Media Exaggerate Tea Party's Sway

Cochise said:

Contradiction.



Really? Glad to hear it. Ever met Arnold Herrera?

Click to expand...

I don't recall, it was years ago, early 90's.


Drum maker, Right?

Ad Hominem.

Come on, buddy, this game's getting tiresome. You're smarter than this; you can at least attempt to refute the central point.

Click to expand...

I have. Libertarian has to do with liberty, no taking my property and giving it to someone else because of the percieved injustices of another. :shrug:

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

I don't recall, it was years ago, early 90's.

Drum maker, Right?

Click to expand...

Yes, though that could have been quickly discovered on the Internet. But it's not important anyway; I have no way of knowing if you actually met the guy.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

I have. Libertarian has to do with liberty, no taking my property and giving it to someone else because of the percieved injustices of another. :shrug:

Click to expand...

And since property theft is wrong, stolen property must be returned. The argument runs like this:

1. Aggression and its consequences are wrong.

2. The consequences of aggression should be subject to rectification. If it means that someone has been stolen from, he ought to be repaid.

3. The current distribution of income, wealth, and property exists in the context of the corporate economy. This was created on the foundations of unjust dispossession of the indigenous, enslavement of Africans, state empowerment of monopolists (read some Lysander Spooner), and a long history of other state intervention in the economy. As a result, that distribution is a consequence of aggression.

4. Therefore, based on a foundational premise of the moral wrongness of aggression and its consequences, a foundational premise that the consequences ought to be rectified, and a foundational premise of the creation of current economic conditions by statism, my conclusion is that substantial redistribution and reparation is the only solution to this problem.

Not too difficult.

Cochise said:

This is the disagreement hierarchy that I’ll be referring to for the purposes of classification of some of these comments, since I’d like to have a real dialogue instead of all this nonsense.

Click to expand...

A real dialogue with whom? Seems to me you're far more enamored with the sound of your own voice.

Cochise said:

Name Calling.

There are consistent libertarians, and there are conservatives who pretend to be libertarians to gain a little street cred or whatever. Rothbard's the former kind. Harry Guerrilla and geopatric seem to be the former kind. The "libertarians" who have started screeching here seem to be the latter kind.

Click to expand...

So ... you're name calling. Noted.

Cochise said:

Have you actually read the libertarian classics and learned how to consistently apply principles of non-aggression? Most of the costumed Republicans don't seem to have done so. That's why so much of the most consistent and principled libertarian dialogue is on mises.org: https://mises.org/Community/forums/t/1343.aspx

Click to expand...

Yes, I have read them.

If you like the forum over at mises.org better, take your Indian ass over there instead.

Cochise said:

Contradiction.

And hell, you'd expect two-bit assertions to do even less. When property is stolen, recovery is the moral right of the owner. So, here's the issue that I've been posing: When the substantial legacy of past aggression has spawned the current distribution of income, wealth, and property, how is defense of that distribution libertarian, as it contains the false assumption that the corporate economy is a free market?

Click to expand...

False premise. Aggression did contribute to how we arrived at this point, but it is but a small part of it. And even if we were to grant that the whole system was built on aggression, from whom should property be taken? To whom should it be given? I never killed any Indians to get my land, and you never had any land stolen from you. And which land are you going to take? How can you prove that your great-great-great-great grandfather owned this land? The simple answer is that you can't. (As an aside, this is basically the reason for the common law doctrine of adverse possession ... a doctrine by which you would still lose.)

In any event, you using the government as your proxy to initiate force to take what is mine does not fit in any libertarian paradigm.

Cochise said:

Please answer that with an actual argument, if you can.

Click to expand...

You're welcome. Feel free to take notes, if you can.

Cochise said:

Responding to Tone.

Your comment's not accurate, though. Guilt by irrelevant association is fallacious:

1. Hitler had a mustache.

2. Hitler had evil goals.

3. Men with mustaches have evil goals.

Guilt by relevant association is not.

1. Hitler oversaw the genocide and attempted genocide of peoples he despised, committing monstrous acts of aggression.

2. Hitler had evil goals (and the evil goals were directly related to premise 1).

3. Those with an interest in advocating such genocide and aggression have evil goals.

If I point out similarities in ideological and political opinions between white supremacists and others and the similarities are related to principles foundational to white supremacist doctrines, such as the employment of authoritarian social policies against racial and ethnic minorities, that is a relevant association. It reveals what should be an unacceptably close mindset.

Click to expand...

Yeah. So where is the "advocating ... genocide and aggression" happening?

Cochise said:

Let's not deceive ourselves: If I had been ignorant of the topic, you would have pulled out Kennewick Man and declared him a devastating refutation of the very foundations of my beliefs. I never claimed that you had connections to Stormfront; I was trying to show you the shallow nature of claims that Native Americans are not the oldest residents of this hemisphere. I was hoping that you'd be revolted enough by what's on Scumfront to reconsider.

Click to expand...

You're doing an adequate job of decieving yourself, it would seem. I'd never heard of Kennewick Man before you brought it up.

And wrong, at that. Telling me that I “sidestepped” anything is nothing but ironic, since you ignored the majority of my post to simply comment on Stormfront, rather than address the central point. I strongly emphasized the fact that your hypothetical situation would be irrelevant unless such aggression had an impact on the current conditions of the Ainu...... etc etc etc etc

Click to expand...

No sir. I asked you a hypothetical question, pulling the Ainu out of my memory simply because they are an aboriginal people whose origin was uncertain. My question to you was if you would hold the same position if the shoe was on the other foot; namely if people of "your kind" stood to lose everything because of reparations for some ancient wrong your distant ancestors had done to someone else's distant ancestors.

You didn't answer my question, instead you brought Stormfront into it... "straw man", making it seem as if my question was associated with neo-nazi racism rather than simply answering the damn question. Forget the Ainu, who cares who it could be, it's a hypothetical question about whether you'd hold the same position, if you and those you consider your own people were being told they should lose all in reparations for some ancient wrong against some other people.

You don't want to answer the question straight up, because you know darn well that answering in the affirmative leaves you open to charges of hypocrisy. Hardly anyone living is such an utter saint that they'd be perfectly content to see themselves and everyone they consider "their people" lose everything over an old wrong committed by long-dead people, against long-dead people.

Cochise said:

Yes, though that could have been quickly discovered on the Internet. But it's not important anyway; I have no way of knowing if you actually met the guy.

Click to expand...

Like i said i dont recall. But i mean i mus. Have run to google to impress you that i knew of a drum maker :ssst:

:lol:

And since property theft is wrong, stolen property must be returned. The argument runs like this:

1. Aggression and its consequences are wrong.

2. The consequences of aggression should be subject to rectification. If it means that someone has been stolen from, he ought to be repaid.

3. The current distribution of income, wealth, and property exists in the context of the corporate economy. This was created on the foundations of unjust dispossession of the indigenous, enslavement of Africans, state empowerment of monopolists (read some Lysander Spooner), and a long history of other state intervention in the economy. As a result, that distribution is a consequence of aggression.

4. Therefore, based on a foundational premise of the moral wrongness of aggression and its consequences, a foundational premise that the consequences ought to be rectified, and a foundational premise of the creation of current economic conditions by statism, my conclusion is that substantial redistribution and reparation is the only solution to this problem.

Not too difficult.

Click to expand...

You are correct. It's not too difficult. I never took your land or money therefore you have no right to mine. Libertarianism 101.