This is a joke, right?
Just because evil is “socially acceptable” doesn’t mean Ron Paul should advocate it as an end.
Do you think people would take Paul seriously, in todays vernacular with todays lexicon, if he walked around saying, “Well shit, the State is evil as all hell?”
Implying that’s an example of my “successful anarchist”? Why would anyone think that would be a good way for Paul to sell statism as a means instead of an end?
It is people like you that insist on rhetorical honesty that doom us in politics.
No, politics dooms you. You can be honest and socially acceptable, and I simply think a successful generation who exhibits these traits will be far more helpful to the cause of liberty than advocating government in the hopes that people will accidentally become anarchists along the way.
We cannot march around with black flags screaming at people while expecting them to listen to us.
I think we’re on the same page here. Anarchists need to take themselves and their views seriously, and teach others to as well.
We either look at that non existent red button and scream at people to be anarchists or we pragmatically use the state to attack the states own power centers.
No. False dichotomy. If anyone is doomed for any reason, it is statists for this reasoning.
But people like you will accuse him of abusing power…so where are we? We are back to that nonexistent red button.
No that’s you putting words in my mouth and pushing a false dichotomy. You’re not even paying attention to my argument, how are you going to argue against it? I respect some of your posts but you’re completely failing here.
Apologize for the double post, hope it won’t destroy the thread.
Absolutely not, the effect of status on human behavior cannot be underestimated. It’s why its mandatory for mormon missionaries to wear the slacks and tie, or mandatory for soldiers to be properly shaved with a clean haircut. Mormons are insane, and soldiers are sociopath murderers, but people take them seriously and even show them reverence because they have status. It’s why people obey the president, but they don’t obey a homeless guy.
Firstly, I call myself Minarchist to make it clear that I am not in agreement with most anarcho-capitalists on a number of important issues. I won’t go into the details of my position as they are irrelevant, but I am in fact against the State. My profile states this, my first comment on this forum stated this, and I defy you to find a single post of mine anywhere where I support the State. In any case, however, what has my name got to do with anything, even if I were a statist?
The great quote “Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice.” comes to mind. But that isn’t enough. I don’t claim to believe RP is working gradually toward anarchism. How many people do you know who believe RP is an anarchist? How many of his closest supporters do you know believe this? I know he’s selling out because his message is on his own website: “Our mission is to promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government…”. That is distinctly not an anarchist message, and the vast majority of people I’m sure feel the same way.
Whether Paul is for abolition of the State or not, he’s not selling out by advocating Constitutional government. Again, if you’re for freedom, but you’re against moving toward freedom gradually (as opposed to doing nothing), you’re some special kind of moron.
My point is that limited government is evil. So selling it is, as a matter of fact, advocating an evil, and government is surely the purest evil. Any crime you can commit, the government can (does) commit better.
There would be more freedom under a Constitutional government than under our present government. Therefore, the former is better than the latter. So if you say the former is the purest of evils, what then is the latter? The purerest of evils? LOL. Again, those who pretend as if all States are equally evil are morons, as some States are clearly and massively preferable to others. My take is that folks such as yourself say that Constitutional government is the “purest evil” to justify doing nothing. You put the bar so high (“I won’t work toward less statism, I’ll only lend a hand if it means getting rid of the State altogether right away”) so that you never have to lift a finger. Weak sauce…
Anyways, you know what I think is a better solution for the cause of liberty? Not selling out. I wouldn’t mind if RP told people that liberty is amazing and blah blah blah, but that limited government is the most viable means to that end. But he doesn’t, he just sells limited government. We need to just be uncompromising anarchists. Molyneux is a great, outstandingly charismatic counterexample to someone who said hardcore anarchists turn people off. We need to be more like Molyneux in the sense of being successful anarchists. It’s why people take mormons seriously. Mormons and minarchists are a dime a dozen. It’s time to put anarchists on the map.
LOL…how did I know you were a Molyneux guy.
EDIT: I just noticed something. Hashem, your avatar is Murray Rothbard, is it not? You are aware that he was the arch-pragmatist? He did a whole lot more compromising than Paul has ever done - and rightly so, anything to advance the cause. So, are you ignorant of Rothbard’s history or what?
Your problem is that you are caught in your own red herring.
I am not arguing that we shouldn’t be pragmatic—even though I disagree that promoting minarchism as the end and calling that liberty while hoping that some people accidentally become anarchists is pragmatic.
EDIT: And your “you’re a molyneux guy”, along with your overuse of the term “moron” to describe the characters in your red herrings, is simple and lame. Learn to argue, its more interesting.
My personal view of Molyneux is that he is a brilliant character, and a plain manipulator. He is the best example I’ve seen of someone who can argue for anarchism and make statists look like douchebags how it should be, instead of just completely flopping. Maybe RP doesn’t argue anarchism because he can’t argue nearly as well as molyneux. Anyways I’m not a “molyneux guy”, although I know of him.
And as for my Rothbard avatar, yes, I’m aware that Rothbard’s official position is that minarchism is a destructive utopian waste of time.
Again, I’m not against minarchism as a means to the end of liberty, as long as we are honest about the fact that minarchism is evil and liberty is the final goal. And yes, government, being as it is slavery on a massive scale, is the purest evil. Again with your red herrings, I never argued that some governments aren’t worse than others.
If your goal is to eliminate the State, it is pragmatic to endeavor to gradually reduce the State. Whereas, it is idealistic to refuse to merely reduce the State in order to hold out for some inconceivable opportunity to eliminate the State all at once. You are arguing against a pragmatic approach. Your problem with Paul’s approach is that he doesn’t talk about eliminating the State, he only talks about reducing the State - i.e. your problem with him is that he’s acting pragmatically.
What is it that you want? You want him to come out for the abolition of the State? And what will be the consequence of that? Will it make libertarian reforms more or less likely? Much less likely! So why in the fuck should we want to do that?
EDIT: And your “you’re a molyneux guy”, along with your overuse of the term “moron” to describe the characters in your red herrings, is simple and lame. Learn to argue, its more interesting.
I can only argue with those who have arguments, you clearly don’t qualify. And in any case, you are a moron, and I have no time for tact.
My personal view of Molyneux is that he is a brilliant character, and a plain manipulator. He is the best example I’ve seen of someone who can argue for anarchism and make statists look like douchebags how it should be, instead of just completely flopping. Maybe RP doesn’t argue anarchism because he can’t argue nearly as well as molyneux. Anyways I’m not a “molyneux guy”, although I know of him.
Molyneux is a pretentious pseudo-intellectual. Utterly worthless, by no means “successful.” He has done exactly nothing of any consequence for the cause. Anyone who thinks they have a proof for an objective ethics is a …drumroll … moron.
And as for my Rothbard avatar, yes, I’m aware that Rothbard’s official position is that minarchism is a destructive utopian waste of time.
Yea…but he supported lots of politicians who not only weren’t anarchists but weren’t even minarchists. He argued for George H.W. Bush! Why? Because he was for any little movement toward freedom, or even for the lesser of two movement away from freedom.
Again, I’m not against minarchism as a means to the end of liberty, as long as we are honest about the fact that minarchism is evil and liberty is the final goal. And yes, government, being as it is slavery on a massive scale, is the purest evil. Again with your red herrings, I never argued that some governments aren’t worse than others.
Even if being honest about that turns people off and sets back our progress to our goal? What is the purpose of that? This is not a game. Who gives a fuck whether your sensitive mores are satisfied, this is about literally saving the human race before this entire shithouse burns. Stop fucking around and get something done. And you did not say “government is the purest evil” you said “limited government”…so either you don’t know that adjectives like “limited” typically modify nouns or you are lying now and backing out of your previous comment. You clearly were not making a distinction between different types of States, implying that they are all equally evil - which is rubbish.
You are exactly the type of POS that I was inveighing against in my original comment. I hope you do stay with little Steffy so that you don’t fuck things up in the real world.
‘Book of Mormon’ wins big at Tony Awards### “Romney’s Mormon Problem”### 22% Are Hesitant to Support a Mormon
ummmm. Ron Paul would qualify as a Minarchist in practice. Essentially, you take the position of support for Ron Paul even though he is avidly supportive of a minimalist tyrrany? And then in the same breath will condemn his strategy as abusing means to an end? You are in a yin-yang, my friend. There is no absolute. With the good comes the bad; as above as below, etc.
I would like to see Molyneux debate against a politician, where he has something to lose and where voter perception matters. His rhetoric would change. Politics does that. You don’t ever see people run for political office who have studied philosophy do we? They would all be extremist; imagine a Nietzsche regime, an Aquinas regime, or a Bacon regime. Politicians must bend rhetoric in order to disguise concepts for voter approval.
And, furthermore, arguing that “statist fail” when they are obviously the most successful social class of people seems asinine to me. We are the failures…
Aristophanes, you are interesting, consider my perspective on your response.
Essentially, you take the position of support for Ron Paul even though he is avidly supportive of a minimalist tyrrany?
Thank you for acknowledging what Minarchist was beating around the bush about. Yes, I would prefer to have Ron Paul as a politician in office than any other politician. Of course, I would rather have no politicians. I don’t think that makes me inconsistent, just realistic and honest.
And then in the same breath will condemn his strategy as abusing means to an end?
Again, this is assuming the premise his goal is anarchism. My position is that he clearly advocates government, and a majority of his supporters would agree. How does this put me in an awkward position? I’m not the anarchist running for president advocating minarchism as liberty.
There is no absolute.
I’m starting to realize that things aren’t all black and white. So I think we would agree here. But then I guess I don’t understand your context.
His rhetoric would change. Politics does that.
Indeed it does. Fuck what I know, but I think he’s an incredibly talented aruger, so yes he is capable of elementary rhetoric.
And, furthermore, arguing that “statist fail” when they are obviously the most successful social class of people seems asinine to me.
Did I argue that statists fail the status check as a class?
I guess I thought this was a “class” generalization.
Agreed. But, I think there is a fluid foundation for principle here that is difficult to rectify with our opinions as they are…(an inherent contradiction)
My point is simply, ‘harsh words must be made into soft words’. People who are incapable of broaching controversial subjects without offending the ‘proper sensibilities’ of people who are completely void of understanding of anarchy can not win popular support in any regard. While I do think Molyneux is pretty good at arguing, he would be twisted upside down by … idk Obama.
The catch is politicians are used to getting caught in lies. Look at Romney or Obama. You cannot pin them down with logic or facts because they avoid the subjects completely.
Molyneux: “Taxation is violent an immoral.”
Obama: “Taxation is necessary to provide basic government for people who need it.”
Molyneux: “People don’t need the State, the State needs them.”
Obama: “Tell that to the people without health care.”
Emotional reach goes much further and far deeper into the opinion making faculties of people. People believe what they want to believe. And poor people (I read democracy as ‘rule by the poor’) will side with the one who visibly sides with them.
My context is everything. Everything is duality. Humans (Male/Female), economics (supply/demand), physics (input = output), life (starts/ends) etc. Ideology and it consequential occurances are no different. What makes some rich will make some poor, what makes some free will make some slaves (at least so goes statism).
Besides the point, can someone tell me whether or not anarchists support, or at least see the logic in, Social Darwinism? It seems logical to me. Dismal, but logical.