who consider fascism to be a species of capitalism, it isn't an illogical conclusion to drift towards.

Re: Was Tim McVeigh really a libertarian?

Al_Gore the Idiot — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 16:53:09 GMT

He could be a libertatian, except for the fact that OKC was an inside job and this McVeigh dude was a decoy.

Do you have even a hint of evidence that backs up your theory?

Re: Was Tim McVeigh really a libertarian?

Torsten — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 16:02:56 GMT

If you ask a liberal, then yes. But so is Hitler.

That was quick.

Re: Was Tim McVeigh really a libertarian?

Jon Irenicus — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:39:28 GMT

If you ask a liberal, then yes. But so is Hitler.

Re: Was Tim McVeigh really a libertarian?

ToxicAssets — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:36:07 GMT

Do you think that if I had any hard evidence for such a fact I would be talking about it in an internet forum?

But I'm inclined towards the conspiracy theory view of the case.

Re: Was Tim McVeigh really a libertarian?

Torsten — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 14:48:01 GMT

He could be a libertatian, except for the fact that OKC was an inside job and this McVeigh dude was a decoy.

What is the evidence for that statement. Wasn't he just a single disgruntled perpetrator?

Re: Was Tim McVeigh really a libertarian?

ToxicAssets — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:50:36 GMT

al gore the idiot:

On the fifteenth anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, this is one thing I was curious about. McVeigh identified himself as a libertarian. He voted for Harry Browne while in prison back in 96. He was firercely anti-government as seen by the bombing of a federal building and revenge against Waco and Ruby Ridge incident.

He could be a libertatian, except for the fact that OKC was an inside job and this McVeigh dude was a decoy.

Re: Was Tim McVeigh really a libertarian?

Torsten — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:37:06 GMT

Blowing up children tends to violate the NAP.

He most likely would have claimed that the state did violate the NAP first and that the kids in the creche at the state building were just collateral damage.

Still a bit odd I think. But that's because I don't follow his method to resolve the issue.

Re: Was Tim McVeigh really a libertarian?

DanielMuff — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 05:42:40 GMT

He was not not a libertarian because he used forced. He was not libertarian because he murdered.

Re: Was Tim McVeigh really a libertarian?

MarketFundamentalist — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 04:01:01 GMT

He used force. So he was not libertarian.

Re: Was Tim McVeigh really a libertarian?

Vitor — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 03:24:36 GMT

Onebornfree drawing clonclusions he wants to draw from pictures of destroyed buildings? Never heard of!

Re: Was Tim McVeigh really a libertarian?

onebornfree — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 01:49:07 GMT

Simon Lote:

An action may be moral but not wise and yes I agree anyone today advocating fighting a one-man guerilla war against the state is a fool or an FBI agent. I am certainly not advocating anyone going out and committing illegal acts.

However, I don't share your view that armed struggle always leads to victory for the state as there have been numerous countries that have secured their independence through exactly those means - America included.

Secondly I do not share the view that the state can be persuaded to go quietly into that good night rather it will require a highly organised and dedicated minority to overthrow it.

"However, I don't share your view that armed struggle always leads to victory for the state as there have been numerous countries that have secured their independence through exactly those means - America included."

In the end, as elsewhere, all that the American revolution accomplished was to throw of one group of oppressors and replace it with another [some might even argue that the replacement was in fact just the original oppressor, i.e. the British Empire, disguised- but that's a whole other can of worms].

"Secondly I do not share the view that the state can be persuaded to go quietly into that good night rather it will require a highly organised and dedicated minority to overthrow it."

I never meant to appear to suggest that it could, or would, "go quietly into that good night". And what do you have in mind for this imaginary " highly organised and dedicated minority" to replace the state with, once it /they have overthrown it? Let me guess- another, albeit "new" [but somehow better] state apparatus, right?

Regards, onebornfree.