Thursday, November 7, 2013

I am confident al the people that drone on about the alleged significance of the racist roots of progressivism will repost this IMMEDIATELY



  1. "But even Rand Paul made a racial gaff right after he won the senate seat, that he regretted, when he said he was for the repeal of the 1964 civil rights act. It would seem that this racial/libertarian theme continues."

    This is stupid. Come on, Daniel, you know that libertarian criticisms of affirmative action have nothing to do with racism.

    1. Twice he calls it "racial" rather than "racist". I am guessing it's deliberate.

      I don't know about all libertarian criticism. Much of it, today, isn't racist. That does not mean it's not objectionable. You also run into frustrating problems with people defining racists out of libertarianism. Of course when you do that no libertarians are racist.

      I wouldn't say I'm trolling here personally by sharing this. A lot of this I find legitimately objectionable. And Rand Paul shows it's still happening today. I object to it too much for this to just be trolling. But I am posting it more to provoke, I would say, than to endorse every single thing the guy says in the piece.


    This guy is a troll.

    1. Mises explicitly stated that he is not an anarchist:
    "A shallow-minded school of social philosophers, the anarchists, chose to ignore the matter by suggesting a stateless organization of mankind. They simply passed over the fact that men are not angels."

    2. This is just deliberately misleading:
    "But Mises seems to delight in anti socialization and savagery like that is some kind of birthright."

    Full Mises quote:

    "Man is born an asocial and antisocial being. The newborn child
    is a savage. Egoism is his nature. Only the experience of life and
    the teachings of his parents, his brothers, sisters, playmates, and
    later of other people force him to acknowledge the advantages of
    social cooperation and accordingly to change his behavior. The
    savage thus turns toward civilization and citizenship. He learns
    that his will is not almighty, that he has to accommodate himself
    to others and adjust his actions to his social environment, and that
    the aims and the actions of other people are facts with which he
    must reckon.
    The neurotic lacks this ability to adapt himself to his environment.
    He is asocial; he never arrives at an adjustment with the
    facts. But whether he likes it or not, reality has its own way. It is
    beyond the neurotic’s power to eliminate the will and the actions
    of his fellowmen and to sweep everything before him. "

    1. Yes, Gary Anderson definitely creates unrealistic caricatures to argue against. I haven't read much Mises, but Hayek's philosophy the way I read it sees society as structured like the internet. That is the metaphysics of someone who is humble and pro-society, not elitist.

  3. Yeah I only draw the connection between progressivism and racism in jest, but you can cite libraries of books, as opposed to questionable excerpts and Stupid Rothbard Tactics, to make the point.

  4. I hate Rothbard, and even I can see that this is a hit piece.

  5. Pointing out that the early progressives were seeking to use the government to do some racist things is fair.
    Conflating the above to mean that all progressives support racism or that racism is at the heart of progressivism is stoopid.

    Pointing out that libertarianism means a person can choose to be a racist (so long as he doesn't violate the rights of others) is fine. Conflating the above to mean that all libertarians support racism or that racism is at the heart of libertarianism is stoopid.

    Troll seems a bit of an understatement, though I'm sure he's super popular on liberal/progressive threads.


All anonymous comments will be deleted. Consistent pseudonyms are fine.