| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57
Comments:
<0> wtf they weren't Libertarian
<0> thats stupid
<1> Few had senses of ownership.
<2> they had wars and tribes and hierarchies and a strict set of ethical codes.
<1> THey had 0 borders.
<3> how is that libertarian?
<1> largly nomadic.
<2> borders aren't the defining concept of libertarianism.
<0> ... Libertarianism has senses of ownership, infact property rights is a HUGE issue for Libertarians
<2> right
<3> Herzen, aye
<1> Libertarian doctrine calls for 100 percent open borders.
<4> In making its decision, Whole Foods pointed to a November report from the European Food Safety Authority Animal Health and Welfare panel that it said concluded all decapod crustaceans, including lobsters and crabs, appear to have some degree of awareness, feel pain and can learn.
<5> timur: If you need to expand on "liberals"...how would you? Getting at them being morons
<1> Doesn't mean they weren't libertarian.
<4> my god
<4> HAHAHAH
<2> it calls for a number of things, and the issues other than borders.. don't match native american culture, dude.
<4> its a freakin LOBSTER
<2> it means they weren't.
<2> Vemo: no, liberals are sensible on some issues, and not others.Like conservatives.
<0> i guess they did drugs
<1> You haven't proved them to align with anything.
<0> maybe that made them libertarian
<3> Herzen, for religious purposes
<3> not recreation
<1> If they didn't have a libertarian open border policy the US would have harder to start.
<4> you can't fix liberals just like you can't fix stupid
<2> sintient: they 'align' with a preliterate, tribal culture, that is beyond libertarianism by virtue of its traditionalism and tribalism.
<2> k
<1> Rusty used to be a liberal till he was brow beaten and made some money.
<3> It's awfully broad anyway, to lump all the different indigenous cultural groups into one description anyway
<2> 'liberal' and 'conservative' aren't really the only relevant, or even interesting, alignments politically.
<3> some were nomadic, some were not
<2> which is why isolationism, for example, was raised as an issue.
<3> some had weak or decentralized governing structures
<1> So a tribe can't allign with anything whatever.
<3> some had just the opposite
<2> sintient: not in terms of post-Enlightenment European political categories, no, not really.
<1> The bottom line is if they had strict borders they would have torched every ship that came to shore and pushed settlers into the ocean.
<2> contemporaneous modern categories, that is
<1> You just made that up.
<2> no, I'm making a justified analysis based on political theory and historic reality.
<1> So you say.
<3> sintient, there were lots of skirmishes between white settlers and natives over land
<1> But mostly it is just closed minded.
<6> i'd rather kill myself than go back to work today
<7> were the rebel scum attacking the death star again last night?
<2> indeed I do, and I, and we, have cited numerous reasons why, whereas you're still going on about 'borders' as being the sole issue defining Libertarian political thought, which, of course, it isn;t.
<2> Zaw: yeah
<1> Check the population numbers and see how well settlers in a few ships would have faired if the indians were determined to defend borders at the start of the colonization.
<5> z
<5> "skirmishes"?
<1> I didn't say it was the sole issue.
<2> sintient: ok, but that has nothing to do with Libertarianism,.
<1> But the thier libertarians stance on borders.
<3> sintient, they did attack settlers
<3> they were outcl***ed by European weapon technology
<1> Just because you don't quite grasp clarifying statements and speaking about single issues at a time doesn't meaen that I don't know how.
<2> well, you sure implied it, since there are about 20 other issues that are totally anti-Libertarian, including the rarity of the application of the idea of ownership of land or other private property.
<1> Sure and settlers attacked indians.
<3> Hell, read the history of Jamestown
<1> Hell is right.
<1> You mistook the implication then.
<2> no, it means that your statement that 'Indians/Native Americans were Libertarians' is wrong because of the singular and misplaced focus of your critique.
<8> String too long Timur!
<1> Not my fault you jumped to a blanket conclusion.
<2> no, you stated that they were Libertarians, and, they weren't.
<2> it's your statement, dude.
<1> You agree they were on some isses.
<1> issues.
<2> maybe you should've said 'in the sense that'_____
<4> Two football fans were shot dead in Thailand for cheering to loudly during the World Cup, the pair were watching Italy's 2-0 win over Ghana.
<2> but not in 20 other senses.
<2> or whatever #
<3> what is dam|an?
<7> you can conquer a nation without firing a shot by simply flooding its borders and refusing to adapt to the culture. 'Camp of the Saints', by Jean Raspail is a great book on the topic.
<3> a bot?
<5> They weren't even democratic...
<1> Maybe you should have just realized that since I spoke just about borders and the conversation was about borders that that is what I was talking about.
<1> I mean why would I just to no taxes when we are talking about open borders.
<2> sintient: except it wasn't just about borders. You're the one who brought that up as, for some reason, the relevant issue.
<3> I thought we were talking about political labels
<2> so, yeah, I realized it, but it's really not relevant.
<3> not borders
<1> We were just talking about borders.
<2> Katey: exactly.
<4> The two roared when Italy forced their first goal, a man next to them asked to quiet down, an arguement insued, the old guy pulled out a gun and shot them both at point blank range.
<2> no, you were.
<3> borders was brought up as an example of how the indians were libertarian
<9> sintient, you were.
<2> nice way to get the conversational flow
<1> Thanks.
<2> except what it doesn't acknowledge is the many other more important ways they weren't.
<6> indians were libertarian?
<6> i.e. american indians?
<2> fisher: so says sintient
<3> well, the essential problem with that statement is that it's just too broad
<5> How were the Idians liberatian?
<1> It was there libertarian stance on borders that made it easy for the settlers to move in.
<6> it is quite broad but i can draw similarities to that
<3> there were many different cultural groups, all with different governing structures and ways of life
<9> VemoD, they weren't.
<6> the idea that no one is owned by anyone
<6> or receprocity
<1> I was respnding to one persons calling libertarians morons about borders now all of you are taking it too broad.
<3> sintient, no. Really it was their inability to repel them
<10> I own Twobar.
<1> So every indian wanted them gone now?
<3> Europeans had them trumped on technology
<6> no i actually thought it was a good point heh
<1> Indians took pity on them.
<3> It's my understanding that there were a variety of different ideas about what to do about the Europeans
<1> They hardly could survive the winter.
<11> **** the indians
<1> Tobacco was exploited to make most of the ventures profitable.
<3> Yes. The Powhatan helped the early settlers of Jamestown
<3> but he also later attacked them
<2> sintient: no, you said <1> So stupid it was the indians libertarianism that allowed for the creation of the US.
<3> Again, that's too broad a statement.
<1> Right in context of somoen saying libertarians were stupid.
<1> It was in response to a specific statement.
<3> the different groups responded to the Europeans differently
<1> You are all taking it out of context.
<2> which had nothing to do with foreign policy or the idea of the overusage of political labeling of 'liberal' or 'conservative'
<1> Go back and read the scroll.
<2> which was the original issue
<2> I did, and you still don't make sense.
<6> libertarian is the propa system
<9> sintient, it was a stupid statement.
<1> It was in response to libertarians being called morons for their border policy.
<1> There you go tailor prove your skills as an arbitor.
<3> sintient, I think they were being called morons for more than just border policy. :)
<1> Read the scroll and don't think know.
<1> It was about isolationism.
<2> right, and isolationism isn't 'having strict border control'
<1> Jeez I responded to one statement about isolationism in context of neo cons and libertarians.
<1> Haha now that is kinda funny.
<12> irc exists mainly for the purpose of taking people out of context, sarcasm and demagoguery
<3> ack
<2> isolationism means 'not engaging with nations abroad'
<3> gotta get going
<2> yeah it is
<6> that'll learn ya to contribute lol
<9> sintient, you responded with a half baked stupid statement.
<2> since you 1. can't argue coherently and 2. don't know the meanings of the terms you're using
<7> sintient: so most libertarians believe in open borders?
<1> And immigration is no issue to an isolationist?
<1> Liberty is freedom and border controls are restriction.
<2> it's an issue, but it's not the main issue of isolationism, which is, again, the idea of engagement *abroad*.
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#flash
#freebsd
#delphi
#stocks
lockheed i love guns
#stocks
#politics
otidnaB
No module named sapi
#beginner
|
|