Rich333, governments with higher taxes, more speech restrictions, higher regulations, stricter price controls, etc. are more oppressive!
The United States’ government is less oppressive than the North Korean government, for an extreme example.
Maxpot, I find it puzzling you could hold such views concerning women, & mankind in general. Do you read Nietzsche by any chance?
I would second the unintended consequences of RP’s campaign as being a most sour deal. For one, I’m quite surprised that no one has mentioned that essentially he was just an anti-war vehicle for most of the new voters that came in, and more or less didn’t do much concerning other issues, as time went on, RP focused continually more on anti-war.
While well intentioned his run may be, as well as his political career, I just don’t see his campaign and related ‘movement’ doing much except getting the attention of the state (maybe), getting compromises, which would appease the ‘movement’, of which then pats itself on the back thinking it got something done. Basically, what was said concerning reformism.
I’m bitter as I supported RP at one time, but did not see the long term problem of just changing the rules (lessening) to an inherently flawed system; it’s safe to say my time at Mises has influenced me more than I originally thought. For now, I’ll remain in the apolitical realm & focus on furthering my education; you RP followers can have your fun at the march this June.
I do wish the best of luck though; perhaps your efforts will not result in failed gradualism, & give the mainstream further bullets to shoot at libertarian ideas, with or without disinformation.
That women are the weaker sex (and thusly tend more towards socialism, the system of the family, than libertarianism, the system of the businessman), and that most folks couldn’t care less about politics but are happy to vote for a charismatic leader whom they know little about (but with whom they feel emotionally secure)? Yeah, where could I have gotten those crazy ideas?
No, but I did read “Psychological Types” by Carl Jung.
By relying on the largley statist apologists crowd known as social scientists? Empirical, do not make statistics, automatically:
'…while the practitioners of the physical sciences are, on the whole, empirically founded and are generally motivated by the search for solutions to universal problems, social science intellectuals are, in large number, based on ideologies that do not require empirical confirmation, and are ultimately driven by the exigencies of the local (i.e. national) power."
[from: http://www.polyarchy.org/poststatism/english/social.sciences.html#Anchor-The-49575 ]
Also, you probably have haven’t heard of the following women:
- Voltairine de Cleyre, 1866-1912 (poet; essayist; anarchist)
- Edith Efron, 1922-2001 (author; journalist; editor)
- Margaret Fuller, 1810-1850 (author; poet; social critic; gender equity advocate)
- Angelina Grimke, 1805-1879 (pioneer)
- Sarah Grimke, 1792-1873 (abolitionist; author; motivational speaker)
- Angela Tilton Heywood, 1872-1893 (self-ownership, free love, and pro-choice activist)
- Lillian Harman (free love & anti-age of consent activist)
- Zora Neale Hurston, 1891-1960 (author)
- Judy Jarvis, 1946-2000 (nationally syndicated radio host)
- Dr. Gertrude B. Kelly, 1862-1934 (author; physician)
- Suzanne LaFollette, 1893-1983 (author; social critic; editor, The Freeman)
- Rose Wilder Lane, 1887-1968 (anti-tax crusder; author; daughter of Laura Ingalls Wilder)
- Louise Michel, 1830-1905 (French educator & revolutionary)
- Dr. Maria Montessori (Italian educator)
- Isabel Paterson, 1886-1961 (journalist; author; objectivist)
- Cathy Seipp, 1957-2007 (former columnist, Los Angeles City Beat)
- Anne Louise Germaine de Stael, 1766-1817 (author; political propagandist)
- Lucy Stone, 1818-1893 (author; property rights advocate)
- Joan Kennedy Taylor (author)
- Mary Wollstonecraft, 1759-1797 (author; social critic)
- Katherine Albrecht (consumer privacy advocate)
- Norma Jean Almodovar (author & activist)
- Barbara Amiel (columnist, London Daily Telegraph)
- Dr. Annelise Anderson (economist; senior fellow, Hoover Institution)
- Barbara Anderson (Citizens for Limited Taxation and Government)
- Juliet Annerino (musician)
