Malcolm X

Juan:

Maybe the patriots want to use the state for offensive purposes i. e. to more easily enslave the 'group' they see as inferior ?

Inferior? You are going off on a tangent.

Do you have a family? Do you see other families as inferior to your own?

If it makes you feel warm and cuddly to think 5 billion people who identify to some extent with their respective ethnicity or culture are idiots for it and scientificaly  wrong that is fine. But interestingly here we have a post about one Malcolm X aspects of which`s thinking were apparently not without libertarian leanings jet the only real position he was speaking from was his strong identification with his ethnic people and his deep affection for it.

Marko:

But interestingly here we have a post about one Malcolm X aspects of who's thinking were apparently not without libertarian leanings yet the only real position he was speaking from was his strong identification with his ethnic people and his deep affection for it.

After he visited Mecca his views on race and ethnicity radically changed. He saw Muslims of every single race praying and practicing the religion of Islam as one people. He realized that ideas were more important than racial or ethnic identity. And you would be very wrong to say that this was his "only real position."

ryanpatgray:

Statism is indeed a major probem but so are envy and hatred. Envy and hatred can lead to statism.

LOL. Did Confucious say that? Are you quoting a fortune cookie? Funny stuff.

ryanpatgray:

]What have revolutionary armies gotten us? Mob rule, The Federal Reserve Bank , the New Deal and Automobile Bailouts. Was it worth it?

I`m left speechless. Bush was a revolutionary?

ryanpatgray:

You are Marko (at least on this board) that is your identity. You are an individual who has chosen a path in life. Unchosen characteristics are descriptors but they are not your "identity".

Identity are all the characteristics you identify with. It is a matter of personal preference which are assigned what importance.

 

ryanpatgray:

People who value unchosen characteristics over chosen ones are easily manipulated.

That is really what is at the gist of it isn`t it? The feeling of superiority.

 

ryanpatgray:

After he visited Mecca his views on race and ethnicity radically changed. He saw Muslims of every single race praying and practicing the religion of Islam as one people. He realized that ideas were more important than racial or ethnic identity. And you would be very wrong to say that this was his "only real position."

I knew about Mecca, I saw the clip.  From an african-american centric brand of  Islam he shifted to traditional universalist Islam. But that is really what I was talking about. He came a long way. The only constant was the affection for his people. That was "where he was coming from". His fundamental underlying sentiment.

Marko:

Inferior? You are going off on a tangent.

I don't think so. The point remains anyway. Your patriots are bunch of butchers who kill their 'enemies' because of ethnic reasons.

Do you have a family? Do you see other families as inferior to your own?

Relevance ?

If it makes you feel warm and cuddly to think 5 billion people who identify to some extent with their respective ethnicity or culture are idiots for it that and objectively wrong that is fine.

How do you manage to know what 5 billion people feel and think ? You think that people are naturally born nationalists and racists ? At any rate, regardless of the origin of those traits, they are no virtues. And it doesn't make me feel good to think that people are nationalists -- actually it makes me feel very uncomfortable.

Libertarianism is built on individualism, not on 'voluntary' racism and nationalism or any other collectivistic ideology.

But interestingly here we have a post about one Malcolm X aspects of which`s thinking were apparently not without libertarian leanings jet the only real position he was speaking from was his strong identification with his ethnic people and his deep affection for it.

If that really was the case, that is, if mr. X's libertarian leanings were the result of his racism (or 'deep affection'...), then his libertarian leanings were bogus, or at any rate partially flawed.

Marko:

ryanpatgray:

Statism is indeed a major probem but so are envy and hatred. Envy and hatred can lead to statism.

LOL. Did Confucius say that? Are you quoting a fortune cookie? Funny stuff.

You obviously have no argument against it. All you have are insults because that is all the way you responded to my statement. At least Confucius, whether you agree with his philosophy or not, argued in the realm of ideas.

Marko:

ryanpatgray:

]What have revolutionary armies gotten us? Mob rule, The Federal Reserve Bank , the New Deal and Automobile Bailouts. Was it worth it?

I`m left speechless. Bush was a revolutionary?

Bush inherited the legacy of the revolutionaries and even used their words to justify their actions.

Marko:

Identity are all the characteristics you identify with. It is a matter of personal preference which are assigned what importance.

You chose to identify with them. It is that choice that separates you from others - even others of your ethnicity.  If circumstances forced me to either choose an allegiance with Dr. Thomas Sowell or David Duke I would choose the allegiance with Dr. Sowell - even though the melanin content of my skin is more similar to that of David Duke. This is a choice on my part.

Marko:

ryanpatgray:

People who value unchosen characteristics over chosen ones are easily manipulated.

That is really what is at the gist of it isn`t it? The feeling of superiority.

Feelings have nothing to do with it on my part (I cannot speak for you). This is about ideas.

Marko:

I knew about Mecca, I saw the clip.  From an african-american centric brand of  Islam he shifted to traditional universalist Islam. But that is really what I was talking about. He came a long way. The only constant was the affection for his people. That was "where he was coming from". His fundamental underlying sentiment.

Who he identified with as "his people" also changed. If I were Muslim (which I am not) he would have viewed me as one of "his people" post-Mecca.

I think you with every word reveal your own lack of tolerance and lack of understanding.

Juan:

Your patriots are bunch of butchers who kill their 'enemies' because of ethnic reasons.

Yeah? So what? My calling them "patriots" is not a qualititave designation. By calling them patriots I am not claiming they are good or virtous. A patriot is a value neutral word which explains ones motivations, it is not a stamp of quality. Or are you too much of a collectivist to realise that?

Juan:

Do you have a family? Do you see other families as inferior to your own?

Relevance ?

Distinguishing your own from not your own, does not imply superiority or inferiority. 

BTW, do you love your family? Doesn`t that make you a "collectivist"?

Juan:

How do you manage to know what 5 billion people feel and think ? You think that people are naturally born nationalists and racists ?

Wonderful! So just identifying with something means you are a nationalist and a racist?  Why not add a serial killer while you are at it?

Juan:

Libertarianism is built on individualism, not on 'voluntary' racism and nationalism or any other collectivistic ideology.

You confuse doctrine with sentiment. Libertarianism is built on induvidualism as a doctrine. The only doctrine that can serve for a basis of a just law. It however says nothing about personal preferences of outcomes which are a consequence not of doctrine, but of sentiment.

 

ryanpatgray:

Marko:

ryanpatgray:

Statism is indeed a major probem but so are envy and hatred. Envy and hatred can lead to statism.

LOL. Did Confucius say that? Are you quoting a fortune cookie? Funny stuff.

You obviously have no argument against it

Actually I am clearly implying that no argument is needed to respond to something as ridicilous as this.


BTW, anger can also lead to statism. And lust also. In fact each of the seven deadly sins can lead to statism.LOL, funny stuff you started.

ryanpatgray:

If circumstances forced me to either choose an allegiance with Dr. Thomas Sowell or David Duke I would choose the allegiance with Dr. Sowell - even though the melanin content of my skin is more similar to that of David Duke. This is a choice on my part.

If you think this says anything about ethnic identity or the lack of thereof then you trully know nothing about it.

 

Marko:

BTW, do you love your family? Doesn`t that make you a "collectivist"?

If your Great-Uncle Fred is s serial killer and you still think he is a swell guy DESPITE that than yes, you would be. If you value your relationship with your Great-Uncle Fred the serial killer above the lives of his innocent victims than yes. If you tolerate physical or emotional abuse you know is occurring in your family, yes. If, however, you love decent human beings in your family who have been there for you through thick and thin no, that does not necessarily make you a collectivist.

 

Marko:

ryanpatgray:

Marko:

ryanpatgray:

Statism is indeed a major probem but so are envy and hatred. Envy and hatred can lead to statism.

LOL. Did Confucius say that? Are you quoting a fortune cookie? Funny stuff.

You obviously have no argument against it

Actually I am clearly implying that no argument is needed to respond to something as ridiculous as this.

See my response to your quote below.

Marko:

BTW, anger can also lead to statism. And lust also. In fact each of the seven deadly sins can lead to statism. LOL, funny stuff you started.

True, and you are directly contradicting your above claim that my statement was ridiculous.

ryanpatgray:

True, and you are directly contradicting your above claim that my statement was ridiculous.

Except I am taking the mickey.

 

Marko:

ryanpatgray:

True, and you are directly contradicting your above claim that my statement was ridiculous.

Except I am taking the mickey.

??????????????

ryanpatgray:

Who he identified with as "his people" also changed. If I were Muslim (which I am not) he would have viewed me as one of "his people" post-Mecca.

So he no more cared for the non-Muslim African Americans?

 

Marko:

ryanpatgray:

Who he identified with as "his people" also changed. If I were Muslim (which I am not) he would have viewed me as one of "his people" post-Mecca.

So he no more cared for the non-Muslim African Americans?

 

I have never met the guy and it would be impossible for me to meet him now. I don't know. What I do know is that, post-Mecca, anyone who was Muslim was part of "his people".

 

Marko:

My calling them "patriots" is not a qualititave designation. By calling them patriots I am not claiming they are good or virtous. A patriot is a value neutral word which explains ones motivations,

Fine, let's assume that "patriot" is a value-free word -- my argument is not affected though.

We have roughly two groups of people who 'love' members of their own group...and don't love members of the other group. And so it seems that they will gladly kill persons belonging to the group they don't love...which makes sense...in a twisted way.

BTW, do you love your family? Doesn`t that make you a "collectivist" ?

Again, relevance ? The thing is, I'm talking about nation and race. What's the point of bringing family relations into the picture ?

Do you think that a 'nation' is some sort of extended family ? I'm not very enthusiastic about the merits of families anyway. As Ryan Gray pointed out, if I were to love a family member despite his/her being not a lovable person, then I surely would qualify as collectivistic...or at least misguided.

Wonderful! So just identifying with something means you are a nationalist and a racist?

Well, if one identifies with race and/or nation, it seems that by definition one is a racist/nationalist ?

Besides, it's not that clear what this 'identifying' really means. Usually people born in, say, territory X or Y, are coerced and brainwashed into believing that they are not individuals but parts of some mystical collective entity such as a 'nation'. Bullshit. I highly doubt that absent indoctrination and coercion such thing as nationalism would exist.

Why not add a serial killer while you are at it?

You mean like soldiers fighting for 'their' countries ? Or the Hutsis and Hutus we were discussing ?

You confuse doctrine with sentiment. Libertarianism is built on induvidualism as a doctrine.

Well, there's nothing individualistic about political ideas based on the concept of nation/race/ethnic group/whatever ?

It however says nothing about personal preferences of outcomes which are a consequence not of doctrine, but of sentiment.

I'm not sure what you're saying here...

Juan:

As Ryan Gray pointed out, if I were to love a family member despite his/her being not a lovable person, then I surely would qualify as collectivistic...

I hope you will have rude, unlovable little brats for children then. As an experiment you see. It would be very educational.

Marko:

Juan:

As Ryan Gray pointed out, if I were to love a family member despite his/her being not a lovable person, then I surely would qualify as collectivistic...

I hope you will have rude, unlovable little brats for children then. As an experiment you see. It would be very educational.

If one choses to have or adopt children one has a responsibility to raise them in the best, most loving way one possibly can (at least as long as they are minors). Doing this greatly reduces the likelihood they will grow up to be rude, unlovable brats. If, despite one's best efforts, they turn out rude, or worse: evil, you have no moral obligation to continue to interact with them if they are no longer minors.

 

ryanpatgray:

If one choses to have or adopt children one has a responsibility to raise them in the best, most loving way one possibly can (at least as long as they are minors). Doing this greatly reduces the likelihood they will grow up to be rude, unlovable brats. If, despite one's best efforts, they turn out rude, or worse: evil, you have no moral obligation to continue to interact with them if they are no longer minors.

 

Bogus.  You confuse universal and external obligation of law for personal and internal obligation of goodness. A man who stopped loving his children, because they did not turn out the way he had imagined they would, broke no laws but is clearly not virtous. You have every moral obligation to love your children no matter what. You just don`t have an obligation of law to do so.  But you seem to think just legislature equals morality.

Marko:

ryanpatgray:

If one choses to have or adopt children one has a responsibility to raise them in the best, most loving way one possibly can (at least as long as they are minors). Doing this greatly reduces the likelihood they will grow up to be rude, unlovable brats. If, despite one's best efforts, they turn out rude, or worse: evil, you have no moral obligation to continue to interact with them if they are no longer minors.

Bogus.  You confuse universal and external obligation of law for personal and internal obligation of goodness. A man who stopped loving his children, because they did not turn out the way he had imagined they would, broke no laws but is clearly not virtuous. You have every moral obligation to love your children no matter what. You just don`t have an obligation of law to do so.  But you seem to think just legislature equals morality.

I said nothing about the law being involved here. I would still love my children if they turned out to be very different from me. This is not the same as loving them if they turn out to be mass murderers or rapists. Are you suggesting one should love a mass murderer or rapist?

 

Whether or not a "war" can be described as anything other than the actions of states, perhaps a cursory look at the FBI crime statistics would be helpful when assessing the racial fears, relationships and violence in this country.