About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Monday, January 16, 2012 - 2:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Martin Luther King, Jr.: Anti-Rights Leader

By Thomas Stelene

...Anything that is called a "civil right" cannot be exercised independently. Unlike a proper right, "civil rights" require that there be others for the agent to act upon. "Civil rights" are the supposed "rights" of the Collective against man. "Civil rights" deny the right of property use and the right to freely associate, which is the denial of the right to act on one's thoughts...

...King demonstrated his utter contempt for individual merit and individual rights when he demanded that blacks be given special treatment and compensation from the government. King wrote: "The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures" including racial quotas in hiring. He predicted that inevitably "a broad-based legion of the deprived, White and Negro, will coalesce and restructure an old order based too long on injustice." He called for a "Bill of Rights of the Disadvantaged" that would expand those "compensatory measures," meaning, unearned privileges, to any other groups regarded by collectivist-egalitarians as "oppressed."

Under King's morality, political freedom is impossible. Those who claim to have "civil rights" claim the legal privilege to exploit others. When these victims do not comply, the privileged scream that their "civil rights" were violated. When people lack the necessary philosophical knowledge to differentiate between genuine liberty and its opposite, they will accept the fraud of "civil rights."

http://libertarianrealist.blogspot.com/2012/01/martin-luther-king-jr-anti-rights.html


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Monday, January 16, 2012 - 3:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Civil Rights should be the procedural enactment of Individual Rights on the Political level. Such things as equality before the law, protections against self-incrimination and property takings and other such rights exemplified in the Bill of Rights Amendments (and their post-Civil War additions) are examples of legal codifications of the means of protecting Individual Rights from improper government action.



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Monday, January 16, 2012 - 4:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Civil Rights should be the procedural enactment of Individual Rights on the Political level.
Michael, you got it exactly right.
-----------------

From King's famous speech: "I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.'

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."


When King called for a day when men are judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin, he courageously and single-handedly shifted the course of history and made our world a better place.
---------------

That Trun is opposed to the idea of judging individuals on the content of their character, and his persistent focus on race is all one needs to know about him.

Post 3

Monday, January 16, 2012 - 4:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Trun is what I call a slinky person...like a slinky..
Good for nothing but they bring a smile to your face when you push em down the stairs..
All kidding aside trun stop being a waste of bandwidth.

Post 4

Monday, January 16, 2012 - 7:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
yep, for all of his errors, he was a good fellow in totality.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Tuesday, January 17, 2012 - 12:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I’m So Bored With MLK
by Jim Goad

 
MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech in the part where he beseeches God—MLK was primarily a “man of God” lest any of you are alarmed at evangelicals who mix church and state—to “Let freedom ring from the Stone Mountain of Georgia.” King stole that passage about Stone Mountain from a 1952 oratory delivered by another black preacher at the Republican National Convention. He also allegedly plagiarized parts of the first public sermon he ever delivered back in 1947. It’s been established that huge chunks of the good Doctor’s doctoral dissertation consisted of wholesale literary theft. 
 
His longtime advisor and secretary Bayard Rustin was an organizer of the Young Communist League. His speechwriter, book editor, event organizer, PR handler, tax advisor, and fundraising kingpin Stanley David Levison was a Communist Party USA leader in the 1950s who reportedly received huge subsidies from the Soviets. King also openly decried the “capitalists of the West,” things such as “profit motives and property rights,” and encouraged his listeners to “question the capitalistic economy.”
 
MLK spoke of “an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny” and “the interrelated structure of reality” and how “Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” That doesn’t sound like “freedom” as I define it. Rather, it sounds like a giant Gordian knot of pain-in-the-ass codependency.
 
Although he said he dreamed of a day when people “will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” the affirmative-action schemes he endorsed (he spoke in favor of “preferential treatment” and proposed that “if a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company”) are explicitly racial and have zilch to do with character. 
 
http://takimag.com/article/im_so_bored_with_mlk/print#axzz1jgKfYtUL


Post 6

Tuesday, January 17, 2012 - 1:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You are still a waste of bandwidth trun pull your lower lip over your face and swallow.

Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Tuesday, January 17, 2012 - 5:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
as I said in my previous post the man was not without his faults, but then again neither was Jefferson, and I hold them both of them in high regards, despite the errors they made.
(Edited by Michael Philip on 1/17, 5:45am)


Post 8

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 - 6:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Shortly before I left the libertarian movement and Party five years ago, a decision which I not only have never regretted but am almost continually joyous about, I told two well-known leaders of the movement that I thought it had become infected with and permeated by egalitarianism. What? they said. Impossible. There are no egalitarians in the movement. Further, I said that a good indication of this infection was a new-found admiration for the Reverend "Doctor" Martin Luther King. Absurd, they said. Well, interestingly enough, six months later, both of these gentlemen published articles hailing "Dr." King as a "great libertarian." To call this socialist, egalitarian, coercive integrationist, and vicious opponent of private-property rights, a someone who, to boot, was long under close Communist Party control, to call that person a "great libertarian," is only one clear signal of how far the movement has decayed.

 

Indeed, amidst all the talk in recent years about "litmus tests," it seems to me that there is one excellent litmus test which can set up a clear dividing line between genuine conservatives and neoconservatives, and between paleolibertarians and what we can now call "left-libertarians." And that test is where one stands on "Doctor" King. And indeed, it should come as no surprise that, as we shall see, there has been an increasing coming together, almost a fusion, of neocons and left-libertarians. In fact, there is now little to distinguish them.

 

Throughout the Official Libertarian Movement, "civil rights" has been embraced without question, completely overriding the genuine rights of private property.

 


Murray N. Rothbard

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch16.html


Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Wednesday, January 16, 2013 - 6:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Trun posting negative traits of a person who just happens to have been black... so, what's new?

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Wednesday, January 16, 2013 - 7:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It isn't hard for me to imagine Communism looking mighty attractive to people subjected to oppression as a matter of routine by racist government officials in power.

Rand understood the seduction, and worked her entire life hoping to make people see it.

Rothbard could never make such an effort, being an intrinsicist and all, he just didn't have the mettle, or the insight.   


Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Thursday, January 17, 2013 - 6:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This thread is pure nonsense.

Every year around MLK Day, I listen to his "I Had A Dream" speech again. It is the greatest anthem to liberty and freedom ever uttered, especially when you consider the context in which it was made.

Slavery was a scar, an abomination in a free nation. Such scars leave marks.

Free association in the privacy of our homes is still a freedom we all enjoy. You want a "whites only" bathroom in your home? Knock yourself out. Marry who you will. Close your door to who you will. We all do, as peers in America.

Free association in where we choose to conduct our commerce is also still a freedom we all enjoy. Do you want to restrict commerce to "whites only?" Then do so in the privacy of your own home, and conduct your commerce only with those who freely come to your home and to whom you freely admit. That is free association, and none of your peers anywhere are subject to the consequences of your racism...because you haven't foisted that racism onto the commons.

The same principle applies on the commons, except for one key fact: as soon as we freely commerce on the commons, we have a peer based obligation to avoid forcing association. We don't have a right to be ignorant of the freedom of our peers. We have an obligation -- as peers living in freedom -- not to rush headlong to our destination on the commons, ignorant of those around us also on the commons, but instead, to navigate to our destinations on the commons, mindful of the freedom of our peers. Our choice to conduct commerce on the public commons is 'a choice' and with that choice comes peer based responsibilities.

One of those responsibilities -- the greatest -- is to recognize the peer based nature of others freedom on those same public commons. When we -choose- to conduct commerce on the public commons, the public existence of a racist 'whites only' bathroom sign is an example of forced association on the public commons-- forced association with your shit for brains racism. Feel free to do that -- in your double-wide, privately, with those who freely associate with such sentiment. Let them knock on your door. Let them into your trailer. Conduct whatever racist 'whites only' or 'blacks only' or 'russian immigrants only' commerce you want in the privacy of your own homes. Happens every day. In private, far from your peers on the public commons in the light of day, where there is no means to sense or detect or forcefully be associated with your shit for brains nonsense.

