DocSolarisReich
Esoteric Spaceman
Right? Move to Japan and claim to be 'just as Japanese as anyone born there'. I double-dog dare you.
Libertarianism as the Handmaiden to Socialism
- Thread starter JagerIV
- Start date
Right? Move to Japan and claim to be 'just as Japanese as anyone born there'. I double-dog dare you.
DocSolarisReich
Esoteric Spaceman
Every ancestral homeland under the sun was taken from some other people by force of arms. Everyone is non-Native in the terms of third worldist anticolonialism narratives and yet everyone is actually Native to the particular place they were, you know, actually born, in the same way that everyone living shares the quality of having an actual mother and father.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Yes, the power negotiation in Misouri produced outcomes we found unfair. If you want to rephase it, the whites and blacks had a political fight over the post civil war political order, and the blacks lost. Just as in Iraq the sunis and shias had apolitical fight over post colonial political order, and through Saddam the Shiites lost.
Both were not particularly kind to the loser of the political battle, though Saddam was probably crueler.
Having stated that cruelty to a political loser was taking place in a local political conflict, could you now outline the moral principle at play is that justifies outside involvment?
Once we have the clear principle, then we can figure out if it has a slippery slope to socialism, or at least if its properly libertarian in any way.
Because right now, it seems to be some sort of white mans burden granting an infinite right and duty to interfer in anyone's matter when we don't like the outcome of local conditions, which basically mandates Socialists taking power.
What are you talking about? You believe equality before the law by any reasonble definition of that term was a core part of the laws made in the Times of peasants, yeyomen and barons?
Or that equality was a core part of england for hundreds of years? Is wives not really having property separate from their husbands and about 5% of the population voting equality?
By raw share of the population which could vote, the deepest part of the South of the 1910s was a good 10x as democratic as England of the 1910s and probably much more "equal" too, having only 2 broad classes of people, who had their own separate power structures.
England in 1910 might have been a nicer place to be than the deep south (though I'm sure some of the awfulness is exagerated, in the way the Irish famine stands in for what it was like to live in Irland under British rule, which in sure was not quite that consistently awful). But, Englands pluses did not come from being more democratic or equal than the deep south, since it was neither.
I am a bit confused how one can be high Tory and pro democracy and equality. It seems somewhat contrary with what they fight for by my understanding.
Both were not particularly kind to the loser of the political battle, though Saddam was probably crueler.
Having stated that cruelty to a political loser was taking place in a local political conflict, could you now outline the moral principle at play is that justifies outside involvment?
Once we have the clear principle, then we can figure out if it has a slippery slope to socialism, or at least if its properly libertarian in any way.
Because right now, it seems to be some sort of white mans burden granting an infinite right and duty to interfer in anyone's matter when we don't like the outcome of local conditions, which basically mandates Socialists taking power.
What are you talking about? You believe equality before the law by any reasonble definition of that term was a core part of the laws made in the Times of peasants, yeyomen and barons?
Or that equality was a core part of england for hundreds of years? Is wives not really having property separate from their husbands and about 5% of the population voting equality?
By raw share of the population which could vote, the deepest part of the South of the 1910s was a good 10x as democratic as England of the 1910s and probably much more "equal" too, having only 2 broad classes of people, who had their own separate power structures.
England in 1910 might have been a nicer place to be than the deep south (though I'm sure some of the awfulness is exagerated, in the way the Irish famine stands in for what it was like to live in Irland under British rule, which in sure was not quite that consistently awful). But, Englands pluses did not come from being more democratic or equal than the deep south, since it was neither.
I am a bit confused how one can be high Tory and pro democracy and equality. It seems somewhat contrary with what they fight for by my understanding.
Last edited:
ParadiseLost
Well-known member
Navarro
Well-known member
Another issue here is also that by his own logic he has no real reason to find fault with whatever he's complaining about. "New York" and "Missouri" fought a local political conflict within the USA - "Missouri" lost. Vae victis.
DocSolarisReich
Esoteric Spaceman
If I understand his argument thus far, he would be fine with a declaration of Vae Victis. He just prefers honesty if that is to be the standard, not BS moralistic sentimental preening.
