Murray Rothbard Was A Racialist And A Nationalist

[Sola_Fide]

Legislation is always based on someone's morality.

Not for libertarians. Libertarians are against state legislated morality.

 

[Sola_Fide]

What facts?

A quick search indicates that blacks participate in government assistance programs at a rate over three times that of whites.

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html

The reasons for that are debatable and numerous.

But the fact is that there is a parasitic underclass and that blacks comprise a percentage of that over three times that which raw population percentages would suggest.

Who cares? "Blacks are the parasitic underclass" is factually inaccurate, ignorant, and racist. Also, what kind of anti state warrior wouldn't point out the fact that it is the government itself which has destroyed the family... many black families.

 

[Suzanimal]

Not for libertarians. Libertarians are against state legislated morality.

I didn't say it was and I never meant to imply the Catholic Church is libertarian.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Not for libertarians. Libertarians are against state legislated morality.

There are plenty of people that would say it is perfectly moral to distribute "vigilante" justice.

Therefore laws demanding a jury trial and evidence and so on are "morality" based laws.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Who cares? "Blacks are the parasitic underclass" is factually inaccurate, ignorant, and racist. Also, what kind of anti state warrior wouldn't point out the fact that it is the government itself which has destroyed the family... many black families.

I just pointed out to you that the statement, as it stands, is not...inaccurate anyway.

Maybe a more precise wording would be "there is a parasitic underclass, and blacks form an unaccountably large part of it".

Ignorant and racist are fluid terms however, like art, depends on one's POV.

I said the reasons were numerous and debatable.

Of course, being an anti statist, I would be the first to point out that the underclass in question was created by the government dependency programs.

That goes without saying.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Not for libertarians. Libertarians are against state legislated morality.

No, as Suzanimal said, all legislation is based in morality.

To legally prohibit those things (e.g. theft or murder) which we libertarians want to prohibit is to have the state legislate morality.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong, problematic, or contradictory about that.

It's not wrong to legislate morality; it's wrong to legislate the wrong morality.

 

[Influenza]

Who did that? Me? I don't remember doing that. Well, depending on the circumstances, I think I still agree. Where is the post?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...iety-ignores&p=6002273&viewfull=1#post6002273

Damn it was even more fucked up than I remember

 

[Sola_Fide]

No, as Suzanimal said, all legislation is based in morality.

To legally prohibit those things (e.g. theft or murder) which we libertarians want to prohibit is to have the state legislate morality.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong, problematic, or contradictory about that.

No sir, it is not.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

No sir, it is not.

Is "theft is wrong" a moral statement?

If so, how does a legislature passing a law outlawing theft not count as "legislating morality"?

 

[Sola_Fide]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...iety-ignores&p=6002273&viewfull=1#post6002273

Damn it was even more $#@!ed up than I remember

Well, that was Dannno being his normal self...a pervert. I make no apologies for what I said. Perverts sometimes need an ass beating, and the fathers with daughters here on the board can probably relate to what I'm saying in that thread.

 

[Suzanimal]

Is "theft is wrong" a moral statement?

If so, how does a legislature passing a law outlawing theft not count as "legislating morality"?

That's the way I see it...

 

[Sola_Fide]

Is "theft is wrong" a moral statement?

Yes.

If so, how does a legislature passing a law outlawing theft not count as "legislating morality"?

Why does your mind go from a statement of morality, to the existence of a state (which can only exist based on the violation of the very law that you mention here)?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes.

Why does your mind go from a statement of morality, to the existence of a state (which can only exist based on the violation of the very law that you mention here)?

Ah, I think we're talking past one another. I thought you were saying that a state enforcing libertarian ethical principles (e.g. theft is wrong) isn't "legislating morality" while a state enforcing non-libertarian ethical principles ("smoking weed is wrong") is "legislating morality." I was pointing out that both are "legislating morality."

But you're making an anti-state argument...

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I'll just say that whether it's a state passing laws and then enforcing those laws, or a private defense agency in Rothbardistan making business decisions and enforcing them, any possible world in which libertarian ethics are realized (e.g. thieves are punished, murderers are punished, etc) is a world in which there is "legislation of morality" in the sense that people are being subjected to moral principles by force, principles with which they may or may not agree. The overarching point being that it's not wrong to enforce morality; it's only wrong to enforce the wrong morality (forcing people not to murder = good, forcing people not to smoke weed = bad).

 

[Sola_Fide]

Rev,

I appreciate the plus rep, and I note your concern about the Trumptards, but I'm of the opinion that the "libertarian" connection to Trump must be completely repudiated in order for a philosophy of freedom to survive.

Let's flush out all these historical deviations from liberty and see what remains. Let's reject every strategy, past and present, that aligns libertarianism with white nationalism.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Rev,

I appreciate the plus rep, and I note your concern about the Trumptards, but I'm of the opinion that the "libertarian" connection to Trump must be completely repudiated in order for a philosophy of freedom to survive.

Let's flush out all these historical deviations from liberty and see what remains. Let's reject every strategy, past and present, that aligns libertarianism with white nationalism.

I hear you, but I don't think it's beneficial or accurate to extend that to Rothbard.

If you want to keep arguing that Rothbard was a WN, so be it, but I'll be here to make the counterargument, till we're both blue in the face.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I hear you, but I don't think it's beneficial or accurate to extend that to Rothbard.

If you want to keep arguing that Rothbard was a WN, so be it, but I'll be here to make the counterargument, till we're both blue in the face.

Would you ever publicly make the arguments that Rothbard made?

No, you wouldn't. It's not in your soul. Something doesn't sit right with you when the words come out of your mouth.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Would you ever publicly make the arguments that Rothbard made?

No, you wouldn't. It's not in your soul. Something doesn't sit right with you when the words come out of your mouth.

So your soul is out of whack if you utter something that offends the current prevailing winds of acceptance?

I know plenty of people that would hold up your arguments regarding Christian doctrine as the very worst sort of religous bigotry and intolerance and hate.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Would you ever publicly make the arguments that Rothbard made?

I would publicly make any argument whatsoever if I were convinced that it would advance the liberal cause.

I'd argue that Lord ...whatever it is in Scientology... will throw the Earth into the Sun if Rand Paul isn't elected the next President....

...if I thought that would convince the 'oi polloi to vote for Rand Paul.

Rothbard reasoned similarly.

Call him stupid if you like, but (I say again) there's no reason to question his motives.

 

[RJB]

Youre wrong. This has nothing to do with any liberal critique of "neoconfederates" or anything like that. This is an in house debate that libertarians themselves had decades ago, and are now having again.

The only problem is, that on this website in particular, there are so little libertarians left. The name of the website should be changed.

No sola, you're a national socialist. Nah nah nah boo boo.

Grow up sola and learn to debate instead of trolling, name-calling and collectivist labeling.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I would publicly make any argument whatsoever if I were convinced that it would advance the liberal cause.

I'd argue that Lord ...whatever it is in Scientology... will throw the Earth into the Sun if Rand Paul isn't elected the next President....

...if I thought that would convince the 'oi polloi to vote for Rand Paul.

Rothbard reasoned similarly.

Call him stupid if you like, but (I say again) there's no reason to question his motives.

You would make racial arguments? Why? What makes that any better than what the Trumptards are doing?