http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100327/ap_on_re_us/us_tea_party_rally
I've never been directly affiliated with the Tea Party movement but have been following the headlines concerning it for around 1.5 years. After Obama was elected president the movement according to the media has changed from being mostly libertarian/miniarchist in scope to rallies used by the neoconservatives to gain votes for the 2012 election. Upon this transition the rhetoric has changed to favor neoconservative principles blanketed by the term libertarian. The connection between libertarianism and the Tea Parties is strongly reinforced when talking heads such as Glenn Beck bring up news concerning the latest Tea Party and then immediately afterwards claim to be a libertarian. Now that the connection between libertarianism and the tea parties has been established the media is linking the tea parties thus linking libertarianism to racism, terrorism, violent acts and worst of all inconsistent neoconservative talking points.
I am begin to feel the effects of this misrepresentation in my everyday life. For example whenever making the case for liberty to my peers I am immediately linked to the Republican party and its apologist such as Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. If the person I'm talking to is a supporter of one of these people they do not tend to believe that they do not truly represent the libertarian position and if the person I'm talking to isn't a supporter of one of they people they normally do not to take my arguments seriously.
Now that I've got that off my chest my question is what is the best way to overcome this propaganda and continue to spread the message of liberty?
socialdtk:what is the best way to overcome this propaganda and continue to spread the message of liberty?
Abandon the political process.
Honestly, what do you hope to gain from supporting tea party movements or any other political movement?
"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner. "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.
The way I see it is that the tea-party movement started out as a minarchist/libertarian movement with all the Ron Paul and Alex Jones people behind it at first. Then, now as we've seen it's mostly become an opposition movmeent where everyone who is opposed to Obama- including the neocons, and all of the fascists on the right now supporting it.
That's just how these movements go. It's like the anti-war movement- the anti-war movement under Bush was hijacked by the Democrats, and Hollywood celebrities, and all of thoe other people that really weren't anti-war, but now it's more of a genuine movement. I think that when the Republicans get back in power- if the tea-party movement is a true and independent movement, we'll see if the hard-core people freedom-lovers, and what not are still there. But right now it's a conservative/republican movement.
chloe732: socialdtk:what is the best way to overcome this propaganda and continue to spread the message of liberty? Abandon the political process. Honestly, what do you hope to gain from supporting tea party movements or any other political movement?
What do you hope to gain from just sitting around doing nothing and acting like an arm-chair intellectual posting on message boards and not talking to people about the issues? I hate people who act completely apathetic like you do. Just how exactly do you expect to do anything if you completely ignore politics and these philosophical revolutions?
socialdtk:Now that the connection between libertarianism and the tea parties has been established the media is linking the tea parties thus linking libertarianism to racism, terrorism, violent acts and worst of all inconsistent neoconservative talking points.
This is their precise goal. And this is why Ron is getting such "favourable" attention from Faux and other the other tards at the moment. They want to make that connection [you elaborated], stick. It's a shame that others are blind to it.
socialdtk:Now that I've got that off my chest my question is what is the best way to overcome this propaganda and continue to spread the message of liberty?
Attack the "right" before you attack the "left". Proclaim you actually hate George Bush and the republicans more than they ("socialist" you are talking to) does.
SilentXtarian: The way I see it is that the tea-party movement started out as a minarchist/libertarian movement with all the Ron Paul and Alex Jones people behind it at first. Then, now as we've seen it's mostly become an opposition movmeent where everyone who is opposed to Obama- including the neocons, and all of the fascists on the right now supporting it. That's just how these movements go. It's like the anti-war movement- the anti-war movement under Bush was hijacked by the Democrats, and Hollywood celebrities, and all of thoe other people that really weren't anti-war, but now it's more of a genuine movement. I think that when the Republicans get back in power- if the tea-party movement is a true and independent movement, we'll see if the hard-core people freedom-lovers, and what not are still there. But right now it's a conservative/republican movement.
