Political Theory

Re: In Reply to Walter Block on something

sam72 — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 04:05:46 GMT

IrishOutlaw:
I doubt Konkin or Rothbard would be ashamed. There is no such thing as too radical in the name of liberty.

No, its not about Niccolo being too radical. Certainly not.

It's his apparant naive disdain for history.

Rothbard wrote four large books about the American colonies and revolution, and from interviews I have read with SEKIII, he knew history pretty darn well, and it sounds like both appreciated its lessons relevance.

I just have a hard time seeing either of those two saying "I don't give a **** about old men from different times blahblahblah"

Thats what I would expect from a 6th grader who doesn't want to do his history homework.

Cheers!

Re: In Reply to Walter Block on something

Niccolò — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 12:17:59 GMT

Wow, on a side note, that was really bad writing in terms of structure. I just cleaned it up A LOT, it's almost a different article. I'd suggest reading it again if you couldn't understand before.

I need to stop drinking and start going back to A.A.

Re: In Reply to Walter Block on something

Niccolò — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 04:20:06 GMT

Grant:
Two people I know are now anarchists, although I know very few who are at all interested in politics. I'd never heard Rothbard's name mentioned in conversation before Paul's candidacy.

I have. Then again, I live by a few more Anarchists than most people here who are divided along the lines of the internet geographically.

Grant:
I don't deny that is going on as well, but it won't take long for Paul's supporters to realize that is just impossible.

Then they wouldn't be Ron Paul supporters anymore. As long as LewRockwell.com continues to post the epistles of Paul every day, I doubt it.

Re: In Reply to Walter Block on something

Niccolò — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 04:18:08 GMT

sam72:

Wow. You sound so educated with your self-censored swear words. Good job.
You come off as quite pompous, you realize? I'm telling you this for your own benefit. Not that I think you'll listen. Is this your view of all of history? What naive ignorance. I'm pretty sure your hero SEKIII would be ashamed of you for saying such things.
*tsk* *tsk*

No. I don't censor myself. Mises.com censors me. I may put in a - between certain things so that they don't, I should have said, I really don't give a sh/it about Jorge Washington and Alejandro Hamerton.

As for SEK3 and Rothbard, I don't see why. Maybe Rothbard because he was a weak strategist, but I don't see what I do to make SEK3 ashamed. I'm venomous, my writing style is venomous, and I pull no punches. Why should I care about the "founders"? What did they find? Nothing that I care about!

Re: In Reply to Walter Block on something

IrishOutlaw — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 04:07:33 GMT

sam72:
I'm pretty sure your hero SEKIII would be ashamed of you for saying such things.
*tsk* *tsk*

I doubt Konkin or Rothbard would be ashamed. There is no such thing as too radical in the name of liberty.

Re: In Reply to Walter Block on something

Grant — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 03:38:09 GMT

Niccolò:
How many people?

Two people I know are now anarchists, although I know very few who are at all interested in politics. I'd never heard Rothbard's name mentioned in conversation before Paul's candidacy.

Niccolò:
I think his campaign is just delegitimizing today's federal government in the lost hopes that a better one can be established. Entirely defeating and in the end, disastrous.

I don't deny that is going on as well, but it won't take long for Paul's supporters to realize that is just impossible.

Re: In Reply to Walter Block on something

sam72 — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 03:24:35 GMT

Niccolò:
Don't really give a *** about old dead men from the 18th century of a different religion, ethnicity, and mindset.

Wow. You sound so educated with your self-censored swear words. Good job.

You come off as quite pompous, you realize? I'm telling you this for your own benefit. Not that I think you'll listen. Is this your view of all of history? What naive ignorance. I'm pretty sure your hero SEKIII would be ashamed of you for saying such things.

*tsk* *tsk*

Re: In Reply to Walter Block on something

Niccolò — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 03:16:57 GMT

How many people?

I think his campaign is just delegitimizing today's federal government in the lsot hopes that a better one can be established. Entirely defeating and in the end, disastrous.

Re: In Reply to Walter Block on something

Grant — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 03:12:25 GMT

Niccolò:
Don't really give a *** about old dead men from the 18th century of a different religion, ethnicity, and mindset.

Me either. The point was that for many people (at least, many I know), Paul's candidacy is de-legitimizing the federal government of the United States.

Re: In Reply to Walter Block on something

Niccolò — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 03:09:15 GMT

sam72:
Not all supporters of Ron Paul want a libertarian society, sadly

Then they don't apply the capital I'm speaking of anyways.

Re: In Reply to Walter Block on something

Niccolò — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 03:07:29 GMT

Grant:
Niccolò,
I'm not sure how familiar you are with the American educational system, but the Constitution is is used as a major source of legitimacy of the government (and I am sure you are familiar with the resources governments spend to legitimize their actions). The founding fathers are revered, in some ways, by the history books used in our schools. I view Paul's campaign as a major step which wakes people up to the fact that the Lockean experiment has failed. Paul admits we have strayed from the constitution, and he cannot win the election. The very document used to legitimize government is being shown to be discarded by that very government; the hypocrisy inherent in the system is becoming more obvious. The only support Paul gets is from anarchy itself: the internet. The logical conclusion is that limited government has failed to preserve liberty, and so something else must be tried.
Although this isn't apparent to many Paul-supporters at the moment, I believe it will be in time.

Don't really give a *** about old dead men from the 18th century of a different religion, ethnicity, and mindset.

Sorry.

Re: In Reply to Walter Block on something

Niccolò — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 03:06:23 GMT

newson:
like i said, semantics.

Like I said, grasping at straws.

Re: In Reply to Walter Block on something

sam72 — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 18:44:54 GMT

Niccolò:
EDIT: Let me rephrase that, after answering this last question that I neglected to view, I will say all that really can be said. If I have not succeeded in persuading you, then at least I have given you another insight into the proper strategy. If you feel that voting for Ron Paul is a well rested investment, then by all means continue. The capital I feel that has been wasted on Ron Paul isn't so much the voting day election standing in line for three hours, but rather it is a combination of time, effort, and money donated to his cause. When I say, investment for the same ends, I mean, Ron Paul supporters want a libertarian society, as do Agorists - assuming Agorism is the more efficient system you could achieve a greater change using that as opposed to the political process.

Not all supporters of Ron Paul want a libertarian society, sadly, and as I said, I realized during the course of this debate that I had lost sight of the REAL goal, the truly MORAL goal, and was working myself into a frenzy about simply getting the man elected, as if that was it- no more; mission accomplished. In that respect, I thank you. I realized where I had gone astray. I also thank you for forcing me to look into agorism deeper than I previously had. Believe me, its not an interest that will go away any time soon. In the future, I may decide that politics is the wrong path. Who knows? I'm not convinced now, but I'm far less sure of it than I was. I feel good can come from the RP "revolution". At any rate, its here, so we might as well capitalize on the new interest of being critical of the state, Austrian economics, and freedom. Libertarians, agorists or not, have to be ready to use these movements in one way or the other. We can't simply ignore them.

Cheers!

Re: In Reply to Walter Block on something

IrishOutlaw — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 18:39:49 GMT

Grant:
Niccolò,
I'm not sure how familiar you are with the American educational system, but the Constitution is is used as a major source of legitimacy of the government (and I am sure you are familiar with the resources governments spend to legitimize their actions). The founding fathers are revered, in some ways, by the history books used in our schools. I view Paul's campaign as a major step which wakes people up to the fact that the Lockean experiment has failed. Paul admits we have strayed from the constitution, and he cannot win the election. The very document used to legitimize government is being shown to be discarded by that very government; the hypocrisy inherent in the system is becoming more obvious. The only support Paul gets is from anarchy itself: the internet. The logical conclusion is that limited government has failed to preserve liberty, and so something else must be tried.
Although this isn't apparent to many Paul-supporters at the moment, I believe it will be in time.

I think that is a possibility. I think we should start a campaing to "Google Lysander Spooner", LOL

Re: In Reply to Walter Block on something

Grant — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 12:01:40 GMT

Niccolò,

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the American educational system, but the Constitution is is used as a major source of legitimacy of the government (and I am sure you are familiar with the resources governments spend to legitimize their actions). The founding fathers are revered, in some ways, by the history books used in our schools. I view Paul's campaign as a major step which wakes people up to the fact that the Lockean experiment has failed. Paul admits we have strayed from the constitution, and he cannot win the election. The very document used to legitimize government is being shown to be discarded by that very government; the hypocrisy inherent in the system is becoming more obvious. The only support Paul gets is from anarchy itself: the internet. The logical conclusion is that limited government has failed to preserve liberty, and so something else must be tried.

Although this isn't apparent to many Paul-supporters at the moment, I believe it will be in time.