rand paul the apple doesn't fall far from the tree

Some years ago I followed politics much more closely than I do now, and I came across his commentary more than a few times. He's pretty straight-forward "small government" conservative with some libertarian tendencies.

He's a conservative but he's antiwar (I think) and against Republican spending. But he's not a libertarian (by my standards, at least).

 

He doesn't.

It makes me sad that this is a serious question, but I'm not surprised. I see this idea implied often.

Étienne de La Boétie is one of (if not the) first western libertarian(s). His essay in 1552 is one of the most influential libertarian texts, and shockingly it has nothing to do with black slaves in the united states - or white supremacy of any kind.

The modern libertarian movement in the US can be dated back to the 1970s, and that is a long and (to me, at least) interesting history. But rest assured, it had nothing to do with whites being the bestest race ever.

But to put it simply: a big part of libertarianism is that each man owns himself, and is not subject to the arbitrary whims of anyone. There is no political philosophy that is more imcompatible with slavery than libertarianism.

If some white supremacists use some words that libertarians use, well, that's unfortunate. But it says nothing of libertarianism itself.

 

Ah, this explains a few things. Read book, take a course and you're an expert!

Have you ever engaged any black libertarians to ask them these questions?

 

I am seriously dumber after reading this thread.

1 out of 10 thread, otis. Do better son

 

Two words - Reverend Wright.

 

^^

indeed, lol. indeed.

otis is reeling right about now from his beat down

 

Now I am very confused. I don't know how Rousseau got dragged into this, but he is not someone associated with libertarianism*. Perhaps you're thinking of Thoreau?

Spoiler

I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe- "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it.​

​

But I was talking about a different guy in that last post, neither Rousseau or Thoreau. But back to the thread topic: there is no good reason to say Jack Hunter is a white supremacist, whatever his other faults may be.

*Usually. Hayek IIRC talked about him in a few of his works.

 

I read the piece. And it doesn't really argue that Hunter isn't a white supremacist with a strange sentiment that having a non white majority America is wrong. It just shows that he might accept allies who are minorities on issues such as the second amendment.

I haven't seen anything yet that excuses his talk about a non white majority America being un-American.

 

Well you have clearly made up your mind and that is just fine, but for those who would take his hundreds of articles or talks as being more representative of his actual views than a single quote shown without any context, there is plenty out there to reference.