It’s like you people congregate annually. Let me guess, you’re the one with the red hair?
The sad fact is that the races are very different when it comes to poverty rates. Though it has come down since 1992’s (which is the time this statement was directed towards) 33.4% (highest of all races), black poverty is still at 24.9% and still highest of all races.
http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/factfiles_detail.cfm?issue_type=welfare&list=4
Furthermore, while blacks are not and were not the majority of those on welfare, they are neck-in-neck with whites (the highest) despite representing only about 12% of the population.
Social pressure hasn’t been as great, as many posters have pointed out. However, what I was getting at, was that there are a great deal of homosexuals who now throw their sexually in everyone’s face, whereas before there were not.
I don’t give them as much credit, personally. I think Ron Paul would not have anywhere near as high of totals if he made his positions clearer. He often times deludes them with statements like, “If we weren’t spending trillions of dollars overseas, we could spend it here taking care of Americans,” making the implication that he plans to have the government spend that for something at home. I think a lot of people who support him think that he is a more-electable Kucinich or Gravel. I also think we may have some trade protectionists in our ranks who like that he wants to get rid of GATT, the WTO, NAFTA, etc. They don’t understand that he wants to replace that with unilateral free trade. He talks about not “raiding” the Social Security Trust Fund (which is an illusion to begin with) more than he talks about ending SS. If Paul gets elected, I think a lot of people with be upset that they didn’t get what they thought they were voting for.
I think that’s a fair criticism and I don’t really have a response to that one. It is a very good point. Though, from a societal standpoint, we do have to recognize that we live in the world of public roads, and although we can only spectulate as to what road owners would allow, it seems that from the considerable outcry against these gay pride parades, many, if not most, would disallow such on their property.
LMAO!
Hippies? Where?
Those darn hippies (and robots), stealing our jobs!
This newsletter thing is getting silly and it mostly seems to be coming from the Reason/Cato clique. I am not familiar with the various in-fightings of US libertarians and I have held Cato and Reason as respectable entities. But this purposeful sabotage of Paul and smearing of Rockwell has really shown the level that these people will go to.
So, if anyone is still feeling weak-kneed about the newsletter thing, read this rebuttal by Justin Raimondo. It should put you at ease.
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_ron_paul/
What do you mean? I don’t know much about his personal background.
Supporting Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader - whether he believes in some corner of his scattered little mind that Nader is a “rightist” - seem to contradict any support for libertarianism. Moreover, I can not identify any proposed “right winger” as libertarian, seeing that libertarianism is inherently anti-establishment, and thus left-wing. Though I know this is a rather strong opinion.
I’ve followed Raimondo for a while now, so I do know a bit about him and what he’s said.
Murray Rothbard supported Pat Buchanan at one point. Prior to that, he ran for governor on the Peace and Freedom ticket, which had nominated a Black Panther leader for President. He affiliated with the SDS on specific issues when it was appropriate, while making it clear that he didn’t agree with socialism. I see nothing wrong with strategic alliances with the right or the left. Granted, I prefer alliances with the left, but I have seen conservatives I’d be open to single-issue alliances with, Buchanan being a prime example. There are not enough libertarians for us to turn our noses up at alliances. Have you read “Left and Right - The Prospects for Liberty,” and, if so, would you consider Rothbard a traitor to libertarianism? I agree that libertarianism is properly understood as being left-wing, but then you also have to properly understand the left. The political spectrum in America is a much confused spectrum, and many who are firmly on the right would also be properly considered left-wing. After all, many people consider libertarians, you and I for instance, to be on the right. They are wrong about that - but someone can be wrong about where he himself fits.
I myself am currently interested in promoting a left-right alliance for peace and freedom. We are facing some very specific dangers - loss of civil liberties, perpetual warfare, and so on. There is no reason not to work with anyone who wants to fix that, since these issues are far more immediate and pressing than economic issues. I will not support any increase in government, of course - I’m not saying to accept socialism as the price of restoring habeas corpus, but rather that the habeas corpus is a more pressing concern than socialism. I’m an anarcho-capitalist, of course, and have no interest in having a state, but I’m still realistic enough to realize that there are practical differences between different states. It’s well and good to take a purist position, saying that there’s no difference and no point to fighting to roll back government tyranny - but the fact is that real people are hurt and victimized by government, and more are victimized by larger and worse governments than smaller ones. Being an anarchist does not mean that I have no interest in restoring habeas corpus. A state is bad - but a state without habeas corpus is even worse than a state with habeas corpus.
