Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Rand Paul...

rated by 0 users
This post has 109 Replies | 11 Followers

Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

Does anybody know how well-read Rand Paul is?  How would he cope with questions like those Robert Wenzel asked of Gary Johnson?

He wrote a book.  I use the word 'wrote' loosely.  It is mostly about him (which is a red flag for me) and it appears to have a lot of things in there that say "John McCain isn't an 'imperialist'."  My ass he isn't.  Surely, Rand would notice the blatant imperialism of McCain, Graham, and Lieberman...the Georgia thing (south ossetia), Israel, Iran, etc.  Things do not look good.

Rand is going to water down the message.  We'll go from 'End the FED' to 'let me install the light bulbs I want'.  And it sends shivers down my spine when I hear people (or see typed) things like, "But, that is a step in the direction of freedom!"  As if giving up on the central banking cartel and the military industrial complex for raw milk and toilet bowl water usage freedom is somehow comparable.

puhlease.

"Linguistic" analysis of Rand's endorsement (highly optimistic)

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Jun 11 2012 4:09 PM
 
 

Autolykos:
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.

I'm sure you believe this to be true, but I've yet to hear any arguments proving it in principle. The state is necerssarily a coercer, that much is true, that is what makes it a state, however the NAP offers elucidation of two types of coercion: ethical responsive-coercion and unethical aggressive-coercion. You simply decide that a state can only use aggression or must inevitably use aggression when you say things like this, and clearly it would be possibly for a state to only use responsive-coercion, thus a state is not necessarily an aggressor just because it has public sanction to use coercion. Inasmuch as it uses that coercion purely for rights protection and the like, it does a good, ethical thing and is not an aggressor. I've never heard a principled argument explain why a state must inevitably use aggression, only statements to that effect as above.

Autolykos:
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.

You're saying the state cannot avoid using aggression, gotcha. That's slightly more refined that saying 'only' as I had before, meaning you admit the possibility of the state using ethical forms of aggression, but you maintain that the state eventually 'must' aggress, for unspecified reasons. Is that right? I'd love to hear a principled argument why you consider that to be the case. I've never seen one. What is it that precipitates this eventual aggression?

What does it mean to call it the essence of the state? That's a non-statement that really says nothing. Does it mean that without systematic aggression you couldn't call a group of people a state? Even though they had public sanction on the use of force and were using it to protect basic rights? That would be a bit silly I think.

Would that mean that you wouldn't call an autarchist republic a state? If a "non-state" were using responsive-coercion only and then one day used aggression, do they suddenly become a state in your eyes? Aren't you simply defining a state as an aggressor outright?

Autolykos:

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?

Typo. Meant to write 'the NAP'; no I do not claim some silly multitude of NAPs. I wrote it to show that we can derive moral uses of force from principle. If a state could hold purely to reponsive-coercion they would never be an aggressor and that would be a very good thing. The question then is if it is possible for such a state to exist without aggressing.

But then, there's never been a state in actuality like an autarchist republic, so it's difficult for me to accept historical arguments in this state of affairs. In a society where the socialist-ethic of majority-rule sanctions forcing laws on people, I'll accept readily that such a state is in fact innately aggressive, because majority-rule is innately aggressive. I don't know why you never brought that up before actually because it's a damn good point :P But an autarchist republic rejects majority rule. It may then not be innately aggressive. Yet it is still a state. So it seems to violate your claim that a state is innately aggressive.

Which is to say, you assume all states must be X, but there are other forms of states that you may have not considered which aren't X. If you said all states in history are X and thereby innately aggressive, I would have to agree immediately, but that would still say nothing about future states.

Autolykos:
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.

The state need neither be a monopoly nor use aggression to maintain that. So, once again you criticize the state for attributes that are not necessarily existent and then assume that all states must simply be that way.

An autarchist republic rejects citizen-capture within a jurisdiction based on a commitment to voluntaryism, so it does not monopolize people but freely allows them to enter voluntarily and leave by their own choice.

Autolykos:
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"?

There need not be, and indeed should not be. But, as I've explained before, the nature of  law is such that it must have a territorial monopoly within its jurisdiction--you can't have competing governments in the same jurisdictional, law simply doesn't work that way. But it is desirable to allow experimentation. Thus the way you circumvent monopoly is by allowing people to move between jurisdictions freely, via micro-secession. The competition comes from the ability to move to abandon a jurisdiction and join or start another.

As for actual physical protection of basic rights, in case you were referring to police, I don't think there should be a monopoly on physical enforcement at all. Police are not essential to a state's operation, and can be provided privately.

Autolykos:

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?

In lieu of actual evidence, at the very least a principled reasoning through. Seems to me that no society has long existed of any considerable size without a sanctioned use of force to combat aggression in society. Even the wild west had the sheriff, about as minimal a government as you can get.

The idea of no sanctioned use of force immediately runs into a couple problems. The problem of slavery, 3rd party aggression, and abuse, etc. In such societies, with no impersonal force whose goal is to protect basic rights of everyone without any personal involvement in the situation, you would have the strong man able to hold slaves quite literally. That is untenable. And you'd eventually find the strong man acting as if he were government.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Jun 11 2012 4:17 PM
 
 

excel:

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?

There's a lot of assumptions built in there. You assume people don't have word of what's happening. Why then would they be attacked or simply attack themselves? If they don't know what's going on and attack an army, it's ethical to defend yourself--he's being foolish. If the soldiers attack him though he's not attacking, then they should be prosecuted for murder.

In any case, I'm not going to ever give sanction to an aggression.

excel:
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.

Where I and the anarchs differ is in what I call the essential functions of the state which are why societies around the world historically have setup states. These are the necessary functions a society asks any state to fulfill, though most states go well beyond these essentials into unessentials.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 853
Points 17,830

Aristophanes:

Does anybody know how well-read Rand Paul is?  How would he cope with questions like those Robert Wenzel asked of Gary Johnson?

He wrote a book.  I use the word 'wrote' loosely.  It is mostly about him (which is a red flag for me) and it appears to have a lot of things in there that say "John McCain isn't an 'imperialist'."  My ass he isn't.  Surely, Rand would notice the blatant imperialism of McCain, Graham, and Lieberman...the Georgia thing (south ossetia), Israel, Iran, etc.  Things do not look good.

Have you read it?  It doesn't seem like a philosophical book like any of Ron's.  I'm interested to know if Rand has read Mises and Rothbard.  I'm not going to judge him on the way he presents himself to the mainstream.  If I had done that with Ron Paul, I never would have realised he is a voluntarist.

Also what did Rand say about Ron's Liberty Defined?

Rand is going to water down the message.  We'll go from 'End the FED' to 'let me install the light bulbs I want'.  And it sends shivers down my spine when I hear people (or see typed) things like, "But, that is a step in the direction of freedom!"  As if giving up on the central banking cartel and the military industrial complex for raw milk and toilet bowl water usage freedom is somehow comparable.

puhlease.

I think it's possible Rand is just "getting warmed up" by bringing up mundane examples of government intrusions.  I believe he may become more radical in his rhetoric over time.

Good article.  It is obvious from his body language that he did "hold his nose and make a deal" by endorsing Romney.  I think it's quite likely he is "acting as a double agent" (in the words in the article), although I wouldn't put it like that, any more than I would say that Ron is acting as a double agent (by posing as a Constitutionalist, while being a voluntarist).  It's a means to get a foot in the door.  Whether it's worth getting Rand through the door depends, for me, on how dedicated he is to the liberty message.  Does he understand the depth of the movement he has become a part of?

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 16
Points 335

Good. The Empire needs to be brought closer towards its destruction and Romney is the right man to do it.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

So...I didn't know this, but Jack Hunter is the co-writer of Rand's book...  I don't recall seeing his name anywhere on it.

"...wily words whirl worlds."

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 247
Points 4,055
excel replied on Tue, Jun 12 2012 2:25 AM

Anenome:
There's a lot of assumptions built in there. You assume people don't have word of what's happening. Why then would they be attacked or simply attack themselves? If they don't know what's going on and attack an army, it's ethical to defend yourself--he's being foolish. If the soldiers attack him though he's not attacking, then they should be prosecuted for murder. In any case, I'm not going to ever give sanction to an aggression.

