These are your parameters quite absent from the original contention. Wouldn't it just be easier to admit you were wrong?
When you're spending time preaching, you're not doing something else. If you just like preaching, then whatever. But the activist never seems to want to admit that he's doing it because he feels like it. Intellectuals have trouble shutting up, but they feel the need to rationalize it. I really don't care what anyone does, I just wish they'd be more honest/realistic about their motivations.
What is this in response to?
See above. And, also, once you realise it's pointless you tend to be less inclined to do it. Still, I am pretty outspoken about my detestation of the government. But I don't pretend I'm saving the world.
Ricky James Moore II:When you're spending time preaching, you're not doing something else.
I'm aware of this. You seem to have lost the thread of the conversation here. Let's recap.
BramElias: If you want to be free, try smoking some weed and running some red lights.
gocrew: That wouldn't prevent me from preaching.
Ricky James Moore II: Yes it would.
This is getting a little silly. You can demonstrate some decorum and admit you were wrong or you can go on evading. I think I have done what I needed to do on this thread.
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken
You seem to have missed the point of my original statement, but whatever, I don't care.
Dear Ricky James,
With all due respect, you are fully aware that your attitude would make most people consider you a douche, right?
I don't think you actually are one, but you seem to carry this passive-agressive bitterness.
What I get from this conversation is that Ricky James once tried to convince people of how correct he was in all his opinions and failed completely due to a lack of charisma and people skills. In order to rationalise away this painful truth he tells himself that the reason he can't convince anyone is that everyone alse has faulty DNA. Or maybe Victor is right and he's just a douche.
Pretty insightful. Wouldn't be surprised if that's completely accurate.
J.R.M.:I think the mindset of the masses is devoted to the status quo. currently that is statism. I don't htink it necessarily has to always be this way.
What 'political strategies' do Libertarians use? I can only see the rise of socialism and more obtrusive government being successful, historically, since it merely requires a group of charismatic radicals to grasp popularity through slogans such as 'free bread and wine for the poor' before being elevated to positions where they have the power to raise taxes, increase public spending and wage wars. At best we can only pray they do not have a catastrophic effect on our lives.
Maybe our friend Rockwell is afraid of being caught off guard by questions posed by someone who isn't his close friend or affiliate. I have never once seen Rockwell on the defensive. I still think the various Ron Paul-Rockwell report newsletters are haunting him... We all know he did them, but he completely ignores the issue. He absolutely refuses to leave friendly territory. This is all surprising, considering Mr. Rockwell has an enourmous skill for oratory and speechcraft. If it is fear of being 'trapped' into a question on live TV, I would say this could easily be answered by saying "I don't really think that anymore." How hard is that? Forgiveness!
That said, Ron Paul and many others have stooped down low to go on Jon Stewart's program. He likes to post youtube links, well, why not of himself? He is much more eloquent, has far less of a shrill old man's voice, and has the intellectual power to turnover any question. Or does he?
This is apparently a Man Talk Forum: No Women Allowed!
Telpeurion's Disliked Person of the Week: David Kramer
Vitor, have you considered that you're not the person I am talking to? That the majority of you even read my posts is accidental from my perspective.
I am not interested in convincing anyone. I'm interested in talking to the two or three people on here who I can actually converse with. I have seriously considered starting my own forum and having it be invite-only. The general rabble are not my cup of tea. I do have a bad habit of replying to things I don't really care about, because I'm just argumentative like that. I really should just not pay attention to them.
Telpeurion:I still think the various Ron Paul-Rockwell report newsletters are haunting him... We all know he did them, but he completely ignores the issue.
Yes, we know this. We gutted a sheep and read it in the entrails, which makes unnecessary anything like, I don't know, evidence.
At any rate, the newsletter stuff was overblown. There was one comment about fleet footed black criminals that was well and truly out of bounds, but as I recall the others didn't even say what the selected segments seemed to be saying once they were put back in context.
We're not going to get a libertarian society before we get supertechnology. Get with the Heinleinian program
Heinnleinan was not a libertarian. He blantently endorsed the proto-keynesian overproduction/underconsumption ideas, and offered the 'solution' that the government print up money and give it out to people in order to make up the difference. Try reading 'For Us the Living'(his first novel, not published till after his death) sometime.
Ricky James Moore II:I'm interested in talking to the two or three people on here who I can actually converse with.
You can do that by PM or by email.
As far as starting your own private forum, who would attend? Vichy? Liberte? RJ Moore?
It's amazing the ends some people will go to in order to have a social experience, all the while claiming they don't want to have those same social experiences.