These movements generally start off genuine, then they are co-opted and used to filter in and control the "opposition". The movement never accomplishes anything. Anti-war movement = done jack squat to stop the war. It was essentially, anti-bush was what it became about.
This whole tea party thing is the exact same. Nothing will change. Unless the genuine folks can push support into state secessions.
SilentXtarian: The way I see it is that the tea-party movement started out as a minarchist/libertarian movement with all the Ron Paul and Alex Jones people behind it at first. Then, now as we've seen it's mostly become an opposition movmeent where everyone who is opposed to Obama- including the neocons, and all of the fascists on the right now supporting it. That's just how these movements go. It's like the anti-war movement- the anti-war movement under Bush was hijacked by the Democrats, and Hollywood celebrities, and all of thoe other people that really weren't anti-war, but now it's more of a genuine movement. I think that when the Republicans get back in power- if the tea-party movement is a true and independent movement, we'll see if the hard-core people freedom-lovers, and what not are still there. But right now it's a conservative/republican movement. chloe732: socialdtk:what is the best way to overcome this propaganda and continue to spread the message of liberty? Abandon the political process. Honestly, what do you hope to gain from supporting tea party movements or any other political movement? What do you hope to gain from just sitting around doing nothing and acting like an arm-chair intellectual posting on message boards and not talking to people about the issues? I hate people who act completely apathetic like you do. Just how exactly do you expect to do anything if you completely ignore politics and these philosophical revolutions?
Why bother with the political process? What people need is education in sound economics and liberty, not some loyal oppossitions talking points.
The more people stay away from the political process in general, the better. Unless we are talking about Ron Paul or one of his acolytes.
What I thought was sickly-funny was on the front page of the New York Times I saw at the store today was Sarah Palin standing next to McCain and in the caption underneath it stated that Sarah Palin said, 'McCain is what the Tea-Party Movement is all about. Support McCain and you support the Tea-Parties'. That gave me a chuckle. Especially noting that McCain is running against another conservative in the republican primary! So now it's all about who is more Tea-Party than the other guy! Cause it's not that the other conservative is not for Tea-Party's either. Nearly all politicians are trying to run to that gold mine.
Conza88
Really? I thought that the establishment media failed at that early on and that they stopped playing the libertarians are racist card when they did the Ron Paul gun owner shooter guy thing at the Obama rally, and, that kind of blew up in their faces because of how ridiculous everyone thought the reporting on that was. If anything I'd say the media has been somewhat sympathetic to the libertarian cause and they've been actually distinguishing them from the tea-party groups.
socialdtk
Why not just attack both indiscriminately? That's what I do. I just attack the system right now. I'm not pulling any more punches. Whenever I talk to people and they ask me my opinion about the political system I'll just tell them how it is: it's corrupt, and, both parties are at fault. I tell people that loonies on the left and the right have taken over Washington... and that seems to work. The only problem I may have is when people accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist or a nut... but I'm all fine with that.
wilderness: What I thought was sickly-funny was on the front page of the New York Times I saw at the store today was Sarah Palin standing next to McCain and in the caption underneath it stated that Sarah Palin said, 'McCain is what the Tea-Party Movement is all about. Support McCain and you support the Tea-Parties'. That gave me a chuckle. Especially noting that McCain is running against another conservative in the republican primary! So now it's all about who is more Tea-Party than the other guy! Cause it's not that the other conservative is not for Tea-Party's either. Nearly all politicians are trying to run to that gold mine.
I think it's frankly disgusting and shows how we're moving in a horrible direction. I think it's time to focus on other countries like Singapore. I mean the world can't be moving in the same direction! The rest of the world is definitely not as blind and as we are to economic reality!
I'm really down in the dumps about this country these days, I feel like I'm just largely surrounded by fallacy ridden half-truths or just horrible economics. There are more and more libertarians than before, but I just don't think we are going to accomplish anything. We are set on this crash-course and all we can do is watch in sheer horror as everything unfolds here.
