• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

Sarpedon said:
No, I am not. I am saying a specific racist movement has been influenced by the nazis. There are many racist movements that have not. America's white supremecist movement is not one of them. There have been oodles of studies of the american white supremacist movement, and they provide ample evidence of this. By deliberately ignoring all the times I haves specifically explained what I am talking about, you are misrepresenting my argument.

I am absolutely incapable of dumbing it down any further for you.

The question is why are you trying to convince people that American White Supremecists aren't influenced by nazis? I earlier made an off the cuff remark about nazi sympathizers at the Libertarian convention, and now, instead of denying that there are white supremacists in the Libertarian party, you are trying to suggest that White Supremacists are not nazi sympathizers. Oughtn't you instead try to deny there were white supremacists at the Libertarian party convention?
Click to expand...

I'm not interested in the topic of the relationship between white supremacists and nazis. Racists who aren't supremacists or nazis is connected to the topic I am discussing, which isn't the topic you are discussing.

Your "off the cuff" remark is what I"m discussing. You said nazi sympathizers can be found at libertarian conventions, and when I challenged you on it you went on to INSTEAD discuss the relationship between white supremacists and nazis. Of course you might have had a leg to stand on had you stuck to just racists, but even you have admitted not all racists are supremacists / nazi sympathizers.

So, again I challenge you to do the impossible and try to support your statement about white supremacists at Libertarian Party conventions, something that led you to a tangent in order to avoid the actual "off the cuff" topic.
 
My goodness, it took you two, three weeks to come up with that response?

If what you want is an admission that I can't prove there are nazi sympathizers attending the convention, you have it, I can't prove it. I suspect that there are, because of the similarities in ideology that I carefully explained. Summary:

Extreme liberty positions as espoused by the libertarian party are historically linked to white supremacism. In the United States, the white supremacist and neo-nazi groups are separate but interrelated. Prominent Libertarians have been associated with White Supremacists (e.g. Ron Paul and his racist newsletter). Libertarian policies, such as open gun carrying and end of all public services have long been racist dog-whistle issues. Conclusion: The Libertarian is a home for right wing extremists, and some of these extremists are white supremacists and nazi sympathisers.

Unfair? No more unfair than Libertarians trying to paint people who want a reasonable amount of government control along with protection for minorities as fascists, working poor who want a decent standard of living as 'takers,' and who don't realize that letting people do whatever they want benefits those who are already powerful, instead of the common man. This last, which you repeatedly deny, is so obvious I can't believe that anyone can honestly not see it. I'm sure you will call this another attempt to change the subject, but one of the tactics you use is to pretend that these things are separate issues, when in fact race is so bound up into the issues of political and economic power as to be virtually inseparable. I really don't give a shit if you are insulted. The day you work as hard for equality as you do for your own liberty is the day that I believe libertarians aren't hopelessly tainted by racism. As it is, the concept of extreme liberty is the tool of the rich, and racism is another of their tools. Is it surprising that both tools might be kept in the same box?
 
Well, I don't think those are cases of libertarian philosophy having similarities to white supremacism, but rather that the link is in the other direction with white supremacists being drawn to aspects of libertarian philosophy. If you have a worldview that most of society disagrees with, the idea of less control by government over what you can do and less protections for those you want to discriminate against are appealing ones to you. Libertarianism is just a useful tool for white supremacists to use to advance their views and the Libertarian party is small enough that a group joining it for those reasons will have a lot of sway due to there not being enough members of the party who are not racists to mount an effective opposition to them.

It's sort of like how the Green party has an anti-vaccination plank. That doesn't have shit to do with what the Green party is actually about, but the anti-vax nutters are associated with the same fringe and there aren't enough others to keep them from influencing the policies.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
Well, I don't think those are cases of libertarian philosophy having similarities to white supremacism, but rather that the link is in the other direction with white supremacists being drawn to aspects of libertarian philosophy. If you have a worldview that most of society disagrees with, the idea of less control by government over what you can do and less protections for those you want to discriminate against are appealing ones to you. Libertarianism is just a useful tool for white supremacists to use to advance their views and the Libertarian party is small enough that a group joining it for those reasons will have a lot of sway due to there not being enough members of the party who are not racists to mount an effective opposition to them.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's that simple. The fact that libertarian positions and white supremacist positions have some overlap suggest there is more to the story than just 'nobody likes my point of view so I'll hang out with these people who want smaller government'. What attracts white supremacists to libertarianism is that libertarians want to get rid of many laws and policies that primarily benefit non-whites.
 
