Civil Discourse

[MichiganSpinDoctor]

Too fucking stupid to pay attention!


There's that discourse you are looking for.

What have I missed? Please I would like to know.

 

[UncleBuck]

Wow, what a great comment. I agree with everything you said, except for the distinction you made about libertarians. There are plenty of pragmatic libertarians out there. I am one. The non aggression principle is a good base for political philosophy, but it doesn't shake out perfect in real life. Just like every other ideology. Thanks for the thoughtful comment.

When trump said nazis are very fine people, why were you not disappointed in him?

 

[hotrodharley]

Many unemployable unskilled people from your state feel the same.

The fucker supposedly is into cannabis yet he can't go further than decriminalization. He's a fucking troll. A tool. A meat puppet.

 

[MichiganSpinDoctor]

Too fucking stupid to pay attention!


There's that discourse you are looking for.

Nice forum, by the way. You are doing the world a great service. Thank you.

 

[MichiganSpinDoctor]

The fucker supposedly is into cannabis yet he can't go further than decriminalization. He's a fucking troll. A tool. A meat puppet.

Decriminalization would be the best. Legal with no new rules. I dont like rules.

 

[UncleBuck]

Decriminalization would be the best. Legal with no new rules. I dont like rules.

What about rules dictating the temperature at which restaurants may store meat?

 

[Fogdog]

Wow, what a great comment. I agree with everything you said, except for the distinction you made about libertarians. There are plenty of pragmatic libertarians out there. I am one. The non aggression principle is a good base for political philosophy, but it doesn't shake out perfect in real life. Just like every other ideology. Thanks for the thoughtful comment.

You haven't said what you mean by libertarian. People keep making up their own definitions about stuff like libertarian. I'll stick with the generally accepted meaning for the word, thanks. That you pick and choose ideas from libertarians is fine but that doesn't mean you are libertarian any more than supporting social security makes me a socialist.

You mentioned how states should decide civil rights laws. Why do you think that is a policy white supremacists prefer?

 

[MichiganSpinDoctor]

You haven't said what you mean by libertarian. People keep making up their own definitions about stuff like libertarian. I'll stick with the generally accepted meaning for the word, thanks. That you pick and choose ideas from libertarians is fine but that doesn't mean you are libertarian any more than supporting social security makes me a socialist.

You mentioned how states should decide civil rights laws. Why do you think that is a policy white supremacists prefer?

Libertarian, as most people understand the label, means that you promote the non aggression principle. A Ron Paul type libertarian (and I have read his books) is basically just a constitutionalist. Libertarians in America are called liberals everywhere else in the world, and have been for a long time. Classical liberals, we sometimes say. American liberals became libertarians when liberal came to mean big government programs. If the states had all the responsibilities they are supposed to have, some states might decide that the laws banning discrimination should be repealed, and the racist or bigoted people will turn away customers they dont like at their business. Personally I think this would ruin a business and things might end up more just without the laws.

 

[MichiganSpinDoctor]

What about rules dictating the temperature at which restaurants may store meat?

I think I come down against that rule being enforced by the government as well. It isn't broken though, so I wouldn't attempt to fix it at this point. Im pro cold meat. Im not pro take my tax money and give it to people to go make sure all the meat is cold.

 

[Fogdog]

Libertarian, as most people understand the label, means that you promote the non aggression principle. A Ron Paul type libertarian (and I have read his books) is basically just a constitutionalist. Libertarians in America are called liberals everywhere else in the world, and have been for a long time. Classical liberals, we sometimes say. American liberals became libertarians when liberal came to mean big government programs. If the states had all the responsibilities they are supposed to have, some states might decide that the laws banning discrimination should be repealed, and the racist or bigoted people will turn away customers they dont like at their business. Personally I think this would ruin a business and things might end up more just without the laws.

The courts have decided in favor of federal civil rights laws for good reasons. These laws have passed the constitutionality tests in court all the way to the SCOTUS. I'm fine with you envisioning an alternate past and all that but really, that horse has already left the barn.

Again, your beliefs are in opposition to facts. The US allowed states to set civil rights laws and in the south they enacted segregation laws. If we go back far enough, southern states use the principle of states rights to legalize race based generational chattel slavery. Today, in the US, human rights are rights and not something that changes when one crosses a state line. This is a more rational idea than a mosaic of changing civil rights from state to state.

The idea that a free market would somehow correct wrongs caused by racism is a bad theory. It's been disproven time and again. Even the theory that free markets would continue in unregulated markets has been disproven through economic analysis as well as practical experience. This has led to libertarians rejecting science. The libertarian think tank, Von Mises Institute goes so far as to say they reject science and math in favor of "praxeology" otherwise known as belief based upon commandments. Here is a quote directly from their site:

Our scholarly work is founded in Misesian praxeology, and in self-conscious opposition to the mathematical modeling and hypothesis-testing that has created so much confusion in neoclassical economics.

In other words, "we believe our beliefs and not science or math". Libertarian beliefs fit in the realm of religion rather than reality.

 

[MichiganSpinDoctor]

The courts have decided in favor of federal civil rights laws for good reasons. These laws have passed the constitutionality tests in court all the way to the SCOTUS. I'm fine with you envisioning an alternate past and all that but really, that horse has already left the barn.

Again, your beliefs are in opposition to facts. The US allowed states to set civil rights laws and in the south they enacted segregation laws. If we go back far enough, southern states use the principle of states rights to legalize race based generational chattel slavery. Today, in the US, human rights are rights and not something that changes when one crosses a state line. This is a more rational idea than a mosaic of changing civil rights from state to state.

The idea that a free market would somehow correct wrongs caused by racism is a bad theory. It's been disproven time and again. Even the theory that free markets would continue in unregulated markets has been disproven through economic analysis as well as practical experience. This has led to libertarians rejecting science. The libertarian think tank, Von Mises Institute goes so far as to say they reject science and math in favor of "praxeology" otherwise known as belief based upon commandments. Here is a quote directly from their site:

Our scholarly work is founded in Misesian praxeology, and in self-conscious opposition to the mathematical modeling and hypothesis-testing that has created so much confusion in neoclassical economics.

In other words, "we believe our beliefs and not science or math". Libertarian beliefs fit in the realm of religion rather than reality.

I think it is reasonable to be anti segregation laws and anti antidiscrimination laws. I do not represent the Von Mises institute. I know Dr Paul speaks highly of them because of their stand against keynesian economics and their support for a sound currency.

 

[Fogdog]

I think it is reasonable to be anti segregation laws and anti antidiscrimination laws. I do not represent the Von Mises institute. I know Dr Paul speaks highly of them because of their stand against keynesian economics and their support for a sound currency.

Their you have it. You pick and choose what you want but it's Ron Paul that you support. You can't just vote for his policies you can only vote for the person. Ron Paul stands for the same set of principles that brought us slavery, Jim Crow laws and segregation.

You prefer the now debunked ideas of Freidman? If not him or Mises, then what economic principles do you prefer?

Bush ran economic policy with deregulation in the foreground. When his people in the SEC decided to let banks self-regulate the newer securities where loans were packaged using fake risk assessment models, big bankers took our money and ran. After, as Diamond described it, "the dancing" stopped Obama employed Keynesian economic principles and adroitly led us out of the economic depression caused by lax regulation. You cling to ideals that have been proven false in reality. Unregulated markets don't lead to freer markets, quite the opposite.

 

[MichiganSpinDoctor]

Their you have it. You pick and choose what you want but it's Ron Paul that you support. You can't just vote for his policies you can only vote for the person. Ron Paul stands for the same set of principles that brought us slavery, Jim Crow laws and segregation.

You prefer the now debunked ideas of Freidman? If not him or Mises, then what economic principles do you prefer?

Bush ran economic policy with deregulation in the foreground. When his people in the SEC decided to let banks self-regulate the newer securities where loans were packaged using fake risk assessment models, big bankers took our money and ran. After, as Diamond described it, "the dancing" stopped Obama employed Keynesian economic principles and adroitly led us out of the economic depression caused by lax regulation. You cling to ideals that have been proven false in reality. Unregulated markets don't lead to freer markets, quite the opposite.

Basically Ron Paul just voted no on everything in congress. That's what I would do. For economists I like Murray Rothbard. Hayek. Henry hazlitt.

 

[Fogdog]

Basically Ron Paul just voted no on everything in congress. That's what I would do. For economists I like Murray Rothbard. Hayek. Henry hazlitt.

Basically Ron Paul supports racist ideology and racist policies. We can't have people like that in charge of government.

Rothbard is of the Mises school of economic philosophy. https://mises.org/library/murray-n-rothbard-legacy-liberty

Hayek, Rothbard and Hazlitt are all of the same Austrian school of philosophy embodied in the Von Mises institute which reject reality in favor of beliefs.

It seems you don't know much about what you are saying.

 

[MichiganSpinDoctor]

Basically Ron Paul supports racist ideology and racist policies. We can't have people like that in charge of government.

Rothbard is of the Mises school of economic philosophy. https://mises.org/library/murray-n-rothbard-legacy-liberty

Hayek, Rothbard and Hazlitt are all of the same Austrian school of philosophy embodied in the Von Mises institute which reject reality in favor of beliefs.

It seems you don't know much about what you are saying.

I am aware that Mises falls under the same Austrian economics umbrella as Rothbard and others. I just haven't read any Mises. Your accusations of racism are false. Dr Paul constantly talked and still talks about the drug war and it's outsized negative effect on minorities.

 

[MichiganSpinDoctor]

Basically Ron Paul supports racist ideology and racist policies. .

I challenge you to produce 1 racist policy Ron Paul has supported.

 

[Fogdog]

I am aware that Mises falls under the same Austrian economics umbrella as Rothbard and others. I just haven't read any Mises. Your accusations of racism are false. Dr Paul constantly talked and still talks about the drug war and it's outsized negative effect on minorities.

Ron Paul is a raving racist as shown by his newsletter which he quite clearly used as a political vehicle as well as for profit. He has never disowned the essays in his newsletter or apologized for it. You never cited where he disavowed it either. In the US, white supremacists endorse your states rights libertarian ideology because they know they would have their way in certain states, mostly in the South. The reason I'm harping on racism implicit in the beliefs you espouse is civil rights are not something that can be diminished based upon the will of a majority. Not to mention the harm it does to it's victims.

 

[MichiganSpinDoctor]

Ron Paul is a raving racist as shown by his newsletter which he quite clearly used as a political vehicle as well as for profit. He has never disowned the essays in his newsletter or apologized for it. You never cited where he disavowed it either. In the US, white supremacists endorse your states rights libertarian ideology because they know they would have their way in certain states, mostly in the South. The reason I'm harping on racism implicit in the beliefs you espouse is civil rights are not something that can be diminished based upon the will of a majority. Not to mention the harm it does to it's victims.

Correct me if I am misunderstanding you here. The racist policy that Ron Paul supports is states rights? Do you really think it is appropriate to blanketly think of states rights as racist? Especially since states rights are at the root of federalism, which is the core of American politics and has been since the federalist papers...

 

[MichiganSpinDoctor]

If I were trying to consolidate power in a central government, I'd try to get everyone to think that decentralization of power is a racist idea that no one should think about.

 

[Fogdog]

Correct me if I am misunderstanding you here. The racist policy that Ron Paul supports is states rights? Do you really think it is appropriate to blanketly think of states rights as racist? Especially since states rights are at the root of federalism, which is the core of American politics and has been since the federalist papers...

I'm just trying to make sense of the gobbledogook you've presented here. Evidently you have trouble with reading and I admit my post wouldn't pass muster in an English class. So I'll break my post down to prevent you from conflating different ideas and confusing yourself.

Ron Paul is a raving racist as shown by his newsletter which he quite clearly used as a political vehicle as well as for profit. He has never disowned the essays in his newsletter or apologized for it. You never cited where he disavowed it either.


In the US, white supremacists endorse your states rights libertarian ideology because they know they would have their way in certain states, mostly in the South. The reason I'm harping on racism implicit in the beliefs you espouse is civil rights are not something that can be diminished based upon the will of a majority. Not to mention the harm it does to it's victims.