Rand may yet do good work for us.
Yea, since you are a statist. I agree with you. I am just not part of your "us."
Back to the OP, the only way that the RNC will be entertianing, is if a f___ starts (not fuck).
Aristophanes:But, Ron is out of the game. RAND is where it is at. HE gets all of the attention now. Whose attention?YOURS. You baffoon.
But, Ron is out of the game. RAND is where it is at. HE gets all of the attention now. Whose attention?
it makes it look like people like me really are Republicans
And we wouldn't want that, now would we? It would be just terrible for our cause if Republicans viewed us as of their own kind. That's why the MSM and the GOP has spent so much time trying to prove that we're not.
YOURS. You baffoon.
I give Rand more attention than Ron? Huh, even I didn't know that, you truly are a sage.
You guys gotta slow down. I won't be able to follow the drama if you all keep posting this fast.
Yea, since you are a statist
Could you please point out where I ever advocated any form of statism?
I think you know I'm not a statist, as I've explained my username a number of time, and you're a regular here.
It would be just terrible for our cause if Republicans viewed us
You keep saying "us" as if we agree on this...
I would like to see the GOP "sink into the ocean" (shit the DNC too). I don't want to be one of them. I am an anarchist, not a statist. And I'm with Henry David Thoureau and the Sons of Liberty. We should not be paying taxes (as a protest because it is as "non-violent" as you can get and is the single most damaging protest available) and people should be breaking things. Tear down a JPMorgan billboard. Anonymous should be trying to empty bank accounts and EDITING documents rather than stealing them.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
it might be your name, bro.
it might also be your support for statist politicians (any of them really)
Back to the OP, the only way that the RNC will be entertianing, is if a f___ starts
Ooh, let me guess: fight.
Or maybe flood (there is a hurricane predicted).
fire.
"The threat to our revolution doesn't come from Paris (D.C.), it comes from within..."
I am an anarchist, not a statist. And I'm with Henry David Thoureau and the Sons of Liberty. We should not be paying taxes (as a protest because it is as "non-violent" as you can get and is the single most damaging protest available) and people should be breaking things. Tear down a JPMorgan billboard. Anonymous should be trying to empty bank accounts and EDITING documents rather than stealing them.
How many people would it require for that to work?
How many people would it require for us (that would be libertarians) to succeed politically?
How much harder is it to convince someone to risk prison than to write a name on a piece of paper?
...but hey, as far as going around destroying things, I'm not stopping you. I'm also fairly sure neither of the Pauls are stopping you. Have at it.
fire
Ah, well that's nice.
So if one supports a politician who is a statist, one is therefore a statist?
I wouldn't say that makes you a statist, I'd say it makes you a collaborator.
Everyone who is not at this moment resisting the State is a collaborator.
Incidentally, anyone who actually has a chance of reducing/eliminating the State is going to be a collaborator at least most of the time (as its rather hard to fight the State from prison).
But I'll grant you your premise arguendo. So, Murray Rothbard....statist in your opinion?
Minarchist:No, I call mistaking an empty political gesture for a sell-out confusion.
For something so empty, it sure carried a lot of media attention and political weight. Tell me, if it's so meaningless in real terms, and only matters to those pesky uncompromising Ron Paul supporters, why bother doing it?
And what's more, not only was this endorsement a helluva lot more than some "yeah I support the Republican nominee", it's not the only time he offered it. He continued and continued in multiple broadcasts.
And then, campaigns for him? At what point does someone's support become more than "an empty political gesture", exactly?
And? Sorry, where did I say Rand was a libertarian? You're the one who seems to be implying that he was, and that he sold out, and is no longer. Otherwise, what exactly did he sell out?
He sold out a libertarian movement which his father started and which millions of libertarians assumed (incorrectly, evidently) that Rand was a part of. The fact that you don't even attempt your acrobatics here, and try to portray Rand as some kind of libertarian is incredibly interesting, as it seems a large part of your argument here is that Rand is part of and helping a "cause"...when the only "cause" he was seen as a part of until this episode was the Ron Paul / libertarian cause.
