I Pledge Allegiance to the Tribe

[TheCount]

[The Rebel Poet]

I have received too much rep since then but one was in the thread about porn sites pushing mixed race couples.
I don't really care, I'm perfectly willing to let bygones be bygones.




I know but proving that I said the exact opposite comes close to proving that I never said such a thing.

I never repped you in that thread. In fact, I can see my outreps going back to August 2018, and haven't called you a racist in that time. Perhaps as I was, you're thinking of someone else? It matters to me because I don't think that is a good way for me to act.

There are three reasons that I think you shouldn't let this go:
1. When you let wrong accusations go, they become an accepted truth (people will remember some shadow of a memory from the collective ether of the site).
2. When you let wrong accusations go, the wrongdoers don't learn to modify their behavior (that allegedly would be me in this case).
3. When you let wrong accusations go, you look like a shill (people will say things like "he was lying, and now he just wants to change the subject since I proved it").

[The Rebel Poet]

You mean the thread where you said this?



Exact proportions may be debated? Liberty-minded people trying to teach their values to imported adoptees "wouldn't solve the problem"?

Think again.





As usual, he says what he does not mean. He even explains why. But the veneer is thin. He does have just enough honesty, however, to refuse to rule race out.

First, you seem to think you can infer a secret meaning behind SS's words. As I've said before, that is not a useful way to deal with people. Second, are you saying that genetics causing culture is outside the scope of questions? That would require a 100% certainty of knowledge. Maybe I'm just pedantic, but I wouldn't feel comfortable claiming such certainty. If he is saying that he's not willing to automatically disregard even the possibility of being corrected by evidence, then that seems quite reasonable.

I usually enjoy watching you smack SS down, but you just seem cantankorous here.

[RJB]

I have to go back to the name calling that I glossed over earlier. As for the baboon, lol, that just shows I rattled you enough for you to slip and admit that you are a globalist monarchist, libertarian, no one but Paul until Hillary clenched it or whatever you wish to call yourself.

As for calling me a nationalist, I am about as nationalist as Ron Paul. I was a libertarian in the 1990s. What attracted me to Dr. Paul was his antagonism towards foreign interventionalism. The foreign interventionalism that we have seen is not altruistic but based on greed. It has caused misery across the world. I am against that because I trust no one with that power.

As for national borders, we learned with the British that if you want to have freedom and to keep it, the British needed to be defeated and the Tories sent back to England or Canada, where they are free to live under the crown as they wish. That would have been my outlook then and it's my outlook now.

The North Korean or Venezuelan communists, for instance, aren't imaginary hobgoblins.

If it were possible to remove and replace them in a cost effective way, that would be a sensible thing to do: a step toward liberty.

Only a purist libertarian (not you) or nationalist baboon (you) could possibly disagree.

[r3volution 3.0]

You think like all statists with a GOD complex, somethings should be left alone because you are more likely to do harm than good if you meddle in them.

"Do nothing, because you might cause harm" (your position) is as dumb as "do anything, because it might help."

The alternative to such nonsense is for people to look at the facts on a case by case basis and make an informed decision (my position).

And, actually, this is also your position, when you're not backing yourself into bizarre corners to rationalize your nationalism. You don't take the "do nothing, since it might be wrong" approach to the policy of collecting taxes to finance domestic judicial and security services (i.e. having a state at all), do you? No, you apply cost benefit analysis (the aggression entailed by building the minimal state is outweighed by the aggression entailed by anarchy). Only when this same reasoning threatens to justify intervention *gasp* across sacred national borders *oh noes!* do you object.

You could make the exact same arguments about economic issues and you would be just as wrong.

The argument against economic intervention isn't "you might do harm, so don't do anything."

It's "we know you'll do harm because [insert economic reasoning], so don't do anything."

Don't you see the difference?

[r3volution 3.0]

As for the baboon, lol, that just shows I rattled you enough for you to slip and admit...

...to holding views which I openly express on a regular basis, and had already expressed in this thread before you came along.

Yes, well played debatemeister.

[Swordsmyth]

I never repped you in that thread. In fact, I can see my outreps going back to August 2018, and haven't called you a racist in that time. Perhaps as I was, you're thinking of someone else? It matters to me because I don't think that is a good way for me to act.

There are three reasons that I think you shouldn't let this go:
1. When you let wrong accusations go, they become an accepted truth (people will remember some shadow of a memory from the collective ether of the site).
2. When you let wrong accusations go, the wrongdoers don't learn to modify their behavior (that allegedly would be me in this case).
3. When you let wrong accusations go, you look like a shill (people will say things like "he was lying, and now he just wants to change the subject since I proved it").

I was sure it was you but I could be wrong so I will just take your word for this as well and apologize.

I still believe your -Rep to me about a technological update to the Post Office is unfair however.

[Swordsmyth]

"Do nothing, because you might cause harm" (your position) is as dumb as "do anything, because it might help."

The alternative to such nonsense is for people to look at the facts on a case by case basis and make an informed decision (my position).

And, actually, this is also your position, when you're not backing yourself into bizarre corners to rationalize your nationalism. You don't take the "do nothing, since it might be wrong" approach to the policy of collecting taxes to finance domestic judicial and security services (i.e. having a state at all), do you? No, you apply cost benefit analysis (the aggression entailed by building the minimal state is outweighed by the aggression entailed by anarchy). Only when this same reasoning threatens to justify intervention *gasp* across sacred national borders *oh noes!* do you object.



The argument against economic intervention isn't "you might do harm, so don't do anything."

It's "we know you'll do harm because [insert economic reasoning], so don't do anything."

Don't you see the difference?

I didn't say "you MIGHT do harm" I said you are far more likely to do harm than good and that is exactly the same as economic intervention.

[r3volution 3.0]

I didn't say "you MIGHT do harm" I said you are far more likely to do harm than good

So, in deciding whether to intervene, one should do a cost benefit analysis?

[Swordsmyth]

So, in deciding whether to intervene, one should do a cost benefit analysis?

Would you say that about economic intervention?

The answer and the reason is the same for both.

[Anti Federalist]

Venezuela produces a lot of tropical fruit; therefore, tropical fruit causes socialism.

No, SS already addressed this.

Import collectivist statists, get more statism.

[r3volution 3.0]

Would you say that about economic intervention?

No, I'd look to economics.

The answer and the reason is the same for both.

That makes no sense.

Economics demonstrates that, for instance, maximum price controls cause shortages.

Economics is silent on geopolitics.

[Anti Federalist]

"just powers from consent"

that deserves a ponder

Yes it does, and I have many times.

Long ago this government lost my consent.

Which is why we must peaceably separate, before war breaks out and God knows how many millions die.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[Anti Federalist]

No, SS already addressed this.

Import collectivist statists, get more statism.

Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?

Nobody disputes it when it happens inter-state, when places like Austin get "Californicated" for instance.

[Anti Federalist]

I'll plus rep that, for perfect use of The Stig.

[Swordsmyth]

No, I'd look to economics.



That makes no sense.

Economics demonstrates that, for instance, maximum price controls cause shortages.

Economics is silent on geopolitics.

You would not even consider economic intervention because you lack the proper information to make the economic judgements required to intervene successfully.
The same is true of military interventions, you have no way of knowing whether the outcome of your intervention will be better for the world and its people (or your own people) will be better off or worse off and the odds are against you.

[Swordsmyth]

Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?

Nobody disputes it when it happens inter-state, when places like Austin get "Californicated" for instance.

Because leftists and leftarians suffer from xenophilia, they have an overpowering desire to import the foreign whether it makes any sense or not.

[RJB]

I disagree. There is little love (phila) involved. I think it is more of self-loathing, indoctrinated guilt, etc. Civil war will be a reality if the 2nd Amendment is abolished. Importing a population overwhelmingly against the 2nd is suicide.

Because leftists and leftarians suffer from xenophilia, they have an overpowering desire to import the foreign whether it makes any sense or not.

[Swordsmyth]

I disagree. There is little love (phila) involved. I think it is more of self-loathing, indoctrinated guilt, etc. Civil war will be a reality if the 2nd Amendment is abolished. Importing a population overwhelmingly against the 2nd is suicide.

From what I have seen there is an irrational love of foreigners as well as an irrational hatred of their own countrymen, many of them actually want the foreigners to destroy their countrymen for them.

[RJB]

From what I have seen there is an irrational love of foreigners as well as an irrational hatred of their own countrymen, many of them actually want the foreigners to destroy their countrymen for them.

I love foreigners too. I also love my way of life and prefer to live it as it is.

[Anti Federalist]

I love foreigners too. I also love my way of life and prefer to live it as it is.

Racist, nativist, nationalist $#@!lord.

Be quiet before we kill you.

[RonZeplin]

[r3volution 3.0]

You would not even consider economic intervention because you lack the proper information to make the economic judgements required to intervene successfully.

The same is true of military interventions, you have no way of knowing whether the outcome of your intervention will be better for the world and its people (or your own people) will be better off or worse off and the odds are against you.

The state lacks the knowledge to make good economic decisions, and so libertarians favor having those decisions left to individual market actors.

The situation is different in geopolitics.

If states lack the knowledge to make good decisions as to intervention, oh well, there's no alternative.

There is no equivalent to laissez faire in geopolitics (no alternative to states making these decisions).

So, put aside who is making the decision (this is a given), and consider how they make the decision.

[Swordsmyth]

The state lacks the knowledge to make good economic decisions, and so libertarians favor having those decisions left to individual market actors.

The situation is different in geopolitics.

If states lack the knowledge to make good decisions as to intervention, oh well, there's no alternative.

There is no equivalent to laissez faire in geopolitics (no alternative to states making these decisions).

So, put aside who is making the decision (this is a given), and consider how they make the decision.

There most certainly is an alternative, Noninterventionism.
If states lack the knowledge to make proper decisions and the odds of them doing harm are higher than the odds of them doing good then it is best for them to never intervene.

It is also possible for private citizens to voluntarily engage in foreign intervention and only risk their own lives and money if states would allow that and that would be an improvement over states taxing and drafting their people to intervene.

[r3volution 3.0]

There most certainly is an alternative, Noninterventionism.

That is not an alternative to states making decisions about intervention; that's a call for them to make those decisions in a certain way.

If states lack the knowledge to make proper decisions and the odds of them doing harm are higher than the odds of them doing good then it is best for them to never intervene.

See above

It is also possible for private citizens to voluntarily engage in foreign intervention and only risk their own lives and money if states would allow that and that would be an improvement over states taxing and drafting their people to intervene.

And there's no reason to suppose that they would be in any better position to make such decisions.

[Swordsmyth]

And there's no reason to suppose that they would be in any better position to make such decisions.

True but they wouldn't be potentially causing harm to those who pay for or die in the intervention, that tilts the odds farther in their favor.

[r3volution 3.0]

True but they wouldn't be potentially causing harm to those who pay for or die in the intervention, that tilts the odds farther in their favor.

So you're doing cost-benefit analysis?

[Swordsmyth]

So you're doing cost-benefit analysis?

No, they are, and they have better odds than any state.

[r3volution 3.0]

No, they are

Should they?

If not, how ought they make decisions?

Coin flip?

and they have better odds than any state.

Why's that?

[Swordsmyth]

Should they?

If not, how ought they make decisions?

Coin flip?

If they are going to intervene they should, it is a separate question whether they should consider intervening or not but there would be a better argument for them than for a state.

Why's that?

Because the state will damage its own people as well as the targeted country, private volunteers will not.