I'm quoting a blog on the current debate regarding the Ron Paul newsletters:
"When it comes to Ron Paul´s old newsletters, there is a growing consensus that they were indeed written by somebody else. So Paul is not guilty of writing these ugly things, but of letting someone do it in his name for such a long time, which is bad enough. Most insiders seem to think that the chief ghostwriter was Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr, founder of the Mises Institute, who joined Murray Rothbard in his break with other libertarians in the late 1980s and tried to build a "paleo"-coalition with right-wing populists and social conservatives.
Worst of all, when Rockwell commented on the newsletter, he did not seem to be the least troubled by anything in it and didn´t even argue that the quotes were taken out of context. Instead he attacked the messenger."
The whole issue is handled extremely poorly. While I do agree with Lew that this is basically a smear campaign, it doesn't take away the problem with the ugly remarks in the newsletters. Not only is it hurting Paul and Rockwell, but it also puts the Mises Institute in an uncomfortable situation and questions its respectability.
Of course reasonable individuals will make a sharp distinction between the Austrian school of economics, Ludwig von Mises, and those views held by the current staff at the Mises Institute - but everyone must realize that those not too familiar with the LvMI will judge it by those articles at Reason and The New Republic, and various blogs.
The only right thing to do for Rockwell is to make a clear statement, not simply accusing the opponents of smear-campaigning, but more importantly to clean up the past. He needs to tell the truth about who's responsible for the remarks, why it was done, put it in context, and explain his current view and affiliations with certain groups. It's already bad as it is - the word is spreading rapidly, and he will never be able to clean his name because right now, everybody basically thinks he's a racist attending KKK-meetings.
Even if the truth might be somewhat ugly, it will help him and the Mises Institute to get a fresh start, enabling them to go on from this. The past will hopefully be the past, but if the only comments are counter-attacks, it will only get worse.
I found mises.org almost a year ago and it's been my number one source for information ever since. It singled handedly converted me to libertarianism and anarchism. However, this worries me very much. Lew most definately needs to come out and explain exactly what he knows about those newsletters, and if he is responsible for the now infamous remarks, God I hope not, needs to explain why. This is not because of the Ron Paul campaign or because I'm offended by the remarks, I couldn't car less about these things, but because the credibility of the Mises Institute and LRC in the eyes of many people could be seriously damaged. I really hate to have to worry about what other's think but considering that I often cite the LvMI in arguments that I have with people this will reflect badly on me and anyone else that uses the LvMI as a major source.
Lew, you just need to give us some straight answers.
And I hope your eye balls are doing OK.
To be frank, I think the quotes have been blown way out of proportion. Are they radical? Yes. Are they a kick in the teeth to "polite" discourse? Yes. But isn't that what libertarians often come across as? Isn't that what the writings of authors like Lew Rockwell often are?
And how many of these quotes are untrue, even if they are blunt?
1) "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions" - That's about in line with America as a whole. If even 5%. Whether we want to believe it or not, Americans are a brainwashed, state-worshipping bunch. In no way would I classify the great majority of political positions 95% of Americans have as "sensible."
2) "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be" - if they weren't fleet-footed, they wouldn't last long as robbers, no?
3) black representative Barbara Jordan is "the archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism." - sounds about right. Most all politicians are either ignorant or evil. Most minority politicians play on the fact that they are a minority. These are not controversial statements if we abandon our politically correct inclinations for a moment.
4) "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began" - In 1992, 33.4% of blacks were below the poverty line, the highest number among all racial groups. What stopped the riots is anyone's guess, but this hypothesis cannot be dismissed out of hand.
5) "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'" - Isn't that what already occurs, but instead of personally stealing they allow the state to do it for them?
6) "blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot." - can anyone say that it is untrue? People in general, it seems, tend to celebrate by vandalism in cities.
7) "I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming." - That's not calling all blacks animals, that is calling criminals animals.
8) South Africa's transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a "destruction of civilization" that was "the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara" - Democracy is the path towards decivilization and barbarism.
9) King was described as "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration." - Thomas Woods backs up this assertion in 33 Questions About American History You Aren't Supposed To Ask.
10) "our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom." - So basically they just said that they should keep their principles...
11) "Homosexuals," it said, "not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities." - Gay pride parades make this point pretty self-evident.
12) Readers were warned to avoid blood transfusions because gays were trying to "poison the blood supply." - Not long ago didn't Mises.org or LRC post a story on Haitians (I think?) suing the Red Cross over not taking their blood despite extremely high rates of AIDS among them? It's no different.
13) "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." - Hoppe has made the point of time preference among homosexuals as well and suffered harsh criticism. But doesn't it make sense that unmarried, childless adults would have a high time preference? The quote here is simply saying that in words someone who isn't an economist might understand.
14) A 1987 issue of Paul's Investment Letter called Israel "an aggressive, national socialist state" - true and true.
15) Indeed, the newsletters seemed to hint that armed revolution against the federal government would be justified. - GASP! Never! That is quite a weighty claim! Hinting tha defending yourself against a gang of thugs would be justified is completely beyond belief.
16) It warned militia members that they were "possibly under BATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] or other totalitarian federal surveillance" - And it turns out they were, or at least by the FBI who often infiltrated groups.
17) promoting his distrust of a federally regulated monetary system utilizing paper bills. - Because it deserves our undying trust?
Pretty much, there isn't a lot of quotes in there that make me gasp and cry out for finding those responsible. They are overly blunt and overgeneralize but there isn't anything patently racist and terrible in there that I saw.
Once you admit that this is nothing but a smear campaign aaginst a politician who was doing better than he was supposed to, I would think the question of "guilt" would go away. As the original poster said, this is nothing but an attack and attempt to discredit a movement which is too popular. I give people credit - if the smears are directed at LvMI, and the liberals attack LvMI in the media, the only effect will be to dramatically increase applications to this year's summer programs. In the days of the internet, the only effect of attacking LvMI in the media is causing more people to look it up, and learn what it's really about. Not that I'm happy for an attack - I think people who launch these attacks are despicable and, in the case of Cato, all the more so because they should know better. I just think that smear campaigns are less likely to have their desired effect nowadays, and more likely to backfire against those who use them.
On the other hand, it is interesting to watch, for a second time, the liberals mindlessly repeating smears from their supposed enemies. First, it was repeating Buckley's and Goldberg's attacks on Buchanan, now Cato's attacks on Paul and LvMI. Just goes to show that the liberals clearly understand who their enemies are - and that the National Review and Cato crowds are not real opponents of centralized government, welfare statism, and so on. They realize that establishment right, and establishment libertarian, will side with them in the end, and that only groups like LvMI are principled enough to actually oppose them. By liberal, of course, I mean modern American liberalism, not true liberalism.
I agree with Morty. Perhaps these statements are controversial and politically incorrect, but they are by no means racist. If I were to to see these statements completely unaffected by modern culteral bias and propoganda I would undoubtedley perceive them as interesting hypotheses free of any racial element. Just because the comments concern blacks or homosexuals and make analytical statements about them, does not mean they're racist. In fact, it is far more characteristically "racist" of those who actually deem such comments racist since they themselves perceive it as degradation.
The sad thing is, no progress can be made in terms of a solution for the plight of the blacks if we can't speak truthfully and rationally about the problem in the first place.
This seems to assume that the majority of welfare recipients are black, which simply isn't the case, at least anymore.
Since when has this social pressure really stopped? And since when are most gay people particularly "open" about it and are waving their personal buisiness in the public eye? *takes a look around* I don't exactly see men sodomizing eachother in the streets. Everybody run! The gays are coming! They'll make our minds melt with their lisps!
I agree that some of the statements are either out of context or are not expliticly bigoted (like when support for secession, skepticism towards the civil war and Lincoln are equated to racism, an ignorant premise, or when opposition to the state of Israel and the political ideology of Zionism is equated to anti-semetism), but I think it is absolutely absurd to argue that all of these statements are completely void of any bigotry. In either case, why can't the "ghost writter" just be named and we can get this stupid controversy over with?
This seems to assume that the majority of welfare recipients are black, which simply isn't the case anymore.
Morty:1) "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions" - That's about in line with America as a whole. If even 5%. Whether we want to believe it or not, Americans are a brainwashed, state-worshipping bunch. In no way would I classify the great majority of political positions 95% of Americans have as "sensible."
The fact that the two earliest caucus/primary states both showed more than 5% support for Paul seems to indicate that Americans are not as state-worshipping as some may think. Voters in later primaries have to deal with an even bigger "electablity" issue. Besides, hardcore anarchists do not vote. If you really want to see a country that is into state-worshipping, check out India, where voter turn out is around 90% in elections. They really believe in state-sanctioned robbery is valuable, and many of the poor simply want their share.
In any case, I doubt even patent racists like Al Sharpton would say something or get away with declaiming 95% percent whites being brainwashed. It's just racialistic inflamatory.
Morty: 5) "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'" - Isn't that what already occurs, but instead of personally stealing they allow the state to do it for them?
First of all, blacks do not constitute the majority of welfare recipients. More importantly, if one really wants to put it in racialistic terms, I'm just being a devil's advocate here: "the oppressive thieving state that you are berating is mostly the handiwork of the dumb whites" After all, it is an inconravertible fact that most voters are whites, and every single president-elect recieved more white votes than from any other ethnic group; that incudes Lincoln, FDR, Wilson and all the other demonic statists. How do you feel about the statement that I just proposed? IMHO, it's quite unnecessarily racialistic. Of course I'm not suggesting banning such speech . . . however, would I want to associate myself with such blatant race-baiting? Probably not.
For the context of the publishing and the intended readership of the circular, I suppose there was probably an element of hyperbolic sense of humor . . . in the long run however, it goes to show the dangers of being too clever by half . . . almost as silly as the Petreous/Betray-Us debacle. Typical perils of wordsmiths becoming too fond of listening to their own echoes.
> "11) "Homosexuals," it said, "not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities." - Gay pride parades make this point pretty self-evident."
Only the homosexuals can decide whether they are better off or not, according to their own subjective preferences. And there is no agreed-upon way of calculating whether society is better off or not - a utilitarian question. Measured in terms of quantity of gay pride parades, society is much better off.
> "5) "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'" -"
So is that implying that most of the welfare recipients are black? Or does it mean that the individuals possessing more than 50% African heritage will feel justified?
These writings are just sloppy and bitter claptrap.
"Since when has this social pressure really stopped? And since when are most gay people particularly "open" about it and are waving their personal buisiness in the public eye? *takes a look around* I don't exactly see men sodomizing eachother in the streets. Everybody run! The gays are coming! They'll make our minds melt with their lisps!"
baxter: > "5) "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'" -" So is that implying that most of the welfare recipients are black? Or does it mean that the individuals possessing more than 50% African heritage will feel justified?
I'd say that the second option would be the correct interpretation of this statement. I recall how someone (can't remember who anymore) once said that the worst person to be in America is a middle-aged educated white man with a family and a job, since he's the one that can not be disriminated. Infact, sometimes I think that they're really the ones being discriminated, since everybody else seem to have some privileges.
"There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal." - F.A. Hayek
One night I dreamed of chewing up my debetcard - there simply is nothing like hard cash in your pocket!
edward_1313:"11) "Homosexuals," it said, "not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities." - Gay pride parades make this point pretty self-evident."
In Estonia, some actually had the idea of organizing a parade for heterosexuals. Personally, I don't see them having any useful effect. I'm certainly not against them and if they like, they can march all they like. But simply all it seems to do is celebrate that they are different and perhaps even special. Instead of promoting solidarity they seem to attract everykind of conservative people. Also, many prestigous homosexuals have said that they don't see any point in coming to the street and 'screaming' what they like to do in bed. This open homosexuality actually seems to be a new wave of pop-culture, just like punk or hippies were.
Morty, you are bang on the money. These people who attempt to smear Lew, Paul and the LvMI use pejorative words and anti-concepts to stifle debate. You should read my thread What Actually is Racism?
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Morty:5) "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'" - Isn't that what already occurs, but instead of personally stealing they allow the state to do it for them?
I knew some people (who happen to not be black, but that's neither here nor there) who felt completely justified in accepting any and all asistance from the state that they could get. They felt that way because they were completely convinced that the system is inherently rigged against them. The ironic thing is that they're right. The problem is that, having read a lot of Marx, they had absolutely no clue what the true nature of their exploitation was.
Marx was not at all the first person to articulate the notion of class conflict. Class exploitation used to be an in-your-face fact of everyday life. The parasitic classes simply were the privileged classes—the classes for whom the rules were different. It was in response to exactly this institutionalized privilege that (classical) liberalism (a.k.a. libertarianism) arose. The response of the privileged classes to this onslaught of rationality was—and is—argument by obfuscation. Thus, in steps the profesional intellectual.
While Marx might acknowledge class conflict in the form of “free man and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild master and journeyman,” Marx conspicuously circumvents any suggestion that differences in rules regarding property were exactly what distinguished oppressor and oppressed in these class conflicts. Instead, we are supposed to concern ourselves with a newer notion of exploitation that is much more ethereal. By no coincidence, Marx’s diagnosis is that it is exactly the establishment of (mutually-binding rules of) property rights and free trade by which the bourgeois exploit the proletarian. By no coincidence, his prescriptions are that the means of production belong in the hands of ‘society,’ which, by no coincidence, in practice, puts the means of production into the hands of the State (as even the Communist Manifesto explicitly advocates, if only as an intermediate step toward ‘true’ communism).
Thus the interests of the parasitical class are served by the very fact that everyone knows that they are somehow being exploited by a parasitical class.
Physiocrat: Morty, you are bang on the money. These people who attempt to smear Lew, Paul and the LvMI use pejorative words and anti-concepts to stifle debate. You should read my thread What Actually is Racism?
No, he is not. And even if he were, the issue of racism is such a poisonous one to ANY AND ALL MOVEMENTS EVERYWHERE, you would be best to admit ONE member is a racist and shun him than to completely derail an entire body of thought.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Inquisitor:Justin Raimondo has written a good article on this.
Morty:To be frank, I think the quotes have been blown way out of proportion. Are they radical? Yes. Are they a kick in the teeth to "polite" discourse? Yes. But isn't that what libertarians often come across as? Isn't that what the writings of authors like Lew Rockwell often are?And how many of these quotes are untrue, even if they are blunt? 1) "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions" - That's about in line with America as a whole. If even 5%. Whether we want to believe it or not, Americans are a brainwashed, state-worshipping bunch. In no way would I classify the great majority of political positions 95% of Americans have as "sensible."
Yeah, that isn't going to fly with anyone, nor should it. The fact that most people are completely politically fu/cked is not what that quote was getting at, obviously.
Morty:2) "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be" - if they weren't fleet-footed, they wouldn't last long as robbers, no?
Oh please, do you realize how much of a religious, Paulian you sound like?All hail, the lord Ron Paul. Give me a break. Please, Lew Rockwell.com is already sh/it, don't turn LvMI into it too.
Morty:3) black representative Barbara Jordan is "the archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism." - sounds about right. Most all politicians are either ignorant or evil. Most minority politicians play on the fact that they are a minority. These are not controversial statements if we abandon our politically correct inclinations for a moment.
Morty: 4) "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began" - In 1992, 33.4% of blacks were below the poverty line, the highest number among all racial groups. What stopped the riots is anyone's guess, but this hypothesis cannot be dismissed out of hand.
....
You can't be serious...
Morty:5) "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'" - Isn't that what already occurs, but instead of personally stealing they allow the state to do it for them?6) "blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot." - can anyone say that it is untrue? People in general, it seems, tend to celebrate by vandalism in cities.
Morty:7) "I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming." - That's not calling all blacks animals, that is calling criminals animals.8) South Africa's transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a "destruction of civilization" that was "the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara" - Democracy is the path towards decivilization and barbarism.
Morty:9) King was described as "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration." - Thomas Woods backs up this assertion in 33 Questions About American History You Aren't Supposed To Ask.10) "our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom." - So basically they just said that they should keep their principles...11) "Homosexuals," it said, "not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities." - Gay pride parades make this point pretty self-evident.12) Readers were warned to avoid blood transfusions because gays were trying to "poison the blood supply." - Not long ago didn't Mises.org or LRC post a story on Haitians (I think?) suing the Red Cross over not taking their blood despite extremely high rates of AIDS among them? It's no different.13) "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." - Hoppe has made the point of time preference among homosexuals as well and suffered harsh criticism. But doesn't it make sense that unmarried, childless adults would have a high time preference? The quote here is simply saying that in words someone who isn't an economist might understand.14) A 1987 issue of Paul's Investment Letter called Israel "an aggressive, national socialist state" - true and true.15) Indeed, the newsletters seemed to hint that armed revolution against the federal government would be justified. - GASP! Never! That is quite a weighty claim! Hinting tha defending yourself against a gang of thugs would be justified is completely beyond belief.16) It warned militia members that they were "possibly under BATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] or other totalitarian federal surveillance" - And it turns out they were, or at least by the FBI who often infiltrated groups.17) promoting his distrust of a federally regulated monetary system utilizing paper bills. - Because it deserves our undying trust? Pretty much, there isn't a lot of quotes in there that make me gasp and cry out for finding those responsible. They are overly blunt and overgeneralize but there isn't anything patently racist and terrible in there that I saw.
I can't read anymore. You people make me sick.
Byzantine:I think you stupid hippies need to get over yourselves.
I think you stupid hippies need to get over yourselves.
It's like you people congregate annually. Let me guess, you're the one with the red hair?
Brainpolice:This seems to assume that the majority of welfare recipients are black, which simply isn't the case, at least anymore.
The sad fact is that the races are very different when it comes to poverty rates. Though it has come down since 1992's (which is the time this statement was directed towards) 33.4% (highest of all races), black poverty is still at 24.9% and still highest of all races.
http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/factfiles_detail.cfm?issue_type=welfare&list=4
Furthermore, while blacks are not and were not the majority of those on welfare, they are neck-in-neck with whites (the highest) despite representing only about 12% of the population.
Social pressure hasn't been as great, as many posters have pointed out. However, what I was getting at, was that there are a great deal of homosexuals who now throw their sexually in everyone's face, whereas before there were not.
JimS:The fact that the two earliest caucus/primary states both showed more than 5% support for Paul seems to indicate that Americans are not as state-worshipping as some may think.
I don't give them as much credit, personally. I think Ron Paul would not have anywhere near as high of totals if he made his positions clearer. He often times deludes them with statements like, "If we weren't spending trillions of dollars overseas, we could spend it here taking care of Americans," making the implication that he plans to have the government spend that for something at home. I think a lot of people who support him think that he is a more-electable Kucinich or Gravel. I also think we may have some trade protectionists in our ranks who like that he wants to get rid of GATT, the WTO, NAFTA, etc. They don't understand that he wants to replace that with unilateral free trade. He talks about not "raiding" the Social Security Trust Fund (which is an illusion to begin with) more than he talks about ending SS. If Paul gets elected, I think a lot of people with be upset that they didn't get what they thought they were voting for.
baxter:Only the homosexuals can decide whether they are better off or not, according to their own subjective preferences.
I think that's a fair criticism and I don't really have a response to that one. It is a very good point. Though, from a societal standpoint, we do have to recognize that we live in the world of public roads, and although we can only spectulate as to what road owners would allow, it seems that from the considerable outcry against these gay pride parades, many, if not most, would disallow such on their property.
Niccolò: Byzantine: I think you stupid hippies need to get over yourselves. It's like you people congregate annually. Let me guess, you're the one with the red hair?
Byzantine: I think you stupid hippies need to get over yourselves.
LMAO!
Hippies? Where?
Those darn hippies (and robots), stealing our jobs!
This newsletter thing is getting silly and it mostly seems to be coming from the Reason/Cato clique. I am not familiar with the various in-fightings of US libertarians and I have held Cato and Reason as respectable entities. But this purposeful sabotage of Paul and smearing of Rockwell has really shown the level that these people will go to.
So, if anyone is still feeling weak-kneed about the newsletter thing, read this rebuttal by Justin Raimondo. It should put you at ease.
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_ron_paul/
Niccolò:Raimondo is kind of a traitor to libertarianism as a whole in any case, but I love his writing style and if you ever wanted a venomous writer on your side, it would be him.
Raimondo is kind of a traitor to libertarianism as a whole in any case, but I love his writing style and if you ever wanted a venomous writer on your side, it would be him.
What do you mean? I don't know much about his personal background.
Inquisitor:Niccolò:Raimondo is kind of a traitor to libertarianism as a whole in any case, but I love his writing style and if you ever wanted a venomous writer on your side, it would be him. What do you mean? I don't know much about his personal background.
Supporting Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader - whether he believes in some corner of his scattered little mind that Nader is a "rightist" - seem to contradict any support for libertarianism. Moreover, I can not identify any proposed "right winger" as libertarian, seeing that libertarianism is inherently anti-establishment, and thus left-wing. Though I know this is a rather strong opinion.
I've followed Raimondo for a while now, so I do know a bit about him and what he's said.
Niccolò: Supporting Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader - whether he believes in some corner of his scattered little mind that Nader is a "rightist" - seem to contradict any support for libertarianism. Moreover, I can not identify any proposed "right winger" as libertarian, seeing that libertarianism is inherently anti-establishment, and thus left-wing. Though I know this is a rather strong opinion.
