Ron Paul on CNN at 7EST tonite (5/16)

[DVaut1]

[ 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.

[goodsamaritan]

Borodog,

I am not talking about attacking Lincoln. I specifically remember instances in which some posters suggested that the Confederacy was a more legitimate government than the Union and that they had a right to secede. I found such a stance odd coming from individuals who supposedly believed that all governments were illegitimate. Inherent in an affirmation of the Confedracy's right to secede is an affirmation of the Confedracy's right to exist as a government (a government that would have no doubt condoned and promote massive human rights violations).

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Borodog,

I am not talking about attacking Lincoln. I specifically remember instances in which some posters suggested that the Confederacy was a more legitimate government than the Union

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what "more legitimate government" means. I do know that the Confederacy had a better Constitution, in that it did away with the insidious "General Welfare" clause, explicitly outlawed "internal improvement subsidies" (what we would call corporate welfare these days), had the line item veto, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
and that they had a right to secede.

[/ QUOTE ]

They did. How can any sane person claim that they didn't? The Union was formed voluntarily by supposedly sovereign states; anyone claiming that those states didn't have the right to quit when they saw fit has no understanding of US history. All of the founding fathers explicitly wrote that of course the states had the right to secede. Talk of secession had boiled in various parts of the country, north and south, for the first 70 years of the country's history, practically from the get go. It was one of the major things that kept the Federal government in check.

[ QUOTE ]
I found such a stance odd coming from individuals who supposedly believed that all governments were illegitimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only some anarchists believe that "all governments are illegitimate". Personally, I don't think such a statement has any meaning. Government exists because most people (wrongly) believe that it is necessary. "Legitimacy" is a vague and poorly defined word, prone to abuse and misinterpretation.

[ QUOTE ]
Inherent in an affirmation of the Confedracy's right to secede is an affirmation of the Confedracy's right to exist as a government (a government that would have no doubt condoned and promote massive human rights violations).

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're conflating two different arguments: 1) governments are bad and 2) The secession of states from the US was legal. That (1) is true does not magically make (2) false.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Borodog,

I am not talking about attacking Lincoln. I specifically remember instances in which some posters suggested that the Confederacy was a more legitimate government than the Union and that they had a right to secede. I found such a stance odd coming from individuals who supposedly believed that all governments were illegitimate. Inherent in an affirmation of the Confedracy's right to secede is an affirmation of the Confedracy's right to exist as a government (a government that would have no doubt condoned and promote massive human rights violations).

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe it's possible for a government to be legitimate, we just don't have any. The second thing required for a legitimate government would be allowing portions of the country to break off and do their own thing if they want to. (the first would be setting up an "anarchy zone" for people who aren't satisfied with any level of government) Note that means I'm placing the right to secession as above almost all else.

[goodsamaritan]

Borodog,

The legality of secession under the Constitution is irrelevant. I'm talking about the morality of secession.

If the Southern states had seceded and then attempted to establish AC land, I would not see any inconsistency with defending them. But even if the Confederate constitution was better than the US Constitution is some respects, that does nothing to mitigate the atrociousness of the Confederacy in other respects.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Borodog,

The legality of secession under the Constitution is irrelevant. I'm talking about the morality of secession.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it immoral to quit an organization you are a voluntary member of? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] If I cancel my gym membership am I immoral?

[ QUOTE ]
If the Southern states had seceded and then attempted to establish AC land, I would not see any inconsistency with defending them. But even if the Confederate constitution was better than the US Constitution is some respects, that does nothing to mitigate the atrociousness of the Confederacy in other respects.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slavery was legal in the United States when the Confederate States seceded, so the USA certainly didn't hold any moral high ground there. Furthermore, it was the north that was plundering the south through atrocious tarrif policies, not the reverse. So I fail to see how the CSA could have been any more atrocious than the USA.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am amused by all the libertarians and anarchists fawning over Ron Paul given his stance on immigration:

[/ QUOTE ]

He is wrong on immigration. I have no problem admitting that, and I said so to my friends when discussing Paul. Dead wrong on one issue. He's right on just about everything else though. This makes him a lot closer to my views than any other D or R I ever read about, Goldwater included.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a common tactic from poor debaters. If you're picking between a limited number of choices, and you pick one that doesn't meet some particular criteria, you must be some sort of hypocrite, even if the other choices are objectively much, much worse given your personal preferences.

[goodsamaritan]

Ok, it is not the secession itself that I am saying is immoral. The subsequent founding of another state is what was immoral. Again, if the secessionists dissolved the government entirely, I would have no problem with it.

Your analogy of the gym membership is flawed because the secessionists never asked the citizens of their own state whether they wanted to continue to be a part of the state. Following your analogy, they voluntarily withdrew from the gym, but then *forced* people to join a "better" gym.

The only people who were *voluntarily* a part of anything were those who ratified the constitution back in the 1780s.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Uh, no? It wasn't? It was over tarrif policy. Have you READ Lincoln's First Inaugural Address? It basically says, "Keep paying the tarrifs and nobody gets hurt." Seceding after Lincoln's election so that THEY COULD CONTINUE OWNING HUMAN BEINGS AS PROPERTY would be pretty [censored] silly, seeing as Lincoln explicitly said that that he had no aims to PREVENT THEM FROM CONTINUING TO OWN HUMAN BEINGS AS PROPERTY in his inaugural address.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go further. Look at his actual policy. The Emancipation Proclamation only ended slavery in areas still in active rebellion (i.e. areas where Lincoln had no authority). It explicitly did NOT end it in the border states, or in areas already conquered by union forces. It's pure propoganda. And effective.

[goodsamaritan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am amused by all the libertarians and anarchists fawning over Ron Paul given his stance on immigration:

[/ QUOTE ]

He is wrong on immigration. I have no problem admitting that, and I said so to my friends when discussing Paul. Dead wrong on one issue. He's right on just about everything else though. This makes him a lot closer to my views than any other D or R I ever read about, Goldwater included.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a common tactic from poor debaters. If you're picking between a limited number of choices, and you pick one that doesn't meet some particular criteria, you must be some sort of hypocrite, even if the other choices are objectively much, much worse given your personal preferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a lot of people in this forum do the exact same thing: ie criticizing others for saying that the democrats or republicans are the lesser of two evils.