One case of racial supremacism is the KKK. Another case for racial supremacism is BLM.

The libertarian world, if it could exist, would be one in which individuals, not groups, are judged. Group statistics might be noted as predictors as to what a given group might do given their history. No group is given special favors because of group membership. Nor is any group denied anything because of group membership. Many behaviors which some people find "offensive" would not be illegal. Common Law would prevail. Legislative Law almost non-existent. Freedom to succeed for social mobility, and the freedom to fail especially for the wealthy so they may become less so, making room for the upwardly mobile. No privilege ("private law" -- different standards from the common man) because of wealth or family. No corporations at all; only people can make contracts. Partnerships with all partners being proportionally liable for the debts and illegal acts of the partnership.

Note that libertarianism does not prejudge. If, in that world of individual meritocracy, a group performs better (as being of negro heritage over represented in the NFL) it is just a statistic. If very few people with predominantly African origin excel at a different sport that too is just a statistic. If, in the world of individual merit, Asians make better engineers and Jews make better writers it is just a statistic.

I don't see, Tom, how libertarianism is a useful tool for the dangerous white supremacists. Supremacists to be feared are those who would use violence toward others of a different race. Supremacists who merely note for the record that their race is statistically superior in some dimension are harmless. Those who would make public policy either for or against a group because of group membership are racist when that group is a race. Segregation by law and affirmative action by law are racist. Self segregation and individual employers giving preference to a race (for example, because they believe diversity is good for business) are not.
 
The essential counter argument is that we simply don't believe you. We don't believe that in a libertarian world there will be no privilege. We've often asked what's stopping the rich in your world from hiring mercenaries and essentially being petty tyrants. We've never gotten an answer. What's stopping people from 'self-segregating' and then using their collective power to oppress other groups, in the event of one group being more powerful? No answer to that either.

Essentially, the problem with Libertarianism is the same as that of Communism: It assumes that something in society can simply be abolished, and then things would be better: Communists thought that by abolishing the rich, they would create a utopia. They failed to see that the rich performed a function, and those who replaced them at that function would essentially become the new rich. Libertarians also think by abolishing key aspects of government, they will create a free society. They fail to see that would create an unstable situation, which would cause new forms of government to arise: either by petty tyrants arising, or groups of people forming armed communities.

Even if you are completely honest in your beliefs (which I doubt many Libertarians actually are: I doubt very much Libertarians would like to see themselves losing their privileges) Your system would be unstable, and quickly replaced by some other system. And frankly, I suspect that the motive of many within the movement is to actually create that new system, using Libertarian principles only to destroy the old.
 
George S said:
I don't see, Tom, how libertarianism is a useful tool for the dangerous white supremacists. Supremacists to be feared are those who would use violence toward others of a different race. Supremacists who merely note for the record that their race is statistically superior in some dimension are harmless. Those who would make public policy either for or against a group because of group membership are racist when that group is a race. Segregation by law and affirmative action by law are racist. Self segregation and individual employers giving preference to a race (for example, because they believe diversity is good for business) are not.
Click to expand...
Are not? That isn't true in the real world. You have a cake store that doesn't sell, that isn't a problem. But what about if an entire town won't sell to blacks or gays?

Libertarianism, which differs from libertarian to libertarian, is usually (among right-wingers) about personal choice. It holds personal choice as the highest form of freedom. How that choice affects others does not come into play, unless the choice is egregiously illegal (murder or theft). So being able to choose to restrict access to gays, blacks, Patriots fans isn't a problem as you aren't taking anything from them. Think of it like the discriminatory equivalent of file sharing.
 
Last edited:
Such is true of all utopian worlds, Sapredon. If everyone would only agree and there were no cheaters it would be perfect. True of communism. True of libertarianism. Both extremes unrealistic. In the real world there are those who would take from others with force or fraud.

