Some, but not all. Honestly, in Canada, we have a different conservative tradition, but I haven’t ever met someone who was pro war on drugs, pro mercantilism and regarded him as a fellow rightist. And I have never met anyone who fits the complete stereotype you pointed out, although I acknowledge they exist certainly in the US (from my discussions online) but again, these are not the rightist intellectuals or philosophers. These are the rank and file racist, nationalist, American-excellence obsessed Christian fanatics. They are no more conservative than Bush is.
Rothbard went nuts in his later years. Obviously.
Except they were socialists.
So unless libby wants to clarify, he’s wrong; socialists are more friendly than rightists.
You were the one that brought up people. If I’m not mistaken, the public = people.
And many others that were turned onto libertarianism were immediately turned off to it by Ron Paul. In a forum I used to frequent for music called, The Comatorium, for example, most immediately shunned libertarianism specifically because it was, at the time, being associated with xeonophobia, nationalism, and capitalist rhetoric - i.e. vulgar libertarianism.
That Ron Paul peddles vulgar libertarianism is the very reason why he is not a libertarian. It does seem, however, that two of those you mentioned have since revolted against the Paulians.
Now, maybe peddling vulgar libertarianism will hook a good few fish, but most of the salmon in the barrel, I find, are the weak ones that got mixed up with the rest. I am here thinking of people like you.
Ew…
You still pay attention to that? It’s a breeding ground for paleoconservatives.
Only?!?
I was shocked to hear that only 22% in between the land mass known as the USA supporter secession - a direct confrontation to the inherent legitimacy asserted by governments.
You do realize that the US revolution was only fought with less than a third of the population in support, right?
First, former?!? What the hell? You are definitely no “former rightist.” You stink of reactionary conservativism!
Second, conservativism is hardly intellectual - especially your brand. Its about as pseudo-intellectual as you get - addressed below.
Third, Ron Paul makes about as much sense as a baptist preacher in the south. Sure, lots of the choir think it’s good stuff, but Paul is clumsy at best and embarassing at worst, just like much of the LRC crowd. Bunch of gold-bug, Shavais sitting around a campfire recreating the French-Indian wars getting wet dreams about rubbing elbows with John Guilt and making love to a very unloveable, very dry Ayn Rand.
Sure, its useful and sometimes informative, on a very plebian level with occassional strikes of brilliance, but come on! Give the gold standard stuff a rest and quit hocking the “end-of-the-world federal-reserve-bank-will-kill us all in our beds tomorrow” stories. Honestly, I get headaches from having to explain to people why Paul’s unsophisticated arguments and his style of interpretation do not mean the conclusions of anti-imperialism are as inadequate.
Seriously, that you would think poverty is not as big of an issue as abortion or enforcing John D. Rockefeller’s land permits originally granted to him by congress is just so indicative of why you and people like you are such jokes. You still think you’re apart of the elite and I think that’s just cute, but don’t take yourselves to seriously, because the ones you poo-poo are the ones that have a common interest in some of the conclusions you say you want - though I’m very suspect of that. You think you’re sophisticated because you read a few articles on mises.org and think you know some economics?
Let me give you a little bit of information, you’re not and only you have the illusions of it. You’re such a caricature of a vulgar libertarian. It’s really just quaint, I think.
Please. Save me the age bollix and the teen angst associated with people that talk about Bush or the right as if they’re some evil, mass conspiracy of religious nut jobs and hill billies. I’m neither concerned about age or what you call a “lack of life experience” - which is complete bull - nor am I one to mention George W. Bush… ever, really.
I dislike conservatives for one reason - they’re conservative! Do you know what conservative means? Put it into a political perspective. Calling yourself a conservative implies that you desire government, just government under control. I hate that. I despise it actually. I dislike conservatives not because I have an illusion that they’re all pro-war, but because I have a very real notion that they’re all nationalists with a very inaccurate understanding of their own history or philosophical leanings - though they think playing dress-up in the backyard counts as a demonstration of knowledge. I despise conservatives because they’re pseudo-intellectuals that attack “pseudo-intellectuals.”
I’m talking about socialist anarchists who do accept the NAP, who are anti-statist and do not advocate forcing socialism as a universal system - a concept that seems foreign to your preconcieved false dichotomies. Stop taking me out of context. My point was that declaring actual other anarchists to be enemies while making alliances with “soft” statists (at best) on the right makes no sense at all.
Ron Paul has done practically nothing for libertarianism as a political philosophy or movement. He needs to stop being treated as some kind of messiah. He’s not. He hasn’t “grown” libertarianism - libertarianism “grew” long before he was even born if we want to be technical. It’s the “libertarians are natural allies with conservatives” game that has failed for the past half century or more.
How were they socialists? Because they bought into the flawed aspects of Marx’s system? Because they were against capitalism? Wendy McElroy had a great post on these guys and the sense in which they were “socialists”. It is not the same as what the word means today.
