Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ah okay. It is confusing because there is a whole crop of political parties that explicitly identify as "Libertarian" where as authoritarianism doesn't get any such banner bearers.

I agree racism isn't inherent to either side, and tangential to the topic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Selym wrote:

...... whereas SJ movements look more like "my race is inferior/morally wrong".

This is as a meaningful understanding of SJWs as using Westboro baptists to understand Christians in general, or Daesh to understand Muslims.

 feeder wrote:
Ah okay. It is confusing because there is a whole crop of political parties that explicitly identify as "Libertarian" where as authoritarianism doesn't get any such banner bearers.

I agree racism isn't inherent to either side, and tangential to the topic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Selym wrote:

...... whereas SJ movements look more like "my race is inferior/morally wrong".

This is as a meaningful understanding of SJWs as using Westboro baptists to understand Christians in general, or Daesh to understand Muslims.

Depends of the definition of SJW, Christians or Muslims being used.

If I add one word to each of those terms, we get more specific (and they are in an odd form of agreement about several things): Social-Marxist SJW, Fundamentalist Christianity, Radical Islam.

Those particular groupings tend to have a dislike of inclusivity, don't feel that apathy towards one's personal life is a good thing, and seem to prefer authoritarian measures.

I would like to point out that the subject was why libertarians, specifically big "L" Libertarians in the US are associated with the right. Racism is a highly relevant factor in that association as the article illustrates. Whether you agree with the author or not is irrelevant. The point is that those associations exist in perceptions at the very least.

As to individuals, it's always much more complex. But, while racism may not be inherent to leftists or rightist politics, it definitely seems to be more common and accepted in the fringes of the right (unless one completely ignores racial identity groups and the common racial elements that appear in fascism). This also gets directly at one of the more obvious clashes- anarchism v. class systems. Of courses this tends to represent the extremes, not the middle as the whole point is to show contrast.

 jmurph wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

The progressive/leftist pushback against the conservative politics of the US post WWII caused a time of unprecedented domestic terrorism and violence.

But in the United States, terrorism has declined dramatically since the 1970s. In that decade, 1,470 incidents of terrorism unfolded within the nation's borders and 184 people were killed. A total of 214 acts of terrorism were cataloged between 2002 to 2013 on U.S. soil, killing 61.
When William Webster became director of the FBI in 1978, more than a hundred terrorist attacks a year were taking place in the United States. By the mid-1970s, terrorist bombs were being set off in the country at an average rate of 50 to 60 a year.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/homeland-security/249688-the-1970s-and-the-birth-of-contemporary-terrorism

It may be hard to recall now, but there was a time when most Americans were decidedly more blasé about bombing attacks. This was during the 1970s, when protest bombings in America were commonplace, especially in hard-hit cities like New York, Chicago and San Francisco. Nearly a dozen radical underground groups, dimly remembered outfits such as the Weather Underground, the New World Liberation Front and the Symbionese Liberation Army, set off hundreds of bombs during that tumultuous decade—so many, in fact, that many people all but accepted them as a part of daily life. As one woman sniffed to a New York Post reporter after an attack by a Puerto Rican independence group in 1977: "Oh, another bombing? Who is it this time?’"

The underground groups of the 1970s were a kind of grungy, bell-bottomed coda to the protests of the 1960s; their members were mostly onetime student leftists who refused to give up the utopian dreams of 1968. While little remembered today, there was a time during the early 1970s when the U.S. government—the Nixon Administration—considered these groups a genuine threat to national security. Alarmed by a series of Weatherman attacks, Nixon told J. Edgar Hoover during a June 1970 Oval Office meeting that "revolutionary terror" represented the single greatest threat to American society. Hoover promised to do what he could, which wasn’t much.

Why do we recall so little of this? It’s a good question. Conservatives say it’s because the liberal media wanted to let the radicals off easy. It’s also possible that, as a people, we only remember the events we want to. Yet another possibility is that the violence of the 1970s was forgotten in large part because none of the participants—both the leftists facing prison, and the authorities who chased them in vain all those years—had much incentive to make us remember. With no one telling the story, the story melted away.

http://time.com/4501670/bombings-of-america-burrough/

Caused?
It may help to look at the crime rates at the time. According to FBI statistics, violent crimes rose steadily from 1960 through 1980 (violent crime rate increased by 126 percent between 1960 and 1970, and by 64 percent between 1970 and 1980). They took a slight downturn in 1980 before picking back up. 1994 finally saw the breaking point. So was it political or just overall violence linked to American population growth? Lead in the gasoline? The funny thing is nobody is sure why the crime rate finally fell. And the previous poster talked about a growing militant left, not the 70s holdovers. But the best he can produce is some silly Canadian politics (quotas and such). A far cry from the militant Maoist revolutionaries of China, for example, and really just grousing about not liking the results of democratic exchange (they can always be voted out). Real political violence is ugly, but is also common in periods of instability. The current warfare in Syria or demonstrations in Venezuela are good examples. In the US, violence is much more common with the fringes of the political right than the left, particularly with racial identity groups, though leftists are more commonly seen in protest mode. But the violent elements, like most extremists, represent a small fringe element, not a mainstream view. If anything, America is much farther removed from embracing political violence than it has been historically.

I suggest that if anyone thinks that quotas on gender in government is the worst thing going politically, they might want to take a look a the number of environmental activists that have been killed.

Yes, caused by leftists. Go look up the information as to what groups were detonating thousands of bombs in the US during that time period and the reasoning espoused by those groups as to why the bombings were being done. Then go look for the time period during which thousands of bombs were set off by right wing fringe groups in the US. The far left has always been a proponent of rapid drastic revolutionary change and therefore championed violence as the most efficient means to achieve those goals. In contrast the conservative fringe isn't looking to violently change the system their objective is to preserve an existing power structure so they work through the apparatus of the state instead of against it.

"SJ movements" strike me as consistently leaning toward authoritarianism. The racist component of social justice is, reminiscent of Nazi ideology, the insistence on imagining every aspect of politics as fundamentally about race.

And again, saying "Party ABC is racist" is nothing more than a component of opposing Party XYZ's agenda. It has no actual relevance to the topic of why libertarianism is, in the United States, a strand of political conservatism.

 jmurph wrote:
I would like to point out that the subject was why libertarians, specifically big "L" Libertarians in the US are associated with the right. Racism is a highly relevant factor in that association as the article illustrates. Whether you agree with the author or not is irrelevant. The point is that those associations exist in perceptions at the very least.

As to individuals, it's always much more complex. But, while racism may not be inherent to leftists or rightist politics, it definitely seems to be more common and accepted in the fringes of the right (unless one completely ignores racial identity groups and the common racial elements that appear in fascism). This also gets directly at one of the more obvious clashes- anarchism v. class systems. Of courses this tends to represent the extremes, not the middle as the whole point is to show contrast.

And also the fact that hard libertarians (anachro-capitalists) will defend slavery.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Spoiler:

 jmurph wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

The progressive/leftist pushback against the conservative politics of the US post WWII caused a time of unprecedented domestic terrorism and violence.

But in the United States, terrorism has declined dramatically since the 1970s. In that decade, 1,470 incidents of terrorism unfolded within the nation's borders and 184 people were killed. A total of 214 acts of terrorism were cataloged between 2002 to 2013 on U.S. soil, killing 61.
When William Webster became director of the FBI in 1978, more than a hundred terrorist attacks a year were taking place in the United States. By the mid-1970s, terrorist bombs were being set off in the country at an average rate of 50 to 60 a year.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/homeland-security/249688-the-1970s-and-the-birth-of-contemporary-terrorism

It may be hard to recall now, but there was a time when most Americans were decidedly more blasé about bombing attacks. This was during the 1970s, when protest bombings in America were commonplace, especially in hard-hit cities like New York, Chicago and San Francisco. Nearly a dozen radical underground groups, dimly remembered outfits such as the Weather Underground, the New World Liberation Front and the Symbionese Liberation Army, set off hundreds of bombs during that tumultuous decade—so many, in fact, that many people all but accepted them as a part of daily life. As one woman sniffed to a New York Post reporter after an attack by a Puerto Rican independence group in 1977: "Oh, another bombing? Who is it this time?’"