If thats the standard were using, sure. Washington fought misouri and Saddam, Washington won, therefore washingron has a right and duty to shape Misouri and Iraq into Washingtons image.
That however isnt a particularly libertarian argument. But, if we want to argue libertarianism is just a tool for Washington to wield power against the weak, well, that's basically the argument the initial videos make in libertarianism being the handmaiden of socialism: libertarianism weakens and ideally destroys local power structures, so that once one comes in to implement the socialist/greater power structure, there's less to resist it.
Edit
@ParadiseLost the goal of the analogy is to try to weed out what moral principle your asserting.
My analogy are marking the similarities between situations in sure you feel are different. They're situations I reconize as different.
The point is ferreting out why you feel they're different: why, at a guess, do you feel protecting the Shiites from being oppressed by a minority not a legitimate activity, but a majority (whites in almost any Southern state) oppressing a minority is a grave moral affront that demands Washington denying local rule?
Does libertarianism allow self determination of a local community if that communities desires are counter to the "leftist" world view? Or is foreign rule perfectly acceptable as long as the foreign power enforces the locals to conform to proper leftism?
Trying to get at these implicit beliefs, such as whether libertarians really believe in freedom in general, or merely freedom to be libertarian/leftist/liberal/bugmen are one of the things being explored by the initial vidoes.
Last edited:
Prince Ire
Section XIII
Imagine thinking that modernity consists in technology and not modes of thought and ways of looking at the world.
Do we really have to do these ridiculous definitional games? But fine, do you believe that American chattel slavery was good or bad?
ShieldWife
Marchioness
It was absolutely wrong. I think it was a mistake in this thread to conflate segregation and/or discrimination with slavery, they are entirely different.
DocSolarisReich
Esoteric Spaceman
Carefully defining the terms under discussion is critically important even when people are on the same page and trust each other to argue in good faith.
Neither of which necessarily hold in this case.
If you must know, I view all forms of corvee labour, including the chattel slavery practiced in the antebellum South to be a morally neutral question of the prudential order.
Its not what I would have done, but I am not the one who was there, and refuse to judge the men who were, seeing as they are my ancestors and brothers in Christ.
yeah, segregation and discriminations are definitely different than slavery. I sometimes think the instinct to automatically emote at it as bad without any real thought drives a similar instinct in more leftist circles to emote negatively at nationalism and nations, which are basically institutionalized segregation and discrimination. Germany exists to keep the non-germans out (or maybe now to keep the germans in).
Ireland as a State exists explicitly to keep the English out of Ireland. But, despite the State of Ireland and color codes basically both existing to keep people the creators of those institutions didn't like out, people are very uncomfortable with that blurred line and want a hard break between them, which I'm not really sure exists.
But, if we must talk about slavery, from my current position of ambiliance on many topics (as I said earlier, a disillusioned librarian who hasn't really settled on a new set code), slavery becomes a bit less morally clear when one salami slices to it.
For example, lets say I voluntarily sign myself into slavery, say for a set period of 20 years in exchange for some non-monetary guarantees. Did I commit some grave moral sin? Did the person I signed the contract with commit a grave moral sin by agreeing to such a contract?
Or, to come at it from another scale, Country A sells a plot of land to country B. Implicit in the sale is the transfer of 100,000 people who lived on that land from one country to another. Did either country commit some great sin by selling these 100,000 people between themselves as part of the treaty?
To dig down a little closer to the Antibellum, when a peasant has his obligation set down between his family and the lords family, and those obligations stretch between generation, is a great moral harm done?
Now, I do agree that starting from the assumption that slavery is bad is not a bad knee jerk initial reaction (when I hear that slavery is come back in Lybia, I feel quite comfortable with my default assumption that some sort of injustice is going on over there), but I'm not really sure it deserves its current status as THE great evil, rather than simply being "a" evil. It seems to short circuit the ability to have a reasoned, calm discussion on a topic.
Hell, even a couple of years ago I remember being able to have a fairly calm conversation with, I think his name was something like firefox? over at spacebattles over this, and these kinds of talks, like how harsh of a contract could one sign up to and still be okay within a liberarian framework, or how multi generation commitments could work, were interesting points of discussion with my fellow libertarians in college! Slavery and intergenerational compacts are actually quite interesting intellectual exercises! That we have great trouble engaging with either is a shame.
