I don't think Ron Paul is an anarchist ( some disagree, I am aware of this ), so how can he do more for anarcho-capitalism then someone like Thomas DiLorenzo, Robert Murphy, or anyone at the Mises center who subscribes to that philosophy? Ron Paul was just a gas station in the road toward anarchist philosophy. He isn't the end, just a medium. The problem is that too many people are stopping at the gas station to enjoy the view.
An effective medium, like a passionate politician, can do more, and often does do more, than even the most lucid and consistent political philosopher. You don't have to be a text-book anarcho-capitalist to have a profound impact on the movement. Most don't begin their intellectual journey with Nock, Nozick, or Rothbard; they're introduced to the paradigm via intermediaries like Schiff, Paul, or Goldwater. It's one thing to say that Ron Paul isn't an anarcho-capitalist, but saying that he's done nothing, or very little for the Libertarian movement is another thing altogether.
The fact that people get lost on the road, so to speak, should be expected. That's not Ron Paul's fault; if he was "radical enough" for the people on this fora, or "ideologically pure," he would be just another obscure philosopher writing in academic journals that no one reads. Paradigm shifts take time and need people like Ron Paul.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
It seems like Ron Paul is not cosmo enough for some of the left libertarians. If it is a ok for a libertarian to be against forms of welfare and property taxes, why is it not ok for a libertarian to have a problem with our government offering economic incentives for immigrants to come to their community. When people see a direct causal link between an increase in property taxes and new schools being built to accommodate immigrants, it is going to cause a little bit of anger. Why is an immigrants right to movement more important than the property confiscated from a current resident?
This has nothing to do with people being "left"; this is simply an ideological jab of your own. Roderick Long isn't a national career politician,
No he is a career state funded intellectual (be it without the celebrity status of Paul), once again if you really want to hinge an argument on that, there is a contextual difference between the Beatles and The Stones. Roderick long sells ideas in a subsidized educational environment to people who are strongly encourage to go through that institution. If you want to call university intellectuals in less power than minor Federal Government officials, I guess you may do so but you are not stating much. Though it is to be expected someone (i.e. you) who insists on defending Long while attacking Paul would do so, because a Left Wing intellectual is more in tune to your language than a Texas Christian conservative politician.
That said critiquing people who are working within their scope of power in a reasonable fashion is amusing. It makes sense for someone in the House to aim for the Constitution, if he believes in it or not is beside the point (I don't think he is an anarchist, nor do I care much if he is or isn't). It makes sense to do many things in a political system (be it of the most federal or local varitiy) if it is within your scope of power (be it getting in that system, or changing it somehow) and to use reasonable aims to help pursue things that interest you. This is what people do, and how they do thing successfully be it going through the system in Academics, Politics, Health Care, or the Post Office. And to point out again, if you don't consider a political Prof a person in a position of authority when compared to a person in the House, fine but I don't think you have that great an argument in anything other than the field of aesthetics.
And for the record I like Long waaaayyyyy better than Paul (he is probably in my top 3 extant Mises writers), The fact is I don't think I have noticed Ron Paul in well over a year. I just don't seem to have the insane criterea you seem to be putting up. If Long ran for office on the Libertarian ticket to educate people, or whatever reason and somehow got elected I doubt you would mind so much. That is to say you will rant and rave until you are blue in the mud about some paleo-conservative(s), but you won't bat an eye when speaking about a left wing conservative like Proudhon, and not mind looking at the positive side of Bakunin. But if someone likes Ron Paul they are"not doing things correctly", odd
Also, Esuric stated things quite well.
No he is a career state funded intellectual (be it without the celebrity status of Paul), once again if you really want to hinge an argument on that, there is a contextual difference between the Beatles and The Stones. Roderick long sells ideas in a subsidized educational environment to people who are strongly encourage to go through that institution.
And I drive on subsidized roads to get home and type this message board post. So what? These examples aren't really relevant or comparable to being a congressman and presidential canidate, someone who actually places themself in a position of being a political "leader" who functions as a national public voice and face for an ideology.
