Ansury: But, it's entirely likely that I'm giving Judge too much credit and he doesn't really consider this at all.
But, it's entirely likely that I'm giving Judge too much credit and he doesn't really consider this at all.
He was pretty clear that taxation was justifiable for the few "necessary" services like the military and police. I can't speak for him, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe we are voluntarily "purchasing" lousy services from the government, its more or less complicit. They later went into "voting with your feet" so you can move from state to state as a referendum against individual state policies and that was the way to balance out the cry's for big government or as an against anarchy. Meaning, if you don't like what your state is doing, just move to a different state.
He's clearly a minarchist and strict constitutionalist so there's probably hope for him still yet, because I know what that's like.
Beck on the other hand, I have less hope for. He and his listeners are much too invested in his show on "limited government" and the Constitution to make any radical changes.
Orthogonal: He was pretty clear that taxation was justifiable for the few "necessary" services like the military and police. I can't speak for him, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe we are voluntarily "purchasing" lousy services from the government, its more or less complicit. They later went into "voting with your feet" so you can move from state to state as a referendum against individual state policies and that was the way to balance out the cry's for big government or as an against anarchy. Meaning, if you don't like what your state is doing, just move to a different state. He's clearly a minarchist and strict constitutionalist so there's probably hope for him still yet, because I know what that's like. Beck on the other hand, I have less hope for. He and his listeners are much too invested in his show on "limited government" and the Constitution to make any radical changes.
I don't have a whole lot of hope for Beck himself. But I can see how some of his watchers will discover new things, new concepts, that they've never heard before, and it's plausible that a few of them will start exploring further on their own, and eventually come our way. And for this we should thank him. There are few in the MSM I can say this about.
Ansury:I know all that Conza (and calling me names doesn't really help convince anyone).
Ansury: I'm familiar with praxeology, I just think you're jumping to conclusions that are too extreme.
Ansury:I think you're being too cynical and ignoring some of the inroads he's made in certain areas.
Ansury:He's inviting Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, and Judge Napolitano onto his show without not trying to make a circus out of it (unlike most media scum).
http://mises.org/books/betrayal.pdf
"The individualists and laissez-faire liberals were stunned and embittered, not just by the mass desertion of their former allies, but also by the abuse these allies now heaped upon them as “reactionaries” “fascists,” and “Neanderthals.” For decades Men of the Left, the individualists, without changing their position or perspectives one iota, now found themselves bitterly attacked by their erstwhile allies as benighted “extreme right-wingers.” Thus, in December 1933, Nock wrote angrily to Canon Bernard Iddings Bell: “I see I am now rated as a Tory. So are you—ain’t it? What an ignorant blatherskite FDR must be! We have been called many bad names, you and I, but that one takes the prize.” Nock’s biographer adds that “Nock thought it odd that an announced radical, anarchist, individualist, single-taxer and apostle of Spencer should be called conservative.”2 ... But the intriguing point is that, as the far larger and more respectable conservative groups took up the cudgels against the New Deal, the only rhetoric, the only ideas available for them to use were precisely the libertarian and individualist views which they had previously scorned or ignored. Hence the sudden if highly superficial accession of these conservative Republicans and Democrats to the libertarian ranks. Thus, there were Herbert Hoover and the conservative Republicans, they who had done so much in the twenties and earlier to pave the way for New Deal corporatism, but who now balked strongly at going the whole way. Herbert Hoover himself suddenly jumped into the libertarian ranks with his anti-New Deal book of 1934, Challenge to Liberty, which moved the bemused and wondering Nock to exclaim: “Think of a book on such a subject, by such a man!” A prescient Nock wrote: Anyone who mentions liberty for the next two years will be supposed to be somehow beholden to the Republican party, just as anyone who mentioned it since 1917 was supposed to be a mouthpiece of the distillers and brewers.3 ... In fact, the individualists were in a bind at this sudden accession of old enemies as allies. On the positive side, it meant a rapid acceleration of libertarian rhetoric on the part of numerous influential politicians. And, furthermore, there were no other conceivable political allies available. But, on the negative side, the acceptance of libertarian ideas by Hoover, the Liberty League, et al., was clearly superficial and in the realm of general rhetoric only; given their true preferences, not one of them would have accepted the Spencerian laissez-faire model for America. This meant that libertarianism, as spread throughout the land, would remain on a superficial and rhetorical level, and, furthermore, would tar all libertarians, in the eyes of intellectuals, with the charge of duplicity and special pleading."
Ansury:Like I said before he's not consistent (neocon still)
Ansury:Now would you stop making me defend the selective libertarian tendencies of random neocons?
"Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day." [Watch Glen Beck] "Teach a man to fish and he'll eat forever." [Get them to stop watching TV] "Protect his private property rights to fish and he'll feed the world." [Get them interested in Ron Paul & Austrian Economics] For those that are under Becks spell; point out to them that Glen Beck is right (if he is) on this occasion, and then instruct them as to who he now agrees with - Ron Paul & Austrian Economists. Tell them that they've been saying the same things all along and if they want to be cool and ahead of the curve, they should go read and learn their stuff. Goal: stop them from watching the MSM. Get them to think for themselves. For those that are against Beck and accuse you of being one of them: point out that Glen Beck is a neo conservative scum, who was for the Patriot Act, War in Iraq, Bailouts etc. Point out that Bush is a war monger, but then so is Obama. You gain credibility and the appearance of sanity by first attacking the false (other side - be it left / right).
On Buckley, pg 185: (Relevancy for the tea party movements today and what is happening with them).
In the light of hindsight, we should now ask whether or not a major objective of National Review from its inception was to transform the right wing from an isolationist to global warmongering anti-Communist movement; and, particularly, whether or not the entire effort was in essence a CIA operation. We now know that Bill Buckley, for the two years prior to establishing National Review, was admittedly a CIA agent in Mexico City, and that the sinister E. Howard Hunt was his control. His sister Priscilla, who became managing editor of National Review, was also in the CIA; and other editors James Burnham and Willmoore Kendall had at least been recipients of CIA largesse in the anti-Communist Congress for Cultural Freedom. In addition, Burnham has been identified by two reliable sources as a consultant for the CIA in the years after World War II.10 Moreover, Garry Wills relates in his memoirs of the conservative movement that Frank Meyer, to whom he was close at the time, was convinced that the magazine was a CIA operation. With his Leninist-trained nose for intrigue, Meyer must be considered an important witness. Furthermore, it was a standard practice in the CIA, at least in those early years, that no one ever resigned from the CIA. A friend of mine who joined the Agency in the early 1950s told me that if, before the age of retirement, he was mentioned as having left the CIA for another job, that I was to disregard it, since it would only be a cover for continuing Agency work. On that testimony, the case for NR being a CIA operation becomes even stronger. Also suggestive is the fact that a character even more sinister than E. Howard Hunt, William J. Casey, appears at key moments of the establishment of the New over the Old Right. It was Casey who, as attorney, presided over the incorporation of National Review and had arranged the details of the ouster of Felix Morley from Human Events.
...
"At any rate, in retrospect, it is clear that libertarians and Old Rightists, including myself, had made a great mistake in endorsing domestic red-baiting, a red-baiting that proved to be the major entering wedge for the complete transformation of the original right wing. We should have listened more carefully to Frank Chodorov, and to his splendidly libertarian stand on domestic redbaiting: “How to get rid of the communists in the government? Easy. Just abolish the jobs.”11 It was the jobs and their functioning that was the important thing, not the quality of the people who happened to fill them."