LvMIenthusiast: Why bother with the political process? What people need is education in sound economics and liberty, not some loyal oppossitions talking points. The more people stay away from the political process in general, the better. Unless we are talking about Ron Paul or one of his acolytes.
I don't really understand the whole anti-politics sentiment that's developed here. The only way that we're going to get anything done really is if we use the machinery of the state against the state. I'm all for education of liberty here. But I've said it before and I'll say it again- the reason why the statists are so effective at passing legislation and doing what they want to do is because they have all their masses mobilized and they use their representation to carry out their constituents will.
We have a representative republic- at least for now, and we should use that machinery to promote more decentralization, and really just I think while we need a philosophical movement among the general population and get them more educated in liberty- we need to also change the general philosophy of the government as well. We've seen too often that the government doesn't listen to the masses even though they're their own constituents. It's time we infiltrate the two-party system and take on reform for ourselves. Maybe not infiltrate the political party system... but we definitely need to do something. That's at least the way I see it.
LvMIenthusiast:I think it's frankly disgusting and shows how we're moving in a horrible direction. I think it's time to focus on other countries like Singapore. I mean the world can't be moving in the same direction! The rest of the world is definitely not as blind and as we are to economic reality! I'm really down in the dumps about this country these days, I feel like I'm just largely surrounded by fallacy ridden half-truths or just horrible economics. There are more and more libertarians than before, but I just don't think we are going to accomplish anything. We are set on this crash-course and all we can do is watch in sheer horror as everything unfolds here.
Without letting this ruin my health what else can I do but laugh! I know it's sickly-funny, but watching clowns does that to me.
SilentXtarian:What do you hope to gain from just sitting around doing nothing and acting like an arm-chair intellectual posting on message boards and not talking to people about the issues?
You are mistaken. You haven't spoken to my neighbors, my family, or my co-workers. They would tell you about how I talk to people about the issues. I probably talk too much, in fact.
SilentXtarian:I hate people who act completely apathetic like you do.
I'm apathetic? Really? You don't know me very well. And I don't think you really hate me, do you?
SilentXtarian:Just how exactly do you expect to do anything if you completely ignore politics and these philosophical revolutions?
You still believe in the political process, I do not. The only thing I can think of that might be effective to eventually reduce the size and scope of government is if at least 80% to 90% of voters show up on election day but cast blank ballots. Imagine the message contained in 100 million blank ballots cast. That would deny the only thing the people in power desire from us on election day; legitimacy. My strategy would be to deny them legitimacy. Then, it might be possible to elect more people like Ron Paul who would reduce the government to the Constitutional limits that you desire.
But that will never happen, people will keep voting "R" and "D". The media is a propaganda machine. Other parties are marginalized. It's two parties, that's it, because that is the design. How else could they keep government growing? How else could they indebt the nation to $12 trillion, run $1.7 trillion annual deficits, take over industries, build the empire, inflate the money supply, make us dependent on them in our old age, and now force us to participate in their health care plan? "Stop voting, it only encourages them." Do I sound apathetic to you?
SilentXtarian:Really? I thought that the establishment media failed at that early on and that they stopped playing the libertarians are racist card when they did the Ron Paul gun owner shooter guy thing at the Obama rally, and, that kind of blew up in their faces because of how ridiculous everyone thought the reporting on that was. If anything I'd say the media has been somewhat sympathetic to the libertarian cause and they've been actually distinguishing them from the tea-party groups.
You see the 5 minutes they have Ron Paul on, and not the other 23 hours and 55 minutes of the day they are whoring themselves for the state, status quo and establishment.
SilentXtarian:I don't really understand the whole anti-politics sentiment that's developed here. The only way that we're going to get anything done really is if we use the machinery of the state against the state.
Do some work. Join the market. If you can't work for yourself, then get a job. Don't special plead it's not attractive.
chloe732: You are mistaken. You haven't spoken to my neighbors, my family, or my co-workers. They would tell you about how I talk to people about the issues. I probably talk too much, in fact.
