The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

[1972 Grad]

More dangerous lol

Here's the baseline study by the group:

Homegrown Extremism: Deadly Attacks Since 9/11 | The International Security Program

And not only that, they are really, really stretching the homegrown, ultra right wing (their words, not mine) extremist involvement. Do you even check the links?

Here's a couple of examples of their "homegrown extremism"

Homegrown Extremism: Terror Plot | The International Security Program

Homegrown Extremism: Terror Plot | The International Security Program

And of course, they only go by numbers killed and certainly not injured. I mean, why let something that minor get in the way of downplaying the role of radical Islam in the Boston Marathon bombing? Or the 30 injured at Fort Hood.

Your attempts at "proof" are an utter fail on your part.

My effective use of the ignore button causes me to miss his failures now.

 

[Grand Vol]

You don't consider the largest terrorist attack in Us history to be a bit of an outlier? There's a reason 9/11 wasn't included.

But you're still looking at white terrorism being far more common.

There was a reason 9/11 wasn't included. Because it skews the crap out of their data and won't fit their agenda that ultra right wing terrorism is more prevalent than radical Islamic terrorism. And that's also the reason they won't include the wounded in their numbers. Because the data gets all kinds of ****ed up at that point. That website also calls it "right wing" attacks, ignoring the other attacks like Gabby Giffords and Christopher Doener. Why can't they be included as well? Because the data will get all kinds of funky at that point.

And outlier? For real? Good grief, maybe you should call it a night.

 

[Grand Vol]

My effective use of the ignore button causes me to miss his failures now.

It's a pretty big fail tonight.

Tonight we've decided to take the stance that the ultra right wing white male is more likely to kill you than radical Islam.

 

[Vol8188]

Both are terrorism because the government says they are terrorism. Are you sure you're in the right thread? Because this thread specifically takes a viewpoint that a sitting government isn't always the best institution to make such a judgment...

Unless of course you completely trust the government to make such a determination. Or do you just pick and choose what facts the government believes in that fits your agenda?

Both are terrorism because their goal was to incite fear. One intentionally ambushed 3 cops because of his hatred of the government. The other was collecting weapons to avenge Waco. Trusting the government isn't relevant to this discussion.

 

[Vol8188]

There was a reason 9/11 wasn't included. Because it skews the crap out of their data and won't fit their agenda that ultra right wing terrorism is more prevalent than radical Islamic terrorism. And that's also the reason they won't include the wounded in their numbers. Because the data gets all kinds of ****ed up at that point. That website also calls it "right wing" attacks, ignoring the other attacks like Gabby Giffords and Christopher Doener. Why can't they be included as well? Because the data will get all kinds of funky at that point.

And outlier? For real? Good grief, maybe you should call it a night.

I have no idea what you're rambling about. You don't believe a right wing extremist shot gabby Gifford? I'm assuming they didn't count her because she didn't die. It was still 100% an example of right wing terrorism.

 

[Grand Vol]

Trusting the government isn't relevant to this discussion.

It's kinda central to this argument, being an An-Cap thread and all.

And it's even more central to the argument since the government has determined what a "terrorist" is and all. Drug dealers? Terrorists. Bank robbers? Terrorists.

Nidal Hassan? Workplace violence.

 

[Vol8188]

It's kinda central to this argument, being an An-Cap thread and all.

And it's even more central to the argument since the government has determined what a "terrorist" is and all. Drug dealers? Terrorists. Bank robbers? Terrorists.

Nidal Hassan? Workplace violence.

Someone intentionally ambushing cops due to their antigovernment views. Please tell me how that is not terrorism

 

[Grand Vol]

I have no idea what you're rambling about. You don't believe a right wing extremist shot gabby Gifford? I'm assuming they didn't count her because she didn't die. It was still 100% an example of right wing terrorism.

Actually, he wasn't a right wing extremist. The SPLC categorized him as a right wing extremist, but I wouldn't exactly call them an unbiased source. The Anti-Defamation League determined him to have no specific political leanings.

And yes, six people were killed that day. So why won't they add that into their "far right wing" agenda?

You should have stopped your post at:

I have no idea

And left it at that. Because you are trying to defend a position that cannot be defended.

 

[Grand Vol]

And 8188, I'm not sure why you casually dismiss the victims of 9/11. I understand it goes contrary to what you're trying to prove here, but it really isn't helping your case.

