liberty student: What means towards ends? All you guys do is mentally masturbate in tiny corners of the internet. Do you really think you're bringing on the revolution? Arrogance and delusions of grandeur.
What means towards ends? All you guys do is mentally masturbate in tiny corners of the internet. Do you really think you're bringing on the revolution? Arrogance and delusions of grandeur.
Please, join me and dozens of other Agorists as we participate in the RNC Welcoming Committee this year in Minneapolis then.
Hopefully I can get a nice rotten tomato for Ron Paul's head and a good pumpkin for pumpkin head (McCain).
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Libertas est Veritas: Niccolò:A possible ally isn't an ally that already stands with you. A possible ally is one that agrees with much of your theory and can be convinced with your arguments given certain appeals. But this applies to almost everyone. Everyone is a possible ally. And in my experience, it is far easier to persuade other stereotypes than feminists, since modern feminism is very much based on coercing statistical equality.
Niccolò:A possible ally isn't an ally that already stands with you. A possible ally is one that agrees with much of your theory and can be convinced with your arguments given certain appeals.
My experience is MUCH different. Many of my ex-girlfriends have been rabid feminists and are now close friends and enthusiastic Anarchists.
JohnSchreimann: I think I see the problem. You both are going to discredit him because he believes in minarchism (and the constitution) instead of full purist anarchism.
I think I see the problem. You both are going to discredit him because he believes in minarchism (and the constitution) instead of full purist anarchism.
This isn't a problem at all. It's simply radical.
liberty student: The Constitution is infintely romantic to Americans.
The Constitution is infintely romantic to Americans.
lol
liberty student: No one gives a crap what Nicky thinks.
No one gives a crap what Nicky thinks.
Apparently... You do.
liberty student: He plays within his incestuous little coven of anarchists, and spits on everyone else.
He plays within his incestuous little coven of anarchists, and spits on everyone else.
No. Just twats like you and xenophobe, mini-statists like Ron Paul.
liberty student: It's one thing to think that the agora is the only way to bring about liberty. It's another thing to alienate 99.5% of the population and think you can accomplish it.
It's one thing to think that the agora is the only way to bring about liberty.
It's another thing to alienate 99.5% of the population and think you can accomplish it.
This is like a cat toy for me. You're so easy.
liberty student: Paul understands that there needs to be a fundamental shift. That gradualism as a short term strategy is not only useful and desirable but necessary. The masses don't metamorphisize into angry young men overight and start reading Rothbard. What do you guys get, that Paul is NOT speaking to you? Are you lonely? Insecure? Need someone to pay attention to you (like Nick's sad blog rants crying for the attention his parents have denied him)? Nicky spits on me and others, but a good many of us are here because of Paul. And we're ready to learn and listen, but not to be ridiculed and spoken down to. Nicky's lame little game (which you constantly endorse with your timely defenses) undoes whatever good Paul has done, and doesn't seek to add anything. Nick's the wealth destruction of inspiration. The wealth destruction of populist inertia.
Paul understands that there needs to be a fundamental shift. That gradualism as a short term strategy is not only useful and desirable but necessary. The masses don't metamorphisize into angry young men overight and start reading Rothbard.
What do you guys get, that Paul is NOT speaking to you? Are you lonely? Insecure? Need someone to pay attention to you (like Nick's sad blog rants crying for the attention his parents have denied him)?
Nicky spits on me and others, but a good many of us are here because of Paul. And we're ready to learn and listen, but not to be ridiculed and spoken down to.
Nicky's lame little game (which you constantly endorse with your timely defenses) undoes whatever good Paul has done, and doesn't seek to add anything. Nick's the wealth destruction of inspiration. The wealth destruction of populist inertia.
lol.
I think we have a contender for the king of ad hominems. At least I win for most creative though.
JohnSchreimann: If you go through the whole text, there are more mentions of Rothbard and Mises than any former president or American politician. And he also quotes Americans like Walt Whitman (not just "founding fathers")... in addition to quoting Bastiat and at one point Bertrand Russel (the point being his quoting is all over the place). He quotes a few senators and other politicians (like Jeff Sessions) in order to mock their propaganda. In the case of Jeff Sessions, Sessions brought up the constitution in 2007 when he said "some in this chamber love the constitution more than they love their safety. We should send President Bush a letter thanking him for protecting us." His quoting is not that much of the book, but he makes good use of what he does quote... hardly to appeal to any imaginary authority of some other time. But to make points.
If you go through the whole text, there are more mentions of Rothbard and Mises than any former president or American politician. And he also quotes Americans like Walt Whitman (not just "founding fathers")... in addition to quoting Bastiat and at one point Bertrand Russel (the point being his quoting is all over the place). He quotes a few senators and other politicians (like Jeff Sessions) in order to mock their propaganda. In the case of Jeff Sessions, Sessions brought up the constitution in 2007 when he said "some in this chamber love the constitution more than they love their safety. We should send President Bush a letter thanking him for protecting us." His quoting is not that much of the book, but he makes good use of what he does quote... hardly to appeal to any imaginary authority of some other time. But to make points.