It was Kirk, in fact, who brought the words “Conservatism” and “New Conservatism” into general acceptance on the right wing. Before that, knowledgeable libertarians had hated the word, and with good reason; for weren’t the conservatives the ancient enemy, the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Tory and reactionary suppressors of individual liberty, the ancient champions of the Old Order of Throne-and-Altar against which the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century liberals had fought so valiantly? And so the older classical-liberals and individualists resisted the term bitterly: Ludwig von Mises, a classical liberal, scorned the term; F.A. Hayek insisted on calling himself an “Old Whig”; and when Frank Chodorov was called a “conservative” in the pages of National Review, he wrote an outraged letter declaring, “As for me, I will punch anyone who calls me a conservative in the nose. I am a radical.” 15
Welcome to the modern day political spectrum.
This is 10min of Beck's Friday program if you're interested:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4056196/pop-quiz
Conza you said "Those who reject praxeology often are [delusional]." (I don't anyway) and later used the word naive. It just came off rude and condescending to me. I read the link and I watched the video, but I don't deny that he's playing a role in propping up the current system; what I have doubts are whether it's intentional--this is just a bit too evil to believe.
I don't think I'm making any radical claims here and I'm sure he wouldn't be thrilled at the "defense" I've provided for him. I've defended the correct things he has said or good things he has done. I think this warrants a little less vitriol and a little more acknowledgment that he's spreading less misinformation and more truth than the usual mainstream socialist.
By the way - I probably wouldn't be here and would have no idea this site existed were it not for his show hosting Ron Paul and Peter Schiff a few years back (when I found out Schiff, who I was a fan of, advised Paul I looked into Ron Paul more...). Perhaps this is part of the reason I'm less concerned with tearing the man a new one when there are others in Congress, the White House, or wherever who deserve it so much more. Another reason I'm less concerned with turning people completely off to Beck (not that I hold such influence) is exactly because (as you pointed out) he's useful in pulling people out of the one-party system--so why waste effort damaging that?
Conza88: I'm not making you do anything.
I'm not making you do anything.
That was a joke.
Anyway... I do like the advice.
Ansury:Conza you said "Those who reject praxeology often are [delusional]."
Conza88: "Anyone who believes Beck is sincere is delusional. ('What you will now see from the Media')"
Ansury: "I must be delusional then."
Conza88: "Those who reject praxeology [linking to: Conspiracy Theory of History Revisited] often are. You're missing the bigger picture. He's a pawn, whether or not he knows it is irrelevant."
Ansury:(I don't anyway) and later used the word naive.
Yeah, because this is naive:
Ansury:As long as he has the ratings, he can do mostly whatever he wants, he's not a "Fox puppet". As long as he has ratings, his employer doesn't have that much power. There's always a competitor that wants the ratings, if the ratings are there.
Beck's employer doesn't have that much power... are you serious? '' It's all about ratings? '' = fails remarkably, because it's not. Ron Paul media blackout / Fox News ban from the debates is just one example.
http://store.nypost.com/p/news/national/cnn_aims_to_please_dobbs_uvaSqmE2Pp5rODWENUE6GK - This Lou Dobbs example, again - real world example, which backs up everything I said in the thread I originally linked.
I understand you're new and as such missed the whole 2008 presidential campaign? This just goes further to back up my point. Everyone who followed the campaign closely knows what went down. Additionally, proclaiming someone naive ≠ name calling.
Ansury:what I have doubts are whether it's intentional--this is just a bit too evil to believe.
Right, so you prefer to dismiss it because it's "too evil to believe" ? lol. Did you read the excerpts about Buckley & National Review? Was that all "too evil to believe"?
Ansury:I think this warrants a little less vitriol and a little more acknowledgment that he's spreading less misinformation and more truth than the usual mainstream socialist.
He is a socialist himself. War is the biggest social program of the lot. Libertarianism is not "right wing". For those that manage to escape the Glen Beck box, that's all for the best... but for all those people that then consider him as what "Libertarianism" in the US represents - that's easily a net loss.
Ansury: Perhaps this is part of the reason I'm less concerned with tearing the man a new one when there are others in Congress, the White House, or wherever who deserve it so much more.
He deserves to be teared a new one. As do the others. Though instead of defending him, maybe it'd be more worthwhile to 'tear' those who you think deserve it - a 'new one'.
