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

Woman attacked by Rand Paul Supporters at Debate

rated by 0 users
This post has 75 Replies | 10 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Posts 186
Points 6,000
ravochol replied on Tue, Oct 26 2010 9:30 PM

Well, full disclosure - I actually volunteered on Ron Paul's campaign and put up quite a few signs for him, even though there's a lot I disagree with him about,

1. because Ron has a coherent viewpoint and set of principles and sticks to them consistently, even if its alienates powerful people

and

2. because he's pragmatic about his beliefs - he understands that even if he dislikes all 'big government,' he knows he can't do everything and so he has priorities for what he'd go after first, because, for example, an illegitimate tax to fund illegitimate violence is more egregious than an illegitimate tax to pay for old people's health care, even if we accept that both are illegitimate.  

Honestly though, I find that kind of coherence lacking in most politicians who invoke libertarian arguments - it's usually just libertarianism when politically convenient, which usually breaks down as "socialism for the rich and well-connected, but capitalism for everyone else - in other words corporatism, and I'd take real capitalism over that any day, (even if it's not my first choice, because I'm pragmatic).

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,434
Points 29,210

but then, that makes sense, because hardly any of Rand Paul's positions are truly libertarian.

Which of his positions aren't libertarian?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,899
Points 37,230

I would like to thank Lilliburne for being the only person in this thread to say an old man curb stomping a young lady is wrong.

My god people...

In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!

~Peter Kropotkin

  • | Post Points: 65
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,592
Points 63,685
Sieben replied on Tue, Oct 26 2010 10:08 PM

^I said "tea party, strike 1"

[edit: That was not a curb stomp.]

Banned
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

I would like to thank Lilliburne for being the only person in this thread to say an old man curb stomping a young lady is wrong.

I don't think it is if she advocates curbstomping people into her statist system.  Quid pro quo.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 550
Points 8,575

Regarding the 'shock' that some Republicans/Tea Partiers are defending this: what do you expect? It's politics. If it was a Republican being assaulted by Obama supporters, you'd see a lot of Democrats doing their best to justify it. These people need to protect their group identity.

And regarding the curb stomp, I just saw the brutal Sopranos curb stomp for the first time a few days ago. I wouldn't wish that on even the most annoying leftist.

"People kill each other for prophetic certainties, hardly for falsifiable hypotheses." - Peter Berger
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,113
Points 60,515
Esuric replied on Tue, Oct 26 2010 10:18 PM

I would like to thank Lilliburne for being the only person in this thread to say an old man curb stomping a young lady is wrong.

That goes without saying. Leftists like to place themselves on moral pedestals but they refuse to actually educate themselves when it comes to the issues. What defines the left is their ignorance of economic theory and their endless appeals to emotion.

"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,592
Points 63,685
Sieben replied on Tue, Oct 26 2010 10:21 PM

According to the Huffington Post, she suffered a concussion from that.

>> Okay thats it i've spent way too much time on this non-issue.

Banned
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,899
Points 37,230

That goes without saying. Leftists like to place themselves on moral pedestals but they refuse to actually educate themselves when it comes to the issues. What defines the left is their ignorance of economic theory and their endless appeals to emotion.

Stomp the ignorant in the name of non-aggression!

In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!

~Peter Kropotkin

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,592
Points 63,685
Sieben replied on Tue, Oct 26 2010 10:23 PM

Rothbard:
It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

Banned
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,037
Points 17,975
John Ess replied on Tue, Oct 26 2010 10:24 PM

Moving into politics, it is pretty difficult maintain the fiction of principle.  Since by its nature it is a position of privilege.   This is why most of the political people attack each for either having stupid principles or not following their 'supposed' principles.  You're pretty much asking for big questions and can only hope to God no one asks them.  Or if people do ask them, they are too distracted... or you can fire back with 'you too!'

Still, I think that it would be more rational for RP and this young person to have an authentic discussion.  Maybe even one that deals with some of the anxiety the young person has around the experience of RP himself.  And resolve these issues realistically.  I find the avoidance of such discussions to be a problem.  There shouldn't be any violence, but at the same time there should not be such meanspirited ridicule towards RP unless RP even knows what they even mean to say and can respond in earnest.  Maybe they do have something so important to say that RP will quit or people will not vote for him.  But that doesn't seem to be the case if they give him some 'Republicorp' badge so they can later have a snicker on their blogs.