Conza88: SilentXtarian:Really? I thought that the establishment media failed at that early on and that they stopped playing the libertarians are racist card when they did the Ron Paul gun owner shooter guy thing at the Obama rally, and, that kind of blew up in their faces because of how ridiculous everyone thought the reporting on that was. If anything I'd say the media has been somewhat sympathetic to the libertarian cause and they've been actually distinguishing them from the tea-party groups.You see the 5 minutes they have Ron Paul on, and not the other 23 hours and 55 minutes of the day they are whoring themselves for the state, status quo and establishment.
wilderness: SilentXtarian:I don't really understand the whole anti-politics sentiment that's developed here. The only way that we're going to get anything done really is if we use the machinery of the state against the state. Do some work. Join the market. If you can't work for yourself, then get a job. Don't special plead it's not attractive.
I'm guessing that the people with guns aren't going to give back their power. But I could be wrong, maybe if you remind them about that piece of paper they were supposed to adhere to and then get down on your knees and beg really really hard, they will dismantle the system that butters their bread.
SilentXtarian:I do agree that the 2 party system needs to be fixed.
I did not mean to imply the two party system needs to be fixed. It can't be fixed, because for the people in power, it is not broken. It is working perfectly. The two party system ought to be abandoned, not fixed.
SilentXtarian:All I would be doing would be to limit the power of the state and restore its constitutional framework, and then, we could work from there to make changes.
And how can that possibly be accomplished? I am being realistic, not negative. The very essence of government is to grow and expand, not contract and limit itself.
I dunno, I think that what's happening is that the mainstream Republican Party sees a lot of energy in the tea party that it would like to harness and direct towards the 2010/2012 elections.
It seems many of you have little experience of the political process, probably because the US dual-party system doesn't allow much elbow room for outsiders.
Once in a while a "populist" movement will arise in a democratic system: think of your Tea Party movements. More often than not these movements won't gather much political support and will be confined to fringes but sometimes they will experience a tumultuous growth. This usually happens when politics become too homogeneous, with main parties bickering over very minor side issues and agreeing on everything else or when serious grievances are shrugged off by mainstream parties. Good European examples are Pim Fortuyin's anti-immigration movement and the various secessionist leagues which sprout up between the late '70s and the early '90s in Northern Italy.
Outlawing political parties and movements is an extremely risky business: the Spanish government outlawed Herri Batasuna, the radical Basque party, thinking but by doing so they would deprive ETA of any "political support" and would be able to steer the dissent towards more moderate (and easily controlled) political movements. They failed completely and to this day the Spanish government, which often embarks on ridiculous "human rights" crusades half a world away, still carries this stigma.
What to do then when a political movement becomes too troublesome? The first step is very simple: a smear campaign. Supporters of the movements are represented as selfish, racist, greedy, ignorant, heartless... a very common tactic I've already related is sending cameramen and photographers around a rally and look out for the obviously bizarre, like the inebriated gentleman dressed up like a character from Asterix or people holding up "weird" signs. Now I must say this could be stopped by taking advantage of anti-libel laws: the problem is at this stage movements usually lack both funds and people with an understanding of the political-media apparatus. Second step: when movements begin to grow large and hence with an electoral potential all sorts of shady characters will appear around it. This ranges from pathetic opportunists, like your Sarah Palin, to Gramscian infiltrators with everything in between. Now, movements at this stage lack proper organization but this can be avoided by using both common sense and popular organization: just ask people who this fellow coming from the shadows is. Chances are he/she already has a record in politics and/or shady deals.
Usually by the stage the movement is already largely harmless but if it's still threatening there are a number of things that can be done. For example Fortuyin's movement rested largely on his energetic leadership. Once he was murdered the movement melted away. But thuggish acts, as much as they fit the State mentality, can backfire: for example a few years ago the French State was trying to link Corsican secessionists to a series of fire bombings. This melted away when following a botched bombing military issued equipment was found on site and a gendarme from the dreaded GIGN was rushed to the hospital with serious burns. Better to exploit weaknesses: for example the movement leadership may have dabbled in risky financial speculations, a renown leader may have a taste for extramarital relationships or have sons he wants placed in good positions... These persons can be easily manipulated or turned into puppets without too much effort.