It would be a better world if everyone could agree to end all war. Riiiiiiiight. Dream on. There will always be disagreements as to the best political system that provides the best life possible for everyone. None works for everyone. None at all. The idea of a representative republic approximating the libertarian ideal was embodied in the original constitution. The Senate a playground for the politically connected in each state to represent that state's interests. The House of taxpayers (yes, you had to pay taxes to vote back then) who had skin in the game to control the purse. An executive who had to enforce all laws whether he agreed with them or not. A vice president who came in second to chair the senate. A non-partisan (tee hee) group -- Electoral College -- of representatives of the people who they trusted to vote their conscience.

The founders were libertarians I think. Freedom to do anything as long as it did not harm others. Freedom to say anything as long as it did not harm others. ("Fire" in a crowded theater, and a rabble-rouser provoking a mob do potentially harm others.) Responsibility for actions which did harm. It is libertarian to leave a note on a car explaining that you damaged it and will pay for the repair.

A pretty good system. Changed over the decades into a democracy. Sorry Ben, we could not keep it.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
George S said:
I don't see, Tom, how libertarianism is a useful tool for the dangerous white supremacists. Supremacists to be feared are those who would use violence toward others of a different race. Supremacists who merely note for the record that their race is statistically superior in some dimension are harmless. Those who would make public policy either for or against a group because of group membership are racist when that group is a race. Segregation by law and affirmative action by law are racist. Self segregation and individual employers giving preference to a race (for example, because they believe diversity is good for business) are not.
Click to expand...
Are not? That isn't true in the real world. You have a cake store that doesn't sell, that isn't a problem. But what about if an entire town won't sell to blacks or gays?

Libertarianism, which differs from libertarian to libertarian about personal choice. It holds personal choice as the highest freedom. How that choice affects others does not come into play, unless the choice is egregiously illegal (murder or theft).
Click to expand...

What about a town which won't allow blacks or gays? That is not meritocracy libertarianism. It is using a group characteristic inappropriately. If everyone were libertarian it would not happen. But as I mentioned earlier, realistically there will always be thieves and con men.
 
Yes, we understand that Libertarians deny that is what Libertarianism is about. However, you have yet to explain what will prevent it from happening. Historically, it did happen. I must sadly say that I think the only thing that prevents it from happening today is government. If you want us to take you seriously, you have to explain what will stop it from happening in your system. And when I see so many 'Libertarians' railing against the idea that the government can make discrimination by race illegal, I am skeptical that this isn't what they actually want.
 
Getting back to "about the election."

Hillary Clinton clearly a big government advocate. And a liar. And a con artist and a thief.
Donald Trump is not Hillary. That is his only redeeming quality. He, too, thinks that more legislation can fix things in selected areas (e.g. maternity leave policy).

If my vote for Gary (and by others like myself) would elect Hillary, I'd hold my nose and vote for Trump. (I almost always vote against the most dangerous candidate rather than for the one who gets my vote.)
 
George S said:
Getting back to "about the election."

Hillary Clinton clearly a big government advocate. And a liar. And a con artist and a thief.
Donald Trump is not Hillary. That is his only redeeming quality. He, too, thinks that more legislation can fix things in selected areas (e.g. maternity leave policy).

If my vote for Gary (and by others like myself) would elect Hillary, I'd hold my nose and vote for Trump. (I almost always vote against the most dangerous candidate rather than for the one who gets my vote.)
Click to expand...

Don't worry. Hillary will get elected on her own and your vote is meaningless, so you can throw your ballot away by wasting it on a third party candidate or pissing on it and tossing it in a trash heap as you see fit. There's no need for you to get worked up about the issue and be forced to pay out of pocket for blood pressure medications that your government doesn't provide for you.
 
