[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am amused by all the libertarians and anarchists fawning over Ron Paul given his stance on immigration:
"Paul's desire to secure U.S. borders remains a key topic in his 2008 presidential campaign. He opposes the North American Union proposition and its proposed integration of Mexico, the United States of America, and Canada. Paul voted "yes" on the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorizes the construction of an additional 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S and Mexico. Paul opposes illegal immigration as well as amnesty for illegal immigrants."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul
Aren't open borders a HUGE part of the libertarian and anarchist philosophies? So how are you guys able to look past such a major flaw (from a libertarian perspective) in his platform? You guys write off all democrats as evil because of their stances on taxes no matter how much they agree with you on other issues such as civil liberties and immigration. Yet Paul is a total immigration hawk, and he is not subject to the same disdain. Suspicious indeed.
I think it has something to do with the R next to his name. My theory is that a lot of libertarians are really closet Republicans, but are afraid to admit it. Don't worry gentlemen, we will welcome you with open arms once you overcome your identity crisis and admit it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Bickford is a jackass, but I think he's actually on to something in his own convoluted way. .
I've always sensed an undercurrent of Republicanesque racism and gun-toting hickishness among many libertarians. And I've always been curious as to why some ACers are the first to defend the Confederacy every time the topic of the Civil War is discussed. Yeah the Union was bad too and allowed slavery in some parts, but what about the fact that the Confederacy's primary reason for seceding was so that THEY COULD CONTINUE OWNING HUMAN BEINGS AS PROPERTY.
I think there's two types of libertarians/ACers in this forum, and in general:
1. Fake libertarians: ie "Get the government off MY back" (and who gives a [censored] about the government [censored] over gays and foreigners.)
2. Real libertarians: "Get the government off EVERYONE's back."
While virtually all libertarians claim to be in group 2, I think when push comes to shove, a lot are actually in Group 1, which bears close resemblance of the libertarian sect of the Republican party.
[/ QUOTE ]
Riddick and his various post-Riddick-ban accounts was ostensibly some kind of libertarian or anarchist, and he seemed like he was some kind of bigot. But others like neitzereznor and Shakezula seem like what I would call downright "progressive" regarding their views on race, if I recall their posts correctly.
I think racists hicks and anarchists just happen to share a strong strain of
anti-federalism, so they often sound alike. Racist hicks dislike
federalism because the federal government has more or less dismantled local government sponsored racism in the South; anarchists are
anti-federalist because they don't like big government. If anything, I'd claim bigots have co-opted more benign sounding
anti-federalist positions as a 'legitimate' cover for their racism, because their real agendas are rather untenable in contemporary America. "Uncle Sam can't tell me what to do!" is a bit more acceptable than "my state should be able to disallow black men from marrying white women".
[/ QUOTE ]
When I say "federalism" and "anti-federalist" here, I should really say "a strong federal government" instead of "federalism" and something like "anti big federal government" instead of "anti-federalist" -- just want to clarify.