Since that person (the 'outlier) was me at one stage, I have some sympathy with that position, but in reality I don't believe a Libertarian society will ever be achieved; the mindset of the masses is devoted to statism and statism only
Only because they are never given any alternitive. Let them know there there isanother possibility and sopme people(at least) will cange their minds.
I dont know about Lew's reasoning, but I think its definetly worth-while to to present our position to as many people as possible.
Ricky James Moore II: If you just like arguing with people, go ahead. But it's delusional to think it will have any measurable impact on the degree of State control over your life. Debating is a hobby. Politics is a religion.
If you just like arguing with people, go ahead. But it's delusional to think it will have any measurable impact on the degree of State control over your life. Debating is a hobby. Politics is a religion.
I agree in that personally exposing even dozens of people to the message of liberty might not make a huge global impact. However, I do it on the side because I enjoy it and it helps me understand the subject better personally.
The "global impact" affect I am striving for myself has led me to devote most of my energy towards entrepreneurship. Getting rich while building companies that disrupt the government has a much more profound effect on my environment and it's fun! I also get in touch with other high-powered investors/entrepreneurs that enjoy building businesses that almost always end up greatly undermining the state even if unintended.
In Lew's case, it depends on his preference, if he can find better ways of accomplishing his goals then perhaps he should stay off those outlets afterall. It's not my place to make those decisions for him.
If you just like arguing with people, go ahead. But it's delusional to think it will have any measurable impact on the degree of State control over your life.
I dont think my efforts will have any measurable impact in the near future, but I think its patently absurd to think that enough libertarians working togetbher wont make a difference in the long run.
Hell I dobut libertarians can have any real measurable effect in my own lifetime, but we might just be able to make a better world for our children.
I disagree with your premise.
I have an IQ rated within the range classified as "Genius" or "Near Genius". I was not always an An-Cap Austrian.
A great man once appeared on a show so lowly it could hardly be considered one. The guest espoused some ideas which were totally unknown to me, others which were opposed to my held considerations. It was Ron Paul on a youtube video being interviewed about Internet Neutrality in the dormatory room of a college student.
I was a thinking mundane, but the sphere and scope of my thought was both misinformed and institutionally limited. This is no longer the case. There are countless others with the same capability but are stunted due to lack of exposure. Any opportunity to increase exposure to those "asleep" is one worth taking--no matter how menial it may seem.
Ricky likes to think he's some kind of elite Nietzschian superman.
"No person is so grand or wise or perfect as to be the master of another person." ~ Karl Hess
"look, property is theft, right? Therefore theft is property. Therefore this ship is mine, OK?" ~Zaphod Beeblebrox
Lmao. I.e., one person. Good one. This guy cracks me up, though.
fancyshirtman: Ricky likes to think he's some kind of elite Nietzschian superman.
No, if I were I wouldn't even talk to you people. I just think that most people are worse because they don't realise how ignorant and self-deceptive they are, and they offer all kinds of bullshit rationalizations. Lie if you feel the need, but don't be a fake.
Bohemian:I was a thinking mundane, but the sphere and scope of my thought was both misinformed and institutionally limited. This is no longer the case. There are countless others with the same capability but are stunted due to lack of exposure. Any opportunity to increase exposure to those "asleep" is one worth taking--no matter how menial it may seem.
+1
Ricky James Moore II:I just think that most people are worse because they don't realise how ignorant and self-deceptive they are, and they offer all kinds of bullshit rationalizations. Lie if you feel the need, but don't be a fake.
Thick with irony, although I do appreciate the general sentiment. I expressed something similar in the education grant thread. Take if you will, but don't try to tell me it is noble because it isn't.
But then, how could humans function if we couldn't rationalize? We'd be suicidal with guilt and remorse for every error and mistake we make. Confirmation bias is a survival mechanism.
@ Ricky
I am curious: What was it that brought you to Libertarianism?
We'd be suicidal with guilt and remorse for every error and mistake we make.
Lose the guilt. Don't worry! Be happy! ;)
@skylien
Because stripped of all its quasi-religious and rationalizing overtones it is basically right; and it is the only general mileu of thought that has a fairly accurate picture of social systems at least in their analytic aspects (though it often goes awry in the substantive aspects).
Cofirmation bias not to be conflated with lack of lack of guilt and remorse about error.
Ricky:Because stripped of all its quasi-religious and rationalizing overtones it is basically right; and it is the only general mileu of thought that has a fairly accurate picture of social systems at least in their analytic aspects (though it often goes awry in the substantive aspects).
Right. You didn't step into my trap ;) In fact the purpose of the question was to get the answer of who did expose you the first time to this kind of thinking. I am sure there was someone who did not believe you are a self-deceptive and ignorant fool, and therefore worth a try to expose you to new thoughts. Even if this person did not encounter you personally, like for example Ron Paul. And there are many others who just need a trigger. And if this one had thought like you do now, you might still believe in whatever you believed before.