I simply won't assume that people who have volunteered for a 'righeous' cause are somehow angels that have the ability to surgically remove evildoers from the world. When reality hits and the invaders end up massacring thousands of innocents, who is going to prosecute them for murder? 

Anenome:

Where I and the anarchs differ is in what I call the essential functions of the state which are why societies around the world historically have setup states. These are the necessary functions a society asks any state to fulfill, though most states go well beyond these essentials into unessentials.

How will those functions be paid for?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Tue, Jun 12 2012 2:42 AM
 
 

excel:

Anenome:
There's a lot of assumptions built in there. You assume people don't have word of what's happening. Why then would they be attacked or simply attack themselves? If they don't know what's going on and attack an army, it's ethical to defend yourself--he's being foolish. If the soldiers attack him though he's not attacking, then they should be prosecuted for murder. In any case, I'm not going to ever give sanction to an aggression.

I simply won't assume that people who have volunteered for a 'righeous' cause are somehow angels that have the ability to surgically remove evildoers from the world. When reality hits and the invaders end up massacring thousands of innocents, who is going to prosecute them for murder?

They'd rightly be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which they committed the crime, or barring that their home territory.

excel:
Anenome:

Where I and the anarchs differ is in what I call the essential functions of the state which are why societies around the world historically have setup states. These are the necessary functions a society asks any state to fulfill, though most states go well beyond these essentials into unessentials.

How will those functions be paid for?

Fee for service and voluntary subscriptions as people desire. Not taxation. These essential functions are dispute resolution and protection of basic rights.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 247
Points 4,055
excel replied on Tue, Jun 12 2012 3:32 AM

Anenome:
They'd rightly be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which they committed the crime, or barring that their home territory.

You mean a standing army would let itself be prosecuted by the people it just massacred?

Anenome:
Fee for service and voluntary subscriptions as people desire. Not taxation. These essential functions are dispute resolution and protection of basic rights.

And when noone pays those fees or subscribe?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Tue, Jun 12 2012 8:41 AM

Anemone:
I'm sure you believe this to be true, but I've yet to hear any arguments proving it in principle. The state is necerssarily a coercer, that much is true, that is what makes it a state, however the NAP offers elucidation of two types of coercion: ethical responsive-coercion and unethical aggressive-coercion. You simply decide that a state can only use aggression or must inevitably use aggression when you say things like this, and clearly it would be possibly for a state to only use responsive-coercion, thus a state is not necessarily an aggressor just because it has public sanction to use coercion. Inasmuch as it uses that coercion purely for rights protection and the like, it does a good, ethical thing and is not an aggressor. I've never heard a principled argument explain why a state must inevitably use aggression, only statements to that effect as above.

I'm really surprised that you would say that you've never heard an argument explaining why a state must inevitably use aggression. Have you read anything written by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, to name just one example of someone who has advanced such an argument?

But maybe I'm shortening my arguments too much, because it's obvious to me that any monopoly over the legitimate use of force must ultimately employ aggression, because any monopoly is ultimately maintained only by aggression. That is to say, it will aggress against people in preventing them from using some other agreed-upon means of resolving disputes.

Anemone:
You're saying the state cannot avoid using aggression, gotcha. That's slightly more refined that saying 'only' as I had before, meaning you admit the possibility of the state using ethical forms of aggression, but you maintain that the state eventually 'must' aggress, for unspecified reasons. Is that right? I'd love to hear a principled argument why you consider that to be the case. I've never seen one. What is it that precipitates this eventual aggression?

See above.

Anemone:
What does it mean to call it the essence of the state? That's a non-statement that really says nothing. Does it mean that without systematic aggression you couldn't call a group of people a state?

It's a question of definition. Anarcho-capitalists/voluntaryists typically define "state" such that employing systematic aggression is an essential feature of it. So to call it the essence of (what we call) the state is hardly a non-statement, if you ask me. But to answer your question, yes it does mean that. If something doesn't satisfy the conditions contained in a definition for a word, it can't logically be called by that word.

Anemone:
Even though they had public sanction on the use of force and were using it to protect basic rights? That would be a bit silly I think.

Why is that? I'm sorry but I really don't understand what makes it "a bit silly" in your opinion.

Anemone:
Would that mean that you wouldn't call an autarchist republic a state? If a "non-state" were using responsive-coercion only and then one day used aggression, do they suddenly become a state in your eyes? Aren't you simply defining a state as an aggressor outright?

No, I don't think so. The difference between the state and any other aggressor is that the state enjoys widespread legitimacy while any other aggressor doesn't.

I still don't have a full understanding of your notion of an "autarchist republic", and since you're apparently still in the process of fleshing it out, I don't expect to have a full understanding of it anytime soon. But that doesn't deter you from inserting your yet-to-be-fleshed-out notion into debates as though it were already fleshed out. I call that "dishonesty".

Anemone:
Typo. Meant to write 'the NAP'; no I do not claim some silly multitude of NAPs. I wrote it to show that we can derive moral uses of force from principle. If a state could hold purely to reponsive-coercion they would never be an aggressor and that would be a very good thing. The question then is if it is possible for such a state to exist without aggressing.

It's becoming clear to me that you and I don't mean the same thing by the word "state". Have you offered your definition anywhere? If not, could you please do so in your next post?

Anemone:
But then, there's never been a state in actuality like an autarchist republic, so it's difficult for me to accept historical arguments in this state of affairs. In a society where the socialist-ethic of majority-rule sanctions forcing laws on people, I'll accept readily that such a state is in fact innately aggressive, because majority-rule is innately aggressive. I don't know why you never brought that up before actually because it's a damn good point :P But an autarchist republic rejects majority rule. It may then not be innately aggressive. Yet it is still a state. So it seems to violate your claim that a state is innately aggressive.

Again, we seem to be using different definitions for the word "state". If a group of people is forcibly preventing others from seeking out alternative arrangements, then ceteris paribus I consider that group to be committing aggression. I define "state" as "a group of people which purports to hold a monopoly over legitimate coercion", which implies that it purports to hold a monopoly over the legitimate settling of disputes. So either your yet-to-be-fleshed-out "autarchist republic" satisfies this definition, in which case it must logically be called a "state", or it does not, in which case it must logically not be called a "state". But since you apparently haven't finished fleshing out this "autarchist republic", the jury's still out on whether it meets my definition of a "state". Whether you define "state" different is, quite frankly, completely irrelevant.

Anemone:
Which is to say, you assume all states must be X, but there are other forms of states that you may have not considered which aren't X. If you said all states in history are X and thereby innately aggressive, I would have to agree immediately, but that would still say nothing about future states.

My definition of "state" doesn't depend upon any particular history. Neither does yours, I imagine. You're of course free to define the word "state" however you like, but unless we agree on a definition for "state" to use in this discourse, we won't achieve as much mutual understanding and communication as we otherwise would have achieved.

To put it another way, if I define "state" a certain way, such that the proposition "all states are X" is true by definition (i.e. it's an analytic statement, akin to "all bachelors are unmarried", not a synthetic statement), then anything which is not X cannot logically be called a "state". There is no "proper definition" of "state" to be discovered out in the world.

Anemone:
The state need neither be a monopoly nor use aggression to maintain that. So, once again you criticize the state for attributes that are not necessarily existent and then assume that all states must simply be that way.

This again highlights our different definitions. Like I said above, if I define "state" such that certain attributes must be present, then anything which doesn't have all of those attributes cannot logically be called a "state". You asserting that "the state need neither be a monopoly nor use aggression to maintain that" simply means you're defining the word "state" differently from me.

Anemone:
An autarchist republic rejects citizen-capture within a jurisdiction based on a commitment to voluntaryism, so it does not monopolize people but freely allows them to enter voluntarily and leave by their own choice.

