Conservative Racists

[Havet]

As many of you already guessed, I can be considered a libertarian. Even though I do not agree with some of your ideas on economics, I agree with many of your ideas regarding personal liberty. This is why i almost choke off when listening to some conservatives talking of immigrants and races.

Here are some of the things they have said in a forum I have visited:


When my husband was laid off for 3 years, we looked into emigrating to other countries. Guess what? They won't take us, and we didn't force our way in....why would you think we should treat other people from other countries better than they treat us?

Why is it other countries preserve jobs for their own citizen but our country doesn't?

So here we are, trying to make our country better for ourselves and our family rather than illegal sneak into someone else's country and you think it's just fine with they sneak into ours...why is it the law abiding people always have to pay for the illegals? Why is it WE have to suffer because they CHOSE to come here illegally?

I replied to the bolded part with:


so...

If other countries murder, enslave and steal you think you should do it as well? Interesting logic...

They also resort to these scientific statistics that prove how average non-white races have lower IQs than white race...


It means the average IQ of blacks as a group is 15 points lower than the average IQ of whites as a group. So, as the stats go, 10 percent of blacks have an IQ higher than the average white.

On the other hand, this means that 90 percent of blacks have an IQ LOWER than the average white.

That's significant.

I couldn't stop expressing my opinion on this:


what does it matter whether scientific statistics show that some race is smarter than other? Are you going to negate life, liberty and property to a racially different person because of that? Is it justifiable to murder, enslave or steal someone because of that?

If so, why?

There are many people from the "white race" that are mentally retarded. Since they are less smart, would you murder, enslave or steal them as well?

If so, why?


Also, the choice for their threads title is very narrow...

"Poll: Is the white race being exterminated, and what should be done about it?"

"Another Illegal Kills Another White Girl"

What do you guys think of their arguments and of the way I have argued them? What other important points would you add?

If you are interested, check out the general thread titles here (http://www.usmessageboard.com/immigration-illegal-immigration/)

[IcarusAngel]

Conservatives are backwards thinkers but a few online nutcases do not represent the majority of conservatives in the world or even here in the US. For some reason the dumbest and most racist people online and on youtube comments and so on are conservatives and libertarians, and they act like morons.

In fact, the only youtube racists I know are a Misean and an anarcho-capitalists who claims every white person who acts black is a "nigger."

Also, the only people I know who are seriously promoting racial ideas are libertarians; professional conservatives usually just try and claim leftists are the racists.

People like Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Charles Murray, the Cato Institute, the pioneer fund (which has become more Libertarian), Rushton, etc. are responsible for the racism that exists in society. Mises also said racist and nationalist crap. They do this because they believe the "problems" with other cultures is not the capitalism and colonialism that they have suffered, but because they have low IQs. The "world IQ map" was designed by Libertarians. I've also had Libertarians on the internet tell me that the border should all become "private property" so that no one could cross it.

Conservatives have had the following scientists and philosophers to their name: Burke, Newton, John McCarthy (famous computer scientist), Dennis Ritchie (C programming language). Also, Hobbes and Berkeley.

Libertarians have never had a famous scientist or philosopher to their name.

[Havet]

Conservatives are backwards thinkers but a few online nutcases do not represent the majority of conservatives in the world or even here in the US. For some reason the dumbest and most racist people online and on youtube comments and so on are conservatives and libertarians, and they act like morons.

In fact, the only youtube racists I know are a Misean and an anarcho-capitalists who claims every white person who acts black is a "nigger."

Also, the only people I know who are seriously promoting racial ideas are libertarians; professional conservatives usually just try and claim leftists are the racists.

People like Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Charles Murray, the Cato Institute, the pioneer fund (which has become more Libertarian), Rushton, etc. are responsible for the racism that exists in society. Mises also said racist and nationalist crap. They do this because they believe the "problems" with other cultures is not the capitalism and colonialism that they have suffered, but because they have low IQs. The "world IQ map" was designed by Libertarians. I've also had Libertarians on the internet tell me that the border should all become "private property" so that no one could cross it.

Conservatives have had the following scientists and philosophers to their name: Burke, Newton, John McCarthy (famous computer scientist), Dennis Ritchie (C programming language). Also, Hobbes and Berkeley.

Libertarians have never had a famous scientist or philosopher to their name.

Just as a few nutcases conservatives do not represent the majority, so do a few nutcases libertarians or anarcho-capitalists do not represent the majority regarding racial ideas...It's your same argument, applied elsewhere.

Perhaps you could show examples of how those people and institutes promoted racial ideas? Even if they did, do you really think you should "collectivize" those individual opinions to the whole of a category, be it the institution or the political ideology?

I tell you, there are stupid people everywhere from every form of political ideology to actually believe "mapping the world IQ" would be of any use except as a curiosity, rather than a fact used to impose legislation, and that borders should be private property, which is ridiculous because firstly, borders are just imaginary lines in the sand, and since, USUALLY, libertarians advocate personal liberty, then it is only natural they would be against immigration laws. Like i said, however, there are incredibly naive people everywhere, and just because a racist tells you he is libertarian, you can judge it yourself by the types of measures he proposes.

There are Libertarian philosophers who are considerably known: John Locke, Ayn Rand, P.Proudhon, M. Bakunin, Lysander Spooner, etc. Info found here (http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/FAQquotes/index.html)

I'll grant you there aren't any famous libertarian scientists however. Anyway, what does it matter? It's a recent movement, so it's natural they don't have as much people as older movements such as the left and the right.

[Kronos]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

I think this movie best demonstrates what liberalism will have caused on earth five hundred years from now.

[IcarusAngel]

There are Libertarian philosophers who are considerably known: John Locke, Ayn Rand, P.Proudhon, M. Bakunin, Lysander Spooner, etc. Info found here (http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/FAQquotes/index.html)

I'll grant you there aren't any famous libertarian scientists however. Anyway, what does it matter? It's a recent movement, so it's natural they don't have as much people as older movements such as the left and the right.

John Locke was around when modern science started coming into vogue, so if he was a Libertarian, then Libertarians should have MORE scientists than the socialists, as socialists came later in the game.

As usual you make no sense, because you get facts wrong. Modern Libertarianism really did start with Rand, and is a derivative from that. Of course it does have some influence from people like Hayek and von Mises and bogus economists, and then it may have taken an idea here or there from classical liberals.

However, none of those people ever considered themselves Libertarian or pure free-market capitalists, including Rand, who even criticized Libertarians. She is the only one close to Libertarians and she is more L. Ron Hubbard than a serious philosopher.

To be a Libertarian you have to agree that everything can become property and that people can own it indefinitely so long as they get it through a "free-market".

Locke: Taught that the earth was owned in common and thus people have a ground rent to pay on it. Believed unused property could be taken away from the capitalist (or owner). Believed in Locke's provisio, which meant that no one could take more land if it started hurting other people.

Not a Libertarian.

Proudhon: Not a libertarian, but in fact a leftist.

Tucker: Clearly not a Libertarian as he openly opposed the "landed monopoly" of the capitalist.

For example, he would say modern corporations need to be broken up and made smaller, whereas Libertarians disagree with this and want them to be privatized.

Spooner: he also opposed wage slavery, monopolies, etc., and didn't like the idea of people having to rent themselves to survive.

In this, he was an anti-capitalist.

Bakunin: Clearly a leftist lol.

[#FF0000]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

I think this movie best demonstrates what liberalism will have caused on earth five hundred years from now.


The film tells the story of two ordinary people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everyman) who are taken into a top-secret military hibernation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibernation) experiment that goes awry, and awaken 500 years in the future. They discover that the world has degenerated into a dystopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystopia) where advertising (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising), commercialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercialism), and cultural anti-intellectualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism) run rampant...


Sounds more like a conservative dystopia to me.

Also, you should point out the criticisms of IQ Tests. Cultural bias and all that.

[mikelepore]

To be a Libertarian you have to agree that everything can become property and that people can own it indefinitely so long as they get it through a "free-market".

The word libertarian simply means "supporter of liberty." No one can have an exclusivity claim on "supporter of liberty." Myself, I'm a Marxist libertarian.

But with a capital L the word may refer to a particular organization, in the same sense as the official names for Republicans who are not necessarily republicans, Democrats who are not necessarily democrats, and Socialists who are not necessarily socialists.

