あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Kuldebar[S] 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (22子コメント)

edit bring on the downvotes motherfuckers, Tom Woods is a nutjob masquerading as a Libertarian. He supports racist secessionist groups and just cares about selling books. Wow... I never thought I'd see people on this sub standing up for a right-wing religious neoconservative.

I'm all for anarchocapitalism, but the drivel this guy is spewing is just too much. Y'all wanna know why nobody takes anarchocapitalism seriously? Because of people like Tom Woods...

You just had to dig in deeper!

I can only say I've been reading and listening to Tom Woods for well on a decade now and have never seen anything to suggest that what you claim is accurate.

I would hope that libertarians do support the principle of secession and self-determinism.

I would also expect that liberty minded people will also recognize that people do have a right to have bigoted opinions and the right to choose with whom they associate.

One does not have to endorse a particular opinion when supporting the right to express opinions.

right-wing religious neoconservative

Yeah, he's Catholic, anarchist and liberty minded people can be religious you know?

Take a look at the Mormons or better yet the Amish; they'd be much happier if the government would just leave them the fuck alone.

I don't have to agree with their religious ideas in order to respect the principle that we all have a right to live our lives according to our values as long as we do not aggress against others.

So, as far as I am concerned, Tom Woods could be a Satanist who doesn't care much for redheads, so fucking what?

[–]zeneval -12 ポイント-11 ポイント  (21子コメント)

Self determinism and "secession" are all fine, but this guy is what I would call a Southern Nationalist. He supports a group that doesn't want to secede from all forms of government, just the forms that support minorities, aka the federal government. I grew up around these people, they wall want to fly their confederate flags, they want slaves, they are homophobic to the point of becoming violent, and they degrade women and abuse children. Sorry, but any ideology that doesn't see all humans as equals is not an ideology I support, and I don't think it belongs on this sub either... Go on, tell me I'm lambasting southern culture, but I'm FROM THERE, so I speak from a position of authority on the matter.

Sure, I'm approaching strawman territory with this argument, but hear me out...

Anyone is welcome to their religious freedoms, and freedom to think/feel however they want, but when that starts bleeding into other people's lives there beings to be a problem.

I do not support hatred and discrimination under the guise of religious freedom. Fuck that shit.

[–]Kuldebar[S] 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (12子コメント)

I do not support hatred and discrimination under the guise of religious freedom

You don't have to "support" it, you only have to support liberty if that's what you claim to support.

Freedom means that:

  • some people will like dogs more than cats

  • or believe that the earth is only 4400 years old

  • or find the idea of anal sex disturbing

  • or conclude that black people are less intelligent

  • or feel having a tattoo means you are white trash

  • or claim that Toyota makes better cars than Ford

...and people will express their opinions on all these things and more; and that's OK, that's what real diversity is, that's what tolerance is all about.

[–]moonlapse 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

"Aren't we supposed to be living in a multicultural democracy? And isn't that the point? You know, the Jews, the Muslims and the racists all living together happily side by side, doing and saying whatever the hell they like?"

[–]Kuldebar[S] 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

There's no multiculturalism at the point of a gun or under duress. Beneath every pile of skulls strewn throughout history you will find a failed utopia that subscribed to the idea that people could be compelled against their will to some "grand and noble purpose".

[–]zeneval -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (9子コメント)

There is a time to go to war, ideologically at least, IMO, and that time is when you have groups of people collectivizing and deciding to oust other groups.

Is that freedom for the group that is being discriminated against?

The freedom to be discriminated against, apparently... Ahh, gotta love it. Fucking BS.

These are people who claim the federal government is impeding their freedom to lynch their neighbours.

Freedom and the desire for liberty must be reciprocal, and it's not in these cases.

Surely you can see that, or are you one of those Ancaps who doesn't care what happens to anyone else, as long as it doesn't affect you? That whole mentality is the problem with our society "fuck you, I got mine!"

I'm being throttled now, so apologies in advance... I will respond more later, if you'd like to continue this discourse.

[–]Kuldebar[S] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (8子コメント)

The line that must be crossed is fairly clear: aggression and force.

A bigoted creep who runs a bar and refuses to serve people who he deems to be Hispanic is not aggressing, he's simply asserting his rights as a property owner in deciding how he manages his bar.

Now if he drives to a Hispanic family owned restaurant and torches the place, then the line has been crossed.

Bigoted short sighted people are often very happy and content just to be left alone to stew in their own bilious juices; often it is only until other people start forcing them to comply to actions and practices which they find personally unacceptable that the trouble starts brewing, often in violence.

It's much better for everyone to simply respect the rights and property of others, tolerate the bar owning bigot's sign that proclaims: "No Spics" Allowed!

Respect his right to property by not trespassing if you are unwelcome; or better yet, why give him any business in the first place?

[–]zeneval -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (7子コメント)

I don't disagree that the market can condone these sorts of problems... Hell, there's a reason the South is more impoverished than other parts of the United States. However, I don't think that really ultimately does anything to support freedom of those being discriminated against. Is it in support of freedom that you say, "hey person who is discriminated against, leave this shit behind and just move somewhere else where the population accepts you..." Seriously? When one grows up in a social/political/economic climate that is constantly fucking you, one cannot afford to simply move elsewhere. Does one not have the freedom to work? Nope, I guess not because the businesses have the freedom to discriminate. Is that seriously what you're arguing? If a business is going to be open to the public, they need to allow the public. Period. Otherwise they are not a business and they are not participating in the market, and thus the market cannot and will not "punish" them for being fucking bigots.