Or I'm correct and the endorsement was an empty gesture
And the continuation and reinforcement of that endorsement, and the campaigning for him, and the probable vote he'll cast...all that's just empty gesturing, which doesn't really mean anything or help Romney in any way.
and Rand may yet do good work for us.
Yeah..."us"...statists. That's the whole point. I think you're probably right. And that's the whole reason for the divide. People who are against statism agree with you...they realized that Rand probably will do good work for statists, and they therefore called him out on such.
Your whole problem is these anti-statists didn't follow Rand down this road, but instead chose to remain the anti-statists they were before his overt proclamation of where he really stands.
You call this "confusion" and imply petulance and ignorance or simple-mindedness on their part, but the reality is you're the one who is either dumb enough to favor of statism, or dumb enough to think you can rollback statism by playing the political quid pro quo.
Minarchist:it makes it look like people like me really are Republicans And we wouldn't want that, now would we? It would be just terrible for our cause if Republicans viewed us as of their own kind. That's why the MSM and the GOP has spent so much time trying to prove that we're not.
Here you go again with this "us" stuff. When will you get it through your head, the entire point of this divide we're talking about is because your "us" doesn't include all the people who have called out and oppose Rand? You keep trying to lump everyone together and I don't really know why.
You freely admit you're a minarchist, that's even your handle for crissake, and a great number of the people who called out Rand would not identify with that label. Get it...they do not agree with you.
It doesn't even have anything to do with Rand at this point. You advocate something different than they do (the least of which is statist politicians.)
I honestly can't tell if you really are just too dense to understand this, or if you just need to keep pretending so as to make it seem like you have more people on your side.
as far as going around destroying things
When your politicians make things bad enough...
I'm not stopping you.
I'm a lover, not a fighter. I am with Noam Chomsky on this one; 'burn your draft card, encourage protest and if you want partcipate, I however do not' (protest) I couldn't find what I wanted to link to but it is in this book (On Resistance). And Rothbard says it most clearly in his essay on Revolution,
Theories blended into activist movements, rising movements calling for individual liberty, a free-market economy, the overthrow of feudalism and mercantilist statism, an end to theocracy and war and their replacement by freedom and international peace.
People willing to go out and destroy things aren't the ones theorizing...WE are the theorizers, the blue collar working stiffs are the destroyers.
"It takes all kinds to make a revolution."
haha, uh, yeah.
Minarchism =
It mattered to mainstream Republicans, which was the point. It *should* not have mattered to Paulites.
The fact that you don't even attempt your acrobatics here, and try to portray Rand as some kind of libertarian is incredibly interesting, as it seems a large part of your argument here is that Rand is part of and helping a "cause"...when the only "cause" he was seen as a part of until this episode was the Ron Paul / libertarian cause.
Is it possible for a politican to be useful to the libertarian cause without themselves being a libertarian? Might libertarians be able to form coalitions with non-libertarians to achieve specific, common goals? Hmm....
Your sarcasm notwithstanding, that is absolutely correct. No Paulite is going to vote for Romney because of Rand's endorsement. It didn't help Romney. It helped our image in the eyes of Republicans in general, at no cost to us - well, it would have been no cost if Paulites had seen it for what it was and not freaked out.
Yeah..."us"...statists. That's the whole point. I think you're probably right. And that's the whole reason for the divide. People who are against statism agree with you...they realized that Rand probably will do good work for statists, and they therefore called him out on such. Your whole problem is these anti-statists didn't follow Rand down this road, but instead chose to remain the anti-statists they were before his overt proclamation of where he really stands. You call this "confusion" and imply petulance and ignorance or simple-mindedness on their part, but the reality is you're the one who is either dumb enough to favor of statism, or dumb enough to think you can rollback statism by playing the political quid pro quo.
Is Ron Paul a statist?
Minarchist:So, Murray Rothbard....statist in your opinion?
Christ you're not seriously trying for this, are you? You really are Jack Hunter.
haha, uh, yeah
You supported Ron Paul, correct? Ron Paul is a statist, correct?
I'm making the point that it is absurd to label a person a statist simply because they support a politician who is a statist.
Ron Paul stated seveal times he wanted to do away with income taxes, become isolationist, and do away with involuntary governmental sanction. He was (and still is) the sole modern exception to the rule. Why do you think there is outrage over his child endorsing the bombing of Iran?
hahaahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahaha
have you heard of the laws of thought?
One of them says that, "A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time." Saying you support Rand is saying you support the bombing of Iran...you can't have it both ways (I'll reinvent the wheel and appeal to Aristotle to demonstrate the logic of this.) emphasis is sarcastic, JJ.
Aristophanes:Ron Paul stated seveal times he wanted to do away with income taxes, become isolationist, and do away with involuntary governmental sanction.
There's also this, of course.
from the post underneath...
His "anarchism" might not appeal to the voters we need to elect him.
I used to be a pragmatist. Now, I'd say fuck those idiots that are still voting. They are screwing it up for the rest of us.
Ron Paul stated seveal times he wanted to do away with income taxes, become isolationist, and do away with involuntary governmental sanction. He was (and still is) the sole modern exception to the rule.
Ron Paul runs on a platform of restoring Constitutional government. And in this election cycle, his platform was not even that. It was far more statist.
hahaahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahaha have you heard of the laws of thought? One of them says that, "A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time." Saying you support Rand is saying you support the bombing of Iran...you can't have it both ways (I'll reinvent the wheel and appeal to Aristotle to demonstrate the logic of this.) emphasis is sarcastic, JJ.
To support a politician is not to agree with all of their views or actions.
Also, one can be an anti-statist and support efforts to reduce the State, rather than holding out for magic buttom to eliminate it all at once.
And by "us" you mean those idiots who talk about violent revolution, or counter-economics, or some other non-solution, and get absolutely nowhere and do absolutely nothing as the State closes in around them? Yea, the people voting are really getting your way.
As my previous post alluded, he needs to be pragmatic to fool people into voting for him. And, I doubt he would be as radical in betraying Presidential power as I would be.
Elect me President...
Then what is it? Do you like his hair?
I find it hard to believe that raw milk and light bulbs are more important than the war Rand will be voting for in...oh I'd say a few months now. The Constitutional declaration of war will be far bloodier than the politically hampered one's of Bush and Obama.
This doesn't really make any sense. If they wouldn't continually vote for these assface politicians, people like me might not think so radically...
But, yea, tearing down a bank's billboard is pretty similar to going to war with a culture.
I wish the US Founders were somehow able to participate. I'd imagine that they would think destroying an oppressive corporation's property is virtuous. And, B T dubbs, they actually got their revolution.
Then what is it? Do you like his hair? I find it hard to believe that raw milk and light bulbs are more important than the war Rand will be voting for in...oh I'd say a few months now. The Constitutional declaration of war will be far bloodier than the politically hampered one's of Bush and Obama.
Our difference is as follows. I see a man who has done things as a politician which have advanced our cause. And I applaud that. This man has also done things contrary to our principles, and I condem that. At this point, I imagine you and I are on the same page. But for his sins, you dismiss him outright, where I will continue to support what he does well and oppose what he does ill.
As of yet, I haven't had a chance to vote for him, or do anything else to offer real support, as opposed to just talk.
If such a chance appears, I'll have to decide whether I think he'll do more good than harm in another term in D.C.
Minarchist:It mattered to mainstream Republicans, which was the point. It *should* not have mattered to Paulites.
Yes, betraying the principles your father dedicated his life to and endorsing warmongering shouldn't matter to anyone, let alone people of libertarian principle.
Sure statists can be useful sometimes. Just like idiots. That doesn't mean the son of Ron Paul being a statist is on-net a good thing for anti-statists. And the fact that as a statist he could still possibly do something useful in the realm of anti-statism, it doesn't mean on-net he won't be anything more than a detriment.
Jeezus christ you're delusional. And you really need to stop using this "us" term.
No, Minarchist, you are.
Minarchist:Our difference is as follows. I see a man who has done things as a politician which have advanced our cause.
Are you seriously this dense? Are you just slow or something? Your cause of minarchism is not "our" cause, minarchist. I don't know who these other people you keep presuming to speak for are. They're certainly not the people here. And from what I can tell, they're not the people you "blame" for the "divide" either. And they don't even seem to be the people you sound like as you try to defend the statist Rand Paul.
You've really got to let go of this "we" "us" "ours" stuff.
That doesn't mean the son of Ron Paul being a statist is on-net a good thing for anti-statists.
I never said it was a good thing. It is what it is. And we might as well use him whenever we can to advance our agenda.
And you really need to stop using this "us" term.
By "us" I mean both folks like myself who favor a stateless society that respects property rights, as well as minarchists (in the traditional sense of the term), and Constitutional conservatives - the mix of folks who sef-ascribe as libertarians, and all want at least a much smaller State than we currently suffer under. Do you not fit into this "us"?
I have no ethical objection to your solution, my objection is that it is impractical. It is less likely to succeed than working within the existing political system.
Minarchist, can you find me an example of a State that has made itself smaller? Anywhere in history?
Revolutions (severing the ties that bind) are the only way to do it. And when they do...they create a different "nascant empire." Because power...corrupts...
"Conservatives" are sickening. They harken back to the heydays of religious tyranny. "We want a small state and a massive church!" Minarchists wander through logical carnival mirror houses to justify their totally inconsistent view of "authority."
People deserve total state or no state.
"To be or not to be?"
"That is the question."
"Do or do not."
"There is no try."
It is less likely to succeed than working within the existing political system.
There aren't ANY examples of your method of "working within the system." Our Founders tried. Mine, however, is tried and true. Things just have to get bad enough for the working stiffs and you will see.
Why minarchy? If the state can provide courts, and military very efficiently, then why not welfare, food stamps, housing, and a free lunch?
Minarchist, are you an actual minarchist, or just an anarcho capitalist that needed a random name?
Anyways i still hav hope that by a miracle rp could become president.
But i will admit that i am thinkking hes not gonna win even if i have hope. Hoppe and change !
Ron paul was not enthusiastic enough. He wasnt fierce. Instead he was all like oh its my last race, so delegates and my supporters, please be kind and courteous and let the mainstream snake of death stomp all over our faces and shit on us while we stay in the corner gettin 10% of the vote. If i was ron paul, last time running the race, who gives a fuck about being courteous and kind to the statist neocon corporatist monsters? I would have said to take the faggots down, hell start revolution!!! Viva la revoluciya!!!!!!11111oneoneone
I see lots of people saying they will vote for romney because its the lesser evil type of bullshit. Even if youre voting for lesser evil, youre still voting for evil. Why not cast your vote for ron paul, or not vote at all? Anyone with 2 eyes and the ability to read can tell that romney and obama is same shit. George bush and obama same shit. If they are so different and will bring about hope and change and lower our taxes and give out free lunches, why are we still in an economic shithole? Then they say, oh its <opposite side> fault! How much you want to bet that if romney gets elected, all his fuck ups will be blamed on obama? And then they say, in the long run, were all dead!
“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
No, Minarchist, you are
For the last time, that I am not a statist is abundantly clear if you look at my profile or just about anything I have ever posted on this forum. Either you know that I am not a statist, and you are being dishonest in your repeated claims that I am, or you have a severe memory problem. Either way, there's nothing more I can do.
Minarchist:I never said it was a good thing. It is what it is. And we might as well use him whenever we can to advance our agenda.
This is why it's so comical that you imply I'm naive and accuse me of being "confused". You actually think you're using Rand Paul...instead of the other way around.
Why Minarchists Are the Enemy
(hear that, Minarchist?)
Minarchist:For the last time, that I am not a statist is abundantly clear if you look at my profile or just about anything I have ever posted on this forum. Either you know that I am not a statist, and you are being dishonest in your repeated claims that I am, or you have a severe memory problem.
You advocate minarchy, do you not?
abundantly clear if you look at my profile
Okay, I'll check.
do do do do dooooo (singing while I read))
an advocate of a stateless but also mono-centric legal order.
I don't know if you realize that a mono-centric legal system relies on a...monopoly of legitimacy and/or authority. THAT is why you call yourself a Minarchist. You believe in a State.
This is you...
Now, I'm off to play Counter-Strike; Global Offensive. G'night, David!
There are no examples of political action or revolutionary action leading to the abolition of the State.
There are plenty of examples of political action leading to reduction of the State. Did we forget about the 19th century, the golden age of liberalism?
The record of revolutionary action is pretty mixed. Seems you're about as likely to end up with the dictatorship of the proletariat as the articles of confederation.
I don't know if you realize that a mono-centric legal system relies on a...monopoly of legitimacy and/or authority.
I realize that that is the common view. My view is that a natural monopoly in legal services is possible. Perhaps I'm incorrect, but nonetheless what I am advocating is most certainly not a State.
Now, I'm off to play Counter-Strike; Global Offensive.
Yes, gotta practice for your revolution, which I'm sure will be starting up aaaany day now.
I hope there is a God so he can DAMN YOU; I am missing CS:GO time for this.
YES. AS I STATED IN THE SAME FUCKING POST.
ME:
Washington, Hamilton, Adams, Morris, et al, wanted to BE the British Empire. Well, Washington, might not have WANTED to be it, but he thought that was the only option (hey, you are like him!).
The "golden age of liberalism..."
I don't know what history books you are reading, but the 19th century was wrought with growth of the state. It was simply smaller then and people respected the concept of anarchy even if they didn't refer to it as anarchy. You refer to specific people or events (Jackson and his bank, etc.) You forget the CIVIL WAR. You forget Santa Clara Country vs. South Pacific Railroad. You forget, the Mexican-American War. You forget Napoleon. You forget the stomping out of the Native Americans. You forget the... well you get the idea (Europe was myred in statism that grew into WW I).
Minarchist:My view is that a natural monopoly in legal services is possible.
The Myth of Natural Monopoly
Now I'm off to go have sex with the beautiful girl who's been sleeping in my bed while I waste time with you fucks. I'll probably make a sandwich too.
If you mean a minimal State, then no, I do not.
I advocate a natural (aka non-aggressive) monopolist in legal services. I call myself a minarchist because this organization I'm advocating resembles a minarchist state: but without the aggression. Do you really not know this?
I suppose you never read anything I write, or don't remember what it said, and don't remember the very first post I made on this forum, where you and I had this very same conversation about the meaning of by username.
My view is that a natural monopoly in legal services is possible.
Oh, you're John Stuart Mill over here. Or, are you familiar with a "Natural Monopoly." The concept is pretty disrespected in economics circles (ahem.........the Mises community).
I don't recall saying anything about the kinds of activities in CS having anything to do with revolution...methinks you are at the end of you argumentation points.
BTW, you can make money in CS. It is easy.
You remeber my comment about minarchist "wandering through logical carnival mirror houses to justify their totally inconsistent view of authority"? Well, this is it. What is a voluntary monopoly? Or I should say, "What is a voluntary monopoly that lasts for more than a few years" (I'd call M$ this for a few years)?
The point of competition is to drive down prices and increase service quality. But, here you are denying market competition, the mainstay of market economics. There would be no way to enforce your monopoly without force...when someone becomes dissatisfied, they will turn to another service provider, but that goes against this fantasy control scheme of freedom you have envisioned...
You are a Statist. Your theory is a daydream.