We've been arguing slippery slope online since the 1990s. The first victims were abortion and cloning. Dolly the sheep was where the latter began.
Anyway, you can see how well those arguments worked out. Although I can say a lot of people unaware of PP are now aware, so there are slight silver linings to arguing online over these moral topics.
In the EU right now, they are wanting to only have rights to patent plants if they use techniques like CRISPR, to enforce they are chemical-dependent free.
Unfortunately, once the cat is out of the bag, dependency is created through the need for global competition (sink or swim model)... that slope is super slippery.
Maybe we should create a fake campaign claiming cloning humans is racist because black people don't know where to find cloning booths (Im kidding...).
Yeah, we need more rockstars, actors, comic writers, etc. We go about creating a handful of memes, but we don't have the full on propaganda wing the borg have.
This is where I agree with Shapiro and find him useful. He gets a lot of earned flack for maintaining a lot of RINO positions and going along with absurd media narratives so he can stay relevant and rich, but his new focus on creating an alternative media space that can actually punch back at the cultural left is extremely useful and may end up doing us a lot of good.
The slippery slope was the NFA. And since its passing not once has a any republican or democrat done anything to repeal it. Even when they were in the majority.
The man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, ‘Limit yourself’; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian.
Where did Murray N. Rothbard write or say this? I searched online, but everywhere I saw the quote, it named Murray but did not source where he wrote or said it.
"The libertarian is also eminently realistic because he alone understands fully the nature of the State and its thrust for power. In contrast, it is the seemingly far more realistic conservative believer in “limited government” who is the truly impractical utopian. This conservative keeps repeating the litany that the central government should be severely limited by a constitution. Yet, at the same time that he rails against the corruption of the original Constitution and the widening of federal power since 1789, the conservative fails to draw the proper lesson from that degeneration. The idea of a strictly limited constitutional State was a noble experiment that failed, even under the most favorable and propitious circumstances. If it failed then, why should a similar experiment fareany better now? No, it is the conservative laissez-fairist, the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power
into the hands of the central government and then says, “Limit yourself”; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian."
(italic style preserved from original in book).
The whole quote seems weird (and I cannot fault you for the reduced quote, because that is how it appears in just about all the online searches I did), given that (at least as far as I know) conservatives (though Rothbard qualifies it with "conservative laissez-fairist" ) are very much in favour of the 2nd amendment, and thus explicitly do not seek to put all of the guns into the hands of the central government (and voting, representation, etc., are meant to not put the decision-making power into those hands either). And his identification and root cause analysis of this part:
"The idea of a strictly limited constitutional State was a noble experiment that failed, even under the most favorable and propitious circumstances."
, at least judging from this admittedly very small extract from his book, is either completely wrong, leaving out utterly critical parts, and/or other major failings, as far as I can see. The "strictly limited constitutional State"/"noble experiment" seems to very much have failed in a number of major and critical ways; but why did it fail? Is it because the concept of such a state is completely broken? Or does it depend on the people involved?
One could then make an argument that only systems that work with any kind and sort of grouping one can imagine should be accepted, but that is a complete non-starter as far as I can see, for it is not possible in any way whatsoever to set up something even slightly resilient, capable, successful, surviving, viable, etc. if the grouping is completely horrible and broken.
It leaves out completely the issue of organized groups that infiltrated, subverted and corrupted the society, state, government, etc. of the USA (including but definitely not limited to communists, such as the communists Julius and Ethel Rosenberg who within the last 10-20 years have been confirmed by archives from Russia to have spied for the Soviet Union and to have helped reg. giving nuclear bomb secrets to the Soviet Union; this has not only been reg. the state, institutions, government, etc., but also against both Catholic churches and Evangelicals organizations, and very much also happened elsewhere in the world).
That said, again, I have not read more of that chapter or of the book, but I fear that the chapter and book does not deal with that.
It was never a slippery slope. It is just reality, and always has been with easily documented examples to prove it. Slippery slope is a bullshit coping term, and always has been IMHO. Communist know this too. When we use that term we are just playing into their hands IMHO.
Anyone else want to argue to slippery slope?
Because now we are falling off the mountain.
We've been arguing slippery slope online since the 1990s. The first victims were abortion and cloning. Dolly the sheep was where the latter began.
Anyway, you can see how well those arguments worked out. Although I can say a lot of people unaware of PP are now aware, so there are slight silver linings to arguing online over these moral topics.
2019, China:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-babies-genetically-edited-altered-twins-scientist-dna-crispr-a8651536.html
In the EU right now, they are wanting to only have rights to patent plants if they use techniques like CRISPR, to enforce they are chemical-dependent free.
Unfortunately, once the cat is out of the bag, dependency is created through the need for global competition (sink or swim model)... that slope is super slippery.
Maybe we should create a fake campaign claiming cloning humans is racist because black people don't know where to find cloning booths (Im kidding...).
Yeah, we need more rockstars, actors, comic writers, etc. We go about creating a handful of memes, but we don't have the full on propaganda wing the borg have.
Don't know if this helps, but I made this a little while back. It's not professional quality by any means, but it's something.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/EmAk4P5VNQgt/
This is where I agree with Shapiro and find him useful. He gets a lot of earned flack for maintaining a lot of RINO positions and going along with absurd media narratives so he can stay relevant and rich, but his new focus on creating an alternative media space that can actually punch back at the cultural left is extremely useful and may end up doing us a lot of good.
The slippery slope was the NFA. And since its passing not once has a any republican or democrat done anything to repeal it. Even when they were in the majority.
Where did Murray N. Rothbard write or say this? I searched online, but everywhere I saw the quote, it named Murray but did not source where he wrote or said it.
"For A New Liberty"
https://mises.org/library/new-liberty-libertarian-manifesto
Page 381-382 in the PDF version:
https://cdn.mises.org/For%20a%20New%20Liberty%20The%20Libertarian%20Manifesto_3.pdf
Thank you.
(archive of the PDF: https://web.archive.org/web/20191211202508/https://cdn.mises.org/For%20a%20New%20Liberty%20The%20Libertarian%20Manifesto_3.pdf ).
From that part:
(italic style preserved from original in book).
The whole quote seems weird (and I cannot fault you for the reduced quote, because that is how it appears in just about all the online searches I did), given that (at least as far as I know) conservatives (though Rothbard qualifies it with "conservative laissez-fairist" ) are very much in favour of the 2nd amendment, and thus explicitly do not seek to put all of the guns into the hands of the central government (and voting, representation, etc., are meant to not put the decision-making power into those hands either). And his identification and root cause analysis of this part:
, at least judging from this admittedly very small extract from his book, is either completely wrong, leaving out utterly critical parts, and/or other major failings, as far as I can see. The "strictly limited constitutional State"/"noble experiment" seems to very much have failed in a number of major and critical ways; but why did it fail? Is it because the concept of such a state is completely broken? Or does it depend on the people involved?
One could then make an argument that only systems that work with any kind and sort of grouping one can imagine should be accepted, but that is a complete non-starter as far as I can see, for it is not possible in any way whatsoever to set up something even slightly resilient, capable, successful, surviving, viable, etc. if the grouping is completely horrible and broken.
It leaves out completely the issue of organized groups that infiltrated, subverted and corrupted the society, state, government, etc. of the USA (including but definitely not limited to communists, such as the communists Julius and Ethel Rosenberg who within the last 10-20 years have been confirmed by archives from Russia to have spied for the Soviet Union and to have helped reg. giving nuclear bomb secrets to the Soviet Union; this has not only been reg. the state, institutions, government, etc., but also against both Catholic churches and Evangelicals organizations, and very much also happened elsewhere in the world).
That said, again, I have not read more of that chapter or of the book, but I fear that the chapter and book does not deal with that.
It was never a slippery slope. It is just reality, and always has been with easily documented examples to prove it. Slippery slope is a bullshit coping term, and always has been IMHO. Communist know this too. When we use that term we are just playing into their hands IMHO.
The only slippery slope is surrender. Never do it.
When you are dealing with democrats, everything is a slippery slope. They will never be satisfied.