Yet people within this alleged "jurisdiction" (as it's apparently territorial) are presumably not allowed to resolve disputes without involving the "autarchist republic". For that to have any physical relevance, the "autarchist republic" will threaten and/or use force to prevent people from resolving disputes without involving it. Since you claim it rejects "citizen-capture" (I assume you mean arrest and imprisonment), the only force it would threaten or use would be to remove people from its "jurisdiction". However, if such a removed person owns immovable property within the "jurisdiction", then being removed from the "jurisdiction" means being forcibly kept away from at least some of his property. In such a situation, at the very least, I would consider the threat or use of force to remove someone from the "jurisdiction" to be aggressive. Furthermore, if the "autarchist republic" claims the authority to forcibly remove people from immovable property that they claim to own, that means it's claiming itself as the actual owner of that immovable property, as it's claiming that its decisions regarding that immovable property supersede those of the people who claim to own it.

Note that I use the phrase "immovable property" above in the hope that you won't try to insert your floating-island scenario, as I consider the context to be far broader than that. I will categorically oppose any and all attempts to narrow the context in that way.

Anemone:
There need not be, and indeed should not be. But, as I've explained before, the nature of  law is such that it must have a territorial monopoly within its jurisdiction--you can't have competing governments in the same jurisdictional, law simply doesn't work that way. But it is desirable to allow experimentation. Thus the way you circumvent monopoly is by allowing people to move between jurisdictions freely, via micro-secession. The competition comes from the ability to move to abandon a jurisdiction and join or start another.

You should understand by now that I haven't found your explanation satisfying. Let me ask you this: if people are compelled to resolve disputes through a single institution, do you think that institution constitutes a monopoly or not?

Anemone:
As for actual physical protection of basic rights, in case you were referring to police, I don't think there should be a monopoly on physical enforcement at all. Police are not essential to a state's operation, and can be provided privately.

Do you consider dispute resolution to be essential to a state's operation?

Anemone:
In lieu of actual evidence, at the very least a principled reasoning through. Seems to me that no society has long existed of any considerable size without a sanctioned use of force to combat aggression in society. Even the wild west had the sheriff, about as minimal a government as you can get.

The idea of no sanctioned use of force immediately runs into a couple problems. The problem of slavery, 3rd party aggression, and abuse, etc. In such societies, with no impersonal force whose goal is to protect basic rights of everyone without any personal involvement in the situation, you would have the strong man able to hold slaves quite literally. That is untenable. And you'd eventually find the strong man acting as if he were government.

Here you again put a strawman in place of what anarcho-capitalists/voluntaryists actually say. We look at it like this: any use of force to combat aggression in society - that is, any use of non-aggressive force in response to aggressive force - is legitimate and therefore sanctioned. We see no need to constrain this legitimacy and sanction to a certain group of people wearing certain costumes etc.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Tue, Jun 12 2012 9:18 AM

Murray responds to a question regarding his “endorsement” of Johnson over Goldwater in ‘64. This parallels the recent accusation made by Jack Hunter (The Southern Avenger) that Rothbard endorsed George H. Bush in ‘92, which is apparently meant to validate Rand Paul’s endorsement of Mitt Romney.

The article provides a contrasting of/comparison given the two evils presented. Rothbard ends by saying:

  • “A vote for Bill Clinton is a vote to destroy the last vestige of parental control and responsibility in America. A victory for Bush will—at least partly—hold back the hordes for another four years. Of course, that is not exactly soul-satisfying. What would be soul-satisfying would be taking the offensive at long last, launching a counter-revolution in government, in the economy, in the culture, everywhere against malignant left-liberalism. When oh when do we get to start?

That revolution commenced with Ron Paul’s 2007 presidential campaign, and arrived largely in full force this year. Foreshadowing this, Rothbard was asked in ‘89 who he would support in the ‘92 election. He goes on to discuss Ron Paul who could “knock the socks of Bush”.

So, what’s the difference between Rothbard’s “endorsement” and Rand Paul’s?

Rand made a positive endorsement of Romney. There was no attempt to contrast Romney and Obama. In fact, Rand Paul is going to campaign for Romney even in light of there being a revolution underway. Any attempts at comparing Rothbard’s actions with that of Rand’s are severely lacking.

Furthermore see: "Rothbard Vindicated: Idealist and Strategist" by Lew Rockwell

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

Have we moved passed the naive "let's reform it" epoch?

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,249
Points 70,775

From Peter Schiff's Radio website:

Our second guest is Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky's junior Republican senator, on why he's backing Mitt Romney.

Free download will be available in about an hour at http://schiffradio.com/, will be available for about a week. Look for the "Today" tab [June 12, 2012].

 

My humble blog

It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

I really like the Lew Rockwell interview of how Rand Paul was never really a libertarian. People expect him to be a carbon-copy of his father and he is not that. 

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

Rand hinted that "you don't even know" the kind of influence "we" will have over the party platform "yet."

@10:40 "Our ability in the platform committee is gonna be much greater than anybody really even publicly knows at this point."

Pretty ambiguous, but could inspire optimism in some.

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

I think this notion that Rand is secretly working for the betterment of the "liberty movement" is a pretty convoluted one. It is not some master plan. He is staying alive in the party. That is all. He is not his father.

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 63
Points 915
acft replied on Tue, Jun 12 2012 11:28 PM

Don't worry guys, I'm sure voting will work some day.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

Oh voting works. I don't think anyone is saying that it doesn't. It is just what is being voted on and the existence of voting that disturbs some people.

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 63
Points 915
acft replied on Tue, Jun 12 2012 11:39 PM

Check out this thread, Andrew. I am curious about your views.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 247
Points 4,055
excel replied on Wed, Jun 13 2012 4:36 AM

Conza88:

So, what’s the difference between Rothbard’s “endorsement” and Rand Paul’s?

Rand made a positive endorsement of Romney. There was no attempt to contrast Romney and Obama. In fact, Rand Paul is going to campaign for Romney even in light of there being a revolution underway. Any attempts at comparing Rothbard’s actions with that of Rand’s are severely lacking.

The other difference: Rothbard was a virtual nobody in politics and he could say whatever the hell he wanted about politicians and their views and it wouldn't bite him in the ass in regards to any political changes he was trying to push through. Because he wasn't actually trying to push through ANY changes, unlike Rand Paul. Rothbard led the philosophical movement. The philosophical movement that hasn't made any remarkable inroad until Ron Paul.

If you think refusal to give an endorsement of Romney (an endorsement that I would call bland and neutral rather than positive) wouldn't impact Rands ability to garner support for liberty-minded bills among republicans in the senate, you strongly underestimate the childishness of the GOP.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Jun 13 2012 5:22 AM
 
 

Andrew Cain:

Oh voting works. I don't think anyone is saying that it doesn't. It is just what is being voted on and the existence of voting that disturbs some people.

Voting is little more than the choice of whom should rule you, like hens electing which foxes to let into the chicken-coop. It's long been equated with freedom--the French thought they were free because they elected Napolean :P But is it?

I have an ethical problem with voting, which is that voting is the mechanism that gives legitimacy to the concept of majority rule. I think we should abandon majority rule because it constitutes aggression against the minority whom have their will overrided and have laws forced on them.

Many things will never change as long as we accept the idea that one person's ideas or way of living can be forced on others.

That link ACTF pointed you to contains my idea of an autarchic republic which would abadon the idea of majority rule for individual rule, a political order predicated not on the socialist-ethic of majority rule but on the individualist-ethic of self-rule, otherwise known as autarchy.

Were the world to abandon the democratic republic, which is inherently predicated on the socialist-ethic, for the individualist autarchic republic, we would likely achieve the kind of voluntaryist world libertarians have been dreaming about for so long.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Wed, Jun 13 2012 7:41 AM

excel:
The other difference: Rothbard was a virtual nobody in politics and he could say whatever the hell he wanted about politicians and their views and it wouldn't bite him in the ass in regards to any political changes he was trying to push through. Because he wasn't actually trying to push through ANY changes, unlike Rand Paul. Rothbard led the philosophical movement. The philosophical movement that hasn't made any remarkable inroad until Ron Paul.

Mostly yes.

excel:
If you think refusal to give an endorsement of Romney (an endorsement that I would call bland and neutral rather than positive) wouldn't impact Rands ability to garner support for liberty-minded bills among republicans in the senate, you strongly underestimate the childishness of the GOP.

If you think that attempting to 'play ball', and 'selling out' to the GOP on any kind of matter will bring about liberty, or any kind of positive benefit... then you strongly underestimate the childishness of the GOP.

Ron Paul delegates who decided to vote for McCain at the '08 RNC... because they believed, and were told it would help curry favor with the GOP... Well.. LOOK HOW THAT TURNED OUT.

Rand accomplishes nothing but negatives with his endorsement.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

Check out this thread, Andrew. I am curious about your views.

I do not believe in minarchism. I think any form of constitutionalism is doomed, while not to repeat because I do  not believe history is cyclical, to at least correlate with the current system. This notion that we started off as a "free" nation that simply got lost along the way is disingenuous. Even when settlers got to Jamestown in 1607, they were utilizing government (around 1620) to protect their cartelized tobacco interests.  They were the head of the courts and local offices and a plutocracy was installed even then. Now obviously this is not the same plutocracy but plutocracy is still around. It is just different people, not a different "game." So how do I think we achieve liberty in our time, if such a thing is possible? Watch the system destroy itself. If socialism is really doomed to fail like Mises and Rothbard state in their economic theory, then we just let it fail. A lot of people want to get out and do something which is obviously fine. Right now I am more concerned with doing what makes me happy, disregarding the news and waiting for the system to collapse on itself. If seasteading happens, I might move out to one of them once they have established themselves. If a state leaves the union, same thing. Until then I just play my games and try to make smart comments about stuff. 

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

"Voting is little more than the choice of whom should rule you, like hens electing which foxes to let into the chicken-coop. It's long been equated with freedom--the French thought they were free because they elected Napolean :P But is it?"

And that is why voting is effective because it gives the semblance of you having choice in how you are ruled. 

"That link ACTF pointed you to contains my idea of an autarchic republic which would abadon the idea of majority rule for individual rule, a political order predicated not on the socialist-ethic of majority rule but on the individualist-ethic of self-rule, otherwise known as autarchy.

Were the world to abandon the democratic republic, which is inherently predicated on the socialist-ethic, for the individualist autarchic republic, we would likely achieve the kind of voluntaryist world libertarians have been dreaming about for so long."

That is what the country started as in theory. A constitutional republic is one that has the interests of the common man's rights at heart and is codified into a document (a constitution). The problem is that the government will always see the people as rabble needing a firm guiding hand by elites in government. That was the argument between Jefferson and Hamilton, though Jefferson at first agreed more with Hamilton's views on how to rule the people. He mellowed out in his later years. The question between them was not so much self-rule or aristocratic rule. It was disinterested politicians or interested politicians. Disinterested implying that one does not get into government to better one's self and your friends. Jefferson believed disinterested elites should be in power to guide the people and not to gain from such guidance. Kind of like serving the public of miscreants who are your social lessers. Hamilton, I would say, was more bodacious about having elites create this system and guide it to fruition. Historians call it the American plan or American school. This was the notion that government must be there to provide infrastructure such as roads, banks and waterways or else American would have lopsided development or underdevelopment. I mean you cannot trust the people to build the Erie canal. They are illiterate mobs of drunkards who would sooner trade their crops for whiskey then for better infrastructure. Some people like to think that Jefferson won. He never did. There was really no "Age of Jefferson" or Jeffersonian politics unless you follow his earlier ideas which again were closer to Hamilton. It has always been Hamilton. It has always been the plutocracy using courts to set prices for tobacco or liquor or prohibit sales, utilize fines, etc. etc. 

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Wed, Jun 13 2012 9:02 AM

In other words, Andrew, the business of America is business.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

"In other words, Andrew, the business of America is business."

I would not call it business. I would say exploitation but not in the Marxist sense. Just in the very real sense that people try to achieve power in order to enrich themselves through use of that power. I'm actually reading a good book on Virginia by Edmund Morgan called American Freedom, American Slavery and you will be astounded as to what some Virginia governors did in office. Some just flatly wrote that they were happy to be governors because they could profit off of it. This is early to mid 17th century. I haven't gotten to the 18th century part. 

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Wed, Jun 13 2012 9:34 AM

Yeah, that's actually what I meant, but I can see how what I wrote could be taken differently. Basically the whole notion of "not just anyone can (e.g.) dig the Erie Canal" was used in place of "I don't want anyone to dig the Erie Canal but me/my friends/businesses I've invested in". After all, if the latter was used, why would anyone else go along with it?

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 247
Points 4,055
excel replied on Wed, Jun 13 2012 3:14 PM

Conza88:
Ron Paul delegates who decided to vote for McCain at the '08 RNC... because they believed, and were told it would help curry favor with the GOP... Well.. LOOK HOW THAT TURNED OUT.

Let's see, four years later, the liberty movement is stronger than ever, people demand even MORE purity of principle, liberty-minded people are being voted into political positions, beating out establishment choices, and senators like Rand Paul are pushing against establishment golden calfs and even getting some limited support from among republican senators, which seemed unthinkable 4-10 years ago...
This despite the fact that the president is arguably even more statist than GWB and brought in the same class of advisors and staff.

I'm not saying this is because some delegates chose to get behind McCain, I'm just saying it didn't stop the liberty movement from making these changes happen. (It is not necessarily due to the liberty movement either, they could be individual symptoms of a more liberty minded population that is starting to push back.)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 853
Points 17,830

Rand Paul mentions that he has read a lot of different Austrian economists and once met Murray Rothbard...

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Wed, Jun 13 2012 7:01 PM

Re: "I'm not saying this is because some delegates chose to get behind McCain, I'm just saying it didn't stop the liberty movement from making these changes happen. (It is not necessarily due to the liberty movement either, they could be individual symptoms of a more liberty minded population that is starting to push back.)"

Yes, because then you would be guilty of the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

So really... you're not saying anything at all then, because these folks literally believe they will get a greater benefit from selling out / 'compromising' and will be able to move the movement forward better with the GOP, b/c they 'sold out' / 'bought into' the bs.

The liberty movement has moved forward DESPITE such destructive behavior.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 63
Points 915
acft replied on Wed, Jun 13 2012 8:38 PM

Andrew said,

"I do not believe in minarchism. I think any form of constitutionalism is doomed, while not to repeat because I do  not believe history is cyclical, to at least correlate with the current system. This notion that we started off as a "free" nation that simply got lost along the way is disingenuous. Even when settlers got to Jamestown in 1607, they were utilizing government (around 1620) to protect their cartelized tobacco interests.  They were the head of the courts and local offices and a plutocracy was installed even then. Now obviously this is not the same plutocracy but plutocracy is still around. It is just different people, not a different "game." So how do I think we achieve liberty in our time, if such a thing is possible? Watch the system destroy itself. If socialism is really doomed to fail like Mises and Rothbard state in their economic theory, then we just let it fail. A lot of people want to get out and do something which is obviously fine. Right now I am more concerned with doing what makes me happy, disregarding the news and waiting for the system to collapse on itself. If seasteading happens, I might move out to one of them once they have established themselves. If a state leaves the union, same thing. Until then I just play my games and try to make smart comments about stuff."

We are in agreement here. Although I would take a minarchist government over what we have now, I have different views about ideal political systems. GO here, if you will, and read the current post. (The solution) I am curious if you think this would be a viable short term alternative to reducing the US to a minarchist government via voting/protesting/civil-disobedience or waiting for it to collapse.

As for the debate between anenome and auto, you both have valid points. However, it seems to me that you should first decide on a definition of a state. It seems that according to what anenome laid out in the thread where we were discussing his political system, what he advocates is not really what I would call a state. If there are no taxes and your are not forced to obey edicts, it does not fit the definition of a state, at least to me. It seems what he is really talking about is charter cities, where everyone agrees to a set of rules before hand, there are private police and courts, anyone can seccede at any time and all services are paid for voluntarily. As long as this is the case it can hardly be considerred a state in the traditional sense which I would describe as 'a group of people with a monopoly on force who extract taxes and enforce laws over a given geographical area.'

 

Auto: Do you self- Identify as an ancap?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 247
Points 4,055
excel replied on Thu, Jun 14 2012 4:29 AM

Conza88:
The liberty movement has moved forward DESPITE such destructive behavior.

A statement without any demonstrated basis in reality.

If 'compromising' is what will kill the liberty movement, then it died with Rothbards compromise in support of Bush sr. and Pat Buchanan. You can claim that this is somehow 'different' but the only difference is that Rand Paul is in the senate and Rothbard wasn't.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Thu, Jun 14 2012 5:11 AM

Re: "A statement without any demonstrated basis in reality."

Excuse me? No, it is actually.. if you don't take that position; then you take the alternate one (that it has moved forward BECAUSE of such actions..) and yet that would be a fallacy as previously indicated, and you explicitly tried to point out it wasn't an argument you were making.

Talk about being confused.

Re: "If 'compromising' is what will kill the liberty movement"

Strawman.

Re: "then it died with Rothbards compromise in support of Bush sr. and Pat Buchanan."

Rothbard Vindicated

Idealist and Strategist

“So Rothbard often had to make political decisions by weighing the foreign-policy question against a candidate’s domestic program. For example, let’s fast-forward 40 years to the presidential elections of the 1990s. Pat Buchanan challenged George Bush for the Republican nomination, saying that Bush had made two unforgivable errors: he waged an unjust war against Iraq and he raised taxes. Did Rothbard support Buchanan? You bet. And he worked overtime trying to get Buchanan up to speed on broader economic issues while defending him against the ridiculous charges of the left.

But Buchanan lost the nomination, and refused to pursue a third-party option. Rothbard then turned to Perot as the candidate worth rooting for, and on the same grounds: Perot blasted Bush’s war and his taxes. Then Perot suddenly pulled out. That left Bush and Clinton, whose foreign policy was no different from Bush’s but whose domestic policy was worse.

Rothbard then supported Bush against Clinton. His very controversial column appeared in the Los Angeles Times, and it garnered more hate mail than Rothbard had ever received in his life. Many libertarians (not famous for strategic acumen or catching the subtleties of such matters) were shocked by his non-interest in the LP nominee. But by that time, Rothbard was convinced that the LP was running a presidential campaign in name only, that it was a clique devoted not to politics but to lifestyle.

Had Rothbard become a Republican? Far from it: two years later, he blasted Newt Gingrich in the Washington Post even before the new Republican Congress under Newt’s leadership had assembled. Had he become a Buchananite? Take a look at his 1995 piece, reprinted in The Irrepressible Rothbard, in which he predicts that in 1996 Pat would concentrate on protectionism to the exclusion of every other important subject. He was getting trapped into “becoming just another variety of ‘Lane Kirkland Republican’.” That article sent the Buchananites through the roof. But it foreshadowed the fall of yet another promising political force.

The point that few people could fully grasp about Rothbard was his complete independence of mind. He had one party to which he was unfailingly loyal: the party of liberty. All institutions, candidates, and intellectuals were measured by their adherence to that standard and their ability to promote it. Neither did he make (as the old conservative cliché has it) “the perfect the enemy of the good,” as his argument for Bush over Clinton demonstrates. He was always eager to prevent the greater evil in the course of advancing human liberty.

Indeed, Rothbard was a tough-as-nails strategist and thinker, one who was breathtakingly creative as an intellectual force but refused blind devotion to conventional wisdom or any institution or individual that promoted it. Such a man is bound to make enemies. Hardly a day goes by when I don’t run across some wild misunderstanding of his life and work, some outrageous calumny spread by those who know he can no longer answer them, some crazy theory claiming to be an extension of Rothbardian ethics, or, worse, a wildly distorted presentation of history that demonizes Rothbard’s role in some political affair.”

(Source: lewrockwell.com)

Re: "You can claim that this is somehow 'different' but the only difference is that Rand Paul is in the senate and Rothbard wasn't."

Delusional. Rothbard made a comparison argument, Rand made a positive endorsement. He is going to friggin' campaign for Mitt Romney, lmao. Give it up champ.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 247
Points 4,055
excel replied on Thu, Jun 14 2012 6:14 AM

Conza88:
Excuse me? No, it is actually.. if you don't take that position; then you take the alternate one (that it has moved forward BECAUSE of such actions..) and yet that would be a fallacy as previously indicated, and you explicitly tried to point out it wasn't an argument you were making.

Talk about being confused.

Wrong. There are more at least 3 positions on this. 
Position 1: 'Compromising' harms the liberty movement.
Position 2: 'Compromising' helps the liberty movement.
Position 3: 'Compromising' neither helps nor harms the liberty movement. The liberty movement advances or stagnates due to a philosophical change in the population at large and the 'compromising' of its leaders has no or marginal influence on it. (Ie, at most, it pisses of the purists, but purists aren't going to become statists anyway.)

Conza88:
Strawman.

Wrong. You implicitly advanced position 1, that the liberty movement is harmed when you claim that the liberty movement advances despite making 'compromises'. 

An article in his support by his best bud Lew Rockwell doesn't change the fact that he 'compromised'. You can even see in the article the outrage and hatemail of the LP firebrands. And yet, here we are, with the liberty movement stronger than ever (and it seems to have grown independently of the LP).
So, Rothbard, who would rather 'compromise' to hold off the hordes, as he said, was a master strategist, whereas Rand Paul is 'harming' the liberty movement by doing the same thing.

Conza88:
Delusional. Rothbard made a comparison argument, Rand made a positive endorsement. He is going to friggin' campaign for Mitt Romney, lmao. Give it up champ.

And Rothbard and Lew Rockwell friggin' campaigned for Buchanan. They published articles in his support and defense and they solicited funds for his campaign. 

When Buchanan decided to run, Ron Paul dropped out at his request. And Rothbard agreed that this was a good tactic, simply because Buchanan could reach a broader audience. 

So you have all the classical members of the philosophical liberty movement either acquiescing to a 'less than Ron Paul' candidate, or even worse, actually doing 'their part' in having him elected. 

So either the liberty movement has been dead in the water since 1992, which it obviously hasn't, or 'compromise' helps the liberty movement, which I doubt, or there is more to the liberty movement than whether its philosophical or political leaders 'compromise' on their principles in order to get some tangible results against leviathan. 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

"We are in agreement here. Although I would take a minarchist government over what we have now, I have different views about ideal political systems. GO here, if you will, and read the current post. (The solution) I am curious if you think this would be a viable short term alternative to reducing the US to a minarchist government via voting/protesting/civil-disobedience or waiting for it to collapse."

I think it is a poor plan. I think enclaves are less likely to create an environment of openness and liberty and that can be seen through the author's writing. He/she talks about how the enclave would need to be weary of individuals because they might be "agents" trying to sow discord. He/she even talks about doing background checks on people. This is the very same "fear of the other" that government tutors us in in order to justify their existence as protector. Instead of "Terrorists will kill you if the we the government were not here to protect you" it is now "the government will kill your if we the enclave do not protect you." Secondly, this harm principle that the author subscribes to is at best ambiguous and at worst can be used to justify the most inane claims against others. Say Bob and Jay are competing for a job at the enclave. Bob wins it while Jay does not. Under the harm principle Jay can say Bob "harmed" him because he [Bob] made Jay worse off because Jay did not get the job while Bob did. Libertarians must stick to the NAP as the basis for moral/legal claims. Anything beyond that is too unstructured, too ambiguous and possibly dangerous. 

Also, this writer is a "moral nihilist" [this crap is still around? will it never go away?] so I do not know how he/she can ascribe to a moral principle like the harm theory without neglecting his moral nihilism. I am also very skeptical of a individual who would "push the button" on getting rid of every church or religion. I am not a theologist, I do not subscribe to any religion but in a confined enclave that is already skeptical of outsiders trying to disrupt the progression of this enclave then all sorts of devices can be utilized to claim that religion is disrupting the populace. Closed societies are, well I think nearly impossible, more apt to dangerous influxes. 

Nearly all of the "enclaves" that this individual lists are apart or work with their respective governments. Zionism created a state [Israel]. Salt Lake City is apart of the the U.S. I think the Amish are as close to his/her idea of an ancap enclave but they have almost a symbolic relationship with the US government. Scientology is not an enclave. It is a religion. Freemasonary is not an enclave. It is a fraternity. The same with Skull and Bones. And concerning gangs and mafias, they do  take bullshit from people. It's called the government. Just because one criminal band is at odds with another criminal band does not mean individuals should emulate either one. The Mafia would take your money just as quickly as the government and that is an example of an enclave working? Ridiculous I say.

I do not think you are going to shrink government by voting. The government is not going to allow its legislative powers to be legislated away. Civil disobedience perhaps but only to the degree in which it helps in the fall of the system. 

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Thu, Jun 14 2012 11:37 AM

Re: "Wrong. There are more at least 3 positions on this. 
Position 1: 'Compromising' harms the liberty movement.
Position 2: 'Compromising' helps the liberty movement.
Position 3: 'Compromising' neither helps nor harms the liberty movement. The liberty movement advances or stagnates due to a philosophical change in the population at large and the 'compromising' of its leaders has no or marginal influence on it. (Ie, at most, it pisses of the purists, but purists aren't going to become statists anyway.)"

Nope. lmao. This started with you proposing the absolute red herring/strawman of:

  • "If you think refusal to give an endorsement of Romney (an endorsement that I would call bland and neutral rather than positive) wouldn't impact Rands ability to garner support for liberty-minded bills among republicans in the senate, you strongly underestimate the childishness of the GOP."

What liberty bills? And as IF ANY have been passed ANYWAY without being watered down... prime example: Audit the Fed Bill. Right, so tell me, what possible benefits will there be from Rand 'selling out' to the GOP, how will he benefit in terms of bills to be passed? Liberty ones at that? Aye?

Earlier I responded to the above with:

  • "Ron Paul delegates who decided to vote for McCain at the '08 RNC... because they believed, and were told it would help curry favor with the GOP... Well.. LOOK HOW THAT TURNED OUT."

Treatment of the GOP towards Ron Paul supporters has been abysmal.. there are so many instances it doesn't even need to be cited. It's common knowledge. But what if the Ron Paul delegates didn't decide to vote for McCain? The exact same thing would have happened... terrible treatment.

So it is ipso facto, you either sell out... and you get treated badly by the GOP, or you don't sell out.. maintain some respect, your convictions and principle... and the same things happen.

Again, the things RP supporters have been able to do... take over causes etc.. has been DESPITE THE GOP'S EFFORTS TO SQUASH such actions. I don't know how these points I have been making could be stated any clearer, and yet you twist and turn.

You set up a fallacious divide, the libertarian movement is about MAKING change in the wider community, bringing more people to the cause.. the ABILITY to do that is definitely affected by those within it, on whether they individually want to remain principled.. or sell out. It's a compared to scenario, would things have been better off if he did, or didn't?

In the Libertarian Forum, August 1981, Rothbard writes:

  • "I would like to take this opportunity to admit my previous error in calling for an ultra-centralist model for the [Libertarian Party]. Several years in the [LP] have soured me on centralism permanently. Putting the rule of the Party, or of the movement as a whole, into the hands of one man or of one tight group is a recipe for disaster. First, it means that if a few people sell out to opportunism, the rest of the movement is dragged along with it. But second, and more generally, even if the Machiners were a bunch of wonderful people, since they are not omniscient they are bound, as are all of us to make mistakes. And just as the mistakes of a government­-controlled economy can ruin a nation, so the inevitable mistakes of a tight ruling clique can ruin a party or a movement. I still think it absurd to think of decentralism as 'the libertarian' form of organization. How we organize is not  a matter of libertarian principle, so long as we do not violate the non-aggression axiom. But it appears that neither radical decentralism nor ultra-centralism will work in any organization…. [M]oderation and balance should be our organizational mode."

Also:

  • “The effective centrist avoids the pitfalls of “opportunism” by keeping the objective firmly in view, and, in particular, by never acting in a manner, or speaking in a manner, inconsistent with the full libertarian position. In the name of practicality, the opportunist not only loses any chance of advancing others toward the ultimate goal, but he himself gradually loses sight of that goal—as happens with any “sellout” of principle. Thus, suppose that one is writing about taxation. It is not incumbent on the libertarian to always proclaim his full “anarchist” position in whatever he writes; but it is incumbent upon him in no way to praise taxation or condone it; he should simply leave this perhaps glaring vacuum, and wait for the eager reader to begin to question and perhaps come to you for further enlightenment. But if the libertarian says, “Of course, some taxes must be levied,” or something of the sort, he has betrayed the cause.”

Murray N. Rothbard, Confidential Memo to Volker Fund, 1961.

*cough* “They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I’m not a libertarian.”

Just lol..

Re: "Wrong. You implicitly advanced position 1, that the liberty movement is harmed when you claim that the liberty movement advances despite making 'compromises'."

Wrong. Implicit? Haha no.  What you said: "Re: "If 'compromising' is what will kill the liberty movement"" || It was a strawman, because I never said "killed", which is i.e destroy. But yeah, go on keep re-writing things all you want to try make the case after the fact.

Re: "An article in his support by his best bud Lew Rockwell doesn't change the fact that he 'compromised'. You can even see in the article the outrage and hatemail of the LP firebrands. And yet, here we are, with the liberty movement stronger than ever (and it seems to have grown independently of the LP). So, Rothbard, who would rather 'compromise' to hold off the hordes, as he said, was a master strategist, whereas Rand Paul is 'harming' the liberty movement by doing the same thing."

Rothbard didn't compromise. There was no positive endorsement. It was a comparative argument. Rand Paul however, did no such thing. He made a positive endorsement, and he's going to campaign for Romney. Rand doesn't even identify as a libertarian.... so lol, gee I wonder if he's wanted to impose any sanctions on Iran lately?!  It's quite clear you have next to no understanding of what 'compromise' actually entails.

  • "In should be clear that both right opportunism and left sectarianism are equally destructive of the task of achieving the ultimate social goal: for the right opportunist abandons the goal while achieving short-run gains, and thereby renders those gains ineffectual; while the left sectarian, in wrapping himself in the mantle of "purity," defeats his own ultimate goal by denouncing any necessary strategic steps in its behalf.

    Sometimes, curiously enough, the same individual will undergo alternations from one deviation to the other, in each case scorning the correct, plumb-line path. Thus, despairing after years of futile reiteration of his purity while making no advances in the real world, the left sectarian may leap into the heady thickets of right opportunism, in the quest for some short-run advance, even at the cost of the ultimate goal. Or, the right opportunist, growing disgusted at his own or his colleagues' compromise of their intellectual integrity and their ultimate goals, may leap into left sectarianism and decry any setting of strategic priorities toward those goals. In this way, the two opposing deviations feed on and reinforce each other, and are both destructive of the major task of effectively reaching the libertarian goal."

Rand's goal isn't a libertarian society, he's not a libertarian - said so himself. Putting that aside, assuming it was, he hasn't said - alright, well both suck... but I think Romney is least worst, he's made a positive endorsement.

Re: "And Rothbard and Lew Rockwell friggin' campaigned for Buchanan. They published articles in his support and defense and they solicited funds for his campaign. 

When Buchanan decided to run, Ron Paul dropped out at his request. And Rothbard agreed that this was a good tactic, simply because Buchanan could reach a broader audience. 

So you have all the classical members of the philosophical liberty movement either acquiescing to a 'less than Ron Paul' candidate, or even worse, actually doing 'their part' in having him elected."

So your position is that Mitt Romney is part of the old right? Hahah.

Re: So either the liberty movement has been dead in the water since 1992, which it obviously hasn't, or 'compromise' helps the liberty movement, which I doubt, or there is more to the liberty movement than whether its philosophical or political leaders 'compromise' on their principles in order to get some tangible results against leviathan."

You again set up a strawman. Never said dead, or killed, nor implied such a thing. Also, did you even watch the video? Why not take it all the way back to '64 with Johnson and Goldwater aye? Giving a contrasting take on the choices available, and saying.. well if I had to damn well choose, this guy might be marginally less worse.. but they both suck.. is far different to positively promoting one, endorsing them, and campaigning for them.

Yes, there is more to the liberty movement.. which carries on DESPITE those who have compromised.. naturally it would be better off if such things did not happen. It's not rocket science.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 63
Points 915
acft replied on Thu, Jun 14 2012 12:20 PM

Interesting view, Andrew. I would like a few clarifications. You said the following:

"I think enclaves are less likely to create an environment of openness and liberty"

For the world at large? Agreed. For the participants? I would argue that the participants of a given enclave might be able to enjoy more freedoms than someone outside of it. Just a difference of opinion here.

"He/she talks about how the enclave would need to be weary of individuals because they might be "agents" trying to sow discord. He/she even talks about doing background checks on people."

Um... well based on what I know about cointelpro and the FBI's program to infiltrate the civil rights movement, the black panther party, and the nation of islam, and other activists organizations, all ending in the death or incarceration of prominent figures in said movement...it seems to me that this would be a real concern. Furthermore, if one were to have an organization at all, would the alternative be just to let people in a trust them? Are you suggesting you hire, say, an accountant and don't do a criminal background check?

Granted, perhaps one does not advocate any kind of centralized action, in which case the position of not looking for agents to sow discord might make sense. However, we see that even in the occupy protests there were agent provocateurs and so even in decentralized systems, it seems to make sense to watch out for plants.

"it is now "the government will kill your if we the enclave do not protect you.""

Yes...it will. See the history of governments in general from ww2 onward. There is no shortage of examples of governments slaughtering their own people with only militias and enclaves being able to fend them off and retreat.

Here is a free documentary "Innocence Betrayed", a nice pro-gun watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDivHkQ2GSg

See Ruby Ridge and Wacko for examples of the US slaughtering its own people. There was also a college protest where the US opened fire, although I forget the details. There are also instances of the US using troops and firing live ammo in riots in the past, take Tulsa OK incident for example. See the Syria/Libyan conflict for what is likely to happen during a dollar collapse or some other crisis. I would argue that having an enclave in the form of a militia might increase your chances of survival in these scenarios. In other words, it has happened in the past and therefore it can happen in the future.

The harm principle refers to direct physical harm. I agree a better definition should have been given, but similar to the oath doctors take to first do no harm, physical harm is implied.Therefore, under this definition, your example about competition is not valid.

"I am also very skeptical of a individual who would "push the button" on getting rid of every church or religion."

Well, I recognize that different people have different tolerances of religion. I am curious if you would push the button for the state. I would be skeptical of someone who would not IF they claimed to be an anarchist of some type. I am not saying you made this claim, of coarse, but the author did. The author seems to think religion and the state are two sides of the same coin ( there is another post about religion and the state similarities). Indeed, there are numerous examples of the church and the state working hand in hand throughout history. Cited I would say the history of the Catholic church, The deification of Japanese and Chinese emperors, and we can even go back to the god-king dynasties such as the pharaohcies. What about the inquisition, the conversion era, and so many other examples of religions persecuting people.

Even today, no one can get elected if they are not religious and most of the US is religious in some way. Religion and politics seem to go hand in hand. I agree eradicating them all might be a bit much lol, but I would say that clearly religion is and has been used as a tool to enslave people in addition to or in conjunction with the state.

"Closed societies are, well I think nearly impossible, more apt to dangerous influxes."

When you say closed, do you mean to new members or to the outside world? If the group is, say, doing business as one of the activities suggested, how is interacting with people, traveling and trading participating in a closed society? I agree a truly closed society is impossible, but I did not get that as a desired effect of the plan.

" I do not know how he/she can ascribe to a moral principle like the harm theory without neglecting his moral nihilism."

The author said explicitly at one point that he/she chooses to value things and does not need to ascribe them to objective principles. This position seems consistent with moral nihilism as he defined it, as people coming together and choosing what mode of behavior the group will accept and not accept. If the harm principle is part of what these people choose to live by, then they really don't need any other higher justification than their own will to choose it.

I was discussing this with Anenome in the thread we have talking about solutions.( I should probably stop being lazy and properly respond to it as well ) His charter cities allow groups of people to choose what rule set they will live by. They don't need to verify it by anyone or claim that some higher guiding principle demands they live a certain way. If you don't want smoking go to a community who prefers not to smoke. If you don't want people doing physical harm to one another, go to a community that agrees to abide by the harm principle.

"Nearly all of the "enclaves" that this individual lists are apart or work with their respective governments. Zionism created a state [Israel]. Salt Lake City is apart of the the U.S. I think the Amish are as close to his/her idea of an ancap enclave but they have almost a symbolic relationship with the US government. Scientology is not an enclave. It is a religion. Freemasonary is not an enclave. It is a fraternity. "

The author defines enclave as "Enclave: a distinct territorial, cultural, or social unit enclosed within or as if within foreign territory" This is a dictionary definition.

By definition, scientology, and freemasonry have enclaves within the US and around the world. They have a distinct culture. They operate in distinct social units. They have distinct territorial units (churches and lodges, respectively). They are all enclosed within numerous foreign, territories all over the world.

"And concerning gangs and mafias, they do  take bullshit from people. It's called the government. "

They most certainly do, however they give bullshit back as well. A case in point would be a town on Mexico where the entire police force resigned out of fear of the cartel's reprisals. Dishing back what the government dishes out tends to humble them.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/5/mexico-towns-police-force-quits-after-attack/

"Just because one criminal band is at odds with another criminal band does not mean individuals should emulate either one. The Mafia would take your money just as quickly as the government and that is an example of an enclave working? Ridiculous I say."

In terms of protecting and enriching their members, yes cartels and gangs do work. In terms of retaliating against attacks made on one of the group, yes gangs and cartels do work. They do it in a bloody and barbaric way, agreed. And they need not be emulated, agreed. And from a 'moral' standpoint, depending on your definition of this, they can certainly be condemned as much as a local government can. But they have money, power, influence, and would be in a better position to defend themselves tomorrow if the government went full tyranny on us.

"I do not think you are going to shrink government by voting."

I could not agree with you more

"Civil disobedience perhaps but only to the degree in which it helps in the fall of the system."

Are you suggesting that less than one half of 1% of the population participating I civil disobedience will shrink the government? Are you suggesting that civil disobedience is the way we achieve liberty in our lifetimes or, at all? I am having trouble seeing how civil disobedience would accomplish anything UNLESS it was embraced by millions and millions of people. We don't have that kind of manpower or mass appeal.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 247
Points 4,055
excel replied on Thu, Jun 14 2012 12:55 PM

@Conza88

Goddammit, the quote system in this forum is killing me. 

Anyway: " Again, the things RP supporters have been able to do... take over causes etc.. has been DESPITE THE GOP'S EFFORTS TO SQUASH such actions. I don't know how these points I have been making could be stated any clearer, and yet you twist and turn."

Yes. I completely agree with this. It has happened despite the GOP. It had nothing to do with the delegates of 2007. Ie, their 'selling out' isn't what's standing in the way of the liberty movement.

What you said: "Re: "If 'compromising' is what will kill the liberty movement"" || It was astrawman, because I never said "killed", which is i.e destroy.

Agreed.

"So your position is that Mitt Romney is part of the old right? Hahah."

Nice dodge. You keep harping on 'selling out' and that Rand Paul is 'selling out' because Romney isn't 'pure' enough.
Why wasn't Rothbard, Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell 'selling out' when Ron Paul dropped out to make room for Pat Buchanan and Rothbard and Lew Rockwell worked to help get him elected? Or are YOU saying that Pat Buchanan is a more 'pure' liberty candidate than Ron Paul?

Giving a contrasting take on the choices available, and saying.. well if I had to damn well choose, this guy might be marginally less worse.. but they both suck.. is far different to positively promoting one, endorsing them, and campaigning for them.

