General

Re: Gary North, Ron Paul curriculum, and The Skeptical Libertarian

Marko — Thu, 02 May 2013 06:22:27 GMT

I voiced a similar argument when someone here thought it was a good idea to create a Reddit for the sole purpose of documenting every time a libertarian said something that could be perceived as "not nice."

It is in that realm that I think you have a point. But here, with lunatics like North, they kind of need to be called out before someone else does. As I said, they exist whether you like it or not, so the only thing you can do is acknowledge them as quickly and as loudly as possible, and make it known as best you can that you do not endorse or even entertain their idiocy, nor do you even identify with what they claim to represent i.e. Guys like North do not represent libertarianism.

I think there is a difference. If you want to have a wall of shame kind of thing onto which you are going to pin offenders, so as to advertise that you had an emotional reaction upon reading their stuff, then that is pathetic. But if you are going to do something to try and counter what they have writen and point out the wrongs in it then that is another thing.

Re: Gary North, Ron Paul curriculum, and The Skeptical Libertarian blog

Malachi — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 21:08:55 GMT

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: Gary North, Ron Paul curriculum, and The Skeptical Libertarian blog

Malachi — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:37:29 GMT

You haven't stated at all how they are relevant.

well perhaps they are relevant because they address vaccines. perhaps that would be obvious to anyone who has read, let alone participated in this little back-and-forth we just had. perhaps you should do more reading and less typing.

None of those articles have anything to do with TSL's statements (or your paranoid and dishonest take on them) .

you still havent explained why you think I am being dishonest. if the relevance escaped you, perhaps you could ask instead of playing snarkapotamous and being difficult.

you seem to feel that, despite the literal ambiguity, there is only one valid interpretation of bier's statement on vaccines. perhaps that is merely a symptom of your ignorance and you would do well to educate yourself, perhaps even by clicking on those links I posted and reading the webpages that result.

Re: Gary North, Ron Paul curriculum, and The Skeptical Libertarian blog

Hairnet — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:18:36 GMT

You haven't stated at all how they are relevant.

None of those articles have anything to do with TSL's statements (or your paranoid and dishonest take on them) .

Re: Gary North, Ron Paul curriculum, and The Skeptical Libertarian blog

Malachi — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:27:07 GMT

how exactly do you find those links to be irrelevant?

oh thats right, denial. oh well, at least I made my point, even if you dont want to get it, others will.

Re: Gary North, Ron Paul curriculum, and The Skeptical Libertarian blog

Hairnet — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:17:14 GMT

That is a nice set of irrelevant links.

Re: Gary North, Ron Paul curriculum, and The Skeptical Libertarian blog

Malachi — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 20:48:22 GMT

http://vaers.hhs.gov/

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/10/15/fluarix-flu-vaccine-that-can-cause-infertility.aspx

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/health/experts-say-thimerosal-ban-would-imperil-global-health-efforts.html

Re: Gary North, Ron Paul curriculum, and The Skeptical Libertarian blog

Hairnet — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 19:26:44 GMT

Malachi:

I believe in a world where we can reduce or exterminate mankind’s worst enemies through the single greatest medical innovation in history: vaccination.

I would love to know who Bier considers to be "mankinds worst enemies".

Lets clarify this vague statment for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination

Re: Gary North, Ron Paul curriculum, and The Skeptical Libertarian blog

Malachi — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:39:13 GMT

Malachi was activelly misinterpereting someone's words. I was pointing to the reasonable interperetation of his words. I really don't care what importance you place on disease control.

actually the post was deliberately written to be ambiguous and I deliberately identified the most relevant ambiguities. you need to work on your reading comprehension if you think theres only one valid interpretation of statements like those I identified.

Re: Gary North, Ron Paul curriculum, and The Skeptical Libertarian blog

Hairnet — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 09:05:20 GMT

myhumangetsme:

Hairnet:
Mankind's worst enemy is clearly disease, and that was clearly what he was talking about.

Then clearly you neither you nor him know what you're talking about. Disease is not mankind's worst enemy. Disease has been wiped out in several of the poorest corners of the earth without any similar increase in those peoples' economic freedom, and do you know what happened? Their population increased without any good ways to support it, so instead of 1,000,000 people dying of disease, we can have 5,000,000 dying of starvation. What a trade-off!