To make Ras happy this morning, I'll end on this statement to give you something to chew on.

Police killed more people last year alone than your right wing extremists have since 9/11. Are they now terrorists too?

 

[Grand Vol]

Someone intentionally ambushing cops due to their antigovernment views. Please tell me how that is not terrorism

Was it done to incite fear?

And if you really want to tread down this path. Why isn't Christopher Dorner included in these stats? He ambushed cops due to his views.

Why isn't he included in that list?

 

[Vol8188]

Actually, he wasn't a right wing extremist. The SPLC categorized him as a right wing extremist, but I wouldn't exactly call them an unbiased source. The Anti-Defamation League determined him to have no specific political leanings.

And yes, six people were killed that day. So why won't they add that into their "far right wing" agenda?

You should have stopped your post at:



And left it at that. Because you are trying to defend a position that cannot be defended.

I'd argue he does fit the far right wing. But I still can't figure out what you're *****ing about. He wasn't included in the study. The study was looking at right wing extremist, and they didn't include him (which you believe is correct).

So what are you *****ing about?

 

[Vol8188]

Was it done to incite fear?

And if you really want to tread down this path. Why isn't Christopher Dorner included in these stats? He ambushed cops due to his views.

Why isn't he included in that list?

Are you this dense? The list specifically stated it was only comparing right wing terrorist. Surely you know why he wasn't included. Don't you?

And yes! Killing 3 cops because of his antigovernment views was done to incite fear.

 

[Grand Vol]

I'd argue he does fit the far right wing. But I still can't figure out what you're *****ing about. He wasn't included in the study. The study was looking at right wing extremist, and they didn't include him (which you believe is correct).

So what are you *****ing about?

lol, I see why you can't understand, it's so far over your head it's insane.

Which part of "they selectively used stats" aren't you grasping? And omitting 9/11 shows the complete and total ignorance of what they're trying to prove.

 

[Grand Vol]

Are you this dense? The list specifically stated it was only comparing right wing terrorist. Surely you know why he wasn't included. Don't you?

And yes! Killing 3 cops because of his antigovernment views was done to incite fear.

LOLOLOLOL

You asking me if I'm dense?

No, why wasn't he included? I'll play along.

 

[Grand Vol]

Thanks to Huff for providing something you should read...

http://www.volnation.com/forum/politics/252370-research-liberals-minded-complex.html

 

[Vol8188]

lol, I see why you can't understand, it's so far over your head it's insane.

Which part of "they selectively used stats" aren't you grasping? And omitting 9/11 shows the complete and total ignorance of what they're trying to prove.

The goal was to compare terrorism post 9/11. Given the amount of freedom that's been taken from us since then, it would make sense to look at terrorism in America post 9/11.

Considering the right is more likely to support post 9/11 legislation that limits the freedom of all, and are typically Christian: it makes sense to compare the violence on their side to that of Islamic extremists

 

[Vol8188]

LOLOLOLOL

You asking me if I'm dense?

No, why wasn't he included? I'll play along.

I literally just told you why. They're looking at right wing terrorism.

 

[Vol8188]

Thanks to Huff for providing something you should read...

http://www.volnation.com/forum/politics/252370-research-liberals-minded-complex.html

Not sure how this is relevant

 

[CNCVol88]

The goal was to compare terrorism post 9/11. Given the amount of freedom that's been taken from us since then, it would make sense to look at terrorism in America post 9/11.

Considering the right is more likely to support post 9/11 legislation that limits the freedom of all, and are typically Christian: it makes sense to compare the violence on their side to that of Islamic extremists

That's a flat out lie. The right is more likely to support it when a Republican is in office sure but the left has supported Obama and his continuance of the surveillance state. They've supported his acts to try to restrict firearm access. It has nothing to do with left/right and has everything to do with who's in office.

Also I wasn't aware that question would spark so much discussion. 88,its not "Islam" that's incompatible. It's specifically sharia law. Islam as a religion can easy exist in the West but what we've seen in Europe is an influx of sharia abiding Muslims that hasn't been seen since before the first crusade and they're demanding sharia.

 

[n_huffhines]

So, I've been thinking about immigration in response to the Germany sexual assault scandal and much of Europe in general during the immigration crisis.