- Hon. Patricia Awada (Minnesota State Auditor)
- Mary Jo Baas (former Chair, Wisconsin Women’s Council)
- Dr. Sara Baase (Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, San Diego State University)
- Dr. Neera Badhwar (Associate Professor of Philosophy, Oklahoma University)
- Caroline Baum (columnist, Bloomberg News)
- Hon. Susan Bell, J.D. (Hagerstown, Indiana Court Judge)
- Paula Berry (artist)
- Sue Blevins (author; founder, Institute for Health Freedom)
- Robyn E. Blumner (Perspectives Columnist, St. Petersburg Times)
- Elizabeth Bowles (Professor of English, Virginia Tech. University)
- Barbara Branden (author & lecturer)
- Dr. Susan Love Brown (Professor of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University)
- Hon. Janice Rogers Brown, J.D. (U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, District of Columbia Circuit)
- Tammy Bruce (feminist; author; columnist)
- Marie Cocco (columnist, Newsday)
- Dr. Emily Chamlee-Wright (Professor of Management & Economics, Beloit College)
- Alicia Garcia Clark (former Chairman, Libertarian Party USA)
- Dr. Frances B. Cogan (Professor of Arts & Sciences, University of Oregon-Eugene)
- Carmen Connors (talk radio host, WSSR - Tampa, FL)
- Shelley L. Davis (former IRS agent)
- Karen DeCoster (freelance writer)
- Jennifer DePalma, J.D. (attorney)
- Dr. Candace de Russy (education writer and speaker)
- Julie Dodge, J.D. (attorney)
- Dr. Rachel Douchant (Professor of Philosophy, St. Louis University)
- Nicki Fellenzer (U.S. Army Veteran; gun rights advocate)
- Sarah Fitz-Claridge (founder, Taking Children Seriously; motivational speaker)
- Sue Fisher (former President, Wisconsin Term Limits)
- Dr. Marilyn R. Flowers (Professor of Economics, Ball State University)
- Melinda Pillsbury Foster (author; poet)
- Dr. Elizabeth Fox-Genovese (Professor of Humanities, Emory University)
- Ilana Freedman (national security expert; founder, Liberty Land Trust)
- Rose D. Friedman (economist; school choice advocate)
- Judith Simon Garrett, J.D. (Assistant General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice)
- Bobbie Gentry (singer)
- Dr. Mimi Reisel Gladstein (author; Professor of English, University of Texas)
- MaryAnn Glendon, J.D. (Professor of Law, Harvard University)
- Doris Gordon (founder, Libertarians for Life)
- Kathryn A. Graham, J.D. (attorney; author; freelance writer)
- Brenda Grantland, J.D. (attorney)
- Dr. Bettina Bien Greaves (author; Austrian economist)
- Sen. Lyda Green (Alaska State Senator)
- Dr. Kim Gregson (Assistant Professor of Communications, Ithaca College)
- Mary Lou Gutscher (President, Freedom Party of Ontario)
- Lynn Harper (talk radio host, KOGO - San Diego, CA)
- Sharon Harris (President, Advocates for Self-Government)
- Ann Harrison (contributor, CounterPunch; columnist, San Francisco Bay Guardian)
- Sabine Herold (french libertarian leader; founder, Libert�, J’Ecris Ton Nom)
- Zoh Hieronimus (radio host)
- Carla Howell (musician & candidate)
- Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp (Texas State Representative)
- Sherry Peel Jackson (former IRS agent)
- Joanne Jacobs (author; former columnist, San Jose Mercury News)
- Rollye James (nationally syndicated radio host)
- Catherine Johns (former Chicago radio personality)
- Dr. Nancy Lord Johnson, J.D. (attorney; 1992 Libertarian Vice-Presidential candidate)
- Jo Jorgensen (1996 Libertarian Vice-Presidential candidate)
- Karen Kay (romance novelist)
- Vivian Kellems (tax resister; author)
- Kennedy (former MTV veejay; “The Buzz” radio host, KQBZ - Seattle, WA)
- Dr. Irina Khakamada (former member, Russian Parliament; former Professor of Economics)
- Dr. Lynne Kiesling (Professor of Economics, Northwestern University)
- Lynn Kinsky (co-founder, Reason Magazine)
- Dr. Judith S. Kleinfeld (author; Professor of Psychology, University of Alaska)
- Rikki Klieman, J.D. (Court TV anchor)
- Dr. Rhoda Baggs Koss (Professor of Computer Science, Florida Institute of Technology)
- Michele Kubby (medical marijuana activist)
- Vernice “Vernie” Kuglin (tax resister, Kuglin v. IRS)
- Edith Kurzweil (Editor, Partisan Review)
- Karen Kwiatkowski (former Pentagon Lt. Colonel)
- Heather Levy (artist)
- Carolyn Lochhead (columnist, San Francisco Chronicle)
- Valerie Loiret-Prunet (Professor of Linguistics & Literature, University of Paris)
- Dr. Eleftheria Maratos-Flier (Professor of Medicine, Harvard University)
- Sunni Maravillosa (author; former College Professor)
- Dr. Deirdre McCloskey (Professor of Liberal Arts & Sciences, University of Illinois-Chicago)
- Niki McCuistion (talk radio host, KDTN - Dallas, TX)
- Wendy McElroy (author; public speaker; social critic)
- Melanie (folk singer)
- Ilana Mercer (author & cultural commentator)
- Tanya K. Metaksa (author; former Director, National Rifle Association)
- Karen Michalson (author; musician)
- Rachel Mills (editor, Ladies of Liberty calendar)
- Lee Mirabal (talk radio host, KMPC - Los Angeles, CA)
- Anne P. Mitchell, J.D. (attorney; Professor, Lincoln School of Law)
- Martha Montelongo-Myers (talk radio host, KOMY - Watkinsville, CA)
- Carol Moore (former comedian; author; anti-war activist; successionist; war-tax resister)
- Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (author; Research Fellow, the Hoover Institution)
- Tonie Nathan (1972 Libertarian Vice-Presidential candidate)
- Carol Newman, J.D. (attorney)
- Rosalie Nichols (author; objectivist; former Editor, Lesbian Voices)
- Hon. Gayle Norton (former Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior)
- Dr. Erin O’Connor (Professor of English, University of Pennsylvania; founder, Critical Mass)
- Darcy Olsen (President, The Goldwater Institute)
- Star Parker (author; founder, Coalition on Urban Affairs)
- Amanda Phillips (former U.S. Air Force Special Agent; President, Free State Project)
- Sally Pipes (President, The Pacific Research Institute)
- Virginia Postrel (economics columnist, The New York Times)
- Dr. Sharon Presley (psychologist; Executive Director, Resources for Independent Thinking)
- Carole Ann Rand (former President, Advocates for Self-Government)
- Deborah Ray (Healthy Talk Radio - Clearwater, FL)
- Andrea Millen Rich (President, Laissez Faire Books)
- Joyce Riley (talk radio host, KCXL - Liberty, MO)
- Sara Rimensnyder (Assistant Editor, Reason Magazine)
- Christine Rosen (senior fellow, Ethics & Public Policy Center)
- Dr. Mary Ruwart (author; research scientist; motivational speaker)
- Dr. Patricia Santy (NASA’s first female flight surgeon)
- Patricia Saye (columnist, Las Vegas Tribune)
- Hon. Lynn Scarlett (Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior)
- Kay A. Schwarzberg, J.D. (attorney; lecturer; author)
- Karen Selick, LL.B. (attorney; columnist)
- Mary Lou Seymour (freelance writer)
- Serena Sharp (talk radio host, KUCI - Irvine, CA)
- Jane S. Shaw (Pope Center for Higher Education Policy)
- Sandy Shaw (life-extension expert)
- Dr. Rita J. Simon (Professor of Law & Public Affairs, American University)
- Dr. Tara Smith (Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas)
- Lisa Snell (Education Director, The Reason Foundation)
- Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers (author; lecturer; fellow, American Enterprise Institute)
- Marni Soupcoff, J.D. (columnist & attorney)
- Angelina Spencer (Executive Director, Association of Club Executives)
- Hon. Carol Springer (former Arizona State Treasurer and State Senator)
- Judy Tame (former Chair, British Association of Libertarian Feminists)
- Linda Tannehill (co-author, The Market for Liberty)
- Abigail Thernstrom (Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute)
- Hon. Cynthia A. Thornton (member, Texas State Board of Education)
- Dr. Charlotte Twight, J.D. (Professor of Economics, Boise State University)
- Sheryl Underwood (comedian)
- Catherine Valcke, J.D. (Professor of Law, University of Toronto)
- Dr. Karen Vaughn (Professor of Economics, George Mason University)
- Marlene VerPlanck (singer)
- Norah Vincent (nationally syndicated columnist)
- Barbara Vroman (author)
- Wendy Weiss (author & business advisor)
- Susan W. Wells (co-author, A Drug War Carol)
- Claire Wolfe (author)
- Anne Wortham (Professor of Sociology, Illinois State University)
- Cathy Young (journalist & author)
- Paula Young (talk radio host, WMZQ - Washington, DC)
- Michele Zipp (former Editor, Playgirl Magazine)
[from: http://chelm.freeyellow.com/women_index.html]
Jung is a little interesting though, but the Freud crowd have mostly been a bit too tightly wound up for my tastes 
I don’t pretend.
