It might help if you made sense. First of all, I'm not for group rights, LIAR. Second of all, You meant INTEGRATION, not segregation. Third of all, I made it clear many times to you and others that if not for the STATE enforced segregation, there would have never been a mass psychosis in this country that led to widespread racism and segregation. Any rational person can admit that.
So, to say that segregation of races in economics is aggression is correct, since it was (in the 1970s on back) far exceeding the market level in society that would of occured if the STATE wouldn't have had LEGAL SLAVERY and ENFORCED (notice the word force) segregation. I make clear that this use of force by the state can only be limited by a reversal of force, since folks like YOU don't want to abolish the state.
I'm not in favor of the state, or forced anything, including segreation or integration. To oversimplify my statements and positions is to show your simplicity, not my supposed authoritarian tendancies. What I said was...if the state is to be maintained for the sake of people like you who cheerlead for it, then it must undo what it has done, once it realizes it is doing something tyrannical. This is what has always occured. When it realized women's rights were trampled, it didn't wait to allow the market to fix it...because it would have taken forever given the mass psychosis it imposed via its laws (which were based on misogyny). Because the state is only force, it can only use force...and that includes to fix what its own force has fucked up to begin with.
You may not agree, and wish us , like many libertarians, to just let the state sit idle while the market sorts out the problems the state causes, and that's fine....but to suggest my position is somehow not principled or that I'm for "group rights" is total bullshit. Groups don't have rights, individuals do. And individuals happen to parts of groups called races. When the STATE fucks one race for generations, we can either abolish the state (which you refuse to do), sit back and let the state keep fucking these people (which you want to do), or we can use the state to limit the state's harm by reversing the coercion in the other direction (what I suggested in light of the fact people like you won't abolish the state). Pardon me for not wanting to sit on my hands when the state has done atrocities.
This is not a popular idea, I know that. But it's not my usual thing to be Mr. Conformist. I'm pretty much Capt. Controversy, and I don't mind that...because it means I think for myself.
Lastly, and most importantly...if you can't attack my idea in debate without attacking me personally on a whole other issue, all you're doing is admitting you have no argument. What you just did is called "ad hominem"...it's an informal logical fallacy in debate. It doesn't matter if Hitler says the sky is blue and grass is green, that hardly makes it a bad position or not true. So, attack my statement, the issue, not me...or admit to your intellectual ineptness.
My position is my last post in this thread...address it or don't. I'm tired of your ad hominem games that you've been playing since I met you on these forums. Here it is:
Well the evidence is on our side, and the conspiratorial notion of his good intentions based on lineage is what you have. I'm not leaving liberty up to "feelings". I'm going with rational evidence.
Principles over Parties, and last names too.
I want everyone to notice this has NOTHING to do with the topic LE linked to. NOTHING! It's simply an ad hominem. It has nothing to with conspiracy, lineage bias, having "a good feeling" lead your decisions irrationally, or Principles over Parties...including nepotism.
LE didn't address one single aspect of my post. All LE did was use a failed informal logical fallacy.
I mean how ignorant can you be? Just look up informal logical fallacies online and quit commiting them! Then you can finally win a debate...something you have failed to do, that I've ever seen.