Ireland as a State exists explicitly to keep the English out of Ireland. But, despite the State of Ireland and color codes basically both existing to keep people the creators of those institutions didn't like out, people are very uncomfortable with that blurred line and want a hard break between them, which I'm not really sure exists.
But, if we must talk about slavery, from my current position of ambiliance on many topics (as I said earlier, a disillusioned librarian who hasn't really settled on a new set code), slavery becomes a bit less morally clear when one salami slices to it.
For example, lets say I voluntarily sign myself into slavery, say for a set period of 20 years in exchange for some non-monetary guarantees. Did I commit some grave moral sin? Did the person I signed the contract with commit a grave moral sin by agreeing to such a contract?
Or, to come at it from another scale, Country A sells a plot of land to country B. Implicit in the sale is the transfer of 100,000 people who lived on that land from one country to another. Did either country commit some great sin by selling these 100,000 people between themselves as part of the treaty?
To dig down a little closer to the Antibellum, when a peasant has his obligation set down between his family and the lords family, and those obligations stretch between generation, is a great moral harm done?
Now, I do agree that starting from the assumption that slavery is bad is not a bad knee jerk initial reaction (when I hear that slavery is come back in Lybia, I feel quite comfortable with my default assumption that some sort of injustice is going on over there), but I'm not really sure it deserves its current status as THE great evil, rather than simply being "a" evil. It seems to short circuit the ability to have a reasoned, calm discussion on a topic.
Hell, even a couple of years ago I remember being able to have a fairly calm conversation with, I think his name was something like firefox? over at spacebattles over this, and these kinds of talks, like how harsh of a contract could one sign up to and still be okay within a liberarian framework, or how multi generation commitments could work, were interesting points of discussion with my fellow libertarians in college! Slavery and intergenerational compacts are actually quite interesting intellectual exercises! That we have great trouble engaging with either is a shame.
Last edited:
No, this is systematically and fundamentally wrong.
Washington and New York did not create those standards, all the States did under the US Constitution. The Jim Crow Laws were an affront to the Constitution of the United States on multiple levels. One can make arguments against the Jim Crow laws under Article 1, Section 10, the "Obligation of Contracts Law", under Article 4, Section 2, the "Privileges and Immunities" clause, Article 4, Section 4 under the "republican form of government" clause, the 6th Amendment, and, of course, the 14th Amendment, Section 1 and the 15th Amendment.
The fact that the US Supreme Court did not strike down the Jim Crow laws as an affront to all those sections of the US Constitution is one of the greatest malpractices of justice in the court's history.
Hm, this seems to be in the vein of a Roe vs Wade level arguement. Excluding the 14th and 15th ammendments, which were literally forced upon the South by New York/Washington on account of the whole, losing a war thing, you seem to be arguing that laws which considered slavery acceptable would not consider Jim Crow acceptable.
The Republican government part seems particularly odd, given that the Romans had a Republican government for a good long while and rules that make Jim Crow extremely tame, with many ranks of citizen/subjectness.
Insisting Republicanism requires anything that would necessarily negate slavery, let alone Jim Crow, seems odd.
The Republican government part seems particularly odd, given that the Romans had a Republican government for a good long while and rules that make Jim Crow extremely tame, with many ranks of citizen/subjectness.
Insisting Republicanism requires anything that would necessarily negate slavery, let alone Jim Crow, seems odd.
I'm not? I was speaking specifically of Jim Crow laws, not slavery. Though slavery was always at odds with the government the Framers were setting up. They knew it too, which is why slavery has special carveouts for it in the Constitution.
And these are not "Roe v Wade" levels of argumentation. For instance, Jim Crow laws specifically seem to violate the Obligations of Contract because it interjects a government restriction into private contract interactions between two citizens, if a business wanted to hire a freeman or a bus company wanted to let them sit anywhere they wanted so long as they were paying customers, they were not allowed to, they were required BY LAW to segregate and not to enter into certain kinds of contracts. Further the "Privileges and Immunities" clause, while more narrow, was violated as a freeman from another state that did not have such segregation was forced to be segregated when they traveled to a state under Jim Crow (I would also note that Jim Crow's miscegenation laws violated the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution on their face, as might other aspects of Jim Crow).
