When Government Plays Doctor

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

How can you claim they are out of context? I provided a direct quote from the Rothbard article for each point of the SPLC quotation. These are not random sentences plucked out of context (in fact most of them are topic sentences of paragraphs that are expanded in further sentences). This isn't comparing the Peace Corps to the Brown Shirts of Nazi Germany. This is a well reasoned, factually based assessment of a very racist piece of literature. If you disagree, please explain how the quotes I provided are out of context. (I read the entirety of Rothbard's piece, and they are NOT out of context. If anything they are the focal point of the writing.)

 

Does he not provide ample evidence for his conclusion? You imply that his thoughts are not based on any proof, which would make his thoughts racist. However, his conclusions are based on the facts and proven by history, therefore they are not racist, but the truth.

 

Wait a second . . . you repeatedly told me that my quotations were out of context. Now you are entirely changing your argument and saying "yes, your quotes are in context . . . but they are also true!" What if I show that his arguments aren't true? How then will you shift your argument to fit your agenda?

 

No, that's not what I said. I said you are taking his quotes out of context because you are disregarding the evidence he used to arrive at his conclusion and instead are stating he is racist based on the conclusion he arrives at. Of course you could say he's racist if you only look at the few quotes you extracted. I could take anyone's conclusion or select a few quotes and state that it's racist/sexist/biased or whatever... but if the facts they have provided are true, therefore proving their conclusion to also be true, how can that make their argument racist/sexist/biased or whatever? Linking historical evidence to form a conclusion isn't bigotry, it's called logic.

 

My agenda huh??? How about you take your own advice, prove his argument/conclusion to be untrue and we can have a civil discussion about it. I'd personally appreciate that and I'm sure the other posters would too.

 

Where was I uncivil? And you DO have an agenda. 90% of your posts in this forum in the last few months have been arguing for or defending Anarcho-Capitalism.

 

Unfortunately tonight won't work for me to address this more fully. Hopefully I have time tomorrow evening.

 

Maybe civil wasn't the correct word, what I meant was productive discussion. At this point, we're not even arguing the topic of the post anymore, but rather whether or not you or I is posting in context!! Not blaming anyone for this, just stating that's what's happening.

 

Isn't the point of this thread and section to post our beliefs/desires and discuss/debate them? So, sure I have an agenda, but no more or less than you. I think I have provided plenty of evidence to show that Anarcho-Capitalism is a practical necessity and that government is the problem for much of the discussion here. If you don't agree, feel free to prove me wrong.