Murray Rothbard supported Pat Buchanan at one point. Prior to that, he ran for governor on the Peace and Freedom ticket, which had nominated a Black Panther leader for President. He affiliated with the SDS on specific issues when it was appropriate, while making it clear that he didn't agree with socialism. I see nothing wrong with strategic alliances with the right or the left. Granted, I prefer alliances with the left, but I have seen conservatives I'd be open to single-issue alliances with, Buchanan being a prime example. There are not enough libertarians for us to turn our noses up at alliances. Have you read "Left and Right - The Prospects for Liberty," and, if so, would you consider Rothbard a traitor to libertarianism? I agree that libertarianism is properly understood as being left-wing, but then you also have to properly understand the left. The political spectrum in America is a much confused spectrum, and many who are firmly on the right would also be properly considered left-wing. After all, many people consider libertarians, you and I for instance, to be on the right. They are wrong about that - but someone can be wrong about where he himself fits.
I myself am currently interested in promoting a left-right alliance for peace and freedom. We are facing some very specific dangers - loss of civil liberties, perpetual warfare, and so on. There is no reason not to work with anyone who wants to fix that, since these issues are far more immediate and pressing than economic issues. I will not support any increase in government, of course - I'm not saying to accept socialism as the price of restoring habeas corpus, but rather that the habeas corpus is a more pressing concern than socialism. I'm an anarcho-capitalist, of course, and have no interest in having a state, but I'm still realistic enough to realize that there are practical differences between different states. It's well and good to take a purist position, saying that there's no difference and no point to fighting to roll back government tyranny - but the fact is that real people are hurt and victimized by government, and more are victimized by larger and worse governments than smaller ones. Being an anarchist does not mean that I have no interest in restoring habeas corpus. A state is bad - but a state without habeas corpus is even worse than a state with habeas corpus.
Bottom line, do we really have enough libertarians to write off anyone who dares to take a position you don't like? Would you also write off anyone who supports Ron Paul as not being libertarian, since Paul is pro-life and anti-immigration? Isn't it more sensible to recognize that there's a variety of beliefs which all still fall under libertarianism, that there is diversity among libertarians with regard to abortion and immigration, and that there is certainly room for disagreement about strategy? You disagree with Raimondo on strategy for going from where we are to where we all want to go - and for that reason you're willing to label him a traitor?
Niccolò:Moreover, I can not identify any proposed "right winger" as libertarian, seeing that libertarianism is inherently anti-establishment, and thus left-wing. Though I know this is a rather strong opinion.
How about Hans Hoppe? Is he not a libertarian?
JAlanKatz:Murray Rothbard supported Pat Buchanan at one point.
Murray Rothbard supported Pat Buchanan at one point.
I'm fine with Rothbard's alliance on the left, in fact, at that time he was probably at his best. It just so happens that usually those on the left are at least willing to allow a co-existence of "capitalism," whereas those on the right would prefer to "round 'dem spi... Mexicans up," and spill them off into a desert somewhere after they get done bashing in the heads of the gay populous and also exterminating what's left of those welfare-sucking, nig black folk.
JAlanKatz:There is no reason not to work with anyone who wants to fix that, since these issues are far more immediate and pressing than economic issues.
There is no reason not to work with anyone who wants to fix that, since these issues are far more immediate and pressing than economic issues.
No, there isn't. However, there are reasons to reject them on the basis of their counter-productivity, and to also call them out for what they are.
If it walks like a redneck, talks like the drunk, uncle from Arkansas, and thinks like a bigot, well... chances are that it's a paleocon.
JAlanKatz: I will not support any increase in government, of course - I'm not saying to accept socialism as the price of restoring habeas corpus, but rather that the habeas corpus is a more pressing concern than socialism.
I will not support any increase in government, of course - I'm not saying to accept socialism as the price of restoring habeas corpus, but rather that the habeas corpus is a more pressing concern than socialism.
JAlanKatz: I'm an anarcho-capitalist, of course, and have no interest in having a state, but I'm still realistic enough to realize that there are practical differences between different states. It's well and good to take a purist position, saying that there's no difference and no point to fighting to roll back government tyranny - but the fact is that real people are hurt and victimized by government, and more are victimized by larger and worse governments than smaller ones. Being an anarchist does not mean that I have no interest in restoring habeas corpus. A state is bad - but a state without habeas corpus is even worse than a state with habeas corpus.
I'm an anarcho-capitalist, of course, and have no interest in having a state, but I'm still realistic enough to realize that there are practical differences between different states. It's well and good to take a purist position, saying that there's no difference and no point to fighting to roll back government tyranny - but the fact is that real people are hurt and victimized by government, and more are victimized by larger and worse governments than smaller ones. Being an anarchist does not mean that I have no interest in restoring habeas corpus. A state is bad - but a state without habeas corpus is even worse than a state with habeas corpus.
Funny that they're the same governments your kind - the compromised - have been involved with for centuries.
It's odd that you proclaim the "purists" to be the ones advocating inaction and grinding the movement to a hault of inability, when it has always been your kind that have fu/cked everything up.
JAlanKatz:Bottom line, do we really have enough libertarians to write off anyone who dares to take a position you don't like?
Bottom line, do we really have enough libertarians to write off anyone who dares to take a position you don't like?
It's not about whether I like it or not. Bryan Caplan is a complete douchebag, but I still accept him as a libertarian because... well, he is one.
JAlanKatz: Would you also write off anyone who supports Ron Paul as not being libertarian, since Paul is pro-life and anti-immigration?
Would you also write off anyone who supports Ron Paul as not being libertarian, since Paul is pro-life and anti-immigration?
I would write them off as fools and misguided souls that need to be shown the light of their mistakes. Ron Paul is not a libertarian though.
JAlanKatz: Isn't it more sensible to recognize that there's a variety of beliefs which all still fall under libertarianism, that there is diversity among libertarians with regard to abortion and immigration, and that there is certainly room for disagreement about strategy? You disagree with Raimondo on strategy for going from where we are to where we all want to go - and for that reason you're willing to label him a traitor?
Isn't it more sensible to recognize that there's a variety of beliefs which all still fall under libertarianism, that there is diversity among libertarians with regard to abortion and immigration, and that there is certainly room for disagreement about strategy? You disagree with Raimondo on strategy for going from where we are to where we all want to go - and for that reason you're willing to label him a traitor?
There's room for disagreement, but not for unlibertarian beliefs. I disagree with Raimondo on a variety of things, namely his belief that his viewpoints on anything domestic are educated ones.
Morty:How about Hans Hoppe? Is he not a libertarian?
Hans-Hermann Hoppe is a libertarian who has, unfortunately, allowed his own bigotry to cloud his judgment on certain issues.
People tend to forget some very important truths:
1. Free speech is free, regardless of content or view point. It's not always pretty. Example: The Ohio State University chose to have *** Gregory give the keynote speech for the university's Martin Luther King week celebration. I was going to take my kids to hear Gregory speak but first decided to YouTube him. Listen to his talks on YouTube and see what free speech is all about. My only issue is that my tax dollars paid for his speech, that I find offensive (of course, that is true regardless of content and/or view point. I don't want me taxes paying for anything).
2. Politics is ugly. Always was, always will be. Expect every viable candidate to be attacked. That is campaigning 101; attack you opponent, because before you can get his supporters to vote for you, you have to get them to not want to vote for him. Worse case, his supporters choose not to vote at all; which, by the way, is still a winner for you.
3. Comments taken out of their historical context can sound offensive. I can only imagine what the ramifications will be in 10 years for the neocon warmongers. To advocate the death of whole nations (men, women, and children) in the name of security will sound odd out of today's context. Of course, to many, such comments sound odd today.
4. If those being attacked as racist were truly racist, wouldn't they be using the current political-class-inspired fears to make points with the masses? Yet, I read no such stuff in their current comments?
Let's move on. Paul desires the beginning of the end of government as we know it. What a wonderful cause that is!
Niccolò:I'm fine with Rothbard's alliance on the left, in fact, at that time he was probably at his best. It just so happens that usually those on the left are at least willing to allow a co-existence of "capitalism," whereas those on the right would prefer to "round 'dem spi... Mexicans up," and spill them off into a desert somewhere after they get done bashing in the heads of the gay populous and also exterminating what's left of those welfare-sucking, nig black folk.
Where do you see tolerance on the left for capitalism? Among the Black Panthers, the SDS, or Dennis Kucinich? Overall, the modern left is no more open to capitalism than the modern right is to personal liberty. Don't you think the above is a bit of a hasty generalization? It seems to me that you're generalizing from the fact that many on the left, such as Kucinich supporters, are far easier to talk to than many on the right.
Niccolò:That's because you invest too much importance in it. You're so concerned with your external threats you allow your internal toxins to overtake your mind. Break the chains of illusion and be free.
Ah, so let's not be the least bit concerned that we have government officials - that is, people who happen to command tremendous military and police resources - informing us that they intend to arrest and hold, forever, without trial, those who speak out against them. Instead, we'll just free our minds, not think about it, and it will go away? It's hard to "break the chains of illusion and be free" by "freeing your mind" while you're in a torture camp or a prison.
Niccolò: Funny that they're the same governments your kind - the compromised - have been involved with for centuries. It's odd that you proclaim the "purists" to be the ones advocating inaction and grinding the movement to a hault of inability, when it has always been your kind that have fu/cked everything up.
Yes, we can all throw around names and insults. Calling me "the compromised" is not an argument. Working to push a government back, to prevent it from doing harm, is not equivalent to being involved with government. On inaction - I believe your suggestion is to work underground, sell in black markets, and generally break every law available. It also seems to be "writing out" and insulting anyone who disagrees with your strategy or your opinion on a particular issue. I'm curious to know - just why is it that "my kind" - libertarians actually interested in promoting freedom, not doing our best to hide from government - that are responsible for messing up all of history?
Niccolò: It's not about whether I like it or not. Bryan Caplan is a complete douchebag, but I still accept him as a libertarian because... well, he is one.
So Caplan is alright, despite believing in the notion of a coercive monopoly in the enforcement of laws, but having a strategic disagreement over whether or not it makes sense to work with Buchanan means Raimondo is out?
Niccolò:I would write them off as fools and misguided souls that need to be shown the light of their mistakes. Ron Paul is not a libertarian though.
I'm sure Ron Paul would dispute that, as would the attendees at the 1988 LP convention who nominated him for President. Of course, you'll tell me that Paul is not a libertarian because of his position on abortion and immigration, as if those were settled issues within libertarianism. However, there is widespread disagreement in the libertarian world about those topics, and even anarchists, like Hoppe, don't all agree. But then, you said Hoppe was a libertarian despite his immigration position - so why is Paul not one, again?
So you write off Paul's supporters as misguided fools. In your view of things, libertarians should team up with the 10 other people who agree with you on every miniscule point and do, well, something. It is entirely misguided and absurd to think it would help to have a President who wants to eliminate the IRS, the Fed, the Department of etc., restore civil liberties, and stop stealing millions of dollars to send troops to Iraq to kill people. You really don't see that as being any better than having a President who does the exact opposite?
Niccolò:There's room for disagreement, but not for unlibertarian beliefs. I disagree with Raimondo on a variety of things, namely his belief that his viewpoints on anything domestic are educated ones.
You haven't presented a belief of Raimondo's specifically that you think is unlibertarian. You've presented a tactic he engages in - allying with non-libertarians on specific issues of importance. The hint is supposed to be that he supports certain issues Buchanan and Nader are known for - anti-immigration, opposition to NAFTA and GATT, and maybe abortion in the case of Buchanan. I tend to agree with you on immigration, but when many libertarian heavyweights disagree, I am not willing to write them all off as non-libertarians. Similarly on abortion. On NAFTA and GATT, I am a proponent of free, unrestricted trade - and I think you could write a free trade agreement in a paragraph. NAFTA doesn't have a passing resemble to a free trade agreement, and I oppose it. Is CODEX a reasonable outcome from a real free trade agreement?
Niccolò:There's room for disagreement, but not for unlibertarian beliefs.
Not words I'd hope to hear from a libertarian. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you keep branding anything pro-Paul as 'Cult of Paul' etc. Yet you now claim the right to determine what exactly is libertarian? Is this the Cult of Niccolò?
This kind of purist attitude is what is holding libertarianism from moving forward. If we are incapable of even entertaining discussion on abortion, then we will remain a marginal curiosity.
JAlanKatz:Where do you see tolerance on the left for capitalism? Among the Black Panthers, the SDS, or Dennis Kucinich? Overall, the modern left is no more open to capitalism than the modern right is to personal liberty. Don't you think the above is a bit of a hasty generalization? It seems to me that you're generalizing from the fact that many on the left, such as Kucinich supporters, are far easier to talk to than many on the right.
When mutualists and libertarian-socialists tell me that they will not beat me, kidnap me, degrade me, and my children for owning a paper-copy firm and hiring people at a lower wage.
JAlanKatz:Ah, so let's not be the least bit concerned that we have government officials - that is, people who happen to command tremendous military and police resources - informing us that they intend to arrest and hold, forever, without trial, those who speak out against them. Instead, we'll just free our minds, not think about it, and it will go away? It's hard to "break the chains of illusion and be free" by "freeing your mind" while you're in a torture camp or a prison.
You misunderstand entirely.
The state has taken everything of worth from you, anything you hold dear will essentially be theirs one day, so you're living for a life, a life that means nothing - if it did, the state would take that away too. I, on the other hand, live for something more than a life, I live for something the state can't ever take away. You want to get rid of the state? You want to achieve real liberty in your life now? Then do it - don't waste your time voting and donating to a man who only tells you to wait, and to die for a hope of a life that will never arrive. You seem to believe that you have to accept the peanuts they throw at you to change your life, but it is only after you eat them that you realize they were poisoned all along! I'm telling you now, I'm giving you the key to a kingdom, to liberty, to a life of meaning, dignity, and hope. I'm telling you that you can fight the state without having to be a statist - I'm telling you that there's a better path to change and it involves no bars, no camps, no prisons - what I offer you can not put you in a camp and it will never place you in their prisons; it will only free you from them.
JAlanKatz: Yes, we can all throw around names and insults. Calling me "the compromised" is not an argument. Working to push a government back, to prevent it from doing harm, is not equivalent to being involved with government.
Yes, we can all throw around names and insults. Calling me "the compromised" is not an argument. Working to push a government back, to prevent it from doing harm, is not equivalent to being involved with government.
It is when your actions have only brought the government more presents and bodies to be taken. You tell us you "work to push it back," but your intents are irrelevant to me - the products of your sins are all I care about, and they have brought much destruction.
JAlanKatz: On inaction - I believe your suggestion is to work underground, sell in black markets, and generally break every law available.
On inaction - I believe your suggestion is to work underground, sell in black markets, and generally break every law available.
You mischaracterize it. My plan is to fight against the government, not side by side with it trying to control the beast by wearing the ring of oppression, cruelty, and sadism. My plan is to build an alternative and to build it strong, to bleed the beast and nourish from its blood - my plan is to drive a sword through the heart of Leviathan by forging the blade with its claws and the handle with its bone. I plan to tear the state apart by taking away the only thing it can live off of - its perceived authority. You on the other hand just maintain that authority by legitimizing the system as a means to "reform it."
JAlanKatz: It also seems to be "writing out" and insulting anyone who disagrees with your strategy or your opinion on a particular issue. I'm curious to know - just why is it that "my kind" - libertarians actually interested in promoting freedom, not doing our best to hide from government - that are responsible for messing up all of history?
It also seems to be "writing out" and insulting anyone who disagrees with your strategy or your opinion on a particular issue. I'm curious to know - just why is it that "my kind" - libertarians actually interested in promoting freedom, not doing our best to hide from government - that are responsible for messing up all of history?
Writing out would be an example of promoting freedom, btw.
It is your fault because you've yet to realize what the state actually is and what it runs on. Until you understand a beast's nature, you will never understand how to destroy it. Like a slavemaster the state feeds off of authority from its slaves; without the perception of authority from the perspectives of the slaves, the state withers away, but as you continue to tout the horn of political libertarianism and reformation of the state as opposed to its death in a pool of blood, you legitimize its authority to organize elections, throw peanuts at the masses, and exist. Whether you believe you do this or not, your mentality is entirely statist and so transcends into authority for the state.
JAlanKatz: So Caplan is alright, despite believing in the notion of a coercive monopoly in the enforcement of laws, but having a strategic disagreement over whether or not it makes sense to work with Buchanan means Raimondo is out?
JAlanKatz:I'm sure Ron Paul would dispute that, as would the attendees at the 1988 LP convention who nominated him for President.
I'm sure Ron Paul would dispute that, as would the attendees at the 1988 LP convention who nominated him for President.
JAlanKatz: Of course, you'll tell me that Paul is not a libertarian because of his position on abortion and immigration, as if those were settled issues within libertarianism. However, there is widespread disagreement in the libertarian world about those topics, and even anarchists, like Hoppe, don't all agree. But then, you said Hoppe was a libertarian despite his immigration position - so why is Paul not one, again?
Of course, you'll tell me that Paul is not a libertarian because of his position on abortion and immigration, as if those were settled issues within libertarianism. However, there is widespread disagreement in the libertarian world about those topics, and even anarchists, like Hoppe, don't all agree. But then, you said Hoppe was a libertarian despite his immigration position - so why is Paul not one, again?
Actually, he's not a libertarian because he supports the existence of the state, along with wanting to actually restrict people from being on unowned land.
See here.
As for Hoppe, I guess you're right, he's not upholding the Non-Aggression Principle if he believes that it is alright for people to violently oppress a group of people from homesteading unowned land. I am not sure if that's exactly what he means if I put it in those words.
I believe he's struggling with his own bigotries, personally.
JAlanKatz: So you write off Paul's supporters as misguided fools. In your view of things, libertarians should team up with the 10 other people who agree with you on every miniscule point and do, well, something. It is entirely misguided and absurd to think it would help to have a President who wants to eliminate the IRS, the Fed, the Department of etc., restore civil liberties, and stop stealing millions of dollars to send troops to Iraq to kill people. You really don't see that as being any better than having a President who does the exact opposite?
I agree with many more than ten people, I assure you. Anyone that upholds the non-aggression principle, I will agree with. Anyone that does not, I will vehemently oppose them until they convert or drop dead.
Also, the question you pose is a loaded one. It assumes that promoting a president that believes in X will mean X will occur if he is elected or not. Moreover, it is a foolish strategy for liberty attainement, as A it is an inefficient form of resource allocation, and B it is not addressing the real issue, but rather only the effects.
JAlanKatz:You haven't presented a belief of Raimondo's specifically that you think is unlibertarian.
You haven't presented a belief of Raimondo's specifically that you think is unlibertarian.
Immigration is the only thing that comes to mind as I go threw withdrawals from an absence of Effexor.
JAlanKatz: when many libertarian heavyweights disagree, I am not willing to write them all off as non-libertarians.
Libertas est Veritas:Not words I'd hope to hear from a libertarian. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you keep branding anything pro-Paul as 'Cult of Paul' etc. Yet you now claim the right to determine what exactly is libertarian? Is this the Cult of Niccolò?This kind of purist attitude is what is holding libertarianism from moving forward. If we are incapable of even entertaining discussion on abortion, then we will remain a marginal curiosity.
No, because "Niccolò" does not possess a large following devoted to daily bukkake on the pixels of a computer screen forming the immage of Ron Paul as seen on LewRockwell.com
Purist attitude is holding libertarianism back, eh? Since when has the libertarian movement ever been purist? The main rerpesentatives of libertarianism/classical liberalism have almost ALWAYS been compromised.
Maybe it's time we try a new way?
Niccolò:When mutualists and libertarian-socialists tell me that they will not beat me, kidnap me, degrade me, and my children for owning a paper-copy firm and hiring people at a lower wage.
And they are supposed to be representative of the left?
Niccolò: The state has taken everything of worth from you, anything you hold dear will essentially be theirs one day, so you're living for a life, a life that means nothing - if it did, the state would take that away too. I, on the other hand, live for something more than a life, I live for something the state can't ever take away. You want to get rid of the state? You want to achieve real liberty in your life now? Then do it - don't waste your time voting and donating to a man who only tells you to wait, and to die for a hope of a life that will never arrive. You seem to believe that you have to accept the peanuts they throw at you to change your life, but it is only after you eat them that you realize they were poisoned all along! I'm telling you now, I'm giving you the key to a kingdom, to liberty, to a life of meaning, dignity, and hope. I'm telling you that you can fight the state without having to be a statist - I'm telling you that there's a better path to change and it involves no bars, no camps, no prisons - what I offer you can not put you in a camp and it will never place you in their prisons; it will only free you from them.
What you offer is a blackmarket economy. How can that never place me in their prisons again? You are right that ideas are important, and you don't overestimate their value - they are very valuable. But physical reality is also important. If the idea of liberty and freedom held sway, there would not be men with guns - but if I believe that no one can harm me, that doesn't make the men with guns go away.
Niccolò:You mischaracterize it. My plan is to fight against the government, not side by side with it trying to control the beast by wearing the ring of oppression, cruelty, and sadism. My plan is to build an alternative and to build it strong, to bleed the beast and nourish from its blood - my plan is to drive a sword through the heart of Leviathan by forging the blade with its claws and the handle with its bone. I plan to tear the state apart by taking away the only thing it can live off of - its perceived authority. You on the other hand just maintain that authority by legitimizing the system as a means to "reform it."
And how do you plan to stay alive while doing that? I agree with the process you suggest - but it takes time, many years perhaps. In the meantime, there will remain a Leviathan state - do you think it will sit by and let you build your alternative? I think there is nothing wrong with this suggestion, but that you also need to build some temporary structure to protect yourself if you ever plan to achieve what you aim for. I do not maintain authority by trying to hold it back - I recognize that it is perceived as having authority. Who has done more to popularize the libertarian cause - you or Ron Paul? What attracts more people, educates more people about the nature of the state - your posts here, or Lew Rockwell's website?
Niccolò:It is your fault because you've yet to realize what the state actually is and what it runs on. Until you understand a beast's nature, you will never understand how to destroy it. Like a slavemaster the state feeds off of authority from its slaves; without the perception of authority from the perspectives of the slaves, the state withers away, but as you continue to tout the horn of political libertarianism and reformation of the state as opposed to its death in a pool of blood, you legitimize its authority to organize elections, throw peanuts at the masses, and exist. Whether you believe you do this or not, your mentality is entirely statist and so transcends into authority for the state.
The state is a system of monopolized aggression. It is the means by which some men conspire to live as parasites on others - and by which they convince their hosts to love the parasites and to oppose any attempt to get rid of them. It is a construct by which men are convinced that murder, rape, and theft are evil, but that these same actions are the highest actions available to man when done in the name of the state. In short, it is nothing but aggression and attack, but is perceived by the masses as being legitimate, and thus they do not fight back. It is worse than a common thief, because a common thief does not try to convince you that what he is doing is noble and right.
Niccolò: ctually, he's not a libertarian because he supports the existence of the state, along with wanting to actually restrict people from being on unowned land. See here. As for Hoppe, I guess you're right, he's not upholding the Non-Aggression Principle if he believes that it is alright for people to violently oppress a group of people from homesteading unowned land. I am not sure if that's exactly what he means if I put it in those words.
ctually, he's not a libertarian because he supports the existence of the state, along with wanting to actually restrict people from being on unowned land.
So, in both cases, we're still talking about immigration.
Niccolò: I agree with many more than ten people, I assure you. Anyone that upholds the non-aggression principle, I will agree with. Anyone that does not, I will vehemently oppose them until they convert or drop dead. Also, the question you pose is a loaded one. It assumes that promoting a president that believes in X will mean X will occur if he is elected or not. Moreover, it is a foolish strategy for liberty attainement, as A it is an inefficient form of resource allocation, and B it is not addressing the real issue, but rather only the effects.
And if someone disagrees with you about what the non-aggression principle entails, you will declare them to not uphold the principle and vehemently oppose them as well. Or maybe you'll attempt to convince them that your interpretation is correct, but will you ever consider the possibility that theirs is correct?
Promoting a President who believes in X only means that X is more likely to happen than otherwise if he is elected. It means nothing about what will happen if he is not elected - that's the whole purpose of supporting someone, to try to get them elected. As far as B: In a prior life, I worked as a paramedic. When I treat someone having a massive coronary, the real problem is their genetics, their diet, and their lack of exercise for 20 years. Am I wrong to treat them, to lower their blood pressure, provide oxygen, give blood thinners? None of those address the real issue, but they will save his life, perhaps. Dr. Szasz made a career of freeing people who were imprisoned without trial - that wasn't addressing the real issue either, was it? He worked on a case-by-case basis, freeing one innocent person, then another, and never eliminated the system that allowed innocent people to go to jail, although he did speak out against the system at all times. Was he wrong to free people without being able to address the real issue?
Niccolò:So you commit devotion to men as opposed to principles?
No, I recognize my own fallibility. I have made mistakes in reasoning before, and will make more in the future. When I meet someone who is just as committed to freedom as I am, who also opposes aggression and assault, and who opposes immigration, I have toleave open the possibility that I don't see as clearly as he does. When he is an esteemed intellectual, who studied with Rothbard, who Lew Rockwell calls a national treasure, a best selling author, founder of a society of freethinkers, and so on, it becomes even more likely that I have made a mistake. I still don't see the logic, so I hold to my position until persuaded otherwise, but I am not so arrogant and so convinced that I am right as to say that, by disagreeing with me on immigration, he has failed to uphold the non-aggression principle.
JAlanKatz:And they are supposed to be representative of the left?
If he's not Left, no Left exists.
JAlanKatz:What you offer is a blackmarket economy. How can that never place me in their prisons again?
What you offer is a blackmarket economy. How can that never place me in their prisons again?
JAlanKatz: You are right that ideas are important, and you don't overestimate their value - they are very valuable. But physical reality is also important. If the idea of liberty and freedom held sway, there would not be men with guns - but if I believe that no one can harm me, that doesn't make the men with guns go away.
You are right that ideas are important, and you don't overestimate their value - they are very valuable. But physical reality is also important. If the idea of liberty and freedom held sway, there would not be men with guns - but if I believe that no one can harm me, that doesn't make the men with guns go away.
JAlanKatz: And how do you plan to stay alive while doing that?
And how do you plan to stay alive while doing that?
JAlanKatz: I agree with the process you suggest - but it takes time, many years perhaps. In the meantime, there will remain a Leviathan state - do you think it will sit by and let you build your alternative?
I agree with the process you suggest - but it takes time, many years perhaps. In the meantime, there will remain a Leviathan state - do you think it will sit by and let you build your alternative?
I don't believe it - I experience it. The state does not need to get involved until it becomes too late, such is how the state operates. The state will never bother me so long as it believes that it still has the legitimacy at hand. Think about it, who has caused you more psychological pain? Who has beaten you down more, the state or other individuals who disagree with your radical opinions of justice and virtue? The state will not do a single da/mn thing because the state built itself up not to have to do a single da/mn thing.
Essentially, the state possesses no ability to enslave everyone, like the slave master it may possess guns to our knives and hatchets, but if the slaves were not made to feel that their masters possessed some level of authoirty over them, then the master would be rendered powerless. The opposition you normally face comes primarily from your fellow slaves, not from the state as a physical entity. Psychological and metaphysical power are so much more important than physical strength.
JAlanKatz: I think there is nothing wrong with this suggestion, but that you also need to build some temporary structure to protect yourself if you ever plan to achieve what you aim for.
I think there is nothing wrong with this suggestion, but that you also need to build some temporary structure to protect yourself if you ever plan to achieve what you aim for.
I have, it's called an Agorist cell.
If you wish to learn more about that, then please visit my blog, and especially watch my series where on the next episode I will be adressing this exact issue of protecting Agorist cells.
http://catholicmarketanarchy.blogspot.com
JAlanKatz:I do not maintain authority by trying to hold it back - I recognize that it is perceived as having authority. Who has done more to popularize the libertarian cause - you or Ron Paul? What attracts more people, educates more people about the nature of the state - your posts here, or Lew Rockwell's website?
I do not maintain authority by trying to hold it back - I recognize that it is perceived as having authority. Who has done more to popularize the libertarian cause - you or Ron Paul? What attracts more people, educates more people about the nature of the state - your posts here, or Lew Rockwell's website?
Ron Paul maintains a position that though the government causes problems, those problems are necessary ones, and that if only HE'S given the reigns then he will surely steer the state for good. But you can NEVER do good with the state! That's the point of our movement and that's why Ron Paul is not a libertarain; it's not because he doesn't support the movement of people or any other small effect of that nature, but because he pledged his allegiance to the state. Whether it be through his rose bud glasses or not, the blood on his hands stains the libertarian name in a dreaded red.
What attracts more people to libertarianism? I don't know. Are sheer numbers what you're after? Are weak soldiers better than dedicated souls? Is a movement of statists under the banner of libertarianism any better? Is that what we want? No.
Does Ron Paul bring plublicity to libertarianism, perhaps, but I've made this case before, successfully, that as politics represents a socialist scheme of resource allocation, Ron Paul's campaign can not efficiently expend the masses of resources he receives. The capital involved in Ron Paul's campaign is the only thing that brings him any plublicity. Devote that to an efficient market system and imagine the results.
JAlanKatz:The state is a system of monopolized aggression. It is the means by which some men conspire to live as parasites on others - and by which they convince their hosts to love the parasites and to oppose any attempt to get rid of them. It is a construct by which men are convinced that murder, rape, and theft are evil, but that these same actions are the highest actions available to man when done in the name of the state. In short, it is nothing but aggression and attack, but is perceived by the masses as being legitimate, and thus they do not fight back. It is worse than a common thief, because a common thief does not try to convince you that what he is doing is noble and right.
You're forgetting one thing, it is a tool of evil that pollutes anything it involves itself with. Like the toxins floating from the nuclear waste under the Earth, the soil of the Ron Paul movement will poison the water supply for the entire libertarian ideology.
JAlanKatz:So, in both cases, we're still talking about immigration.
With Hoppe, he may be a xenophobe, but he certainly is not a statist, he possesses no illusions that the state can be used for good, he's just trying to justify unconscious motives.
JAlanKatz:And if someone disagrees with you about what the non-aggression principle entails, you will declare them to not uphold the principle and vehemently oppose them as well. Or maybe you'll attempt to convince them that your interpretation is correct, but will you ever consider the possibility that theirs is correct?
JAlanKatz: Promoting a President who believes in X only means that X is more likely to happen than otherwise if he is elected.
Promoting a President who believes in X only means that X is more likely to happen than otherwise if he is elected.
Please, explain the air-tight logic here. How does one measure, "more likely"?
Also, seeing that in this case X contradicts the concept of presidency, it would be quite a paradox, eh?
JAlanKatz: It means nothing about what will happen if he is not elected - that's the whole purpose of supporting someone, to try to get them elected.
It means nothing about what will happen if he is not elected - that's the whole purpose of supporting someone, to try to get them elected.
I don't know what the "it" you are referring to is.
JAlanKatz: As far as B: In a prior life, I worked as a paramedic. When I treat someone having a massive coronary, the real problem is their genetics, their diet, and their lack of exercise for 20 years. Am I wrong to treat them, to lower their blood pressure, provide oxygen, give blood thinners? None of those address the real issue, but they will save his life, perhaps. Dr. Szasz made a career of freeing people who were imprisoned without trial - that wasn't addressing the real issue either, was it? He worked on a case-by-case basis, freeing one innocent person, then another, and never eliminated the system that allowed innocent people to go to jail, although he did speak out against the system at all times. Was he wrong to free people without being able to address the real issue?
As far as B: In a prior life, I worked as a paramedic. When I treat someone having a massive coronary, the real problem is their genetics, their diet, and their lack of exercise for 20 years. Am I wrong to treat them, to lower their blood pressure, provide oxygen, give blood thinners? None of those address the real issue, but they will save his life, perhaps. Dr. Szasz made a career of freeing people who were imprisoned without trial - that wasn't addressing the real issue either, was it? He worked on a case-by-case basis, freeing one innocent person, then another, and never eliminated the system that allowed innocent people to go to jail, although he did speak out against the system at all times. Was he wrong to free people without being able to address the real issue?
JAlanKatz:No, I recognize my own fallibility. I have made mistakes in reasoning before, and will make more in the future. When I meet someone who is just as committed to freedom as I am, who also opposes aggression and assault, and who opposes immigration
No, I recognize my own fallibility. I have made mistakes in reasoning before, and will make more in the future. When I meet someone who is just as committed to freedom as I am, who also opposes aggression and assault,
and who opposes immigration
Of course the obvious contradiction here does not need to be pointed out, but take into consideration the concept of "opposing immigration" and proposing that the free-movement of people over unowned land be forcefully prevented by the state.
Now, if Hoppe wishes to be logically consistent with previous statements, then he must either admit that he is just a plain xenophobe that will not propose state involvement merely continuing to be a xenophobe, or he must re-invent the concepts of aggression and assault to fit within the scope of forcefully preventing the free-movement of people over unowned land.
JAlanKatz:I have toleave open the possibility that I don't see as clearly as he does. When he is an esteemed intellectual, who studied with Rothbard
I have toleave open the possibility that I don't see as clearly as he does. When he is an esteemed intellectual, who studied with Rothbard
Why does this some how qualify as some great reason to take the man's word with you people?
JAlanKatz: who Lew Rockwell calls a national treasure, a best selling author, founder of a society of freethinkers, and so on, it becomes even more likely that I have made a mistake. I still don't see the logic, so I hold to my position until persuaded otherwise, but I am not so arrogant and so convinced that I am right as to say that, by disagreeing with me on immigration, he has failed to uphold the non-aggression principle.
who Lew Rockwell calls a national treasure, a best selling author, founder of a society of freethinkers, and so on, it becomes even more likely that I have made a mistake. I still don't see the logic, so I hold to my position until persuaded otherwise, but I am not so arrogant and so convinced that I am right as to say that, by disagreeing with me on immigration, he has failed to uphold the non-aggression principle.
Except... He has. It's hardly arrogance when you're correct about the issue. Do you want me to go into why Hoppe and Rothbard were wrong and why they can not possibly uphold their xenophobia while also holding onto the beliefs of libertarianism? I will, I'll start a paper tonight and post it on my blog sometime within the next week.
Niccolò and JAlanKatz:
I am not taking sides, since you both make good points. But this seems like an argument I heard on the Dennis Praeger show the other day. One of his guests claimed that 'the Best' was the enemy of 'the Good'. I think she had a point. What she failed to include, was that compromise is the root of all evil - liars are not evil because they always lie, but because the occasionally compromise the truth.
So the real debate is about identifying 'the Best' then deciding whether we are going to embrace the enemy of 'the Good' or the root of all evil. Since it is better to have something than nothing, I believe that there is a place for both of these tactics. Sometimes it is best to embrace the root of all evil in order to move into a better position from which to strike at evil - the sleeping with the enemy tactic. Sometimes it is best to embrace the enemy of 'the Good' in order to create a moral position from which troopes can be amassed - the public challenge to obvious, oppressive forces tactic.
Both of these tactics can be effective. I happen to believe that the oppressive forces working in the US today are still largely hidden from the public perception. Therefore, I advocate the embrace of the root of all evil tactic. It is better to undermine the system by accepting welfare and voting to undermine the system. Everyone makes their own choices about how to do this, but blatent attacks on the State will not be tolerated because the public is largely unaware of the oppression. They have been convinced by the "education system", of which the t.v. is the major contributor, that the State is 'the Best'. As more people become aware that it is a compromise and the root of all evil, it will become increasingly effective to attack the system as the root of all evil by creating a moral position, about which proponents of 'the Best' may rally to fight the proponents of the root of all evil - aka 'the Good'.
Niccolò: Physiocrat: Morty, you are bang on the money. These people who attempt to smear Lew, Paul and the LvMI use pejorative words and anti-concepts to stifle debate. You should read my thread What Actually is Racism? No, he is not. And even if he were, the issue of racism is such a poisonous one to ANY AND ALL MOVEMENTS EVERYWHERE, you would be best to admit ONE member is a racist and shun him than to completely derail an entire body of thought.
Niccolo would you please define racism and all those other pejorative words you keep using? I do suggest you read my thread entry.