...endorses Romney.
The endorsement came in an appearance on "Hannity,"
Blech.
We knew it was coming.
I'm sorry it had to be like this.
Wow. I wonder what Ron has to say about this?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Autolykos:Wow. I wonder what Ron has to say about this?
Probably that they have their ideological differences. (I seem to remember him mentioning this in regards to Rands run for senate.
He's a politician, apparently. Here's Rothbard at his best covering this very same issue during the Reagan administration:
...The essential answer was provided a century ago by Lysander Spooner. Why does the public obey the State, and go further to endorse statist policies that benefit the Power Elite at the public’s own expense? The answer, wrote Spooner, is that the State is supported by three powerful groups: knaves, who know what is going on and benefit from State rule; dupes, who are fooled into thinking that State rule is in their and everyone else’s interest; and cowards, who know the truth but are afraid to proclaim that the emperor has no clothes. I think we can refine Spooner’s analysis and merge the Knave and Coward categories; after all, the renegade sellout confronts the carrot and the stick: the carrot of wealth, cushy jobs, and prestige if he goes along with the Emperor; and the stick of scorn, exclusion from wealth, prestige, and jobs – and perhaps worse – if he fails to go along. ... ...In the history of ideological movements, there have always been people willing to sell their souls and their principles. But never in history have so many sold out for so pitifully little. Hordes of libertarian and free-market intellectuals and activists rushed to Washington to whore after lousy little jobs, crummy little grants, and sporadic little conferences. It is bad enough to sell out; it is far worse to be a two-bit whore. And worst of all in this sickening spectacle were those who went into the tank without so much as a clear offer: betraying the values and principles of a lifetime in order to position themselves in hopes of being propositioned. And so they wriggled around the seats of power in Washington. The intellectual corruption spread rapidly, in proportion to the height and length of jobs in the Reagan Administration. Lifelong opponents of budget deficits remarkably began to weave sophisticated and absurd apologias, now that the great Reagan was piling them up, claiming, very much like the hated left-wing Keynesians of yore, that "deficits don’t matter." Shorn of intellectual support, the half-formed libertarian instincts of the American masses remained content with Reaganite rhetoric, and the actual diametrically opposite policies got lost in the shuffle...
...In the history of ideological movements, there have always been people willing to sell their souls and their principles. But never in history have so many sold out for so pitifully little. Hordes of libertarian and free-market intellectuals and activists rushed to Washington to whore after lousy little jobs, crummy little grants, and sporadic little conferences. It is bad enough to sell out; it is far worse to be a two-bit whore. And worst of all in this sickening spectacle were those who went into the tank without so much as a clear offer: betraying the values and principles of a lifetime in order to position themselves in hopes of being propositioned. And so they wriggled around the seats of power in Washington. The intellectual corruption spread rapidly, in proportion to the height and length of jobs in the Reagan Administration. Lifelong opponents of budget deficits remarkably began to weave sophisticated and absurd apologias, now that the great Reagan was piling them up, claiming, very much like the hated left-wing Keynesians of yore, that "deficits don’t matter."
Shorn of intellectual support, the half-formed libertarian instincts of the American masses remained content with Reaganite rhetoric, and the actual diametrically opposite policies got lost in the shuffle...
Amen.
I wonder how much of the carrot Rand was offered - as opposed to the stick.
I'd guess it would be all carrots and hardly any sticks in Rand's case. I never liked him to begin with -- he always rubbed me the wrong way. What I find interesting, though, is how he kept throwing in his father's name together with his, and talking about how they have this huge support base that Romney might find useful. Did Ron Paul's procreation instincts (maximizing his son's benefits) also get the better of him to go along with this sharade, or has Rand gone rogue on his father?
A sickening display, regardless. Good luck dragging his "support base" behind him, though.
I think he was offered to be the head of an investigatory committee. Possibly one involving downscaling certain bureaucracy. He won't get a cabinet position.
THERE IS ONLY 1 RON PAUL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“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
One minute he's endorsing Romney, then the next he's going against everything Romney stands for:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84514049/SENATOR-RAND-PAUL-S-PLATFORM-TO-REVITALIZE-AMERICA
EDIT: Nvm it was from February.
Rand Paul isn't an anti-Republican Republican. Rand Paul is a Republican Republican.
Alex Jones gets tough on Ron and Rand Paul. He also says that he is ashamed of himself for not seeing the betrayal coming. He is seemingly indicting Ron Paul for Rand's endorsement as well. The video features an addendum by Webster Tarpley (here is the full Tarpley v. Jones debate over the Pauls; pretty interesting stuff and Jones has been drinking).
"...taking wind out of your own sails. ... You better explain yourself to your constituency. I will not go down on the Ron Paul ship. I've seen a lot of signs...a lot of people Campaign for Liberty is bringing in right now are Council on Foreign Relations & globalists. Best case scenario: the Ron Paul system, "Ron Paul Inc." tried to take over the Republican party and the opposite is happening. Worst case scenario: they've been listeneing to some Benedict Arnolds on the inside. And have absolutely fallen into a trap."
I will not go down on the Ron Paul ship.
I've seen a lot of signs...a lot of people Campaign for Liberty is bringing in right now are Council on Foreign Relations & globalists.
Best case scenario: the Ron Paul system, "Ron Paul Inc." tried to take over the Republican party and the opposite is happening. Worst case scenario: they've been listeneing to some Benedict Arnolds on the inside. And have absolutely fallen into a trap."
That email about the 500 delegates maximum before they are all elected...reeks.
Why has Ron Paul not said anything about this? I do not want to presume that he is trying to get Rand into office...I really do not think that is the case, but everyone else does.
That email about the 500 delegates maximum before they are all elected...reeks. Why has Ron Paul not said anything about this? I do not want to presume that he is trying to get Rand into office...I really do not think that is the case, but everyone else does.