Again, was Pat Buchanan a better liberty candidate than Ron Paul? If he wasn't, why was campaigning for him not 'selling out' when Rothbard and Lew Rockwell did it?

Also, just as a quick question, do you think Rand Paul wasn't a sellout if he'd made the endorsement by saying something like, yeah they're both worthless hacks, but Romney is marginally less worthless than Obama?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 853
Points 17,830

Interesting interview.

At 12:49 he is asked about his philosophical / ideological background.  He explains that to him "constitutional conservative" and "libertarian" mean the same thing, but he prefers the former term as it is better understood and the latter scares people.  He mentions Mises, Sennholtz, Rothbard, Hazlitt and Bastiat.  He's clearly a lot better than Gary Johnson when it comes to knowing the root ideas of libertarianism.  He could have mentioned Milton Friedman or Hayek, or any number of non-libertarian intellectuals for that matter, but he didn't.  So either he's a Misesian libertarian, or he disagrees with them, but then why would he bring them up?

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

"For the world at large? Agreed. For the participants? I would argue that the participants of a given enclave might be able to enjoy more freedoms than someone outside of it. Just a difference of opinion here."

I would disagree. An enclave is an enclosed society which implies a sentiment of the "other" to those surrounding the enclave but are not apart of it. A distrust and general dislike would likely to arise from this situation and more then likely lead to a petty nationalism. Liberty is openess and toleration (as much as "libertarian" racists like to claim intolerance can be apart of a libertarian society). It is not just following the NAP. The NAP is a big deal, yes, but for a liberation society to prosper you need equality of law and other secondary tenets which foster a better environment. I, personally, do not think nationalism is one of them. I think it is ridiculous to be proud about where you are born or live as if doing so imbued you with special abilities or powers. Anyways, that is my opinion before I start ranting. I do not think an enclave propounds openness and toleration therefore it is, to me, less likely to express liberty. 

"Um... well based on what I know about cointelpro and the FBI's program to infiltrate the civil rights movement, the black panther party, and the nation of islam, and other activists organizations, all ending in the death or incarceration of prominent figures in said movement...it seems to me that this would be a real concern. Furthermore, if one were to have an organization at all, would the alternative be just to let people in a trust them? Are you suggesting you hire, say, an accountant and don't do a criminal background check?

Granted, perhaps one does not advocate any kind of centralized action, in which case the position of not looking for agents to sow discord might make sense. However, we see that even in the occupy protests there were agent provocateurs and so even in decentralized systems, it seems to make sense to watch out for plants."

What would there need to be an accountant for in the first place? An accountant over what? And why do these individuals have the power to run background checks on you? You seem to be already centralizing power into specific institutions and giving them legitimacy in the case of background checks. Also why are you assuming that this enclave will automatically be on American soil? And why assume that government will automatically try to subvert it? Yes governments oppress people but you seem to have this whole conspiratorial nature about it. Do you think making an enclave more exclusive is going to make the government less suspicious about its activities? People are people. Some mean harm and some mean good. You cannot control emigration or immigration, you can attempt to but then you are just another government who thinks it has a claim over a territory. 

Yes...it will. See the history of governments in general from ww2 onward. There is no shortage of examples of governments slaughtering their own people with only militias and enclaves being able to fend them off and retreat.

​Yes governments harm people but my point was not that governments do not but that the enclave would use that justification to enact laws or behavior that does not promote liberty. 

"The harm principle refers to direct physical harm. I agree a better definition should have been given, but similar to the oath doctors take to first do no harm, physical harm is implied.Therefore, under this definition, your example about competition is not valid."

​Well that is crap because now I can say fraud is not illegal because I am not physically harming you. People just need to stick to the NAP. It is clear, concise and encompassing. 

"Well, I recognize that different people have different tolerances of religion. I am curious if you would push the button for the state. I would be skeptical of someone who would not IF they claimed to be an anarchist of some type. I am not saying you made this claim, of coarse, but the author did. The author seems to think religion and the state are two sides of the same coin ( there is another post about religion and the state similarities). Indeed, there are numerous examples of the church and the state working hand in hand throughout history. Cited I would say the history of the Catholic church, The deification of Japanese and Chinese emperors, and we can even go back to the god-king dynasties such as the pharaohcies. What about the inquisition, the conversion era, and so many other examples of religions persecuting people. 

Even today, no one can get elected if they are not religious and most of the US is religious in some way. Religion and politics seem to go hand in hand. I agree eradicating them all might be a bit much lol, but I would say that clearly religion is and has been used as a tool to enslave people in addition to or in conjunction with the state."

Would I push the button on the state? Absolutely because the state is a coercive institution which is not voluntarily agreed upon in the first place. Religion is voluntary. You can choose to have it or you can choose not to have it. Just like control. Some people like to be controlled, it makes their lives easier. Some people do not like to be controlled because it makes it harder on them. This is my point about toleration finally ringing true. A society has to be tolerate of the voluntary choices that individuals make. 

When you say closed, do you mean to new members or to the outside world? If the group is, say, doing business as one of the activities suggested, how is interacting with people, traveling and trading participating in a closed society? I agree a truly closed society is impossible, but I did not get that as a desired effect of the plan.

Sorry I am thinking a bit ahead with that earlier comment. I think that if a society such as an enclave conducts background searches on all of its immigrants then it will foster a sense of skepticism toward outsiders, thinking that they are trying to sow cords of distrust and discord. A society such as this will, naturally in my mind, slowly shut itself off in order to protect itself. While not completely closed, which like I said before is near impossible, it will close until it falls apart. 

"The author said explicitly at one point that he/she chooses to value things and does not need to ascribe them to objective principles. This position seems consistent with moral nihilism as he defined it, as people coming together and choosing what mode of behavior the group will accept and not accept. If the harm principle is part of what these people choose to live by, then they really don't need any other higher justification than their own will to choose it."

Yea but that is the problem. There is no right or wrong in moral nihilism, they see it as ascetic tastes. It makes a societies' legal code impossible because there can be no wrong behavior. Theoretically I could walk up to this author and harm him because hey I do not follow the harm principle and therefore feel no need to follow it. What can he say but Well ok? Moral nihilism is crap. It is just a philosophy for people who are disgruntled with the is-ought divide so they just throw that out the window and try to play it off. 

 

"The author defines enclave as "Enclave: a distinct territorial, cultural, or social unit enclosed within or as if within foreign territory" This is a dictionary definition. 

By definition, scientology, and freemasonry have enclaves within the US and around the world. They have a distinct culture. They operate in distinct social units. They have distinct territorial units (churches and lodges, respectively). They are all enclosed within numerous foreign, territories all over the world."

​I think that makes it somewhat ambiguous then but I am not motivated enough to continue this line of argument. 

"They most certainly do, however they give bullshit back as well. A case in point would be a town on Mexico where the entire police force resigned out of fear of the cartel's reprisals. Dishing back what the government dishes out tends to humble them."

​Yea and in our own small ways we give shit back to the government as well. Fudge our taxes, run red lights, speed, DUI. I mean we're not gunning cops down in the street but the principle is still there, just not the degree. 

". And from a 'moral' standpoint, depending on your definition of this, they can certainly be condemned as much as a local government can. But they have money, power, influence, and would be in a better position to defend themselves tomorrow if the government went full tyranny on us."

​I disagree. Where you see strength in numbers I see the first targets of crackdowns. If the government went "full tyranny on us" like you say then the very first people they would target are those who have the ability to strike back in great force. 

"Are you suggesting that less than one half of 1% of the population participating I civil disobedience will shrink the government? Are you suggesting that civil disobedience is the way we achieve liberty in our lifetimes or, at all? I am having trouble seeing how civil disobedience would accomplish anything UNLESS it was embraced by millions and millions of people. We don't have that kind of manpower or mass appeal."

​No, I am saying that if civil disobedience makes you happy and makes you feel like you are making a difference then do it. I am just waiting for the system to collapse. That does not mean another government may arise to take its place but hopefully I can squeak through the cracks and ensure that I am not apart of that new government. It is all about timing with me I guess. 
 

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Page 2 of 3 (110 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next > | RSS