# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  The State is a Parasite on Society - Vid

## DamianTV

Best point IMHO made is that ending the power of the State is not a call for the end of Society.

----------


## Travlyr

@ 1:03 Paul claims that those thugs are uniformed agents of the State. They are not. They are agents of the bankers posing as agents of the State.
@ 1:30 is an illegitimate state. It is mob rule.
@ 3:09 Those are the mob rulers who have been ruling for more than 100 years. The Pilgrims. The job of the legitimate State is to stop mob rule. 




> * 4.4 The Function Of Civil Government*
> 
> Locke is now in a position to explain the function of a legitimate government and distinguish it from illegitimate government. The aim of such a legitimate government is to preserve, so far as possible, the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its citizens, and to prosecute and punish those of its citizens who violate the rights of others and to pursue the public good even where this may conflict with the rights of individuals. In doing this it provides something unavailable in the state of nature, an impartial judge to determine the severity of the crime, and to set a punishment proportionate to the crime. This is one of the main reasons why civil society is an improvement on the state of nature. An illegitimate government will fail to protect the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its subjects, and in the worst cases, such an illegitimate government will claim to be able to violate the rights of its subjects, that is it will claim to have despotic power over its subjects.


*Lyceum Address*




> As one of Abraham Lincoln's earliest published speeches, this address has been much scrutinized and debated by historians, who see broad implications for his later public policies. Lincoln was 28 years old at the time he gave this speech and had recently moved from a rough pioneer village to Springfield, Illinois.
> 
> William Herndon, Lincoln's law partner, describes the event this way: "we had a society in Springfield, which contained and commanded all the culture and talent of the place. Unlike the other one its meetings were public, and reflected great credit on the community ... The speech was brought out by the burning in St. Louis a few weeks before, by a mob, of a negro. Lincoln took this incident as a sort of text for his remarks ... The address was published in the Sangamon Journal and created for the young orator a reputation which soon extended beyond the limits of the locality in which he lived."
> 
> *The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions*:
> Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois
> January 27, 1838
> 
> As a subject for the remarks of the evening, the perpetuation of our political institutions, is selected.
> ...

----------


## ProIndividual

> @ 1:03 Paul claims that those thugs are uniformed agents of the State. They are not. They are agents of the bankers posing as agents of the State.
>  @ 1:30 is an illegitimate state. It is mob rule.
>  @ 3:09 Those are the mob rulers who have been ruling for more than 100 years. The Pilgrims. The job of the legitimate State is to stop mob rule.


All BS, illogical, mythological delusions about the state and how voting isn't just a slightly more polite version of mob rule (the republic being only slightly less mob-run than the democracy) aside...

All states are illegitimate. They are based on two things: A) the threat of property seizure and rape cages for potential market competitors who dare to better serve consumers in the markets the state or its cronies coercively socialize through monopoly/cartel/monopsony (the banking system is a cartel, hence the fault of the state), and B) the threat of property seizure and rape cages for consumers who refuse to buy the state's or its cronies' goods and services (taxes).

If you think that is ethically legitimate, you just argued for the legitimacy or organized crime (the state really is just the most powerful organized criminal group in a geographic area, and because of their dominance they legalize and institutionalize themselves, and also usually put children through 15,000 hours of brainwashing, flag waving, etc. on how they are actually benign, necessary, or worst of all, beneficent).

----------


## Travlyr

> All BS, illogical, mythological delusions about the state and how voting isn't just a slightly more polite version of mob rule (the republic being only slightly less mob-run than the democracy) aside...
> 
> All states are illegitimate. They are based on two things: A) the threat of property seizure and rape cages for potential market competitors who dare to better serve consumers in the markets the state or its cronies coercively socialize through monopoly/cartel/monopsony (the banking system is a cartel, hence the fault of the state), and B) the threat of property seizure and rape cages for consumers who refuse to buy the state's or its cronies' goods and services (taxes).
> 
> If you think that is ethically legitimate, you just argued for the legitimacy or organized crime (the state really is just the most powerful organized criminal group in a geographic area, and because of their dominance they legalize and institutionalize themselves, and also usually put children through 15,000 hours of brainwashing, flag waving, etc. on how they are actually benign, necessary, or worst of all, beneficent).


Did you even bother to read Lincoln's speech? Or does his words go over your head? Your words make no sense in response to what Lincoln said. Keep in mind that Abraham Lincoln grew up in virtual anarchy.

----------


## ProIndividual

I read it...now explain to me how that sociopath is so impressive to you. It isn't his logic, that's for sure.

Then again, you openly declared Murray Rothbard a minarchist on these forums, so you're not much for logic anyways, let alone ethics and seeing through political parasites like Lincoln.

----------


## Travlyr

> I read it...now explain to me how that sociopath is so impressive to you. It isn't his logic, that's for sure.
> 
> Then again, you openly declared Murray Rothbard a minarchist on these forums, so you're not much for logic anyways, let alone ethics and seeing through political parasites like Lincoln.


Lincoln's logic is the same as Ludwig von Mises. Was Ludwig von Mises a sociopath as well? Do you even know what that means?

----------


## ProIndividual

> Lincoln's logic is the same as Ludwig von Mises. Was Ludwig von Mises a sociopath as well? Do you even know what that means?


No, they aren't the same logic at all (in terms of many things). And where they are similar (believing in minimalist state socialism, ie capitalism in the context of a state, as opposed to a completely free market society), they are similar insofar as both fail to take the ideas they expressed to their logical conclusions.

Mises talked about how state socialism led to the economic calculation problem, for example. This makes it impossible for the state to know what the correct supply should be when allocating resources for consumer demand, which is why states constantly have either shortage or surplus (depending on the market they coercively socialize). State communism (maximalist state socialism) suffered from this in spades. Logically, however, minimalist state socialism (capitalism in the context of a state) also suffers from it to a lesser degree (because it coercively monopolizes/monopsonizes/cartelizes the means of production (supply) - and for monopsony, demand - of less markets than state communism). But the problem is the same. Had Mises taken his ideas to their logical conclusion he wouldn't have advocated for a state at all, because of A) the lack of necessity for it, B) the unethical nature of it, and C) the lack of ability for it to maximize utility for society (the inability to maximize human happiness, and minimize human pain, for a society, given the private market alternatives that could exist if not for threats of property seizure and rape cages  against them as potential competitors with the state's socialized markets, and the same threats used to artificially boost demand for the state's coerced socialization of roads, defense, courts, etc. via legalized extortion, aka taxation).

Lincoln was no classical liberal in any case, and Mises was no protectionist crony capitalist scumbag like Lincoln. I also doubt Mises was a psychopath, and there is plenty of evidence that Lincoln was both a psychopath and a racist white supremacist.

But other than that, their logic is totally identical...lol.

