- 14 Feb 2012 20:58
#13896196
With all this clamoring going on about libertarians being racists, I think it's about time people discussed what's really going on.
Even within the Republican party, libertarians are outcast. They're outcast for not taking social values seriously. Recently, when Ron Paul was asked about charitable health care, he referred to churches as a provider despite libertarianism supposedly being beyond religion. On another note, Ron Paul has clamored emphatically for a reduction in defense spending, but he hasn't considered how the military is the one institutional card conservatives actually have in government to influence social policy.
On the other hand, despite how libertarianism supports immigrant naturalization, legalizing drugs, and abortion tolerance, progressives still hound on the supposed racism of freedom of association. It's a very unsophisticated argument because it ignores due process...
...or is it?
The question seems to really boil down to how one defines "sophistication". In logical terms, yes, obviously freedom of association itself isn't racist. Some racists might use freedom of association, though, as an excuse to prohibit say blacks from entering their restaurants...
...but is that what's really the issue among the political establishment?
In social terms, "sophistication" isn't about being logically correct. Sophistication is about being classy. It's about having economic power and social layers such that you're protected from being... TROLLED by fallacious criticism.
The reason for this is people don't need vulnerable leaders. We don't need people who are being distracted by little pests. It's the same reason we have press secretaries. Press secretaries are a buffer between the media and politicians so politicians can stay focused (yea right, but just go with it) on getting their job done. Does Ron Paul have a social network to choose a qualified press secretary among?
Even within politics itself, politicians have to be thick skinned to compete for what they want. If a politician isn't socially sophisticated, then the politician won't be able to stand tall or bother others to compete for attention. Due process itself takes resources, and if a politician is constantly clamoring for due process, even judges and parliamentarians will get frustrated. Even more so, one person clamoring for due process can only argue so much against others clamoring for due process. Filibuster speeches are a perfect example. The best speech giver can only go on and on for about a day, once done, the opposition is still going to be there, waiting for chance to call for a vote...
...so it doesn't seem Ron Paul and libertarians are really being criticized for being racist. Rather they're being criticized for being socially outcast. It's the same reason people don't like Ron Paul because he sounds like your grandma who never gets out of the house.
Even within the Republican party, libertarians are outcast. They're outcast for not taking social values seriously. Recently, when Ron Paul was asked about charitable health care, he referred to churches as a provider despite libertarianism supposedly being beyond religion. On another note, Ron Paul has clamored emphatically for a reduction in defense spending, but he hasn't considered how the military is the one institutional card conservatives actually have in government to influence social policy.
On the other hand, despite how libertarianism supports immigrant naturalization, legalizing drugs, and abortion tolerance, progressives still hound on the supposed racism of freedom of association. It's a very unsophisticated argument because it ignores due process...
...or is it?
The question seems to really boil down to how one defines "sophistication". In logical terms, yes, obviously freedom of association itself isn't racist. Some racists might use freedom of association, though, as an excuse to prohibit say blacks from entering their restaurants...
...but is that what's really the issue among the political establishment?
In social terms, "sophistication" isn't about being logically correct. Sophistication is about being classy. It's about having economic power and social layers such that you're protected from being... TROLLED by fallacious criticism.
The reason for this is people don't need vulnerable leaders. We don't need people who are being distracted by little pests. It's the same reason we have press secretaries. Press secretaries are a buffer between the media and politicians so politicians can stay focused (yea right, but just go with it) on getting their job done. Does Ron Paul have a social network to choose a qualified press secretary among?
Even within politics itself, politicians have to be thick skinned to compete for what they want. If a politician isn't socially sophisticated, then the politician won't be able to stand tall or bother others to compete for attention. Due process itself takes resources, and if a politician is constantly clamoring for due process, even judges and parliamentarians will get frustrated. Even more so, one person clamoring for due process can only argue so much against others clamoring for due process. Filibuster speeches are a perfect example. The best speech giver can only go on and on for about a day, once done, the opposition is still going to be there, waiting for chance to call for a vote...
...so it doesn't seem Ron Paul and libertarians are really being criticized for being racist. Rather they're being criticized for being socially outcast. It's the same reason people don't like Ron Paul because he sounds like your grandma who never gets out of the house.
- By ingliz
- By wat0n
- By Negotiator