That is the basis of peer based freedom in the public commons, and in this free nation, black people are your peers. You arent' required to marry anyone outside your race. You aren't required to invite them into your trailer. You aren't required to commerce with them in secret in your trailer.

But we -- all of us do have an obligation, as peers living in freedom on the commons, to respect others freedom as our peers on those commons, and that includes, the commerce we choose to conduct on the public commons.

The ethical principle is, free association vs. forced association.

The speech MLK made that day was on the commons. It was a peaceful speech. It was an inspiring speech. It was a dignified speech. It was the greatest anthem to freedom and liberty ever spoken.

(And he made it as a Republican during a time when it was Faubus, Wallace, and Barnett who were the Democratic governors of shit for brains states pointing the local NG bayonets and some peers and not others on the commons, though you would be hard pressed to realize that today...)

The number one way we defend our freedom in public is to defend the freedom of our peers in public, and that is the essence of the MLK speech, which transcends race and color.





Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Thursday, January 17, 2013 - 9:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I sanctioned Fred's post. Martin Luther King's speech that day was a truly great speech and an act of enormous courage for those times - he knew he was likely to be assassinated if he didn't go to the back of the bus, so to speak, and he was afraid (you could see it in his face as he marched), but he stood proud and said what needed to be said.

That we should judge one another on the content of character and not color is so simple, so important, and still so missing in much of today's culture as to make one weep.

It is a terrible irony that so much bigotry today is from some black subcultures lashing out at white straw-men, fueled with the progressives' rhetorical use of racism where there is none, and structured as a movement with the creation of racial, political plantations based on entitlements and victim-hood - all ensuring that racism continues on as an active way to view others... when it could and should be erased.

Someday, maybe long in the future, color-blindness will be the norm and racial bias will be a strange thing belonging to a distant past, and the students of history will know Martin Luther King's part in that progress.
---------------

=== Side Note ===
Quite often you run into people who seem bent upon pointing out the flaws or dark side or mistakes of a great figure in history. There is often a lot to be learned in that psychology, the motivations, and in the unspoken philosophical principles of those who make that a practice.

Of course MLK had ideological and personal flaws, but does that diminish those ringing words spoken in that unique moment of history that he created out a powerful but peaceful demonstration of leadership and courage?

Look at those attacks on the man as ways to attack the ideas or ideals... or even as attacks on holding ideals as such - cynicism is a cultural and psychological rot and attacks on greatness is one of its expressions.

Post 13

Thursday, January 17, 2013 - 10:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Apparently he has not learned much in the last year. I had hoped that with time spent here he may have learned a thing or two. One being that it is the CULTURE and not the race that is the problem. To win we must challenge IDEAS and not decend into sensless race wars.
I sanctioned both Fred and Steve's post as both are outstanding.

IQ also has nothing to do with violence as smart people kill people too. Pol Pot was a school teacher..

Post 14

Thursday, January 17, 2013 - 10:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There may be hope for him though, I am not so sure he is a complete right off as of yet. Call me either a fool or an optimist.(sometimes they amount to the same thing).

Post 15

Saturday, January 19, 2013 - 12:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve, you "side-noted":
=== Side Note ===
Quite often you run into people who seem bent upon pointing out the flaws or dark side or mistakes of a great figure in history. There is often a lot to be learned in that psychology, the motivations, and in the unspoken philosophical principles of those who make that a practice.

Of course MLK had ideological and personal flaws, but does that diminish those ringing words spoken in that unique moment of history that he created out a powerful but peaceful demonstration of leadership and courage?

Look at those attacks on the man as ways to attack the ideas or ideals... or even as attacks on holding ideals as such - cynicism is a cultural and psychological rot and attacks on greatness is one of its expressions.
That's sort of what I was thinking about the recent "assault" on Lance Armstrong. Admittedly, Armstrong is more guilty than MLK, but he was a hero-figure before the state-controlled media got a hold of him recently (and turned him into dust). It's like there's a motivation to destroy the concept of the hero, or hero-worship in general. Anybody held up above the masses, any ascending spirit, is met with fire and brimstone. It reminds me of the perpetuated mood in Red China or Soviet Russia.