The underground groups of the 1970s were a kind of grungy, bell-bottomed coda to the protests of the 1960s; their members were mostly onetime student leftists who refused to give up the utopian dreams of 1968. While little remembered today, there was a time during the early 1970s when the U.S. government—the Nixon Administration—considered these groups a genuine threat to national security. Alarmed by a series of Weatherman attacks, Nixon told J. Edgar Hoover during a June 1970 Oval Office meeting that "revolutionary terror" represented the single greatest threat to American society. Hoover promised to do what he could, which wasn’t much.

Why do we recall so little of this? It’s a good question. Conservatives say it’s because the liberal media wanted to let the radicals off easy. It’s also possible that, as a people, we only remember the events we want to. Yet another possibility is that the violence of the 1970s was forgotten in large part because none of the participants—both the leftists facing prison, and the authorities who chased them in vain all those years—had much incentive to make us remember. With no one telling the story, the story melted away.

http://time.com/4501670/bombings-of-america-burrough/

Caused?
It may help to look at the crime rates at the time. According to FBI statistics, violent crimes rose steadily from 1960 through 1980 (violent crime rate increased by 126 percent between 1960 and 1970, and by 64 percent between 1970 and 1980). They took a slight downturn in 1980 before picking back up. 1994 finally saw the breaking point. So was it political or just overall violence linked to American population growth? Lead in the gasoline? The funny thing is nobody is sure why the crime rate finally fell. And the previous poster talked about a growing militant left, not the 70s holdovers. But the best he can produce is some silly Canadian politics (quotas and such). A far cry from the militant Maoist revolutionaries of China, for example, and really just grousing about not liking the results of democratic exchange (they can always be voted out). Real political violence is ugly, but is also common in periods of instability. The current warfare in Syria or demonstrations in Venezuela are good examples. In the US, violence is much more common with the fringes of the political right than the left, particularly with racial identity groups, though leftists are more commonly seen in protest mode. But the violent elements, like most extremists, represent a small fringe element, not a mainstream view. If anything, America is much farther removed from embracing political violence than it has been historically.

I suggest that if anyone thinks that quotas on gender in government is the worst thing going politically, they might want to take a look a the number of environmental activists that have been killed.

Yes, caused by leftists. Go look up the information as to what groups were detonating thousands of bombs in the US during that time period and the reasoning espoused by those groups as to why the bombings were being done. Then go look for the time period during which thousands of bombs were set off by right wing fringe groups in the US. The far left has always been a proponent of rapid drastic revolutionary change and therefore championed violence as the most efficient means to achieve those goals. In contrast the conservative fringe isn't looking to violently change the system their objective is to preserve an existing power structure so they work through the apparatus of the state instead of against it.

First of all, you completely ignored the fact that the leftist bombings occurred during an overall violent time. This in no way excuses them, but if you fast forward to right wing terrorism, it has spiked during a lull in violent criminal activity. If I didn't make it clear, it is not an excuse for any ideology, but violent activity in an already epidemically violent time is harder to paint as clearly radical. Likewise any clear US leftist violence pretty much disappeared with the crime wave which is exactly when right wing violence takes off. So if leftism caused the violence, why did it pretty much go away? Modern US leftists rarely get past protest.

Second, the conservative fringe includes rightist revolutionaries who have no interest in preserving the apparatus of power if it doesn't serve them. At the most extreme, the want the destruction of the current system to be replaced by a racially driven or radical ideology model. Even in less extreme right and conservative groups, there is a strong anti-government streak. And that is before you get to right wing elements of Islamic terrorism. Hence why they are dubbed extremists and the fringe.

Painting the left as inherently violent and conservative extremists as firmly statist(!) is so disingenuous, it borders on absurdity.

 Manchu wrote:
"SJ movements" strike me as consistently leaning toward authoritarianism. The racist component of social justice is, reminiscent of Nazi ideology, the insistence on imagining every aspect of politics as fundamentally about race.

