so, the words that come from his mouth and fingers are innocuous as long as they are presented in a way that is non-threatening? Where have I seen that formula before…?
Besides, old people can ce3rtainly look menacing. Have you seen Star Wars?
So from “beaten to death by this man”, to “words”, to… Star Wars. Keep typing.
David Bier is advocating global cooperation and technological advancement.
Mankind’s worst enemy is clearly disease, and that was clearly what he was talking about.
Maybe your post was satire but it was very dishonest otherwise.
How is it that North is acceptable?
On a more serious note, Influential old white men are actually really good at getting people killed.
What I am saying.
ha! douche. sticking up for a religious nut. and somehow his “words” that he has written don’t matter as he tries to start an online school. You’ve got it good for this guy dontz U?
@jfrega : Thank you for taking the time to clearly articulate many of my own thoughts concerning Gary North.
As for “libertarian” religious beliefs in general [including Mr. Norths as I understand them], to this day I do not understand the proud identification of certain, other “big name libertarians”, for example Lew Rockwell and Thomas Woods, with an obvious " top down", centralized [and state approved to boot] organization like the Roman Catholic church. On the face of it, ideologically, this seems like a huge contradiction to me, but maybe I’m missing something?
regards, onebornfree
Lots, actually.
Also, since the site content focuses on some good stuff I would assume that the supposed young person who shared at least those goals would have no problem collaborating on it. I collaborate on projects with statists all the time, and they want me stolen from and enlsaved for half of the things I do.
The Catholic Church is not any more or less state approved than any corporation etc.?
Corporations exist because states codify them into existence. The Catholic Churches have 501c tax exemption, that is state approval - it is an incentive to form into one.
and some other things besides, but you are free to ignore that.
“worst” is a comparative adjective and necessarily subjective. typing the word “disease” would have been more clear and straightforward, but the blog post was clearly intended to be ambiguous.
please explain what is dishonest about identifying suspiciously ambiguous statements in a blog post.
I have a man crush on Jargon in this thread, good stuff Jargon
Sounds a bit more like religious worship to me, particularly the credulous worship of science.
Then clearly you neither you nor him know what you’re talking about. Disease is not mankind’s worst enemy. Disease has been wiped out in several of the poorest corners of the earth without any similar increase in those peoples’ economic freedom, and do you know what happened? Their population increased without any good ways to support it, so instead of 1,000,000 people dying of disease, we can have 5,000,000 dying of starvation. What a trade-off!
You see, libertarians (and their fellow travelers) who have been around the way have these strange habits, like reading, listening, and thinking for themselves. They’ve learned to develop and trust their own intellect. So how do you suppose those folks, who have put in their time and done their homework, are going to react to this new breed of libertarians who apparently need to be led around on a leash by an opinion-maker? Libertarians who reek of a dishonesty they can’t even comprehend due to their ignorance, yet have the audacity to tell more knowledgeable people what their opinions should be?
People here, and on Facebook, and in many other corners of the interwebz have explained why they like Gary North (or at the very least are indifferent to him) and why he has been a valuable member of the liberty movement, based on their experience with his various contributions. But you and those like you are incapable of hearing them. The conspiracy debunkers have sold themselves on a conspiracy, and no logical explanation will do. So let me explain this to you in a way you and the other libertarian cool kids can understand: How is it that North is acceptable? Because fuck you, that’s why.
Yes, because I wake up in a cold sweat every night fearing the day Gary North shows up at my door to deliver me my Christian Reconstructionist day of reckoning. Is this really your life? Obama and the federal government have militiarized every local police force and opened up the door to drone killing on our own soil and you’re worried about Gary North?
People who can think for themselves are fine, but believe it or not, there are those out there that “fall for” libertarianism without thinking for themselves. They will drag the thinkers down in the stature that thinkers operate in. Ayn Rand’s association in the liberty movement today is an example, as is Gary North. The marginalization of the movement is wrought by its own hand when it finds such easily polarized public figures to invest faith in.
The fact is, the dude wrote that ridiculous shit when he was younger and it is now being used to polarize him in the public eye. No, fucking, shit? Thinking for yourself will not stop other people from judging things. And while we might not care about people judging others they will use their consensus against the liberty movement using their nonthinking opinions.
So, continue to put your religious ideologues on the front page of the recruitment pamphlets for a political philosophy. It only gives us more to defend.
heh. No wonder libertarians are marginalized; because, “Fuck you,” that’s why…
I’m sort of lost in the point of this thread now. Do we have people defending Gary North? I wouldn’t be surprised if one retorted with “because NAP” as some sort of libertarian scapegoat.
Personally I don’t have any interest in the “big names” of libertarianism anymore (Rockwell, Woods, Hoppe, etc.) and I find it strange that there’s such a reactionary response to people who are willing to call out said individuals for fringe/offensive statementes and/or not promote/affiliate with them. If a libertarian said something racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist, etc., then instead of making up excuses I’ll simply move on, and not try to defend them because of “all they did for liberty.”
There’s a rising group of individuals, who despite what slander comes out of this forum, are actively engaged in politics as well as running a decent blog that’s causing people to question their own stances. Is there a problem?
I dont know, do you consider discussion to be a symptom of a problem?
“Yesterday I was clever, so I wanted to change the world. Today I am wise, so I am changing myself.”
― Rumi
Do we have people defending Gary North?
No, nor are many people (including myself) concerned with the people you mentioned or NAP. Gary North in this case is a “widget” to attack the people who wrote the article.
Drop your pet “culture war” issues - turn them to widgets, and read what is being criticized
Well what exactly is being said? Either libertarians have a problem with TSL for whatever reason, or people find their critiques on culturally right libertarians unsettling, because they know they might be right. IDK if it seems a bit odd to anyone that AltRight Radio has interviewed Thomas Woods and Bob Murphy, which is run by Richard Spencer who’s addressed Hoppe’s Property and Freedom Society conference. AltRight also getting praise by Greg Johnson of The Occidental Quarterly, a racialist journal, for bringing forth intellectual issues like “race realism” and “White Nationalism.” Then you have Ron Paul’s name put forth on some home school curriculum based on biblical ideas written by a known Christian Reconstructionist.
Instead, we’ll ignore culturally right currents that certain libertarian scholars hold because NAP, and then we’ll ignore rape culture as well because NAP - but rape culture is stupid and we’ll defend neo-confederates.
What is this? Have I unknowingly walked into the Stupidest Post Competition thread?
Well what exactly is being said?
That the entire paradigms, orientation, and framework in which a progressive (and to a lesser, or at least more irrelevant a degree, a conservative) is bogus and has to be scraped for a different model. If I am “for helping the poor” - it simply is not saying the same thing as a lefty. None of these issues the way they are framed are going to be compatible with the market process mentality, and any attempt to conform to them is probably going to be self defeating.
A lot of people have crazy ideas (Issac Newton) - however when they say something intelligible within their respected field, so be it, there is no need to disown them. Frankly, there are a lot of kooky people floating around in all types of politicl circles - most people don’t (Ex: Marxists) see a need to apologize for these fringe elements in a culture: they are either a) societal aesthetics (so who cares), which in most cases are probably not going to go anywhere or b)some type of theory that can be disproven, varified, or falsified in some way. If that is the case than disprove the theory on the terms provided - don’t bitch about the fact that you don’t like it and be a hater or a quizling to the cool kids.
Moreover, you can have whatever aesthetics on issues you like, and talk about them all day - I just don’t see how it can lead to much in a productive talk about any intelligible structure of society - outside of Machivallian ways to organize and manipulate machinary to get whatever random aesthetic you wished achieved at the moment (not that there is anything wrong with this, it is just out of scope for what is being asked for in the conversation).
You’d have to be more specific about what you call “culturally right currents”, but please realize that some of us appreciate, rather than ignore, them. How is holding a cultural/aesthetic preference and self-segregating along those lines not compatible with libertarianism/anarchy/austrian-economics?