Though it is to be expected someone (i.e. you) who insists on defending Long while attacking Paul would do so, because a Left Wing intellectual is more in tune to your language than a Texas Christian conservative politician.
The fact of the matter is that Roderick Long being brought into this is a gigantic red herring from the criticism of Ron Paul, as is bringing in "left" vs. "right".
If Long ran for office on the Libertarian ticket to educate people, or whatever reason and somehow got elected I doubt you would mind so much.
You really need to stop making proclaimations to the effect of reading other people's minds. I'd critisize it.
That said critiquing people who are working within their scope of power in a reasonable fashion is amusing.
Except that it's "reasonable" is precisely what's in contention.
And to point out again, if you don't consider a political Prof a person in a position of authority when compared to a person in the House, fine but I don't think you have that great an argument in anything other than the field of aesthetics.
It has nothing to do with aesthetics and everything to do with facts. Roderick Long is a barely known philosophy professor who was only brought up in this conversation as an ideologically motivated talking point by an overly zealous (and, some may reasonably content, arbitrarily control-happy) message board moderator with an ax to grind.
'An effective medium, like a passionate politician, can do more, and often does do more, than even the most lucid and consistent political philosopher'
Passionate politicians get their guidance from political philosophers. It all goes back to Mises' premise that ideas are one of the most effective forces in societal development.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
While I admit this example has gotten a little out of hand, I still don't see how it is irrelevant when you specifically criticized Paul for being a paleoconservative and a quasilibertarian. Your other claims of "wrong across the board" and "inconsistent track record for liberty"and stating he has a combo of "good and bad traits" are not comprehended by me at this point in time. I am/was simply trying to draw this out of you, and your tree is not bearing any fruit for me at the moment, perhaps due to being overly distracted by me bringing in the word "left", or whatever but I don't see what you are stating.
I am coming off as some third rate psychologizer, to that I apologize. This was more or less me asking a question just to see where you stood.
I don't understand how acting/being a Consitutionalist when one is in the US congress is not congruent enough with "personal liberty", or a self proclaimed libertarians self interest, etc. Moreover I don't see how that would be the most practical road to take. Than again neither of us are anywhere near Congress so I don't know how either of us could claim what one "ought" to do from a pragmatic perspective. If you are saying becoming a politician is wrong, I call horse hockey and say it is a) no different than academicians, postal workers, or whatever, it is an aesthetic claim by what powers you do and do not prefer b) ethical/calculation nonsense on stilts.
I was trying to bring him up to compare (as you brought up the word conservative) and question what you meant in consistency. If it is celebrity you are concerned with I have nothing to say, as I simply don't care.
As far as my bad modding PM me, take it up with an administrator, go to "member issues", etc if you actually care.
'I don't understand how acting/being a Consitutionalist when one is in the US congress is not congruent enough with "personal liberty", or a self proclaimed libertarians self interest, etc.'
Because the constitution isn't consist with personal liberty. It's only consist with localist/state-level government interference. See the 10th amendment. Would you agree with this Brain?
MagnumPI: "why is it not ok for a libertarian to have a problem with our government offering economic incentives for immigrants to come to their community." But those are seperate issues.To oppose immigration because immigrants come and receive welfare is a different argument and one which doesn't lead to opposition to immigration but the re-statement that welfare should be abolished to eliminate that incentive.welfare and immigration are linked but the arguments should not be conflated.It seems Ron Paul opposes immigration outside of his arbitrary conditions per se not just due to welfare- though he argues that too.He has even expressed opposition to it on cultural grounds saying multiculturalism does not work.That sounds like the rantings of a Paleoconservative.He's voted for two acts which involve massive border control and a fence funded by taxes.Paul would know all of that and yet he does it still. "When people see a direct causal link between an increase in property taxes and new schools being built to accommodate immigrants," New schools will be built regardless.Theft goes on regardless. " Why is an immigrants right to movement" Strawman.I've seen this a lot.The point is there is no right to prevent travel across borders since borders are arbitrary lines drawn by an illegitimate insitution.To endorse borders is to be logical implication to endorse the state as legitimate in some sense.Support for state enforced closed/restricted borders is statist.