Uh huh... And I'm sure it's a fine book. That was never my point though.
Niccolò:Please, join me and dozens of other Agorists as we participate in the RNC Welcoming Committee this year in Minneapolis then.
You're an ass. You're a total turnoff. You could be leading the way to liberty, and I wouldn't follow you. I have no respect for you, and in turn, it diminishes my interest in agorism.
That said, I agree with FSK.
Second, you're entirely missing the point of agorism. If you suggest a protest at the Republican National Convention, that is the *OPPOSITE* of agorism. Agorism is anti-politics. A true agorist knows that rioting and protesting is a complete waste of time.Agorism is about counter-economics. It's about doing productive and useful work without getting permission from the State or letting them loot the proceeds of your labor. If you're suggesting a political protest, you're one of those pro-State anarchists.I read there was some sort of schism on the LibertarianLeft mailing lists. Allegedly, a bunch of fools took over the mailing list and the sensible people left to start a new one. You're hanging out with pro-State agorists.I'm not interested in hanging out with a bunch of fools. If you have a serious counter-economic business plan, I'd help you with it.
~~
Disrupting a political party meeting doesn't accomplish anything. It's the wrong sort of venue to raise awareness. The media coverage isn't going to be "Look at these people who want free market alternatives to government." It's going to be "Look at those crazy anarchists. Luckily, we have the State to keep them in line."The odds of actually disrupting the RNC are practically zero. There's no way a group of amateurs could win a direct confrontation with trained para-military police.Even if you had a magic wand and could assassinate every member of Congress, the President, Vice President, and every federal judge, that would accomplish nothing. Instead of covert martial law, which is the current situation, there would be overt martial law.Using violence to disrupt the State won't be practical until it's close to collapsing. For example, suppose we already are at the point where the State is close to collapsing. The State demands you pay property taxes. You refuse. At this point, it would be practical to hire a private police force to prevent the State from kicking you off your land. That's an example of properly using violence to resist the State. Such resistance isn't practical until the end of the State is near. In the present, all you can do is pay property taxes and move to an area with low property tax rates.When the State is close to collapsing, the fee paid to the private police force would be *LESS* than the taxes/tribute demanded by the State! Once private police can credibly defend people from the State, and they charge less than the State demands in tribute, it's all over!The correct way to spread agorism is to actually start a free market business. If you want to start a free market taxi service ("gypsy cab"), then you should tell your friends and look for trustworthy customers. That's a valid way to spread agorism.A blog is valid another way to raise awareness. People who are interested will find my blog, or other blogs about free market alternatives to government.I like to make a distinction between black market (marijuana farming/sales) and grey market (free market taxis). I'm much more interested in building a grey market than a black market. Marijuana actually really is bad for you, so I'm not interested in marijuana farming. Free market taxis, food farming, or restaurants are much more interesting.I haven't read much about counter-economics in Russia. In a communist dictatorship, counter-economics can become necessary for survival!I think you're confused about "networking to spread information". Riots and protests aren't that effective. The Internet allows people to communicate in ways that weren't previously possible. The Internet allows people to find free market trading partners much easier than in the past. Just because something hasn't succeeded in the past, doesn't mean it won't succeed in the future. A serious "economic revolt" hasn't been tried before.I don't see any profit in disrupting the Republican National Convention. You probably won't convert many new people to agorism, at least not compared to other activities such as blogging or actually starting a free market business. The Republican National Convention will occur as planned. You'll be opposed by para-military police.I can't stop you from wasting your time. You aren't going to convince me that protesting at the Republican National Convention is effective. It might make the protesters feel better, but it won't actually accomplish anything.If you're organizing mutual self-defense, you need to focus on other things. If the State tries to kick me off my land for not paying property taxes, can I profitably resist? If the State tries to arrest me for refusing to get permission from them to work (i.e., income taxes), can I profitably resist?
Niccolò:Hopefully I can get a nice rotten tomato for Ron Paul's head and a good pumpkin for pumpkin head (McCain).
This is exactly what I am talking about. You're into the libertarian equivalent of "hoodrat" behavior. You have no interest in free markets, you're interested in your own version of vulgar anarchism.
I think many of you misunderstand. I don't support him because I think he is going to be president or that I think the Republicans need to be in power. But the message of liberty and individualism is important. I don't care about the constitution in concept either, but between it and being thrown in Guantanamo or fighting an illegal war... the premise of that document is far superior and at least one in which some of the people in power must accept at some level. This is not any different than if you begin with the premises of a socialist to begin an argument.
I don't see how his "populist" message is any different than Rand, Hayek, or Friedman. All of whom are not perfect, but they've done a lot to push the idea of free markets (sure minorities of their fans got the wrong message, but people like that will never think for themselves no matter what). Ron Paul is certainly more radical and closer to anarchism than any of those names, anyway.
liberty student: You're an ass. You're a total turnoff. You could be leading the way to liberty, and I wouldn't follow you. I have no respect for you, and in turn, it diminishes my interest in agorism.
Oh man, this is priceless.
liberty student: That said, I agree with FSK. Second, you're entirely missing the point of agorism. If you suggest a protest at the Republican National Convention, that is the *OPPOSITE* of agorism. Agorism is anti-politics. A true agorist knows that rioting and protesting is a complete waste of time.Agorism is about counter-economics. It's about doing productive and useful work without getting permission from the State or letting them loot the proceeds of your labor. If you're suggesting a political protest, you're one of those pro-State anarchists.I read there was some sort of schism on the LibertarianLeft mailing lists. Allegedly, a bunch of fools took over the mailing list and the sensible people left to start a new one. You're hanging out with pro-State agorists.I'm not interested in hanging out with a bunch of fools. If you have a serious counter-economic business plan, I'd help you with it. ~~ Disrupting a political party meeting doesn't accomplish anything. It's the wrong sort of venue to raise awareness. The media coverage isn't going to be "Look at these people who want free market alternatives to government." It's going to be "Look at those crazy anarchists. Luckily, we have the State to keep them in line."The odds of actually disrupting the RNC are practically zero. There's no way a group of amateurs could win a direct confrontation with trained para-military police.Even if you had a magic wand and could assassinate every member of Congress, the President, Vice President, and every federal judge, that would accomplish nothing. Instead of covert martial law, which is the current situation, there would be overt martial law.Using violence to disrupt the State won't be practical until it's close to collapsing. For example, suppose we already are at the point where the State is close to collapsing. The State demands you pay property taxes. You refuse. At this point, it would be practical to hire a private police force to prevent the State from kicking you off your land. That's an example of properly using violence to resist the State. Such resistance isn't practical until the end of the State is near. In the present, all you can do is pay property taxes and move to an area with low property tax rates.When the State is close to collapsing, the fee paid to the private police force would be *LESS* than the taxes/tribute demanded by the State! Once private police can credibly defend people from the State, and they charge less than the State demands in tribute, it's all over!The correct way to spread agorism is to actually start a free market business. If you want to start a free market taxi service ("gypsy cab"), then you should tell your friends and look for trustworthy customers. That's a valid way to spread agorism.A blog is valid another way to raise awareness. People who are interested will find my blog, or other blogs about free market alternatives to government.I like to make a distinction between black market (marijuana farming/sales) and grey market (free market taxis). I'm much more interested in building a grey market than a black market. Marijuana actually really is bad for you, so I'm not interested in marijuana farming. Free market taxis, food farming, or restaurants are much more interesting.I haven't read much about counter-economics in Russia. In a communist dictatorship, counter-economics can become necessary for survival!I think you're confused about "networking to spread information". Riots and protests aren't that effective. The Internet allows people to communicate in ways that weren't previously possible. The Internet allows people to find free market trading partners much easier than in the past. Just because something hasn't succeeded in the past, doesn't mean it won't succeed in the future. A serious "economic revolt" hasn't been tried before.I don't see any profit in disrupting the Republican National Convention. You probably won't convert many new people to agorism, at least not compared to other activities such as blogging or actually starting a free market business. The Republican National Convention will occur as planned. You'll be opposed by para-military police.I can't stop you from wasting your time. You aren't going to convince me that protesting at the Republican National Convention is effective. It might make the protesters feel better, but it won't actually accomplish anything.If you're organizing mutual self-defense, you need to focus on other things. If the State tries to kick me off my land for not paying property taxes, can I profitably resist? If the State tries to arrest me for refusing to get permission from them to work (i.e., income taxes), can I profitably resist?
Apparently, FSK isn't familiar with SEK3 who said, "All will fail if for no other reason than liberty grows individual by individual."The purpose of going to the RNC Convention is not so much for the protests itself, though calling attention to the war party and showing how they will use violence to dismiss peaceful protestors is important, but rather it is about getting boots on the ground where large array of Anarchists will be condensed so as to spread the message. This is consistent with the purpose of the first phase - apparently something FSK is also unfamiliar with. In the first phase of the Agorist revolution the most devoted Agorists will have the job of combatting anti-principles and radicalizing Anarchists. This is the purpose of going up to Minnessota.
Also, FSK doesn't seem to even understand the LeftLib yahoo group and the situation that occurred there. No, there wasn't a split, it was just the death of the MLL that occurred. With the death of SEK3, his estate and all his work was seceded to a non-Agorist and an outsider to libertarianism. He didn't do anything with the LL group and there was no split, just a death.
I don't know where this FSK guy is getting his information, but it certainly isn't from SEK3 or even a dictionary! No. Black market activity is not just drug trade, prostitution, etc. There is effectively no separation between black markets and grey markets in Agorism.
This is the "differentiation" between black markets and grey markets in a vendiagram (sp?) form.
Black markets are all non-aggressive actions deemed illegal by the state - including, but not excluded to, things like illegal taxis. Grey markets are all state approved actions in an illegal manner - only things like illegal taxis.
As far as the effectiveness goes, FSK is obviously out of the Agorist circle. Our purpose of doing this has nothing to do with stopping the state, it's abotu organization.
Wasn't being serious there... Just wanted to get another rise out of you.
JohnSchreimann: I think many of you misunderstand. I don't support him because I think he is going to be president or that I think the Republicans need to be in power. But the message of liberty and individualism is important. I don't care about the constitution in concept either, but between it and being thrown in Guantanamo or fighting an illegal war... the premise of that document is far superior and at least one in which some of the people in power must accept at some level. This is not any different than if you begin with the premises of a socialist to begin an argument. I don't see how his "populist" message is any different than Rand, Hayek, or Friedman. All of whom are not perfect, but they've done a lot to push the idea of free markets (sure minorities of their fans got the wrong message, but people like that will never think for themselves no matter what). Ron Paul is certainly more radical and closer to anarchism than any of those names, anyway.
And I think you misunderstand. My biggest problem with Ron Paul is that it is a net loss of resource.
Even if you, like libby, think I'm a wasting resources - by taunting him on the internets I guess... - I'm not wasting $30 million worth. And that's the point! Ron Paul is building something through a central plan - through politics. Of course the message is important, but I think it could have been better expressed more efficiently by something else.
Liberty Student, I’m 100% with you. I really can’t fathom why some people on this board so disdain Ron Paul and can’t at least respect him for opening so many people’s eyes and causing them to fundamentally re-think their worldview. And I further don’t understand why some can’t comprehend that such a transformation is a process, not an event. Most don’t go from run-of-the-mill liberal or conservative to Niccoló overnight.
However, Paul serves as the catalyst for which such change becomes possible. Were it not for him, I’m almost positive I never would have discovered Austrian economics, and I probably wouldn’t have branched out into broader Libertarian theory and anarchism either. As such, for all his many faults, RP will always hold a special place in my heart.
Anyway, that said, I strongly believe that you should tone down your rhetoric, Niccoló. You’re obviously more than intelligent enough, but maybe you shouldn’t banish people from the movement for not subscribing EXACTLY to the way you think, condemn people to death for disagreeing over inane and constantly changing labels, or chide those not quite ready to fully embrace anarchism. Though I enjoy reading your posts and have by now grown accustomed to your tone, it's not exactly pleasant and definitely serves as a turn-off to newbs. Of course I’m sure you’ll berate me for even saying this, but whatever.
Niccolò:And I think you misunderstand. My biggest problem with Ron Paul is that it is a net loss of resource.
Niccolò:Even if you, like libby, think I'm a wasting resources - by taunting him on the internets I guess... Hmm - I'm not wasting $30 million worth.
Niccolò:And that's the point! Ron Paul is building something through a central plan - through politics. Of course the message is important, but I think it could have been better expressed more efficiently by something else.
I don't think anyone is wasting resources. I am not trying to hurry in an era of utopia. I only offer my two cents.
WRT: Anyway, that said, I strongly believe that you should tone down your rhetoric, Niccoló. You’re obviously more than intelligent enough, but maybe you shouldn’t banish people from the movement for not subscribing EXACTLY to the way you think, condemn people to death for disagreeing over inane and constantly changing labels, or chide those not quite ready to fully embrace anarchism. Though I enjoy reading your posts and have by now grown accustomed to your tone, it's not exactly pleasant and definitely serves as a turn-off to newbs. Of course I’m sure you’ll berate me for even saying this, but whatever.
Okay, so it's fine for those who disagree with Niccolo to "say without actually saying" that he should shut-up, or else? Yea, that doesn't seem contradictory at all. Seems to me his audience isn't minarchists or those who necassrily disagree with him, but rather anarchists with some lingering sympathies towards political action, thinking that minarchists are automatically allies (which is a dubious assumption that should be addressed). If you don't like the show, then go to a different show :). Like liberty student said, it's a free market; stop acting as if you are holier than thou by thinking that calling for Niccolo to tone down his rhetoric is for some type of good for some group of people or for the debate, because it isn't. That being said, I hope whoever bought the book (over-priced & over-rated, imo, but I digress) got something out of it. I don't endorse the book (deleted my pre-order a little while ago), but I'm certaintly not about to advocate some type of book burning of the Manifesto in order to "purge toxic thought".
"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
Bastiat's "what is seen and what is not seen" applies perfectly to the political process itself.
Niccolò:Apparently, FSK isn't familiar with SEK3 who said, "All will fail if for no other reason than liberty grows individual by individual."
Niccolò:The purpose of going to the RNC Convention is not so much for the protests itself, though calling attention to the war party and showing how they will use violence to dismiss peaceful protestors is important, but rather it is about getting boots on the ground where large array of Anarchists will be condensed so as to spread the message. This is consistent with the purpose of the first phase - apparently something FSK is also unfamiliar with. In the first phase of the Agorist revolution the most devoted Agorists will have the job of combatting anti-principles and radicalizing Anarchists. This is the purpose of going up to Minnessota.
Niccolò:As far as the effectiveness goes, FSK is obviously out of the Agorist circle. Our purpose of doing this has nothing to do with stopping the state, it's abotu organization.
JohnSchreimann: I don't think anyone is wasting resources. I am not trying to hurry in an era of utopia. I only offer my two cents.
I'm not so sure... I beginning to think that it's might be too early to tell whether or not wasting resources is ocurring, but the resources & methods are certaintly changing. If the trend of the "RP Revolution" becoming increasingly less about RP himself (as the reverse money bomb & Paulville have demonstrated a shift towards apolitical tactics & a "inspired by RP, but it's our own agenda" type attitude) continues, I would attribute said supporters as being positive, whereas those who remain dedicated to RP are probably wasting their time. From an anarchist point of view, RP does seem to be a waste of time with regards to "restoring the republic" in an effort to ban-aid a system beyond repair & only prone to further rotting. More & more people get re-assured that "government works, with the right collectives & levers in place", who would be otherwise easier to argue & persuade for anarchism, and be potential converts, if there is constant political dissilusionment (which may also mean polarization; there's been a fair share of popular political dissillusionment since the 2000 elections). The education campaign thus becomes harder & more than likley, lengthened, in an effort to battle the re-surgence of Statist political thought, especially since recent trends (focuses on "bi-partisanship", "moderates", etc.) already point to increasingly Centrist activity, which, needless to say, isn't pretty*.*(http://mises.org/Community/blogs/brainpolice/archive/2008/06/04/the-danger-of-political-centrism.aspx)A further divergence here would be anarchists who consider the RP event a "gateway" towards the more radical thoughts, & those who absolutley oppose it on principle & ethics, and would even consider the previously mentioned anarchists who view the RP event as "somewhat" educational to be reformist sympathizers.From a minarchist point of view, RP seems to be a potentianlly good thing in regards to spreading information of different concepts & ideas that have not entered mainstreak politik before (or for a long time), and thereby increasing the amount of potential voters that will help sway a move towards smaller government. There also seems to be a divergence, similar to the one above, where some minarchists will absolutley insist that minarchism will be required and.or helpful to the anarchists, as there would be less to dismantle, and a gradual change in political thought towards smaller government would help open more minds towards the possibilites of anarchism. Some will insist that anarchism is not needed, and will advocate a de-clawed state being necessary, and possibly, give enough time, would eventually consider the above minarchist sympathizers possible political enemies; this is one of my primary criticisms of minarchism, as political power still exists, and thus, a collective with political power still has the ability to abuse it, even if it meant turning on previous consitutients.To re-iterate my first sentence, the only thing I *do* know, is that I don't know for sure. Based on my 2cents though, I would say RP will ultimatley make things more complicated, rather than worse or better.
Nitro – reading Niccoló as writing for a specific audience – and one that already agrees with him – does change my interpretation a bit. I made the mistake of assuming he sought to convince others of his viewpoints. With that in mind, I intended merely to point out that he’d be far more successful if he weren’t such a pr*ck about it. I didn’t think that would be interpreted as a “shut up or else” type of thing. Just throwing my opinion out there, not that many people (least of all Niccoló) care.
Niccolò:My experience is MUCH different. Many of my ex-girlfriends have been rabid feminists and are now close friends and enthusiastic Anarchists.
WRT:Nitro – reading Niccoló as writing for a specific audience – and one that already agrees with him – does change my interpretation a bit. I made the mistake of assuming he sought to convince others of his viewpoints.
Proud to be a vulgar libertarian, you fucking assholes.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
David Gordon has written a nice review today for those of you who don't want to pay 15 dollars.
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."
WRT: Liberty Student, I’m 100% with you. I really can’t fathom why some people on this board so disdain Ron Paul and can’t at least respect him for opening so many people’s eyes and causing them to fundamentally re-think their worldview. And I further don’t understand why some can’t comprehend that such a transformation is a process, not an event. Most don’t go from run-of-the-mill liberal or conservative to Niccoló overnight. However, Paul serves as the catalyst for which such change becomes possible. Were it not for him, I’m almost positive I never would have discovered Austrian economics, and I probably wouldn’t have branched out into broader Libertarian theory and anarchism either. As such, for all his many faults, RP will always hold a special place in my heart. Anyway, that said, I strongly believe that you should tone down your rhetoric, Niccoló. You’re obviously more than intelligent enough, but maybe you shouldn’t banish people from the movement for not subscribing EXACTLY to the way you think, condemn people to death for disagreeing over inane and constantly changing labels, or chide those not quite ready to fully embrace anarchism. Though I enjoy reading your posts and have by now grown accustomed to your tone, it's not exactly pleasant and definitely serves as a turn-off to newbs. Of course I’m sure you’ll berate me for even saying this, but whatever.
I'm not claling for "punishment by death," nor do I want everyone to agree with everything I say. I do, however, want to express my displeasure fore the use of the inefficient process of central planning.
Ron Paul may have gotten to you and that's great - admittedly I think it is! - however, at what cost? BP has a great point about Bastiat. What is seen and what is unseen.
Stranger: Proud to be a vulgar libertarian, you fucking assholes.
How can someone actually be proud of misusing free market theory to be an apologist for corporatism and the current distribution of property titles? Rothbard most certainly was not a vulgar libertarian, as he made quite clear in his property theory in The Ethics of Liberty.
Jesus, we're geeks sometimes.
liberty student:Appeal to authority.
You do realize that appeals to authority are only appeals to authority when the authority has no relevance to the topic - that is, it is not an "appeal to authority" when the authority is an expert on the matter - right?
As SEK3 created the Agorist concept, it seems necessary to understand what he's talking about, what he says, and what he did to call yourself a well-read Agorist. FSK, is apparently not, though I welcome him all the same.
liberty student:You could get boots on the ground for any number of events. It's no coincidence that this is a protest of the RNC.
It wasn't my original idea to choose the RNC. Matthew B. chose it as a type of solidification of the Agorist paradigm in the Anarchist movement. He chose it specifically for the war issue, I believe.
liberty student:Btw, Paul is going to protest the RNC. And he will get media attention. And probably outnumber the anarchists. But he doesn't pretend to be *uncorrupted* like you.
No, Paul is going to "protest" Pumpkin head at the RNC. He fully supports the idea of a RNC and would gladly participate if he were the winner.
liberty student:It's about a failed idea to capitalize on the media stickiness of the RNC to promote anarchy.
Well, thank you for informing one of the organizers what the RNC gathering will be about.
liberty student:You guys could meet anywhere, anytime. It speak volumes about your commitment to the ideology, that you need an enemy to rail against (the RNC or Paul) rather than having actual tasks to complete, even in the absence of evil.Movements like yours don't have an endpoint. Because they never really have a starting point. I think SEK3 figured this out once he had a child.People radicalize, until they realize that radicalism is it's own end, not an ideological one.
First, the RNC will be used mostly for organizational purposes and not for much else - though we will participate in the protests. The purpose is to get boots on the ground and to gather the most devoted Agorists together to arrange plans for the future.
Second, well... everything else is pretty incoherent.
Third, I'm bored with you. I think the rise climaxed with "You're an ass."
Now have the last word,
JohnSchreimann: Jesus, we're geeks sometimes.
Yes, but we're geeks with internets. That's far better than being geeks with dungeons and dragons. Mirite?
Niccolò:Say you distribute this to about 10 people (if you're an organizer of anything, that shouldn't be too difficult). What's the cost? Between $150 - $200? That's A LOT of money for most of the people that Ron Paul is targeting - the younger age group between 16 - 25. In contrast, say that you were to pass around three of the several MLL pamphlets written by SEK3. The cost of one is about $0.80. Multiply this by three - for each separate pamphlet - and to give it to ten people roughly translates to a monetary price of... $24
Man, I've looked into Agorism, and I think some parts of it are really briliant. However, in case you haven't noticed, it isn't particularly prevalent or even well-known. Ron Paul, on the other hand, was for a time virtually ruling the interwebs, and he was the one that brought me, and many others, into the exploration of libertarian thought.
There are several things working against Agorism. Firstly, you guys are pissed off (rightly, but still). I may find pictures of chicks with miniskirts and guns to be hot, but many will just be turned off by seeing them on every other website, thinking you (again, quite rightly) very radical. Secondly, and more creepily to me, is the almost cultish devotion I see to Samuel Edward Konkin III in the movement. On the other hand, some people are like that with Ron Paul, too.
Finally, you really do come off like a *** a lot of the time here. Maybe you're right in your philosophy and strategy, but you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, dude. That attitude will do nothing but disservice to the cause you try to champion.
The two go together these days.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
JCFolsom: Niccolò:Say you distribute this to about 10 people (if you're an organizer of anything, that shouldn't be too difficult). What's the cost? Between $150 - $200? That's A LOT of money for most of the people that Ron Paul is targeting - the younger age group between 16 - 25. In contrast, say that you were to pass around three of the several MLL pamphlets written by SEK3. The cost of one is about $0.80. Multiply this by three - for each separate pamphlet - and to give it to ten people roughly translates to a monetary price of... $24 Man, I've looked into Agorism, and I think some parts of it are really briliant. However, in case you haven't noticed, it isn't particularly prevalent or even well-known. Ron Paul, on the other hand, was for a time virtually ruling the interwebs, and he was the one that brought me, and many others, into the exploration of libertarian thought. There are several things working against Agorism. Firstly, you guys are pissed off (rightly, but still). I may find pictures of chicks with miniskirts and guns to be hot, but many will just be turned off by seeing them on every other website, thinking you (again, quite rightly) very radical. Secondly, and more creepily to me, is the almost cultish devotion I see to Samuel Edward Konkin III in the movement. On the other hand, some people are like that with Ron Paul, too. Finally, you really do come off like a *** a lot of the time here. Maybe you're right in your philosophy and strategy, but you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, dude. That attitude will do nothing but disservice to the cause you try to champion.
Well, I finally have a well thought out reply from a semi-opponent at least. Thank you, I will take this into consideration, though I cannot promise that my strategy will change, I will revise it. You are correct, one does catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. My position, has, however, been to be the vinegar for the Ron Paul campaign and not the honey for Agorism. Again, I will reconsider this.
Niccolò:Well, I finally have a well thought out reply from a semi-opponent at least. Thank you, I will take this into consideration, though I cannot promise that my strategy will change, I will revise it. You are correct, one does catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. My position, has, however, been to be the vinegar for the Ron Paul campaign and not the honey for Agorism. Again, I will reconsider this.
Well Hallelujah and Holy Hosannah!
The man is actually going to be FOR something, instead of AGAINST something.
I learned a lot of things being on a college campus this last semester.
Some of the people I met that were interested in Ron Paul's campaign were willing to organize and meet to discuss real libertarian issues Most if not all were open to the idea of anarchism. We even discussed making an anarchy logo for our club to piss off the The Official Anarchist (socialist) Club on campus. Even if some considered themselves conservative socially (though this very seldom clashes with some more cosmopolitan people). Some were Friedmanites, but almost everyone enjoyed stuff like Walter Block's various books, lewrockwell.com, sometimes reason.com, etc. It was a pretty diverse group of people... many economics students, some engineers, people in business, some grad students... no poetry majors or hippies (though virtually everyone loved pot, besides myself). This was actually very encouraging that so many understood clearly things like price controls, socialist health care, minimum wage, unions, fiat currency and the Fed, the drug war, subsidies, corporatism, etc.
Supporting Ron Paul, the person, became a problem because people would write articles in the college press about Ron Paul and not any of us. They wouldn't even engage us for answers (until we became a liberty club and ended support for the RP campaign). So you'd have "progressive" weinies taking pot shots at Ron with their various cliches... like he wants to do "Shock Capitalism" like Pinochet... he wants to steal your public bussing system and our "beloved" postal service... he wants to make families starve to death...and he wants to end (and I kid you not) "our patriotic income tax" et al. Because Ron Paul was the second big name on campus after Obama (no support for any of the other candidates), it became a big thrill for some to try and one up Ron by trying to show that either he will never win or that his economic ideas are old fashioned... or as one idiot regaled "undemocratic like Lenin." All of this while only passive aggressively addressing us capitalist pigs that would support him.
Republicans on campus were not having it with any exposure of Ron Paul. Though, this turned in our favor. Because eventhough the vast majority of them were unthinking warmongers and irrational idiots, many from the Republicans were so alienated by this defensiveness and ended up just leaving (either the party or to be for Ron). Some Ron Paul supporters sat in at these meetings to see this happen. The Republicans would openly insult people and have ridiculous panel discussions on how best to implement creepy Republican agendas (mostly very unproductive things like anti-global warming events). It was very surreal. Though many were open to many of RP's ideas. But I think only because the Republican party has been dominated by rhetoric of individualism. It's not certain that any were actual libertarians. Though I suspect amongst those warmongers, there were probably many who were sympathetic to our views on marijuana -- but why waste time with them?
The democrats were actually less receptive to Ron's ideas or any of our ideas. Most of them seem more interested in passing out free condoms and making Earth day costumes. Never did they do any anti-war protests. The "secretary" of the young democrats actually sent us a letter telling us we can't be the "students for liberty" but have to call ourselves the "students for negative liberty." He explained that there is a difference between that and positive liberty. Having read Rothbard, I had to set him straight. Apparently he was writing his thesis on this nonsense.
I found out by real trial and error that many just are not interested in constitutional argument for libertarianism. And not just because of laziness or out of principle. Like RP's economics, many smarter-than-thou people think they have a leg up on his knowledge of the subject. This is how many conservative talk show hosts are, but I had no idea that the liberals feel the same things. And will just bend it towards their own stupid ends or whatever their professor told them. Plus too much time is wasted on talk about reforming of taxes or argument about the constitutionality of collecting taxes. Many got distracted by Fair Tax and Flat Tax and many of these crank schemes because they were promised as being constitutional or a solution to federal income tax. It seemed silly to me to be for (or against) taxes only because it says so by law whether explicit or not. Certainly government could be reduced to zero or would have to be abandoned all together before ditching all these taxes anyway (someone ran the budget up and someone/thing will have to in some way run the budget back down). And that is the real problem: the force behind it. And the failure of government in general. Not convenience or procedure. All in all constitutionality is something for politicians and lawyers and that whole game and certainly not good theorists. It's one of the reasons I find minarchism unworthy of real interesting discussion (eventhough these same people have good ideas when they aren't talking about their compromise with the state).
We ended up passing out hundreds of copies of Freedom to Fascism. I found out that everyone in college loves sensational documentaries like this one and Zeitgeist. Though I wished we'd have passed out Money, Banking and Federal Reserve which I think is more well done. We discussed having a viewing session of Milton Friedman's Free to Choose with guests. But I was a bit iffy about that because I would have to completely cut out his spiel on vouchers, the fed, and the negative income tax.
That is a really interesting post. I've also found that school age people really like sensationalist films. I've had friends and family approach me after seeing Zeitgeist, knowing that I have been *rambling* about banking for some time.
I don't see Paul as being terribly committed to the Constitution, but rather uses it as a point of reference for people to guide them from statism to minarchism. We'll never really know for sure because he plays it so close to the vest, but I suspect Paul, like his friends Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard is an anarchist at heart.
Paul's campaign was good to get out ideas and get people excited about liberty, but I have no faith in it as a long term strategy for liberty. Paul will never win the presidency; and I just found out today that Murray Sabrin lost his congressional race. What people who have been campaigning for fail to see is that most RP supporters are not actually Republicans! And a good amount aren't even republicans. I don't think the ReLOVEution is a bad thing; it's good, but if it steered a bit in the right direction it could be great.
If it goes way too far in the wrong direction, however, libertarianism will become even more synonymous with conservatism in the public eye. This is a great danger indeed.
majevska: Paul's campaign was good to get out ideas and get people excited about liberty, but I have no faith in it as a long term strategy for liberty. Paul will never win the presidency; and I just found out today that Murray Sabrin lost his congressional race. What people who have been campaigning for fail to see is that most RP supporters are not actually Republicans! And a good amount aren't even republicans. I don't think the ReLOVEution is a bad thing; it's good, but if it steered a bit in the right direction it could be great. If it goes way too far in the wrong direction, however, libertarianism will become even more synonymous with conservatism in the public eye. This is a great danger indeed.
I'm less confident about Ron Paul in that regard. Ron Paul may have gotten the word out there - though at an inefficient rate with a great cost, though nothing that can be done about it now - but he's also misdirected people in the direction of the GOP. There's a quote out there about Ron Paul wanting many of the libertarians to just invade the GOP and "take it back." Umm... When did Anarchism ever correlate with any political party, much less the Tory GOP?
Niccolò: majevska: Paul's campaign was good to get out ideas and get people excited about liberty, but I have no faith in it as a long term strategy for liberty. Paul will never win the presidency; and I just found out today that Murray Sabrin lost his congressional race. What people who have been campaigning for fail to see is that most RP supporters are not actually Republicans! And a good amount aren't even republicans. I don't think the ReLOVEution is a bad thing; it's good, but if it steered a bit in the right direction it could be great. If it goes way too far in the wrong direction, however, libertarianism will become even more synonymous with conservatism in the public eye. This is a great danger indeed. I'm less confident about Ron Paul in that regard. Ron Paul may have gotten the word out there - though at an inefficient rate with a great cost, though nothing that can be done about it now - but he's also misdirected people in the direction of the GOP. There's a quote out there about Ron Paul wanting many of the libertarians to just invade the GOP and "take it back." Umm... When did Anarchism ever correlate with any political party, much less the Tory GOP?
I didn't mean I think Ron Paul will take things in a new direction. I'm thinking the RP movement might start using alternative strategies like Paulville in place of taking over the GOP.
Hopefully they'll see it's a hopeless battle. So far Jim Forsythe and Murray Sabrin (2 of 4 republicans endorsed by RP) have dropped out, I don't know what's going on with the other two, but even if two more RPites get in congress, is that a victory for anarchism? I saw an article on Reason saying about 40 RP republicans ran and it looks like almost every on one of them will lose.
RP's a Constitutionalist and so are RP repubs. The proposed strategy of "Ron Paul Anarchists" is basically "yeah, let's pretend to be conservatives and win some elections. Then we can pretend to be conservatives who believe in even less government than the previous conservative characters we pretended to be; once we chop down the government a bit more we can finally start to pretend to be minarchists! Then after a few more years of waiting we can pretend to be anarchists because we've already proven ourselves to be everything but!"
I think the ineffectiveness of politics will eventually be understood... even by the minarchists and constitutionalists and paranoid illuminati hunters.
Brainpolice: How can someone actually be proud of misusing free market theory to be an apologist for corporatism and the current distribution of property titles? Rothbard most certainly was not a vulgar libertarian, as he made quite clear in his property theory in The Ethics of Liberty.
I don't consider Rothbard more important than my vulgar teachers Mises, Hayek and Hoppe. And being vulgar, I get to curse a lot. Bitches!
majevska: I didn't mean I think Ron Paul will take things in a new direction. I'm thinking the RP movement might start using alternative strategies like Paulville in place of taking over the GOP. Hopefully they'll see it's a hopeless battle. So far Jim Forsythe and Murray Sabrin (2 of 4 republicans endorsed by RP) have dropped out, I don't know what's going on with the other two, but even if two more RPites get in congress, is that a victory for anarchism? I saw an article on Reason saying about 40 RP republicans ran and it looks like almost every on one of them will lose. RP's a Constitutionalist and so are RP repubs. The proposed strategy of "Ron Paul Anarchists" is basically "yeah, let's pretend to be conservatives and win some elections. Then we can pretend to be conservatives who believe in even less government than the previous conservative characters we pretended to be; once we chop down the government a bit more we can finally start to pretend to be minarchists! Then after a few more years of waiting we can pretend to be anarchists because we've already proven ourselves to be everything but!" I think the ineffectiveness of politics will eventually be understood... even by the minarchists and constitutionalists and paranoid illuminati hunters.
Paulville seems kind of too culty for me... I don't know. They're investing a lot of respect and trust in Ron Paul when he himself discourages the idea.
I am hopeful though that at least this shows them how futile their chances are.