Rich333, governments with higher taxes, more speech restrictions, higher regulations, stricter price controls, etc. are more oppressive!
The United States' government is less oppressive than the North Korean government, for an extreme example.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Maxpot, I find it puzzling you could hold such views concerning women, & mankind in general. Do you read Nietzsche by any chance?I would second the unintended consequences of RP's campaign as being a most sour deal. For one, I'm quite surprised that no one has mentioned that essentially he was just an anti-war vehicle for most of the new voters that came in, and more or less didn't do much concerning other issues, as time went on, RP focused continually more on anti-war.
While well intentioned his run may be, as well as his political career, I just don't see his campaign and related 'movement' doing much except getting the attention of the state (maybe), getting compromises, which would appease the 'movement', of which then pats itself on the back thinking it got something done. Basically, what was said concerning reformism. I'm bitter as I supported RP at one time, but did not see the long term problem of just changing the rules (lessening) to an inherently flawed system; it's safe to say my time at Mises has influenced me more than I originally thought. For now, I'll remain in the apolitical realm & focus on furthering my education; you RP followers can have your fun at the march this June. I do wish the best of luck though; perhaps your efforts will not result in failed gradualism, & give the mainstream further bullets to shoot at libertarian ideas, with or without disinformation.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Nitroadict:Maxpot, I find it puzzling you could hold such views concerning women, & mankind in general.
That women are the weaker sex (and thusly tend more towards socialism, the system of the family, than libertarianism, the system of the businessman), and that most folks couldn't care less about politics but are happy to vote for a charismatic leader whom they know little about (but with whom they feel emotionally secure)? Yeah, where could I have gotten those crazy ideas?
Nitroadict:Do you read Nietzsche by any chance?
No, but I did read "Psychological Types" by Carl Jung.
"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke
maxpot46: That women are the weaker sex (and thusly tend more towards socialism, the system of the family, than libertarianism, the system of the businessman), and that most folks couldn't care less about politics but are happy to vote for a charismatic leader whom they know little about (but with whom they feel emotionally secure)? Yeah, where could I have gotten those crazy ideas?
By relying on the largley statist apologists crowd known as social scientists? Empirical, do not make statistics, automatically: '...while the practitioners of the physical sciences are, on the whole, empirically founded and are generally motivated by the search for solutions to universal problems, social science intellectuals are, in large number, based on ideologies that do not require empirical confirmation, and are ultimately driven by the exigencies of the local (i.e. national) power."[from: http://www.polyarchy.org/poststatism/english/social.sciences.html#Anchor-The-49575 ]Also, you probably have haven't heard of the following women:
* Voltairine de Cleyre, 1866-1912 (poet; essayist; anarchist)* Edith Efron, 1922-2001 (author; journalist; editor)* Margaret Fuller, 1810-1850 (author; poet; social critic; gender equity advocate)* Angelina Grimke, 1805-1879 (pioneer)* Sarah Grimke, 1792-1873 (abolitionist; author; motivational speaker)* Angela Tilton Heywood, 1872-1893 (self-ownership, free love, and pro-choice activist)* Lillian Harman (free love & anti-age of consent activist)* Zora Neale Hurston, 1891-1960 (author)* Judy Jarvis, 1946-2000 (nationally syndicated radio host)* Dr. Gertrude B. Kelly, 1862-1934 (author; physician)* Suzanne LaFollette, 1893-1983 (author; social critic; editor, The Freeman)* Rose Wilder Lane, 1887-1968 (anti-tax crusder; author; daughter of Laura Ingalls Wilder)* Louise Michel, 1830-1905 (French educator & revolutionary)* Dr. Maria Montessori (Italian educator)* Isabel Paterson, 1886-1961 (journalist; author; objectivist)* Cathy Seipp, 1957-2007 (former columnist, Los Angeles City Beat)* Anne Louise Germaine de Stael, 1766-1817 (author; political propagandist)* Lucy Stone, 1818-1893 (author; property rights advocate)* Joan Kennedy Taylor (author)* Mary Wollstonecraft, 1759-1797 (author; social critic)* Katherine Albrecht (consumer privacy advocate)* Norma Jean Almodovar (author & activist)* Barbara Amiel (columnist, London Daily Telegraph)* Dr. Annelise Anderson (economist; senior fellow, Hoover Institution)* Barbara Anderson (Citizens for Limited Taxation and Government)* Juliet Annerino (musician)* Hon. Patricia Awada (Minnesota State Auditor)* Mary Jo Baas (former Chair, Wisconsin Women's Council)* Dr. Sara Baase (Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, San Diego State University)* Dr. Neera Badhwar (Associate Professor of Philosophy, Oklahoma University)* Caroline Baum (columnist, Bloomberg News)* Hon. Susan Bell, J.D. (Hagerstown, Indiana Court Judge)* Paula Berry (artist)* Sue Blevins (author; founder, Institute for Health Freedom)* Robyn E. Blumner (Perspectives Columnist, St. Petersburg Times)* Elizabeth Bowles (Professor of English, Virginia Tech. University)* Barbara Branden (author & lecturer)* Dr. Susan Love Brown (Professor of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University)* Hon. Janice Rogers Brown, J.D. (U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, District of Columbia Circuit)* Tammy Bruce (feminist; author; columnist)* Marie Cocco (columnist, Newsday)* Dr. Emily Chamlee-Wright (Professor of Management & Economics, Beloit College)* Alicia Garcia Clark (former Chairman, Libertarian Party USA)* Dr. Frances B. Cogan (Professor of Arts & Sciences, University of Oregon-Eugene)* Carmen Connors (talk radio host, WSSR - Tampa, FL)* Shelley L. Davis (former IRS agent)* Karen DeCoster (freelance writer)* Jennifer DePalma, J.D. (attorney)* Dr. Candace de Russy (education writer and speaker)* Julie Dodge, J.D. (attorney)* Dr. Rachel Douchant (Professor of Philosophy, St. Louis University)* Nicki Fellenzer (U.S. Army Veteran; gun rights advocate)* Sarah Fitz-Claridge (founder, Taking Children Seriously; motivational speaker)* Sue Fisher (former President, Wisconsin Term Limits)* Dr. Marilyn R. Flowers (Professor of Economics, Ball State University)* Melinda Pillsbury Foster (author; poet)* Dr. Elizabeth Fox-Genovese (Professor of Humanities, Emory University)* Ilana Freedman (national security expert; founder, Liberty Land Trust)* Rose D. Friedman (economist; school choice advocate)* Judith Simon Garrett, J.D. (Assistant General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice)* Bobbie Gentry (singer)* Dr. Mimi Reisel Gladstein (author; Professor of English, University of Texas)* MaryAnn Glendon, J.D. (Professor of Law, Harvard University)* Doris Gordon (founder, Libertarians for Life)* Kathryn A. Graham, J.D. (attorney; author; freelance writer)* Brenda Grantland, J.D. (attorney)* Dr. Bettina Bien Greaves (author; Austrian economist)* Sen. Lyda Green (Alaska State Senator)* Dr. Kim Gregson (Assistant Professor of Communications, Ithaca College)* Mary Lou Gutscher (President, Freedom Party of Ontario)* Lynn Harper (talk radio host, KOGO - San Diego, CA)* Sharon Harris (President, Advocates for Self-Government)* Ann Harrison (contributor, CounterPunch; columnist, San Francisco Bay Guardian)* Sabine Herold (french libertarian leader; founder, Libert�, J'Ecris Ton Nom)* Zoh Hieronimus (radio host)* Carla Howell (musician & candidate)* Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp (Texas State Representative)* Sherry Peel Jackson (former IRS agent)* Joanne Jacobs (author; former columnist, San Jose Mercury News)* Rollye James (nationally syndicated radio host)* Catherine Johns (former Chicago radio personality)* Dr. Nancy Lord Johnson, J.D. (attorney; 1992 Libertarian Vice-Presidential candidate)* Jo Jorgensen (1996 Libertarian Vice-Presidential candidate)* Karen Kay (romance novelist)* Vivian Kellems (tax resister; author)* Kennedy (former MTV veejay; "The Buzz" radio host, KQBZ - Seattle, WA)* Dr. Irina Khakamada (former member, Russian Parliament; former Professor of Economics)* Dr. Lynne Kiesling (Professor of Economics, Northwestern University)* Lynn Kinsky (co-founder, Reason Magazine)* Dr. Judith S. Kleinfeld (author; Professor of Psychology, University of Alaska)* Rikki Klieman, J.D. (Court TV anchor)* Dr. Rhoda Baggs Koss (Professor of Computer Science, Florida Institute of Technology)* Michele Kubby (medical marijuana activist)* Vernice "Vernie" Kuglin (tax resister, Kuglin v. IRS)* Edith Kurzweil (Editor, Partisan Review)* Karen Kwiatkowski (former Pentagon Lt. Colonel)* Heather Levy (artist)* Carolyn Lochhead (columnist, San Francisco Chronicle)* Valerie Loiret-Prunet (Professor of Linguistics & Literature, University of Paris)* Dr. Eleftheria Maratos-Flier (Professor of Medicine, Harvard University)* Sunni Maravillosa (author; former College Professor)* Dr. Deirdre McCloskey (Professor of Liberal Arts & Sciences, University of Illinois-Chicago)* Niki McCuistion (talk radio host, KDTN - Dallas, TX)* Wendy McElroy (author; public speaker; social critic)* Melanie (folk singer)* Ilana Mercer (author & cultural commentator)* Tanya K. Metaksa (author; former Director, National Rifle Association)* Karen Michalson (author; musician)* Rachel Mills (editor, Ladies of Liberty calendar)* Lee Mirabal (talk radio host, KMPC - Los Angeles, CA)* Anne P. Mitchell, J.D. (attorney; Professor, Lincoln School of Law)* Martha Montelongo-Myers (talk radio host, KOMY - Watkinsville, CA)* Carol Moore (former comedian; author; anti-war activist; successionist; war-tax resister)* Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (author; Research Fellow, the Hoover Institution)* Tonie Nathan (1972 Libertarian Vice-Presidential candidate)* Carol Newman, J.D. (attorney)* Rosalie Nichols (author; objectivist; former Editor, Voices)* Hon. Gayle Norton (former Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior)* Dr. Erin O'Connor (Professor of English, University of Pennsylvania; founder, Critical Mass)* Darcy Olsen (President, The Goldwater Institute)* Star Parker (author; founder, Coalition on Urban Affairs)* Amanda Phillips (former U.S. Air Force Special Agent; President, Free State Project)* Sally Pipes (President, The Pacific Research Institute)* Virginia Postrel (economics columnist, The New York Times)* Dr. Sharon Presley (psychologist; Executive Director, Resources for Independent Thinking)* Carole Ann Rand (former President, Advocates for Self-Government)* Deborah Ray (Healthy Talk Radio - Clearwater, FL)* Andrea Millen Rich (President, Laissez Faire Books)* Joyce Riley (talk radio host, KCXL - Liberty, MO)* Sara Rimensnyder (Assistant Editor, Reason Magazine)* Christine Rosen (senior fellow, Ethics & Public Policy Center)* Dr. Mary Ruwart (author; research scientist; motivational speaker)* Dr. Patricia Santy (NASA's first female flight surgeon)* Patricia Saye (columnist, Las Vegas Tribune)* Hon. Lynn Scarlett (Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior)* Kay A. Schwarzberg, J.D. (attorney; lecturer; author)* Karen Selick, LL.B. (attorney; columnist)* Mary Lou Seymour (freelance writer)* Serena Sharp (talk radio host, KUCI - Irvine, CA)* Jane S. Shaw (Pope Center for Higher Education Policy)* Sandy Shaw (life-extension expert)* Dr. Rita J. Simon (Professor of Law & Public Affairs, American University)* Dr. Tara Smith (Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas)* Lisa Snell (Education Director, The Reason Foundation)* Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers (author; lecturer; fellow, American Enterprise Institute)* Marni Soupcoff, J.D. (columnist & attorney)* Angelina Spencer (Executive Director, Association of Club Executives)* Hon. Carol Springer (former Arizona State Treasurer and State Senator)* Judy Tame (former Chair, British Association of Libertarian Feminists)* Linda Tannehill (co-author, The Market for Liberty)* Abigail Thernstrom (Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute)* Hon. Cynthia A. Thornton (member, Texas State Board of Education)* Dr. Charlotte Twight, J.D. (Professor of Economics, Boise State University)* Sheryl Underwood (comedian)* Catherine Valcke, J.D. (Professor of Law, University of Toronto)* Dr. Karen Vaughn (Professor of Economics, George Mason University)* Marlene VerPlanck (singer)* Norah Vincent (nationally syndicated columnist)* Barbara Vroman (author)* Wendy Weiss (author & business advisor)* Susan W. Wells (co-author, A Drug War Carol)* Claire Wolfe (author)* Anne Wortham (Professor of Sociology, Illinois State University)* Cathy Young (journalist & author)* Paula Young (talk radio host, WMZQ - Washington, DC)* Michele Zipp (former Editor, Playgirl Magazine) [from: http://chelm.freeyellow.com/women_index.html]Jung is a little interesting though, but the Freud crowd have mostly been a bit too tightly wound up for my tastes :|
Ego: Niccolo, you can pretend that Ron Paul is "sub-human"
Niccolo, you can pretend that Ron Paul is "sub-human"
I don't pretend.
Ego: despite the fact that he has done more to further the cause of liberty in the past year than anyone else.
despite the fact that he has done more to further the cause of liberty in the past year than anyone else.
I don't consider derailing radicalism in favor of a reformist mantra developed by a sniveling coward paid over $170,000 a year by the very government he "fights against" to be any type of progress. In fact, I consider it to not only be counter-productive, but a genuine assault on the revolution.
Ego: You can pretend that any libertarian who wants to use the political process -- as one of many tools -- is a "counter-revolutionary", despite the key fact that they don't want to stop your agorism.
You can pretend that any libertarian who wants to use the political process -- as one of many tools -- is a "counter-revolutionary",
despite the key fact that they don't want to stop your agorism.
You don't seem to understand what counter-revolutionary means. Maybe a quote from Voltairine de Cleyre,
But the evil of pinning faith to indirect action is far greater than any such minor results. The main evil is that it destroys initiative, quenches the individual rebellious spirit, teaches people to rely on someone else to do for them what they should do for themselves; finally renders organic the anomalous idea that by massing supineness together until a majority is acquired, then through the peculiar magic of that majority, this supineness is to be transformed into energy. That is, people who have lost the habit of striking for themselves as individuals, who have submitted to every injustice while waiting for the majority to grow, are going to become metamorphosed into human high-explosives by a mere process of packing!
It hasn't a thing to do with what your intentions are, it's what you're actually doing. You and your Ron Paul cult are the single greatest threat to a movement for liberty. Indeed, even the state is more respectable for it does not slouch and sneak around dressed in drag with a knife underneath its belt next to the pouch of its thirty pieces of silver.
Ego: You'll just alienate the few supporters libertarianism has.
You'll just alienate the few supporters libertarianism has.
No. I will weed out the warriors of liberty from the cowards. I will raise up the defiant and dash in the heads of the unloyal. I will organize with the strong and persecute the compromised. I will help save libertarianism from its greatest enemies, I will point out a trader when I see him, I will point out corruption when I see it.
Ego: Please stop calling me a statist, though. We both know that I'm not statist, and it's unnecessary and dishonest to intentionally lie and claim that I want to have a state simply because I want to use the political process.
Please stop calling me a statist, though. We both know that I'm not statist, and it's unnecessary and dishonest to intentionally lie and claim that I want to have a state simply because I want to use the political process.
In fact, you're no different that I am!
This is the greatest insult of all.
Niccolo, why do you post poorly lit videos of yourself behind a pool table onto the Internet? The Internet was created using millions of tax dollars. The Internet is maintained by giant servers, sitting happily in tax-funded universities. Perhaps it's because you think the Internet is a valid tool to combat the state? Just like I think that voting is a valid tool to combat the state? It's not fair for you to blame the victims when they vote. It's not their fault they live in a statist system, and it's not their fault when they use every tool at their disposal to combat the government. Still, if you do choose to blame the victim, at least apply your irrational rules to yourself. Am I correct in assuming that in the past, you chose to be a leftist? This last part is to any other "revolutionary" who is opposed to any anarcho-capitalist who want to take steps to shrink the government: isn't it silly to oppose weakening the organization that you're fighting? If you're worried that a less-oppressed citizenry is less likely to join your revolution, what does that say about your respect for other citizens (both their suffering and their intelligence)? edit: 1000 typos
It's not fair for you to blame the victims when they vote. It's not their fault they live in a statist system, and it's not their fault when they use every tool at their disposal to combat the government. Still, if you do choose to blame the victim, at least apply your irrational rules to yourself.
Am I correct in assuming that in the past, you chose to be a leftist? This last part is to any other "revolutionary" who is opposed to any anarcho-capitalist who want to take steps to shrink the government: isn't it silly to oppose weakening the organization that you're fighting? If you're worried that a less-oppressed citizenry is less likely to join your revolution, what does that say about your respect for other citizens (both their suffering and their intelligence)?
edit: 1000 typos
You mistake this as if it were a question of morality; it isn't, at least not in the sense that you mean. The state exists. Ah... Well, nothing gets past you, Ego. I've called your actions immoral, yes, but not because you mingle with the gangsters and the thugs. After all, many an assassin must do the same - his work is no less beautiful because of it.
No, I call your actions immoral because you use the state in a way that directly interferes with any victory that may be sought. It isn't that you participate in voting, it's that voting deters radicalism, and radicalism is the only opportunity for a change of any magnitude one can live with. You're a junky, a rolling stone, you'll do anything for one more hit, suck a ***, whore yourself to the infected, lick the skin of a lepor, it's all just a small relief from your otherwise miserable life.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
minorgrey:No, it's so unbelievably stupid that it warrants walking away from the conversation.
Exactly.
There's no point in speaking to people with these type of sexist inclinations. He must have lost his virginity late.
Boy, y'all need to step out of "normative world" and come back to "positive world". Looks like some folks around here REALLY love their mothers...
maxpot46:Boy, y'all need to step out of "normative world" and come back to "positive world".
It is interesting when idealism turns into fanaticism. Potential friends become enemies and movements are derailed.
Nitroadict:Also, you probably have haven't heard of the following women:
Your list, going back all the way to the 18th century, and including luminaries such as comedians, singers, men's magazine editors, attorneys and talk radio hosts, is rather pathetically short, hopefully showing that exceptions often prove the rule.
Nitroadict:Jung is a little interesting though, but the Freud crowd have mostly been a bit too tightly wound up for my tastes :|
What do you make of Jung's assertion that everyone is hard-wired with a particular personality type? Personally, it made me realize that messages had to be tailored to the interest of the listener, and that it's futile to just hope that one day my passion will convince everyone to care about the same things I do.
It was a list that shouldn't be scoffed at just because it is lacking in some sort of idealized amount that is required for women to somehow attain 'equal' standing with the men in an assorted movement. There are probably quite a number of both lesser known men & women in a given movement who don't have a wikipedia or google result that any such attempts at making a list would probably fall short regardless. Also, I find Jung's assertion that everyone is hard-wired with a certain personality type nothing more than an assertion, as it would also assume that personality doesn't change, something I think hasn't really been proven, aside from maybe individuals having preferences towards personality traits, but not whole static personalities.I don't believe that messages should be tailored to a listener either; then again, I also hate propaganda, coercion & manipulation. I would consider such a tailored argument as patronizing :|
Maxpot, could you explain how it isn't collectivist to dismiss women as sheep? Why give every individual the dignity to be judged on an individual basis?
Yes, polls indicate that women tend to be leftist more then men, but it still comes down to an individual choice. Haven't you seen any snivelling, weak leftist men? What do you gain by insulting women and telling them that they can't think for themselves?
Ego:Maxpot, could you explain how it isn't collectivist to dismiss women as sheep?
I said the world is full of women and sheep. That doesn't mean women ARE sheep, but when people get all touchy they don't read too carefully, I guess. OTOH, I suppose for "third rail" topics like this it's incumbent upon me to be extremely precise in my wording, so I'll take the blame for any miscommunications. For the record, I was speaking of 1) women, whom in my view biologically tend towards socialist thinking instead of libertarian thinking, and 2) sheep (gender unspecified), whom in my view prefer to be entertained than to be informed (but will vote anyway). Neither of those observations seems all that controversial to me.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
You're right, you didn't call women "sheep".
You did, however, say that women are weak, don't like to think for themselves, and can't be educated. I drew the conclusion and summarized with the word "sheep".
In any event, as long as you are in favor of liberty for everyone -- women and men alike -- I can't really get angry at those kinds of comments, I just think they lead to a pre-judgement of anarcho-capitalists, especially if you plan on running for office.
Juan:There's always been women around, but sometimes socialism was not as widespread as it is now - How can you explain that ? Also, statism is directly linked to militarism and mercantilism, activities in wich women were/are scarcely involved.
Folks, I'm not looking for a scapegoat here, or trying to blame anything on women. My comments are strictly in the tactical, future-oriented sense. I don't think women are particularly prone to embrace agorism, and I said so in support of my opinion that agorism is doomed to fail -- this is not to say women are to blame for the socialist movement. I think sheep are more prone to embrace a charismatic leader (who might be spouting B.S.) than a geeky academic spouting Austrian economics (though it resonates with truth), and I said so in support of my opinion that it's important to groom leaders -- this is not to say that women are sheep. I think a message of freedom might have to be packaged in several ways, each with a different emphasis, in order to penetrate the thinking of different personality types -- this doesn't imply that one type is superior to another.
People keep acting like I'm reading from "The Secret History of Women's Efforts to Destroy Mankind". No, I'm making observations (obvious ones, IMO) about the world we live in, in order to perfect our means so as to achieve our similar ends. Please read into it no more than that.
Ego:You did, however, say that women are weak, don't like to think for themselves, and can't be educated.
I did mix up my references in that sentence, which I see now was confusing as I had two subjects. My fault for the miscommunication. What I meant to say was that women are the weaker sex (undeniable, I hope, and not meant in a judgemental way -- strength has its downsides, e.g. arrogance, imperialistic urges, etc.) and that sheep don't like to think for themselves and resist education (also undeniable, I hope). I didn't mean to conflate the two, though I see how one could interpret it that way from the way I put the sentence together.
Juan:There's always been women around, but sometimes socialism was not as widespread as it is now - How can you explain that ?
Here's an interesting and topical article I just stumbled over: http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071127/EDITORIAL/111270007/1013&template=printart
An excerpt: "Academics have long pondered why the government started growing precisely when it did. The federal government, aside from periods of wartime, consumed about 2 percent to 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) up until World War I. It was the first war that the government spending didn't go all the way back down to its pre-war levels, and then, in the 1920s, non-military federal spending began steadily climbing. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal — often viewed as the genesis of big government — really just continued an earlier trend. What changed before Roosevelt came to power that explains the growth of government? The answer is women's suffrage.
The gender gap exists on various issues. The major one is the issue of smaller government and lower taxes, which is a much higher priority for men than for women."
Is it just me or is there something fundamentally strange and hypocritical about people who are argueing in favor of voting simultaneously blaming women's suffrage on the growth in government power?
In either case, the argument quoted above about the growth of government and women's vote can arguably be dismissed or at least questioned on the grounds that it conflates correlation with causation.
Brainpolice:Is it just me or is there something fundamentally strange and hypocritical about people who are argueing in favor of voting simultaneously blaming women's suffrage on the growth in government power?
Again, it's a tactical matter -- how does a free-market candidate gain the support of women, given their socialist tendencies? Now, if you deny that they have socialist tendencies, you probably won't devote much attention to this question. IMO, however, this is a critical matter that must be taken into consideration if one has any true hope of success.
Brainpolice:In either case, the argument quoted above about the growth of government and women's vote can arguably be dismissed or at least questioned on the grounds that it conflates correlation with causation.
Lott does address the "correlation doesn't mean causation" issue with this paragraph:
"Yet, as suggestive as these facts are, we must still consider whether women's suffrage itself caused the growth in government, or did the government expand due to some political or social change that accompanied women's suffrage? Fortunately, there was a unique aspect of women's suffrage that allows us to answer this question: Of the 21 states that had not passed women's suffrage before the approval of the 19th Amendment, nine approved the amendment, while the other 12 had suffrage imposed on them. If some unknown factor caused both a desire for larger government and women's suffrage, then government should have only grown in states that voluntarily adopted suffrage. This, however, is not the case: After approving women's suffrage, a similar growth in government was seen in both groups of states."
Brainpolice: Is it just me or is there something fundamentally strange and hypocritical about people who are argueing in favor of voting simultaneously blaming women's suffrage on the growth in government power? In either case, the argument quoted above about the growth of government and women's vote can arguably be dismissed or at least questioned on the grounds that it conflates correlation with causation.
Brainpolice, and others, why are you giving him the satisfaction of a reply? He doesn't deserve any. Not only for his misogany, but also for his sheer ignorance.
Niccolò:I don't consider derailing radicalism in favor of a reformist mantra developed by a sniveling coward paid over $170,000 a year by the very government he "fights against" to be any type of progress. In fact, I consider it to not only be counter-productive, but a genuine assault on the revolution.
As long as you only see allies in radical extremists, you aren't building a revolution. You're a spinning wheel.
It's easy to attack Ron Paul. Even attack his message. But the man is 72 and his little left to prove to this world. In my opinion, he's done his share, however imperfectly. I certainly believe he doesn't deserve to be called a sniveling coward for his contributions to Austrian education, and the furthering of Von Mises and Rothbard's legacy.
Niccolò:No, I call your actions immoral because you use the state in a way that directly interferes with any victory that may be sought. It isn't that you participate in voting, it's that voting deters radicalism, and radicalism is the only opportunity for a change of any magnitude one can live with. You're a junky, a rolling stone, you'll do anything for one more hit, suck a ***, whore yourself to the infected, lick the skin of a lepor, it's all just a small relief from your otherwise miserable life.
Man oh man, you must be a lot of fun at parties.
Radicalism is not the only opportunity for change. Every day, we can make progress towards change. Even right now, I imagine you are not practicing 100% agorism, shunning all economic exchanges. At the very least, you are interacting with "sniveling cowards" who do in fact practice less than perfect agorism, furthering the state by paying their taxes, and using their fiat currency.
One could argue that your less than pure radical approach to agorism is incrementalism. And if you believe that incrementalism in agora is progress or worthwhile effort, than you surely must allow the same for political change.
liberty student: Niccolò:I don't consider derailing radicalism in favor of a reformist mantra developed by a sniveling coward paid over $170,000 a year by the very government he "fights against" to be any type of progress. In fact, I consider it to not only be counter-productive, but a genuine assault on the revolution. As long as you only see allies in radical extremists, you aren't building a revolution. You're a spinning wheel. It's easy to attack Ron Paul. Even attack his message. But the man is 72 and his little left to prove to this world. In my opinion, he's done his share, however imperfectly. I certainly believe he doesn't deserve to be called a sniveling coward for his contributions to Austrian education, and the furthering of Von Mises and Rothbard's legacy. Niccolò:No, I call your actions immoral because you use the state in a way that directly interferes with any victory that may be sought. It isn't that you participate in voting, it's that voting deters radicalism, and radicalism is the only opportunity for a change of any magnitude one can live with. You're a junky, a rolling stone, you'll do anything for one more hit, suck a ***, whore yourself to the infected, lick the skin of a lepor, it's all just a small relief from your otherwise miserable life. Man oh man, you must be a lot of fun at parties. Radicalism is not the only opportunity for change. Every day, we can make progress towards change. Even right now, I imagine you are not practicing 100% agorism, shunning all economic exchanges. At the very least, you are interacting with "sniveling cowards" who do in fact practice less than perfect agorism, furthering the state by paying their taxes, and using their fiat currency. One could argue that your less than pure radical approach to agorism is incrementalism. And if you believe that incrementalism in agora is progress or worthwhile effort, than you surely must allow the same for political change.
Again you're not understanding this.
Radicalism is the only opportunity for change - that is, change that should be desired if you want to get short term relief at the cost of long term progress, then please, jump off a cliff. It will solve all your needs for liberty in just a few seconds.
As for my practice in Agorism, I am following the phase by phase aspect outlined in the New Libertarian Manifesto. You cafoni believe that the only way to affect change will come in an instant - a get-liberty-quick scheme where you can vote in your beloveds and win a few tax dollars back.
I am not interested in short term progress. I am not interested in short term gains. I am intersted in winning.
As for Ron Paul in general. When he gives back his blood money over the course of his congressional career and the lives back to those that were murdered by his friend Ronald Reagan, we'll talk about who isn't a snivelling coward.
Niccolò: liberty student: Niccolò:I don't consider derailing radicalism in favor of a reformist mantra developed by a sniveling coward paid over $170,000 a year by the very government he "fights against" to be any type of progress. In fact, I consider it to not only be counter-productive, but a genuine assault on the revolution. As long as you only see allies in radical extremists, you aren't building a revolution. You're a spinning wheel. It's easy to attack Ron Paul. Even attack his message. But the man is 72 and his little left to prove to this world. In my opinion, he's done his share, however imperfectly. I certainly believe he doesn't deserve to be called a sniveling coward for his contributions to Austrian education, and the furthering of Von Mises and Rothbard's legacy. Niccolò:No, I call your actions immoral because you use the state in a way that directly interferes with any victory that may be sought. It isn't that you participate in voting, it's that voting deters radicalism, and radicalism is the only opportunity for a change of any magnitude one can live with. You're a junky, a rolling stone, you'll do anything for one more hit, suck a ***, whore yourself to the infected, lick the skin of a lepor, it's all just a small relief from your otherwise miserable life. Man oh man, you must be a lot of fun at parties. Radicalism is not the only opportunity for change. Every day, we can make progress towards change. Even right now, I imagine you are not practicing 100% agorism, shunning all economic exchanges. At the very least, you are interacting with "sniveling cowards" who do in fact practice less than perfect agorism, furthering the state by paying their taxes, and using their fiat currency. One could argue that your less than pure radical approach to agorism is incrementalism. And if you believe that incrementalism in agora is progress or worthwhile effort, than you surely must allow the same for political change. Again you're not understanding this. Radicalism is the only opportunity for change - that is, change that should be desired if you want to get short term relief at the cost of long term progress, then please, jump off a cliff. It will solve all your needs for liberty in just a few seconds. As for my practice in Agorism, I am following the phase by phase aspect outlined in the New Libertarian Manifesto. You cafoni believe that the only way to affect change will come in an instant - a get-liberty-quick scheme where you can vote in your beloveds and win a few tax dollars back. I am not interested in short term progress. I am not interested in short term gains. I am intersted in winning. As for Ron Paul in general. When he gives back his blood money over the course of his congressional career and the lives back to those that were murdered by his friend Ronald Reagan, we'll talk about who isn't a snivelling coward.
I am new to agorism and very excited by it. It does seem to be the only strain of libertarianism where theory is entirely consistent with practice. On the other hand, I believe that people like Ron Paul have helped the libertarian cause a great deal. I meet people all the time who were former social democrats, believed in the welfare state, wanted a lot more government than we have now, etc. who now want to decrease government. They usually are not so radical as to be anarcho capitalists, but are against the income tax, fiat money, and all sorts of interventions they previously were in favor of. Guess who is responsible for this change in mindset? Ron Paul. In fact, my own interest in libertarianism came about from the RP campaign. I am not a Paul worshipper and detest a lot of things about him, namely, his desire to close the borders, associate himself with conservatism, use the same old stimuli to rile up the public (fear of them dirty foreigners, religious motivations, etc) and of course, his minarchism. No matter how imperfect he is, however, I think his campaign has been a victory by spreading general libertarian philosophy into the minds of the public. I can count five people in my family, my brother, my father, two of my cousins and myself who have become significantly less statist and more open to libertarian ideas because of RP. Granted, besides myself, none of them have made the jump to being completely anti statist, but its definitely a good start. I do not think we should put a lot of faith in actual change happening because of the political process, or even put a good deal of resources into campaigning. But I think political campaigns with the intent to educate can have a great effect and should not be demonized as you think.
Niccolò:Radicalism is the only opportunity for change - that is, change that should be desired if you want to get short term relief at the cost of long term progress, then please, jump off a cliff. It will solve all your needs for liberty in just a few seconds.
Niccolò:As for my practice in Agorism, I am following the phase by phase aspect outlined in the New Libertarian Manifesto. You cafoni believe that the only way to affect change will come in an instant - a get-liberty-quick scheme where you can vote in your beloveds and win a few tax dollars back.
Niccolò:I am not interested in short term progress. I am not interested in short term gains. I am intersted in winning.
Niccolò:As for Ron Paul in general. When he gives back his blood money over the course of his congressional career and the lives back to those that were murdered by his friend Ronald Reagan, we'll talk about who isn't a snivelling coward.
liberty student: stuff
stuff
please read this:
'The radical, on the other hand, believes that the State is fundamentally antisocial and is all for improving it off the face of the earth; not by blowing up officeholders, as Mr. Palmer appears to suppose, but by the historical process of strengthening, consolidating and enlightening economic organization. The radical has no substantial interest in politics, and regards all projects of political reform as visionary. He sees, or thinks he sees, quite clearly that the routine of partisan politics is only a more or less elaborate and expensive byplay indulged in for the sake of diverting notice from the primary object of all politics and political government, namely, the economic exploitation of one class by another; and hence all candidates look about alike to him, and their function looks to him only like that of Dupin's pretended lunatic in "The Purloined Letter."'
The state is a disease and Liberty is the both the victim and the only means to a lasting cure.
ThorsMitersaw: please read this:
Danke shein
ThorsMitersaw: liberty student: stuff please read this: 'The radical, on the other hand, believes that the State is fundamentally antisocial and is all for improving it off the face of the earth; not by blowing up officeholders, as Mr. Palmer appears to suppose, but by the historical process of strengthening, consolidating and enlightening economic organization. The radical has no substantial interest in politics, and regards all projects of political reform as visionary. He sees, or thinks he sees, quite clearly that the routine of partisan politics is only a more or less elaborate and expensive byplay indulged in for the sake of diverting notice from the primary object of all politics and political government, namely, the economic exploitation of one class by another; and hence all candidates look about alike to him, and their function looks to him only like that of Dupin's pretended lunatic in "The Purloined Letter."'
Nock's statements here seem to mesh very well with an apolitical approach to libertarianism.
The malice I have witnessed on this forum is useless. You haters out there are doing a great disservice to Agorism. Let your stated ideas speak for themselves.
While insulting people may worsen their opinion of your character(for you haters), it will do nothing to improve your argument.
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.
classiclib: The malice I have witnessed on this forum is useless. You haters out there are doing a great disservice to Agorism. Let your stated ideas speak for themselves. While insulting people may worsen their opinion of your character(for you haters), it will do nothing to improve your argument.
I don't believe I've acted like a "hater" or have been inflammatory. I've merely tried to argue for my position. Niccolo can be inflammatory sometimes but it's just an aspect of his character you have to get used to.
While I disagree with some of Niccolo's conduct, I remember from when what seems long ago when I was a Leftist, despite my own sense of humor & respect for other's opinions, I was capable of being so 'offended' by certain remarks that I would unconsciously strive to censor remarks or opinions I did not agree with (either in the literal opinion or the way which opinions were presented). I would come to view similar treadings of the fine line on many an Internet forum, and I would adivse it might not be so different here either, in the capacity for some individuals to do such, in the name of manners &/or for other individuals being "haters". Niccolo presents radical commentary that while others may not agree to their presentation in the form of inflammatory remarks, wherin the definition of inflammatory is highly subjective, from person to person, it is still valuable nonetheless to defend said commentary.Nobody should let the tyranny of good intentions, however minor they may be, get in the way of an interesting discussion :).
Brainpolice: I don't believe I've acted like a "hater" or have been inflammatory. I've merely tried to argue for my position. Niccolo can be inflammatory sometimes but it's just an aspect of his character you have to get used to.
I find it hard to believe you can tolerate his immature behavior. Agorism is an awesome set of concepts but the nature of Niccolo's comments will make it devilishly unlikely that newbies will stick around.
Would not the current disagreement & discussion of said effects of Niccolo's conduct serve to temper any potential "newbies" from jumping ship, thinking that we all act in a similar matter? I still don't think it's a wise idea to object to someone's ability to express their opinions, for the sake of anyone else not holding that idea to stay here in hopes of, ironically, educating themselves on similar ideas regarding the nature of liberty, simply because we do not agree in which the way said individual presents their words.
I believe his methods will stifle the momentum of Agorism. Objecting to his methods does nothing to suppress liberty, but may in fact lead to more liberty. I'm convinced that the ideas of Agorism are sound enough that the more ears it reaches, the more liberty we will obtain.
I'd like to hear Niccolo's reasoning for his belligerence.
liberty student: What you call short term relief, I call short term progress. Steps if you will.
What you call short term relief, I call short term progress. Steps if you will.
Except it isn't progress when it only results in a relapse.
This is, of course, all that can be done. Take your god Mises, for example, talks about economic intervention saying,
... the government has to go further and further, fixing the prices of all the factors of production - both human (labour) and material - and forcing every entrepreneur and every worker to continue work at these prices and wages. No branch of production can be omitted from this all-round fixing of prives and wages and this general order to continue production. If some branches of production were left free, the result would be a shifting of capital and labour to them and a corresponding fall of the supply of the goods whose prices the government had fixed. However, it is precisely these goods which government considers as especially important... But when this state of all-round control of business is achieved, the market economy has been replaced by a system of planned economy, by "socialism." Of course, this is not the socialilsm of immediate state management of every plant by the government as in Russia, but the socialism of the German or Nazi pattern... Price control is contrary to purpose if it is limited to some commodities only. It cannot work satisfactorily within a market economy. If the government does not draw from this failure the conclusion that it must abandon all attempts to control prices, it must go further and further until it substitutes socialist all-round planning for the market economy. (24-25) Planned Chaos
(24-25) Planned Chaos
If then one is to accept that with one intervention in the market, additional interventions become necessary - as all the problems of intervention will not be repealed by any government (it would be taking away its bread and butter) - how then can one begin to believe that single repeals will ever result in a victory for Anarchists? If Mises' analysis that placing controls on one industry leads a government to make excuses to place controls on others, then certainly it works the other way. If a government repeals one price control amidst a sea of other price controls, the market adjusts uncomfortably - thus causing a back-lash to the reformists inane schemes - this will cause the government to either contract further - an unlikely venture - or to again refix the price - think Enron.
Without complete and total abolition of the state, reforms will only lead to blowback, parlor revolutions will only bring a sudden defeat to a movement's name.
liberty student:I don't believe radicalism is the only opportunity for change.
Then you're just wrong.
liberty student: Black and white extremes like that are the key to fanatacism. We don't live in an absolute world, and we as humans are not beings of absolute honor, rationality, perspective, emotion etc.
Black and white extremes like that are the key to fanatacism. We don't live in an absolute world, and we as humans are not beings of absolute honor, rationality, perspective, emotion etc.
liberty student:Please spare the name calling and Ad Hominem. I do not believe it will come in an instant. I believe in winning, brick by brick, working my life even if I don't see the rewards of that effort.And I of course realize that it's hard to accomplish much, as but one of 6 billion on this planet, but the task does get easier by not alienating or insulting people.
Well obviously that's why you demand your representatives do something NOW!
liberty student:What's your timeline for victory? I don't have one. Just a dedication to learning and sharing what I have learned.
New Libertarian Manifesto, p. 60 - 67
liberty student:The angry agorist thing, is a good way to turn people off. Based on what I have read here, agorists can only achieve their final goal when there is sufficient momentum.
Momentum is not hard to manufacture and it is never brought with masses. Masses lean towards momentum, momentum brings masses, not the other way around.
liberty student:Why someone would jeopardize that momentum by seeking enemies instead of friends is beyond me. Best of luck with that.
I seek the right kind of friends.
I know that there's no use in having friends you can't trust.
lol
classiclib: I find it hard to believe you can tolerate his immature behavior. Agorism is an awesome set of concepts but the nature of Niccolo's comments will make it devilishly unlikely that newbies will stick around.
You clearly don't understand how these things begin.
A. Berating the opposition often serves to both intimidate opponents and attract those that are not too sensitive to take the internet as the sriz biznez you seem to.
B. People tend to pay more attention to that which is most vociferous. For example, if I had made this thread a polite and non-biting discussion of Agorism, it would not have received quite the same level of traffic.
C. If it were an issue of, "HAHAHAHA, I have more recruits then you do, nahnahnahnahanahanah!" I'd just point you to some of the e-mails I've received about people interested in Agorism.
Like this one,
Hi Niccolo, I wanted to ask you about agorism, since you seem fairly well-versed. I am new to this subject, having only recently read the New Libertarian Manifesto and watched your Google Videos. I was wondering what it would be best for me to do next. My perspective currently is that of a radical, apolitical libertarian attempting to figure out how a stateless society would function, and how we would get there. I am a student of Austrian economics, and familiar with the ideas of Albert Jay Nock, Lysander Spooner, etc. So agorism is naturally of great interest to me. If there is a particular book or website I should be reading, I'd love to know. Anyway, I look forward to talking with you on the blog.Best wishes G*****
G*****
However, I am not interested in that. I am interested in refuting arguments against Agorism - as to appear more competent and decisive on the issue than my opponents. Why do I do this? Because it is what attracts the most people, like it or not.
Really, I know what I'm doing here. I have a clue what persuasion is and I have some background in the science of convincing people - political science.
Hating without purpose is useless, but now I know that this is not what you do. Don't get cocky.
I wouldn't say cocky, so much as just pointing out possible absurdity.
If Agorism needs a hyper aggressive "strong man" sales approach, then maybe it's not sellable on its own merits.
Your anecdotal evidence of success is based on the people who contacted you, not on all of the people who didn't, and likely won't.
Come on guys, let's keep the argument going a bit more! We're almost to 200 replies! A site record!
Nitro, should people be punished for voting?