And again, saying "Party ABC is racist" is nothing more than a component of opposing Party XYZ's agenda. It has no actual relevance to the topic of why libertarianism is, in the United States, a strand of political conservatism.

If you really can't understand why fighting for historically oppressed groups is different from a majority group asserting inherent genetic superiority, you may need to do some reading. And, again, if you don't understand the interplay of racial identity groups, American politics, and political parties there is a ton of info out there.

Authoritarianism is about consolidation of power; SJWs, even in the fevered imaginings of the right, rarely amount to little more than individuals exercising their voice, not the crushing weight of government action. But I get the irony of comparing them to Nazis in one breath then trying to shoo out discussion of racial politics with another.

 Selym wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Well, Libertarianism sees nothing inherently wrong with racism...

Which definition of Lib?

Every one that I've seen. Not saying that it supports it, but lack of condemnation of it is de facto support. Especially since libertarianism is often used to attack anti-racism regulations. It's done in the guise of defending someone's right to do business with whom they choose.

Though I really think a good portion of people who claim to be for Libertarians are actually Authoritarians that have don't have the backing of the current government.

 jmurph wrote:
Painting the left as inherently violent and conservative extremists as firmly statist(!) is so disingenuous, it borders on absurdity. .

Jumping in only really because I find this ongoing line of reason absurd.

Conservative political violence has the inherent advantage of generally being "in power." To cut straight to the point; Jim Crow. Jim Crow was rampant political violence, carried out under the auspice of law and order. The police wouldn't just cover up the rape, murder, and assault of racial minorities, but instigated it themselves because the entire structure of Jim Crow was dedicated at every level of society to inflicting violence and keeping a section of the populace in perpetual fear and powerlessness. So sure, you can claim extremists on the left have carried out more terror attacks throughout US history, but I could just turn around and say that political oppression in America has always come from the right, and that statement would be just about as valid if we want to ignore anything sensible like how all those "terrorist" bombings in the 60s weren't really about terror as much as media coverage and the left has instigated plenty of oppression on its own in our 200+ years.

So maybe everyone should just get the feth over themselves, stop looking at loonies as the mainline of the other side and start dealing in reality?

And again, saying "Party ABC is racist" is nothing more than a component of opposing Party XYZ's agenda.

If true it can also be a statement of fact so...

It has no actual relevance to the topic of why libertarianism is, in the United States, a strand of political conservatism.

There's even an article linked in thread that explains how Libertarianism gained a lot of initial footing in the US by appealing to segregationists on the heels of the 1964 CRA, and you're really just going to completely gloss over that and make a generic statement about the irrelevance of racism in why libertarianism became a strand of conservatism?

This is why posting in the OT is more trouble than its worth. I get it. Some people are tired of hearing talk about what is and isn't racist, but plugging your fingers in your ears and going "nah nah nah nah" every time the topic comes up is so childish it belongs on Trumps twitter feed.

Now that you mention it, I guess there is some irony in the fact that both Nazis and so-called SJWs are obsessively preoccupied with race ideology. But more to the point of the thread, it is this kind of doctrinaire pre-committment to a specific, er, Weltanschauung and the insistence that everyone else buy into it (on pain of being an Enemy) that connects the two as authoritarian positions.

I'm amazing Anarchism and Very Libertarian isn't a 90%

"... you're just going to gloss over that ..."

Nah, I specifically addressed it. The article was hack partisan electioneering and not reliable analysis of American politics. Goldwater's opposition to the CRA as an unacceptable expansion of government authority meant people who were already separately committed to segregation could support him, regardless of their own beliefs about government authority. That doesn't amount to a connection between racism and libertarian politics.

 skyth wrote:
Well, Libertarianism sees nothing inherently wrong with racism...

