Agorism

Again, stop taking pot shots.

What do you mean by “the socialist left”? People like Chomsky? I hate him and critisize him. Furthermore, I don’t selectively target the right, I merely critisize the tendency of many libertarians to defend the right or act as if they are a part of it, and beg them to stop giving everyone the impression that this is more about anti-socialism and anti-leftism than it is about a broader principle.

I don’t ignore that, I critisize that period and that tactic. It was perhaps the biggest mistake that Rothbard ever made.

And changed his position once he discovered libertarianism, going into some very interesting and informative tirades against the conservative establishment. Where he started out is somewhat irrelevant.

Even if this is true, it is equally true for the outreach to palecons, who are not ideologically compatible with libertarianism or anarchism. It was a clear case of oppurtunism, of making use of racial and cultural tensions.

Two mistakes, and a continual attempt on your part to appeal to the authority of Rothbard. Should Rothbard be immune from libertarian criticism?

You speak as if Rothbard invented libertarianism when it predates him by about a century. You also act as if one must praise every single thing he ever did, which is silly.

Again, not only do you continue to personalize, but the claims are dubious. You don’t know what other people do in their personal lives.

Do you mean to imply that top-down organization is preferable? If so, this notion is fundamentally anti-thetical to libertarianism. You keep repeating assumed premises like this that are usually held by statists against libertarians.

Getting what done? You seem more interested in getting something done, no matter what, irrespective of precisely what it is that’s being done.

I never claimed that Rockwell is a paleocon.

That’s already been done for you over the course of many posts on many threads. You’re just willfully ignorant about it.

Anyone who starts out reading this thread that knows nothing about it will clearly see that the challenges presented by myslef have gone unanswered by the agorists and I in fact have explained why that is and explained the contradictions and why agorism can not achieve it’s stated goal using the methods they are advocating.

The agorists “answers” ignore the questions and then run.

Just for those that might be reading the first posts and saying, “Gee… This Jim Jones type guy sure is making a lot of sense.”

Then again, I don’t know what the use of communicating to untreated schizos at the public library would be…

You really haven’t. If only you would stop lying about it.

They certainly took the LTV in the same direction he did… and were not fond of interest. But other than that, they were not socialists in the sense the term has acquired today. If “socialist” means being against economic exploitation, then fine in that sense they are, but again that has nothing to do with what Liberty Student was speaking of.

-Jon

I just find it kind of odd that everyone always assumes socialist = spawn of Karl Marx.

Most socialists in history have nothing to do with Karl Marx and though he was popular in the slavic and pig-slavic speaking worlds - well, just in the very far reaches of Eastern Europe - during his time he was not even close to being as influential as say a Proudhon.

I don’t know what libby was talking about, I rarely do.

OK, that’s far enough. Scroll up to the top of this page and here is what you will see - note this is a cut and past, no modification was performed:

Putting words in your mouth? I am quoting your exact response to a very specific question, which had no reference to now, then or anything else. In fact, you DID say it was an unalloyed good, as you can see if you simply refer to your earlier post. In the immortal words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, as flawed a figure as ever bestrode Capital Hill, ‘you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are NOT entitled to your own facts.’

This temporal distinction makes no sense to me, and I see little reason to continue this conversation. The lessons of history are lost on you, it seems.

Ozzy, I might have a failure to adequately communicate what I mean, but I assure you, I have no need or desire to lie to you or backtrack on a comment. I stand by not only what I posted, but what I meant. What you posted is some manner of interpretation that had nothing to do with what I wrote.

Speaking of temporally,

REPEAT: I did not insist that was unalloyed good. I insisted that right wingers coming to libertarianism NOW is an unalloyed good. Please don’t put words in my mouth.

This is what came before,

REPEAT: Yes.

So I said that right wingers coming to libertarianism was good, then you brought up the past which was totally irrelevant to our discussion about the present. Speaking temporally, the order of the discussion matters. Rhetorically tacking on conditions to someone else’s answer is offside.

Right-wingers coming to libertarianism is good. Keeping their right-wing baggage while calling themselves libertarians (cough Barr cough), thats not so good.

Admittedly, the same thing applies, in theory, to left-wingers. In practice, I’m not so sure, especially as far as the radical left is concerned. Correct me if I’m wrong, though.

Barr is not a libertarian. And I wouldn’t call him a conservative either. He’s a big government opportunist. Not to mention W.A.R. is a wanker.

I don’t have a problem with anyone who is willing to embrace the NAP. Left or right. I just see that most of the people coming over are coming from the right, and yet the right is constantly villified, while the left continue doing their socialist thang, and some libertarians think being Rothbardian means kissing the New Left’s ass. The New Left is dead. The Old Right is dead. Rothbard was no wiser to associate with the left than he was with the right. He was still fooling around with horizontal, not vertical politics.

A commonly reoccuring theme throughout your commentary is the notion that top-down organization is preferable or even the only possible way to effectively do things. This seems very contradicary to libertarianism to me.

BP, it is 11:30, the end of what has turned out to be an excellent day, and you are still crying about soggy crumpets and cold tea.

Where have I advocated top down organization?

The vertical vs. horizontal was in reference to a Nolan Chart. That libertarianism is higher than statism, and leftist and rightist ideologies.

For a guy who polices brains, you sure generate a lot of false positives during your investigations.

I never got that chart. How the hell can you seperate economic and personal freedom?

Because most people do not have rational, informed opinions or definitions even of what freedom is. The chart serves the purpose of convincing people on the right that they are not for personal freedom, and people on the left, that they are not for economic freedom. It’s fantastic in my opinion.

Sometimes you have to look at things as others see them. Obviously, you are pretty enlightened. But there is no profit in preaching to the crowd, unless you are particularly narcisstic, which is why it is in our interests to see things from the statist perspective to better “know our enemy”.

Another chart question:

How can there be a “Libertarian Left?”

Also, that website “agorism.info” is about as useless as websites can be. i was highly disappointed.