And yes, I do know what a sociopath is...I study psychology regularly, and apply it in my trade. You think Lincoln ACTUALLY felt remorse for his actions in the Civil War (don't confuse that for public statements or admitting "guilt" when it benefited him; all sociopaths admit "guilt" when it benefits them, but not unless). We all agree slavery needed to end, but he was A) hypocritical about secession (since we started this country by announcing secession from England), and B) purposefully encouraging both war crimes (Sherman's March sure did rape a lot of women and steal/destroy a lot of property, and this was all glorified as heroic by both Lincoln and the press - by conveniently ignoring the rape and property crimes, of course) and acts of aggression, not self defense.

I assume you understand that slavery was going to end anyways very soon due to the economic impossibility of its perpetuation in an industrialized or technologically advancing market economy, and therefore the much cheaper way to attain productive labor via hiring wage workers.

Mises and Lincoln...two of the most incompatible "same" guys in history...whatever, Travlyr. You haven't changed a bit, despite the time and evidence.

----------


## Petar

Great, so either you want to have a magic unicorn world where there is no government at all or else you want to worship Lincoln... talk about some $#@!ty choices.

----------


## Travlyr

> Great, so either you want to have a magic unicorn world where there is no government at all or else you want to worship Lincoln... talk about some $#@!ty choices.


Magical Unicorn World vs. Rule of Law and honest peaceful voluntary dealings with each other.

----------


## Petar

> Magical Unicorn World vs. Rule of Law and honest peaceful voluntary dealings with each other.


Lincoln may have been gay so you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

----------


## Travlyr

> Lincoln may have been gay so you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.


Gay in his day meant happy. He was gay a lot of the time before TPTB waged war on him. I don't think he was gay very often after the Confederates bombed Fort Sumter. He did however, leave us with a treasure of writings, so that we might better understand him and the liberty he defended. 

Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865

----------


## Petar

> Gay in his day meant happy. He was gay a lot of the time before TPTB waged war on him. I don't think he was gay very often after the Confederates bombed Fort Sumter. He did however, leave us with a treasure of writings, so that we might better understand him and the liberty he defended. 
> 
> Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865


Will you at least admit that you are a bit gay for Lincoln?

----------


## Travlyr

> Will you at least admit that you are a bit gay for Lincoln?


I must admit I do admire anyone who will always tell the truth, who will stand against TPTB, who is principled in action, and who promotes free markets. I appreciate Lincoln, Paul, and Mises to name a few true classical liberals.

----------


## Petar

> I must admit I do admire anyone who will always tell the truth, who will stand against TPTB, who is principled in action, and who promotes free markets. I appreciate Lincoln, Paul, and Mises to name a few true classical liberals.


Lincoln acted like a dictator and laid the groundwork for the modern, federalist, United States.

----------


## green73

What do we have here? Travliar derailing yet another thread with his Licoln bull$#@!. Dude, are you off the meds again?

----------


## Travlyr

> Lincoln acted like a dictator and laid the groundwork for the modern, federalist, United States.


Now, that is simply the lost cause lie that keeps getting told over and over again with the hope it sticks. Lies do not become truth no matter how many times they are told. The Progressive Era laid the groundwork for the modern, federalist, United States empire. 

Judge Napolitano: How Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson Destroyed Constitutional Freedom

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Now, that is simply the lost cause lie that keeps getting told over and over again with the hope it sticks. Lies do not become truth no matter how many times they are told. The Progressive Era laid the groundwork for the modern, federalist, United States empire. 
> 
> Judge Napolitano: How Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson Destroyed Constitutional Freedom


You act as if posting this Judge Napolitano clip rebukes anything Petar said.

Have you even read his book?

Lincoln paved the way for Wilson.

----------


## Travlyr

> You act as if posting this Judge Napolitano clip rebukes anything Petar said.
> 
> Have you even read his book?
> 
> *Lincoln paved the way for Wilson*.


I do not buy that for one second. Lincoln vetoed the Wade Davis bill. If the Confederates hadn't waged war on Lincoln one month after he took office and killed him at war's end, then Lincoln would have made a great president. He freed the slaves in Washington D.C. with compensated emancipation just like he said he thought possible 25 years earlier. Lincoln signed the Homestead Act of 1863 which provided anyone willing to work a chance build a life for themselves. Lincoln really was for the little guy. I did not come into the belly of the Lincoln hating beast to lie to ya'll. I came here to hopefully get some people to read Lincoln's words for themselves.

----------


## Travlyr

> What do we have here? Travliar derailing yet another thread with his Licoln bull$#@!. Dude, are you off the meds again?


Have you ever posted anything of value in your 6+ years here. The OP makes the claim that the State is a Parasite on Society. I posted Abraham Lincoln's speech denouncing anti-State society even though he grew up in virtual anarchy. If a man who grows up in anarchy denounces it later in life, then he may have some important information which we should all heed. I am simply sharing it with everyone. I am not derailing anything and I have just as much right to post in these threads as you.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I do not buy that for one second. Lincoln vetoed the Wade Davis bill. If the Confederates hadn't waged war on Lincoln one month after he took office and killed him at war's end, then Lincoln would have made a great president. He freed the slaves in Washington D.C. with compensated emancipation just like he said he thought possible 25 years earlier. Lincoln signed the Homestead Act of 1863 which provided anyone willing to work a chance build a life for themselves. Lincoln really was for the little guy. I did not come into the belly of the Lincoln hating beast to lie to ya'll. I came here to hopefully get some people to read Lincoln's words for themselves.


The fact remains the same, that Lincoln was the first president who normalized executive overreach during war time. Wilson had a model to follow and indeed, the Espionage Act and Sedition Act of 1917 and 1918 respectively were acts whose roads were paved by Lincoln's behavior during the Civil War. Judge Napolitano has argued this quite effectively.

It is the same of me to say that Wilson's overreaches effectively laid a model for Roosevelt. Of course Bush's and Obama's (and practically any president after the few I earlier referenced) would arguably put all three to shame. To see how we have progressed to where we are at, and to include Lincoln's presidency in that progression, is not blasphemous. It is honestly looking at the scenario and analyzing history.

You feel the war was justified. That's all good. There were consequences of the war and some precedents were set to be realized by Woodrow Wilson (the imprisoning of journalists and defectors, to name but a few). I recommend you buying the book. It's a good read.




> Chapter 7 of Theodore and Woodrow: 
> *Service or Slavery?* 
> _Conscription_
> 
> [Men being forced to fight in a war they neither understood nor wanted] is a depiction neither of some horrible Stalinist state nor of some Roman conquest. This is the story of America. Abraham Lincoln established the precedent for conscription into military service in this country; he was the first to do so under the Constitution. Woodrow Wilson, however, exploited and mastered it.


_Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom_, Andrew Napolitano, pg. 113.

----------


## green73

> Have you ever posted anything of value in your 6+ years here.


*
NEVER*

----------


## Travlyr

> What do we have here? Travliar derailing yet another thread with his Licoln bull$#@!. Dude, are you off the meds again?