I've seen all of this in my lifetime and that's why I have a message to Tea Party sympathizers: be on your guard, for the enemy is much subtler than you can imagine. And next time Sarah Palin shows up, toss her in the sea like your ancestors did with King George's soldiers.
I was one of the founding members for my local Tea Party group. Our group was/is made up of Republicans, Libertarians, Independents and I think we even had one or two Democrats. Our Tea Party group has tried to keep from becoming to close to any political party and we have kept out of social issues, which maybe dose make the organisation look more Libertarian then the members actually are. I can't speak to every Tea Party group.
I had been a Libertarian leaning Republican, but about the same time that I got involved with the Tea Party I switched my party affiliation to Libertarian mostly because of the Republicans bailouts and spending and I've become more and more Libertarian as time has pasted.
I was disappoint when I saw that, I was concerned with Palin's embrace of the Tea Party. There has been a lot of political operatives from may different political groups trying to co-opt and/or disrupt the Tea Party movement. I don't expect every Republican politician to become a hardcore Libertarians, but if the Republicans take power back and go right back to doing the same fiscal irresponsibility as before, then I'll be out there protesting against them and I think the core of our group will be also.
Now that the connection between libertarianism and the tea parties has been established the media is linking the tea parties thus linking libertarianism to racism, terrorism, violent acts and worst of all inconsistent neoconservative talking points.
I just want to say, a lot of the bad thing being associated with the Tea Party aren't coming from us. The "white supremacist" black guy with the rifle was an Open Carry protester, the Hitler-Obama singes are mostly coming from LaRouchePAC, and all of the acts of violence that I have heard of turn out to be far-left crazies.
Neoconservatives are pushing Sarah Palin as the voice of the tea parties and protests. Oh ... my God!Why don't you stop neocons, this is frightening?
Anyway, why is Ron Paul still in Republican party?Is this two party system here to stay forever?
Libertarians, make your stand, abandon republican party and it's politics ... now!
LvMIenthusiast:The rest of the world is definitely not as blind and as we are to economic reality!
Aren't they all Keynesians without exception?
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
chloe732:Honestly, what do you hope to gain from supporting tea party movements or any other political movement?
An ulcer
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
chloe732:Abandon the political process.
If you consider the political process voting then ok. I've never been interested in voting because I feel that it is a waste of precious time. Instead I believe in introducing individuals to the ideas of liberty so they may at least consider an alternative to the state.
As I said in my OP I have never been affiliated with the tea party movement. My main concern is mitigating the blow the libertarian movement is taking from tea party related smear campaigns. When people in positions of authority tell lies with great enough frequency the general population historically begin to except them as fact. Once this is the case it becomes hard to sway their opinions an example being the the myth that Hoover was a firm believer in the free market and sat in the oval office doing nothing while a small recession turned into the great depression.
Conza88:Attack the "right" before you attack the "left". Proclaim you actually hate George Bush and the republicans more than they ("socialist" you are talking to) does.
Good idea, I tend not to mention people names and instead attack policies that I feel are opposed to individual liberty. My usual talking points include the bail-outs, buyouts, regulation and intervention so it makes at least some sense that I'm being lumped in with the majority of the Republicans who at least claim to be opposed to most of these things.
James:I just want to say, a lot of the bad thing being associated with the Tea Party aren't coming from us. The "white supremacist" black guy with the rifle was an Open Carry protester, the Hitler-Obama singes are mostly coming from LaRouchePAC, and all of the acts of violence that I have heard of turn out to be far-left crazies.