I am not saying that it is absolutely impossible that you come up with this thinking entirely on your own. I just doubt that there are many people, if any at all, who would be able to figure this all out their self.
Not really. I was always individualist/materialist leaning, and when I started criticizing Christian theology and morality I found Nietzsche; at some point I googled 'Society does not exist' and found Rothbard. As my SN indicates, I am pretty auto-didactic. I've certainly learned a lot from reading but I don't think the overall tenor of my views have changed since I was nine.
Ricky James Moore II: But again, it's not black and white. So I propose we reach as many as we can. I have better ways to waste my time. You're not going to make a difference with this stuff. You will make a difference spending energy in your own life, avoiding the government, for example. In fact, it would probably be easier if you weren't putting yourself out there as opposing them, for that matter. There are just too many people in this world, and too much entrenched dogma and biological bias, for you to ever make a dent that matters while you're alive. Activism is totally pointless. This is the same thing that makes voting stupid. You don't count. You don't buy the evolutionary psychology angle for the same reason most people won't buy amoralism. You're wired up to reject out of hand that your contribution to social order (or disorder) is insignificant. It's a psychological bias, that may have made sense living in a group of ten people, but makes absolutely none in our world. If the 'revolution' happens, it will happen without me. If it doesn't happen, it won't happen with me. Either way, I am safer staying out of it. Spending my entire life preaching the Gospel of Rothbard will not lower my tax bill one cent. But spending that time making money will more than make up for the taxes I do pay. If you're feeling so Herculean that you can change a bunch of nitwits who don't want to listen and don't give a damn, why don't you push back the tide, King Knut?
But again, it's not black and white. So I propose we reach as many as we can.
I have better ways to waste my time. You're not going to make a difference with this stuff. You will make a difference spending energy in your own life, avoiding the government, for example. In fact, it would probably be easier if you weren't putting yourself out there as opposing them, for that matter. There are just too many people in this world, and too much entrenched dogma and biological bias, for you to ever make a dent that matters while you're alive. Activism is totally pointless. This is the same thing that makes voting stupid. You don't count.
You don't buy the evolutionary psychology angle for the same reason most people won't buy amoralism. You're wired up to reject out of hand that your contribution to social order (or disorder) is insignificant. It's a psychological bias, that may have made sense living in a group of ten people, but makes absolutely none in our world.
If the 'revolution' happens, it will happen without me. If it doesn't happen, it won't happen with me. Either way, I am safer staying out of it. Spending my entire life preaching the Gospel of Rothbard will not lower my tax bill one cent. But spending that time making money will more than make up for the taxes I do pay.
If you're feeling so Herculean that you can change a bunch of nitwits who don't want to listen and don't give a damn, why don't you push back the tide, King Knut?
This pinpoints my problem as well. I tried to weed out all the inefficiency and irrationality in my thinking so that I could arrive at "the truth" about the world. As I thought about it more and got wiser, I came to libertarianism. Then full-on anti-statism.
But as I strive for even more accurate understanding, I start to realize that to really maximize my utility I should be out enjoying my life and not pondering any of this intellectual shizzle. I enjoy it a lot, but not more than I enjoy drinking, having ridiculous amounts of sex, and generally living it up while I still can.
Why anarchy fails
AJ: Ricky James Moore II: But again, it's not black and white. So I propose we reach as many as we can. I have better ways to waste my time. You're not going to make a difference with this stuff. You will make a difference spending energy in your own life, avoiding the government, for example. In fact, it would probably be easier if you weren't putting yourself out there as opposing them, for that matter. There are just too many people in this world, and too much entrenched dogma and biological bias, for you to ever make a dent that matters while you're alive. Activism is totally pointless. This is the same thing that makes voting stupid. You don't count. You don't buy the evolutionary psychology angle for the same reason most people won't buy amoralism. You're wired up to reject out of hand that your contribution to social order (or disorder) is insignificant. It's a psychological bias, that may have made sense living in a group of ten people, but makes absolutely none in our world. If the 'revolution' happens, it will happen without me. If it doesn't happen, it won't happen with me. Either way, I am safer staying out of it. Spending my entire life preaching the Gospel of Rothbard will not lower my tax bill one cent. But spending that time making money will more than make up for the taxes I do pay. If you're feeling so Herculean that you can change a bunch of nitwits who don't want to listen and don't give a damn, why don't you push back the tide, King Knut? This pinpoints my problem as well. I tried to weed out all the inefficiency and irrationality in my thinking so that I could arrive at "the truth" about the world. As I thought about it more and got wiser, I came to libertarianism. Then full-on anti-statism. But as I strive for even more accurate understanding, I start to realize that to really maximize my utility I should be out enjoying my life and not pondering any of this intellectual shizzle. I enjoy it a lot, but not more than I enjoy drinking, having ridiculous amounts of sex, and generally living it up while I still can.
