The only libertarians Ive met were mentally... unstable, so I've never been inspired to look closer.

How does it work? How is it different from a desire for anarchy? — frank

I meant people I've actually met.

How is it different from anarchism? — frank

This straw-man is no surprise from someone who conflates "fondness" with "a type of harm, or unjust action".

Libertarianism would be the way to go - to limit centralized power. — Harry Hindu

What in this statement implies that a Libertarian would be for NO, as opposed to LIMITED, centralized power?

It seems to me then, that if racism is about power, the solution to systemic racism would be anarchy, and that Libertarianism doesn't go far enough.

You mean if the system is racist, why give more power to the system?

The idea of civil rights is that the government is in conflict with itself. — frank

No, the idea of civil rights is that citizens are in conflict with the government.

The systemic racism that's been spoken of in this thread is extra-governmental, though. — frank

What is an extra-governmental system? You keep throwing around these vague terms that don't have any substance, and are then unwilling to put more meat on the bones for the rest of us to chew on.

\

I concur with those that take the view that anyone who uses racial language and refers to people using archaic and ultimately non-sensical categories of black white brown etc, is part of the problem and so in that sense racist.

If we all truly did embrace the view that there is no division of races within humans, and modified our own language use accordingly, then racism could not possibly exist since there would be no means to prefer any one human based on race. If you want to be part of the solution just simply stop using racial language.

I've done it and it works.

I suspect that those who aren't open to such a shift believe that there are actually such things as races, and possibly also that the world is flat.

It does work, just as it does with any superstition. Those who no longer believe in witches will likely no longer burn people for witchcraft. This is the simple logic of folks like Mandela or MLK, who were imprisoned for their activities. The opposite, the criticism of color-blindness, was born in the privileged setting of academe.

No, the idea of civil rights is that citizens are in conflict with the government. — Harry Hindu

Then why are your civil rights in the freaking constitution?

Then why are your civil rights in the freaking constitution? — frank

Because of citizens who revolted against an unfair and authoritarian government.

I answer your questions. When are you going to answer my questions? Is this an interrogation or a discussion?

You want everybody, regardless of "racial color" status, to stop back-peddling on racial color-blindness?

Translation: I want everybody, regardless of who benefits more (financially, occupationally, medically, educationally, jurisprudentially) from the status quo than whom, to stop back-peddling on fellating  the status quo.

:shade:

"Shut up and dribble", huh? ( :point: cluster-FOX'd Noise) GFY, son! No kumbaya, ONLY STRUGGLE: you're either actively Anti-(racial color, etc) discrimination Policies & practices or you're Not. Like this white brother, another fallen comrade ...

Noel Ignatiev 1940-2019 :victory:

sounds like you believe that there are such things as races

It’s more like I want people to stop fellating the privileged ivory towers of American academe, where most of this drivel comes from. Is it really that dangerous and ahistorical to treat someone like an individual, the most endangered minority, without first making a flurry of racist suppositions? Is it really that dangerous and ahistorical to negate the superstitions regarding skin-color? No.

I’m opposing racial discrimination as a method of inquiry just as I would racist discrimination in policy, and for the exact same reasons.

Libertarianism would be the way to go - to limit centralized power. — Harry Hindu

What in this statement implies that a Libertarian would be for NO, as opposed to LIMITED, centralized power? — Harry Hindu

Everyone wants to limit centralised power. Who in the world wants to give central government all the power it is possible for a government to have... the power to tell you when to get up, what breakfast to have, what car to drive, who to marry, what clothes to wear...?

Libertarianism is bullshit because the only unifying aim is something everyone wants - the least imposition on freedom that still produces an acceptable society.

So the only thing that distinguishes so-called libertarians from any other more interventionist political persuasion is that they just care less about the stuff the government imposes on our freedom in order to get done.

Libertarianism is bullshit because the only unifying aim is something everyone wants - the least imposition on freedom that still produces an acceptable society.

But its guiding principle—liberty—is not bullshit. Of course people want liberty, but the efforts of libertarian thought is how to build a society guided by that principle. That principle is largely absent from other schools of thought.

sounds like you believe that there are such things as races — dazed

I know that the concept exists, as do you. Similar potentially divisive concepts like age, weight, height, attractiveness, sexual orientation, etc etc, exist. Are you color blind but perhaps an ageists? If so, would refusing to see age help resolve your ageism?

:up: Medicare must be ageist because it takes account of age. Ban medicare!

sounds like you believe that there are such things as races — dazed

Biological race doesn't exist, but race as a social construct does. The distinction makes a difference.

But its guiding principle—liberty ... That principle is largely absent from other schools of thought. — NOS4A2

More bunk.


"Liberals have typically maintained that humans are naturally in “a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions…as they think fit…without asking leave, or depending on the Will of any other Man” (Locke, 1960 [1689]: 287).Mill too argued that “the burden of proof is supposed to be with those who are against liberty; who contend for any restriction or prohibition…. The a priori assumption is in favour of freedom…” (1963, vol. 21: 262). Recent liberal thinkers such as as Joel Feinberg (1984: 9), Stanley Benn (1988: 87) and John Rawls (2001: 44, 112) agree. This might be called the Fundamental Liberal Principle (Gaus, 1996: 162–166): freedom is normatively basic, and so the onus of justification is on those who would use coercion to limit freedom. It follows from this that political authority and law must be justified, as they limit the liberty of citizens."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/#DebAboLib

In these respects, libertarian theory is closely related to (indeed, at times practically indistinguishable from) the classical liberal tradition, as embodied by John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, and Immanuel Kant.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/

Different school of thought, eh?

Yes, that's why there are two entries and they have different names. Like when you have two of anything that are closely related and very similar in some respects (including origin).

And in those entries it says:

In these respects, libertarian theory is closely related to (indeed, at times practically indistinguishable from) the classical liberal tradition, as embodied by John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, and Immanuel Kant.

Oh look, liberals started calling themselves libertarian, and not because they traded world views, but because the word “liberal” was corrupted,

The term libertarianism was first used in the United States as a synonym for classical liberalism in May 1955 by writer Dean Russell, a colleague of Leonard Read and a classical liberal himself. Russell justified the choice of the word as follows: "Many of us call ourselves 'liberals.' And it is true that the word 'liberal' once described persons who respected the individual and feared the use of mass compulsions. But the leftists have now corrupted that once-proud term to identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons. As a result, those of us who believe in freedom must explain that when we call ourselves liberals, we mean liberals in the uncorrupted classical sense. At best, this is awkward and subject to misunderstanding. Here is a suggestion: Let those of us who love liberty trade-mark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word 'libertarian'".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

So, now they are different (if obviously related historically) schools of thought? A second ago you were saying they weren't. That was the point at issue, remember?

But this is a rather off-topic pushback against the typical libertarian idea that you are the only ones who care about freedom etc. So, I am going to drop it. Carry on.

The point of the issue was that the core principles of liberty is largely absent from other schools of thought. It is central to classical liberalism,sure, but then again classical liberals renamed themselves libertarian because modern liberals excised that very principle.

modern liberals excised that very principle. — NOS4A2

This is where we disagree. But for another thread. Will just leave this here.

"...what is now called ‘liberalism’ in American politics [combines] a strong endorsement of civil and personal liberties* with indifference or even hostility to private ownership**.

*liberal and libertarian
**liberal only

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/#NewLib

But the leftists have now corrupted that once-proud term to identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons.

The general or primary moral is care, for those who might need protection. With liberty comes responsibility, as the saying goes.

The point of the issue was that the core principles of liberty is largely absent from other schools of thought. It is central to classical liberalism,sure, but then again classical liberals renamed themselves libertarian because modern liberals excised that very principle.

Liberal is a better label for libertarians than it is for American liberals, I would agree.

It’s debatable, sure. My main point was that libertarianism as it is known today is a valid school of thought and in fact not something that everyone wants. I would argue “liberal” is the more precise adjective for someone whose guiding principle is “liberty” and that libertarian is redundant.

OK.

To return it back to the topic, the criticism of color-blindness in particular is also a criticism of liberalism in general.

A critique of liberalism: CRT scholars favor a more aggressive approach to social transformation as opposed to liberalism's more cautious approach, favor a race-conscious approach to transformation rather than liberalism's embrace of color blindness, and favor an approach that relies more on political organizing, in contrast to liberalism's reliance on rights-based remedies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

(PSA) Substitute the sociological-anthropological term "out-group" for "race" and use it instead to better rodeo clown all the bulls___ running up & down this thread and make Baden's point over and over again like hammering nails into their coffins.

Biological race doesn't exist, but race as a social construct does. The distinction makes a difference. — Baden

:up: :brow:

And therefore a bureaucratic tool (i.e. business church & state policies ...) used by privileged in-group members to discriminate against members & communities of out-groups (as well as by some fraction of out-group members who benefit personally from conforming (i.e. aspiring) to "honorary" in-group privilege-like status).

It's a plague of privilege which some of plague-carriers apparently need to believe that everyone should just stop talking about in order - hocus-pocus (fingers stuck in ears) "nananananana I can't hear you" - to stop the spead of the contagion. All these Typhoid Harrys around here need to read Camus' The Plague (or watch the video :roll: ) since the reports & studies already cited on this thread are too lengthy, too historical and too tediously fact-pattern driven for them to digest.

Hint: plague is a metaphor for an expedient social construct used to divide Them (infected) from Us (not yet infected / carriers) that only spreads faster by pretending it's not happening and talking about it ... superstitiously (or disingenuously) as if 'naming the devil' brings forth the devil, makes the devil real. :shade:

Everyone is racist (judging lifeforms based on their distinct population in a species). There is no choice in the matter: the variation is in the complexity of the connections and forms, of the unique "racist" mindset.

Why is everyone racist? Thinking is impossible without "racism", aka the judgment of groups of a distinct population in a species, because no groups of species actually exist: everyone is a unique and individual species that diverge from everyone else: the groups are all posited and created by the individual, acting as a simplification and abstraction of all the differences. This doesn't mean that the abstraction of the group is "true", only that it's useful, for "truth is the kind of error without which a certain species of life could not live".

Put simply, value judgments are impossible without "racism", and "all sense perceptions are permeated with value judgments" (Nietzsche), therefore meaning that everything that senses is "racist". Nietzsche:

All thought, judgment, perception, considered as comparison, has as its precondition a "positing of equality," and earlier still a "making equal." The process of making equal is the same as the process of incorporation of appropriated material in the amoeba. "Memory" late, in so far as here the drive to make equal seems already to have been subdued: differentiation is preserved. Remembering as a process of classification and pigeonholing: who is active?

So, what are the extreme-left fighting, then? Only a certain type of "racism" (aka mentality, as has already been shown) that they condemn from a Socratic-Judeo-Christian moral-metaphysical standpoint, and sometimes from an intellectual standpoint, aka a distaste of a certain type of "racism" because it is viewed as a massive simplification, as in OP's case, where he is condemning a simpler type of racism from a much more complex racism. The former case disgusts me as reactive, whereas the latter is much less so.

So, where does that leave those "colorblind"? "Colourblind", lol, as of racism depends solely on color of skin (if this was actually believed blind people could never be racist). This is obviously meant to disparage any calls of racism, and is nothing but action in response to the extreme-left metaphysical condemnation. This active avoidance of condemnation angered the extreme-left in that others found a way to easily avoid all their tricks, so they absorbed this "colorblindness" as a function of that "racism".

After that, the "colorblind" complained about their active approach being absorbed and thrown back at them by the liberal metaphysicians. The "colorblind" can only succumb, or try to act against the liberals, making them look more "racist", so they stopped at standstill in defeat.

know that the concept exists, as do you. Similar potentially divisive concepts like age, weight, height, attractiveness, sexual orientation, etc etc, exist. Are you color blind but perhaps an ageists? If so, would refusing to see age help resolve your ageism? — praxis

the concept of race has no basis in reality similar to the concept that the world is flat
it's not a matter of refusing to see race, as in fact there is nothing to see
I can see skin colours and differences in physical characteristics, but I can not see races, only faces

The difference in skin colour and differences in physical characteristics is what is meant by “race”. Thats what most people mean when they use the term. A strictly academic use of “race”, the way a biologist would use it for their work, is not what is meant. A racist might try and use that academic sense as part of their racism to try and support their ideology but in that case the issue isnt their use of the word but rather their misuse of the word.

Everyone wants to limit centralised power. Who in the world wants to give central government all the power it is possible for a government to have... the power to tell you when to get up, what breakfast to have, what car to drive, who to marry, what clothes to wear...?

Libertarianism is bullshit because the only unifying aim is something everyone wants - the least imposition on freedom that still produces an acceptable society.

So the only thing that distinguishes so-called libertarians from any other more interventionist political persuasion is that they just care less about the stuff the government imposes on our freedom in order to get done. — Isaac

This is another straw-man. I didn't make the argument that others "want to give central government all the power it is possible for a government to have... the power to tell you when to get up, what breakfast to have, what car to drive, who to marry, what clothes to wear..."

My argument was that if racism is equated to power, then why give the government more power than it has, or maintain the status quo, by voting for big government political parties, like the Democratic Party who has mostly whites running for president? This isn't to say that Republican party isn't for big government either. They are both for big government. The left wants more control over the economy, while the right wants more control over what religion can be taught in publicly funded areas. They both have authoritarian tendencies. I have made the case elsewhere on these forums that we should consider other parties, or really we should consider other ideas and we should abolish political parties.


Libertarians are the only true liberals.

Medicare must be ageist because it takes account of age. Ban medicare! — Baden

This would be like saying "ban all treatment for sickle cell anemia because it takes into account race". That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that race exists and is biological, not social. What is social is the category errors that we make when we put people into boxes labeled "black" and "white" that have nothing to do with their color of skin - like when hiring someone, as opposed to determining what diseases they might be more susceptible to.

Now, take your position that we should take account of race because to do otherwise would be racist. Why aren't you forcing the members of this forum to display their race? Aren't you and the rest of the Admins being racist by not doing that? How is it that you aren't?

Biological race doesn't exist, but race as a social construct does. The distinction makes a difference. — Baden

Then your previous argument makes no sense. If age doesn't exist, then why do we have medicare? If race doesn't exist as a biological characteristic, then what does "race as a social construction" entail?

The libertarian is more rich and the anarchist more violent. — ssu

Another category error. Libertarianism/anarchism has to do with the ideas that you hold, not your wealth or how violent you are.

A strictly academic use of “race”, the way a biologist would use it for their work, is not what is meant. — DingoJones

There's too many meanings, too many interpretations, too many 'translations' and 'dog whistles' or 'subverted or masked intensions' to make any sense of this. When somebody 'interprets' you meaning something else, it's a rabbit whole. And hence the race issue is so difficult.

What there is, is this fanatic obsession with race, which does contribute of especially Americans and British to structural racism. It starts with when you participate in a course in the university or open a bank account and in the questionnaire you fill in beside your name and adress has a question of race and ethnicity. Why? I really ask why. Because that is then used to categorize you. If you think that is totally normal, how about religion? Do you have to fill in a questionnaire that what is your religion or state that you are an atheist when opening a bank account? How about participating in a history course in the university? That would be the case if the society would be divided by religion. Then we would all be talking about multiconfessionality.

And anybody that would dare to say that "Well, we are all people and the religion of one doesn't matter so much" would get attacked just as NOS4A2 perhaps. Especially if the history of the 'multiconfessional' state would have violent persecution of one religious group or sect of another.

What there is, is this fanatic obsession with race, which does contribute of especially Americans and British to structural racism. It starts with when you participate in a course in the university or open a bank account and in the questionnaire you fill in beside your name and adress has a question of race and ethnicity. Why? I really ask why. Because that is then used to categorize you. If you think that is totally normal, how about religion? Do you have to fill in a questionnaire that what is your religion or state that you are an atheist when opening a bank account? How about participating in a history course in the university? That would be the case if the society would be divided by religion. Then we would all be talking about multiconfessionality. — ssu

I agree with this because asking for race when applying for college is a category error.

Would it be racist to have your race listed in your medical records? Medical records are mostly private - only accessible by your physician.