Even if I think both would be better off quitting politics, I don't see why this rational way of dealing with it wouldn't be better.

 

-as a sidenote, I do not yet understand how Rand Paul has become so popular.  He seems more low profile and not garnering a big following like his father.  It is surprising to see 'loyal followers', violent or not.  I suppose in comparison to many of the tea party candidates, he seems to be well-read.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,899
Points 37,230

I don't think it is if she advocates curbstomping people into her statist system.  Quid pro quo.

I'm almost sure she is anti-war, anti-drug war, pro civil liberties.  So, it's ok to stomp her because the parts of the statist system she supports are aid for the poor?  Is it ok to stomp a right wing minarchist, like Ron Paul, or Mises?  Are you saying she personally aggressed on people...if that's true, so have you tax payer/benefit reciever/road driver.  Is it ok to stomp you?

In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!

~Peter Kropotkin

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,113
Points 60,515
Esuric replied on Tue, Oct 26 2010 10:25 PM

Stomp the ignorant in the name of non-aggression!

Huh? You have a real problem with reading comprehension.

Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:
I would like to thank Lilliburne for being the only person in this thread to say an old man curb stomping a young lady is wrong.

Esuric:
That goes without saying

In other words, curb stomping a young lady is obviously wrong. No libertarian would ever support such aggression, but the question remains, namely what does this have to do with me, and why are we talking about this at all?

"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,899
Points 37,230

My apologies.  But it would seem the context of what you said was "that goes w/o saying that Lilliburne (the voice of reason) would be the only one to denounce the curb stomp."

Perhaps it's not my reading comprehension?

In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!

~Peter Kropotkin

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

Is it ok to stomp you?

I don't advocate those things.  That is what counts.  I'm a contractarian.  Reject the NAP social contract, be fair game for aggression.  I'm not a pacifist.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,899
Points 37,230

You take part in it; actions speak louder than words.  So whether or not you advocate with your mouth, you advocate with your wallet (and car, etc).

Can I stomp you now, statist?

In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!

~Peter Kropotkin

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

Says you.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Esuric:
No libertarian would ever support such aggression, but the question remains, namely what does this have to do with me, and why are we talking about this at all?

Someone needs attention again, that's why.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,260
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

Caley McKibbin:

I would like to thank Lilliburne for being the only person in this thread to say an old man curb stomping a young lady is wrong.

I don't think it is if she advocates curbstomping people into her statist system.  Quid pro quo.

Are ANY of your loved ones non-anarcho-capitalist Caley?  If so, is it okay for any ancap here to go stomp on them?

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:
You take part in it; actions speak louder than words.  So whether or not you advocate with your mouth, you advocate with your wallet (and car, etc).

Tu quoque at best.

Grayson Lilburne:
Are ANY of your loved ones non-anarcho-capitalist Caley?

Wow.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Wed, Oct 27 2010 2:15 AM

"more social democracy."

heaven forbid! Then we'd turn into a poor third-world nation, like Germany!

(Or even Switzerland!)

Or Belarus.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,365
Points 30,945

I am going to say something funny, and this topic will be over.

No one gets more fiercely excited about libertarians than ex-libertarians. At least in the American context.

I could name you several genuine progressives, the kind who were protesting loudly on the streets for months to get the CRA passed in the 1960s, and none of them have a had a bad thing to say about libertarians. Robert Scheer, veteran journalist and editor of Truthdig, defended Ron Paul by saying, "Just what is it about our bloated federal government that when anybody advocates cutting it down, television pundits start foaming at the mouth?", adding further that the American government's excesses in spending have been in things least beneficial to the poor. Alexander Cockburn, editor of Counterpunch, again defended the folks of Mises.Org and company by saying that on most basic issues, there is absolutely no difference between sane people and libertarians, like how the Iraq War was wrong. Saul Freedman, journalist and nephew of a "non-card carrying socialist", also said that libertarians have given a much needed addition to the scant opposition to government excesses.

Remember also that in the Bush era, any sane person was worried about deficits, and not just libertarians. It was not something that fell across party lines.