Bottom line, do we really have enough libertarians to write off anyone who dares to take a position you don’t like? Would you also write off anyone who supports Ron Paul as not being libertarian, since Paul is pro-life and anti-immigration? Isn’t it more sensible to recognize that there’s a variety of beliefs which all still fall under libertarianism, that there is diversity among libertarians with regard to abortion and immigration, and that there is certainly room for disagreement about strategy? You disagree with Raimondo on strategy for going from where we are to where we all want to go - and for that reason you’re willing to label him a traitor?
How about Hans Hoppe? Is he not a libertarian?
You’re absolutely correct. I’m also of the opinion that Rothbard was really beginning to lose his mind towards the end of his life.
Fine, you want alliances with other people, cool, but make sure they’re libertarians, not xenophobic, hate mongering, idiots.
I’m fine with Rothbard’s alliance on the left, in fact, at that time he was probably at his best. It just so happens that usually those on the left are at least willing to allow a co-existence of “capitalism,” whereas those on the right would prefer to “round 'dem spi… Mexicans up,” and spill them off into a desert somewhere after they get done bashing in the heads of the gay populous and also exterminating what’s left of those welfare-sucking, nig black folk.
No, there isn’t. However, there are reasons to reject them on the basis of their counter-productivity, and to also call them out for what they are.
If it walks like a redneck, talks like the drunk, uncle from Arkansas, and thinks like a bigot, well… chances are that it’s a paleocon.
That’s because you invest too much importance in it. You’re so concerned with your external threats you allow your internal toxins to overtake your mind. Break the chains of illusion and be free.
Funny that they’re the same governments your kind - the compromised - have been involved with for centuries.
It’s odd that you proclaim the “purists” to be the ones advocating inaction and grinding the movement to a hault of inability, when it has always been your kind that have fu/cked everything up.
It’s not about whether I like it or not. Bryan Caplan is a complete douchebag, but I still accept him as a libertarian because… well, he is one.
I would write them off as fools and misguided souls that need to be shown the light of their mistakes. Ron Paul is not a libertarian though.
There’s room for disagreement, but not for unlibertarian beliefs.
I disagree with Raimondo on a variety of things, namely his belief that his viewpoints on anything domestic are educated ones.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe is a libertarian who has, unfortunately, allowed his own bigotry to cloud his judgment on certain issues.
People tend to forget some very important truths:
-
Free speech is free, regardless of content or view point. It’s not always pretty. Example: The Ohio State University chose to have Dick Gregory give the keynote speech for the university’s Martin Luther King week celebration. I was going to take my kids to hear Gregory speak but first decided to YouTube him. Listen to his talks on YouTube and see what free speech is all about. My only issue is that my tax dollars paid for his speech, that I find offensive (of course, that is true regardless of content and/or view point. I don’t want me taxes paying for anything).
-
Politics is ugly. Always was, always will be. Expect every viable candidate to be attacked. That is campaigning 101; attack you opponent, because before you can get his supporters to vote for you, you have to get them to not want to vote for him. Worse case, his supporters choose not to vote at all; which, by the way, is still a winner for you.
-
Comments taken out of their historical context can sound offensive. I can only imagine what the ramifications will be in 10 years for the neocon warmongers. To advocate the death of whole nations (men, women, and children) in the name of security will sound odd out of today’s context. Of course, to many, such comments sound odd today.
-
If those being attacked as racist were truly racist, wouldn’t they be using the current political-class-inspired fears to make points with the masses? Yet, I read no such stuff in their current comments?
Let’s move on. Paul desires the beginning of the end of government as we know it. What a wonderful cause that is!
Oops, the filter renamed Gregory’s first name. It is the short form of Richard.