I assure it you it's a genuine email I received from the RP campaign. As to why he's not talking about it, it's probably because the delegate-angle is a stealth campaign. It's a smart move by a candidate whom only maybe can win. If Romney didn't take the nomination on the first ballot, RP had a very good shot with a ton of his own delegates in position. Had things gone a bit differently, had the vote been closer, had RP gotten more delegates, he would've found himself in a winning position. Just too little too late here.
Reading up on the election of Lincoln, the guy expected to win was not Lincoln, he didn't take it on the first ballot, tho it was close, and Lincoln partisans made the rounds and convinced the other delegations to turn towards Lincoln. He was actually considered the long-shot, the dark horse. RP knows his history, he's the dark horse candidate in this election and could've pulled off a similar thing. Doesn't look like that's gonna happen now, but it was the only viable strategy apart from actually winning the nomination popular-vote.
Lew said what many Rand supporters were in denial of.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Ron Paul isn't afraid to stand up to the bankers, but he won't stand up to his duplicity within his family and organization. We needed Murray to be in on all of this...
Kokesh should have something to do with the movement going forward.
The only part of Jack's video that was coherent was at about 4:40. The Eisenhouer analogy, but that only means anything if Romney wins.
He repeatedly says Rand would be destroyed if he didn't endorse Romney, then says people won't remember in 2016...but then, what is the point in doing it? He says people would remember if he didn't, but they won't if he did? Jack is waaay out there.
Who cares who wins in 2012? I would like to see a delegate war in Tampa. It would be hilarious.
Alex Jones has the same reservations that I have (Ron Paul has been silent). Kokesh and Tarpley have made good points as well.
Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Don't get your identity conflated with others. Diversify the leaders of the movement.
Tom Woods for president!
Ron planted the seeds and what he has done is irreversible, just as what Rothbard and others did back in the 60s which inspired Ron.
It was never about Ron Paul the person, but what he had to say. That entire argument was based on bullshit premises and it's a waste of time to argue with those who eagerly enjoyed the self-fulfilling media prophecy so they could no longer have their worldview disturbed.
Others will continue on, others that may speak a lot better publically in some aspects where Paul failed.
Paul is simply the current public introduction to a long-term future investment.
Cortes:Ron planted the seeds and what he has done is irreversible, just as what Rothbard and others did back in the 60s which inspired Ron.
That seems to me to be part of the problem, that despite all these great figures and the ideas being put forth, still nothing continues to change, stasis is the rule, and stasis means the march toward ever creeping tyranny in this country.
I can find no evidence that there's been a sea-change of any kind recently much last in the last 20 years when I've actively watched politics. We have Hoppe, scant of influence. Paul now, but his influence wanes with his age and political viability. We had Reagan, he achieved but little and wasn't strictly libertarian anyway. LeFevre, Rand, Mises, Rothbard, Hayek... take it all the way back to Herbert Spencer. Where is the evidence of change, of the public coming around?
A libertarian take-over of the Republican party -would- be evidence of change, but is that even happeneing? Paul's delegate gambit is the closest to that I've ever seen. Perhaps by the time the next president comes around, libertarians can continue this strategy, perhaps without Paul next time, and continue bending the platform to our ideals. However I don't hold-up much hope of that occurring.
LeFevre said in the 70's that people were coming around to freedom. It clearly wasn't true then either, and what have 40+ years gotten us? Those being born and educated in public schools and indoctrinated thereby so greatly outnumber in proliferation those who question status-quo, seek out better ideas, and then actually successfully find them in libertarian concepts, and this trend is unlikely to reverse any time soon but actually to widen.
Where then is the hope of a public awakening?
Even major crashes caused by government, like the '08 housing crash, are not enough. I doubt a devaluement of our currency would be enough either. Look at Greece and France, where, despite looming fiscal disaster, the French elected a socialist who reversed the retirement age--staring in the face of fiscal insolvency. In Greece where anti-austerity measures lead to riots--even the reality of 'we can borrow no more money' does not cause these people to doubt their lifestyle.
What hope then does liberty have? Except to separate from these people and show them another way by our own success. Start a new country based on libertarian principles in the only land on earth left unclaimed by nation states: in the oceans. That's what I want to see, floating libertarian havens, artificial islands, ocean-born societies.
Cortes:It was never about Ron Paul the person, but what he had to say. That entire argument was based on bullshit premises and it's a waste of time to argue with those who eagerly enjoyed the self-fulfilling media prophecy so they could no longer have their worldview disturbed. Others will continue on, others that may speak a lot better publically in some aspects where Paul failed. Paul is simply the current public introduction to a long-term future investment.
Others will continue on, others that may speak a lot better publically in some aspects where Paul failed. Paul is simply the current public introduction to a long-term future investment.
With Paul gone, as he soon must be, who's left on the world stage to represent liberty's ideals? Even Paul's own son isn't a convert. How sad is that.
Cortes:The next figurehead politically could likely come from the military, from this current generation on active duty, a military that has proven to be enthusiastic about Paul.
Isn't it somewhat pathetic, in a way, to sit back and talk about needing some representative up there to do things for us? For people whom believe in inpidualism it's particularly frustrating to have to rely on outside action, no?
Cortes: I say this because I believe as effective economic arguments can be (an entire generation now has begun to look critically at the Fed for one where before it was taboo church doctrine and unquestioned), they will continually be forgotten and minds re-indoctrinated. What is the root, then? FOREIGN POLICY. Once prominent classical liberal speakers and libertarians can put forth a better case for their approach towards foreign policy the rest of the nation will [not?] remain stupid. As amazing and badass the strengths of economic arguments from resources like the Mises Institute are, the move towards classical liberalism and libertarian attitudes in the public will NEVER happen unless the foreign policy is explained more effectively.