So who are the ones who are most fiercely criticising libertarians? Ex-libertarians. I will not name them. You know who they are. You might object by saying that they might never have been. But you know, let's accept that they once were. Here's the genuine problem. These people got interested by reading internet columns, YouTube videos, conspiracy theory sites, and so on. Once they found out about chains of groups like us, they had an interest. But it was a high time-preference interest. Looking at specifics requires slow and patient reading over a very very very long time, suspending all judgment. And then that will only leave you with the basic knowledge that there is more uncertainty than certainty. And when I came to this forum, I realized the giant volume of reading that I still had to do throughout my life. But what happens is that we use too much hyperbole, and sometimes show little sense of proportion when we talk. And for those who are more impatient, they get frustrated much quicker, both with the lack of quick answers and our lack of serious talk.

Either way, nobody will get any knowledge of Austrian economics from this message board. It's mainly for socializing. You have to read, and we unfortunately can't give the quick answers here.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Wed, Oct 27 2010 7:32 AM

Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:
I would like to thank Lilliburne for being the only person in this thread to say an old man curb stomping a young lady is wrong.

My god people...

...

I sure hope you aren't trolling here.

Seriously.  Do we all need to immediately jump up and proclaim that it's wrong?  Of course we think it's wrong.  Are you really going to think that we endorse it otherwise?  Just what kind of people do you think we are?

If you're going to call us hypocrites, why don't you do so in an honest, direct manner?

My god person...

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,260
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

Autolykos:
Of course we think it's wrong.  Are you really going to think that we endorse it otherwise?  Just what kind of people do you think we are?

 

Caley McKibbin:

...an old man curb stomping a young lady is wrong.

I don't think it is if she advocates curbstomping people into her statist system.  Quid pro quo.

 

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Wed, Oct 27 2010 9:29 AM

Grayson, do you think the majority of people in here agree with Caley?  Why or why not?

If it please you and Epicurus ibn Kalhoun, let me note for the record that I do not think it was right for the (alleged) Rand Paul supporter to have stomped that woman -- assuming that the event wasn't staged.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,189
Points 22,990

Off topic, but jeez, one thing mises.org has taught me is A LOT of latin. I constantly have to look this stuff up!

Freedom has always been the only route to progress.

Post Neo-Left Libertarian Manifesto (PNL lib)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Caley is simply pointing out that he doesn't agree with a double standard.  Family, age, sex notwithstanding.  Violent action is violent action.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 300
Points 5,325
NewLiberty replied on Wed, Oct 27 2010 10:10 AM

> me: Dude, Bunning was just saying take the unemployment benefits money from the unspent TARP or stimulus funds.   if you don't understand horse-race two-party current events politics, then don't talk about it.

>> Lilbrune: RIght, because never talking about something is a great way to learn to understand it.

 

Lilburne, you took what I said out of context and twisted its meaning.  When I said "don't talk about it", I mean don't talk about politicians' motivations and policies if one doesn't know what they are.  There was an incorrect claim made regarding Bunning's justification for not extending unemployment benefits (he just wanted them taken from stimulus or TARP funds).  My point is if people aren't going to take the time to understand the positions of politicians, then they shouldn't make claims. And then you say: "RIght, because never talking about something is a great way to learn to understand it." But I think you didn't understand what I was saying, inadvertently and ironically confirming my point: if people aren't going to take the time to understand what other people are saying, then don't engage!

But don't sweat it, I'm still your biggest fan, based on those awesome Krugman articles.

 
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,260
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

liberty student:

Caley is simply pointing out that he doesn't agree with a double standard.  Family, age, sex notwithstanding.  Violent action is violent action.

That's not how it reads to me.

 

Caley McKibbin:

... an old man curb stomping a young lady is wrong.

I don't think it is if she advocates curbstomping people into her statist system.  Quid pro quo.

What is "it"?  Stomping a young lady.  "I don't think it is" what?  Wrong.  He's saying that he doesn't think stomping a young lady is wrong as long as she advocates state violence.  If he's really against double-standards, he shouldn't object to the notion of an ancap stomping any of his state-advocating loved ones.

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,879
Points 29,735
Bostwick replied on Wed, Oct 27 2010 7:56 PM

Why has a thread started with the intention of demonizing someone because of the actions of a supposed supporter gotten into the second page?