-Jon
If they believe in the NAP, and not in coercive social orders, then I am fine with them. If they see themselves establishing a new, more benevolent state, I have no use for them.
He gets more than a few hundred views on YouTube. [;)] People listen. He has the opportunity and has capitalized on it, to shape a lot of minds.
Look, I know you know everything. Paul has done nothing, you are doing everything. I get it. [8-)] It’s just that Paul who might be the most prominent populist libertarian since the revolution, and Rothbard, arguably the most prominent and important anarcho-libertarian in the 20th century, all came from, and ended up within the right.
In my limited understanding, the left has contributed very little outside of philosophy.
Yes, and his younger years. And some of the years inbetween. [8-)]
In all sincerity, who are the heroes the left has contributed?
I am sure socialists are more friendly. I’m sure they smile more. That is totally irrelevant to the discussion.
From Kevin Carson,
But even Carson is a leftist, and he misses the point as usual. In fact, his philosophy as an anti-capitalist misses the point. Corporate Capitalism is not the problem. The state is. Without a state, there cannot be corporate capitalism . And without corporate capitalism, aka corporatism or fascism to be more precise, there is no need to trash Capitalism. But he does trash all capitalism, with his “anti-Capitalist” sloganeering, when he knows full well that it is corporate capitalism aka corporatism or fascism to be precise, that is the issue.
Typical leftist. Destroy the language and then express your frustration that others can’t identify cause and solutions. When it was that same person who contributes to the destruction of the language necessary to craft effective, multi-generational propaganda.
Y’know, the Agrarian side of the old right can be quite anti-capitalist.
Anyways, I don’t find myself Gung-Ho about siding with anyone who’s going to accept the state as a viable means, be they left or right.
Hallelujah brother!
It’s not like we have a John Galt appreciation society going, or anything… [:P]
-Jon
First, neither were even remotely influenced by Karl Marx.
Second, yes, because they were against capitalism and economic exploitation.
Intellectually I have wiped the floor with the agorists. I don’t think it is even a debateable issue anymore.
“to libertarianism” was accidentaly omitted.
No, in fact, capitalism is the problem because capitalism is not free-market. Capitalism is about a structure of the wealthy exploiting the unwealthy. It is about entrepreneurs being subjected to the will of virtual monopolies on top. Without the state, capitalism cannot exist - that is precisely because capitalism requires the state.
I identify with Carson a lot, though find myself more in agreement with SEK3 than anyone, and that he is a leftist is no problem for me. I think the left holds a larger pool of bigger fish to catch for libertarianism.
If, by “wiped the floor” you really mean, “repeated a bunch of unfounded assertions, ignored every valid response to my criticisms, and unilaterally declared myself the victor,” then yeah, you win.
First, I’ve answered and countered you repeatedly. You’ve yet to respond to those answers.
Second, [8-)]
Well, it’s easy to be the winner when you ignore everything else, I guess.
I love his definition of “win” though. I’m still confused as to how you can “win” on an internet forum.
Again, your second comment is entirely irrelevant to what I’m refering to. It’s a reoccuring straw man.
Still taking pot shots at me I see. Stop it.
Yes, he has shaped a lot of minds. A good part of the shaping has been negative.
Again with the personalizing everything.
Libertarian + populist = contradiction in terms. Populism is connected with political democracy. It is demagoguery.
Nice appeals to authority, while conveniently ignoring the left-libertarian period and Rothbard’s various positions throughout his life that are blatantly anti-conservative.
You seem to have this reoccuring theme of assuming that philosophy is somehow pointless or bad. It isn’t, it is very important and libertarianism is meaningless without it.
Make a video about it. [:P]
What can I say? You bring out the best in me. [:)]
It wasn’t an appeal to authority. It’s just like how you selective target the right while affording the socialist left a pass, you also choose to selectively ignore that Rothbard worked with paleocons. That he started out as an “old right” conservative. That his outreach to the left was based on opportunism, not with ideological compatibility. Rothbard stood by Ron Paul. He also stood by Pat Buchanan. It’s absolutely hilarious that the grandchildren of his philosophical positions loathe the people he worked so hard for.
What strawman? That is exactly what the SDS wants to do, and we were discussing the SDS.
No. I don’t think philosophy is pointless. I reject the notion that it is more important than action. That if one is busy being a philosopher, then they are doing their part. Like arguing for Agorism, but having no intention of practicing it yourself (which some here apparently have admitted to).
The reason why these left agendas have gone nowhere IMO, is that the leadership is all from the rear. You may hate Paul, but he is getting it done. You may think Rockwell is a paleocon, but without him, the Mises Institute may not be what it is today. Some people lead from the front, some from the rear.
Feel free to respond to my question about the accomplishments of the great left libertarian leaders. I’d love to know who they are and what they have done.