I say this because I believe as effective economic arguments can be (an entire generation now has begun to look critically at the Fed for one where before it was taboo church doctrine and unquestioned), they will continually be forgotten and minds re-indoctrinated.
What is the root, then?
FOREIGN POLICY.
Once prominent classical liberal speakers and libertarians can put forth a better case for their approach towards foreign policy the rest of the nation will [not?] remain stupid.
As amazing and badass the strengths of economic arguments from resources like the Mises Institute are, the move towards classical liberalism and libertarian attitudes in the public will NEVER happen unless the foreign policy is explained more effectively.
Perhaps, but even I don't agree with Paul's foreign policy, nor a necessarily "defense-only" foreign policy. Paul stupidly made it easy for others to attack him on foreign policy, if you ask me, and without purpose, since even a libertarian president would act within libertarian ideals to defend the innocent from attack in other countries, and does not the NAP allow one to take pro-active action against imminent aggression? I think that reasonable, tho the standard of evidence need be much higher generally.
Cortes:It shouldn't take much to explain why the foreign policy debate is the root which to strike at. It is the core of the power structure for political elites in this country.
The simple fact is that much of the world would devolve to war without the US's stabilizing threat of military influence. Paul's foreign policy was a bit too isolationist even considering libertarian principles. IIRC, he advocated stopping helping Israel? I can't see that.
Cortes:Right now the schema the public thinks of when they hear non-interventionism is simply old Ron Paul speaking for it. To me that is less than an adequate mental image, no offense.
The NAP does not advocate non-interventionism--it's perfectly allowable for anyone to step between two warring parties and fight off the aggressor.
Cortes:I just see the image of a hypothetical young war veteran explaining foreign responsibility and non-interventionism to the crowd and THERE is where I see the biggest potential for a sea change in this regard.
Why don't you explain non-interventionism to me then, as you see it from a libertarian perspective, because even as a libertarian myself I don't see the argument for it. I can certainly see the idea of not aggressing on the international-stage, and American has quite seldom done that, even in recent years. I cannot see the idea of pulling out of the world completely like some libertarians seem to favor :\
If you ask me, a purely libertarian nation would have to be a friend to the oppressed the world over and would use its national power and clout to help those being aggressed against both by their own governments and by foreign governments. The idea that a national boundary means unconditional sovereignty is completely false and libertarians do not even advocate that in their own proposed societies. None of us would say that a property line is so sacred that it allowed the owner behind it to murder the innocent or anything else like that. A property boundary does not give carte blanche to aggress. Anyone can moral invade any boundary in order to prevent imminent aggression, within reason.
Here is a part of my last post I've decided to separate and place here:
I am speaking from the perspective of political campaigning here and I what I'd want future Paul-inspired conservative candidates to do. This campaign is also a battle over language. An issue I have is the idea that 'libertarian' needs to be considered a separate term/meme, as this has given the media another narrative to classify everyone under. It as a term has already become used to divide.
I still consider myself a conservative, as far as I understand the term, and I support Paul. I'd also be comfortable calling myself a classical liberal. I see no good in trying to allow this entire national discussion to be labeled as 'libertarian' and thus implied as something completely alien to the political discourse, some new movement without any historical precedence or something absurd like that. I get this impression in the media whenever something is described as libertarian.
I submit that the 'libertarians' have been the ones most loyal to what the rest of the bastards pretend to believe in, even the GOP stretching way back in history. Therefore Paul has always been conservative writ large.
I see pragmatically the waves being made in the GOP and how the rotten core is in such hysterics. Because, yes, the GOP has always been evil, as has the Democrats. They've been rotten since inception.
But they claim to believe, as 'conservatives', things that Ron Paul has made lucid to millions.
Win the language battle. The Ron Paul school IS the only conservative school, if we understand conservative to mean what it is supposed to mean right now, and it is a term whose zeitgeist currently still has associations with limited government and free markets.
This is good for me because you want to foster grassroots growth by converting those who believe the narrative that 'conservative' means "progressive war lobbyist" into those that realize the only conservative has been Paul all along.
Because, well, he is. He is a minarchist and not a Rothbardian ancap (though he may be a closet ancap).
What I'm saying is, I'd rather see crowds of conservatives say they are conservative because they supported Paul. I'd like to see the average American see Paul as the first image they'd find in the dictionary entry for 'conservative'. I'd rather see that before the language is completely rewritten once again and conservatism simply means one is a progressive war lobbyist.
Language shifts, but ideas do not. Many conservatives in this country still see themselves as faintly understanding the necessity of limited government. Why must we be at the mercy of those who claim power to write the definitions?
"We" let "them" redefine liberal.
The same has happened over the 20th century with 'conservative'.
Eventually they will have written away 'libertarianism' soon into someting it does not mean.
At this rate, 'conservative' will become synonymous with 'neoconservative'. And that's fucking sad.
In so many Austrian friendly blogs they all have this fatalist mentality; 'Fine, screw em! We were never conservatives they are bloodthirsty etc/ conservatism is all about war etc', and I think it's pointless since they do in fact have the high ground in conservative tradition but are essentially throwing it away and joining Team Libertarian where they can be written off by the ignorant even more conveniently.
In the end, yes, all these terms are fluid and change regardless, but they only change because of strong influence to do so. Be part of that influence.
This is simply my politically motivated opinion and an approach I see to be more effective in electoral politics right now. Those Paul has inspired should stick with the 'conservative' label and reclaim it. If not, they are to concede the debate to those who will write their own premises.
Anway, I'd go back further. If I had my way we'd still be talking about 'the liberal tradition in the GOP versus the progressives' on the news. (classical liberalism).
Anenome:The NAP does not advocate non-interventionism--it's perfectly allowable for anyone to step between two warring parties and fight off the aggressor.
