I am one of the founders of the derailment of this thread, don't tell me what the limits and breadth of the conversation are. They are whatever we make them. And you haven't even said anything useful. You are just trolling a few of us. Your tiny intellect is amusing.
"I am one of the founders of the derailment of this thread, don't tell me what the limits and breadth of the conversation are. They are whatever we make them."
Oh forgive me derailment king for challenging your authority.
"And you haven't even said anything useful. You are just trolling a few of us."
Maybe if you hadn't challenged me over nothing this wouldn't have happened.
"Your tiny intellect is amusing."
Thanks for that, that's really high class discourse, and I'm sure that you, sir, are in a position to pass judgment upon my intellect
@Skeptic
A picture does not make me a brony.
All I did was point out an avenue of discourse that hashem had not taken (which was based on his own statement) and that you had not perceived. Ii didn't "challenge" you. You are still bitter over past arguements as evident from the tone of your post. Dumbass.
And so what if someone does challenge you? You aren't smart and you think that your words are above reproach. For that reason alone people should talk down to you.
@ Neodoxy
I was just expressing my distaste at how people prefer that show over LazyTown, the obvious choice.
I had perceived it perfectly well, and it was inaccurate because of the way the analogy was being used. You have no idea what I was and wasn't thinking about, and yea, I might just be a little angry that you've directly insulted me in many of our previous discussions, but that did not affect my responses until you started acting like you do. Notice that I avoided one of your great responses when asked to clarify something.
"Brony"... I had to look that one up. LOL
Is there a word for male fans of Jem? I remember watching that as a teen. No homo.
Hey, I find LazyTown to be interesting, and I'm in my teens.
HabbaBabba:What's silly is someone basically admitting there's no reason to listen to them advocating communication as a means to advance their ideas.
Anyone who doesn't already acknowledge communication as a means to advance ideas has probably not reached the age of conscious awareness, and therefore isn't participating in this thread.
Neodoxy:Well, where is the connection that makes what Ron Paul has done negative and people like Skeptic positive indirect affects of his actions?
Ron Paul, by my account, wasted an opportunity to speak truth to the pure evil of government in theory and in history, and instead chose to trick the biggest audience of potential anarchists in history into believing that liberty is limited government—and into defending that theory ferociously against anarchism. That's the Negative. Skeptic has admitted of his own volition to being affected positively and indirectly as a result.
"Ron Paul, by my account, wasted an opportunity to speak truth to the pure evil of government in theory and in history, and tricked the biggest audience in history into believing that liberty is limited government. That's the Negative. Skeptic has admitted of his own volition to being affected positively and indirectly as a result."
Misquote dude
I agree that this is probably a negative compared to what Paul could have done, but I would not fault a doctor for taking a half measure which does some good, than taking a full measure which he believes will do less good. If Ron Paul believed that your method would have advanced the cause more than what he actually did then I feel confident he would have done so.
Never heard of Lazytown, but a quick Google tells me I might have watched it for the same reason I watched "Clarissa Explains it All" back in the day. Nothing wrong with that!
In my infinite laziness that was this summer I went back and watched the entirety of the Fairly Odd Parents and the Angry Beavers... I know, I'm a pretty f***ing cool guy.
I sort of agree here. This is why politics isn't the best method. Ron Paul wasn't tricking people. He was playing politics. His advancement of the Constitution instead of plugging Rothbard alldayeveryday is his way of staying "inside" the beltway. He was, in essence, being Politically Correct.
I don't fault him for this as starkly as you do.
Addendum: When you say he was "tricking" people, I would argue that only the dumbest people in the movement are"tricked" into thinking that based on the things he said. He said many times that people must do their own homework.
Also, I didn't say what you quoted me as saying in your last post..
"Anyone who doesn't already acknowledge communication as a means to advance ideas has probably not reached the age of conscious awareness, and therefore isn't participating in this thread."
OK? But what exactly does that do about the whole, you aren't worth listening to problem?
@ Neodoxy,
I would not fault a doctor for taking a half measure which does some good
Implying that tricking the largest audience of potential anarchist converts in history into thinking liberty is limited government, and defending that theory ferociously against anarchism, is good. That's not good in my book. That's a chance that nobody in history ever had and will likely never get again, thrown away in positive, outright support of statism-as-liberty to a magnificent, awesomely attentative audience. He knew what he was doing.
EDIT: @ Aristophanes
LOL. Totally sorry meant to quote Neodoxy. Fixing now.
I think Ron Paul jumped the shark when he "debated" an Obama impersonator on an episode of Stossel. I couldn't bear to watch it. Unfortunately the establishment media never gave him a chance so maybe being a clown was the only option that remained.
But as far as getting the message out and "speaking truth to pure evil", that's what he's been doing for decades.
"Implying that tricking the largest audience of potential anarchist converts in history into thinking liberty is limited government, and defending that theory ferociously against anarchism, is good. That's not good in my book. That's a chance that nobody in history ever had and will likely never get again, thrown away in positive, outright support of statism-as-liberty to a magnificent, awesomely attentative audience. He knew what he was doing."
Well why do you think that he did that?
I think Ron Paul jumped the shark when he "debated" an Obama impersonator on an episode of Stossel.
I remember that. I have to wonder whether he knew exactly what was goingto happen...
HabbaBabba:But what exactly does that do about the whole, you aren't worth listening to problem?
It's no problem at all, being argued as it is by you, someone for whom such a problem is twice the burden. Remember, I'm not the one arguing the virtues of politics toward the end of liberty.
Because he wasn't strong willed. Because he didn't have finely tuned technique for arguing and defending such truths, which is in turn because he failed to argue and defend such truths for so many decades.
Again, as rape and slaughter and unspeakable violence were a necessary part of history, and some good has filtered through like gold in a dredge, so some good will result from RP's choices. One step at a time in the face of impossible odds, nearly every opportunity for great leaps flushed away, that's the overarching story of humanity.
"Because he wasn't strong willed. Because he didn't have finely tuned technique for arguing and defending such truths, which is in turn because he failed to argue and defend such truths for so many decades."
Why are you so certain that it wasn't to maintain credibility and to prevent people from being scared off? People are ready enough to call him and his followers insane crackpots without him directly endorsing anarchism. I'd prefer a world of minarchists and constitutionalists to the current situation.
"Again, as rape and slaughter and unspeakable violence were a necessary part of history, and some good has filtered through like gold in a dredge, so some good will result from RP's choices. One step at a time in the face of impossible odds, nearly every opportunity for great leaps flushed away, that's the overarching story of humanity."
Except that what Ron Paul did would not appear to be bad, it just wasn't as good as it could have been. Surely you recognize the service that he rendered to liberty? If he is indeed an anarchist then he knew perfectly well that what he did would build generally anti-statist sentiment, both in terms of merely shrinking the state and in terms of raising support for anarchism itself.
It must be all that sun and sex with women that contaminated Ron Paul's purity. Stay inside, champ. We can't afford to lose you in this battle.
Why are you so certain that it wasn't to maintain credibility and to prevent people from being scared off?
That's precisely my point. Shrinking from the truth for popularity is exactly what weak-willed people do.
People are ready enough to call him and his followers insane crackpots without him directly endorsing anarchism.
And rightly so—statism is indefensible, and so when you get into supporting something as corrupt and inconsistent and lunatic as government then you might as well go mainstream. At least anti-statism can have powerful arguments. My point is that RP could have done things differently while making it clear that no government is preferable to government and less government is preferable to more. He could have waited until the last TV debate, he could still do it at his speeches. People still call his followers crackpots, and his followers are still a minority.
I'd prefer a world of minarchists and constitutionalists to the current situation.
I think Rothbard did one of the more respectable jobs of attacking the theory of constitutionally limited government. It's a myth. A world of minarchists is a world of relatively intelligent people fierce enough to defend statism against liberty—meanwhile the state grows.
@ Groucho
I don't get it, what was that reason?
Oh and speaking of old sitcoms, Drake and Josh is a classic in that department.
Hey, I watch Wallace and Gromit and play Halo in my spare time. We're both really cool.
Oh and by the way, while we're talking about Ron Paul's consistant contributions to libertarianism:
Groucho: "Brony"... I had to look that one up. LOL Is there a word for male fans of Jem? I remember watching that as a teen. No homo.
Lmao, oh, we were all fans :)
What about Miranda Cosgrove-
Never mind.
Wow that video was intense... I wish that we could see debates like that nowadays... And smoke on TV and in buildings... I wonder how they host felt about libertarians after they made him put that one away. I also hope that the annoying (liberal? I don't even know) bitch learned which way was up at some point in her life
Morton "Douchebag" Downey Jr died from lung cancer from being a chain smoker, which is something Ron Paul warned him about. And most of the people in the audience have since been institutionalized.
Pardon my french Hashem, but this is the dumbest criticism of Ron Paul I've ever heard.