Ed


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Saturday, January 19, 2013 - 6:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

It's like there's a motivation to destroy the concept of the hero...
Exactly!

Lance Armstrong, Ayn Rand, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King... you name someone who was heroic, strong, courageous in some fashion and there are those who take great joy in pointing out some flaw.

I have no problem with condemning Armstrong for his persistent lies, or Jefferson for owning slaves, Rand's position on homosexuals, or some of MLK's political views. But I have no interest in diminishing the greatness of their achievements - and with Jefferson, I doubt that we would even have become a nation willing to fight a civil war to end slavery without the foundation he provided.

After a while, it becomes clear that the motivation of some is to attack anything that might be heroic - the specifics don't matter that much. This is where you were dead on target. This is a specific kind of psychology and one that represents a nihilistic philosophy (often held subconsciously).

I think it is one of the ugliest traits a human can possess... to desire to kill the heroic, or to squash human joy, or deny the possibility of happiness or achievement, or to enjoy the misery of those who did nothing to deserve it... These people are clearly working on an a sense of life akin to hatred - it's like they are wired backwards.

And, it is like they want everyone else to commit a kind of spiritual suicide so that we are all equally bereft of positive motivation or spiritual connection with that which is good.

Post 17

Saturday, January 19, 2013 - 6:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tall poppy syndrome? I agree with both of you completely, the destruction of the heroic is a horrible malaise.

Post 18

Sunday, January 20, 2013 - 8:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jules,
IQ also has nothing to do with violence as smart people kill people too. Pol Pot was a school teacher..
Good point. There are at least 2 parts to the human spirit: intellect and character -- and there is no sense in examining only half of the equation in order to try to get a full answer. There is at least a 50% chance that you will be wrong when you do that. Pol Pot may have been more intelligent than most people have ever been, but that was more-than-offset by him also being a man of terrible character (i.e., by him being a bad man in general). People need to wake up to that, there is good character and there is bad character -- and people need to be called out onto the carpet when it becomes unmistakable that they are/were expressing bad character.

That's how things eventually improve.

Alternatively, if you pretend that character doesn't exist -- in order to avoid making character judgments -- then the muck rises to the top and hurts us all.

Ed

p.s., Oh yeah, and it doesn't hurt to become a good example in the marketplace of ideas -- by sporadically working on ourselves to show ourselves and others that a good life can be had.

:-)


Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Sunday, January 20, 2013 - 6:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brad Trun pans Martin Luther King as a "coercive integrationist," which I find curious coming from a coercive segregationist who believes that people should be confined to certain countries according to their racial composition. In defense of his segregationist views, Trun cites Jefferson, who believed blacks to be inferior to whites and favored deporting them to Africa.

As it turns out, Jefferson's reputation as a benevolent slaveholder was something of a myth. See, for example, "The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson."

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Little-Known-Dark-Side-of-Thomas-Jefferson-169780996.html?c=y&page=1

The writer of the Declaration had no compunction about whipping 10 to 12-year old black boys for failing to perform harsh work in his nailery. He also subjected his runaway slaves to brutal punishment for seeking their own freedom. This from a man who declared that all men are endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In 1776, English abolitionist, Thomas Day, wrote, "If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot signing resolutions of independence with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves."

So Jefferson had his faults, some of them egregious, but that hasn't stopped us from recognizing his importance as the author of The Declaration of Independence. Neither should the flaws in Martin Luther King stop us from recognizing his leadership in the legitimate goals of the early civil rights movement, dedicated as it was to the dismantling of black segregation and coercive discrimination.

--------------------

Post Script: I see that Michael Philips made the same point in his Post #7, albeit much more succinctly.


(Edited by William Dwyer on 1/21, 10:28am)


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.