Hairnet:
How is it that North is acceptable?

Malachi was activelly misinterpereting someone's words. I was pointing to the reasonable interperetation of his words. I really don't care what importance you place on disease control.

You see, libertarians (and their fellow travelers) who have been around the way have these strange habits, like reading, listening, and thinking for themselves. They've learned to develop and trust their own intellect. So how do you suppose those folks, who have put in their time and done their homework, are going to react to this new breed of libertarians who apparently need to be led around on a leash by an opinion-maker? Libertarians who reek of a dishonesty they can't even comprehend due to their ignorance, yet have the audacity to tell more knowledgeable people what their opinions should be?

People here, and on Facebook, and in many other corners of the interwebz have explained why they like Gary North (or at the very least are indifferent to him) and why he has been a valuable member of the liberty movement, based on their experience with his various contributions. But you and those like you are incapable of hearing them. The conspiracy debunkers have sold themselves on a conspiracy, and no logical explanation will do. So let me explain this to you in a way you and the other libertarian cool kids can understand: How is it that North is acceptable? Because fuck you, that's why.

I asked why he was acceptible, and you haven't replied with an answer yet. The vast majority of stuff you are talking about is completely irrelevant to my posts.

Hairnet:
On a more serious note, Influential old white men are actually really good at getting people killed.

Yes, because I wake up in a cold sweat every night fearing the day Gary North shows up at my door to deliver me my Christian Reconstructionist day of reckoning. Is this really your life? Obama and the federal government have militiarized every local police force and opened up the door to drone killing on our own soil and you're worried about Gary North?

I never said that Gary North was influential. Once again everything you are saying is completely irrelevant to my post.

Re: Gary North, Ron Paul curriculum, and The Skeptical Libertarian blog

Malachi — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 22:08:05 GMT

Well what exactly is being said? Either libertarians have a problem with TSL for whatever reason, or people find their critiques on culturally right libertarians unsettling, because they know they might be right.

or perhaps people are reading and responding to tsl and each other because thats how people discuss things on the internet and there isnt a problem. why do you feel the need to passively-aggress against dissenting opinions by setting up these strawmen? is it because youre not able to respond directly to what is being said? some libertarians might have a problem with tsl for stated reasons, and perhaps other libertarians could respond to them, and we could all learn from each other. is there a problem? perhaps people find their critiques (on whatever) unsettling, and are here discussing it. whether they "know they might be right" or not, is there somehow a problem with discussing these ideas? it seems like there would be more of a problem with dismissal without discussion.

IDK if it seems a bit odd to anyone that AltRight Radio has interviewed Thomas Woods and Bob Murphy, which is run by Richard Spencer who's addressed Hoppe's Property and Freedom Society conference. AltRight also getting praise by Greg Johnson of The Occidental Quarterly, a racialist journal, for bringing forth intellectual issues like "race realism" and "White Nationalism." Then you have Ron Paul's name put forth on some home school curriculum based on biblical ideas written by a known Christian Reconstructionist.

do you have any thoughts on these items that you might want to share?

Instead, we'll ignore culturally right currents that certain libertarian scholars hold because NAP, and then we'll ignore rape culture as well because NAP - but rape culture is stupid and we'll defend neo-confederates.

who is ignoring it? why does everyone have to be in ideological lockstep with you, a priori of any discussion? your statement on rape culture have been found wanting. you declined to answer critical enquiry on that subject, so you have no standing to act as though people arent willing to discuss it. as for application of the term "neo-confederates" I thought you were above such things, but you sound more and more like a spokesperson for SPLC, especially in light of your recent descent into religious intolerance.

Re: Gary North, Ron Paul curriculum, and The Skeptical Libertarian blog

SoNowThen — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:56:26 GMT

Bert:

Well what exactly is being said? Either libertarians have a problem with TSL for whatever reason, or people find their critiques on culturally right libertarians unsettling, because they know they might be right. IDK if it seems a bit odd to anyone that AltRight Radio has interviewed Thomas Woods and Bob Murphy, which is run by Richard Spencer who's addressed Hoppe's Property and Freedom Society conference. AltRight also getting praise by Greg Johnson of The Occidental Quarterly, a racialist journal, for bringing forth intellectual issues like "race realism" and "White Nationalism." Then you have Ron Paul's name put forth on some home school curriculum based on biblical ideas written by a known Christian Reconstructionist.

