Given the debate occuring in the "The Libertarian Revolution: The Proletariat Revolution?" thread, I thought I would make clear, once and for all, why I think opposing non-aggressive social evils is a necessary part of a truly libertarian politics.
Fundamentally, what I value is eudaimonia, best translated as human flourishing. It is the actualization of each person's unique potential, living intelligently, fulfilling one's natural end as a rational, social, and political animal. Different goods and habits (virtues) make up one's eudaimonia, including rationality, pride, productivity, benevolence, etc. (some of the major virtues) and health, wealth, honor, friendship, etc. (some important goods). The individual weighing of goods and virtues, and what actually constitutes them, is ultimately up to one's practical reason.
However, one must be in control of their actions for them to be truly good; if you aren't making decisions for yourself, you aren't flourishing. This is because no one can have more knowledge of what constitutes your natural end than yourself; it is dependent on personal attributes that differ from person to person. Thus, one must be autonomous and in control of one's actions, just as a precondition (not a guarantee) of flourishing.
This is why aggression is wrong; fundamentally, it is the control of one person over another (you can think of property as being an extension of self in this situation). By initiating the use of force, or the threat of the use of force, you are imposing yourself on a person and preventing them from flourshing. What's more, you yourself are impeding your own flourshing. As rational, social, and political animals, humans have the potential to communicate and interact peacefully, and without the use of aggression. Given that this potential is uniquely human, and a universal part of everyone's natural end, aggressors, to the extent that they are using aggression, are not flourishing.
However, there is more than just aggression that can comprimise one's autonomy. Manifestations of collectivism, such as racism and patriarchy, can also constrain one's choices in a way that leads one to deviate from one's natural end, through no fault of their own. This, of course, cannot be solved through the use of force; that would be aggressive, and acting aggresively, as I stated earlier, is fundamentally not an instance of flourishing. It can, however, be solved by non-aggressive means, including but not limited to education, economic boycott, and social ostracism.
There are also other related reasons why non-aggressive social evils should be opposed. For one, they tend to encourage instances of aggression; racist attitudes encourage lynchs, patriarchy encourages rape, and so on. For utlitiarian reasons, then, one should also oppose such systems. Also, collectivism (which all social evils are ultimately manifestations of) is fundamentally irrational; by judging people by which arbitrary class they belong to, rather than the quality of their character or what they have to offer you in free association, you are going against your own natural end.
For more, see "A Groundwork for Rights: Man's Natural End" by Douglas Rasmussen, "Aristotelian Liberalism" by Geoffrey Allan Plauche, and "Libertarianism Through Thick and Thin" by Charles Johnson
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Too much to respond to in one go.
wombatron:This is because no one can have more knowledge of what constitutes your natural end than yourself
And yet you prescribe to a position on libertarian politics where you determine for others what are illegitimate barriers.
You can't have it both ways. I'm fine with you opposing you being sexist or racist, but the hypocrisy of claiming to know for others is complete nonsense.
If I have misunderstood this, I apologize in advance.
Also, racism = lynches and patriarchy = rape. Are you being serious?
liberty student: And yet you prescribe to a position on libertarian politics where you determine for others what are illegitimate barriers. You can't have it both ways. I'm fine with you opposing you being sexist or racist, but the hypocrisy of claiming to know for others is complete nonsense. If I have misunderstood this, I apologize in advance.
No, I failed to make a distinction. There are both universal and particular elements to human flourishing, and I think that opposing non-aggressive social evils, in addition to aggression, is one of the universal elements.
liberty student:Also, racism = lynches and patriarchy = rape. Are you being serious?
They encourage it. If you see blacks or women as inferior, not even really people, then what actions would that tend to produce? It's not an essential point, but such utilitarian concerns are useful to mention.
This is just in general to your last response, I don't have a problem with eudaimonia, I have a problem with the utopianism, collectivism and paternalism associated with it. There is an obvious "we know better than you, you cannot solve your own problems or realize your own eudaimonia without our guidance and our prefernce values on what is good and bad".
wombatron:If you see blacks or women as inferior, not even really people
I always thought you white folks should worry about racism against whites. It's such a joke that some white guy is going to tell someone like me, a visible minority in North America that has put up with a lot of BS in my life, that I should be on the lookout and offended by racism. Humility doesn't seem to factor in to this particular outlook.
Americans are some of the most racist people I have met. I don't hear about black people getting lynched ever. I think you really need to get some non-white friends and talk to them as individuals. I'll be the first.
Your conception of racism is highly offensive to me, and as Keith Preston pointed out, it is likely the reason why the Long/Spangler/Carson/Johnson orbit is dominated by white middle and upper middle class males that despite being champions for diversity and justice, people of colour and straight females just aren't very interested in. And I am fairly certain that it is because you guys have an outlook that see them as victims. And no one is empowered by being made a victim.
I mean, your comments about blacks and women are so crazy collectivist, and it stuns me that you think making gross generalizations about lynching and rape isn't exactly what you claim to oppose.
I gotta sleep.
wombatron:Fundamentally, what I value is eudaimonia, best translated as human flourishing. It is the actualization of each person's unique potential, living intelligently, fulfilling one's natural end as a rational, social, and political animal. Different goods and habits (virtues) make up one's eudaimonia, including rationality, pride, productivity, benevolence, etc. (some of the major virtues) and health, wealth, honor, friendship, etc. (some important goods). The individual weighing of goods and virtues, and what actually constitutes them, is ultimately up to one's practical reason.
We are like identical twins. I am also an eudiamonist. Do I suspect a new strand of Anarcho-Capitalism presenting itself? Perhaps it can be called "Longinists"
'the American is the most unphilosophical of beings. The rationalization of conduct in general is most repugnant to him; he prefers to emotionalize it.' - Albert J Nock
wombatron,
Thank you for this primer on thick libertarianism. It's just the kind of summation I've been wanting to read.
As can be seen from my recent run-in with Giles, I abhor bigotry. So I'm definitely with you in supporting non-aggressive means of combatting bigotry.
However, I think thick libertarians (is that really the moniker you want?) err in placing that worthy stance within the concept of libertarianism. Certainly the ideals of anti-bigotry resonate with libertarianism, but that does not make it part of libertarianism. You wrote:
That's what "thin libertarianism" is all about; if it isn't aggression, it isn't a concern for libertarian politics.
The bit after the semi-colon seems to be a tautology. Politics is all about the polis, or state. The state is the state by virtue of its aggression. Libertarianism is a doctrine about politics-- about the state (namely that it shouldn't exist). So by definition, aggression is the sole concern for libertarian politics. If aggression isn't involved, the state isn't involved. If the state isn't involved, then it's not a matter of politics. Anti-bigotry is an important issue. But it's a social issue: not a political one.
I am glad you don't advocate aggression in response to bigotry. But by wrongly classifying bigotry as a political issue, you place it in an ambiguous position between vice and crime. This position could very easily tempt future thick libertarians into nudging it fully into the crime column.
I will readily call out bigotry for the disgusting thing that it is. But I do so as a libertarian who also happens to be a decent non-bigoted person, not as some new kind of libertarian.
Call me Grayson.
Lilburne:Politics is all about the polis, or state. The state is the state by virtue of its aggression. Libertarianism is a doctrine about politics-- about the state (namely that it shouldn't exist). So by definition, aggression is the sole concern for libertarian politics. Anti-bigotry is an important issue. But it's a social issue: not a political one.
Actually according to Aristotle, politics is about finding the nature of the good in humanity. Basically finding what works for human flourishing and applying that on a larger scale.
Lilburne:I will readily call out bigotry for the disgusting thing that it is. But I do so as a libertarian who also happens to be a decent non-bigoted person, not as some new kind of libertarian.
Like I said, I really, really, like you.
@Wombie, I wasn't trying to nuke the discussion with my last response. I genuinely want to beat this to death until one of us sees what the other is seeing, and I will admit, there is a possibility I have it wrong, or I misunderstand it. But on the characterization of racism as blacks being lynched, or patriarchy as leading to rape of women ... that is stone cold collectivism, just like seeing the "landless labourers" as a class.
liberty student: I always thought you white folks should worry about racism against whites. It's such a joke that some white guy is going to tell someone like me, a visible minority in North America that has put up with a lot of BS in my life, that I should be on the lookout and offended by racism. Humility doesn't seem to factor in to this particular outlook. Americans are some of the most racist people I have met. I don't hear about black people getting lynched ever. I think you really need to get some non-white friends and talk to them as individuals. I'll be the first. Your conception of racism is highly offensive to me, and as Keith Preston pointed out, it is likely the reason why the Long/Spangler/Carson/Johnson orbit is dominated by white middle and upper middle class males that despite being champions for diversity and justice, people of colour and straight females just aren't very interested in. And I am fairly certain that it is because you guys have an outlook that see them as victims. And no one is empowered by being made a victim. I mean, your comments about blacks and women are so crazy collectivist, and it stuns me that you think making gross generalizations about lynching and rape isn't exactly what you claim to oppose. I gotta sleep.
Huh?
I really don't see how any of that follows. Was it my use of the impersonal "you"? The comments about rape and lynching were just examples of aggressive behavior that is exacerbated by non-aggressive collectivisms.
Anarchist Cain:Actually according to Aristotle, politics is about finding the nature of the good in humanity. Basically finding what works for human flourishing and applying that on a larger scale.
I believe that according to Aristotle, it's natural for slaves to serve elites. Which is why this paternalism is all starting to make sense to me.
liberty student:@Wombie, I wasn't trying to nuke the discussion with my last response. I genuinely want to beat this to death until one of us sees what the other is seeing, and I will admit, there is a possibility I have it wrong, or I misunderstand it. But on the characterization of racism as blacks being lynched, or patriarchy as leading to rape of women ... that is stone cold collectivism, just like seeing the "landless labourers" as a class.
I understand. But I'm not saying that all racism or sexism leads to aggression. I'm saying that it makes it more likely. History is rife with examples of how a general attitude of thinking of certain classes of people as unequal or sub-human tends to lead to, well, sub-human treatment. That doesn't transfer anyone's responsibility to some abstraction, but it does help explain why it happened.
liberty student:I believe that according to Aristotle, it's natural for slaves to serve elites. Which is why this paternalism is all starting to make sense to me.
Aristotle wasn't infalliable.
liberty student:I believe that according to Aristotle, it's natural for slaves to serve elites.
Cheap shot. Aristotle was wrong.
liberty student:Which is why this paternalism is all starting to make sense to me.
To this, I have a question to ask you: do you think the NAP is paternalistic?
wombatron:To this, I have a question to ask you: do you think the NAP is paternalistic?
That is a valid question. Though I think it needs to be extended to natural law in general.
liberty student: This is just in general to your last response, I don't have a problem with eudaimonia, I have a problem with the utopianism, collectivism and paternalism associated with it. There is an obvious "we know better than you, you cannot solve your own problems or realize your own eudaimonia without our guidance and our prefernce values on what is good and bad". wombatron:If you see blacks or women as inferior, not even really people I always thought you white folks should worry about racism against whites. It's such a joke that some white guy is going to tell someone like me, a visible minority in North America that has put up with a lot of BS in my life, that I should be on the lookout and offended by racism. Humility doesn't seem to factor in to this particular outlook. Americans are some of the most racist people I have met. I don't hear about black people getting lynched ever. I think you really need to get some non-white friends and talk to them as individuals. I'll be the first. Your conception of racism is highly offensive to me, and as Keith Preston pointed out, it is likely the reason why the Long/Spangler/Carson/Johnson orbit is dominated by white middle and upper middle class males that despite being champions for diversity and justice, people of colour and straight females just aren't very interested in. And I am fairly certain that it is because you guys have an outlook that see them as victims. And no one is empowered by being made a victim. I mean, your comments about blacks and women are so crazy collectivist, and it stuns me that you think making gross generalizations about lynching and rape isn't exactly what you claim to oppose. I gotta sleep.
I agree LS,
except:
Americans are some of the most racist people I have met.
^Isn't that kind a collectivist generalization about Americans? I mean, perhaps it is true that some of the most racist people you have ever met happened to be from America, but the way you said that kind of came across as lumping all Americans together collectively as racists.
I mean feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
wombatron:I really don't see how any of that follows.
Not surprised. I got one more reply to finish and I am going to sleep.
You should re-read my post until you understand it. Seriously. I don't think I can rephrase it better.
Anarchist Cain:We are like identical twins. I am also an eudiamonist. Do I suspect a new strand of Anarcho-Capitalism presenting itself? Perhaps it can be called "Longinists"
Haha! I'm on the far left (along with Long and Charles Johnson) of an Aristotelian tendency within libertarianism that streches across agorism, ancapism, and minarchism and also includes Douglas Rasmussen, Douglas Den Uyl, Chris Sciabarra, Geoffrey Allan Plauche, and a lot of neo-/post-Objectivists. We gain members by the day! First, the libertarian movement; then, the world! *insert evil laugh here*
wombatron: liberty student:I believe that according to Aristotle, it's natural for slaves to serve elites. Cheap shot. Aristotle was wrong.
If we're going to make appeals to authority, then let's be clear about who the authority is, and what he stood for based on his own beliefs.
You should try my approach. Don't deify anyone. Borrow what is good and chuck the rest.
Not at all. Care to explain how it is?
And even if it was, would that validate paternalism via thick libertarianism because we have to choose between paternalism 1 and paternalism 2?
Anarchist Cain:Aristotle wasn't infalliable.
Well somewhere along the line, Aristotoleans seemed to believe they were.
liberty student:Well somewhere along the line, Aristotoleans seemed to believe they were.
Ah ah ah...collectivist statement. And I think somewhat strawman'ish'
liberty student: wombatron:To this, I have a question to ask you: do you think the NAP is paternalistic? Not at all. Care to explain how it is? And even if it was, would that validate paternalism via thick libertarianism because we have to choose between paternalism 1 and paternalism 2?
I don't think it is. But you are apparently saying that any attempt at an objective ethic beyond the NAP is paternalist, and I was wondering why the NAP is exempt.
Same about the going to bed thing
This is a highly generous libertarian interpretation of Aristotle's political theory. Rothbard didn't buy it, and neither do I. His Politics is chock full of state laws. It's called Politics because it's about the polis: the city state. If it were about mankind it would have been called "anthrôpos". If it were about communities it would have been called "koinônia".
wombatron: Anarchist Cain:We are like identical twins. I am also an eudiamonist. Do I suspect a new strand of Anarcho-Capitalism presenting itself? Perhaps it can be called "Longinists" Haha! I'm on the far left (along with Long and Charles Johnson) of an Aristotelian tendency within libertarianism that streches across agorism, ancapism, and minarchism and also includes Douglas Rasmussen, Douglas Den Uyl, Chris Sciabarra, Geoffrey Allan Plauche, and a lot of neo-/post-Objectivists. We gain members by the day! First, the libertarian movement; then, the world! *insert evil laugh here*
Jesus it's like you have a pedigree.....
No offense but it kinda comes off a bit pretentious.
Lilburne:This is a highly generous libertarian interpretation of Aristotle's political theory. Rothbard didn't buy it, and neither do I. His Politics is chock full of state laws. It's called Politics because it's about the polis: the city state. If it were about mankind it would have been called "anthrôpos". If it were about communities it would have been called "koinônia".
The quote I speak of is in this book on ethics, not politics, though it might be in there too. And I freely admit that Aristotle was a polis loving feind. However, being an Aristotelian does not instantly mean I accept all or nothing like an Objectivist.
sirmonty:No offense but it kinda comes off a bit pretentious.
World domaination usually starts with a smile and a pretentious statement.
wombatron: liberty student:Which is why this paternalism is all starting to make sense to me. To this, I have a question to ask you: do you think the NAP is paternalistic?
wombatron: To this, I have a question to ask you: do you think the NAP is paternalistic?
In the sense that people who adhere to it do it voluntarily, no.
In the sense that other busyboddys out there might seek out people to convert & force the NAP unto others (physically) & thus contradicting the NAP: yes. This is less clear if the NAP being "forced" is a reaction against a violated contract by another person to adhere to the NAP, though.
In the sense that other busyboddys out there might seek out people to convert & "force" the NAP unto other's socially: maybe, because social coercion does not always translate into physical coercion.
I say this because what is social is far more subjective than what is physical: a person being beaten to death by another is clearly aggression.
There is the social context, of course, which NAP, to my knowledge, steps-in to ensure that while coercion is not being monopolized, it is not being memetically spread throughout society, per the limiting of agression to self-defense. Of course, then there's the social aspect of defining what is proper self-defense, property, etc.
To be quite technical, one could label the argumentation on a forum between two individuals to be "coercion" if they are paternalistic enough, despite the almost* complete lack of physical ability between forum members here to harm one another.
*Yes there is an odd small chance of some forum member, offline, tracking another forum members down, but this is a similar statistic such as the possible occurrence of your car getting stolen if you park it, lightning striking, etc.
However, the state enables individuals the use of politics to allow social coercion to physically manifest itself much more easily & much more potently than in a stateless society.
I think it becomes completely absurd to argue that social coercion would remain the same in a stateless society versus state society, & that somehow it would reach a critical mass of allowing the state to be re-instated.
For one, there might require a serious fundamental cultural change in the majority of the individuals in society, wherein the state is seen as coercion & wrong, and that the voluntary society is the actual ideal.
For another, utilizing politics to erase perceived social coercion (such as paternalism, bossism, etc) might lead to witch-hunts & and eventual antagonizing leading to a physical manifestation of conflict (i.e. aggression).
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
Anarchist Cain:The quote I speak of is in this book on ethics
Do you mean this one?
It would seem to belong to the most authoritative art and that which is most truly the master art. And politics appears to be of this nature; for it is this that ordains which of the sciences should be studied in a state, and which each class of citizens should learn and up to what point they should learn them; and we see even the most highly esteemed of capacities to fall under this, e.g. strategy, economics, rhetoric; now, since politics uses the rest of the sciences, and since, again, it legislates as to what we are to do and what we are to abstain from, the end of this science must include those of the others, so that this end must be the good for man. For even if the end is the same for a single man and for a state, that of the state seems at all events something greater and more complete whether to attain or to preserve; though it is worth while to attain the end merelyfor one man, it is finer and more godlike to attain it for a nation or for city-states.
Due to the context of the rest of his Politics and Ethics, I interpret this as speaking of politics as a science for optimal state policy, not for discovering the natural law under which societies flourish. This is especially clear when you consider this later passage, in which he clearly characterizes the individual as merely an organ in the organism of the state:
Further, the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part; for example, if the whole body be destroyed, there will be no foot or hand, except in an equivocal sense, as we might speak of a stone hand; for when destroyed the hand will be no better than that.
Lilburne:I interpret this as speaking of politics as a science for optimal state policy, not for discovering the natural law under which societies flourish.
Well you are expecting too much from a somewhat ambiguous statement. What is the good for man? Socialists propose socialism, conservatives conservatism, and libertarians libertarianism. That is politics.
Lilburne:Further, the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part; for example, if the whole body be destroyed, there will be no foot or hand, except in an equivocal sense, as we might speak of a stone hand; for when destroyed the hand will be no better than that.
And this is where Aristotle flauters. I have already admitted he is thinking in terms of the polis. We need not dismiss the rest of his writings because of it though.
Lilburne: Anarchist Cain:The quote I speak of is in this book on ethics Do you mean this one? It would seem to belong to the most authoritative art and that which is most truly the master art. And politics appears to be of this nature; for it is this that ordains which of the sciences should be studied in a state, and which each class of citizens should learn and up to what point they should learn them; and we see even the most highly esteemed of capacities to fall under this, e.g. strategy, economics, rhetoric; now, since politics uses the rest of the sciences, and since, again, it legislates as to what we are to do and what we are to abstain from, the end of this science must include those of the others, so that this end must be the good for man. For even if the end is the same for a single man and for a state, that of the state seems at all events something greater and more complete whether to attain or to preserve; though it is worth while to attain the end merelyfor one man, it is finer and more godlike to attain it for a nation or for city-states. Due to the context of the rest of his Politics and Ethics, I interpret this as speaking of politics as a science for optimal state policy, not for discovering the natural law under which societies flourish. This is especially clear when you consider this later passage, in which he clearly characterizes the individual as merely an organ in the organism of the state: Further, the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part; for example, if the whole body be destroyed, there will be no foot or hand, except in an equivocal sense, as we might speak of a stone hand; for when destroyed the hand will be no better than that.
The individual could be considered an organ in society qua society, but the state is not a requirement for society itself.
Aristotle Sez:
D'oh!
In a stateless society, I think the better metaphor would be a neuron: interconnected, but differentiated; individual but somehow uniform.
sirmonty: I agree LS, except: Americans are some of the most racist people I have met. ^Isn't that kind a collectivist generalization about Americans? I mean, perhaps it is true that some of the most racist people you have ever met happened to be from America, but the way you said that kind of came across as lumping all Americans together collectively as racists. I mean feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Obviously, not all Americans are racists. My point was that Americans are among the most racist people I have met and yet blacks are not being lynched with any regularity (or that I can remember in my lifetime).
Nitroadict:but the state is not a requirement for society itself.
Indeed. Here is a post I wrote that is apropos to your point:
Aristotle argued that the state is the form of society with the highest purpose:
“Every state is an association of some kind, and every association is established with a view to some good; for mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all associations aim at some good, the state or political association, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.” 1
Anarchist Cain:We need not dismiss the rest of his writings because of it though.
Oh I certainly wouldn't want to (otherwise I wouldn't study him as much as I do). Although his ultimate conclusions are often faulty, he offers a wealth of insights on his way toward them. Plus his philosophy rescued us from Plato's, for which I am eternally grateful.
Lilburne:Oh I certainly wouldn't want to (otherwise I wouldn't study him as much as I do). Although his ultimate conclusions are often faulty, he offers a wealth of insights on his way toward them. Plus his philosophy rescued us from Plato's, for which I am eternally grateful.
Ha ha! Agreement strikes at Mises.org! Buck up me hardiees!
wombatron, I must also take issue with the "unique potential" bit of your Aristoteleanism. I believe it repeats an error that Aristotle himself made. Aristotle, as he often did, unjustifiably inserted value into his descriptive system when he termed the rational part of the soul as "superior" to the sensate and nutritive parts, primarily because it was unique to man. That a property is unique to something does not in-and-of-itself make that property superior in some cosmic (or any other) sense. A Platypus' bill-like structure is quite unique to it. That does not mean it should favor it more than its heart, just because the latter is common to many beasts.
wombatron:But you are apparently saying that any attempt at an objective ethic beyond the NAP is paternalist, and I was wondering why the NAP is exempt.
I claim the NAP as a personal ethic, not a universal one. It takes big stones to claim to know what the universal ethic is and to think it is some crusade to educate people on how you know better than them how they should be living their own lives. Every time someone tries to come up with a universal ethic, they blow it. There is no way to hold that view without expecting all other outcomes are inferior, even if they are derived voluntarily.
I will say this. I have learned a lot more about your position in the last few hours. Before, I thought you guys were naive, confused... Now I understand that the reason why you guys don't "get" the market is that you don't actually believe in market outcomes. Your outcomes don't require a market, they only require solidarity. In fact, a market is a detriment to the way you would like to see the world, because someone can break rank and exercise a social preference that YOU don't feel satisfies eudaimonia.
Mind blowing.
I never went to sleep. This sucks.
liberty student: wombatron:But you are apparently saying that any attempt at an objective ethic beyond the NAP is paternalist, and I was wondering why the NAP is exempt. I claim the NAP as a personal ethic, not a universal one. It takes big stones to claim to know what the universal ethic is and to think it is some crusade to educate people on how you know better than them how they should be living their own lives. Every time someone tries to come up with a universal ethic, they blow it. There is no way to hold that view without expecting all other outcomes are inferior, even if they are derived voluntarily. I will say this. I have learned a lot more about your position in the last few hours. Before, I thought you guys were naive, confused... Now I understand that the reason why you guys don't "get" the market is that you don't actually believe in market outcomes. Your outcomes don't require a market, they only require solidarity. In fact, a market is a detriment to the way you would like to see the world, because someone can break rank and exercise a social preference that YOU don't feel satisfies eudaimonia. Mind blowing. I never went to sleep. This sucks.
Might've been worth it, the above has pretty considerable implications.
liberty student:Obviously, not all Americans are racists. My point was that Americans are among the most racist people I have met and yet blacks are not being lynched with any regularity (or that I can remember in my lifetime).
I know what your point was, but it came across to me as though racism was some sort of a common trait amongst Americans (it may very well be, I don't really know because I only know a relatively small percentage of them). It just sounded kinda like a collective generalization is all.
Great post. I think you and lilburne are right on the money.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
Nitroadict:Might've been worth it, the above has pretty considerable implications.
No doubt.
sirmonty: as though racism was some sort of a common trait amongst Americans
Not to belabour this minor point, but American society is incredibly racist. It's not white on black exclusively by any means. It takes a deep rooted hate to commit the sort of genocide perpetuated by the American government and military against Arabs and South Asians.
Anyway, we're on to more interesting things in this discussion now.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap