You have taken one paragraph out of context from a full book and write off someone. This is the way of the progressive. Anyone who disagrees is a Nazi. No need to look at the argument.
You are totally right. It's terrible when people make broad generalizations to dismiss an entire group of people they disagree with.
Hoppe suggests decentralization. Relatively small private communities will form w/ their own norms, rules, etc. He also thinks this will happen eventually through passive succession as the central institutions slowly collapse.
The Chinese would remember something like this as the Warlord Era.
You have taken one paragraph out of context from a full book and write off someone. This is the way of the progressive. Anyone who disagrees is a Nazi. No need to look at the argument.
You are totally right. It's terrible when people make broad generalizations to dismiss an entire group of people they disagree with.
In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, . . . naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, -- H-H Hoppe (from that book).
This is so disturbing. It sounds like the intellectual underpinnings of some variation on the Nazi's final solution for Jews, Gypsies and gay men.
And terp tosses it off as Hoppe simple being non-pc.
Scary.
Wonder what terp wanted us to get out of that link?
You have taken one paragraph out of context from a full book and write off someone.
Does more context actually help? Here's the paragraphs that follow:
"It should be obvious then that and why libertarians must be moral and cultural conservatives of the most uncompromising kind. The current state of moral degeneration, social disintegration and cultural rot is precisely the result of too much-and above all erroneous and misconceived-tolerance. Rather than having all habitual democrats, communists, and alternative lifestylists quickly isolated, excluded and expelled from civilization in accordance with the principles of the covenant, they were tolerated by society. Yet this toleration only encouraged and promoted even more egalitarian and relativistic sentiments and attitudes, until at last the point was reached where the authority of excluding anyone for anything had effectively evaporated (while the power of the state, as manifested in state-sponsored forced integration policies, had correspondingly grown).
Libertarians, in their attempt to establish a free natural social order, must strive to regain from the state the right to exclusion inherent in private property. Yet even before they accomplish this and in order to render such an achievement even possible, libertarians cannot soon enough begin to reassert and exercise, to the extent that the situation still permits them to do so, their right to exclusion in everyday life. Libertarians must distinguish themselves from others by practicing (as well as advocating) the most extreme form of intolerance and discrimination against egalitarians, democrats, socialists, communists, multi-culturalists, environmentalists, ill manners, misconduct, incompetence,rudeness, vulgarity, and obscenity. Like true conservatives, who will have to dissociate themselves from the false social(ist) conservatism of the Buchananites and the neoconservatives, true libertarians must visibly and ostentatiously dissociate themselves from the false multi-countercultural and anti-authoritarian egalitarian left-libertarian impostors."
Does more context actually help? Here's the paragraphs that follow:
"It should be obvious then that and why libertarians must be moral and cultural conservatives of the most uncompromising kind. The current state of moral degeneration, social disintegration and cultural rot is precisely the result of too much-and above all erroneous and misconceived-tolerance. Rather than having all habitual democrats, communists, and alternative lifestylists quickly isolated, excluded and expelled from civilization in accordance with the principles of the covenant, they were tolerated by society. Yet this toleration only encouraged and promoted even more egalitarian and relativistic sentiments and attitudes, until at last the point was reached where the authority of excluding anyone for anything had effectively evaporated (while the power of the state, as manifested in state-sponsored forced integration policies, had correspondingly grown).
Libertarians, in their attempt to establish a free natural social order, must strive to regain from the state the right to exclusion inherent in private property. Yet even before they accomplish this and in order to render such an achievement even possible, libertarians cannot soon enough begin to reassert and exercise, to the extent that the situation still permits them to do so, their right to exclusion in everyday life. Libertarians must distinguish themselves from others by practicing (as well as advocating) the most extreme form of intolerance and discrimination against egalitarians, democrats, socialists, communists, multi-culturalists, environmentalists, ill manners, misconduct, incompetence,rudeness, vulgarity, and obscenity. Like true conservatives, who will have to dissociate themselves from the false social(ist) conservatism of the Buchananites and the neoconservatives, true libertarians must visibly and ostentatiously dissociate themselves from the false multi-countercultural and anti-authoritarian egalitarian left-libertarian impostors."
Are we certain this isn't some satire on "Libertarians"?
Does more context actually help? Here's the paragraphs that follow:
"It should be obvious then that and why libertarians must be moral and cultural conservatives of the most uncompromising kind. The current state of moral degeneration, social disintegration and cultural rot is precisely the result of too much-and above all erroneous and misconceived-tolerance. Rather than having all habitual democrats, communists, and alternative lifestylists quickly isolated, excluded and expelled from civilization in accordance with the principles of the covenant, they were tolerated by society. Yet this toleration only encouraged and promoted even more egalitarian and relativistic sentiments and attitudes, until at last the point was reached where the authority of excluding anyone for anything had effectively evaporated (while the power of the state, as manifested in state-sponsored forced integration policies, had correspondingly grown).
Libertarians, in their attempt to establish a free natural social order, must strive to regain from the state the right to exclusion inherent in private property. Yet even before they accomplish this and in order to render such an achievement even possible, libertarians cannot soon enough begin to reassert and exercise, to the extent that the situation still permits them to do so, their right to exclusion in everyday life. Libertarians must distinguish themselves from others by practicing (as well as advocating) the most extreme form of intolerance and discrimination against egalitarians, democrats, socialists, communists, multi-culturalists, environmentalists, ill manners, misconduct, incompetence,rudeness, vulgarity, and obscenity. Like true conservatives, who will have to dissociate themselves from the false social(ist) conservatism of the Buchananites and the neoconservatives, true libertarians must visibly and ostentatiously dissociate themselves from the false multi-countercultural and anti-authoritarian egalitarian left-libertarian impostors."
Are we certain this isn't some satire on "Libertarians"?
Seriously, it kinda sounds like a Betty Bowers style caricature.
Warnock received more votes but neither candidate got over 50% of the vote.
And there lies the problem. Warnock got 35,000 more votes. The libertarian candidate who will be out of the picture next time got 80,000. When Libertarians don't have their own candidate they vote overwhelmingly Republican.
Warnock received more votes but neither candidate got over 50% of the vote.
And there lies the problem. Warnock got 35,000 more votes. The libertarian candidate who will be out of the picture next time got 80,000. When Libertarians don't have their own candidate they vote overwhelmingly Republican.
Yeah but libertarians are, I think, more likely to just skip the run-off election altogether. I don't think Walker is enticing enough to them to bother voting for.
Yeah but libertarians are, I think, more likely to just skip the run-off election altogether. I don't think Walker is enticing enough to them to bother voting for.
I keep scratching my head and asking myself, who are these people who voted for Herschel? Do these people hate the democrats so much that they would rather vote for a character like Herschel, than stay home and watch tv?
I keep scratching my head and asking myself, who are these people who voted for Herschel? Do these people hate the democrats so much that they would rather vote for a character like Herschel, than stay home and watch tv?
Yes.
They believe the Democrats are destroying their country and their way of life. Do you ever watch Fox News?
This is partly why your election behaviours are so perplexing and so weird (so are most other countries). I saw one tally board my-yesterday that included literally ‘None of these candidates’ and a running tally. Here, that would be just included with invalid votes/spoiled ballots.
Everyone says that voting here is compulsory. No, just showing up is. You can return a blank ballot (in early voting or postal voting), just as long as your name is checked off the roll. Merely hoping some critical demographic will be bothered to front up isn’t a concern. But if you want them to vote for you, you’d better be sure to reach out to them appropriately!
This is partly why your election behaviours are so perplexing and so weird (so are most other countries). I saw one tally board my-yesterday that included literally ‘None of these candidates’ and a running tally. Here, that would be just included with invalid votes/spoiled ballots.
Some states have passed laws to allow people to officially vote for nobody to register their non-support of any available candidate. So it’s different from turning in a blank ballot. I think it’s well-intentioned but I’m not sure what material effect it creates.
Some states have passed laws to allow people to officially vote for nobody to register their non-support of any available candidate. So it’s different from turning in a blank ballot. I think it’s well-intentioned but I’m not sure what material effect it creates.
I keep scratching my head and asking myself, who are these people who voted for Herschel? Do these people hate the democrats so much that they would rather vote for a character like Herschel, than stay home and watch tv?
Yes.
They believe the Democrats are destroying their country and their way of life. Do you ever watch Fox News?
They may also be ignorant of Hershel's reprehensible and hypocritical conduct.
Fox news and other right wing sites will ignore or gloss over his deficiencies. Whereas Warnock's "socialism" and so called "un-American activities" will be highlighted.
Above is a picture of one of the two Texas mansions Herschel Walker has lived in long-term this century. Both in Texas. The most recent one he lived for ten years-in fact, up until only a matter of months ago, when a last-minute stunt allowed him to become nominally an "inhabitant" (not even a permanent resident) of Georgia.
Now its being publicized? Are the Democrats incapable of doing and using oppo research?
I'm thinkin giving money to the DNC is a waste. Considering their weak and often ineffectual messaging it seems the consultants they hired with our money is wasted money.
Its time to replace the DNC with competency, with leaders who have some fire in their bellies.
Now its being publicized? Are the Democrats incapable of doing and using oppo research?
You’re a Georgian voter. Someone is telling you that Herschel Walker, native son and Bulldog legend, is a carpetbagger (a la Mehmet Oz or, as the argument went 22 years ago, Hillary Clinton). Are you buying it?
Now its being publicized? Are the Democrats incapable of doing and using oppo research?
I'm thinkin giving money to the DNC is a waste. Considering their weak and often ineffectual messaging it seems the consultants they hired with our money is wasted money.
Its time to replace the DNC with competency, with leaders who have some fire in their bellies.
being a carpetbagger would be at the bottom of my list of criteria for voting for Senate. I want a senator who represents my POV on the issues, and will vote the way I want him/her to. I imagine most GA voters couldn't care less about Walker's homes in TX. There are plenty of other reasons to oppose him.
Now its being publicized? Are the Democrats incapable of doing and using oppo research?
You’re a Georgian voter. Someone is telling you that Herschel Walker, native son and Bulldog legend, is a carpetbagger (a la Mehmet Oz or, as the argument went 22 years ago, Hillary Clinton). Are you buying it?
I wouldn't buy it.
But you use what you can. In a tight race even if 1 in 500 buys it, then it may be enough.
This is partly why your election behaviours are so perplexing and so weird (so are most other countries). I saw one tally board my-yesterday that included literally ‘None of these candidates’ and a running tally. Here, that would be just included with invalid votes/spoiled ballots.
Some states have passed laws to allow people to officially vote for nobody to register their non-support of any available candidate. So it’s different from turning in a blank ballot. I think it’s well-intentioned but I’m not sure what material effect it creates.
While I cast a ballot in every election, sometimes I withhold my vote for certain offices. For example, I don't vote for DiVincenzo because he is totally corrupt, so I leave County Executive blank.
While I cast a ballot in every election, sometimes I withhold my vote for certain offices. For example, I don't vote for DiVincenzo because he is totally corrupt, so I leave County Executive blank.
The difference is then that your lack of a vote does not affect the denominator of all votes cast. We don’t have the option to cast a vote that says I do not like any of the candidates. All we can do is abstain.
of course. he probably thinks it will keep him from being charged with crimes stemming from Jan. 6.
At the very least it will become a legal delay tactic. Every time the DOJ or the Fulton County DA or NYAG makes some kind of demand, the Trump legal team will file a motion to dismiss because he’s a presidential candidate.
And it will probably help him argue that the campaign funds he’s raised ($95 million I think) should cover the legal bills while he’s a candidate. I’m not sure if that’s legal but that’s never really bothered him before.
At the very least it will become a legal delay tactic. Every time the DOJ or the Fulton County DA or NYAG makes some kind of demand, the Trump legal team will file a motion to dismiss because he’s a presidential candidate.
And it will probably help him argue that the campaign funds he’s raised ($95 million I think) should cover the legal bills while he’s a candidate. I’m not sure if that’s legal but that’s never really bothered him before.
You are totally right. It's terrible when people make broad generalizations to dismiss an entire group of people they disagree with.