Read La Raza and the Aztlan websites. Listen to Jeremiah Wright’s sermons. Ethnic pride is alive and well among Hispanics and African-Americans, and they sure as hell don’t want to answer to white-dominated government–can you blame them? And do you seriously think Hispanics will shell out payroll taxes so the USG can bail out Social Security for a bunch of old white people who decided to abort babies rather than have them?
So I’ve noticed today that Ron Paul has Grover Norquist speaking at his upcoming rally, and apparently serving some kind of leadership role in the Campaign for Liberty. I’m a Paul supporter, even though I disagree with him on certain issues, and I think his campaign was the largest and most important libertarian event in decades. That said, what the hell? How can you have a libertarian organization with a Karl Rove associate, Bush supporting, pro-war neocon in a leadership position?
They also have that meathead Barry Goldwater Jr., whose most significant accomplishment is springig from Barry Goldwater’s loins.
The people managing the C4L are terribly in over their heads. I read on the Ron Paul forums that it would be a conservative family event. Great idea if you want to alienate all of the young people who produced videos, canvassed hard and promoted Paul on the web and in polls.
First of all, I don’t appreciate the fact that you quote me as using your words. Please edit that post to either have no one quoted or to quote yourself. Is there a forum rule about this? Does anyone know? I do not want to be quoted as having said words I did not say. I do not want some poor person to think I said those words. Secondly, those are individuals, not groups. I am an individualist and judge individuals by individual accomplishments and failures.
Calm down. It was inadvertent, however it happened. Who are all the poor people reading mises.org?
And what exactly do you take issue with in those statements or find so horribly offensive?
Thank you for editing that post. I take issue with collectivism in all its forms. If you want me to criticize a specific statement made by La Raza or Rev. Write or whoever that is a different matter. If I strongly disagree - I will criticize. But I will not use Rev. Write’s words to accuse all people with a certain amount of melanin in their skin of agreeing with those statements. I will only use it to claim Rev. Write or, perhaps, members of his church who applauded when he said them of agreement. Same for any other person or group. I would not accuse you of agreeing with all statements made by Senator John Edwards no matter how much he may “look” like you. Even if he lived three doors down from you I would recognize that you and he are two separate people. I am an individualist.
And what effect does that have on the group identities that other people choose for themselves?
I believe in free association. If they choose to associate with certain people, for whatever peaceful purpose, that is their choice. I would not use or advocate the use of force to prevent any peaceful assembly of people. But, beyond that, “group identities” only exist in the minds of people who accept them. Human beings are not “The Borg”.
I hope this is not too off topic… But with this talk of political candidates, I am truly wondering if in the last 20 years the democratic and republican administrations have essentially spent the same amount of money on “social welfare causes” - if one includes national and international spending in the equation. I would guess that at least 90 percent of my colleagues would say that they are loyal democrats; with social welfare causes as their biggest concern when it comes to who they end up voting for in elections. Does anyone know if my hunch is correct that democrats actually do not ultimately outspend republicans when it comes to social welfare? BTW, I truly hate both parties.
Oddly enough, the GOP (at least on the Federal level) has been spending more lately . . .
People don’t “choose” these group identites, they’re born into them and socially conditioned to believe in them.
Sure they do. Lots of people leave and join religions for example. I’ve known several people who have self-identified with a racially unlikely culture or group and joined such.
I’m not sure it is rational to say that people don’t choose group identities.
I agree with Brainpolice that many people are socially conditioned to believe in group identities. There are, however, enough examples of people rejecting group identities to prove that it is possible. What it is not possible to do is change one’s race or ethnicity (with the possible exception of Michael Jackson who used his wealth to transform himself into a space alien.)
I was speaking particularly in the context of ethnicity and nationhood. People do not choose their ethnicities or nationhoods, they are born into them. In terms of people’s religions and politics, it is often the case that they are conditioned by their parents, the media, the education system and the overall culture.
People do not “choose” the pre-existing conditions that effect them, nor do they “choose” the pre-existing social conventions and cultural attitudes that sweepingly define them before they can even develope a true self-identity.
It is often the case that such group identites are labels that others “choose” for you, not the result of a rationally developed self-identity. In order to effectively communicate and function in the society, some may asquiesce to the terminology to a degree, but that doesn’t mean it’s a truly chosen individual identity.
People cannot choose where they were born or how their parents raised them but many people DO choose their nationhoods. I work in a college and many of the professors came from elsewhere. These people CHOSE to be Americans. They had to jump through a lot of hoops but they did. I recognize that not everyone has that opportunity but many do - either through action or inaction choose. I could, if I really wanted to, rearrange my life in such a way as to move to another country. I choose not to take those actions. Partly because I like where I live now but mostly because, frankly, it would be too much trouble in many ways. As children people usually have to follow the will of their parents to a large degree. As adults we can make our own identities. People can learn a new language if they want too. They can move, they can change religions. In a society that is at least marginally free you can Choose Your Own Adventure©.
Is Lew Rockwell speaking there? If not, he should.
I’m pretty sure he isn’t, and it is the loss of the C4L. I’m so pissed at them. They are squandering a lot of opportunities pandering to the wrong people.
C4L should throw weight behind the Taxachusetts ballot as a first step imo. Would earn publicity too.
And then deal with similar initiatives for good.
No, the event seems designed to pander to people who thought “well, I like Ron Paul on guns and taxes, but he’s just insane if he says we shouldn’t murder foreigners.” Aside from Paul and Tom Woods, the most libertarian person speaking there seems to be Jesse Ventura. This event, in my mind, signifies the end of Ron Paul as a movement against the GOP agenda, and the beginning of its attempt to incorporate into conservativism. It makes me sick.
Well, Tucker Carlson will be there. We know that when he isn’t pandering to the political establishment, he’s a libertarian. [8-)]
I’d argue that Gary Johnson is about as libertarian as Jesse Ventura.