[–]Kuldebar[S] 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Hell, there's a reason the South is more impoverished than other parts of the United States

Well one major reason was being fucked royally hard for the better part of a century after the War Between the States. The South already had a dearth of manufacturing and industrial output and never caught up with the North in that regard, it's one of the reasons why slavery was an issue but not THE issue that led to the secession.

hey person who is discriminated against, leave this shit behind and just move somewhere else where the population accepts you..."

Pretty much, yes.

Tolerance requires this more often than not. One child may cry tears because they don't have a toy that another child is playing with, the solution isn't to rip the toy away from one child and give to the other. The solution would involve dialog and perspective and alternatives; but above all the acknowledgment that doing the right thing isn't always the easy thing.

If a business is going to be open to the public, they need to allow the public. Period.

Well, you just destroyed the underlying principle of property rights, congratulations on being a statist?

Otherwise they are not a business and they are not participating in the market, and thus the market cannot and will not "punish" them for being fucking bigots.

Yeah, that road has been well traveled, it's what's been destroying small businesses and the free market in general for decades. Barbershops have had to close because they are now required by a law to have "stylists" on staff to service female customers. But hey, that's cool, makes "society" so much better! Feel the love!

[–]zeneval -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

You're talking about human discrimination and hate like it's an argument between children over a TOY?

Hahahahaha! Are you fucking serious?!

Don't call me a statist either, you don't know me. Clearly you're incapable of thinking outside the box.

"Derp derp derp, he said if a business wants to operate in the public market then they need to allow the public to participate... Therefore, he must be a statist who doesn't support property rights."

Otherwise they are not a business and they are not participating in the market, and thus the market cannot and will not "punish" them for being fucking bigots.

Yeah, that road has been well traveled, it's what's been destroying small businesses and the free market in general for decades. Barbershops have had to close because they are now required by a law to have "stylists" on staff to service female customers. But hey, that's cool, makes "society" so much better! Feel the love!

What the hell are you talking about? Are you trying to divert the argument or something? What road has been well traveled? How has it destroyed small business, as you claim?

[–]Kuldebar[S] 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (4子コメント)

You're talking about human discrimination and hate like it's an argument between children over a TOY?

Hahahahaha! Are you fucking serious?!

You really have that hard of a time parsing a principle?

Really?

A punch in the face versus cutting off your ear with a machete, can we not agree that both are "violent" without you disclaiming:

You're talking about a punch and assault like it's a bloody attack where an ear is cut off?

Yes. Both are assaults. The principle is the same.

What the hell are you talking about? Are you trying to divert the argument or something? What road has been well traveled? How has it destroyed small business, as you claim?

It appears you have a core principle problem and that you are unable to contextualize value systems in a coherent structure in order to analyze human action.

This explains your problem that you are having here in this thread topic and most likely elsewhere in life.

[–]zeneval -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I'll see your ad hominem BS attack on my character and divert it right back to you. You're the one who compared lynching, discrimination, and racial issues to two children upset over a toy. It's NOT that simple, and if you really think it is, then you are a sociopath and are incapable of empathy. You're clearly incapable of abstract thought if you cannot reason as to why forcing a minority to move out of an area because the sociopolitical climate is not accepting of them is a fucking absurd example of FREEDOM.

Philosophy is one thing, reality is another.

[–]smash909egoist market anarchist 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (7子コメント)

I live in Norway so I have no experience, but many neo-confederates seem to stress the fact that they don't support slavery.

"Slavery is rarely mentioned, but if it is, it is usually not defended and is denied as a primary cause for the Confederacy's starting of the American Civil War. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Confederate#Tenets_of_neo-Confederate_beliefs

[–]cjmalloyWho needs roads when you have hovercars? 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Historically the primary reason for southern secession was slavery. It's very explicit. However, secession just happens to be a very good idea, despite the faulty reasoning used at the time.

[–]WashbagMacy's 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Historically the primary reason for southern secession was slavery. It's very explicit.

Can you back that up? What I've read supports the opposite.

[–]cjmalloyWho needs roads when you have hovercars? 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah it's from the episode of The Daily Show where they ambush Judge Napolitano. I'll see if I can find a better source and get back to you.

[–]smash909egoist market anarchist 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I was talking about the modern ones though.

[–]zeneval -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's still the same reason, whether Wikipedia says it or not. I'm from the south and grew up around that culture... trust me. These are people who pretend not to be racist, but the second they are behind closed doors, their true hateful personalities shine, and those are the "friendly" ones.

[–]cjmalloyWho needs roads when you have hovercars? -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I've heard modern secessionists claim that. Anyone who says people weren't racist 160 years ago is kidding themselves. Both sides of that conflict were racist and slavery was the political football of the day.

[–]Kuldebar[S] 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Racism wasn't even a term 160 years ago, so the whole debate is largely meaningless.

Most educated people of that time were taught by the institutional science of the day that Negroids were inferior in nearly every respect to the White Races.

Slavery was an institution in its own right having been in existence for thousands of years and not solely fixated on people from the African continent.

Yes, this is all rather unfortunate, but it helps to paint the setting of a long ago age in its proper light.