When I put such questions to other libertarians, one common response is a frantic attempt to reinterpret the problem out of existence.
Lets agree not to do that. If you are for allowing racial discrimination and you are for allowing people to be killed by mobs without the benefit of a trial, its very clear what type of society you are comfortable with.
I support property rights and the right of private citizens to defend themselves and others. Make of that what you will. Using inflammatory language doesn't suddenly make my position evil. As I said, I'm done arguing this with you. Continue, and I will cease discussing anything with you.
Your proposal is a return to the good old days of legal
racial discrimination and to allowing
lynching. That is evil - no inflammatory language is needed.
Inflammatory language highlighted for your reading pleasure. Good bye, Hawker.
Racial discrimination and lynching are what you want to allow. That is a simple matter of fact supported by your posting history.
If that is inflammatory to you, perhaps you need to re-think what you stand for?
Nope, that means he needs to put out of his mind the inconveniences of this ideology and simply pretend they don't exist.
All ideology is inconvenient (and ultimately unworkable) because it does not and can never fully mesh with the concrete reality of our existence. That is, there can be no mechanistic methodology of justice or morality, meaning that every act of morality or justice is not fully inclusive of what those terms mean. Everyone who hasn't read all the relevant Platonic works out there should read them, it's not like what I'm saying should be seen as radical or outlandish, but somehow it is completely misunderstood.
And that is the problem with all major and prevalent ideologies of our modern times: that they lead you through a string of conclusions and lead the reader (the ideologue) to connect that 'last dot', which is, in fact, the intention of that ideologies creator(s). The last dot of Libertarianism is a great permissiveness toward evil, social degeneracy, oppression and backwardness; but all those things are just 'around the corner' of the ideology, not explicit in the ideology. Same with the "Greenies", they want a backward and genocidal energy policy, yet they don't want the blood on their hands for the genocide that they are advocating for. Once again, the 'last dot to connect' is not explicit in the ideology, it is left for the ideologue to conclude on their own and made to feel as some discovery of the nature of our existence, or something to be put out of their mind and denied as if it doesn't exist or as those aren't the logical conclusions of the base arguments or core-shibboleths of the ideology.
It seems Myrkul has chosen this latter strategy, even going as far to threaten to "Ignore" you on this forum.
