Libertarianism as the Handmaiden to Socialism

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
If there were additional differences between the peoples involved than the colour of their skin pigmentation, would this change your conclusion?

No.

"Rules for thee but not for me" are an affront to Common Law.

Equal rights though requires an immense, intrusive government to enforce however.

Do they? England seemed to manage that not too badly for a few hundred years.

By the way, have you at all stopped to consider that enforcing discriminatory laws requires an, if not more, intrusive government as well? The Jim Crow laws were atrocious and had no business on the books.
 

DocSolarisReich

Esoteric Spaceman
No.

"Rules for thee but not for me" are an affront to Common Law.

So throwing the bit in about skin colour was just moral preening? Also the reason common law is common is that is common to a particular people. Other peoples have different laws. The King is the enforcer of all Traditions not just those of the Anglo-Saxon wards, and treating different peoples the same is an injustice, a High Tory aught to know this.
 

ParadiseLost

Well-known member
So throwing the bit in about skin colour was just moral preening? Also the reason common law is common is that is common to a particular people. Other peoples have different laws. The King is the enforcer of all Traditions not just those of the Anglo-Saxon wards, and treating different peoples the same is an injustice, a High Tory aught to know this.

All right, I'm cutting through all this skittishness and asking about the elephant in the room: are you a slavery apologist - yes or no?
 

JagerIV

Well-known member
Because citizens of the United States were being denied rights held by their fellow countryman on account of their skin colour.

That is unjust.

To play some devil's advocate, why is the relation between two men in Missouri the concern of a man in New York?

And what makes it more significant to a New Yorker than the relation between two men in Nigeria?

By a very stripped down super doctrinal libertarian outlook, if the terms of employment is between the employer and employee are a personal matter between the two, to be worked out by them, why is the relationship between the black Misourian people and the white Misourian people a private matter to be worked out by the involved parties?

Obviously, almost no libertarian sees things that way. Some may be comfortable with indeviduals behaving out of line with their principles, often unstate, but very few are comfortable with groups. Thus so many high level globalist libertarians.

I think it's these unstated but firmly believed premises that cause libertarianism as a movement so.much trouble.

After all, even you above de facto have came out in support that it was New York's duty to micromanage social relations in Misouri. Having demanded that New York do so, what grounds do you have to critize New York for doing so?

That above is more or less what i mean by the next logical step. Though admittedly its a different framing than one normally considers thing, though not i think an invalid one.
 

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
After all, even you above de facto have came out in support that it was New York's duty to micromanage social relations in Misouri. Having demanded that New York do so, what grounds do you have to critize New York for doing so?

Where did I say that? Jim Crow laws being codified law sets an alarming precedent. If a person wants to be an asshole, that's down to them (and to an extent, the business they own), but state enforced assholery? That's intolerable.
 

DocSolarisReich

Esoteric Spaceman
Where did I say that? Jim Crow laws being codified law sets an alarming precedent. If a person wants to be an asshole, that's down to them (and to an extent, the business they own), but state enforced assholery? That's intolerable.

Why? Under the colonial theory of popular sovereignty, does not the State belong to the people?
 

ShieldWife

Marchioness
Libertarians do harm in even using the term “equal rights” because the idea of equality is not only absurd but dangerous. Of course, people claim it just means equal before the law or something like that, but if that is all one means, they should just say that people have rights to x, y, or z rather than put the pernicious idea of equality on some sort of pedestal that will invariably empower the left.
 

ParadiseLost

Well-known member
Define 'slavery apologist' for me.

The fact that you're answer isn't an immediate no is all the answer needed.

You're far too educated to not know what apologist means and what the implications are.

To play some devil's advocate, why is the relation between two men in Missouri the concern of a man in New York?

And what makes it more significant to a New Yorker than the relation between two men in Nigeria?


That above is more or less what i mean by the next logical step. Though admittedly its a different framing than one normally considers thing, though not i think an invalid one.

It is absolutely invalid, because chattel slavery is not equivalent to a relationship. You're trying to create an equivalence that doesn't exist by replacing one word that is theoretically similar with another. A false equivalence.

Here's a similar example:

What concern is it to the farmer if I take an apple from the store?

What concern is it to the farmer if I steal an apple from the store?

In both cases, the farmer is technically not directly harmed by my removal of the apple from the store, but my taking the apple and my stealing the apple have different societal implications because my taking the apple includes the possibility that I am buying it. I am not required to steal the apple if I am just taking it. Similarly, the stealing of apples will on average have different societal implications than the taking of apples. Drawing a moral equivalence between these two words is just plain incorrect.
 

DocSolarisReich

Esoteric Spaceman
The fact that you're answer isn't an immediate no is all the answer needed.

You're far too educated to not know what apologist means and what the implications are.

I am aware of what the denotative meaning is in the dictionary, but this means little in the context of how you mean it. Your question actually appears to be 'do you hate slavery in all its forms' and my answer is 'this question is literal nonsense, we are all of us slaves, the only question is who is our master'.
 

JagerIV

Well-known member
Where did I say that? Jim Crow laws being codified law sets an alarming precedent. If a person wants to be an asshole, that's down to them (and to an extent, the business they own), but state enforced assholery? That's intolerable.

And who will stand against this state enforced assholery? You clearly weren't satisfied with local power, a negotiation between the locals, the outcome of which was "whites get these spaces and this powers, black have those powers".

Thus, your argument then is that its New York, through Washington, that is going to decide what acceptable laws are in Misouri and enforce its prefered racial order. That is what the civil rights movement was about, enforcing the Northern States prefered racial order upon unwilling local governemnts.

That may have even been the correct outcome, that imperial rule by New York over Misouri was the best course of action to maximize happlyness or whatever. Just as one could argue imperial rule of India by London which banned wife burning was superior to rule by the East India Company which allowed such practices in the name of harmony and not overly rocking the boat.

But, lets talk with honestly and clear eyes over what exactly is being demanded.
 

ParadiseLost

Well-known member
I am aware of what the denotative meaning is in the dictionary, but this means little in the context of how you mean it. Your question actually appears to be 'do you hate slavery in all its forms' and my answer is 'this question is literal nonsense, we are all of us slaves, the only question is who is our master'.

This is just sophistry via using obscure personal definitions of words.

If we're all slaves (which I think is a very dumb concept - words have meaning, and if you start trying to claim all humans are actually slaves by some indirect means your just diluting the meaning of the word slave), then very clearly we're talking about something else when we discuss Chattel Slavery in America than your 'universal slave idea' thing.

In fairness, I think he's talking about the Jim Crow laws instead of Slavery. Those laws were rather shit, but they aren't the same thing as slavery.

You run into the same problem, though - unnecessary and excessive oppression has larger scale impacts on society, and portraying it as just a 'relationship' is just torturing the meaning of a less bad sounding word.

And who will stand against this state enforced assholery? You clearly weren't satisfied with local power, a negotiation between the locals, the outcome of which was "whites get these spaces and this powers, black have those powers".

I wouldn't say 'literal cases of black people in the South getting shot just for daring to vote' can be called a 'negotiation'. Again, your replacing really ugly and true words with really bland and tortured, but less bad sounding, words.
 

DocSolarisReich

Esoteric Spaceman
This is just sophistry via using obscure personal definitions of words.

Not at all, all dialectic must begin with the definition of terms, because words are not the things they signify.

If we're all slaves (which I think is a very dumb concept - words have meaning, and if you start trying to claim all humans are actually slaves by some indirect means your just diluting the meaning of the word slave), then very clearly we're talking about something else when we discuss Chattel Slavery in America than your 'universal slave idea' thing.

Well I did ask you to define your terms.

You run into the same problem, though - unnecessary and excessive oppression has larger scale impacts on society, and portraying it as just a 'relationship' is just torturing the meaning of a less bad sounding word.

So if it was necessary it would be fine?
 

ParadiseLost

Well-known member
Not at all, all dialectic must begin with the definition of terms, because words are not the things they signify.

Okay, so define the word 'the.' And the word 'and.' And the word 'word.'

Words are assumed to have their standard definition. No more, no less.

So if it was necessary it would be fine?

Tentative yes, though I'd say 'necessary oppression' is pretty rare. A good example would be the occupation of Germany and Japan after WW2.
 

ShieldWife

Marchioness
The question that arises from the Jim Crow discussion is if a community of people should be allowed to, via their ability to create laws governing their community, exclude people who they feel are outside that community? Can Whitetown say that they are a town only for white people? Can Christiantown say that they are a town only for Christians?

Elsewhere in the world, such an idea would not be controversial in the slightest. In Africa, a place for blacks would be uncontroversial, in Asia a place for Asian would be as well. In the Middle East, a space only for Muslims would seem to be the most natural thing in the world, in fact even in Europe that’s true.

It is only in the West and only for whites that such an idea is considered the most terrible thing imaginable that must be opposed through any means necessary and cannot even be discussed among decent people.
 

ParadiseLost

Well-known member
Elsewhere in the world, such an idea would not be controversial in the slightest. In Africa, a place for blacks would be uncontroversial, in Asia a place for Asian would be as well. In the Middle East, a space only for Muslims would seem to be the most natural thing in the world, in fact even in Europe that’s true.

Partly because its not really relevant in any other part of the world except Europe, and Europe is going to pay dearly in the next century or so (maybe even earlier) for not properly integrating its immigrant population.

Africa is not someplace many people actually immigrate to, and when people do move to Africa, its largely neo-colonialism (there are countries in Africa where a decent part of the economy is controlled by an Indian or Chinese upper class, IIRC). Again, hardly beneficial, and Africa is really going to pay for having non-integrated immigrant communities over the next century.

Asia is again not really a big target for immigration, and when it is, the most successful targets tend to have highly integrated immigrant communities. Compare Singapore to the UAE or Qatar. Immigrants in Singapore are accepted and integrated and Singapore is a very successful country. Immigrants in the UAE or Qatar are basically a slave class... I guess that covers the Middle East as well.
 

ShieldWife

Marchioness
Partly because its not really relevant in any other part of the world except Europe, and Europe is going to pay dearly in the next century or so (maybe even earlier) for not properly integrating its immigrant population.
Europe is going to pay dearly for fanatically clinging to the demented notion that they should allow anyone into their nations who want to enter, that these people are even capable of integrating, or that the native population are somehow the villains when there isn’t integration.

Africa is not someplace many people actually immigrate to, and when people do move to Africa, its largely neo-colonialism (there are countries in Africa where a decent part of the economy is controlled by an Indian or Chinese upper class, IIRC). Again, hardly beneficial, and Africa is really going to pay for having non-integrated immigrant communities over the next century.
There currently aren’t large scale movements of immigrants into Africa, that is true, but there is immigration within Africa and there are diverse populations within Africa and there seems to be no concern about discrimination or segregation unless whites are the ones doing it.

Asia is again not really a big target for immigration, and when it is, the most successful targets tend to have highly integrated immigrant communities. Compare Singapore to the UAE or Qatar. Immigrants in Singapore are accepted and integrated and Singapore is a very successful country. Immigrants in the UAE or Qatar are basically a slave class... I guess that covers the Middle East as well.
Asia (at least many nations) certainly would be a desirable destination for immigrants, but they don’t have this insane self hating religion of multiculturalism. A foreigner going to an Asian nation must have something to offer and must conform to the nation, not like immigration into Western nations where the natives are expected to conform to the immigrants and to provide for them. Surely if Japan, for example, allowed anybody to come from around the world, the Japanese would likely be a minority within their own nation before long, just as we see in Western Europe.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top