I understand that the core of the tea party movement has nothing to do with any of the things that have been attributed to it. In it's beginning it was a great idea that introduced the principles of liberty to thousands of people. The problem started when the media began distorting the facts and politicians began to use it as a tool to gain votes. The founders of the tea parties have done little to combat this and because of that the tea parties are now hurting the movement instead of furthering it.
socialdtk: Conza88:Attack the "right" before you attack the "left". Proclaim you actually hate George Bush and the republicans more than they ("socialist" you are talking to) does. Good idea, I tend not to mention people names and instead attack policies that I feel are opposed to individual liberty. My usual talking points include the bail-outs, buyouts, regulation and intervention so it makes at least some sense that I'm being lumped in with the majority of the Republicans who at least claim to be opposed to most of these things.
It's generally wise to try differentiate and start with common ground.
You're against the war on in Iraq, the war on terrorism, the drug war etc. Because "war is the biggest government program of them all".
"Bush, Cheney and Rove are war criminals." And yet - so is Obama, still in Iraq, still in Afghanistan, still torturing in Guantanamo.
... tailor it to your audience really.
SilentXtarian: wilderness: SilentXtarian:I don't really understand the whole anti-politics sentiment that's developed here. The only way that we're going to get anything done really is if we use the machinery of the state against the state. Do some work. Join the market. If you can't work for yourself, then get a job. Don't special plead it's not attractive. I'm not pleading special interest. All I would be doing would be to limit the power of the state and restore its constitutional framework, and then, we could work from there to make changes.
I'm not pleading special interest. All I would be doing would be to limit the power of the state and restore its constitutional framework, and then, we could work from there to make changes.
Yes. You are special pleading. You say the "only" way to get anything done is to use the state against the state. That's you're plan. You're special plan that is not rooted in anything logical, ie. universal for each single person. It's you're plan, but don't think for a moment that I consent to what you are saying. If you want to actually be productive, I already gave some options. You're plan of special pleading is nothing other than a free rider looking for a free lunch. Get a job or do some work in joining the market.
chloe732
SilentXtarian: I do agree that the 2 party system needs to be fixed.
I have two thoughts on this. Either we reform the 2 party system or we get rid of it and replace it with proportional representaiton. There is nothing stopping a 3rd party from existing except that the Democrats and the Republicans control the rules of the game. I think a lot could be done with campaign finance rules, and, private donations by individuals and the system could very well be fixed. Alternatively, we can just admit that the two party system only seeks to divide people and shuts out opposing views. In that case- we could just set up a system that allows proportional representation. I would have no problem with that. Our current system shuts down 3rd party voices. They can keep 3rd parties from entering in national debates. In other countries classical liberals and libertarians are even allowed to gain political power. They don't have that problem.
SilentXtarian: All I would be doing would be to limit the power of the state and restore its constitutional framework, and then, we could work from there to make changes.
I think it would require a fundamental shift in the philosophy of the governed. I think while we can persuade the masses to the side of liberty and get them to vote for anarchist or libertarian or classical liberal parties in order to change the system we might have to work within the system. I acknowledge that the nature of government is to want to get bigger... but we would need to persuade them that it's in their best interest to not.
wilderness
I don't really agree with that logic. First of all, I'm not working for any special interest. The only interest I have in mind would be making the government follow the laws of the land that it lays out for itself. The constitution is supposed to be a supreme binding principle and the government is ignoring it. All I would be doing would be to pressuring it to slow the excessive increase in government. Secondly, if you don't stop the state you won't really have much of a market to begin with. You can say that you shouldn't use the state for any means all you want. But the people in the state are using the state against the market. The only thing I would be calling for would be for the state to stop its excessive encroachement against individual liberties and the market. All I'm saying is that if we don't change the fundamental philosophy or nature of the state ourselves- we won't really have much of a market left. we don't really have a free-enterprise market right now. If we don't step up and try to change the fundamental market philosophy of the government we'll have fascism before you know it. And don't say we already have fascism right now... because we haven't really seen anything yet.
"The only interest I have in mind would be making the government follow the laws of the land that it lays out for itself. The constitution is supposed to be a supreme binding principle and the government is ignoring it."
I'd tend to say that the people are ignoring it. But, in all fairness, the constitution does give the federal government some pretty broad powers. Obviously, the power to tax and the power to regulate interstate commerce was enough to justify obamacare.
But, back to my first point, you and I could come up with some rules we were going to obey but if no one wants to obey our rules and we can't get anyone to enforce them, they're really irrelevant. Wouldn't you say? If so, that's basically what's happening. We have a majority of people in this country who really don't give much of a shit about the constitution and, to be fair, understand it well enough to know that they can, in fact, give the federal government an enormous amount of power through certain channels in the constitution. Obviously, the commerce clause is that channel right now. The whole premise of the constitution was that if the people ever felt that they were being oppressed that they would rise up and overthrow the government. But that's not happening.
I'm not saying I have a solution to this problem, I'm just saying this seems to be the problem.
And as far as "what do we have now?"
I'd say we have elements of lots of different variations on what we might call socialism intermixed with what we might call capitalism to make an ungodly mess of a system.
That being said, from a political point of view, it works for a lot of people and so the odds of finding the political will to REALLY change things (especially all at once) are slim to none imo.
SilentXtarian: wilderness:Yes. You are special pleading. You say the "only" way to get anything done is to use the state against the state. That's you're plan. You're special plan that is not rooted in anything logical, ie. universal for each single person. It's you're plan, but don't think for a moment that I consent to what you are saying. If you want to actually be productive, I already gave some options. You're plan of special pleading is nothing other than a free rider looking for a free lunch. Get a job or do some work in joining the market. I don't really agree with that logic.
wilderness:Yes. You are special pleading. You say the "only" way to get anything done is to use the state against the state. That's you're plan. You're special plan that is not rooted in anything logical, ie. universal for each single person. It's you're plan, but don't think for a moment that I consent to what you are saying. If you want to actually be productive, I already gave some options. You're plan of special pleading is nothing other than a free rider looking for a free lunch. Get a job or do some work in joining the market.
I don't really agree with that logic.
of course you don't. because you think the "only" way to stop the state is with the state. But it's completely arbitrary. It's your personal opinion not grounded in anything of logical argumentative value that makes it absolutely the "only" way. You've created a strawman to how it can be done by making your opinion seem to be the only opinion. It doesn't consider what other people may think. Therefore you think your opinion is special.
SilentXtarian:First of all, I'm not working for any special interest. The only interest I have in mind would be making the government follow the laws of the land that it lays out for itself. The constitution is supposed to be a supreme binding principle and the government is ignoring it. All I would be doing would be to pressuring it to slow the excessive increase in government.
Great! Try it. I mean it's not like your going to do anything else at this point. You've made a choice. Good for you. I don't deny your choice other than I argue against it. But my argument is my opinion based on a logically valid argument.
SilentXtarian:Secondly, if you don't stop the state you won't really have much of a market to begin with.
Nearly everybody in this forum knows that. That's a given.
SilentXtarian:You can say that you shouldn't use the state for any means all you want. But the people in the state are using the state against the market.
yes. They are special pleaders. They appeal to emotion and coercion to get something done that people will not do without the special pleaders having to have to resort to aggression.
SilentXtarian:The only thing I would be calling for would be for the state to stop its excessive encroachement against individual liberties and the market.
ok. Is that relevant to the current discussion?
SilentXtarian:All I'm saying is that if we don't change the fundamental philosophy or nature of the state ourselves- we won't really have much of a market left.
The state isn't the market. As long as there is a state there is a place in the market being socialized. Socialism isn't the free market.
And you say "All I'm saying". No. That's not all you're saying. I initially responded to you because you said the "only" way to stop the state is with a state. How do you stop something that you are using? It's illogical. You contradict yourself.
Secondly, it's only your opinion that the "only" way to do that is via your method. That is an act of special pleading on your part. You think that's the only way to do it and then plead for your special, meaning, arbitrary method.