> Have you ever posted anything of value in your 6+ years here?





> *
> NEVER*


Agreed.

----------


## Petar

> Now, that is simply the lost cause lie that keeps getting told over and over again with the hope it sticks. Lies do not become truth no matter how many times they are told. The Progressive Era laid the groundwork for the modern, federalist, United States empire. 
> 
> Judge Napolitano: How Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson Destroyed Constitutional Freedom


Notice that you failed to deny that Lincoln acted like a dictator...

----------


## Travlyr

> Notice that you failed to deny that Lincoln acted like a dictator...


I guess it depends on what you mean by a dictator. Lincoln did not dictate to the States that they had to end slavery. Lincoln went to the people for the Corwin amendment which they turned down and he went to the people again for the 13th amendment. He went to Congress to end to slavery in Washington D.C. I am pretty sure he used the rule of law the best he could while under attack by enemies.

----------


## Travlyr

> The fact remains the same, that Lincoln was the first president who normalized executive overreach during war time. Wilson had a model to follow and indeed, the Espionage Act and Sedition Act of 1917 and 1918 respectively were acts whose roads were paved by Lincoln's behavior during the Civil War. Judge Napolitano has argued this quite effectively.
> 
> It is the same of me to say that Wilson's overreaches effectively laid a model for Roosevelt. Of course Bush's and Obama's (and practically any president after the few I earlier referenced) would arguably put all three to shame. To see how we have progressed to where we are at, and to include Lincoln's presidency in that progression, is not blasphemous. It is honestly looking at the scenario and analyzing history.
> 
> You feel the war was justified. That's all good. There were consequences of the war and some precedents were set to be realized by Woodrow Wilson (the imprisoning of journalists and defectors, to name but a few). I recommend you buying the book. It's a good read.
> 
> 
> _Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom_, Andrew Napolitano, pg. 113.


I don't feel the war was justified at all. What I am saying is that the war was waged to create a slave empire and if Lincoln had not called up the militia to defend Washington, then Jefferson Davis would have marched to Washington and installed the Confederate government in Washington. That was their plan.

There is a big difference between Woodrow and Lincoln. The Confederates attacked the U.S. Government. Lincoln used the war powers in defense. Wilson was attacking a foreign government. Big difference. To believe that Lincoln set the stage for Wilson one must believe in fairy tales. The fairy tale that Lincoln wanted war. I don't buy it. Lincoln sent a messenger to Davis informing him that his intention was only to provide provisions for the troops in Fort Sumter because that was his sworn duty. Lincoln stated specifically in his July 4th address to Congress that throwing men and arms into Fort Sumter would not have made sense anyway. It was a defensive fort not built for offense. Lincoln did everything he could do to avoid war except surrender. Jefferson Davis wanted no part of peace. He wanted a slave empire and damn near got it.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Magical Unicorn World vs. Rule of Law and honest peaceful voluntary dealings with each other.


How exactly can you have voluntary peaceful dealings with each other when the state exists? It threatens all competitors with rape cages and property seizure, and makes consumers pay it for services, even if they don't use them or don't like them, on the same threats. Logically, there is no peaceful voluntary society with a state. BTW, when has your "Rule of Law" (I'd like to mention at this point that there were property rights and law for thousands of years previous to the state, so it's not like a state is required for either property rights or law) in the context of a state ever lasted for more than a relatively very short period of time?

We tried it...it failed. The Constitution doesn't have magical powers to keep the government from growing out of control. The "Magical Unicorn World" is limited government (a total oxymoron). The logically consistent position, and therefore consistently ethical position, is anarchism. It's the only form of law that lasted for 10 or more centuries at a time with NOT ONE victimless crime. No state ever could make such a claim.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I guess it depends on what you mean by a dictator.


Yeah, I guess.  What I mean by dictator is a person who imposes a "draft" on other human beings ("draft" being doublespeak for impressed servitude), sends people to "prison" for speaking against his actions ("prison" being doublespeak for kidnapping/unprovoked, coercive detention), and authorizes and sanctions the devastation, rape and murder of thousands innocent bystanders.  

You don't have to defend Lincoln in order to stand against the institution of slavery, Travlyr.  And the pathetic, elementary leaps of logic you try to make in this bull$#@! effort to paint him as some kind of $#@!ing defender of liberty are embarrassing, even for the likes of you.  It's Busch League, at best, and it wouldn't convince even the most junior member at a site like this.

We all did just fine without your half-baked arguments, your instance on ignoring questions/challenges, and your middling intellect.  Wherever it was that you've been the past several months, go on ahead back.  The discussion around here was better off without your petty antagonism.

----------


## Travlyr

> Yeah, I guess.  What I mean by dictator is a person who imposes a "draft" on other human beings ("draft" being doublespeak for impressed servitude), sends people to "prison" for speaking against his actions ("prison" being doublespeak for kidnapping/unprovoked, coercive detention), and authorizes and sanctions the devastation, rape and murder of thousands innocent bystanders.  
> 
> You don't have to defend Lincoln in order to stand against the institution of slavery, Travlyr.  And the pathetic, elementary leaps of logic you try to make in this bull$#@! effort to paint him as some kind of $#@!ing defender of liberty are embarrassing, even for the likes of you.  It's Busch League, at best, and it wouldn't convince even the most junior member at a site like this.
> 
> We all did just fine without your half-baked arguments, your instance on ignoring questions/challenges, and your middling intellect.  Wherever it was that you've been the past several months, go on ahead back.  The discussion around here was better off without your petty antagonism.


Ah ha. You describe the warmonger and slave owning tyrant Jefferson Davis quite accurately. You have him mixed up with the peaceful liberty loving man who was targeted for assassination simply for winning the 1860 election that was rigged by the slave owning tyrants in the South. Your lies about Abraham Lincoln will not stand in the age of the Internet.

----------


## Travlyr

> Yeah, I guess.  What I mean by dictator is a person who imposes a "draft" on other human beings ("draft" being doublespeak for impressed servitude), sends people to "prison" for speaking against his actions ("prison" being doublespeak for kidnapping/unprovoked, coercive detention), and authorizes and sanctions the devastation, rape and murder of thousands innocent bystanders.  
> 
> You don't have to defend Lincoln in order to stand against the institution of slavery, Travlyr.  And the pathetic, elementary leaps of logic you try to make in this bull$#@! effort to paint him as some kind of $#@!ing defender of liberty are embarrassing, even for the likes of you.  It's Busch League, at best, and it wouldn't convince even the most junior member at a site like this.
> 
> We all did just fine without your half-baked arguments, your instance on ignoring questions/challenges, and your middling intellect.  Wherever it was that you've been the past several months, go on ahead back.  The discussion around here was better off without your petty antagonism.


Slavery had nothing to do with liberty, A Son of Liberty. Slavery is dictatorship of the highest order. Abraham Lincoln started speaking out against slavery publicly in 1837. When slavery continued to expand in the 1850s Lincoln upped the ante and started vehemently speaking out against slavery challenging the slavers who had suppressed free speech in the South. It was a very unpopular position at the time, and very principled, while calling for the eventual peaceful end of slavery in America. When Lincoln won the presidency, the slavers plotted to kill him, and when they were not able to kill him, they tried as they might to overthrow the Union. They spent four years trying to overthrow the Union. They killed over 350,000 Northern defenders of liberty in the process. The lost cause lies are tiring. 

Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865 

You want to beat your chest and claim superiority when in fact your defense of chattel slavery is disgusting, absolutely disgusting.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc1RbUxQv4E

You are not a Son of Liberty. You are a Son of Tyranny!

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Kindly point to where I defended chattel slavery, you dullard.  Pathetic, even for the likes of you.  

As I was saying...half-baked arguments, your instance on ignoring questions/challenges, and your middling intellect.  You're not even interesting anymore, Travlyr.  Scurry away now.

----------


## Travlyr

> Kindly point to where I defended chattel slavery, you dullard.  Pathetic, even for the likes of you.  
> 
> As I was saying...half-baked arguments, your instance on ignoring questions/challenges, and your middling intellect.  You're not even interesting anymore, Travlyr.  Scurry away now.


The truth! You can't handle the truth! Scurry away truth teller! Defending the Confederacy IS Defending Slavery. How can you not know that? And you call me a dullard. Good grief.

Abraham Lincoln's ONLY crime before being elected president was calling slavery evil in public time and time again. Freedom of speech was not allowed in the South. When Charles Sumner spoke against slavery in the Senate, South Carolina's Preston Brooks blindsided him with a cane to the head and beat him until it nearly killed him. South Carolina's people presented him with a gold cane for his honor. I can only imagine what Preston Brooks' slaves had to endure. As Abraham Lincoln made his way from Springfield, IL to Washington giving speech after speech calling for peaceful solutions to the crisis, the Southerners plotted to kill him in Baltimore. FOR WINNING AN ELECTION! There is no honor in that behavior. It is indefensible in the 21st century.

Since they couldn't kill him, they waged war against him, and then blamed him for the war. And to top it all off, the slavers, after killing over 350,000 Northern defenders of liberty, cry for 150 years about Sherman's march to the sea which destroyed the slavers ability to keep fighting and ended the war. Confederate defenders are pathetic. You got away with your lies until the age of the Internet. No More! You are no Son of Liberty. You don't even understand it.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Tourettes?  Mild Autism maybe?

----------


## Travlyr

> Tourettes?  Mild Autism maybe?


Neither. Simply an ability to understand a philosophy of liberty that evidently goes clear over your head.




> *Liberalism*
> 
> The philosophers, sociologists, and economists of the eighteenth and the early part of the nineteenth century formulated a political program that served as a guide to social policy first in England and the United States, then on the European continent, and finally in the other parts of the inhabited world as well. Nowhere was this program ever completely carried out. Even in England, which has been called the homeland of liberalism and the model liberal country, the proponents of liberal policies never succeeded in winning all their demands. In the rest of the world only parts of the liberal program were adopted, while others, no less important, were either rejected from the very first or discarded after a short time. Only with some exaggeration can one say that the world once lived through a liberal era. Liberalism was never permitted to come to full fruition.
> 
> Nevertheless, brief and all too limited as *the supremacy of liberal ideas was, it sufficed to change the face of the earth. A magnificent economic development took place. The release of man's productive powers multiplied the means of subsistence many times over.* On the eve of the World War (which was itself the result of a long and bitter struggle against the liberal spirit and which ushered in a period of still more bitter attacks on liberal principles), the world was incomparably more densely populated than it had ever been, and each inhabitant could live incomparably better than had been possible in earlier centuries. *The prosperity that liberalism had created reduced considerably infant mortality, which had been the pitiless scourge of earlier ages, and, as a result of the improvement in living conditions, lengthened the average span of life*. - Ludwig von Mises


...




> Liberalism is therefore far from disputing the necessity of a machinery of state, a system of law, and a government. *It is a grave misunderstanding to associate it in any way with the idea of anarchism. For the liberal, the state is an absolute necessity*, since the most important tasks are incumbent upon it: the protection not only of private property, but also of peace, for in the absence of the latter the full benefits of private property cannot be reaped. - Ludwig von Mises

----------


## Cabal

> Tourettes?  Mild Autism maybe?


Just Trav.

----------


## Travlyr

> Just Trav.


And Lincoln, and Mises. Mises explains the philosophy of liberty in "Liberalism" while Lincoln grew up in anarchy and rejected it in favor of the State as a young man. It would do intellectuals well to try and understand why they wrote what they wrote rather than call them retarded.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Just Trav.


Yeah.  Just can't help thinking there's some kind of "condition" involved here, though.  Facts bounce off of him like he's immune to them.  He ignores questions and challenges.  He just repeats the same things over and over and over and never substantiates anything, as though the mere fact of him repeating them gives them relevance.  

As I'd mentioned earlier, this subforum was much better off without him.  His posts are a huge distraction and usually destroy every thread he gets involved in.

----------


## Travlyr

> Yeah.  Just can't help thinking there's some kind of "condition" involved here, though.  Facts bounce off of him like he's immune to them.  He ignores questions and challenges.  He just repeats the same things over and over and over and never substantiates anything, as though the mere fact of him repeating them gives them relevance.  
> 
> As I'd mentioned earlier, this subforum was much better off without him.  His posts are a huge distraction and usually destroy every thread he gets involved in.


You have never asked an intelligent question or posed a challenge. All you have ever done is criticized and insult. I quote Lincoln, Mises, Paul and others who actually do understand liberty to share their intellect while you never add anything intelligent to thread. You just hate on people who disagree with you. 




> We all did just fine without your half-baked arguments, your instance on ignoring questions/challenges, and your middling intellect.  Wherever it was that you've been the past several months, go on ahead back.  The discussion around here was better off without your petty antagonism.





> Kindly point to where I defended chattel slavery, you dullard.  Pathetic, even for the likes of you.  
> 
> As I was saying...half-baked arguments, your instance on ignoring questions/challenges, and your middling intellect.  You're not even interesting anymore, Travlyr.  Scurry away now.





> Tourettes?  Mild Autism maybe?


When you do ask questions, it is like the MSM did to Ron Paul, it was to degrade his character, and it has nothing to do with the OP or his responses. If you can destroy the messenger, then you can destroy the message. Well that tactic did not work with Ron Paul and it will not work with me either. I am going to keep telling the truth until the day I die.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Whatever kid.  All anyone needs to do is read the freaking thread.  It's pretty simple.

----------


## CCTelander

> Kindly point to where I defended chattel slavery, you dullard.  Pathetic, even for the likes of you.  
> 
> As I was saying...half-baked arguments, your instance on ignoring questions/challenges, and your middling intellect.  You're not even interesting anymore, Travlyr.  Scurry away now.