"why is it not ok for a libertarian to have a problem with our government offering economic incentives for immigrants to come to their community."
But those are seperate issues.To oppose immigration because immigrants come and receive welfare is a different argument and one which doesn't lead to opposition to immigration but the re-statement that welfare should be abolished to eliminate that incentive.welfare and immigration are linked but the arguments should not be conflated.It seems Ron Paul opposes immigration outside of his arbitrary conditions per se not just due to welfare- though he argues that too.He has even expressed opposition to it on cultural grounds saying multiculturalism does not work.That sounds like the rantings of a Paleoconservative.He's voted for two acts which involve massive border control and a fence funded by taxes.Paul would know all of that and yet he does it still.
"When people see a direct causal link between an increase in property taxes and new schools being built to accommodate immigrants,"
New schools will be built regardless.Theft goes on regardless.
" Why is an immigrants right to movement"
Strawman.I've seen this a lot.The point is there is no right to prevent travel across borders since borders are arbitrary lines drawn by an illegitimate insitution.To endorse borders is to be logical implication to endorse the state as legitimate in some sense.Support for state enforced closed/restricted borders is statist.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
" If you are saying becoming a politician is wrong, I call horse hockey and say it is a) no different than academicians, postal workers, or whatever, it is an aesthetic claim by what powers you do and do not prefer b) ethical/calculation nonsense on stilts."
Relativist nonsense to avoid uncomfortable truths.
William: This has nothing to do with people being "left"; this is simply an ideological jab of your own. Roderick Long isn't a national career politician, ", because a Left Wing intellectual is more in tune to your language than a Texas Christian conservative politician." You have to get off the knee jerk anti-leftism.It makes you appear right wing to others and only proves what I and others have said already. " if you don't consider a political Prof a person in a position of authority when compared to a person in the House," Ron Paul is part of the state-actively part of it.Roderick Long is not.Ron Paul can directly endorse statism with a vote.Roderick Long can only indirectly endorse it with a vote in his university.Ron Paul has endorse statism.Roderick Long has not. " If Long ran for office on the Libertarian ticket to educate people, or whatever reason and somehow got elected I doubt you would mind so much. " I would critcize him.I think it's degrading for anyone to run for or hold a position in the state.Thankfully I doubt he would run for office since while he's not a strict anti-voter he is critical of having much success. "a left wing conservative " What does that even mean? and not mind looking at the positive side of Bakunin." Bakunin has positives.He has not endorse statism like Paul has.He was never in a position to.Furthermore if Ancaps stepped out their sectarian concerns and took a look at the broader anarchist movement they'd see that Bakunin not only speaks true but says much the same as Ancaps do in some areas and there they would agree.He is a mix of negatives and Positives.The issue there is/can be no truth or value found in Bakunin is part of an absolutist dogmatist that will only accept or reject ALL of a thinker or philosophies ideas.It's a logically false view and smacks of Randian narrowmindedness.
", because a Left Wing intellectual is more in tune to your language than a Texas Christian conservative politician."
You have to get off the knee jerk anti-leftism.It makes you appear right wing to others and only proves what I and others have said already.
" if you don't consider a political Prof a person in a position of authority when compared to a person in the House,"
Ron Paul is part of the state-actively part of it.Roderick Long is not.Ron Paul can directly endorse statism with a vote.Roderick Long can only indirectly endorse it with a vote in his university.Ron Paul has endorse statism.Roderick Long has not.
" If Long ran for office on the Libertarian ticket to educate people, or whatever reason and somehow got elected I doubt you would mind so much. "
I would critcize him.I think it's degrading for anyone to run for or hold a position in the state.Thankfully I doubt he would run for office since while he's not a strict anti-voter he is critical of having much success.
"a left wing conservative "
What does that even mean?
and not mind looking at the positive side of Bakunin."
Bakunin has positives.He has not endorse statism like Paul has.He was never in a position to.Furthermore if Ancaps stepped out their sectarian concerns and took a look at the broader anarchist movement they'd see that Bakunin not only speaks true but says much the same as Ancaps do in some areas and there they would agree.He is a mix of negatives and Positives.The issue there is/can be no truth or value found in Bakunin is part of an absolutist dogmatist that will only accept or reject ALL of a thinker or philosophies ideas.It's a logically false view and smacks of Randian narrowmindedness.
I don't think the problem is with an arbitrary line, it is with the money leaving ones pocket. There are three ways to solve it. Get rid of the welfare state and public education, deny these benefits to immigrants, or reduce the influx of immigrants. They are listed in my order of preference. Why do left libertarians have a problem with the last solution if it reduces the strain on my wallet? How am I being anti liberty with this train of thought. It seems fairly rational for me to think this way. My property taxes have went up 50% over the past 8 years. It was due to building 2 new schools in the area to accommodate a rise in immigrants. I wish that we lived in a stateless world, but unfortunately we do not. I haven't heard Ron Paul argue against immigration on cultural grounds, I certainly disagree with that train of thought.
MagnumPI: "I don't think the problem is with an arbitrary line," That's the worse part of it.Paul has said he is ok with people coming through based on (arbitrary) conditions he terms 'legal' but if not they are 'illegal criminals'. ". Get rid of the welfare state and public education," which is the best solution but the hardest. "deny these benefits to immigrants," Which is the easiest solution. "or reduce the influx of immigrants." which is one of the harder solutions and the one which requires violating liberty/ massive statism. " Why do left libertarians have a problem with the last solution if it reduces the strain on my wallet?" It's the worst and a symptom of reactionary conservatism among the libertarian movement. "How am I being anti liberty with this train of thought." Endorsing borders is endorsing the state. "My property taxes have went up 50% over the past 8 years." Your assuming this is to do with immigrants. "It was due to building 2 new schools in the area to accommodate a rise in immigrants." Your engaging in blaming the victim.It is not their fault taxes are being spent this way.They would be spent this way regardless.Why does it matter they are foreigners? " I haven't heard Ron Paul argue against immigration on cultural grounds," He has.He's done so on Lewrockwell.com .That's clearly a rightwing culturally conservative fearmongering stance and is among the worst things about Ron Paul.Of course, Ron Paulites brush over it. Here's also Paul's own written statements. "We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase." From The Immigration Question(2006) Apparently he forgets how statist and how much tax theft this requires.Anarchist? Ron Paul? Pfft! He supports regulation of immigration:- "Millions of people who broke the law by entering, staying, and working in our country will not be punished, but rather rewarded with a visa. This is amnesty, plain and simple. Lawbreakers are given legal status, while those seeking to immigrate legally face years of paperwork and long waits for a visa. "(Amnesty and Culture) He seems to exude some bigotry here :- "Some even display hostility toward America and our ideals, joining the chorus of voices demanding that the United States become a multicultural society that rejects our own history. It is this cultural conflict that soon must be addressed"(Amnesty and Culture) 2004. "Our most important task is to focus on effectively patrolling our borders. With our virtually unguarded borders, almost any determined individual — including a potential terrorist — can enter the United States"(Immigration and the Welfare State) 2004 Apparently border control is weak or doesn't exist.Paul's sounding more like a rightwing populist crazy here fearmongering to some extent. "I certainly disagree with that train of thought." As do I.Yet this aspect seems to appeal to anti-immigrantists.
"I don't think the problem is with an arbitrary line,"
That's the worse part of it.Paul has said he is ok with people coming through based on (arbitrary) conditions he terms 'legal' but if not they are 'illegal criminals'.
". Get rid of the welfare state and public education,"
which is the best solution but the hardest.
"deny these benefits to immigrants,"
Which is the easiest solution.