I generally have agreed that freedom of movement is a fundamental right given but I also think that it's not unreasonable for the individuals within an area to expect those they let in abide by rules and laws that don't violate the NAP, but how do you handle the mass importation of people who bring along a culture that is completely and utterly incompatible with the dominant culture of the area? Combine that with the fact that many many of the migrants are economic migrants and will be initiating the use of force because by and large these people will end up using taxpayer funded assistance and it begs the question, "is it morally reprehensible to see the chaos and degradation happening due to this importation of an incompatible culture and decide to initiate the use of force and restrict that freedom of movement?"

AnCap answer:

Keep in mind this is just theory and I'm not saying I know it would be fine and dandy.

Say the geographic US is AnCap. That would mean everybody living in the region needs some sort of protection agency to represent them. This helps to ensure they don't hurt anyone and it also protects them from harm. If a refugee found his way into the US, the first thing he would need to do is find a protection agency. He is risking too much by not being represented. He can only afford minimal protection, so he agrees he is only protected as long as he behaves (rich people can afford to **** up more, no matter the system). The second he goes grabbing ass on New Year's Eve, he gets turned over to the protection agency of the woman he groped, where he will now make restitution.

Libertarian answer:

Most/all libertarians support defending the border. I imagine they would support a system that does allow for the free movement of people, but that it's managed in specific ways. For example, there would be no government-provided safety net, incentivizing refugees to come. They would only allow refugees in after thorough processing. It's not like you arrive on our shores and get right in. That's not libertarianism.

 

[Vol8188]

That's a flat out lie. The right is more likely to support it when a Republican is in office sure but the left has supported Obama and his continuance of the surveillance state. They've supported his acts to try to restrict firearm access. It has nothing to do with left/right and has everything to do with who's in office.

Also I wasn't aware that question would spark so much discussion. 88,its not "Islam" that's incompatible. It's specifically sharia law. Islam as a religion can easy exist in the West but what we've seen in Europe is an influx of sharia abiding Muslims that hasn't been seen since before the first crusade and they're demanding sharia.

I'd like to see some real numbers on those demanding sharia law. Most of this is overblown like the all the articles about (I wanna say Deerfield?) the city in Michigan and how sharia law is taken over there. It's all just scare tactics designed to scare you into giving away more of your freedom.

Lol post Paris attacks republicans were actually praising France for allowing warrant less searches of all Muslim homes in the area.

Both sides want to take away your constitutional rights, because those rights are there to protect you from them (the government). And they both use fear to do so.

And the right is more willing to give away your privacy while the left is more willing to give away your guns. I can agree to that. I'm Harding on the right about it because fighting big government is what we should expect from a true conservative. But we never actually get that from any of them.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Again, considering 70.6% of the nation's population identifies as Christian and .9% identify as Muslim, that means an
Individual Muslim residing in the US is many many more times likely to commit terrorism than an individual Christian in the US. Statistics are fun.

oooooh that's a good one.

 

[Gramps]

Trump has mentioned restricting the Internet on more than one occasion. That would be the big opponent of free speech.

If we limit anyone, we should start with Christians. Christian terrorists are more likely to kill you in the US, they just have a better PR person than the Islamic terrorists.

You are using the wrong wording in the above. Instead of "Christian Terrorists" you should be using "White Extremist"

 

[CNCVol88]

AnCap answer:

Keep in mind this is just theory and I'm not saying I know it would be fine and dandy.

Say the geographic US is AnCap. That would mean everybody living in the region needs some sort of protection agency to represent them. This helps to ensure they don't hurt anyone and it also protects them from harm. If a refugee found his way into the US, the first thing he would need to do is find a protection agency. He is risking too much by not being represented. He can only afford minimal protection, so he agrees he is only protected as long as he behaves (rich people can afford to **** up more, no matter the system). The second he goes grabbing ass on New Year's Eve, he gets turned over to the protection agency of the woman he groped, where he will now make restitution.

Libertarian answer:

Most/all libertarians support defending the border. I imagine they would support a system that does allow for the free movement of people, but that it's managed in specific ways. For example, there would be no government-provided safety net, incentivizing refugees to come. They would only allow refugees in after thorough processing. It's not like you arrive on our shores and get right in. That's not libertarianism.

Makes sense to me. Thank you huff. It's been 6 months and I still haven't made the jump to Ancap. What's wrong with me? 😂

 

[n_huffhines]

x 1000