Instead, we'll ignore culturally right currents that certain libertarian scholars hold because NAP, and then we'll ignore rape culture as well because NAP - but rape culture is stupid and we'll defend neo-confederates.

You'd have to be more specific about what you call "culturally right currents", but please realize that some of us appreciate, rather than ignore, them. How is holding a cultural/aesthetic preference and self-segregating along those lines not compatible with libertarianism/anarchy/austrian-economics?

Re: Gary North, Ron Paul curriculum, and The Skeptical Libertarian blog

vive la insurrection — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:08:07 GMT

Well what exactly is being said?

That the entire paradigms, orientation, and framework in which a progressive (and to a lesser, or at least more irrelevant a degree, a conservative) is bogus and has to be scraped for a different model. If I am "for helping the poor" - it simply is not saying the same thing as a lefty. None of these issues the way they are framed are going to be compatible with the market process mentality, and any attempt to conform to them is probably going to be self defeating.

A lot of people have crazy ideas (Issac Newton) - however when they say something intelligible within their respected field, so be it, there is no need to disown them. Frankly, there are a lot of kooky people floating around in all types of politicl circles - most people don't (Ex: Marxists) see a need to apologize for these fringe elements in a culture: they are either a) societal aesthetics (so who cares), which in most cases are probably not going to go anywhere or b)some type of theory that can be disproven, varified, or falsified in some way. If that is the case than disprove the theory on the terms provided - don't bitch about the fact that you don't like it and be a hater or a quizling to the cool kids.

Moreover, you can have whatever aesthetics on issues you like, and talk about them all day - I just don't see how it can lead to much in a productive talk about any intelligible structure of society - outside of Machivallian ways to organize and manipulate machinary to get whatever random aesthetic you wished achieved at the moment (not that there is anything wrong with this, it is just out of scope for what is being asked for in the conversation).

Re: Gary North, Ron Paul curriculum, and The Skeptical Libertarian blog

Marko — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 18:55:14 GMT

Then clearly you neither you nor him know what you're talking about. Disease is not mankind's worst enemy. Disease has been wiped out in several of the poorest corners of the earth without any similar increase in those peoples' economic freedom, and do you know what happened? Their population increased without any good ways to support it, so instead of 1,000,000 people dying of disease, we can have 5,000,000 dying of starvation. What a trade-off!

Well what exactly is being said? Either libertarians have a problem with TSL for whatever reason, or people find their critiques on culturally right libertarians unsettling, because they know they might be right. IDK if it seems a bit odd to anyone that AltRight Radio has interviewed Thomas Woods and Bob Murphy, which is run by Richard Spencer who's addressed Hoppe's Property and Freedom Society conference. AltRight also getting praise by Greg Johnson of The Occidental Quarterly, a racialist journal, for bringing forth intellectual issues like "race realism" and "White Nationalism." Then you have Ron Paul's name put forth on some home school curriculum based on biblical ideas written by a known Christian Reconstructionist.

Instead, we'll ignore culturally right currents that certain libertarian scholars hold because NAP, and then we'll ignore rape culture as well because NAP - but rape culture is stupid and we'll defend neo-confederates.

What is this? Have I unknowingly walked into the Stupidest Post Competition thread?

Re: Gary North, Ron Paul curriculum, and The Skeptical Libertarian blog

Bert — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 18:36:16 GMT

Well what exactly is being said? Either libertarians have a problem with TSL for whatever reason, or people find their critiques on culturally right libertarians unsettling, because they know they might be right. IDK if it seems a bit odd to anyone that AltRight Radio has interviewed Thomas Woods and Bob Murphy, which is run by Richard Spencer who's addressed Hoppe's Property and Freedom Society conference. AltRight also getting praise by Greg Johnson of The Occidental Quarterly, a racialist journal, for bringing forth intellectual issues like "race realism" and "White Nationalism." Then you have Ron Paul's name put forth on some home school curriculum based on biblical ideas written by a known Christian Reconstructionist.

Instead, we'll ignore culturally right currents that certain libertarian scholars hold because NAP, and then we'll ignore rape culture as well because NAP - but rape culture is stupid and we'll defend neo-confederates.