I don’t consider derailing radicalism in favor of a reformist mantra developed by a sniveling coward paid over $170,000 a year by the very government he “fights against” to be any type of progress. In fact, I consider it to not only be counter-productive, but a genuine assault on the revolution.
You don’t seem to understand what counter-revolutionary means. Maybe a quote from Voltairine de Cleyre,
But the evil of pinning faith to indirect action is far greater than any such minor results. The main evil is that it destroys initiative, quenches the individual rebellious spirit, teaches people to rely on someone else to do for them what they should do for themselves; finally renders organic the anomalous idea that by massing supineness together until a majority is acquired, then through the peculiar magic of that majority, this supineness is to be transformed into energy. That is, people who have lost the habit of striking for themselves as individuals, who have submitted to every injustice while waiting for the majority to grow, are going to become metamorphosed into human high-explosives by a mere process of packing!
It hasn’t a thing to do with what your intentions are, it’s what you’re actually doing. You and your Ron Paul cult are the single greatest threat to a movement for liberty. Indeed, even the state is more respectable for it does not slouch and sneak around dressed in drag with a knife underneath its belt next to the pouch of its thirty pieces of silver.
No. I will weed out the warriors of liberty from the cowards. I will raise up the defiant and dash in the heads of the unloyal. I will organize with the strong and persecute the compromised. I will help save libertarianism from its greatest enemies, I will point out a trader when I see him, I will point out corruption when I see it.
And what would you call it?
A political opportunist? Fine. I will call you this.
This is the greatest insult of all.
You mistake this as if it were a question of morality; it isn’t, at least not in the sense that you mean. The state exists. Ah… Well, nothing gets past you, Ego.
I’ve called your actions immoral, yes, but not because you mingle with the gangsters and the thugs. After all, many an assassin must do the same - his work is no less beautiful because of it.
No, I call your actions immoral because you use the state in a way that directly interferes with any victory that may be sought. It isn’t that you participate in voting, it’s that voting deters radicalism, and radicalism is the only opportunity for a change of any magnitude one can live with. You’re a junky, a rolling stone, you’ll do anything for one more hit, suck a dick, whore yourself to the infected, lick the skin of a lepor, it’s all just a small relief from your otherwise miserable life.
Exactly.
There’s no point in speaking to people with these type of sexist inclinations. He must have lost his virginity late.
Boy, y’all need to step out of “normative world” and come back to “positive world”. Looks like some folks around here REALLY love their mothers…
It is interesting when idealism turns into fanaticism. Potential friends become enemies and movements are derailed.
Your list, going back all the way to the 18th century, and including luminaries such as comedians, singers, men’s magazine editors, attorneys and talk radio hosts, is rather pathetically short, hopefully showing that exceptions often prove the rule.
What do you make of Jung’s assertion that everyone is hard-wired with a particular personality type? Personally, it made me realize that messages had to be tailored to the interest of the listener, and that it’s futile to just hope that one day my passion will convince everyone to care about the same things I do.
It was a list that shouldn’t be scoffed at just because it is lacking in some sort of idealized amount that is required for women to somehow attain ‘equal’ standing with the men in an assorted movement. There are probably quite a number of both lesser known men & women in a given movement who don’t have a wikipedia or google result that any such attempts at making a list would probably fall short regardless.
Also, I find Jung’s assertion that everyone is hard-wired with a certain personality type nothing more than an assertion, as it would also assume that personality doesn’t change, something I think hasn’t really been proven, aside from maybe individuals having preferences towards personality traits, but not whole static personalities.
I don’t believe that messages should be tailored to a listener either; then again, I also hate propaganda, coercion & manipulation. I would consider such a tailored argument as patronizing
Maxpot, could you explain how it isn’t collectivist to dismiss women as sheep? Why give every individual the dignity to be judged on an individual basis?
Yes, polls indicate that women tend to be leftist more then men, but it still comes down to an individual choice. Haven’t you seen any snivelling, weak leftist men? What do you gain by insulting women and telling them that they can’t think for themselves?