[IcarusAngel]

I was speaking as if I agreed with hayenmill's corporatist Libertarianism. Generally, "capital L" Libertarians are members of the libertarian party. When you use libertarian as an adjective, then it can refer to libertarian-socialists etc.

These right Libertarians believe that: A. Only free-market (capitalistic) Libertarianism exists, and B. all rights stem from private property rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugq86q9KyPE

As you can see when someone like Chomsky tries to explain right-libertarianism, the libertarians just spam the video.

[Havet]

As usual you make no sense, because you get facts wrong. Modern Libertarianism really did start with Rand, and is a derivative from that. Of course it does have some influence from people like Hayek and von Mises and bogus economists, and then it may have taken an idea here or there from classical liberals.

I get facts wrong? let's see...


However, none of those people ever considered themselves Libertarian or pure free-market capitalists, including Rand, who even criticized Libertarians. She is the only one close to Libertarians and she is more L. Ron Hubbard than a serious philosopher.

Rand only criticized libertarians because she thought they were " hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists" (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians)



To be a Libertarian you have to agree that everything can become property and that people can own it indefinitely so long as they get it through a "free-market".

"Libertarianism is a term used by a broad spectrum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum)[/URL] of political philosophies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#cite_note-StanfordEncyclopedia-0) which seek to maximize individual liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty)".

"Libertarians embrace viewpoints across that spectrum ranging from anti-property to pro-property, from openly anarchist to minimal government"


Locke: Taught that the earth was owned in common and thus people have a ground rent to pay on it. Believed unused property could be taken away from the capitalist (or owner). Believed in Locke's provisio, which meant that no one could take more land if it started hurting other people.

Not a Libertarian.

Locke: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#cite_note-StanfordEncyclopedia-0) " In a natural state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_nature#Locke.27s_view_on_the_state_of_nat ure) all people were equal and independent, and everyone had a natural right to defend his “life, health, liberty, or possessions.”"

"To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any man. A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another....
The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions...."


If you will, you can consider him more of a left-libertarian...


Proudhon: Not a libertarian, but in fact a leftist.

Proudhon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proudhon#Political_philosophy)

"For Proudhon, the only legitimate source of property is labor. What one produces is one's property and anything beyond that is not. He advocated worker self-management and was in favor of private ownership of the means of production. He strenuously rejected the ownership of the products of labor by society"

"Proudhon called himself a socialist, but he opposed state ownership of capital goods in favour of ownership by workers themselves in associations. This makes him one of the first theorists of libertarian socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism)."



Tucker: Clearly not a Libertarian as he openly opposed the "landed monopoly" of the capitalist.

Tucker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker#Private_defense)

"Tucker did not have a utopian vision of anarchy where individuals would not coerce others.He advocated that liberty and property be defended by private institutions. Opposing the monopoly of the state in providing security, he advocated a free market of competing defense providers, saying "defense is a service like any other service; ... it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand."


Spooner: he also opposed wage slavery, monopolies, etc., and didn't like the idea of people having to rent themselves to survive.

Lysander Spooner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker#cite_note-Yarros-16)

"He is also known for competing with the U.S. Post Office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Post_Office_Department) with his American Letter Mail Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company), which was forced out of business by the United States government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government). He has been identified by some contemporary writers as an anarcho-capitalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalist), (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner#cite_note-0) while other writers and activists are convinced by his advocacy of self-employment over working for an employer for wages, that he was an anti-capitalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-capitalist) or a socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist), [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner#cite_note-infoshop.org-2) notwithstanding his support for private ownership of the means of production and a free-market economy."


Bakunin: Clearly a leftist lol.

"By federalism Bakunin meant the organization of society "from the base to the summit—from the circumference to the center—according to the principles of free association and federation. Consequently, society would be organized "on the basis of the absolute freedom of individuals, of the productive associations, and of the communes," with "every individual, every association, every commune, every region, every nation" having "the absolute right to self-determination, to associate or not to associate, to ally themselves with whomever they wish."[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakunin#cite_note-Revolutionary_Catechism-24"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakunin#cite_note-Revolutionary_Catechism-24)

This is libertarianism

Anyway, i personally think it doesn't matter whether any of these men are libertarians or not, it was you who raised the issue. What matters, and we should be discussing, is the IDEAS that they defended.