You didn't defend chattel slavery. Not even by the most contorted logic imaginable could anything you posted be construed to be supportive of same. Trav is just being Trav. Best to simply ignore, IMO.

----------


## CCTelander

> The truth! You can't handle the truth! Scurry away truth teller! *Defending the Confederacy IS Defending Slavery.* How can you not know that? And you call me a dullard. Good grief.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's ONLY crime before being elected president was calling slavery evil in public time and time again. Freedom of speech was not allowed in the South. When Charles Sumner spoke against slavery in the Senate, South Carolina's Preston Brooks blindsided him with a cane to the head and beat him until it nearly killed him. South Carolina's people presented him with a gold cane for his honor. I can only imagine what Preston Brooks' slaves had to endure. As Abraham Lincoln made his way from Springfield, IL to Washington giving speech after speech calling for peaceful solutions to the crisis, the Southerners plotted to kill him in Baltimore. FOR WINNING AN ELECTION! There is no honor in that behavior. It is indefensible in the 21st century.
> 
> Since they couldn't kill him, they waged war against him, and then blamed him for the war. And to top it all off, the slavers, after killing over 350,000 Northern defenders of liberty, cry for 150 years about Sherman's march to the sea which destroyed the slavers ability to keep fighting and ended the war. Confederate defenders are pathetic. You got away with your lies until the age of the Internet. No More! You are no Son of Liberty. You don't even understand it.



Except he DIDN'T defend the Confederacy. All he did was post several truthful examples of Lincoln's tyranny. Do you EVER honestly represent or respond to anyone else's positions? Ever?

----------


## ProIndividual

I remember the good old days...when Trav thought I was a woman and threatened me with a throat punch, on that other forum us anarchists met at sometimes.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I remember the good old days...when Trav thought I was a woman and threatened me with a throat punch, on that other forum us anarchists met at sometimes.


He used that threat against other people too, IIRC.

----------


## Deborah K

> Have you ever posted anything of value in your 6+ years here. The OP makes the claim that the State is a Parasite on Society. I posted Abraham Lincoln's speech denouncing anti-State society even though he grew up in virtual anarchy. If a man who grows up in anarchy denounces it later in life, then he may have some important information which we should all heed. I am simply sharing it with everyone. I am not derailing anything and I have just as much right to post in these threads as you.



For what it's worth Travlyr, I believe you are entitled to your opinion, and I respect your desire to get people to actually read more than just one book about Lincoln (DiLorenzo) to get a balanced perspective.  It disturbs me when people have to be so insulting just because they can't or won't try to look at something from someone else's perspective.  It proves to me that we're really no different than the people we constantly complain about in this society of ours.

----------


## Deborah K

> The fact remains the same, that Lincoln was the first president who normalized executive overreach during war time. Wilson had a model to follow and indeed, the Espionage Act and Sedition Act of 1917 and 1918 respectively were acts whose roads were paved by Lincoln's behavior during the Civil War. Judge Napolitano has argued this quite effectively.
> 
> It is the same of me to say that Wilson's overreaches effectively laid a model for Roosevelt. Of course Bush's and Obama's (and practically any president after the few I earlier referenced) would arguably put all three to shame. To see how we have progressed to where we are at, and to include Lincoln's presidency in that progression, is not blasphemous. It is honestly looking at the scenario and analyzing history.
> 
> You feel the war was justified. That's all good. There were consequences of the war and some precedents were set to be realized by Woodrow Wilson (the imprisoning of journalists and defectors, to name but a few). I recommend you buying the book. It's a good read.
> 
> 
> _Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom_, Andrew Napolitano, pg. 113.


What about the Alien and Sedition Acts?  You could say that paved the way for Lincoln.

----------


## ProIndividual

> What about the Alien and Sedition Acts?  You could say that paved the way for Lincoln.


It did, and it was an unconstitutional attack on free speech, last I checked. 

On a side note, I never understood the romanticism for Adams...the entire idea that we are a _nation of laws and not men_ (paraphrase) is nonsense. If the law says to murder and rape, $#@! the law...even if it passes the Amendment process. Ethics must precede law, or law is bull$#@!. He should have said we are a country of ethics, not laws, and not men.

Also, Adams was against the insurrection theory of the 2nd Amendment (he thought armed revolt was illegal, and not a right, despite just winning a war for independence that way...total hypocrisy).

PS. I'm against violent revolution, as most individualist anarchists are, but nonetheless...

----------


## ProIndividual

> For what it's worth Travlyr, I believe you are entitled to your opinion, and I respect your desire to get people to actually read more than just one book about Lincoln (DiLorenzo) to get a balanced perspective.  It disturbs me when people have to be so insulting just because they can't or won't try to look at something from someone else's perspective.  It proves to me that we're really no different than the people we constantly complain about in this society of ours.


I think the state school curriculum (whether we were in private or public schools, we were subjected to it) basically gave us that "other side of the story" (the apologist point of view for his crimes and lack of empathy). 

I have read many books on many of the former Presidents. I've also read quite a few books on the Civil War itself. The facts are undeniable if people bother to look them up; Lincoln was neither a good person nor a good President. He only freed the slaves as a tactic to win the war, and up until a few days before his death was still trying to forcibly deport all freed blacks from the country. The abolitionists at the time would roll over in their graves if they thought Lincoln would be thought of as an abolitionist today.

Garfield, who was also assassinated, was a much better person:




> *Garfield appointed several African-Americans to prominent federal positions.* As President, Garfield advocated a bi-metal monetary system, agricultural technology, an educated electorate, and *civil rights for African-Americans*.


Lincoln had no such tendencies.

----------


## green73

> I remember the good old days...when Trav thought I was a woman and threatened me with a throat punch, on that other forum us anarchists met at sometimes.





> He used that threat against other people too, IIRC.


What a guy.

----------


## Deborah K

> I think the state school curriculum (whether we were in private or public schools, we were subjected to it) basically gave us that "other side of the story" (the apologist point of view for his crimes and lack of empathy). 
> 
> I have read many books on many of the former Presidents. I've also read quite a few books on the Civil War itself. The facts are undeniable if people bother to look them up; Lincoln was neither a good person nor a good President. He only freed the slaves as a tactic to win the war, and up until a few days before his death was still trying to forcibly deport all freed blacks from the country. The abolitionists at the time would roll over in their graves if they thought Lincoln would be thought of as an abolitionist today.
> 
> Garfield, who was also assassinated, was a much better person:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln had no such tendencies.


Then what do you make of Travlr's case for Lincoln via the info he cites?  Are you suggesting it's all lies?

----------


## CCTelander

> I remember the good old days...when Trav thought I was a woman and threatened me with a throat punch, on that other forum us anarchists met at sometimes.



Ah! The good old days!

----------


## CCTelander

> He used that threat against other people too, IIRC.



I seem to recall something like that, yes.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> What about the Alien and Sedition Acts?  You could say that paved the way for Lincoln.


I don't particularly care for Adams as well (the Alien and Sedition Acts being just part of the reason why).

And Thomas Jefferson was a brutal slave master. And James Madison allowed the Second Bank (after Washington allowed the first).

And Lincoln destroyed the notion that the only government that is legitimate, is one founded upon consent. Among other things. Many other things. Things that his words could not ever make up for.

----------


## Cabal



----------


## Deborah K

> I don't particularly care for Adams as well (the Alien and Sedition Acts being just part of the reason why).
> 
> And Thomas Jefferson was a brutal slave master. And James Madison allowed the Second Bank (after Washington allowed the first).
> 
> And Lincoln destroyed the notion that the only government that is legitimate, is one founded upon consent. Among other things. Many other things. Things that his words could not ever make up for.


I've never read that Jefferson was a brutal slave master.  Do you have something I can read about it?

----------


## ProIndividual

> Then what do you make of Travlr's case for Lincoln via the info he cites?  Are you suggesting it's all lies?


Politicians lying and saying what people want to hear, while simultaneously $#@!ting all over the ethics and liberty? NO WAY!

Maybe you missed it where I called Lincoln a sociopath.

----------


## Deborah K

> Politicians lie and say what people want to hear, while simultaneously $#@!ting all over the ethics and liberty? NO WAY!
> 
> Maybe you missed it where I called Lincoln a sociopath.


I'm not just referring to what he (Lincoln) wrote; I'm also referring to his responses to the actions of the South as per Travlr.  Are they lies?  What do you think his motive was in freeing and paying the slaves in D.C.?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I seem to recall something like that, yes.


Aren't you one of the people he threatened?  He laid $#@! on pretty thick, so I didn't keep track of it well... :/

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I've never read that Jefferson was a brutal slave master.  Do you have something I can read about it?


I am mistaken.

I mixed what was attributed to Washington, with Jefferson. By every account I've found, Jefferson largely treated his slaves "well." There was an article that made its rounds here about a year or so ago that suggested otherwise but I couldn't find it. I can definitely concede that he treated his slaves better than most.

In any case, him "owning" slaves is enough for me to personally despise him. I admire aspects about him, and appeal to certain folks with his words, but could never subscribe to his views.

----------


## ProIndividual

> I've never read that Jefferson was a brutal slave master.  Do you have something I can read about it?


Why do people ask questions like this when search engines are available? Here is the first result I got (not that I wasn't already aware of it):




> *Thomas Jefferson, enthusiastic, brutal slaver*
> 
> "My historian friend Henry Wiencek was distressed when he found, halfway into his research on _Master of the Mountain: Thomas Jefferson and His Slaves_ , a new book about Thomas Jefferson, that *generations of historians had been covering up Jefferson's dark side: he wasn't the lenient, soft-hearted, reluctant slave owner that he'd been made out to be. He found he could make money by raising slaves and selling them, and he allowed the littlest boys who worked under miserable conditions in his nail factory to be beaten if they were disobedient*."
> 
> ...
> 
> Once, a missing bundle of rod had started a fight in the nailery that got one *boy’s skull bashed in and another sold south to terrify the rest of the children*—“in terrorem” were *Jefferson’s words*—“as if he were put out of the way by death.” Perhaps this very bundle was the cause of the fight. 
> 
> ...
> ...


Another source:

*The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson*

*A new portrait of the founding father challenges the long-held perception of Thomas Jefferson as a benevolent slaveholder*

(Smithsonian)

----------


## ProIndividual

> I am mistaken.
> 
> I mixed what was attributed to Washington, with Jefferson. By every account I've found, Jefferson largely treated his slaves "well." There was an article that made its rounds here about a year or so ago that suggested otherwise but I couldn't find it. I can definitely concede that he treated his slaves better than most.
> 
> In any case, him "owning" slaves is enough for me to personally despise him. I admire aspects about him, and appeal to certain folks with his words, but could never subscribe to his views.


You shouldn't backpedal so quickly...he was a cruel slave master....but so was Washington, most likely (the accounts vary on Washington).

And why isn't slavery brutal enough to call someone brutal when they owned slaves? Seems to me there are fates worse than death, and slavery is one of them, even if you were treated like a house slave as opposed to like a field slave.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Why do people ask questions like this when search engines are available? Here is the first result I got (not that I wasn't already aware of it):
> 
> 
> 
> Another source:
> 
> *The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> *A new portrait of the founding father challenges the long-held perception of Thomas Jefferson as a benevolent slaveholder*
> ...


I couldn't find anything with the keywords I was searching.

This is the article that was posted here, I believe.

----------


## Deborah K

> Why do people ask questions like this when search engines are available? Here is the first result I got (not that I wasn't already aware of it):
> 
> 
> 
> Another source:
> 
> *The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> *A new portrait of the founding father challenges the long-held perception of Thomas Jefferson as a benevolent slaveholder*
> ...


I asked it in case kcchief had a favorite book on it, or site.  Are you positive what you posted is credible?  Lots of so-called "historians" like to revise history.

----------


## ProIndividual

> I'm not just referring to what he (Lincoln) wrote; I'm also referring to his responses to the actions of the South as per Travlr.  Are they lies?  What do you think his motive was in freeing and paying the slaves in D.C.?


The motives were political at best...and what were his motives in NOT freeing Northern slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation (there were still slaves is some Northern States), while he simultaneously declared Southern slaves free?

He said it himself...the point of freeing slaves was a war tactic meant to win the war. He said if he could have kept the Union together by force without freeing slaves, he would have done that. He needed to free them to win the war, so he did that instead. 

Everything he did in the war was meant to keep the South from leaving. That war could have been about secession over a bag of donuts, he still would have tried to invade, and still told his commanders to commit any war crime they liked in order to win (like Sherman and his rape squads). The key was secession, not slavery...and he proved that by trying to forcibly deport blacks once freed. He wanted a white only country, and said a few times that he couldn't imagine a country where freed blacks and whites lived together.

If you think Lincoln really wanted to end slavery because he believed in abolition on moral grounds, I have a bridge for sale. There are too many of his quotes, and too many actions of his, that allude to the contrary.

He was a liar, manipulative, power hungry, and racist to the core. He wasn't someone people should teach their children to emulate in any way. He gets 1,000 cool points for freeing the slaves, and -1,001 cool points for being a sociopathic monster with ulterior motives.

And DiLorenzo isn't the only author who wrote about the truth...there is a black historian with a really good critique of Lincoln as well...among others.

Deifying politicians after they die, especially if assassinated, goes back to Ancient times. It's the cult of nationalism's favorite thing to do.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> You shouldn't backpedal so quickly...he was a cruel slave master....but so was Washington, most likely (the accounts vary on Washington).
> 
> And why isn't slavery brutal enough to call someone brutal when they owned slaves? Seems to me there are fates worse than death, and slavery is one of them, even if you were treated like a house slave as opposed to like a field slave.


Who cycled their slaves between two states to avoid freeing them? Washington, or Jefferson, or both?

I hear what you're saying with regards to the rest. Most people are 'patriotized' to such a degree, me spelling out Jefferson's words for them, or many of the other founding fathers, is taken more legitimately than if I just started speaking to people on the role of government and natural rights.

----------


## CCTelander

> Aren't you one of the people he threatened?  He laid $#@! on pretty thick, so I didn't keep track of it well... :/



Yep. I was one of the first he threatened to "throat punch," both here and on that other forum. Those were some wild and dangerous times online!

----------


## ProIndividual

> I asked it in case kcchief had a favorite book on it, or site.  Are you positive what you posted is credible?  Lots of so-called "historians" like to revise history.


Do you think revisionist history is always inaccurate? You might want to read more history before you imply that. 




> In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. Though the word revisionism is sometimes used in a negative way, constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history.


Revisionist history is the reason we question any former rulers or power-clutchers. The court reporters always speak for power, not truth to power. The critiques of FDR, Wilson, Julius Caesar, Nero, etc. all came from revisionist historians. The official history is always flattering, and the revisionists always are from the opposing Party or side, or some independent with no vested interest, but who sees lies and calls them out.

And last I checked, the Smithsonian was a pretty reputable cite for history. 

Let's not reduce this to ad hominem of historians...read his own quotes they give. It's undeniable.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I asked it in case kcchief had a favorite book on it, or site.  Are you positive what you posted is credible?  Lots of so-called "historians" like to revise history.


To be clear, I do not.

I vaguely recall reading of Jefferson's policies as a slave owner though I am perhaps mixing up his and Washington's, and from what I can find on the internet, it's all said that he was better than a lot of slave owners.

'Better' of course is a subjective term. He was equal to them on one common, and inherently evil, point.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Who cycled their slaves between two states to avoid freeing them? Washington, or Jefferson, or both?


I can't remember who did that, but I recall hearing of it. I can't imagine it was either of them though, because slavery was legal in Virginia until after their deaths...but maybe there was more to it than that, and I'm recalling it incorrectly. Someone did do that, but for the life of me I can't remember who, and can't remember what the law was they were trying to avoid. I tried to search it, but I couldn't find it easily (I'm sure if I kept at it for an hour, I'd find it though). I'd be interested to know, if anyone can find that little tidbit.

BTW, your strategy is not a bad one...I just didn't want you to backpedal so fast when all I did was search "Jefferson brutal slave master", and got evidence of what I had already read about a few years ago.

----------


## Deborah K

> Do you think revisionist history is always inaccurate? You might want to read more history before you imply that. 
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history is the reason we question any former rulers or power-clutchers. The court reporters always speak for power, not truth to power. The critiques of FDR, Wilson, Julius Caesar, Nero, etc. all came from revisionist historians. The official history is always flattering, and the revisionists always are from the opposing Party or side, or some independent with no vested interest, but who sees lies and calls them out.
> 
> And last I checked, the Smithsonian was a pretty reputable cite for history. 
> 
> Let's not reduce this to ad hominem of historians...read his own quotes they give. It's undeniable.


Here's a little bit of info on Henry Wiencek: http://earlyamericanists.com/2012/12/11/jeffersongate/

and here's Annette Gordon-Reed, a Pulitzer and National Book Award-winning, African-American academic at Harvard, dressing Wiencek down: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/c..._debunked.html

And please, don't presume to advise me on reading history.

----------


## Deborah K

> To be clear, I do not.
> 
> I vaguely recall reading of Jefferson's policies as a slave owner though I am perhaps mixing up his and Washington's, and from what I can find on the internet, it's all said that he was better than a lot of slave owners.
> 
> 'Better' of course is a subjective term. He was equal to them on one common, and inherently evil, point.


It is my understanding that not all slave owners were brutal.  Some plantations where the slaves quartered were like small communities and the slaves were treated well, just not paid.  I'm not advocating for slavery.  I just don't believe all slavers were brutal.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> It is my understanding that not all slave owners were brutal.  Some plantations where the slaves quartered were like small communities and the slaves were treated well, just not paid.  I'm not advocating for slavery.  I just don't believe all slavers were brutal.


More brutal than others, perhaps.

Who cycled their slaves to the South to prevent being legally required to free them? Was that Jefferson?

What president am I thinking of?

----------


## ProIndividual

> Here's a little bit of info on Henry Weincek: http://earlyamericanists.com/2012/12/11/jeffersongate/
> 
> and here's Annette Gordon-Reed, a Pulitzer and National Book Award-winning, African-American academic at Harvard, dressing Weincek down: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/c..._debunked.html
> 
> And please, don't presume to advise me on reading history.


Then don't suggest historians revising history makes them less than credible, or as you put it "historians" (to imply they were not real historians).

And I never care who the historian is. I care if they use cited material that is real. DiLorenzo, for example, gets called all kind of vile things to try and discredit him...meanwhile his cites are accurate. Many of the quotes he gives are said to be "out of context", but when you read the entire context, they aren't usually out of context at all. Most of his critics are just psycho-historians (historians who tell you what their subject was thinking, and then cite things to try to back that case)...and psycho-historians (which is my term, not theirs) are just making $#@! up when they tell you what their subjects were thinking. The best proof of what they are thinking are their own words, and moreso their deeds.

Appeals to scholarly consensus is never a way to write or read history, let alone discredit it. The minority opinion is not correct or incorrect factually based on their lack of popularity, and to appeal to majority opinion, even among experts, is just argumentum ad populum (the informal logical fallacy of appealing to majority opinion).

----------


## Deborah K

> Then don't suggest historians revising history makes them less than credible, or as you put it "historians" (to imply they were not real historians).
> 
> And I never care who the historian is. I care if they use cited material that is real. DiLorenzo, for example, gets called all kind of vile things to try and discredit him...meanwhile his cites are accurate. Many of the quotes he gives are said to be "out of context", but when you read the entire context, they aren't usually out of context at all. Most of his critics are just psycho-historians (historians who tell you what their subject was thinking, and then cite things to try to back that case)...and psycho-historians (which is my term, not theirs) are just making $#@! up when they tell you what their subjects were thinking. The best proof of what they are thinking are their own words, and moreso their deeds.
> 
> Appeals to scholarly consensus is never a way to write or read history, let alone discredit it. The minority opinion is not correct or incorrect factually based on their lack of popularity, and to appeal to majority opinion, even among experts, is just argumentum ad populum (the informal logical fallacy of appealing to majority opinion).


I'll bet you're a fan of Howard Zinn's, aren't you?

----------


## Deborah K

> More brutal than others, perhaps.
> 
> Who cycled their slaves to the South to prevent being legally required to free them? Was that Jefferson?
> 
> What president am I thinking of?


 Jefferson lived in the South.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> For what it's worth Travlyr, I believe you are entitled to your opinion, and I respect your desire to get people to actually read more than just one book about Lincoln (DiLorenzo) to get a balanced perspective.  It disturbs me when people have to be so insulting just because they can't or won't try to look at something from someone else's perspective.  It proves to me that we're really no different than the people we constantly complain about in this society of ours.


He's certainly entitled to his opinion, but he's not entitled to his own facts, nor to blatantly, _purposefully_ misrepresent the position of others.

NO ONE here, least of all me, defended slavery.  Personally, I have NO RESPECT whatsoever for a person who attempts to portray the views of others in such a false and ugly manner.  

As for Lincoln, I've never read DiLorenzo's book.  However I was thoroughly doused in the state narrative as a victim of public education.  Yet, once one understands the principles of individual liberty, one doesn't need a contrarian perspective to grasp that many of Lincoln's actions were devastating to those principles.  Hell, the very existence of the state, let alone the presidency, is devastating to those principles.  

As I said earlier, one mustn't necessarily be a defender of Lincoln in order to stand opposed to the institution of slavery.  

In short, stuff the "poor Travlyr" garbage, quite frankly.  This guy has a long and ignoble record here of blatantly misrepresenting others, ignoring sound arguments and challenges, threatening physical violence, and on and on.  *He very openly stated that he has an irrational hatred of those who are anti-state, and that his goal was to goad them into getting banned* - the very definition of online "trolling".  Thus, it's pretty easy to determine who the troublemaker is.  Again, this subforum enjoyed a much more friendly form of debate without him here.

----------


## Deborah K

> He's certainly entitled to his opinion, but he's not entitled to his own facts, nor to blatantly, _purposefully_ misrepresent the position of others.
> 
> NO ONE here, least of all me, defended slavery.  Personally, I have NO RESPECT whatsoever for a person who attempts to portray the views of others in such a false and ugly manner.  
> 
> As for Lincoln, I've never read DiLorenzo's book.  However I was thoroughly doused in the state narrative as a victim of public education.  Yet, once one understands the principles of individual liberty, one doesn't need a contrarian perspective to grasp that many of Lincoln's actions were devastating to those principles.  Hell, the very existence of the state, let alone the presidency, is devastating to those principles.  
> 
> As I said earlier, one mustn't necessarily be a defender of Lincoln in order to stand opposed to the institution of slavery.  
> 
> In short, stuff the "poor Travlyr" garbage, quite frankly.  This guy has a long and ignoble record here of blatantly misrepresenting others, ignoring sound arguments and challenges, threatening physical violence, and on and on.  *He very openly stated that he has an irrational hatred of those who are anti-state, and that his goal was to goad them into getting banned* - the very definition of online "trolling".  Thus, it's pretty easy to determine who the troublemaker is.  Again, this subforum enjoyed a much more friendly form of debate without him here.


With all due respect to you and others who share the same opinion of Travlyr, I don't live on these forums, so I don't know the ins-and-outs of every member and their behavior.  All I know is that he is a senior member here, who I've always gotten along with well.  I have this, apparently irritating, habit of defending people I get along with - regardless of whether or not I agree with them on everything.  

I've been a member here for almost 7 years, and I've noticed a change in RPFs that disturbs me.  I've had discussions with people who are well known in the movement, who avoid this place because it is generally very "hostile, cliquish, and unduly judgmental" - not my words.  

As I mentioned, I've never seen the kind of behavior that Travlyr has been accused of, mainly because I don't have the luxury of spending as much time here as I'd like to. I stand corrected if these things are true, and I'd like Travlyr to address these accusations, or at least point me in the right direction if he has already done so in the past.

My apologies.

----------


## ProIndividual

> I'll bet you're a fan of Howard Zinn's, aren't you?


Ad hominem; guilt by association. You are really into using informal logical fallacies to make your "cases", aren't you? Hence the prism by which you view history and judge the validity of claims.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> With all due respect to you and others who share the same opinion of Travlyr, I don't live on these forums, so I don't know the ins-and-outs of every member and their behavior.  All I know is that he is a senior member here, who I've always gotten along with well.  I have this, apparently irritating, habit of defending people I get along with - regardless of whether or not I agree with them on everything.  
> 
> I've been a member here for almost 7 years, and I've noticed a change in RPFs that disturbs me.  I've had discussions with people who are well known in the movement, who avoid this place because it is generally very "hostile, cliquish, and unduly judgmental" - not my words.  
> 
> As I mentioned, I've never seen the kind of behavior that Travlyr has been accused of, mainly because I don't have the luxury of spending as much time here as I'd like to. I stand corrected if these things are true, and I'd like Travlyr to address these accusations, or at least point me in the right direction if he has already done so in the past.
> 
> My apologies.


No need to apologize, Deb.  I apologize for being unnecessarily abrupt.  You remain one of my favorite members here.  

I don't spend much time on these forums for very similar reason as the ones you've expressed.  Hostility?  Dare criticize Rand Paul's stated foreign policy positions here once.  

We're not all going to always agree about fellow members, but Travlyr is one of the few for whom I reserve a particular dislike; again for the reasons I stated above.  I have no quarrel with folks who don't agree with me 100%, but Travlyr has taken a very purposeful and hostile approach in the past and then eventually in his return to this subforum in this thread toward me and some folks who see things as I do.  Just scroll back a few pages where he misrepresented me by stating that I SUPPORT chattel slavery.  

Again I have NO RESPECT for someone like that.

----------


## CCTelander

> No need to apologize, Deb.  I apologize for being unnecessarily abrupt.  You remain one of my favorite members here.  
> 
> I don't spend much time on these forums for very similar reason as the ones you've expressed.  Hostility?  Dare criticize Rand Paul's stated foreign policy positions here once.  
> 
> We're not all going to always agree about fellow members, but Travlyr is one of the few for whom I reserve a particular dislike; again for the reasons I stated above.  I have no quarrel with folks who don't agree with me 100%, but Travlyr has taken a very purposeful and hostile approach in the past and then eventually in his return to this subforum in this thread toward me and some folks who see things as I do.  Just scroll back a few pages where he misrepresented me by stating that I SUPPORT chattel slavery.  
> 
> Again I have NO RESPECT for someone like that.



Hey, at least he isn't threatening to "throat punch" everyone he disagrees with in this thread. In Trav's case you could almost call that progress of a sort!

----------


## Deborah K

> Ad hominem; guilt by association. You are really into using informal logical fallacies to make your "cases", aren't you? Hence the prism by which you view history and judge the validity of claims.


Well, if I were on some kind of formal debate team against you, then perhaps I would have been more specific about my suggestions regarding 'historians' who are known for adjusting history around their political belief systems.  As in the case of Zinn, and apparently the case of Wiencek, whom you cited.  Instead, I got lazy (as I often do here-even with my grammar) and applied guilt by association since you don't seem to have a problem with historians who tend to do that.  So sue me for snark.

----------