I said the world is full of women and sheep. That doesn’t mean women ARE sheep, but when people get all touchy they don’t read too carefully, I guess. OTOH, I suppose for “third rail” topics like this it’s incumbent upon me to be extremely precise in my wording, so I’ll take the blame for any miscommunications. For the record, I was speaking of 1) women, whom in my view biologically tend towards socialist thinking instead of libertarian thinking, and 2) sheep (gender unspecified), whom in my view prefer to be entertained than to be informed (but will vote anyway). Neither of those observations seems all that controversial to me.
There’s always been women around, but sometimes socialism was not as widespread as it is now - How can you explain that ? Also, statism is directly linked to militarism and mercantilism, activities in wich women were/are scarcely involved.
You’re right, you didn’t call women “sheep”.
You did, however, say that women are weak, don’t like to think for themselves, and can’t be educated. I drew the conclusion and summarized with the word “sheep”.
In any event, as long as you are in favor of liberty for everyone – women and men alike – I can’t really get angry at those kinds of comments, I just think they lead to a pre-judgement of anarcho-capitalists, especially if you plan on running for office.
Folks, I’m not looking for a scapegoat here, or trying to blame anything on women. My comments are strictly in the tactical, future-oriented sense. I don’t think women are particularly prone to embrace agorism, and I said so in support of my opinion that agorism is doomed to fail – this is not to say women are to blame for the socialist movement. I think sheep are more prone to embrace a charismatic leader (who might be spouting B.S.) than a geeky academic spouting Austrian economics (though it resonates with truth), and I said so in support of my opinion that it’s important to groom leaders – this is not to say that women are sheep. I think a message of freedom might have to be packaged in several ways, each with a different emphasis, in order to penetrate the thinking of different personality types – this doesn’t imply that one type is superior to another.
People keep acting like I’m reading from “The Secret History of Women’s Efforts to Destroy Mankind”. No, I’m making observations (obvious ones, IMO) about the world we live in, in order to perfect our means so as to achieve our similar ends. Please read into it no more than that.
I did mix up my references in that sentence, which I see now was confusing as I had two subjects. My fault for the miscommunication. What I meant to say was that women are the weaker sex (undeniable, I hope, and not meant in a judgemental way – strength has its downsides, e.g. arrogance, imperialistic urges, etc.) and that sheep don’t like to think for themselves and resist education (also undeniable, I hope). I didn’t mean to conflate the two, though I see how one could interpret it that way from the way I put the sentence together.
Here’s an interesting and topical article I just stumbled over: http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071127/EDITORIAL/111270007/1013&template=printart
An excerpt: "Academics have long pondered why the government started growing precisely when it did. The federal government, aside from periods of wartime, consumed about 2 percent to 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) up until World War I. It was the first war that the government spending didn’t go all the way back down to its pre-war levels, and then, in the 1920s, non-military federal spending began steadily climbing. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal — often viewed as the genesis of big government — really just continued an earlier trend. What changed before Roosevelt came to power that explains the growth of government? The answer is women’s suffrage.
The gender gap exists on various issues. The major one is the issue of smaller government and lower taxes, which is a much higher priority for men than for women."
Is it just me or is there something fundamentally strange and hypocritical about people who are argueing in favor of voting simultaneously blaming women’s suffrage on the growth in government power?
In either case, the argument quoted above about the growth of government and women’s vote can arguably be dismissed or at least questioned on the grounds that it conflates correlation with causation.
Again, it’s a tactical matter – how does a free-market candidate gain the support of women, given their socialist tendencies? Now, if you deny that they have socialist tendencies, you probably won’t devote much attention to this question. IMO, however, this is a critical matter that must be taken into consideration if one has any true hope of success.
Lott does address the “correlation doesn’t mean causation” issue with this paragraph:
“Yet, as suggestive as these facts are, we must still consider whether women’s suffrage itself caused the growth in government, or did the government expand due to some political or social change that accompanied women’s suffrage? Fortunately, there was a unique aspect of women’s suffrage that allows us to answer this question: Of the 21 states that had not passed women’s suffrage before the approval of the 19th Amendment, nine approved the amendment, while the other 12 had suffrage imposed on them. If some unknown factor caused both a desire for larger government and women’s suffrage, then government should have only grown in states that voluntarily adopted suffrage. This, however, is not the case: After approving women’s suffrage, a similar growth in government was seen in both groups of states.”