I have reached exactly the same conclusion. For now at least ;)
boniek: AJ: Ricky James Moore II: But again, it's not black and white. So I propose we reach as many as we can. I have better ways to waste my time. You're not going to make a difference with this stuff. You will make a difference spending energy in your own life, avoiding the government, for example. In fact, it would probably be easier if you weren't putting yourself out there as opposing them, for that matter. There are just too many people in this world, and too much entrenched dogma and biological bias, for you to ever make a dent that matters while you're alive. Activism is totally pointless. This is the same thing that makes voting stupid. You don't count. You don't buy the evolutionary psychology angle for the same reason most people won't buy amoralism. You're wired up to reject out of hand that your contribution to social order (or disorder) is insignificant. It's a psychological bias, that may have made sense living in a group of ten people, but makes absolutely none in our world. If the 'revolution' happens, it will happen without me. If it doesn't happen, it won't happen with me. Either way, I am safer staying out of it. Spending my entire life preaching the Gospel of Rothbard will not lower my tax bill one cent. But spending that time making money will more than make up for the taxes I do pay. If you're feeling so Herculean that you can change a bunch of nitwits who don't want to listen and don't give a damn, why don't you push back the tide, King Knut? This pinpoints my problem as well. I tried to weed out all the inefficiency and irrationality in my thinking so that I could arrive at "the truth" about the world. As I thought about it more and got wiser, I came to libertarianism. Then full-on anti-statism. But as I strive for even more accurate understanding, I start to realize that to really maximize my utility I should be out enjoying my life and not pondering any of this intellectual shizzle. I enjoy it a lot, but not more than I enjoy drinking, having ridiculous amounts of sex, and generally living it up while I still can. I have reached exactly the same conclusion. For now at least ;)
These religious fanatics with their craving to 'do something' really annoy me. It's like saying, 'since I am interested in military strategy, I should fight in a war'. It's a total non sequitur.
Some people get into economics as an intellectual curiosity, others because they care deeply about the state of society and people's quality of life. I take it you fall into the first catagory, but that doesn't make the latter catagory a religious one.
And personally I prefer those who 'do something' as it shows they are not just full of hot air.
Consumariat: And personally I prefer those who 'do something' as it shows they are not just full of hot air.
But they are. They're not actually doing anything. They're just like the college kids who protested Bush; they accomplish nothing but acting sanctimoneous.
Ricky James Moore II: Vitor, have you considered that you're not the person I am talking to? That the majority of you even read my posts is accidental from my perspective. I am not interested in convincing anyone. I'm interested in talking to the two or three people on here who I can actually converse with. I have seriously considered starting my own forum and having it be invite-only. The general rabble are not my cup of tea. I do have a bad habit of replying to things I don't really care about, because I'm just argumentative like that. I really should just not pay attention to them.
RJM, Have you ever thought of starting a group blog? You, Prateek, and William are three of the most well-read and clever posters here, with some of the most interesting opinions. I think a group-blog by the three of you would be fascinating. And then, since it'd be your own blog, you could just delete whatever you consider to be inanity from the comments.
Other cool group blog teams I think would be
That's not a bad idea except I have no work ethic when it comes to writing; thanks for the compliment for that matter and while I haven't read a whole lot of Prateek's posts they do seem a cut above; and I have probably made it evident that I think William is quite the able thinker. I might add that you are probably one of if not the best poster on this forum when it comes to economic theory.
Daniel James Sanchez: Other cool group blog teams I think would be AJ, Michael Green, Ian, Adam Knott, and Zavoi Catalan, Esuric, and Abskebabs Liberty Student, Nirgraham, Daniel Muffinburg, and Filc
I suggest Autolykos.
Daniel James Sanchez: Catalan, Esuric, and Abskebabs
I would love to see this happen.
freeradicals:I suggest Autolykos.
I will be blogging later this year, but not for libertarians or about libertarian issues. Speaking to the in crowd is comfortable. I want to crack new markets and grow my personal network of people I can exchange with.
Love to do something collaborative with nir, Danny and filc though. Maybe we need our own podcast. Nir can write the theme music, Danny can sell advertising, filc can arrange hosting and I can handle marketing. Now all we need is something to talk about.
War doesnt offer the chance to make the world better. Quite the contrary actually.
Neither does libertarian activism; at least in any sense that is relevant to your own life. Seriously, this should be obvious.