Peace

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,943
Points 49,130
SystemAdministrator
Conza88 replied on Wed, Oct 27 2010 9:52 PM

Witch-hunt.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 743
Points 11,795

Because people enjoy arguing- especially when it comes to slapping labels on each other while at the same time elevating their own status. 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,899
Points 37,230

I thought it was more a commentary on the aggressive nature of many pop right libertarians; social security evil, big man stomping on liberal female activist is ok, or she deserved it, or it's a black flag operation, or she should apologize to him.

Seriously, that's his stance now

In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!

~Peter Kropotkin

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,113
Points 60,515
Esuric replied on Thu, Oct 28 2010 1:23 AM

I thought it was more a commentary on the aggressive nature of many pop right libertarians; social security evil, big man stomping on liberal female activist is ok, or she deserved it, or it's a black flag operation

More like, social security bad, big man stomping on liberal female activist, also bad. As far as some people questioning her motives, that should be expected from a crowd that's naturally skeptical, such as this one.

But what I find truly remarkable is that your participation on this forum primarily consists of (a) having your positions entirely refuted from both an economic and philosophical standpoint, and (b) your attempt to create a narrative of "right-libertarians" as ruthless/heartless. You said yourself that you "take heat" on this forum "because you defend the poor," even though we repeatedly show you that your positions (supporting labor unions, social security, etc) actually hurt the poor, that they are self-defeating. I wonder if (b) is how you deal with (a)?

What do you think? It would explain your vigorous participation in this pointless thread.

"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

If he's really against double-standards, he shouldn't object to the notion of an ancap stomping any of his state-advocating loved ones.

Are you suggesting I love people that advocate violence against me?  Har har.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 35
Points 565

 

My apologies.  But it would seem the context of what you said was "that goes w/o saying that Lilliburne (the voice of reason) would be the only one to denounce the curb stomp."

Perhaps it's not my reading comprehension?
 

A) That goes without saying (that an old man curbstomping a young lady is wrong)

B) That goes without saying (that Lilburne should be thanked for being a voice of reason, and denouncing it when no one else had, including myself although I obviously agree since I believe he should be thanked.)

C) That goes without saying (that Lilburne, as a voice of reason, would say that... which I disagree with therefore I disagree with [the voice of] reason.)

I got it on the first try. Your response looked to me like you were selectively changing the context so that you could continue chastising/arguing/expose the inner "jerk"... I didn't know whether it was intentional or not but that's what it looked like... it looked like you saw an opportunity to stretch language to continue "calling people out." [i'm not trying to get on your case here, either, but it does seem like something you might typically choose to do, you do seem to revel in this sort of quirky-baiting people into saying something you can roll with thing (softcore trolling?), from my admittedly limited experience lurking here. Sometimes it can be hard to tell how genuine you're being.]

 

Anyway, since apparently people are being judged on their morality here for whatever reason, for the record, I think it was wrong. I also thought it went without saying. [I also think Caley has a valid point, but I still can't justify it morally. She didn't deserve it, as far as my opinion is concerned, which is probably negligible.]

Also, the video was absolutely NOT a curb stomp (neither was the wrestling video posted above). That is just inflammatory rhetoric. It looked like he mostly was trying to hold her down (which he should not have) with his foot, and was giving her a hard "nudge" to keep her down (which is worse than just holding her still, but it still was nowhere near say a swift kick in the ribs).

But a curb stomp(just a wiki page, no violent images)...  now that is an ABSOLUTELY, and I mean UTTERLY disgusting act of violence. It is 100% intended to inflict SERIOUS bodily harm, if not death. If it was a real curb stomp she would almost absolutely wound up in an ER, and she definitely wouldn't be standing around complaining of a "headache", I would be absolutely astonished if she would even be able to speak clearly. Anyone equating what happened in that video with one is being disingenuous, period. Most who simply heard about this without seeing the video and knew what a "curb stomp" was would no doubt be shocked and outraged. It is associated with very extreme violence.

It was mob violence (hey it's like voting, but for real!), and it was a disgrace (to all involved, really...politics), but I think it was blown way out of proportion. Honestly, I'd be pretty satisfied if a few incidences like this was the extent of politically motivated violence as the political climate changes and we watch events unfold, I'd prefer it was zero of course, but if it got no worse than some isolated incidents of this, I'd feel pretty dang relieved. There was some (imo, relatively minor... though very much unwarranted) aggression, but at least there was no blood spilled.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 2 of 2 (76 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS