I guess as long as you’re willing to admit it, that’s a start. But I guess a big part of my point is that everyone can’t be “idea people and not action people”, or nothing would ever get done. I’m still interested in proposals for how government would be rolled back. And if no one has any, then I don’t see the use in simply claiming what I, North, and Holland, (and I’m sure plenty others) have said is essentially not the way to go. Again, simply criticizing without offering any actual reasoned critique, let alone an alternative, is just another Leftist tactic (this one of course being the famous “Critical Theory” method).
Sounds awesome.
I doubt you’ll be able to find many things higher on the list of priorities for the majority of the electorate than a quality education for their children…which includes one in which the knowledge and values the parents wish to instill in their children is nurtured…as opposed to whitewashed and erased and replaced with indoctrination. In other words, I think plenty of people would consider having more control over their local education system to be “in their self interest”.
Popularizing Ron Paul? Why?
And my larger point is (and has been) that there has to be a connection between these people with changed minds and actual action within government…the rubber has to meet the road at some point, so to speak. Yes it’s great that people are standing around holding signs. That helps popularize the idea and show the opposition…but holding signs is not going to make the Fed go away. Again I’m interested in the application of all this knowledge. What is going to be done to roll back this government. And for probably the fifth time, I haven’t heard anything other than “popularize the freedom message…change people’s minds…”
In my earlier post I said it: 10% people’s minds are changed. Now what. All those people should dedicate 100% of their efforts in changing more minds? Is that really the most effective, efficient and fastest way to see rollback? I don’t buy it. And I’m not seeing any arguments as to why it is…let alone convincing arguments.
I never said that wasn’t the case. I’m not the one saying “I don’t see how a person can do better than donating to the LvMI…” You just did.
Then why are you so concerned about Ron Paul? If it’s such a useless and effectless venue, why does virtually everyone I’ve ever heard of who promotes liberty say something along the lines of “Paul’s done more for libertarianism than all of his critics, [like Stefan Molyneux] put together.” (That one was Walter Block, by the way.)
Why don’t regular people know the name “Stefan Molyneux”…or “Walter Block”, for that matter? I had probably been making the rounds in the libertarian sphere and even spending time on this very forum for probably a year before I even figured out who “Stefan Molyneux” was. And the only reason I did find out the douchebag was is (coincidentally) because he attacked Ron Paul and the affectiveness of political action…and the backlash was so loud that I ended up hearing it. And again, coincidentally enough, one of the loudest (i.e. most prominent) pieces of backlash was from Block.
If simply “spreading the word” and philosophizing is so much more effective, why aren’t these people at the head of a revolution?
Again, a large part of my point is that one of the most effective, efficient and fastest ways of “the masses changing the minds and attitudes” is through a platform in the public sphere. And yes, politics is a big part of that. And yes, I realize that is basically anathema and sacrilege to anarchists, but it’s reality. Believe me, I’m well aware of the “too cool, above the fray, non-conformist” bullshit perpetuated by a lot of supposed anti-statists. “The political game is a merry-go-round, bro. A pool of corruption. That’s not real anarchism. We need a revolution in the battleground of ideas, man. Like, free people’s minds from the chains of the matrix, you know? Baptize the public in the fire of real principle and truth. Then, when they’re unplugged from the system, and the blackness is washed out of their eyes with the pure water of freedom (not that tainted flouride crap that comes out of the public tap), then things will change. Once we hit that critical mass bro, just sit back and watch what happens.”
Fluff. Nonsense. No substance. Bullshit.
My argument is (a) being active in the arena means you’re more visible. You’ve got a bigger microphone. And you’ve got more respect. People will listen to a Congressman over some Joe. Like it or not, that’s how it is. Even lowly House Representatives get on television. Therefore, it makes it more likely that people will not only listen to what you have to say, but consider it. More people will hear what you say, and they are more likely to take it with greater and more serious weight…and therefore you have a greater ability to reach people with those ideas.
That’s number one. You’re in a better position to spread the ideas in the first place. Number two is, (b) you are actually in a position to actively change something with those ideas in mind.
If you’re a local county clerk, or a mayor, or a legislator…your actions can directly influence the growth of government…and as an extention of that, (c) you have a better chance of influencing public opinion of less government in a positive way…by creating the conditions of less and less intervention and (1) proving it’s possible…that is, that things will still get done and people won’t be dying in the streets if government spending doesn’t break records every year, and (2) showing the positive results that come from it.
If you want to see what I’m talking about, Reason.tv does a great job of highlighting a lot of these local cases (from volunteer law enforcement to privatizing “public” services). They serve not only as examples of what can be done to improve life in a very realistic way that effects the daily lives of individuals (even if in just a small local area), but also they serve as examples to everyone else outside of that area of (1) & (2)…namely that it can be done, and that it produces desirable results.
Again, I’m still waiting to hear of any sort of method that would be more effective, more efficient, or faster, that does not include action in the public/government sphere.
Everyone here seems so eager to discount it, but I’m not hearing any other ideas…let alone better ones.
Okie dokie. Take away Ron Paul and any influence he was able to achieve through being involved in politics and government, make sure no one else interested in liberty gets involved in politics or government, and tell me how you’re going to get anywhere near that 20% in your lifetime.
Hmm. An “End the Fed” Politcial Action Committee? That sounds like political action to me.
You mean educating rich people on liberty so that they will donate to organizations that educate people on liberty?
In the same way that I don’t think we can “think” ourselves or “change our minds” out of this mess, I never said anything about “electing ourselves” out of this mess.