"or reduce the influx of immigrants."
which is one of the harder solutions and the one which requires violating liberty/ massive statism.
" Why do left libertarians have a problem with the last solution if it reduces the strain on my wallet?"
It's the worst and a symptom of reactionary conservatism among the libertarian movement.
"How am I being anti liberty with this train of thought."
Endorsing borders is endorsing the state.
"My property taxes have went up 50% over the past 8 years."
Your assuming this is to do with immigrants.
"It was due to building 2 new schools in the area to accommodate a rise in immigrants."
Your engaging in blaming the victim.It is not their fault taxes are being spent this way.They would be spent this way regardless.Why does it matter they are foreigners?
" I haven't heard Ron Paul argue against immigration on cultural grounds,"
He has.He's done so on Lewrockwell.com .That's clearly a rightwing culturally conservative fearmongering stance and is among the worst things about Ron Paul.Of course, Ron Paulites brush over it.
Here's also Paul's own written statements.
Apparently he forgets how statist and how much tax theft this requires.Anarchist? Ron Paul? Pfft!
Apparently border control is weak or doesn't exist.Paul's sounding more like a rightwing populist crazy here fearmongering to some extent.
"I certainly disagree with that train of thought."
As do I.Yet this aspect seems to appeal to anti-immigrantists.
As an aside to those points on immigration I would like to point out that illegals are not an "untaxed" population as is often implied. If your property taxes went up that means the property taxes of wherever immigrants are living went up, even if they see it in adjusted rental prices. I doubt all of the illegals are living in their cars, public parks, and in the street. Sales taxes also hit everybody. Gas taxes hit everybody and are also reflected in prices. They might slide under the radar a little bit on income taxes but I can't begrudge them that, especially since it's a consequence of the state's policy not their specific intent. My stance on injustice is not that others should bear it just because I have to. Its not as though mexican's are down there saying "I'm jumping the border so I can evade income taxes!". There is something to the drain on welfare argument but the solution there is to eliminate those programs.
I don't begrudge the immigrants that are here to work. I begrudge the government for setting up this idiotic system and creating this source of conflict. My anger is reserved for them. I realize the immigrants aren't intentionally causing the problem. My concern is not whether they pay income taxes or not, but the rise in property taxes that I'm paying and the minority of them who come specifically for the welfare benefits. If I had a chance to vote for any of the three solutions I mentioned in my previous post, I would. The government forces you to make choices on the margin, it's not all or nothing unfortunately. If I did have a choice between Ron Paul's or Roderick's and Sheldon's ideal world, I would choose the latter. In the meantime I think that Ron Paul has done more for the cause of liberty than anyone else by raising the public's awareness on the wars, federal reserve, and austrian economics.
MagnumPI: My concern is not whether they pay income taxes or not, but the rise in property taxes that I'm paying" Which isn't necessarily there fault and even if RELATED to immigrants isn't their fault. "and the minority of them who come specifically for the welfare benefits." Then you should make a more nuanced case.If your not opposed to immigration per se but welfarism/statism related to it then say so. " In the meantime I think that Ron Paul has done more for the cause of liberty than anyone else by raising the public's awareness on the wars, federal reserve, and austrian economics." That may be, but is besides the point here on his stance on immigration.
My concern is not whether they pay income taxes or not, but the rise in property taxes that I'm paying"
Which isn't necessarily there fault and even if RELATED to immigrants isn't their fault.
"and the minority of them who come specifically for the welfare benefits."
Then you should make a more nuanced case.If your not opposed to immigration per se but welfarism/statism related to it then say so.
" In the meantime I think that Ron Paul has done more for the cause of liberty than anyone else by raising the public's awareness on the wars, federal reserve, and austrian economics."
That may be, but is besides the point here on his stance on immigration.
Because the constitution isn't consist with personal liberty.
As one may be able to tell by my sig, being "consistent with personal liberty" is far from my mind, I am more or less trying to see what a self proclaimed left libertarian is doing calling Ron Paul "inconsistent with personal liberty" on Mises.org. Is he inconsistent with propertarianism, is he inconsistent with left libertarian liberty (whatever the hell that means), or something else entirely. That is my main function on this thread.
That said, I still see no talk outside of "forms and ideas". That is to say:
a) People seem to be having a difficult time realizing that each individual at each instant can utilize anything to his advantage. It is in fact, only these individuals cam calculate what is or is not good for personal liberty in their case
b) as far as prosperity is concerned, if one is in power to actually care about the Federal Government, I don't see how the Constitution is not a useful tool to achieve that. The workings of a US Constitutional government, or more specific the workings towards a US Constitutional is better than what there is now if one actually has the power to care about such affairs. Yes there are "hot button" issues such as immigrants, abortion, or whatever but they don't mean anything anyway.
"Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men" 1 Cor 9:19-24
See Paul gets it.
Personal utility is much more sane than locking oneself in some Enlightenment clap trap or Platonic Idealism. Is a Constitutional Republic good for me, hell I don't know, it is off my radar, I don't worry about it. I suppose if some Jinn gave me a switch though that said Current American 5th (?) Republic or US Constitutional Republic, I would flip to the Con Republic without thinking twice.
William: Because the constitution isn't consist with personal liberty. " I am more or less trying to see what a self proclaimed left libertarian is doing calling Ron Paul "inconsistent with personal liberty" on Mises.org. Is he inconsistent with propertarianism, is he inconsistent with left libertarian liberty (whatever the hell that means), or something else entirely. That is my main function on this thread." We've told you again and again.He's not a libertarian.He's a statist. "a) People seem to be having a difficult time realizing that each individual at each instant can utilize anything to his advantage. It is in fact, only these individuals cam calculate what is or is not good for personal liberty in their case" What does that even mean? "b) as far as prosperity is concerned, if one is in power to actually care about the Federal Government, I don't see how the Constitution is not a useful tool to achieve that. The workings of a US Constitutional government, or more specific the workings towards a US Constitutional is better than what there is now if one actually has the power to care about such affairs. Yes there are "hot button" issues such as immigrants, abortion, or whatever but they don't mean anything anyway." 1. they clearly do 2. the US does have a government that does largely if not less than is allowed in the constitution. "Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. See Paul gets it." Sounds like typical political populism when applied to Paul.However He's not really as oppressed as everyone else since he's passive and actively in the slaveholder role. "Personal utility is much more sane than locking oneself in some Enlightenment clap trap or Platonic Idealism. " What are you on about ??
" I am more or less trying to see what a self proclaimed left libertarian is doing calling Ron Paul "inconsistent with personal liberty" on Mises.org. Is he inconsistent with propertarianism, is he inconsistent with left libertarian liberty (whatever the hell that means), or something else entirely. That is my main function on this thread."
We've told you again and again.He's not a libertarian.He's a statist.
"a) People seem to be having a difficult time realizing that each individual at each instant can utilize anything to his advantage. It is in fact, only these individuals cam calculate what is or is not good for personal liberty in their case"
"b) as far as prosperity is concerned, if one is in power to actually care about the Federal Government, I don't see how the Constitution is not a useful tool to achieve that. The workings of a US Constitutional government, or more specific the workings towards a US Constitutional is better than what there is now if one actually has the power to care about such affairs. Yes there are "hot button" issues such as immigrants, abortion, or whatever but they don't mean anything anyway."
1. they clearly do 2. the US does have a government that does largely if not less than is allowed in the constitution.
"Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. See Paul gets it."
Sounds like typical political populism when applied to Paul.However He's not really as oppressed as everyone else since he's passive and actively in the slaveholder role.
"Personal utility is much more sane than locking oneself in some Enlightenment clap trap or Platonic Idealism. "
What are you on about ??
he is better than the all the others running. he is the only one with different views. all the others are puppets of the sachs, rokfellers, rothsshitlds, etc etc evil people.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
Loved the video.