???? Including the state?
Anenome:The NAP does not advocate non-interventionism--it's perfectly allowable for anyone to step between two warring parties and fight off the aggressor. ???? Including the state?
I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw that.
The simple fact is that much of the world would devolve to war without the US's stabilizing threat of military influence.
The simple fact is that much of the world would devolve to war without Rome's stabilizing threat of military influence
The simple fact is that much of the world would devolve to war without the Mongol Empire's stabilizing threat of military influence
The simple fact is that much of the world would devolve blah blah without the Soviets blah blah etc
Here is what I'm talking about. You have a healthy segment of people who are still conflating isolationism with NI. The media certainly didn't help, but Paul failed to clarify, not that I blame him for trying to in 30 second soundbites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism Wikipedia's take isn't so bad.
For me this argument really gets to the crux of how you see the State, it is the dividing line for those who wish to follow NAP to its logical end, and that is one in which the State by default fails it on all accounts. The State is incompatible with NAP in the extreme view.
That said, from a minarchist standpoint a Paul Republican Administration would favor that intelligence operations operate as efficient as possible to determine possible threats. Paul still stands by the facts that it was the failure of government bloat that led to a poor intelligence sharing system that made 9/11 possible, as well as blowback from past interventions. It could be argued that intel gathering is interventionist to a degree of course, and if so then Paul is not completely orthodox NI. This then leads to the dilemma between ancap and minarchists since even 'streamlined' intelligence agencies lead to ever increasing government.
Basically, the US has its hand in the cookie jar and its backdoor wide open. That does not mean NI is pacifism, rather it is utmost vigilance that is needed, from a Constitutional standpoint, instead of fracturing the military across the world.
In fact it is incredibly ironic when you take on the mainstream opinions on the alleged 'unity' of 'liberal democracies' with their military and intel, that the intelligence bureaucracy has so much infighting, mistrust of one another and tribalist bickering.
If you ask me, a purely libertarian nation would have to be a friend to the oppressed the world over and would use its national power and clout to help those being aggressed against both by their own governments and by foreign governments.
To me this sounds like something Will Kristol and Krauthammer would write and is entirely in line with the militarist progressive war lobbying that dominates the GOP. It is an idealism I doubt any of them seriously believe but it is damn good pseudo-religious propaganda.
But it fails even the Consitutional framework of the minarchists.
And I wonder what kind of effect you think this 'power and clout' has had. I see the results, and they look like they've made future aggression against innocent people by other governments increase tenfold. I say this observing not just the US, but all intervening nations.
Not to mention the State itself is and always will be the primary aggressor, so I wonder why the irony is lost on you.
But your belief is one that is religiously engrained in the public view, unfortunately imo. It sees the State as an agent of moral activism who can serve as an arbiter of justice in any military context.
The ends you believe are more important than the means and you do not take into account the repercussions and blowback.
Let's take Wikipedia's entry then:
Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination.
Now, you consider this consistent with the NAP? Suppose I turn things around like so:
Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a policy which holds that peopple should avoid alliances with other people, but still retain relationships, and avoid all fights not related to direct self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a person should not interfere in the conflicts between other people, based upon the principles of individual sovereignty and self-determination.
Now the problem I have there, is that a non-interventionist policy between individuals would mean that a 3rd party would not be able to stop a rape in progress.
Why is it okay for those who follow the NAP to stop a rape in progress they witness, but not okay for a nation-state to stop one nation from raping and killing another nation?
The idea of national sovereignty is no different than the idea of sovereignty within a property boundary, yet we whom hold to the NAP would indeed endorse crossing a property line to stop an aggression! So why are the rules suddenly different when we're talking nation states? It's completely inconsistent.
Similarly, how could we justify allowing a woman to be raped, or a man to continue raping, under the doctrine either of property boundary OR self-determination? It's self-determination to allow someone to be aggressed against?
No, certainly not. In truth, those dedicated to the NAP, both as individuals AND and sovereign nations, can avoid any conflict they like, that much is true. They are not obligated to step into any situation. But don't sit here and tell me that they cannot ethically invade a country to stop an aggression either against themselves or another innocent party, because the NAP will not support you.
Daniel Muffinburg: Anenome:The NAP does not advocate non-interventionism--it's perfectly allowable for anyone to step between two warring parties and fight off the aggressor. ???? Including the state?
Why not the state? The state is only a group of people, after all. Do you maintain that the state can only be an aggressor?
Here's where I leave the anarchs behind--they indict the state on all counts from a moral point of view as only capable of aggression. However, we can derive from a NAP uses of coercion that are ethical, namely responsive-coercion used to stop aggressive-coercion. If a state uses only responsive-coercion to stop aggression, they are doing the right thing and so would anybody in the same position. This is actually what we, as in people everywhere, really want the state to do, to protect basic rights. This is why we have the state.
The state has certainly grown beyond just fulfilling that need, but that need remains. As long as a purely ethical role exists for a minimal state to fulfill those essential needs, it will not be rational to reject the state entirely unless we can either show that the state can never fill that need, and/or we can show that private entities can fill that need entirely. Various stabs have been taken at either end, but never has either been conclusively shown.
Cortes:I am speaking from the perspective of political campaigning here and I what I'd want future Paul-inspired conservative candidates to do. This campaign is also a battle over language. An issue I have is the idea that 'libertarian' needs to be considered a separate term/meme, as this has given the media another narrative to classify everyone under. It as a term has already become used to divide. I still consider myself a conservative, as far as I understand the term, and I support Paul... In so many Austrian friendly blogs they all have this fatalist mentality; 'Fine, screw em! We were never conservatives they are bloodthirsty etc/ conservatism is all about war etc', and I think it's pointless since they do in fact have the high ground in conservative tradition but are essentially throwing it away and joining Team Libertarian where they can be written off by the ignorant even more conveniently. In the end, yes, all these terms are fluid and change regardless, but they only change because of strong influence to do so. Be part of that influence. This is simply my politically motivated opinion and an approach I see to be more effective in electoral politics right now. Those Paul has inspired should stick with the 'conservative' label and reclaim it. If not, they are to concede the debate to those who will write their own premises.
I still consider myself a conservative, as far as I understand the term, and I support Paul...
Eh, it's difficult for me to go either way on this. On the one hand, like you, I'm comfortable with the conservative label in terms of its connotations of personal liberty, limited government, and laissez faire capitalism. But I increasingly identify libertarian because too many conservatives are willing to suppress so-called victimless crimes and continue to oppose such things as gay marriage and drug use, to impose their will upon people in that respect, and thus it seems to me that they have not learned the true meaning of freedom yet.
What I want to see is a reject of the idea of majority rule as being an ethical way to aggress within society against others. If we are to live as individualists, then let there be individual rule, over each of ourselves. Such a political system incorporating individual rule as its founding premise has never existed in practice, but I'm personally working on the theory of how one could work.
Cortes: The simple fact is that much of the world would devolve to war without the US's stabilizing threat of military influence. The simple fact is that much of the world would devolve to war without Rome's stabilizing threat of military influence The simple fact is that much of the world would devolve to war without the Mongol Empire's stabilizing threat of military influence The simple fact is that much of the world would devolve blah blah without the Soviets blah blah etc
Ridicule it as you like, it's still both a reality and ethical, at least the way we do it. We don't achieve Pax Romana the way they did, which is to say we aren't trying to conquer people in order to impose our will on them and install puppet rulers and suck value out of them by force. To equate and conflate the two is innately unfair of your.
Cortes:Here is what I'm talking about. You have a healthy segment of people who are still conflating isolationism with NI. The media certainly didn't help, but Paul failed to clarify, not that I blame him for trying to in 30 second soundbites.
I read the wiki entry, the problem with NI is its acceptance of national sovereignty, which we don't accept on smaller scales (yet the ethical considerations are equivalent). Any of us would condone crossing a property boundary to stop an assault in progress, etc.
Cortes:For me this argument really gets to the crux of how you see the State, it is the dividing line for those who wish to follow NAP to its logical end, and that is one in which the State by default fails it on all accounts. The State is incompatible with NAP in the extreme view.
I don't think it is incompatible. The NAP provides an ethical use for coercion, and if a state could be limited to that ethical use of coercion, namely coercion used to stop aggression, then it would be a completely ethical state under the NAP. The only argument the anarchs have from that point of view is that idea that a state cannot ultimately be limited to only stopping aggression once given any power of coercion. This may or may not be true, and the only argument is a historical, not a principled one. If any person can live their whole life without becoming an aggressor--we know they can--then so can a state.
Personally, I would argue that it is the states that are predicated on a socialist ethic, namely the idea that majority vote allows you to ethically force laws on a minority that doesn't want them, that causes the march of aggression. We allow states to aggress against their citizens, and thus that first encroachment leads to inevitable further encroachments. We do not know what would occur in a state which rejects the aggression of majority rule. It's possible that aggression would be forever checked in such a state, though it's structure would be difficult to imagine perhaps in a world where people's sole conception of the state is that where all known variations accept the socialist ethic and accept law-aggression as a matter of course.
Cortes:Basically, the US has its hand in the cookie jar and its backdoor wide open. That does not mean NI is pacifism, rather it is utmost vigilance that is needed, from a Constitutional standpoint, instead of fracturing the military across the world.
Would an NI-administration have invaded Afghanistan to kill Osama, or have invaded Iraq in order to stop the invasion of Kuwait?
Cortes: If you ask me, a purely libertarian nation would have to be a friend to the oppressed the world over and would use its national power and clout to help those being aggressed against both by their own governments and by foreign governments. To me this sounds like something Will Kristol and Krauthammer would write and is entirely in line with the militarist progressive war lobbying that dominates the GOP. It is an idealism I doubt any of them seriously believe but it is damn good pseudo-religious propaganda.
Too bad (for you) it's also in line with the NAP. I don't see how you have such trouble reconciling this situation with the NAP. If it's good to rescue a person from being killed, how is it not good to rescue a nation from being destroyed by another?
Cortes:And I wonder what kind of effect you think this 'power and clout' has had. I see the results, and they look like they've made future aggression against innocent people by other governments increase tenfold. I say this observing not just the US, but all intervening nations.
I'm not defending US policy carte blanche, but rather the idea that some invasions would be legitimate under the NAP, which you seem to deny.
To theorize that without US intervention the world would be far better somehow is just that, theory.
Cortes:Not to mention the State itself is and always will be the primary aggressor, so I wonder why the irony is lost on you.
Yes, the state is the primary aggressor, but if another state stops that aggression then it has done a good thing.
Cortes:But your belief is one that is religiously engrained in the public view, unfortunately imo.
I don't know what you're talking about, since I take that view directly from my commitment to the NAP. Perhaps I don't have an irrational fear of state action such as to think it must always be irredeemable.
Cortes:It sees the State as an agent of moral activism who can serve as an arbiter of justice in any military context.
I would not agree that it can or should do that. However it is possible for a state to act ethically under the NAP.
Cortes:The ends you believe are more important than the means and you do not take into account the repercussions and blowback.
No, I would not accept any so-called good end that could only be achieved by evil means. But again, appealing to the NAP, responsive-coercion used by an individual or a state is ethical when used to stop aggression.
Anenome: Why is it okay for those who follow the NAP to stop a rape in progress they witness, but not okay for a nation-state to stop one nation from raping and killing another nation?
Walter Block explains the difference as it relates to slavery and the Civil War:
Today I unsubscribed from Rand Paul's channel. Ironically, his campaign emails are still sent to my inbox, with liberty messages, call for donation and stuffs.
Anarcho-libertarian: Anenome: Why is it okay for those who follow the NAP to stop a rape in progress they witness, but not okay for a nation-state to stop one nation from raping and killing another nation? Walter Block explains the difference as it relates to slavery and the Civil War: “If secession is always and everywhere justified, what, then, is the proper libertarian response to the existence of suttee, slavery, clitorectomy, etc., in other countries (e.g., in seceding territories)? Under limited government libertarianism, the government of the north would take no steps to rid the sovereign Confederacy of its slavery (or India of its suttee). The purpose of the state in this philosophy is to protect its own citizens. Period. And, on the (historically accurate) assumption that the Confederacy showed no indication of invading the north, but merely wanted to be left alone to its own devices, that would be the end of the matter as far as the northern government was concerned. However, even under these assumptions inpidual abolitionists would be perfectly free, and, indeed, justified, in going in to the Confederacy, guns in hand, with the intention of ridding the south of this evil institution of slavery. But if things went poorly for them, they could not then scurry back to the north, tails between their legs, hiding behind their mama’s skirts, because that would necessarily bring in the northern government into the fray. It would violate the non-invasion (except in self-defense) provision of limited government libertarianism, or minarchism.”
“If secession is always and everywhere justified, what, then, is the proper libertarian response to the existence of suttee, slavery, clitorectomy, etc., in other countries (e.g., in seceding territories)?
Under limited government libertarianism, the government of the north would take no steps to rid the sovereign Confederacy of its slavery (or India of its suttee). The purpose of the state in this philosophy is to protect its own citizens. Period. And, on the (historically accurate) assumption that the Confederacy showed no indication of invading the north, but merely wanted to be left alone to its own devices, that would be the end of the matter as far as the northern government was concerned.
However, even under these assumptions inpidual abolitionists would be perfectly free, and, indeed, justified, in going in to the Confederacy, guns in hand, with the intention of ridding the south of this evil institution of slavery. But if things went poorly for them, they could not then scurry back to the north, tails between their legs, hiding behind their mama’s skirts, because that would necessarily bring in the northern government into the fray. It would violate the non-invasion (except in self-defense) provision of limited government libertarianism, or minarchism.”
Okay, yes, that I do agree with that and it is similar along the lines of my own thoughts of how things would play out, of private parties invading in order to effect an intervention of aggression.
But, I'm not so sure I agree completely with Block's rationale that a government exists purely to protect its citizens--where is this law written, from what axiom is it a corollary? Brought from macro to mico, it would be no different than saying that an inpidual person exists solely for his own protection. Does this preclude him from taking the risk of intervening in the aggression upon a third party? Not at all.
In an inpidualist society, it is conceivable that the majority may support state action to intervene in an international conflict. The recourse of those who didn't agree would be to secede then and there and start their own state. Certainly had the US been an inpidualist state during WWII, I think the US would still have intervened in the European war. They'd have been fools not to. The NAP does not tie anyone's hands in such a scenario, and I don't know where you guys are getting this idea that an inpidualist state could not take state action ethically outside its borders, as long as that action were not an aggression. There would be cases where a defensive war would require operating outside national boundaries as well.
As for the case of the Civil War secession attempt, and his porce example, I find them equally flawed, for he proposes a false dilemma. The idea is not invasion and occupation in order to prevent a wrong, thus making a slave out of the nation being harmed, but rather to use only enough force to end the aggression, and Block equivocates here. There is a third way he doesn't even consider.
While it would have been wrong for the North to use slavery as an excuse to invade and prevent secession, it would not be wrong for the North to, as a nation, invade to stop slavery and then go home, allowing the South to still secede but now without slavery. Neither would it be wrong for a man porcing a woman to stop her from aggressing against another person, though by that he has no right to stop the porce. The issues are totally separate.
Thanks for that article too, enjoyed it :)
Anenome: While it would have been wrong for the North to use slavery as an excuse to invade and prevent secession, it would not be wrong for the North to, as a nation, invade to stop slavery and then go home, allowing the South to still secede but now without slavery. Neither would it be wrong for a man divorcing a woman to stop her from aggressing against another person, though by that he has no right to stop the divorce. The issues are totally separate.
Where would the North get the resources to do this? How many southern non-slaveowners would the North be justified in exterminating in order to enforce their will on some specific people in another nation? (Ie, southerners are not going to stand by while a foreign army marches through their fields) Block makes the case that individuals would be justified, not nations, since individuals can engage themselves and their own resources, rather than conscripting it's citizens or engaging it's volunteers in actions that those volunteers did not necessarily volunteer for.
excel:Where would the North get the resources to do this?
Were it an individualism-predicated autarchist republic? From the donations of citizens who support that cause and no one else. That is, funding would be voluntary, as any individalist republic must be founded on voluntaryism.
excel:How many southern non-slaveowners would the North be justified in exterminating in order to enforce their will on some specific people in another nation? (Ie, southerners are not going to stand by while a foreign army marches through their fields)
All those willing to use lethal force to protect their attempts to hold slave, just as any police force could use lethal force should a slave-owner attempt to use the same to hold slaves.
Also, we hardly call it "forcing their will" when stepping in to stop an aggression. We call it justice. We call it respecting the will of the party being aggressed against; in this case it would be the slaves themselves. Their predicament is what makes the action to free them ethical.
excel:Block makes the case that individuals would be justified, not nations, since individuals can engage themselves and their own resources, rather than conscripting it's citizens or engaging it's volunteers in actions that those volunteers did not necessarily volunteer for.
But an autarchist republic changes the rules a bit, since it would not use compulsory funds for any action, only subscripted funds, and any soldiers moving to that cause would similarly be volunteers for it. An autarchist republic's national actions are merely a way for large segments of a society to collectively act, voluntarily. It's like a melding of state and private action because it mixes the attributes of both. In an autarchist republic you would have precisely those who want to pay for it paying for it, and those soldiers who want to be involved in the war invovled in it. So what then?
There appears to be a category error here where you (and Block by extension) have assumed that all states must be a certain way, yet an autarchist republic seems to transcend the category. But it's hard to blame you, since the autarchist republic I have in mind is my own quite recent invention and has no historical precedent :P
Anenome:Were it an individualism-predicated autarchist republic? From the donations of citizens who support that cause and no one else. That is, funding would be voluntary, as any individalist republic must be founded on voluntaryism.
Anenome:All those willing to use lethal force to protect their attempts to hold slave, just as any police force could use lethal force should a slave-owner attempt to use the same to hold slaves. Also, we hardly call it "forcing their will" when stepping in to stop an aggression. We call it justice. We call it respecting the will of the party being aggressed against; in this case it would be the slaves themselves. Their predicament is what makes the action to free them ethical.
Not really answering my question. How many of the people who live between the northern abolitionists and the southern slave holders, people whose livelihoods would be trampled by an army marching through their (corn/cotton/cabbage fields, choking up or turning their roads to mud, consuming their water), people who would not necessarily be aware that this was an abolitionist movement and therefore would believe that they are being invaded, or people who plain don't want outlanders wandering around on their property or within their individualist-predicated autarchist republic with guns and intent on causing trouble (shooting stuff up) are the northerners justified in murdering in order to satisfy their moral perjorative?
Anenome:But an autarchist republic changes the rules a bit, since it would not use compulsory funds for any action, only subscripted funds, and any soldiers moving to that cause would similarly be volunteers for it. An autarchist republic's national actions are merely a way for large segments of a society to collectively act, voluntarily. It's like a melding of state and private action because it mixes the attributes of both. In an autarchist republic you would have precisely those who want to pay for it paying for it, and those soldiers who want to be involved in the war invovled in it. So what then? There appears to be a category error here where you (and Block by extension) have assumed that all states must be a certain way, yet an autarchist republic seems to transcend the category. But it's hard to blame you, since the autarchist republic I have in mind is my own quite recent invention and has no historical precedent :P
Basically it isn't a category error so much as you've come up with another more elaborate name for anarchism. Ie, you're saying, society is going to be completely voluntary ( basically anarchist voluntarism ) but let's pretend there's some framework that makes up a state there anyway.
Anemone:Why not the state? The state is only a group of people, after all. Do you maintain that the state can only be an aggressor?
To use a Randian expression, the state qua the state is necessarily a systematic aggressor. Otherwise, it would seem that any group of people could be called a state.
Anemone:Here's where I leave the anarchs behind--they indict the state on all counts from a moral point of view as only capable of aggression.
That's definitely a strawman. We don't claim that the state is only capable of aggression. Rather, we claim that it must commit aggression - and systematically, at that. That is, we consider systematic aggression to be the essence of the state.
Anemone:However, we can derive from a NAP uses of coercion that are ethical, namely responsive-coercion used to stop aggressive-coercion.
I don't see how this refutes your previous statement. Clearly you don't consider "coercion" to mean the same thing as "aggression".
Is your phrase "a NAP" a typo? Or do you think there is a multitude (if not an infinitude) of non-aggression principles?
Anemone:If a state uses only responsive-coercion to stop aggression, they are doing the right thing and so would anybody in the same position. This is actually what we, as in people everywhere, really want the state to do, to protect basic rights. This is why we have the state.
Setting aside the question of what actually constitutes "basic rights", the issue is that we (anarcho-capitalists/voluntaryists) see the state as a monopoly that's maintained by some amount of aggression. Again, that doesn't mean that everything the state does is or must be aggression. As I've asked you before, why must there be a monopoly in the protection of "basic rights"?
Anemone:The state has certainly grown beyond just fulfilling that need, but that need remains. As long as a purely ethical role exists for a minimal state to fulfill those essential needs, it will not be rational to reject the state entirely unless we can either show that the state can never fill that need, and/or we can show that private entities can fill that need entirely. Various stabs have been taken at either end, but never has either been conclusively shown.
What would count as "conclusively" to you?
Okay. So, if you have a coercive state that is being "too coercive" then we can side with another state that is willing to protect the people in the previous state by corecing the indiviuduals at home?
State A: Aggressing
State B: Responsive
State A is in the wrong, when fundamentally, State B participates in the same behavior? Lots of sense made there. What Al Qaeda does is closer to fighting off an aggressive state than a "war" as we define them.
In condemning all wars, regardless of motive, the libertarian knows that there may well be varying degrees of guilt among States for any specific war. But the overriding consideration for the libertarian is the condemnation of any State participation in war. Hence his policy is that of exerting pressure on all States not to start a war, to stop one that has begun and to reduce the scope of any persisting war in injuring civilians of either side or no side. A neglected corollary to the libertarian policy of peaceful coexistence of States is the rigorous abstention from any foreign aid; that is, a policy of nonintervention between States (= "isolationism" = "neutralism"). For any aid given by State A to State B (1) increases tax aggression against the people of country A and (2) aggravates the suppression by State B of its own people. If there are any revolutionary groups in country B, then foreign aid intensifies this suppression all the more. Even foreign aid to a revolutionary group in B – more defensible because directed to a voluntary group opposing a State rather than a State oppressing the people – must be condemned as (at the very least) aggravating tax aggression at home. Let us see how libertarian theory applies to the problem of imperialism, which may be defined as the aggression by State A over the people of country B, and the subsequent maintenance of this foreign rule. Revolution by the B people against the imperial rule of A is certainly legitimate, provided again that revolutionary fire be directed only against the rulers. It has often been maintained – even by libertarians – that Western imperialism over undeveloped countries should be supported as more watchful of property rights than any successor native government would be. The first reply is that judging what might follow the status quo is purely speculative, whereas existing imperialist rule is all too real and culpable. Moreover, the libertarian here begins his focus at the wrong end – at the alleged benefit of imperialism to the native. He should, on the contrary, concentrate first on the Western taxpayer, who is mulcted and burdened to pay for the wars of conquest, and then for the maintenance of the imperial bureaucracy. On this ground alone, the libertarian must condemn imperialism. Does opposition to all war mean that the libertarian can never countenance change – that he is consigning the world to a permanent freezing of unjust regimes? Certainly not. Suppose, for example, that the hypothetical state of "Waldavia" has attacked "Ruritania" and annexed the western part of the country. The Western Ruritanians now long to be reunited with their Ruritanian brethren. How is this to be achieved? There is, of course, the route of peaceful negotiation between the two powers, but suppose that the Waldavian imperialists prove adamant. Or, libertarian Waldavians can put pressure on their government to abandon its conquest in the name of justice. But suppose that this, too, does not work. What then? We must still maintain the illegitimacy of Ruritania's mounting a war against Waldavia. The legitimate routes are (1) revolutionary uprisings by the oppressed Western Ruritanian people, and (2) aid by private Ruritanian groups (or, for that matter, by friends of the Ruritanian cause in other countries) to the Western rebels – either in the form of equipment or of volunteer personnel. --Murray Rothbard
A neglected corollary to the libertarian policy of peaceful coexistence of States is the rigorous abstention from any foreign aid; that is, a policy of nonintervention between States (= "isolationism" = "neutralism"). For any aid given by State A to State B (1) increases tax aggression against the people of country A and (2) aggravates the suppression by State B of its own people. If there are any revolutionary groups in country B, then foreign aid intensifies this suppression all the more. Even foreign aid to a revolutionary group in B – more defensible because directed to a voluntary group opposing a State rather than a State oppressing the people – must be condemned as (at the very least) aggravating tax aggression at home.
Let us see how libertarian theory applies to the problem of imperialism, which may be defined as the aggression by State A over the people of country B, and the subsequent maintenance of this foreign rule. Revolution by the B people against the imperial rule of A is certainly legitimate, provided again that revolutionary fire be directed only against the rulers. It has often been maintained – even by libertarians – that Western imperialism over undeveloped countries should be supported as more watchful of property rights than any successor native government would be. The first reply is that judging what might follow the status quo is purely speculative, whereas existing imperialist rule is all too real and culpable. Moreover, the libertarian here begins his focus at the wrong end – at the alleged benefit of imperialism to the native. He should, on the contrary, concentrate first on the Western taxpayer, who is mulcted and burdened to pay for the wars of conquest, and then for the maintenance of the imperial bureaucracy. On this ground alone, the libertarian must condemn imperialism.
Does opposition to all war mean that the libertarian can never countenance change – that he is consigning the world to a permanent freezing of unjust regimes? Certainly not. Suppose, for example, that the hypothetical state of "Waldavia" has attacked "Ruritania" and annexed the western part of the country. The Western Ruritanians now long to be reunited with their Ruritanian brethren. How is this to be achieved? There is, of course, the route of peaceful negotiation between the two powers, but suppose that the Waldavian imperialists prove adamant. Or, libertarian Waldavians can put pressure on their government to abandon its conquest in the name of justice. But suppose that this, too, does not work. What then? We must still maintain the illegitimacy of Ruritania's mounting a war against Waldavia. The legitimate routes are (1) revolutionary uprisings by the oppressed Western Ruritanian people, and (2) aid by private Ruritanian groups (or, for that matter, by friends of the Ruritanian cause in other countries) to the Western rebels – either in the form of equipment or of volunteer personnel.
--Murray Rothbard
Notice Rothbard requires private groups to donate and lobby for the ending of aggression by any state.
What if it is 1916 and I think that the British and French are about to aggress against Germany and Austria-Hungary? Or Vice versa?
You see, what you divide into corecion for the right reason (responsive) and wrong reason (aggression) is completely up to perspective (and therefore a value judgement and therefore not relevant to most people). By forcing me to protect Britain and France, you force me to aggress against Germany and Austria. The state has no ethical position of which it is safe from claims of hypocrisy.
"Sure, the U.S. claims that it loves democracy, but it fixes elections at home and overthrows democratically elected governments abroad."
"Sure, the U.S. talks about human rights, when it isn't bombing third world countries."
Further, we do not have a state. The people who can make the resources of the state do what they want have a state. They do not use those resources to "protect basic rights."
I agree with Jack Hunter's analysis. But I don't see it as a bad thing that Alex Jones and Adam Kokesh would reject Rand Paul and all electoral politics at this point. Those guys need to stay radical, whereas Rand is looking to expand the "irate, tireless minority" into a majority among voters, so that he has a chance to get elected President in 2016. Given this goal, I can see why it makes sense for Rand to endorse Romney.
Rand's target audience is different to Ron's, and Rand's target audience highly values Party loyalty. I am sure there are many Republicans out there who never really paid any attention to Ron simply because they did not consider him a Republican loyalist... which is why the media always made sure to ask Ron if he intended to run third-party again. These people have ears closed to the message when delivered by Ron, but they may be open to hearing it in repackaged form from Rand, as long as Rand differentiates himself from Ron and endorses Romney in 2012.
The gamble for Rand is whether he will be able to retain the Ron Paul purists and how effective he will be without the support of radicals like Jones, Kokesh and Rockwell.
Does anybody know how well-read Rand Paul is? How would he cope with questions like those Robert Wenzel asked of Gary Johnson?
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government