Also, what is your obsession with New York? New York was hardly the main mover of the Union when it came to the Civil War, the policies leading up to it, and the abolition of slavery. I will grant that they were forced upon the defeated Confederacy, which, for the vast majority of it had no case for secession and were just throwing a temper tantrum over losing a Presidential election. The 14th Amendment was authored by United States Congressional Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which was cochaired by representatives from Maine and Pennsylvania, and only had two members from New York, with the largest contingents being from the mid-Atlantic (and made up a mix of representatives from Slave and Free states) and the Mid-West.
New York stands in for Rome and more clearly states the separate cultural/ethnic group enforcing the rules on the other parts of the federation.
Same point in alternating between saying "Brussels did x" vs saying "Germany did x", even if both are nominally done by brussels.
Same reason we say the US fought the Korean War, rather than the UN fought the Korean war.
Edit: I will also note that at this point were moving into pointless legal arguments. The law means whatever the political power says they mean. Or, more specifically, once morally determining what your goal is, the law merely determines how one implements ones desires.
To take your obligation of contract claus, by the plain reading it only protects prior contracts, not new ones, so at best you would merely have to grandfather in pre existing contracts.
Furthermore, the 1937 decisions as part of the new deal negated much of any protection of already existing contracts, greatly expanding the policing power exception, with the exception eventually expanding to "broad social interst" being all that's required to nullify existing contract.
So, by at least the 1930s, the obligation of contract as understood would provide zero counter him crow laws.
But, obviously, that doesnt matter. If a anti Jim Crow judge figured they could strike at Jim Crow with the obligation of contract claus, they I'm sure would perfectly happily apply it narrowly just to Jim Crow and nothing else. And vice versa, of course.
You start with what outcome you want, and work backwards to figure out how its legal. That's how law works.
Thus it being a fairly uninteresting topic to discuss.
Same point in alternating between saying "Brussels did x" vs saying "Germany did x", even if both are nominally done by brussels.
Same reason we say the US fought the Korean War, rather than the UN fought the Korean war.
Edit: I will also note that at this point were moving into pointless legal arguments. The law means whatever the political power says they mean. Or, more specifically, once morally determining what your goal is, the law merely determines how one implements ones desires.
To take your obligation of contract claus, by the plain reading it only protects prior contracts, not new ones, so at best you would merely have to grandfather in pre existing contracts.
Furthermore, the 1937 decisions as part of the new deal negated much of any protection of already existing contracts, greatly expanding the policing power exception, with the exception eventually expanding to "broad social interst" being all that's required to nullify existing contract.
So, by at least the 1930s, the obligation of contract as understood would provide zero counter him crow laws.
But, obviously, that doesnt matter. If a anti Jim Crow judge figured they could strike at Jim Crow with the obligation of contract claus, they I'm sure would perfectly happily apply it narrowly just to Jim Crow and nothing else. And vice versa, of course.
You start with what outcome you want, and work backwards to figure out how its legal. That's how law works.
Thus it being a fairly uninteresting topic to discuss.
Last edited:
I'm saying the legal arguments are boring and pointless, law is downstream of political power. The Law will be either pro Jim Crow or Anti Jim Crow depending on what the powers that be wish to be.
The moral arguments which effect what people wish to be are interesting, and it's those underlying moral principles that suggest libertarianism may be a handmaiden for socialism/globalism.
Thus the questions of how one morally justifies anti Jim Crow without also morally justifying anti nationalism.
The counter argurments seem to be pushing things in the direction of "yes", and the logical end outcome of libertarian principles as they seem to act in the real world seems to push for the eventual leftist world state.
That we don't like the logical outcome of what we push doesnt really justify sticking our fingers in our ears and yelling "la la la not listening! Obviously segregation and nationalism are totally different things and there's nothing to wrestle with here!"
Edit:
You seem to be close to arguing that bad arguments should be allowed to stand as long as they reach the right conclusion. So, even if the anti slavery argument being put forward strikes me as a flawed argument, because its reaching the right conclusion, it should not be challenged?
I would prefer one not make any discussion of slavery a thought terminating statement.
Last edited: