Niccolò: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
Huh? I suspect that you have misunderstood the requirements of political action. Since individuals get elected, you have to work on behalf of the individual (which presumably entails seeing his or her image more than once). You seem to be proposing some kind of a non-chalant, I-may-or-may-not-support-this-candidate type of campaining. It is a sad day when people have to be wary of openly supporting someone, lest they be labeled a cult in an ensuing torrent of kool-aid references...
Niccolò: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?
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?
Yeah, that'll work. Fracturing into smaller and smaller groups will surely triumph over sound-byte democracy. I can see it now... mainly economic libertarians will battle it out with the mainly civil libertarians and anarcho-capitalists will abstain from participating entirely... all the while the mainstream political groups steamroll over everyone.
Political libertarianism just won't work, even if it achieves victories at the ballot box. The component parts of the state will fight dissolution tooth and nail. Politics is merely a polite word for violence, even if it has noble ends. Ron Paul has no concrete plan for dissolving branches of the state like the IRS, the DOE or DHS. At best, he might be able to withdraw some of the soldiers - that is, if they decide to obey - and ramp up the violence against immigrants. Ron Paul supporters forget that the essence of the state is force. The constitution is not magic. It's just a piece of worthless paper. Becoming Mr. President does not give you a magic wand that guarantees obedience. You could easily count on any attempt to shrink the state to be fought brutally by the entire media establishment. A President Paul would either have to capitulate or turn to the use of maximum force to achieve his ends.
Although it seems like the Ron Paul 'revolution' is a non-violent one, in reality it is a violent bid to gain control of the guns of the state. I know the Ring metaphor has been brought up in this thread already, but it's a perfect metaphoric distillation of the issue at hand. Everyone thinks that they can wear the ring without being corrupted, and they're *all* wrong. I used to really like LRC, but that blog is becoming more noxious by the day.
The error I think many libertarians (such as Niccolo and Stef) make on government is similar to the error leftists often make with the market. They often say "the state" and "the market" are singular entities instead of a huge number of acting individuals with their own goals. I believe this abstraction fails to be useful when looking at the interplay of relationships within state or market organizations. Individual politicians, voters and bureaucrats may not more support the state than employees of McDonalds support their employing firm.
The simple fact is that many key political decisions and elections have come down to close votes. While these votes are always between one evil and another, there are often times (such as war or sanctions) where one evil is less than the other. Thus, there are clear and obvious situations where democratic action could reduce coercion significantly. I'm not talking about a democratic revolution towards anarchism or minarchism, I'm just talking about political action saving incredibly large numbers of people from wrongful imprisonment, death, poverty and despair. I thought that was what libertarianism was all about, not simply not wanting to pay taxes.
J.C. Hewitt:Although it seems like the Ron Paul 'revolution' is a non-violent one, in reality it is a violent bid to gain control of the guns of the state.
So? Violent force is needed to oppose the state, because only violence can counter violence. Whether this violence is seized by political means (a democratic revolution) or more direct means (a physical revolution), physical power over others is necissary to oppose those with physical power. The disgusting incentives of power are always the same, regardless of who holds it or how. Paul is given a lot of trust because he has been in power for quite a while, seemingly without abusing it.
Of course, we could imagine some sort of revolution where the oppressed only defend themselves with equal measure, and so no one really have power over others. While individual self-defense against the state has probably been the most motivating factor for past revolutions successful in reducing state power (e.g., the American Revolution), I do not believe that a complete homogeneous distribution of power after a successful revolution is at all likely. The division of labor applies to violence and politics as well, after all. Certain groups will almost always hold more power (whether political or more directly physical), and if they choose they could use this power unjustly. The only way for any sort of revolution to work is if the people who end up with the power do not abuse it (whether voluntarily or because of competition from others in power). Now I don't believe Paul ever had a chance in hell of being elected, but I do believe that if he did, he'd be the (political or revolutionary) candidate least likely to abuse power.
That is why he is popular: He's not a messiah, or anything like that. He's just the guy most people see as being honest and least likely to abuse his power. Thats it.
J.C. Hewitt:Political libertarianism just won't work, even if it achieves victories at the ballot box.
I agree, but I do not agree with the conclusions you draw. I believe that political libertarianism cannot work directly, but would add that any attempt at violence would not only fail, but also set your cause back more than just about anything else you could do. What is the effect of violent revolution when the society largely thinks that the status quo is good and moral, and attempts to change it are wrong? Are you going to change hearts and minds that way? The very best you could do (and you wouldn't do this) would be to put in place some form of libertarian system by force - and how long do you expect that to last in a society that believes in statism?
No, elements of the state will not turn aside and let libertarianism reign on the election of Dr. Paul. There is no need to pretend it will, because that's not what the campaign is about. What it's about is the recognition that if you want to change hearts and minds, one way to do that is by having a political campaign. The equation is simple - people will listen when a Presidential candidate speaks. Maybe they won't agree, but they'll hear. Then, as they realize over time just who the state's guns are turned against - them - they will remember what Dr. Paul, candidate for President, said. They will remember, and they will start to think it through. Whenever people are ready to change their minds, it is important a libertarian message be available to them. That's what Mises does, that's what LRC does, and now, that's what Dr. Paul does.
Clearly the American Revolution has been a long-term catastrophic failure. The modern American state commits crimes on a scale vastly beyond that of the old colonial regime.
So? Violent force is needed to oppose the state, because only violence can counter violence. Whether this violence is seized by political means (a democratic revolution) or more direct means (a physical revolution), physical power over others is necissary to oppose those with physical power.
It's a massive difference of scale. Self defense is rational and justified in the case of a home invasion. Extended to the state, it becomes absurd. Forget about the power of nuclear weapons; if someone sends a measly AC-120 into my neighborhood and really cuts loose, everyone's going to die. The idea that libertarians can somehow procure force to roll back the state is just utterly absurd, whether through means of winning an arbitrary game like Democracy or through a magical violent revolution spearheaded by the Objectivist Unicorn Brigade. You think violence threatens the state? They're a helluvalot more experienced with that set of tools than we are.
He's popular because he offers soothing pap, like Barack Obama the magical negro. They should consider running on the same ticket. Ron Paul could attract all the libertarians that have lobotomized their sense of morality and sense of realism and Barry can do his Morgan Freeman thing of convincing dumb white people that he is a font of infinite mysterious wisdom that will solve all of life's problems.
The error I think many libertarians (such as Niccolo and Stef) make on government is similar to the error leftists often make with the market. They often say "the state" and "the market" are singular entities instead of a huge number of acting individuals with their own goals.
You're wrong about Molyneux at least. I've heard him stress many times that the state is nothing but an abstraction. It's the political libertarians that make the mistake of believing that the individuals that reinforce state power will just roll over and allow their empire to be stripped from them. They've spent their whole lives growing this enterprise. They believe it to be a fundamentally righteous effort, even if it fails occasionally. Chances are, you have someone in your family that is directly employed by the state. Think of that person, and now imagine what they'll think of a "libertarian government" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) strips their livlihood from them in the name of justice and economic efficiency. No matter how right you are, they will still fight you to the death to preserve their comforts.
State collapse could open oppurtunities for the promotion of liberty, but even that is quite challenging. In any instance of collapse, from 14th century France to the USSR, the entrenched nonklematura carves up the remains of the state, and a new order rises soon afterwards. There will be no lasting gains for the cause of liberty until the belief that aggression can be justified is finally defeated.
JAlanKatz: J.C. Hewitt:Political libertarianism just won't work, even if it achieves victories at the ballot box. I agree, but I do not agree with the conclusions you draw. I believe that political libertarianism cannot work directly, but would add that any attempt at violence would not only fail, but also set your cause back more than just about anything else you could do. What is the effect of violent revolution when the society largely thinks that the status quo is good and moral, and attempts to change it are wrong? Are you going to change hearts and minds that way? The very best you could do (and you wouldn't do this) would be to put in place some form of libertarian system by force - and how long do you expect that to last in a society that believes in statism? No, elements of the state will not turn aside and let libertarianism reign on the election of Dr. Paul. There is no need to pretend it will, because that's not what the campaign is about. What it's about is the recognition that if you want to change hearts and minds, one way to do that is by having a political campaign. The equation is simple - people will listen when a Presidential candidate speaks. Maybe they won't agree, but they'll hear. Then, as they realize over time just who the state's guns are turned against - them - they will remember what Dr. Paul, candidate for President, said. They will remember, and they will start to think it through. Whenever people are ready to change their minds, it is important a libertarian message be available to them. That's what Mises does, that's what LRC does, and now, that's what Dr. Paul does.
But I think that "the message" is not consistantly libertarian. The explicit message of Ron Paul is a mixed bag between libertarian and paleoconservative ideas. Aside from the undoubtably good things he has to say, Ron Paul is also spreading a message of "strong national defense", "secure the borders" and "abortion is murder". He is identifying libertarianism in the public eye with cultural conservatism and paleo tendencies. You might think that's good, but I don't. And the implicit message of Ron Paul is that the constitution can work, the political process can be used for good and the government can be made to serve "proper functions". The implicit message of Ron Paul is basically that the government can be tamed.
At least from the perspective of a market anarchist that doesn't believe in any social contract (at least as it is commonly thought of) and does not believe that political borders can be philosophically defended from any libertarian perspective, that is not a good message to be sending people. It gives them more faith in the state in a subtle yet dangerous way. And it's making life-long anarchists suddenly become total shills for a politician. I question wether Ron Paul is doing more to bring paleoconservatives into the libertarian movement (without actually "converting" them to libertarianism) and turn anarchists in defacto minarchists then educating the public towards libertarian ideas and "converting" them to libertarianism.
If the point is to engage in an educational and philosophical venture in order to make people ideologically reject the state in principle, then this is not the route to go. Does Ron Paul really consistantly point out the gun in the room? Or is he asking us to hand him the gun and on some level is obscuring the gun? Or is he basically spreading around the idea that if only we put one bullet in the gun rather then 10, the gun is a force of good? Or is it that if the right person has the gun, it cannot possibility be used for ill? Exactly what message are we trying to spread here? Is Ron Paul really delegitimizing the state in people's minds in a meaningful way?
That's what Mises does, that's what LRC does, and now, that's what Dr. Paul does.
When Mises.org, LRC and Ron Paul talk about Austrian economics outside of the realm of politics, there's no gun in the room. Political advocacy completely undermines the core message of liberty. Libertarians should hold themselves to higher standards than the statists do. They're content with justifying their ideas only enough to provide intellectual cover for forcing their ideology on other people.
Political libertarianism is always going to fail because the people that have made a life long commitment to systemic violence realize that Austrian economics and libertarian moral beliefs do not help the growth of state power. It's like trying to convince medieval knights that they should use swords made out of Nerf instead of steel.
rhys: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 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'.
You just don't get it...I'm going to post my video on Agorist Protection and the Agorist Mentality today, and it will deal with the phrase, "it is better to have something than nothing," which I agree with you, ironically.
What you fail to see, however, is that all of your lives, and all of your existences, they mean NOTHING. You live for NOTHING. And unless you break the chains of the statist mentality you will forever wait in hope and die for NOTHING.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Physiocrat:Niccolo would you please define racism and all those other pejorative words you keep using? I do suggest you read my thread entry.
Niccolo would you please define racism and all those other pejorative words you keep using? I do suggest you read my thread entry.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism
a fear of foreigners or strangers
I don't really care what occultists think about their cult figure, so no, I won't read it.
Libertas est Veritas:Huh? I suspect that you have misunderstood the requirements of political action. Since individuals get elected, you have to work on behalf of the individual (which presumably entails seeing his or her image more than once). You seem to be proposing some kind of a non-chalant, I-may-or-may-not-support-this-candidate type of campaining. It is a sad day when people have to be wary of openly supporting someone, lest they be labeled a cult in an ensuing torrent of kool-aid references...
Libertas est Veritas:Yeah, that'll work. Fracturing into smaller and smaller groups will surely triumph over sound-byte democracy. I can see it now... mainly economic libertarians will battle it out with the mainly civil libertarians and anarcho-capitalists will abstain from participating entirely... all the while the mainstream political groups steamroll over everyone.
Nah, you won't succeed because you're stuck in a statist mindset, imprisoned by the state requirements that inhibit you from living as you want and doing as you want and dying as you want.
I, however, have already succeeded in my own life - I've already broken the chains from my wrists, now I'm just trying to get other field slaves to come with. You wouldn't be interested, as a house slave, though.
J.C. Hewitt:That's what Mises does, that's what LRC does, and now, that's what Dr. Paul does. When Mises.org, LRC and Ron Paul talk about Austrian economics outside of the realm of politics, there's no gun in the room. Political advocacy completely undermines the core message of liberty. Libertarians should hold themselves to higher standards than the statists do. They're content with justifying their ideas only enough to provide intellectual cover for forcing their ideology on other people. Political libertarianism is always going to fail because the people that have made a life long commitment to systemic violence realize that Austrian economics and libertarian moral beliefs do not help the growth of state power. It's like trying to convince medieval knights that they should use swords made out of Nerf instead of steel.
Here's a better analogy, and even a test that Molyneux has suggested the polibertarians try out, go into any pro-hispanic group and try to turn it around completely. Get it to go from promoting latinos in the community, to organizing lynch mobs.
J.C. Hewitt:Clearly the American Revolution has been a long-term catastrophic failure. The modern American state commits crimes on a scale vastly beyond that of the old colonial regime.
I don't disagree there, but the USA is vastly larger and more advanced. I don't think its clear that the modern United States government is worse than we'd have if there was never a revolution. The British were certainly more overtly violent and nationalistic, but they didn't have the means to do the things the US government can do nowadays.
J.C. Hewitt:It's a massive difference of scale. Self defense is rational and justified in the case of a home invasion. Extended to the state, it becomes absurd. Forget about the power of nuclear weapons; if someone sends a measly AC-120 into my neighborhood and really cuts loose, everyone's going to die.
The scale is absurd, I agree. But all those weapons are things the government wields. The state didn't evolve into an organization which uses massive amounts of violence against those it claims to protect (well, some regimes tried that, but for the most part they died off). We don't have to fear nuclear strikes, and we know the government cannot afford to forcibly oppress the entire country (it can barely even take care of Baghdad). States evolved into organizations which legitimize themselves and use the minimum amount of force necissary to stay in control. It makes coercion much, much cheaper.
J.C. Hewitt:The idea that libertarians can somehow procure force to roll back the state is just utterly absurd, whether through means of winning an arbitrary game like Democracy or through a magical violent revolution spearheaded by the Objectivist Unicorn Brigade. You think violence threatens the state? They're a helluvalot more experienced with that set of tools than we are.
I think this is another case where the abstraction of the state is no longer useful, especially in the case of a democratic state. If there was a popular revolution (either democratic or physical), most state employees would not side with their employer if brutal violence was used. Democratic governments have power because of their legitimacy, and so any violence action against a popular movement wouldn't be legitimized in the eyes of most people. Without legitimization, the size of the state would crumble, and it would be reduced to an organization of brute force (which would require brute force to overcome).
State legitimization is a double-edged sword for the political class. It simultaneously grants them power and restricts the scope of it.
J.C. Hewitt:You're wrong about Molyneux at least. I've heard him stress many times that the state is nothing but an abstraction.
Recognizing it doesn't mean he doesn't commit a few errors. Its a fallacy of division to suggest that the members of the state cannot oppose their employer. Its also a fallacy to suggest that state employees who do conciously support the current government (even those very few who would "fight to the death" for it) necissarily support the state itself as an organization instead of the ideas of democracy that it represents. The vast majority of people who support the government do so because they believe it is necissary for their well-being (which it is the job of economics to refute) and/or because democracy is just (which it is the job of ethics to refute). Those who support democracy are not going to fight to the death for an oppressive, undemocratic state which tries to repress a popular revolution.
By the way, no one in my family works for the government. I do know one guy who is in the military (he hates it and wishes he could get out of his contract), and he supports Ron Paul over the other candidates.
J.C. Hewitt:State collapse could open oppurtunities for the promotion of liberty, but even that is quite challenging. In any instance of collapse, from 14th century France to the USSR, the entrenched nonklematura carves up the remains of the state, and a new order rises soon afterwards. There will be no lasting gains for the cause of liberty until the belief that aggression can be justified is finally defeated.
On that I agree. I didn't mean to suggest that Paul's election (were it even possible) would necessarily produce massive, lasting changes. I don't think anyone can claim to know what would happen in the long term were he elected, or what the effects of his campaign will be. I do, however, think his election or the adoption of his ideas would prevent massive amounts of violence, death, and poverty on a scale I really can't even imagine. Thats reason enough for me to support the guy over the other candidates.
Niccolò: Physiocrat:Niccolo would you please define racism and all those other pejorative words you keep using? I do suggest you read my thread entry. racismnoun1. the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races 2. discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism xenophobianouna fear of foreigners or strangers I don't really care what occultists think about their cult figure, so no, I won't read it.
My point wasn't necessarily to defend Paul but to come up with a cogent definition of racism. But consdering you ain't going to bother reading it I might as well shut up.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
I've not paid close attention to this brouhaha but the more I look at it, the more it has all the earmarks of an old-fashioned smear campaign, and it pains me that the moderate libertarian softies are mainly behind it--using tactics I associate with the Thought Police--probably as more an attack on Ron Paul and the Mises Institute than anything else. Some horrible things have been said and done, all designed to poison the Misesian well. It's interesting that the Paul political campaign is what set all this off. However, I'm pleased to report that it has been wholly ineffective so far as I can tell. The people that were against our work 25 years ago are still against it, and most everyone else seems not to care a flip about this.
Publisher, Laissez-Faire Books
Niccolò: rhys: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. You just don't get it...I'm going to post my video on Agorist Protection and the Agorist Mentality today, and it will deal with the phrase, "it is better to have something than nothing," which I agree with you, ironically.What you fail to see, however, is that all of your lives, and all of your existences, they mean NOTHING. You live for NOTHING. And unless you break the chains of the statist mentality you will forever wait in hope and die for NOTHING.
rhys: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.
You comment doesn't make much sense to me. Why is it ironic that you agree with me? And what do you mean by 'mean'? my life is not the same as 'NOTHING', for the same reason that your life does not mean NOTHING.
A Buddhist monk sat meditating among his pupils. One of his pupils was particularly mature and wise. After, the session, the monks best pupil approached him and exclaimed, "There is nothing". The monk nodded in agreement, and as the pupil walked away, the monk hit him hard on the back of his head with a switch. The pupil immediatly turned around in disbelief. The monk said, "If there is nothing, what constitutes this surprise?
Unless you are going to define nothing, life, or existence in a trivial way, there is no way to bridge the gap between something and nothing, and life/existence constitutes one of these and not the other.
I will forever hope. I try to except the way things are. But, that does not mean that I do not try to change the course of things, because I believe that it is the nature of the world, that events may alter the course of events in unique ways. We are all potential agents of change, and we can all make change for the better or for the worse. Better and worse are relative, but so are all moral claims. This does not mean they don't exist, since relative values are part of the nature of reality.
You seem upset that life is not objective. That there is not a best position or point of view. Understand that relativism is the foundation of the anarchism that makes up the world of politics and economics. You fail to see that we live in a state of anarchy, and the State is just a system created within the framework of the anarchy - that is why it is limited and subject to decline. I do not like the direction our State is headed, so it must be weakened. There are numerous tactics for doing this, and many of them are legitimate even if they seem contradictory. We are not one people - we live in anarchy.
Exactly!. To follow the line of thinking: these individuals and groups, who supposedly knew of the evils of the Mises Institute and Rockwell for decades, remained silent until now. Hmmm. Sounds politically motivated to me. Here's my take: Ron Paul's campaign is gathering steam, and who does Paul mention as his founts of knowledge? Cato? Other so-called libertarian Beltway think tanks? Nope. Paul mentions Mises and Rockwell. Now, Cato and others have to protect their position and stature within DC. So, they attack Paul, Mises, and Rockwell. The DC are fearful of becoming irrelevant. Too bad, they already are.
Go to Reason.com and see that the Paul "issue" is the only thing they have to offer.
My journey to Mises began with RAND, then Brookings, Hoover, Cato, and, finally, Mises. I no longer read Cato as it is, IMHO, little different from the others on my journey. Cato exists to provide the blob with the occasional so-called libertarian view; lukewarm mush that never challenges the status quo. The same goes for the other folks who simply want their plans adopted by government. They are all eager to garner power and position inside the Beltway.
Here's an experiment: Open Cato, Hoover, Brookings, and RAND in separate browser sessions. Flip between them at random. See if you can see even a bit of difference in content and viewpoint. I can't.
I don't think anyone who reads mises.org regularly is going to really defend Reason/CATO. I started reading Reason when I was about 12 years old, and honestly I don't believe that I became an intellectually consistent libertarian until maybe eight years afterwards. You can practically be a socialist and still agree with 99% of what Reason publishes, but it has nothing to do with their "cosmopolitan" point of view.
Although LVMI is clearly not a racist institution as the Reason article insinuates, LRC doesn't really help matters by responding in a childlike manner, using language commonly understood to be code words for "gay" or "Jewish." There's no reason to stoop to the level of youtube comment language, especially if you're pushing your mid-60s. I would've been embarassed to write like that as a kid on the internet - the grown men on the LRC blog are making themsleves look like fools, and it's really quite disappointing for me to watch as someone who has a great deal of respect for the work many of the same people have published on mises.org.
J.C.,
I've never read the comments you are refering to, though I read LRC every day. Regardless, in a prior post on this thread, I mentioned Di.ck Gregory's keynote address at the Ohio State University. I thought it would be interesting for my children to attend until I heard him speak on YouTube. Should Gregory be silenced? I say that within his talks, he presents a lot of truths, as well as many points worth pondering. Certainly, there is a lot of nonsense, but Gregory's views need to be part of the debate, whether they are deemed offensive or not. I simply do not like that my tax dollars paid for him to speak, but I wouldn't want my tax dollars being spent on anyone for that matter.
Does Gregory's rhetoric further his cause? It must, as he was the keynote speaker.
Go back to Mises: He wrote about inventions and philosophies of historic groups. That some groups never invented the wheel or conceived of property and liberty is purely a loss on their part. That some civilizations practiced rituals while others utilized fertilizers is telling. To accept the multiculturalist, those who continued with their ancient ways are more advanced than those who adopted the new sciences and philosophies. That is the nonsense that becomes sholarship when tone and views are drawn and quartered by those who demand PC language.
rhys:You comment doesn't make much sense to me. Why is it ironic that you agree with me? And what do you mean by 'mean'? my life is not the same as 'NOTHING', for the same reason that your life does not mean NOTHING.
Nope. Your life means nothing. My life means nothing. Life means nothing. The state takes everything from you; it takes the only things that matter. Dignity - the state forces you to contort to norms and rules you do not believe in or want. Liberty - the state strikes the fear into you that prevents you from doing as you wish. Reality - in the statist mentality all is an illusion; it's an illusion of hope when there is none, an illusion of opportuntiy when none exists, an illusion of freedom when you will never know it.
Until you accept this, you'll never be free.
No, especially not you. You speak of relativity, anarchy, and an existence that you know nothing about. You're a soothsayer, a pseudo-intellectual, a vial tarantula scorching the land with deceit and lies about people within a world that you've drenched with the vomit of your own inadequacies. You're a liar, a snake, a pathetic, see-nothing because you ARE nothing.
I mean all the name-calling, "smearbund," "cosmotarians," etc... silly slogans are easily dismissed. Reason ends up looking more "adult" from the exchange, despite the fact that many fine scholars write for the LRC blog. I dunno, maybe I'm just "old school" about this sort of thing; I expect professionals to comport themselves with professionalism no matter what the format is. I pointed out that it's pretty dumb to start throwing out what are commonly believed to be racist/homophobic codewords after being accused (falsely) of being a neoconfederate front. That's not a clever way to beat the bum rap. I'm not calling 911 on Lew Rockwell to have him arrested for hate crimes, for Pete's sake.
Should Gregory be silenced explicitly by the state? Of course not.
To accept the multiculturalist, those who continued with their ancient ways are more advanced than those who adopted the new sciences and philosophies. That is the nonsense that becomes sholarship when tone and views are drawn and quartered by those who demand PC language.
I'm not quite sure what prompted this, but I'm not a moral relativist.
But, that's where the line of reasoning ends; moral relativism. Sometimes things are offensive yet true. Sometimes things are true yet offensive.
Unanawered is this: Should Gregory be silenced by the mob who shouts him down as offensive?
If he's making a speech on private property, the rules are up to the landlord. If someone's speaking in public they should be subjected to public criticism.
Ok. What about the legal concept of a heckler's veto where the heckler creates a disturbance that forces the police to end the speech. In other words: How do you define criticism? Do Robert's Rules of Order define discussions in the public arena? When does criticism rise to the level of an offense or disturbance?
Take this example: The superintendent of my local school district is lieing in order to pass a school tax increase. I have called him a liar. Some people find that offensive, mean-hearted, uncalled-for, what have you. Should I instead couch my comments in obtuse, yet polite, references? Or should I state things as they are?
Niccolò:Nope. Your life means nothing. My life means nothing. Life means nothing. The state takes everything from you; it takes the only things that matter. Dignity - the state forces you to contort to norms and rules you do not believe in or want. Liberty - the state strikes the fear into you that prevents you from doing as you wish. Reality - in the statist mentality all is an illusion; it's an illusion of hope when there is none, an illusion of opportuntiy when none exists, an illusion of freedom when you will never know it. Until you accept this, you'll never be free.
It seems like you are putting more stock in the existence of the State than the existence of life. How can life mean nothing, yet the State mean something - namely oppression? Without life, the State could not exist. You fail to understand the difference between proximate and ultimate cause. According to you, the State is the ultimate cause of oppression, while individuals mean nothing. I would argue that the State is the proximate cause of oppression while existence and human life itself constitute the ultimate cause of oppression. I'll repeat it - human life is the ultimate cause of human oppression.
Individuals are perfectly free to attempt to protect or increase their freedom. This is the essence of freedom, since humans live in a state of anarchy. There exists no cost-less way for one to stop one's fellow man from exercising his freedom to attempt to limit one's freedom. In other words, freedom isn't free. It takes real resources to acquire and protect individual freedom. So, freedom is the degree to which man is free minus the resources man expends to acquire and protect his freedom. Much like energy, freedom is lost during its acquisition. As a result, freedom is never perfect, but is subjective like 'cost' and 'value'. Freedom is just a commodity with subjective value and cost. Until you accept 1. we live in anarchy & 2. this is why freedom can never be free, you will continue to live in hate and contempt.
Niccolò:No, especially not you. You speak of relativity, anarchy, and an existence that you know nothing about. You're a soothsayer, a pseudo-intellectual, a vial tarantula scorching the land with deceit and lies about people within a world that you've drenched with the vomit of your own inadequacies. You're a liar, a snake, a pathetic, see-nothing because you ARE nothing.
If I am nothing, why are you so upset? If you are nothing, why write on this forum? I agree with much of what you say, but I don't understand why you back up your position with philosophical inconsistancies. The State is evil, but not because it exists. It is evil because it fails to allow for unmitigated private property. Private property must be unassailable if man is to be free. Once public property becomes private it must never be allowed to go back except under free-market mechanisms. The forced dissolution of government or State, is not the answer, since the enforcement of such can only occur as a result of coercive government itself.
This is where I agree with you. The State is a product of man's thought.
Where I disagree with you is in your over-reaction. The State is not all-powerful. It is not more powerful than individuals, since it has no control of individual will. I speak of 'relativity, anarchy, and an existence I know nothing about', because that is the core of human thought and of the State itself.
Niccolò:Lew Rockwell - Highest Priest of the Ron Paul Cult.
Brilliant argumentation, if I may say so. You respond to accusions of using irrational labels by using irrational labels. Absolutely brilliant...
Niccolò:I, however, have already succeeded in my own life - I've already broken the chains from my wrists, now I'm just trying to get other field slaves to come with. You wouldn't be interested, as a house slave, though.
Ah, ok. I assume you don't pay taxes, don't obey authority figures with a violence monopoly and in general don't follow the rules of the criminal state? What size cell did they give you?
Or are you just articulating out of your rectum?
Should I instead couch my comments in obtuse, yet polite, references? Or should I state things as they are?
That really depends. I would suggest that you try to be direct and to avoid personal insults and slang - not because it's less offensive, but because it's more effective. If you focus your comments on how ugly the man's beard is or how fat his wife is, you'll be ignored.
John Stabbyman:Who are you to demand an explanation from anyone?
John Stabbyman:Somebody on a blog speculating that Rockwell wrote the offensive statements doesn't mean he owes an explanation to anyone. He has an an enormous archive of writings here, on his own site, and at World Net Daily. If you can find anything like the offensive newsletter comments in any of those hundreds of columns then come back and ask for an explanation.
John Stabbyman:(criticizing the economics of Dr. King does not make someone a racist. btw)
John Stabbyman:People who demand these sorts of explanations are rarely interested in a response. It's a tactic to make their opponent look bad and avoid debate. I'm not suggesting that is what you are doing though.
Corporations are an extension of the state.
Rich333:It's not like it's a big surprise that Lew's a racist; it's been a sort of open secret among many of the long-time members of the movement that he is one, and it's unfortunate that he's been given a pass on it for this long because, thanks to LewRockwell.com and his involvement in the Mises Institute, he has the ability to taint the whole movement.
Nonsense! I would be surprised if Lew was a racist, and I have read lots of his articles. If Lew were to believe that there is genetic variation between the races, then I would expect that there is some evidence that Lew has to back up his claims. It is impossible to deny the empirical evidence, which suggests that genetic variation between the races of humans create significant statistical differences. To argue such, does not make one a racist any more than one would be a 'racist' for believing that, on average, Greyhounds are faster than Dachshunds.
If you have some evidence that Lew does, in fact, believe that there are differences between the races that are non-empirically justified, I'm sure others would be glad to hear it. The problem with your remarks is that they amount to school-yard gossip. Deliver the goods to back up your claim that Lew is a racist, or continue to reveal youself as a backbiting blatherskite who cares more about your reputation as a member of a movement than the truth about your speculations.
I agree. This thread is based on accusations that have no hard evidence. So, we engage in counter-factual arguments that assume the evidence exists.
Folks such as JC and Rich333 make accusations without offering any proof, then they have the nerve to claim some holier-than-thou status while continuing to make their unfounded character assassinations.
In particular, JC says that one should not engage in "personal insults and slang", yet the premise of his whole argument against Lew is nothing less than insults and slang. Am I missing something here?
Please, show me where I say that I fully believe the accusations. All that I've seen is a collection of circumstantial evidence. My criticisms are based on how I perceive that the issue has been handled. I care because it reflects poorly on LVMI. If I did not care, I would not be posting here.
Libertas est Veritas:Ah, ok. I assume you don't pay taxes, don't obey authority figures with a violence monopoly and in general don't follow the rules of the criminal state?
Ah, ok. I assume you don't pay taxes, don't obey authority figures with a violence monopoly and in general don't follow the rules of the criminal state?
Libertas est Veritas:What size cell did they give you?
What size cell did they give you?
10x10
That was a couple of months ago though.
rhys:It seems like you are putting more stock in the existence of the State than the existence of life.
It seems like you are putting more stock in the existence of the State than the existence of life.
The existence of the state means that the existence of life has been marginalized to non-existence. Man ceases to have a soul when he allows the state to take it. I've revolted against that and created a new soul with a new life and an objective to live for.
rhys: How can life mean nothing, yet the State mean something - namely oppression?
How can life mean nothing, yet the State mean something - namely oppression?
With very little intelligence needed to comprehend.
The state means that the life means nothing. What does life mean if it is not free? Nothing. What can it create of worth? Nothing. Because the creation is hampered, inhibited, taken, killed, massacred, etc. by the state there brings no use for it. Life is sad if it only means existence. The state represents oppression, what does it oppress? Liberty. The existence of life means nothing if life can not be led in liberty. The state takes away liberty, if liberty is required for life to possess meaning, then the state takes away the meaning of life - thus life means nothing with a state. Liberty can be attained without overthrowing a state, but one must alienate and separate himself from the state with no allegiance to it and only hostile interaction with it. Freedom does not mean safety though, as the state is a thug freedmen must fight and kill it - not reform it or connect with it. This is the second part of Agorism, being the organization of a Revolutionary Agorist Cadre to protect freedmen against the state and the conversion of the enslaved to liberating their souls from their enslavement to the state.
For all the other incoherencies and the vomit you spew about less and more freedom, they're lies and deceptions telling people that freedom does not matter and people can be happy without it - you're a drunkard, a fool, and a preacher for statism and the statist mentality. You conflate freedom with security and justice as if they were synonymous. You can neither conceive of reality, nor do you possess the intellect to speak of it. Quit bothering me with your regurgitations of subjectivity as if it possessed an ounce of relevance and learn to be free.
Where is your online stuff? You say all this about posting refutations and arguments, but I don't know where it is.
I am not blaming you, but I am a drop-out too (or whatever). I don't pay taxes, I hide from the system, I live under the radar. I undermine the State. It is by tax and criminal laws, that I earn my income. I aim to be a pure parasite. This is the behavior that is rewarded - and my nature is to flow like water. If we lived in an Austrian world, I would be rich - I am very clever and hard working. But we live in a Socialist world, so I am 'poor' and live off the government. They cannot stop me because I break no laws. I fail to earn income. I don't exist. The system is ridiculously easy to take advantage of. Sometimes I feel bad - then my welfare arrives.
I know it's wrong, but I am a passive aggresive. We are all individuals. We all contribute at the margin.
Vote Ron Paul!
J.C. Hewitt: Please, show me where I say that I fully believe the accusations. All that I've seen is a collection of circumstantial evidence. My criticisms are based on how I perceive that the issue has been handled. I care because it reflects poorly on LVMI. If I did not care, I would not be posting here.
JC,
I offer this from one of your previous posts
There's no reason to stoop to the level of youtube comment language, especially if you're pushing your mid-60s. I would've been embarassed to write like that as a kid on the internet - the grown men on the LRC blog are making themsleves look like fools, and it's really quite disappointing for me to watch as someone who has a great deal of respect for the work many of the same people have published on mises.org.
That is most certainly an accusation without proof.
Niccolò:The existence of the state means that the existence of life has been marginalized to non-existence. Man ceases to have a soul when he allows the state to take it. I've revolted against that and created a new soul with a new life and an objective to live for. rhys: How can life mean nothing, yet the State mean something - namely oppression?With very little intelligence needed to comprehend. The state means that the life means nothing. What does life mean if it is not free? Nothing. What can it create of worth? Nothing. Because the creation is hampered, inhibited, taken, killed, massacred, etc. by the state there brings no use for it. Life is sad if it only means existence.
The state means that the life means nothing. What does life mean if it is not free? Nothing. What can it create of worth? Nothing. Because the creation is hampered, inhibited, taken, killed, massacred, etc. by the state there brings no use for it. Life is sad if it only means existence.
That is what I mean. "Life is sad if it only means existence."
It might be sad, but sadness is not nothing. You call names, but you are totalitarian. An injury is a death to you, a scratch a mortal wound. You exaggerate out of proportion to the importance of your message. To you, a chill is the absence of heat, beer is poison, a kiss is the dissolution of individuality. Your drama gives me trauma.You fail to see the 'catch' and the 'subtle'. You talk big, yet you have no answers. You are 'The Agorist' who relies on thread made by a taxpayer, relies on gas subsidized by government, counts on law to protect your possessions, and loves the Internet which courses through the subsidized copper and fiber optics that connect you and me.I don't disagree with your argument. I find your method self-aggrandizing.
Come down off your high-horse, and join us in our fight to reverse the effects of evil.
I discussed that, but the 'accusations' I referred to were the ones laid out in the Reason article quoted in the first post of the thread.
Ex. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018759.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018720.html
This is not complicated. Lew Rockwell should admit or deny. Frankly, it is preventing me from the MLK money bomb today.
While I support Ron Paul and believe that he is not racist, I find it hard to believe that he could not have known something about all of this during the years that it was occurring. Am I to believe that no one ever showed any of the newsletters to him with the questionable statements? If someone did (which seems more plausible), why were they not ceased immediately? Is Ron Paul protecting his friend? Is the campaign making a group decision which, in most cases, are compromised? For example, "Let's wait until after the money bomb" or "Let's address it when the number of candidates is reduced and brought up again."
Please put this matter to an end, Lew and/or Ron. Thank you.
Ex. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018759.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018720.html
That's all you have? That's the smoking gun? Really?
It appears that you would have been weak-kneed during the Age of Revolution. Didn't the Founders call the King a despot (a treasonous offense)? Thomas Paine, in particular, was unleashed in his comments, offending just about everyone of the times.
And, note this -- also written during the Age of Revolution -- from today's FFF Email Update (by the way, Chamfort is correct in his observations, tone, and characterizations; offensive but correct):
The net result of thirty or forty centuries of intellectual and physical effort has been to deliver three hundred million people all round the globe into the hands of some thirty or so despots, mainly ignorant idiots, each controlled by three or four stupid scoundrels. So what can we think of mankind? And what can we expect to see in the future? — Chamfort, Reflections and Anecdotes | Post Points: 20
I will say one thing, rhys, I do appreciate the wit.
I found you wesite and videos. I don't know if I am an agorist, but I agree with many things you say. I just chafe at your method of encouragment that uses what seems like insults. I largely agree with your definition of freedom. Freedom is not the result of action, but the instigation of action - what Neitsche called the 'will to power'. But I disagree with your contention that your life means nothing. If nothing else, your life constitutes a real impediment to unchecked State authority.
To ignore the rule of the State is to understand from whence flows sovereignty. Sovereignty does not come from the State. But you understand my point.
The reason I am motivated to post is because, for example, in your video 'Agorist Mentality' you want to call yourself 'free' and others chained not one minute before you talk about what sorts of resources and freedoms you must surrender to protect your agorist cell from State infiltration. This is exactly my point. You expend resources to protect yourself, therefore you are guilty of a performative contradiction. You taunt others for thier shackled reliance on Statists thoughts, yet you are shackled to Statist thoughts if only to defend yourself from them.
This indicates that you are too harsh in your criticism of others because it indicates that there is not an absolute or totalitarian position that can be realistically maintained. The fight to throw off the schackles of the State is one of degree not kind. For instance, I agree with your position that I may legitimately trade many things with other adults that the State attempts to prohibit. I don't believe that all State decrees carry the force of law, and so I subvert some of them on occasion. But, I am not so irrational as to believe that the enforcement mechanisms of the State are without real consequence. As a result, I alter my behavior in order to increase my chances of escaping detection and punishment. This infringes my freedom, but I accept this and go about my business.
Anarchists may accept the State as wholly or partially legitimate. Your fight against the State, and the lengths of your resistance, are not necessarily indicative of your level of radicalism, which you seem to tout as a badge of honor. Some of the most hard-core anarchists pay taxes, own property, and break no laws. They accept the State for what it is - a 'territorial monopoly of taxation and jurisdiction'. They seem normal until you learn that they have gold deposited in foreign banks and hidden deposits of transportation, fuel, and ammo on small pieces of property scattered across the US.
My point - it's not nice to call names - even when addressing Statists. After all, Statists are only a few realizations away from being anarchists.