Where do you see tolerance on the left for capitalism? Among the Black Panthers, the SDS, or Dennis Kucinich? Overall, the modern left is no more open to capitalism than the modern right is to personal liberty. Don’t you think the above is a bit of a hasty generalization? It seems to me that you’re generalizing from the fact that many on the left, such as Kucinich supporters, are far easier to talk to than many on the right.
Ah, so let’s not be the least bit concerned that we have government officials - that is, people who happen to command tremendous military and police resources - informing us that they intend to arrest and hold, forever, without trial, those who speak out against them. Instead, we’ll just free our minds, not think about it, and it will go away? It’s hard to “break the chains of illusion and be free” by “freeing your mind” while you’re in a torture camp or a prison.
Yes, we can all throw around names and insults. Calling me “the compromised” is not an argument. Working to push a government back, to prevent it from doing harm, is not equivalent to being involved with government. On inaction - I believe your suggestion is to work underground, sell in black markets, and generally break every law available. It also seems to be “writing out” and insulting anyone who disagrees with your strategy or your opinion on a particular issue. I’m curious to know - just why is it that “my kind” - libertarians actually interested in promoting freedom, not doing our best to hide from government - that are responsible for messing up all of history?
So Caplan is alright, despite believing in the notion of a coercive monopoly in the enforcement of laws, but having a strategic disagreement over whether or not it makes sense to work with Buchanan means Raimondo is out?
I’m sure Ron Paul would dispute that, as would the attendees at the 1988 LP convention who nominated him for President. Of course, you’ll tell me that Paul is not a libertarian because of his position on abortion and immigration, as if those were settled issues within libertarianism. However, there is widespread disagreement in the libertarian world about those topics, and even anarchists, like Hoppe, don’t all agree. But then, you said Hoppe was a libertarian despite his immigration position - so why is Paul not one, again?
So you write off Paul’s supporters as misguided fools. In your view of things, libertarians should team up with the 10 other people who agree with you on every miniscule point and do, well, something. It is entirely misguided and absurd to think it would help to have a President who wants to eliminate the IRS, the Fed, the Department of etc., restore civil liberties, and stop stealing millions of dollars to send troops to Iraq to kill people. You really don’t see that as being any better than having a President who does the exact opposite?
You haven’t presented a belief of Raimondo’s specifically that you think is unlibertarian. You’ve presented a tactic he engages in - allying with non-libertarians on specific issues of importance. The hint is supposed to be that he supports certain issues Buchanan and Nader are known for - anti-immigration, opposition to NAFTA and GATT, and maybe abortion in the case of Buchanan. I tend to agree with you on immigration, but when many libertarian heavyweights disagree, I am not willing to write them all off as non-libertarians. Similarly on abortion. On NAFTA and GATT, I am a proponent of free, unrestricted trade - and I think you could write a free trade agreement in a paragraph. NAFTA doesn’t have a passing resemble to a free trade agreement, and I oppose it. Is CODEX a reasonable outcome from a real free trade agreement?
Not words I’d hope to hear from a libertarian. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you keep branding anything pro-Paul as ‘Cult of Paul’ etc. Yet you now claim the right to determine what exactly is libertarian? Is this the Cult of Niccolò?
This kind of purist attitude is what is holding libertarianism from moving forward. If we are incapable of even entertaining discussion on abortion, then we will remain a marginal curiosity.
When mutualists and libertarian-socialists tell me that they will not beat me, kidnap me, degrade me, and my children for owning a paper-copy firm and hiring people at a lower wage.
You misunderstand entirely.
The state has taken everything of worth from you, anything you hold dear will essentially be theirs one day, so you’re living for a life, a life that means nothing - if it did, the state would take that away too. I, on the other hand, live for something more than a life, I live for something the state can’t ever take away. You want to get rid of the state? You want to achieve real liberty in your life now? Then do it - don’t waste your time voting and donating to a man who only tells you to wait, and to die for a hope of a life that will never arrive. You seem to believe that you have to accept the peanuts they throw at you to change your life, but it is only after you eat them that you realize they were poisoned all along! I’m telling you now, I’m giving you the key to a kingdom, to liberty, to a life of meaning, dignity, and hope. I’m telling you that you can fight the state without having to be a statist - I’m telling you that there’s a better path to change and it involves no bars, no camps, no prisons - what I offer you can not put you in a camp and it will never place you in their prisons; it will only free you from them.
It is when your actions have only brought the government more presents and bodies to be taken. You tell us you “work to push it back,” but your intents are irrelevant to me - the products of your sins are all I care about, and they have brought much destruction.
You mischaracterize it. My plan is to fight against the government, not side by side with it trying to control the beast by wearing the ring of oppression, cruelty, and sadism. My plan is to build an alternative and to build it strong, to bleed the beast and nourish from its blood - my plan is to drive a sword through the heart of Leviathan by forging the blade with its claws and the handle with its bone. I plan to tear the state apart by taking away the only thing it can live off of - its perceived authority. You on the other hand just maintain that authority by legitimizing the system as a means to “reform it.”
Writing out would be an example of promoting freedom, btw.
It is your fault because you’ve yet to realize what the state actually is and what it runs on. Until you understand a beast’s nature, you will never understand how to destroy it. Like a slavemaster the state feeds off of authority from its slaves; without the perception of authority from the perspectives of the slaves, the state withers away, but as you continue to tout the horn of political libertarianism and reformation of the state as opposed to its death in a pool of blood, you legitimize its authority to organize elections, throw peanuts at the masses, and exist. Whether you believe you do this or not, your mentality is entirely statist and so transcends into authority for the state.
First of all, Caplan is an Anarchist, as far as I know, and I am unsure of where Raimondo EVER stands. One second he’s openly gay, the next he’s beating the drums of Pat Buchanan… not in that way though…
I hate the LP as much as I hate Ron Paul.
Actually, he’s not a libertarian because he supports the existence of the state, along with wanting to actually restrict people from being on unowned land.
As for Hoppe, I guess you’re right, he’s not upholding the Non-Aggression Principle if he believes that it is alright for people to violently oppress a group of people from homesteading unowned land. I am not sure if that’s exactly what he means if I put it in those words.
I believe he’s struggling with his own bigotries, personally.
I agree with many more than ten people, I assure you. Anyone that upholds the non-aggression principle, I will agree with. Anyone that does not, I will vehemently oppose them until they convert or drop dead.
Also, the question you pose is a loaded one. It assumes that promoting a president that believes in X will mean X will occur if he is elected or not. Moreover, it is a foolish strategy for liberty attainement, as A it is an inefficient form of resource allocation, and B it is not addressing the real issue, but rather only the effects.
Immigration is the only thing that comes to mind as I go threw withdrawals from an absence of Effexor.
So you commit devotion to men as opposed to principles?
No, because “Niccolò” does not possess a large following devoted to daily bukkake on the pixels of a computer screen forming the immage of Ron Paul as seen on LewRockwell.com
Purist attitude is holding libertarianism back, eh? Since when has the libertarian movement ever been purist? The main rerpesentatives of libertarianism/classical liberalism have almost ALWAYS been compromised.
Maybe it’s time we try a new way?
And they are supposed to be representative of the left?
What you offer is a blackmarket economy. How can that never place me in their prisons again? You are right that ideas are important, and you don’t overestimate their value - they are very valuable. But physical reality is also important. If the idea of liberty and freedom held sway, there would not be men with guns - but if I believe that no one can harm me, that doesn’t make the men with guns go away.
And how do you plan to stay alive while doing that? I agree with the process you suggest - but it takes time, many years perhaps. In the meantime, there will remain a Leviathan state - do you think it will sit by and let you build your alternative? I think there is nothing wrong with this suggestion, but that you also need to build some temporary structure to protect yourself if you ever plan to achieve what you aim for. I do not maintain authority by trying to hold it back - I recognize that it is perceived as having authority. Who has done more to popularize the libertarian cause - you or Ron Paul? What attracts more people, educates more people about the nature of the state - your posts here, or Lew Rockwell’s website?
The state is a system of monopolized aggression. It is the means by which some men conspire to live as parasites on others - and by which they convince their hosts to love the parasites and to oppose any attempt to get rid of them. It is a construct by which men are convinced that murder, rape, and theft are evil, but that these same actions are the highest actions available to man when done in the name of the state. In short, it is nothing but aggression and attack, but is perceived by the masses as being legitimate, and thus they do not fight back. It is worse than a common thief, because a common thief does not try to convince you that what he is doing is noble and right.
So, in both cases, we’re still talking about immigration.
And if someone disagrees with you about what the non-aggression principle entails, you will declare them to not uphold the principle and vehemently oppose them as well. Or maybe you’ll attempt to convince them that your interpretation is correct, but will you ever consider the possibility that theirs is correct?
Promoting a President who believes in X only means that X is more likely to happen than otherwise if he is elected. It means nothing about what will happen if he is not elected - that’s the whole purpose of supporting someone, to try to get them elected. As far as B: In a prior life, I worked as a paramedic. When I treat someone having a massive coronary, the real problem is their genetics, their diet, and their lack of exercise for 20 years. Am I wrong to treat them, to lower their blood pressure, provide oxygen, give blood thinners? None of those address the real issue, but they will save his life, perhaps. Dr. Szasz made a career of freeing people who were imprisoned without trial - that wasn’t addressing the real issue either, was it? He worked on a case-by-case basis, freeing one innocent person, then another, and never eliminated the system that allowed innocent people to go to jail, although he did speak out against the system at all times. Was he wrong to free people without being able to address the real issue?
No, I recognize my own fallibility. I have made mistakes in reasoning before, and will make more in the future. When I meet someone who is just as committed to freedom as I am, who also opposes aggression and assault, and who opposes immigration, I have toleave open the possibility that I don’t see as clearly as he does. When he is an esteemed intellectual, who studied with Rothbard, who Lew Rockwell calls a national treasure, a best selling author, founder of a society of freethinkers, and so on, it becomes even more likely that I have made a mistake. I still don’t see the logic, so I hold to my position until persuaded otherwise, but I am not so arrogant and so convinced that I am right as to say that, by disagreeing with me on immigration, he has failed to uphold the non-aggression principle.
Have you ever read anything by Kevin Carson?
If he’s not Left, no Left exists.
Because their prisons are not physical, their prisons are entirely mental. You live a life of fear, afraid to do what you want, live as you want, and speak as you want. You ask me how I can propose you live a life without being sent to their prisons, and I ask how can you accept a life lived entirely within them?
But they’ve already harmed you and they’ve done it in the worst way! They’ve taken your freedom and condemned you to a life of anxiety and fear much worse than death. You’ve already been disarmed, you’ve already been disgraced and humiliated in front of your fellow man - Brother, they’ve forced you to your knees as you beg their mercy and kiss their ring. I ask you, what would you rather have, humiliation and enslavement, or justice and freedom?
With my dignity intact - as I have continued to do so for years.
I don’t believe it - I experience it. The state does not need to get involved until it becomes too late, such is how the state operates. The state will never bother me so long as it believes that it still has the legitimacy at hand. Think about it, who has caused you more psychological pain? Who has beaten you down more, the state or other individuals who disagree with your radical opinions of justice and virtue? The state will not do a single da/mn thing because the state built itself up not to have to do a single da/mn thing.
Essentially, the state possesses no ability to enslave everyone, like the slave master it may possess guns to our knives and hatchets, but if the slaves were not made to feel that their masters possessed some level of authoirty over them, then the master would be rendered powerless. The opposition you normally face comes primarily from your fellow slaves, not from the state as a physical entity. Psychological and metaphysical power are so much more important than physical strength.
I have, it’s called an Agorist cell.
If you wish to learn more about that, then please visit my blog, and especially watch my series where on the next episode I will be adressing this exact issue of protecting Agorist cells.
You do maintain it though! You justify its existence as a means to protect you from that which exists! Don’t you see? Can’t you see the truth so plainly in front of your face?
Ron Paul maintains a position that though the government causes problems, those problems are necessary ones, and that if only HE’S given the reigns then he will surely steer the state for good. But you can NEVER do good with the state! That’s the point of our movement and that’s why Ron Paul is not a libertarain; it’s not because he doesn’t support the movement of people or any other small effect of that nature, but because he pledged his allegiance to the state. Whether it be through his rose bud glasses or not, the blood on his hands stains the libertarian name in a dreaded red.
What attracts more people to libertarianism? I don’t know. Are sheer numbers what you’re after? Are weak soldiers better than dedicated souls? Is a movement of statists under the banner of libertarianism any better? Is that what we want? No.
Does Ron Paul bring plublicity to libertarianism, perhaps, but I’ve made this case before, successfully, that as politics represents a socialist scheme of resource allocation, Ron Paul’s campaign can not efficiently expend the masses of resources he receives. The capital involved in Ron Paul’s campaign is the only thing that brings him any plublicity. Devote that to an efficient market system and imagine the results.
You’re forgetting one thing, it is a tool of evil that pollutes anything it involves itself with. Like the toxins floating from the nuclear waste under the Earth, the soil of the Ron Paul movement will poison the water supply for the entire libertarian ideology.
No, with Ron Paul we’re talking about him being a statist and statists being inherently incapable of being libertarians - on top of the more common immigration issue.
With Hoppe, he may be a xenophobe, but he certainly is not a statist, he possesses no illusions that the state can be used for good, he’s just trying to justify unconscious motives.
If they find that the non-aggression principle I understand and promote is illogical, then yes, I would have to. However, I have yet to see it.
Please, explain the air-tight logic here. How does one measure, “more likely”?
Also, seeing that in this case X contradicts the concept of presidency, it would be quite a paradox, eh?
I don’t know what the “it” you are referring to is.
You are wrong to treat the symptoms if you could have used all of the resources to directly cure him, yes, yes you are.
**
Of course the obvious contradiction here does not need to be pointed out, but take into consideration the concept of “opposing immigration” and proposing that the free-movement of people over unowned land be forcefully prevented by the state.
Now, if Hoppe wishes to be logically consistent with previous statements, then he must either admit that he is just a plain xenophobe that will not propose state involvement merely continuing to be a xenophobe, or he must re-invent the concepts of aggression and assault to fit within the scope of forcefully preventing the free-movement of people over unowned land.
Why does this some how qualify as some great reason to take the man’s word with you people?
Except… He has. It’s hardly arrogance when you’re correct about the issue. Do you want me to go into why Hoppe and Rothbard were wrong and why they can not possibly uphold their xenophobia while also holding onto the beliefs of libertarianism? I will, I’ll start a paper tonight and post it on my blog sometime within the next week.
Niccolò and JAlanKatz:
I am not taking sides, since you both make good points. But this seems like an argument I heard on the Dennis Praeger show the other day. One of his guests claimed that ‘the Best’ was the enemy of ‘the Good’. I think she had a point. What she failed to include, was that compromise is the root of all evil - liars are not evil because they always lie, but because the occasionally compromise the truth.
So the real debate is about identifying ‘the Best’ then deciding whether we are going to embrace the enemy of ‘the Good’ or the root of all evil. Since it is better to have something than nothing, I believe that there is a place for both of these tactics. Sometimes it is best to embrace the root of all evil in order to move into a better position from which to strike at evil - the sleeping with the enemy tactic. Sometimes it is best to embrace the enemy of ‘the Good’ in order to create a moral position from which troopes can be amassed - the public challenge to obvious, oppressive forces tactic.
Both of these tactics can be effective. I happen to believe that the oppressive forces working in the US today are still largely hidden from the public perception. Therefore, I advocate the embrace of the root of all evil tactic. It is better to undermine the system by accepting welfare and voting to undermine the system. Everyone makes their own choices about how to do this, but blatent attacks on the State will not be tolerated because the public is largely unaware of the oppression. They have been convinced by the “education system”, of which the t.v. is the major contributor, that the State is ‘the Best’. As more people become aware that it is a compromise and the root of all evil, it will become increasingly effective to attack the system as the root of all evil by creating a moral position, about which proponents of ‘the Best’ may rally to fight the proponents of the root of all evil - aka ‘the Good’.
Niccolo would you please define racism and all those other pejorative words you keep using? I do suggest you read my thread entry.