That's not true at all. Libertarianism doesn't condone or encourage racism, it simply doesn't want the State to use its monopoly of force to punish people for their beliefs, including racist beliefs. Libertarians place more value on individual freedom than on government enforced collectivist control over behavior. Private businesses, private property, your own private personhood should be protected by the government not intruded upon by it. The government should work to protect the freedom of the minority from the tyranny of the majority and the most important and vulnerable minority is the individual. The Libertarian opposition to the Civil Rights Act was a pro liberty stance consistent with their core beliefs. Private businesses should retain the right to set their own limitations on service, whether people can smoke or not, bring young children in with them, wear shoes or shirts, or only allow certain ethnicities, genders or skin tones that's your right as an individual business owner. If you want to be a racist business owner you put your racism on public display and let the market determine your success or failure. Public/State entities should be barred from discriminating against anyone because everyone is equal under the law and the state governs all equally but private individuals can't be forced to do business with anyone against their will, or forced to allow anyone on their property against their will or forced to endure any intrusion against their person against their will. Every individual owns their person, their labor and their property those are key tenets of Libertarianism and there's nothing racist in those beliefs.
You have the freedom to be as ignorant and as bigoted as you want, believe whatever ethnocentric supremacist garbage you want as long as you don't escalate those beliefs into actions that cause harm to another person. Libertarians were fine with ending segregation and ending discrimination by the state but trying to outlaw racism on the individual basis was a step too far. Libertarians would have the same objection to laws that would attempt to make it illegal for individuals to practice communism or fascism or chauvinism or any other kind of -ism because making ideas/beliefs illegal is impractical and excessively intrusive.

 Manchu wrote:
Nah, I specifically addressed it.

No you didn't.

not reliable analysis of American politics.

His analysis of Goldwater and how his politics helped flip the American South from blue to red in the wake of the CRA is historically accurate, and his discussion of how the issue of Civil Rights has proven an obstacle for Libertarians in mainstream American politics into today is quite astute political analysis. There's a reason Libertarian ideology made more progress under the the banner of "Republican" than "Libertarian." But hey who am I to suggest hat you are still glossing over the issue simply because you find racism talk annoying?

Goldwater's opposition to the CRA as an unacceptable expansion of government authority meant people who were already separately committed to segregation could support him, regardless of their own beliefs about government authority.

Firstly the article made that point. It was 1 of 3 major points. Secondly, that is a connection between racism and Libertarian politics, but hey;

It has no actual relevance to the topic of why libertarianism is, in the United States, a strand of political conservatism.

That doesn't amount to a connection between racism and libertarian politics.

Move that goal post. You can do it!

No goal posts have been moved. Having avoided a specific conflict does not amount to a common ideological denominator between racists and libertarians.

 Manchu wrote:
No goal posts have been moved.

You stated by saying that racism "has no actual relevance to the topic of why libertarianism is, in the United States, a strand of political conservatism" which is silly because an entire article was posted detailing how racism (namely segregationists) pushed Libertarianism into the realm of American Conservatism by filling the seats in Goldwater's theater. It doesn't matter whether or not Goldwater was a segregationist or a racist himself.* That segregationists were filling the seats and taking up the banner of Libertarian throughout the late 60s and much of the 70s made the brand name unpalatable to the increasingly social justice motivated American Left. Especially when you add in knowledge of American history, it highlights the problem of how Libertarianism is supposed to protect the civil rights it espouses as paramount from being subjugated by social collectivism (ongoing example, Jim Crow).

Racism is completely relevant as to why Libertarianism is associated with Conservativism, and the "hack" analysis of how this is an ongoing obstacle for Libertarians is again not remotely partisan and quite astute.

*I think for a lot of people Goldwater ends up like "Bret." "I like Bret. he's a good guy. Says what he means, means what he says. A little crazy sometimes but who isn't? I just can't hang out with him because he has a lot of donkey-cave friends" which I guess you could say some way or another about pretty much any political ideology so my personal response to someone who is thinking of being Libertarian is "just do it" cause you're gonna have to deal with wackadoos making you look bad no matter where you sit *shrug*

That doesn't amount to a connection between racism and libertarian politics.

Then you said this, which is also false because you can't simultaneously acknowledge that segregationists latched onto Goldwater's budding Libertarianism and say racism and Libertarian politics have no connection. The former need not explicitly endorse the later for them to be connected in the political landscape and just because Libertarians have blinders on about the implications of their ideology doesn't mean the hack is wrong in pointing out that for non-libertarians those implications can be problematic. I'm not even sure why that needs to be explained to someone who can throw out the word "weltanschauung."