Ansury:Another reason I'm less concerned with turning people completely off to Beck (not that I hold such influence) is exactly because (as you pointed out) he's useful in pulling people out of the one-party system--so why waste effort damaging that?
He's not though. It's an unintended / indirect consequence. Ron Paul does the pulling. It's not Beck's / elite goal of aim to get people out of the box. They want to associate him (controlled opposition) with the real grassroots efforts, to do that - he needs to invite Schiff on & Paul. He talks to principled guys for 5-10 minutes? Then the rest of the month it's shilling for the state and towing the intended line.
He knew about Ron Paul and all the rest, the philosophy long before he was calling himself a Libertarian and has after he SUPPORTED THE BAILOUTS!
What bailouts though? George Bushs. That all changes when it's Obama bailouts. Nothing changed! Obama is a 3rd Bush term. Beck is a SHILL, a pawn, a unprincipled & consistent hack for the elite. It's as obvious as night and day.
I'm sorry Ansury, but that would be the example of being naive. You seem young. When I was young my dad used to call me naive at times, I think back and think how I was beyond naive... I was triple and 4x times naive.
Think of it this way. The budda was naive. He lived in the castle with his family and never saw the rest of the world until one day. He left and was carted around the streets. He saw a sick person, a dying person, and I can't remember who else, but didn't understand that people actually get sick and die. He never knew the world had pain. That's about as naive as any one person could ever be. And then he went on to change people's lives in a positive way.
[As a side note: Have you been reading any good books recently?]
I remember when Beck would call Ron P. a freak on his radio program and a bunch of other stuff that wasn't nice. Ron P. grew in influence and Glenn HAD to embrace Ron. In this clip he admits calling Ron a crack-pot in the past which I heard him say over and over and over and over and over and over again. Beck is a shill.
But Beck's vocal change of heart needs a lot of proving as he seems to be simply going with the tide of populist opinion in order to gain in ratings. He's not a radical but a radio/tv show host. That's it.
Like this guy eventually had to embrace Ron P. too in order to get him on his tv show as Ron has become THE person to get on tv. So he also has changed his tune some since the time of this clip:
Hmm - is 30-something young? I know my style of open minded conversation is, very much by intention, not nearly as assertive (one might use the term arrogant) as many in these forums. And I already knew what kind of impression that leaves, but don't mistake this for the ramblings of an inexperienced teenager either...
Recently I've been reading The Real Lincoln, one of the newer DiLorenzo books. Kinsella's Against IP is next.
Anyway whatever, I've wasted too much time on this pointless topic. We're all going to believe what we want. I guess I'll go elsewhere to be delusional and naive, for refusing to form conclusive opinions without anything I feel is hard enough evidence...
See you all in the animal ethics flame wars maybe.
Ansury:I've wasted too much time on this pointless topic.
Yep. Although I don't believe my posts were devoid of points / arguments.
Ansury:We're all going to believe what we want.
Folks believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and social contracts - that however doesn't mean they exist, let alone turn out to be correct.
News Alert: The fourth estate isn't in it for the ratings.
The lead up to the war in Iraq & its reportings all over the MSM (justifications for war, which largely amount to state propaganda etc.) didn't happen because the news network owners thought "Shock & Awe" would get great ratings..
Ansury:Hmm - is 30-something young? I know my style of open minded conversation is, very much by intention, not nearly as assertive (one might use the term arrogant) as many in these forums. And I already knew what kind of impression that leaves, but don't mistake this for the ramblings of an inexperienced teenager either...
My apologizes for bringing up "young". I said you "seem" young due to what appears to be naive. An 80 year old can be naive on something.
Ansury:Recently I've been reading The Real Lincoln, one of the newer DiLorenzo books. Kinsella's Against IP is next.
That's cool. Do you know which one of his Lincoln books are better? I've suggested to my wife to read one of DiLorenzo's books over the summer as she's a history teacher and likes the Civil War era.
Ansury:Anyway whatever, I've wasted too much time on this pointless topic. We're all going to believe what we want. I guess I'll go elsewhere to be delusional and naive, for refusing to form conclusive opinions without anything I feel is hard enough evidence... See you all in the animal ethics flame wars maybe.
Of course people believe what they want, it's praxeologic. Thus why principles are good to maintain a steady course, but you understand that already I'm simply talking out loud.
Conza88:"The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." ~ H. L. Mencken Sounds like Glenn Beck...
Ron P. called Glenn Beck a demagogue.
wilderness: That's cool. Do you know which one of his Lincoln books are better? I've suggested to my wife to read one of DiLorenzo's books over the summer as she's a history teacher and likes the Civil War era.
Actually I got the name mixed up. I'm reading Lincoln Unmasked, which is the newer version and I think it's also shorter. I can say it's pretty fascinating, but I can't compare since I've never read the older one.
I picked up the newer one because of this http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27346. I figure if there are mistakes or such, they're more likely corrected in the newer book. I think the link seems biased (almost like the author is doing to DiLorenzo what he claims DiLorenzo was doing in the book...), but without having the first book in hand I can't say for sure.
he he - I have an edit:
Ok just before I posted this I threw out a quick call to Google on the author "Quackenbush" and lincoln. Turned up this DiLorenzo rebuttal:
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/wDas.htm
Quackenbush indeed.
wilderness: Ron P. called Glenn Beck a demagogue.
Yeah that is a funny clip. :) But like I've said above, this was October 11, 2007 (so it claims) which is well before Beck was willing to accept anything libertarian for sure (whether or not we believe the shift is/was genuine). Not that it isn't all still true. But it's a shame GB has never even seemed to make an attempt to shift gears on foreign policy. Possibly the main reason I stopped watching out of annoyance. If he's supposed to be "faking" libertarian and "tricking" Ron Paul supporters into watching, he's not doing a very good job on that count.
Ansury:If he's supposed to be "faking" libertarian and "tricking" Ron Paul supporters into watching, he's not doing a very good job on that count.
He's supposed to be "faking" libertarian and "tricking" non "right wingers" into believing he is what Libertarianism represents in the US, he is too blur the lines between "Neoconservativism / war mongers / statists / DC think tanks" and the Libertarians who are grassroots, principled, anti state and anti war.
He'd be doing an amazing job if it wasn't for the folks who made videos like the the one - showing and calling him out for what he really is, an establishment hack and pawn of the elite - a neocon, which is what he has always been and what he always will be.
Seriously, drop it already.
I stopped watching television when I was twelve.
It just came out of me, like a tired habit that I was no longer interested in.
But here I see adults, much older than I and much more informed than I, worrying about demagogues on television. Has the habit not fallen out in you all? I can understand if you are a modestly educated working class person with little means of entertainment and long tiresome jobs that you watch television. But if you are educated, learned, and with challenging jobs or challenging courses that you are doing - what do you gain out of television? What made you spend that 30 minutes of your time on it on a particular day?
There are a lot of mundane insignificant things and a lot of important things in life, and you have to filter out the important things everyday. You do not spend your efforts learning about what one neighbour personally thinks about another neighbour. Or worry about what the agenda of a particular talking head on television is.
Whatever this man, Glenn Beck, is about, he (*checks wikipedia*) earns $23 million a year for it. It's just his job on network television. There is no political revolution going on here, or any such thing being led by this man, so he should not be a concern...unless your intention is to rebut this man and be a counter-revolution to him. But what is the point? Libertarianism, Austrian economics, and natural rights are not meant for mass movement. They can't be. They require slow, patient, and painstaking self-education, and it's the integrity of the ideas that matter, and not how you can make them acceptable to people. Therefore, there is no point in being a counter-demagogue to any television demagogue. Our job on mises.org is to inform and educate those who are willing to listen and learn, while gaining vice versa from others, and not to persuade those who are not interested. And in the end, we all take what we want from each other and leave the rest.