SilentXtarian:we don't really have a free-enterprise market right now. If we don't step up and try to change the fundamental market philosophy of the government we'll have fascism before you know it.
fascism is already here. and the gov't is absolutely anti-market. The market is never free with a gov't intervening in it. And the only way a gov't exists is by intervention. The gov't is the complete antagonist of the free market. The market is never near being free as long as there is a gov't. And the way to stop the rise of any further gov'ts in the future (or now) is to act with justice and stop any criminals before they once again special plead themselves into some coercive position.
SilentXtarian:And don't say we already have fascism right now... because we haven't really seen anything yet.
We have fascism now. That doesn't mean it's not going to get worse. And as long as you want to use a state, then the state will exist or at least be special pleaded to exist.
But what is the state? Who created it?
Is it not a tool like any other tool?
bloomj31:But what is the state? Who created it?
Check out this thread. I encourage you too. It's a very good discussion that is building up from a very good foundation that the last few posts come to this same question. I encourage you to read through that thread and respond to that last post to keep that thread going. It's was a very informative thread in my opinion.
But the quick answer, that I had already given in that thread is: It begins with special pleaders. And special pleaders create it in their fantasy.
bloomj31:Is it not a tool like any other tool?
If you call a machine gun on constant fire a tool, then yes. The gov't isn't a tool in which the trigger is ever released. It never reloads either. It is on constant fire.
But do we need to go down this path? You know my answer. I know yours.
No, you're right, we've done this before ad nauseum.
wilderness: If you call a machine gun on constant fire a tool, then yes. The gov't isn't a tool in which the trigger is ever released. It never reloads either. It is on constant fire.
This is a terrible analogy. The state does not constantly utilize actual physical force akin to constant machine gun fire to reinforce it's existence. If it did, it would be far more popular of an idea amid citizens to overthrow or resist outright tyranny.
However, you might eventually see this as the middle classes ( lower, upper; yes even the maligned Tea Partiers are included in this) become more & more aware of how screwed they are becoming from the Entitlement (State) Society. Grudge the anti-entitlement actors (which include statists, but are not limited to) all you want for not being anarchistic or purely libertarian, but it would be far more effective to fight the state when there is less entitlements being funded by less sapping upon incomes. Case in point, secession & the reduction of a federal government, where the focus of activism would become more decentralized & more asymmetrically active, & ,more likely, effective, on a smaller state level across various states that are largley ignoring a, at some point, bankrupt or irrelevant federal bureaucracy.
The threat of coercion does not equal coercion until it is actually utilized, & the inability to see state coercion as consequentially ineffective or wrong is what prevents the monopoly design from being questioned, let alone challenged, resisted, or out competed by non-coercive competitors.Yes, you can say but if one threatens coercion, it means they would use it, until you realize this would include superficial remarks like "I'm going to kill you" said to your friends out of annoyance, but it never actually occurs. Threat of coercion is a social reality until it is acted upon in reality by agents & has measurable consequences. It would be highly inefficient for the state to constantly back-up every instance where coercion could be used, & relying upon popular compliance & consent largely fills in this gap where physical coercion is not required by the state (I've always thought this was obvious by now, but oh well).
"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: wilderness: If you call a machine gun on constant fire a tool, then yes. The gov't isn't a tool in which the trigger is ever released. It never reloads either. It is on constant fire. This is a terrible analogy. The state does not constantly utilize actual physical force akin to constant machine gun fire to reinforce it's existence. If it did, it would be far more popular of an idea amid citizens to overthrow or resist outright tyranny.
ok. It was an analogy and wasn't to be taken literally, meaning, I wasn't trying to say it "constantly utilizes actual physical force". But if I try to break away from it any further, such as not paying taxes do you think it will not be backed by physical force to stop me? I once didn't pay property taxes for one year. The local authority sent a letter that said pay up or lose the house by years end. Of course I paid it.
The whole act of 'breaking away' is a qualitative proposition that involves a myriad of events. Consent or no consent is quality rather than concrete. I can speak, think, or materially not consent. But that doesn't mean the state and it's myraid of ways of enforcement, ie. verbal propaganda and material coercion, suddenly disappears.
chalk it up to poor analogy on my part as words become futile events sometimes to express what is meant