Now your saying;

Having avoided a specific conflict does not amount to a common ideological denominator between racists and libertarians.

Which I'm not even sure exactly what that means. "Specific conflict" is kind of ironic for this sentence because its incredibly vague what you mean. Racism? Segregation? Civil Rights? Either way you've moved through three distinct goal posts at this point; a matter of history, a matter of politics, and a matter of ideology. Interconnected though they may be these are three distinct issues that can be answered wrong, wrong, and debatable. The first two are rather patent matters of fact.

Forget it Jake, this is Internet Town.

Sorry you are having so much trouble here, LoH. But I think you are making it harder than it has to be for the sake of rhetorical posturing. Goldwater opposed the '64 CRA as an unacceptable expansion of federal power, not because racism has any inherent purchase on New Right politics nor even as a sop to segregationists. It is absurd to claim that Goldwater was a racist or that racism is a component of libertarianism on the grounds that he opposed the CRA, much less on the grounds that actual segregationists also opposed the CRA. In fact, the South did not "flip" to libertarianism - certainly not as a matter of voting for Nixon in 1968. Indeed, LBJ campaigned against Goldwater in the South by referencing Goldwater's past support of civil rights.

 Stevefamine wrote:
I'm amazing Anarchism and Very Libertarian isn't a 90%

I would not expect that to be the case. Most people I've ever met accept that the government has at least some uses, even if they hate authority figures.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Well, Libertarianism sees nothing inherently wrong with racism...

That's not true at all. Libertarianism doesn't condone or encourage racism, it simply doesn't want the State to use its monopoly of force to punish people for their beliefs, including racist beliefs. Libertarians place more value on individual freedom than on government enforced collectivist control over behavior. Private businesses, private property, your own private personhood should be protected by the government not intruded upon by it. The government should work to protect the freedom of the minority from the tyranny of the majority and the most important and vulnerable minority is the individual. The Libertarian opposition to the Civil Rights Act was a pro liberty stance consistent with their core beliefs. Private businesses should retain the right to set their own limitations on service, whether people can smoke or not, bring young children in with them, wear shoes or shirts, or only allow certain ethnicities, genders or skin tones that's your right as an individual business owner. If you want to be a racist business owner you put your racism on public display and let the market determine your success or failure. Public/State entities should be barred from discriminating against anyone because everyone is equal under the law and the state governs all equally but private individuals can't be forced to do business with anyone against their will, or forced to allow anyone on their property against their will or forced to endure any intrusion against their person against their will. Every individual owns their person, their labor and their property those are key tenets of Libertarianism and there's nothing racist in those beliefs.
You have the freedom to be as ignorant and as bigoted as you want, believe whatever ethnocentric supremacist garbage you want as long as you don't escalate those beliefs into actions that cause harm to another person. Libertarians were fine with ending segregation and ending discrimination by the state but trying to outlaw racism on the individual basis was a step too far. Libertarians would have the same objection to laws that would attempt to make it illegal for individuals to practice communism or fascism or chauvinism or any other kind of -ism because making ideas/beliefs illegal is impractical and excessively intrusive.

Actually, what I said is very true. And your comments just proved it true by agreeing with it even though you claim you weren't.. There is nothing in Libertarianism that finds any issue with racism. I'm not saying that they think it is a good thing (Though significant quantities of 'libertarians' are only Libertarians because they want the freedom to be holes to other people that are different than them.) However, thinking that it's somehow ethical for someone to be racist and make a 'no blacks allowed' establishment (Even if it's being quiet about it) leaves the whole movement ethically and morally lacking.

And for the record, (If you were reading the rest of the thread, . Libertarians were NOT 'fine with ending segregation'.

Libertarianism only works where there is no significant power differential in a society. However, once there is a power differential, it just makes the power differential worse and worse.

Goldwater was not only fine with ending segregation but even fostered integrationalist policies in his own state. He believed that expansive federal projects ostensibly aimed at helping black people would ultimately yoke them to that system, a theme taken back up by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think LoH raised a good point when he said, "stop looking at loonies as the mainline of the other side and start dealing in real life."

Rosebuddy wrote:
You can't really go from "libertarian" to "anarchist" because anarchism generally has a very collective view of things while libertarianism loathes the very idea of society.

Also, there is no actual difference between "authoritarian" and "totalitarian". The latter was simply invented to defend Western support of dictatorships. See, those other guys are totalitarian while our guys are merely authoritarian.

I'm libertarian and I don't hate society.

I just want to be left the hell alone. doesn't mean I hold anyone in contempt.

 Manchu wrote:
Sorry you are having so much trouble here, LoH.

Trouble?

I find your faux intellectualism amusing, not troublesome.

But I think you are making it harder than it has to be for the sake of rhetorical posturing.

Like this. that's just funny.

Goldwater opposed the '64 CRA as an unacceptable expansion of federal power, not because racism has any inherent purchase on New Right politics nor even as a sop to segregationists.

Indeed, that is why he did it, and whoever claimed he was sopping to segregationists?

The worst thing Goldwater did in my book was spark the late 80s UFO paranoia and on the scale of evil that's pretty damn low. The guy's reputation has been screwed because social conservatives worked really hard to ostracize him for his stances on abortion, homosexuality, and the religious right while the Left couldn't get over who voted for him in 64 (I doubt Goldwater would have ever jumped ship though from the Republican party, and he indeed did not). He said what he meant, meant what he said, and everyone ended up hating him except some racists who decided the whole Libertarian thing sounded kind of nice in 1964. Sad story really.

It is absurd to claim that Goldwater was a racist

It would be, especially since Goldwater had supported earlier more reserved drafts of the CRA while it was in the Senate. Its a good thing no one, not even an author who you seem obsessed with dismissing out of hand, ever made that claim. I mean that would be as silly as shoving words into someone's mouth to maintain a rhetorical tent pole.

that racism is a component of libertarianism on the grounds that he opposed the CRA

You seem to have conflated "is connected to" with "is a component of." Racism became connected to Libertarianism, and Goldwater, because he opposed the CRA. That is a circumstantial event of the times that became a part of the Libertarian legacy, and pointing it out and talking about it is quite distinct from saying "libertarianism is racist" or "Goldwater is racist" both things I haven't seen anyone say. I've gone through the whole thread. No one has claimed racism is a component of Libertarianism. One poster posted one article that articulated how racism has been a problematic issue for Libertarians in American politics, and it was a pretty good one, and you've spent most of the last two pages arguing against it with a lexicon that is all flare and no substance. The closest anyone has come is to talk about the implications of Libertarian ideology on Civil Rights which I think is very valid. It's one thing for a Libertarian to say "I don't support segregation, but the government shouldn't be telling people and business owners how to live their lives" but actually making the later a practical reality without getting the former is a bit of a sticky wicket. How does a weak government that espouses individual liberty as paramount, respond to social collectivism that focuses itself on ostracizing and oppressing someone based not on their individuality but their group identity? What alternate safeguards are there, lacking what Libertarians would term invasive laws and regulations, to prevent say... Moroccans from being forced out of mainstream American society by everyone else because "Moroccans have a tacky fashion sense and we don't like it."

Which is why its funny that you mentioned rhetorical posturing. Your entire bit on this topic is little more than rhetorical posturing. I'd like to introduce you to kettle.

For any Moroccans reading the thread I don't think your fashion sense is tacky. Vertical stripes aren't my style, but I like the tiara

I chose centrist/leaning libertarian.

I understand that each situation in society (government for example) should be evaluated on a individual basis.

I tend to lean libertarian on my decision making on most issues, meaning, I default to whatever solution provides for the most individual liberty as possible while making sure peoples exercising of their liberties don't infringe on others rights.

I believe that the rights enshrined in the constitution should be held in the highest regard and oppose any laws that would inhibit those rights

LoH? Jim Crow laws were written by Democrats. Leftists. Liberals. It had Republican opposition. Why does this get glossed over so much?

Racism hasn't been "problematic" (a word that is pure rhetorical posturing) for libertarian thought; that is part of the sleazy agenda of painting it as cover for racism. In reality, there is no inherent philosophical contradiction preventing libertarians from acknowledging that racism is a problem or addressing it as a matter of public policy, as demonstrated by Goldwater's own example as a statesman.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
LoH? Jim Crow laws were written by Democrats. Leftists. Liberals. It had Republican opposition. Why does this get glossed over so much?

Because portraying the opposite was a key political tactic of the 1960s Democrats and, thanks partly to Republicans, it has never stopped being profitable and somewhat plausible.

 Just Tony wrote:
LoH? Jim Crow laws were written by Democrats. Leftists. Liberals. It had Republican opposition.

And as I've explained to you explicitly many times in the past, politics shift. In the era of Jim crow the Democrats were a conservative party socially. So were the Republicans really. All of America was quite socially conservative until the rise of the New Left and New Right in the Civil Rights era. Before that you'd find leftist/liberals were split between the two parties and one of the reasons FDR's New Deal coalition was such a political power house was because he managed to bridge some political gaps between conservatives and liberals in both parties. The political realignment that began with the New Deal coalition began changing the map, and quite on topic Goldwater's 1964 run and the birth of the modern American Libertarian movement was part of that realignment on the tail end of it.

You're taking the modern political dynamics of America and conflated it with our past, which is fallacious. As for why certain conservative elements in particular continually gloss over that history (especially Fox News from what I've seen), I assume its because it's easier to ignore your own demons when you can blame all the bad stuff on someone else.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
LoH? Jim Crow laws were written by Democrats. Leftists. Liberals. It had Republican opposition.

And as I've explained to you explicitly many times in the past, politics shift. In the era of Jim crow the Democrats were a conservative party socially. So were the Republicans really. All of America was quite socially conservative until the rise of the New Left and New Right in the Civil Rights era. Before that you'd find leftist/liberals were split between the two parties and one of the reasons FDR's New Deal coalition was such a political power house was because he managed to bridge some political gaps between conservatives and liberals in both parties. The political realignment that began with the New Deal coalition began changing the map, and quite on topic Goldwater's 1964 run and the birth of the modern American Libertarian movement was part of that realignment on the tail end of it.

You're taking the modern political dynamics of America and conflated it with our past, which is fallacious. As for why certain conservative elements in particular continually gloss over that history (especially Fox News from what I've seen), I assume its because it's easier to ignore your own demons when you can blame all the bad stuff on someone else.

IDK, the left seems to be pretty racist to me, by proposing policies that keep minorities under their thumb (entitlements) and using scaremonger tactics to acquire votes (OMG if you vote republican they will cut off your food stamps and grandma will die from starvation).

They have also created entitlement programs which favor unwed mothers and encourage women to have children in a one parent home.

 Supertony51 wrote:


IDK, the left seems to be pretty racist to me, by proposing policies that keep minorities under their thumb (entitlements) and using scaremonger tactics to acquire votes (OMG if you vote republican they will cut off your food stamps and grandma will die from starvation).

They have also created entitlement programs which favor unwed mothers and encourage women to have children in a one parent home.

Are you trying to conflate minorities with unwed welfare mothers?

And really, single mothers need the help. Especially poor ones. The policies are not to encourage that. The policies are there to make sure that children don't starve and have clothes and a place to live.

The New Deal was certainly a turning point but there was broad post-war agreement on certain socially progressive issues such as civil rights. The early 60s represent another - albeit temporarily abortive - turning point, especially for the American right - which had traditionally married isolationism and skepticism of powerful government. The 30s posed a significant challenge to both prongs. The developing Cold War all but demolished the isolationist prong. Goldwater rode that devlopment, strongly advocating anti-communist interventionist foreign policy while reinvigorating the other element, skepticism of federal government. Goldwater's ideology would have to wait out the 70s in the wings, however, until the rise of Ronald Reagan. This "New Right" thinking would again go into hibernation after Reagan, culminating in the rise of so-called Neoconservatism. It has reemerged in the wake of the collapse the Neocons, especially in state governments.