Tricking his followers into believing that liberty is limited-government? Haven't you heard the clips in which he endorses voluntarism? Has he ever disavowed anarchism? He frequently references murray rothbard and the ludwig von mises institute. You don't think it's possible that maybe he's pushing people toward anarchism by referencing the premiere AnCap propaganda base? No certainly not, he's pushing for strict minarchism by citing nearly exclusively material written by anarchists. If he had begun by 'speaking the truth' his audience would be maybe a millionth of what it is now. Who does more for anarchism: he who shouts 'end the state!' at the camera and never gets invited back to anything ever again, or he who consistently extols hard money, peace, and free markets and then gains a much larger audience who become philosophically inspired to investigate the logical conclusion of such recommendations?
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
The dumbest criticism of Ron Paul you've heard? I'd like to hear the better ones.
Haven't you heard the clips in which he endorses voluntarism?
Oh, you mean the ones that only a tiny fraction of his supporters have ever seen or will ever care about? I know a lot of Ron Paul supporters personally. NONE of them are anarchists, NONE of them are likely to become anarchists any time soon, all of them endorse political actvism, and they'd be duly shocked if you tried to convince them RP is an anarchist. Why? Because his message is liberty is limited government.
I'd like to hear the better ones.
its not like Dr. Ron Paul the ob-gyn was going to get the 17 year old skater vote by being more radical anyway. When you run for public office, which you have made clear you hate the idea of, you have to appeal to a variety of people inorder to get elected, especially within a major party. He is also a social conservative, so whatever it is you want him to do, if its more radical than slashing medicare (Paul wants a gradualist approach starting with an opt-out) then I would like to see it.
the 17 year old vote
Did I miss something?
When you run for public office, which you have made clear you hate the idea of, you have to appeal to a variety of people inorder to get elected
I'm not opposed to anarchists running for office on anarchist principles. Yes, I'm opposed to whoring and selling out for political power.
so whatever it is you want him to do
He still has potential for a decent audience. Ron Paul needs to eat sleep and drink Molyneux for a couple months and take some debating classes. Then he needs to fiercely, relentlessly attack statism on moral, economic, and historical (practical) grounds until he stops being a public figure. There's still a chance for him to salvage what's left of his legacy.
hashem: the 17 year old vote Did I miss something? When you run for public office, which you have made clear you hate the idea of, you have to appeal to a variety of people inorder to get elected I'm not opposed to anarchists running for office on anarchist principles. Yes, I'm opposed to whoring and selling out for political power. so whatever it is you want him to do He still has potential for a decent audience. Ron Paul needs to eat sleep and drink Molyneux for a couple months and take some debating classes. Then he needs to fiercely, relentlessly attack statism on moral, economic, and historical (practical) grounds until he stops being a public figure. There's still a chance for him to salvage what's left of his legacy.
I acknowledge your surrender.
hashem you've probably got to admit that this is an idiotic thing to say.
Ron Paul needs to eat sleep and drink Molyneux for a couple months and take some debating classes.
Molyneux is not that great. Plus, he disagrees with your "running for office" sentiment, so I'm not even sure what people are to take away from it.
I feel like I've seen a lot of debates and lectures and speeches. Molyneux is absolutely brilliant at selling anarchism—downright the best, without exception to my knowledge. In my perfect world Ron Paul would get over himself, and drown in Molyneux's arguments and counters and rhetoric and presentation charisma. Then he'd be honest and absolutely shock crowds with genius, the way that made him so great in the first place. Other than that I don't know what you mean by the idiotic comment.
I'm not gonna bother debating you on Molyneux. His philosophic structure is weak and he thinks he can make the case for objective morals ( which is just absurd).
Hashem says:
I don't know what you mean by the idiotic comment.
How perfect! Now they can claim to be for liberty while actively running for political office. Oh god libertarians are awesome!
I'm not opposed to anarchists running for office on anarchist principles.
Ahem. 'Nuff said.
Ya libertarians are ridiculous because they claim to want liberty and run for office to limit government. I'm not against someone who's an outspoken anarchist running for office on anarchist principles—that he will do everything in his power to dismantle as much government as possible, not because less government is better, but because government is wrong, impractical, and uneconomic.
But would it not be fraud when they swear to protect and defend the Constitution yadayadayada?
Molyneux's eloquent and intelligent for sure. But usually his arguments only work insofar as you let yourself be continually pigeon-holed by his narrow morality. For instance, with his Sam Seder debate he should have been stronger on economic points like social security. I know Uncle Milty was awesome at selling state-free-market capitalism, I wonder if his son is awesome at selling stateless capitalism.
hashem: not because less government is better, but because government is wrong, impractical, and uneconomic.
not because less government is better, but because government is wrong, impractical, and uneconomic.
Could you explain what you mean here?