Lew Rockwell: I just turned down an invitation to go on Comedy Central, but I would never miss a chance to go on the Brian Wilson Show.
I agree with gocrew. Explaining one’s message to new audiences is good.
The rest of this topic has become gocrew versus Ricky James Moore II. I side with gocrew. My assessment:
“I think these outlets are beneath any thinking person.”
David Kramer posted a clip of the Daily Show which demonstrated that there was critical thinking.
“Everyone thinks, but most people don't do it right.”
This is why a libertarian advocate could be helpful.
“So what? Any thinking, critical person is an elite.”
Time for some definitions:
Elite: ( often used with a plural verb ) the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons. 2. ( used with a plural verb ) persons of the highest class: Only the elite were there. 3. a group of persons exercising the major share of authority or influence within a larger group: the power elite of a major political party.
Elitism: practice of or belief in rule by an elite. 2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.
So, elite/elitism means being part of superior group.
“These primates don't care, and they won't change. All civilization is accidental, and it disturbs them.”
Are you trying to insult humans by calling them primates? Civilization as an accident seems an exaggeration. The scientific method is not an accident. Some discoveries in science can be accidental, but science as a whole is not an accident. It is an ongoing process of critical thinking. The Ipod is part of civilization and it is popular. So is Google. And Wikipedia. And pencils, which are not easy to make as explained by Leonard Reed in I, Pencil.
“I am arguing that it would have been better if he [Murray Rothbard] concentrated on the people who would actually listen to him.”
How do you know who will listen to one’s message in advance? If people already agree with you, the message is reinforcement. Sometimes a statement can send people off on the path to a different worldview. Maybe the statement is why if you take my money it is theft, but when the government does it is taxation? Maybe the statement is FedEx and UPS exist, so why do we need the USPS and likewise why can’t we have private military companies? One statement can make people wonder and down the path of inquiry they can go.
“People won't accept it because they're not wired correctly.”
Prove it. I want scientific evidence that most people are incapable of change to libertarianism.
“People who can stray from the herd aren't made, they're born.”
Political ideology is not only about peer pressure. It does involve reasoning. I remember, years ago, someone said in a group that communism was wonderful on paper, but not in practice. No one disagreed probably because no one knew much about communism. Later, I learned about the economic calculation problem, the flawed labor theory of value, the wrong-headed inevitable communist end of history, the undeserved demonization of capitalism, and, to make a long story short, I learned that communism was bad on paper and practice.
“There are those who will latch onto a pure idea and stick with it, consequences be damned. There are those who wait for someone else to test the ice first. There are those who will feel more comfortable coming out when they see it has some steam. Others will wait until it becomes an orthodox position. As maddening as it is that a pure idea can't convince everyone, we still need, if we are to get a libertarian society, to convince enough people. I choose not to throw in the towel on this one.”
Good point.
“Have you ever thought that maybe they're getting exactly what they want?”
People have a limited set of options in their mind: Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative. We can introduce the libertarian option.
“The notion that men can be reformed is the sheerest faith.”
Opinions can change.
“Everyone lies to others or lies to themselves.”
From opinion change to lying. How did this happen?
“I think this idea of intellectual determinism is asinine. I wasn't born an anarcho-capitalist and I've never met one. I don't buy into the idea I'm some variation of a genotype - that's some sort of mastubatory nonsense.”
I agree, except with the end reference to masturbation. I do not understand.
I'm just saying, If you REALLY want to be free, spending your whole trying to convince people isn't the way for you to achieve freedom. Do you really think that you, as an individual, have a significant impact in which direction a society will go?
It doens't mean you shouldn't convince people, but you have to look at your goals. As for Rockwell, I think he doesn't want to be attacked (verbally or physically) by some idiots who watch the show and think he's either a racist, fascist, unpatriotic etc. I don't know Rockwell personally but I think liberty means a lot to him. If you lose your privacy just by advocating freedom, your results end up being counterproductive for you as an individual.
I do however debate from time to time with people. But it's not because I want my country to be libertarian, that's just an unrealistic goal. I debate with people because I like to debate, and sometimes because I want to educate some of my friends when they make bs claims.
All those people who spend their lives to try to convert other people, that's just a escapist way of denying your own problems. You want to be free, then try to be free! Ignore red stop lights, try to avoid paying as much as possible. Smoke a joint if you want to and think you won't be caught. Hack your toilet lol
limitgov: "I think these outlets are beneath any thinking person." Isn't that being a snob?
"I think these outlets are beneath any thinking person."
Isn't that being a snob?
I think it is discriminatory, and not necessarily in a bad way.
"I think it is discriminatory, and not necessarily in a bad way."
He's just giving up FREE TV Airtime that usually would cost other libertarians way too much money. Getting the word out is always good. Even to dumb people. I was ignorant, it took me a while to wake up. But I did, eventually. And the thing that is the most fustrating, is he is an awesome speaker and so incredibly intelligent.
more message = more good
"I think he doesn't want to be attacked (verbally or physically) by some idiots who watch the show and think he's either a racist, fascist, unpatriotic etc."
What better way to show them he is not, then to debate them. Free airtime is good.
limitgov:He's just giving up FREE TV Airtime that usually would cost other libertarians way too much money.
How can you know what it costs Lew?
limitgov:Getting the word out is always good.
Depends on your value scale. Lew has already done more for libertarianism than most of his critics.
Be your own leader. Find opportunities that YOU can take advantage of.
"How can you know what it costs Lew?"
I don't know his opportunity costs, but I do know he is giving up free TV airtime.
limitgov:I don't know his opportunity costs, but I do know he is giving up free TV airtime.
It's not free. You admitted there is an opportunity cost.
Quite a bit of the 18-30 demographic gets their news and editorial opinion from the Daily Show. Just saying...
Looks like there are 2 issues being discussed here:
just my 2 cents
J.R.M.:Is it worthwhile to try and "spread the message" - I think it's utterly ridiculous to think that you can't affect people who don't agree with you. Hayek was a socialist, I myself used to think very differently than I do now. While I agree that there are probably "sheep" and "outliers" and the sheep will probably not change their views much, the outliers will. So you could let an outlier become a radical anarcho-synicalist because he was never introduced to Austro-Libertarian concepts, or help them along the path to Anarcho-Capitalism by showing them the flaws in the other theories.
Since that person (the 'outlier) was me at one stage, I have some sympathy with that position, but in reality I don't believe a Libertarian society will ever be achieved; the mindset of the masses is devoted to statism and statism only. At best, we will see an 'accidental' transition to a slightly more liberalised market economy but this will have nothing to do with Libertarian activism or people changing their minds about the free market. It will just happen naturally (if it happens at all).
Never get your hopes up; that way you will never be disappointed ;).
EvilSocialistFellow:the mindset of the masses is devoted to statism and statism only.
I think the mindset of the masses is devoted to the status quo. currently that is statism. I don't htink it necessarily has to always be this way.
gocrew: There are those who will latch onto a pure idea and stick with it, consequences be damned. There are those who wait for someone else to test the ice first. There are those who will feel more comfortable coming out when they see it has some steam. Others will wait until it becomes an orthodox position. As maddening as it is that a pure idea can't convince everyone, we still need, if we are to get a libertarian society, to convince enough people. I choose not to throw in the towel on this one.
There are those who will latch onto a pure idea and stick with it, consequences be damned. There are those who wait for someone else to test the ice first. There are those who will feel more comfortable coming out when they see it has some steam. Others will wait until it becomes an orthodox position. As maddening as it is that a pure idea can't convince everyone, we still need, if we are to get a libertarian society, to convince enough people. I choose not to throw in the towel on this one.
This thought from Tom Woods goes along with that and has stuck with me:
If these ideas win more than 2% of the vote, it makes the rest of us look less weird. Let’s face it: most people lack the courage to adopt views they think are “fringe” (by the way, the sign of a terrible writer is that he uses this word to describe his opponents). And most people do indeed draw conclusions about political ideas on the basis of their political strength. But if even 10% vote for them, it can detoxify them in the minds of people who might otherwise never have given them the time of day. It can also confirm demoralized good guys in their views: you’re not alone, man. It’s not just you and 0.01% of the population. There are lots of us.
Ricky James Moore II:Meh, anyone who is not an elitist is a crackpot.
Either you have an extremely perverse definition of "elitist", or that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
I'm glad I found this thread now as opposed to later, as I would have likely spent a lot of time saying basically the same thing gocrew has. (Thanks for saving me the time, gocrew)
Mtn Dew:I think this idea of intellectual determinism is asinine. I wasn't born an anarcho-capitalist and I've never met one. I don't buy into the idea I'm some variation of a genotype - that's some sort of mastubatory nonsense.
Bingo.
Anarcho-libertarian:This thought from Tom Woods goes along with that and has stuck with me: If these ideas win more than 2% of the vote, it makes the rest of us look less weird.
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot"
-Mark Twain
But again, it's not black and white. So I propose we reach as many as we can.
I have better ways to waste my time. You're not going to make a difference with this stuff. You will make a difference spending energy in your own life, avoiding the government, for example. In fact, it would probably be easier if you weren't putting yourself out there as opposing them, for that matter. There are just too many people in this world, and too much entrenched dogma and biological bias, for you to ever make a dent that matters while you're alive. Activism is totally pointless. This is the same thing that makes voting stupid. You don't count.
You don't buy the evolutionary psychology angle for the same reason most people won't buy amoralism. You're wired up to reject out of hand that your contribution to social order (or disorder) is insignificant. It's a psychological bias, that may have made sense living in a group of ten people, but makes absolutely none in our world.
If the 'revolution' happens, it will happen without me. If it doesn't happen, it won't happen with me. Either way, I am safer staying out of it. Spending my entire life preaching the Gospel of Rothbard will not lower my tax bill one cent. But spending that time making money will more than make up for the taxes I do pay.
If you're feeling so Herculean that you can change a bunch of nitwits who don't want to listen and don't give a damn, why don't you push back the tide, King Knut?
If people like Lew shared your view, there'd be a lot less libertarians in the world...and there'd certainly be a lot less who've even heard the name "Mises" or the term "Austrian economics".
Ricky James Moore II: I have better ways to waste my time. You're not going to make a difference with this stuff... In fact, it would probably be easier if you weren't putting yourself out there as opposing them, for that matter. There are just too many people in this world, and too much entrenched dogma and biological bias, for you to ever make a dent that matters while you're alive. Activism is totally pointless.
I have better ways to waste my time. You're not going to make a difference with this stuff... In fact, it would probably be easier if you weren't putting yourself out there as opposing them, for that matter. There are just too many people in this world, and too much entrenched dogma and biological bias, for you to ever make a dent that matters while you're alive. Activism is totally pointless.
Evidence, please. This is... what?... the third time I've asked you to back up your assertions? The fourth time? Either you think I am typing this to practice finger dexterity, in which case I can disabuse you of that notion so you may begin your quest for evidence, or you just make assertions and have no intention of backing them up, in which case I don't see why you bothered and I know I shall not bother any further.
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken
Maybe, maybe not. It's an academic interest, the political side is just hopeless. Either way, it doesn't change that I am obviously right. Even if you ignore the fact that people are psychologically wired the wrong way for libertarianism there is nothing you can do that will make any difference in the scheme of things. There are billions of illiterate, ignorant, apathetic statist nitwits; frankly I have better things to do than play Sisyphus and pretend that THIS TIME the boulder's going over the top of the hill. You'd be much better off if you concentrated on yourself instead of all the other imbeciles on the planet. They want to live in the Lake of Fire, good riddance, I'll pour on a cup of gasoline.
John James:If people like Lew shared your view, there'd be a lot less libertarians in the world...and there'd certainly be a lot less who've even heard the name "Mises" or the term "Austrian economics".
+1
How anyone can think that activism doesn't make a difference, even while Austro-libertarianism is on the upswing, is quite beyond me.
Spideynw:I agree gocrew, I think he should go on the shows. But what can you do?
Make a polite suggestion that he might see, and then go about my business.
On the upswing of remaining totally irrelevant. Market liberalism was vastly more popular in the 19th century than it is today. Herbert Spencer was the most popular sociologist in the world. What did we get? World War 1. You don't matter.
BramElias:A libertarian that sacrifices his own private life for the greater good? That's not a libertarian in my book.
Your book uses a non-standard definition of libertarian.
Ricky James Moore II:On the upswing of remaining totally irrelevant. Market liberalism was vastly more popular in the 19th century than it is today. Herbert Spencer was the most popular sociologist in the world. What did we get? World War 1. You don't matter.
I wait your evidence. You have quite a bit of collecting to do.
ladyphoenix:Really? You don't think encouraging others around you to move toward liberty wouldn't end up in more liberty for you? That seems like worthy enough a sacrifice for some of my time... You're going to tell me that somehow I'm NOT a libertarian for being willing to donate my time to encourage/foster liberty in my peers? Hmm...
Well put.
Prateek Sanjay:Gocrew, I don't think you appreciate the simple fact that television people pride themselves on their lack of manners.
I don't think "television people" should be lumped into the same category. John Stewart does not resemble at all what you are describing. And even if Bill Maher's show is a little rougher, people are still given a chance to air their views.
Prateek Sanjay:Whatever I know of American television is from YouTube. I would not give those people the time of the day.
It's not the hosts, it's the viewers that Lew could go after. Suppose he collects one out of every ten thousand...
Gero: Lew Rockwell: I just turned down an invitation to go on Comedy Central, but I would never miss a chance to go on the Brian Wilson Show. I agree with gocrew. Explaining one’s message to new audiences is good. ... I agree, except with the end reference to masturbation. I do not understand.
...
Well stated.
I don't feel the need to provide 'evidence' of the obvious to religious prosthyletizers. Once again, I have better ways to waste my time. This is why I can't stand most libertarians. You're just another religious creed, like the liberals and the Muslims. By some accident of history you got your hands on some good economics.
BramElias:I'm just saying, If you REALLY want to be free, spending your whole trying to convince people isn't the way for you to achieve freedom. Do you really think that you, as an individual, have a significant impact in which direction a society will go?
The question to ask is whether Lew Rockwell would have a significant impact on society... and the answer is yes. I also think it stands a good chance of being greater if he makes appearances like these.
BramElias:All those people who spend their lives to try to convert other people, that's just a escapist way of denying your own problems.
I have a difficult time believing that this statement is an accurate representation of how you feel. Trying to convert people to libertarians is a way to deny my own problems? Which problems are these? And why are conversion attempts an attempt at denial?
BramElias:You want to be free, then try to be free! Ignore red stop lights, try to avoid paying as much as possible. Smoke a joint if you want to and think you won't be caught. Hack your toilet lol
Well, obvious problems aside, this does not prevent me from trying to convert others.
Opportunity costs. Everything you do prevents you from doing something else. I would rather talk about Austrian economics than try to convince anyone of its accuracy. I believe lots of things, but I don't believe in anything.
Ricky James Moore II:I don't feel the need to provide 'evidence' of the obvious to religious prosthyletizers.
When asked for evidence, he simply claims it's obvious. All those assertions, a complete lack of evidence... and I'M the religious one?
Anarcho-libertarian:If these ideas win more than 2% of the vote, it makes the rest of us look less weird. Let’s face it: most people lack the courage to adopt views they think are “fringe” (by the way, the sign of a terrible writer is that he uses this word to describe his opponents). And most people do indeed draw conclusions about political ideas on the basis of their political strength. But if even 10% vote for them, it can detoxify them in the minds of people who might otherwise never have given them the time of day. It can also confirm demoralized good guys in their views: you’re not alone, man. It’s not just you and 0.01% of the population. There are lots of us.
Excellent!
John James: (Thanks for saving me the time, gocrew)
De nada, amigo.
And you've come on the forums to tell us that? Apparently you don't consider that a waste of time.. go figure.
You could read all the endless stuff that's been written on volk economics, the way the human brain is inclined to leap to wrong conclusions, the fact that political views are based on social association and not truth. Bryan Caplan would be one place to start; you could also look into social signaling ala Robin Hanson. The blos Less Wrong and Overcoming Bias have plenty of data on how people are more prone to error than accuracy; and that sometimes what they 'believe' is not the doctrine but the expression of the doctrine they feel appeals to other member of their peer group. Most Marxists have never read Marx. Most Christians never read the Bible. What is important is what they think other people expect them to say, not what makes sense. Rationalization is a far stronger force in the human mind than rationality.
It is a waste of time, but it's interesting to me. Besides, most of the people here I talk to probably already agree with me on this. I can't speak for him but I think William has a similar slant on it.
Ricky James Moore II:Opportunity costs. Everything you do prevents you from doing something else.
Uh, what I wrote was in response to this: "You want to be free, then try to be free! Ignore red stop lights, try to avoid paying as much as possible. Smoke a joint if you want to and think you won't be caught. Hack your toilet lol"
So you are saying that preaching libertarianism is on the bottom of my list, such that adding running red lights prevents me from preaching libertarianism? And you, who apparently think you know something about economics, are now telling me what my own value scale is? Everything I do prevents me from doing SOMETHING else... and now you are telling me that this something must be preaching libertarianism? So you're saying that if I run a red light, I won't be able to preach any more libertarianism? Do you need reminding that my statement was: "this does not prevent me from trying to convert others" ? And now you're saying that it does indeed prevent me from doing that?
I'll tell you what: I'll run a red light tomorrow, then I'll try to convert someone to libertarianism. If I am unable to make the attempt, due to the oppurtunity cost, I will take you seriously in the future. If not, I'll ignore you from now on.
I wonder what the result will be.
I'll put money that you make the red light but not the libertarian.
If you just like arguing with people, go ahead. But it's delusional to think it will have any measurable impact on the degree of State control over your life. Debating is a hobby. Politics is a religion.
Ricky James Moore II:I'll put money that you make the red light but not the libertarian.
But that's irrelevant. I claimed that running a red light does not prevent me from TRYING to convert people. You claimed that it does. So we'll see, although I have a pretty good idea of how it is going to turn out.
It generally does at the same time, unless you can somehow link both of them together. I don't have any problem with arguing with people, I have a problem with the claim that it makes a difference. I used to argue with Christians. I generally don't care anymore, because there are more entertaining ways to bash my head into a wall.
Ricky James Moore II:It generally does at the same time, unless you can somehow link both of them together.
These are your parameters quite absent from the original contention. Wouldn't it just be easier to admit you were wrong?
Ricky James Moore II:I don't have any problem with arguing with people, I have a problem with the claim that it makes a difference. I used to argue with Christians. I generally don't care anymore, because there are more entertaining ways to bash my head into a wall.
What is this in response to?