PyramidHead said:
Tom Sawyer said:
Well, I don't think those are cases of libertarian philosophy having similarities to white supremacism, but rather that the link is in the other direction with white supremacists being drawn to aspects of libertarian philosophy. If you have a worldview that most of society disagrees with, the idea of less control by government over what you can do and less protections for those you want to discriminate against are appealing ones to you. Libertarianism is just a useful tool for white supremacists to use to advance their views and the Libertarian party is small enough that a group joining it for those reasons will have a lot of sway due to there not being enough members of the party who are not racists to mount an effective opposition to them.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's that simple. The fact that libertarian positions and white supremacist positions have some overlap suggest there is more to the story than just 'nobody likes my point of view so I'll hang out with these people who want smaller government'. What attracts white supremacists to libertarianism is that libertarians want to get rid of many laws and policies that primarily benefit non-whites.
Click to expand...

Well, there is a significant difference. Supremacists want to get rid of laws that primarily benefit non-whites and while the libertarians want to get rid of the same laws, the fact that these laws primarily benefit non-whites is irrelevant to the reasons they want to get rid of them. While the net effect may end up the same, you can't apply the supremacists reasoning to the libertarians. For the supremacists, stopping the benefits to non-whites is the primary goal and for the libertarians, it is, at best, an unintended side effect and many of them would dispute (rightly or wrongly) that these non-whites would end up worse off at all.
 
George S said:
Getting back to "about the election."

Hillary Clinton clearly a big government advocate. And a liar. And a con artist and a thief.
Donald Trump is not Hillary.
Click to expand...
He is a habitual liar, a con artist, and doesn't pay his subcontractors and hides behind his lawyers.
 
George S said:
I don't see, Tom, how libertarianism is a useful tool for the dangerous white supremacists. Supremacists to be feared are those who would use violence toward others of a different race. Supremacists who merely note for the record that their race is statistically superior in some dimension are harmless. Those who would make public policy either for or against a group because of group membership are racist when that group is a race. Segregation by law and affirmative action by law are racist. Self segregation and individual employers giving preference to a race (for example, because they believe diversity is good for business) are not.
Click to expand...

I disagree completely. If you think that whites are statistically superior and give them advantages at your company as a result, you are causing harm to members of other races because you're denying them opportunities. Now, if there were an unlimited number of equally paying jobs within an easy commuting distance then that would be a moot point which does no damage at all, but if someone finds themselves living in a world with a limited number of jobs with different rates of pay in different areas, then it becomes a concern.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
PyramidHead said:
I don't think it's that simple. The fact that libertarian positions and white supremacist positions have some overlap suggest there is more to the story than just 'nobody likes my point of view so I'll hang out with these people who want smaller government'. What attracts white supremacists to libertarianism is that libertarians want to get rid of many laws and policies that primarily benefit non-whites.
Click to expand...

Well, there is a significant difference. Supremacists want to get rid of laws that primarily benefit non-whites and while the libertarians want to get rid of the same laws, the fact that these laws primarily benefit non-whites is irrelevant to the reasons they want to get rid of them. While the net effect may end up the same, you can't apply the supremacists reasoning to the libertarians. For the supremacists, stopping the benefits to non-whites is the primary goal and for the libertarians, it is, at best, an unintended side effect and many of them would dispute (rightly or wrongly) that these non-whites would end up worse off at all.
Click to expand...

True, of course. But both groups will still call themselves libertarians.
 
PyramidHead said:
Tom Sawyer said:
Well, there is a significant difference. Supremacists want to get rid of laws that primarily benefit non-whites and while the libertarians want to get rid of the same laws, the fact that these laws primarily benefit non-whites is irrelevant to the reasons they want to get rid of them. While the net effect may end up the same, you can't apply the supremacists reasoning to the libertarians. For the supremacists, stopping the benefits to non-whites is the primary goal and for the libertarians, it is, at best, an unintended side effect and many of them would dispute (rightly or wrongly) that these non-whites would end up worse off at all.
Click to expand...

True, of course. But both groups will still call themselves libertarians.
Click to expand...

Ya, but neither of them are REAL(tm) libertarians.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
George S said:
Getting back to "about the election."

Hillary Clinton clearly a big government advocate. And a liar. And a con artist and a thief.
Donald Trump is not Hillary.
Click to expand...
He is a habitual liar, a con artist, and doesn't pay his subcontractors and hides behind his lawyers.
Click to expand...

When you don't pay someone something you owe them, are you not a thief? Donald is multiple times more a liar, con-artist and thief than Hillary is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom