Neoconservatives are pushing Sarah Palin as the voice of the tea parties and protests. Oh … my God!
Why don’t you stop neocons, this is frightening?
Anyway, why is Ron Paul still in Republican party?
Is this two party system here to stay forever?
[:(]
Libertarians, make your stand, abandon republican party and it’s politics … now!
Aren’t they all Keynesians without exception?
An ulcer
If you consider the political process voting then ok. I’ve never been interested in voting because I feel that it is a waste of precious time. Instead I believe in introducing individuals to the ideas of liberty so they may at least consider an alternative to the state.
As I said in my OP I have never been affiliated with the tea party movement. My main concern is mitigating the blow the libertarian movement is taking from tea party related smear campaigns. When people in positions of authority tell lies with great enough frequency the general population historically begin to except them as fact. Once this is the case it becomes hard to sway their opinions an example being the the myth that Hoover was a firm believer in the free market and sat in the oval office doing nothing while a small recession turned into the great depression.
Good idea, I tend not to mention people names and instead attack policies that I feel are opposed to individual liberty. My usual talking points include the bail-outs, buyouts, regulation and intervention so it makes at least some sense that I’m being lumped in with the majority of the Republicans who at least claim to be opposed to most of these things.
I understand that the core of the tea party movement has nothing to do with any of the things that have been attributed to it. In it’s beginning it was a great idea that introduced the principles of liberty to thousands of people. The problem started when the media began distorting the facts and politicians began to use it as a tool to gain votes. The founders of the tea parties have done little to combat this and because of that the tea parties are now hurting the movement instead of furthering it.
It’s generally wise to try differentiate and start with common ground.
You’re against the war on in Iraq, the war on terrorism, the drug war etc. Because “war is the biggest government program of them all”.
“Bush, Cheney and Rove are war criminals.” And yet - so is Obama, still in Iraq, still in Afghanistan, still torturing in Guantanamo.
… tailor it to your audience really.
Yes. You are special pleading. You say the “only” way to get anything done is to use the state against the state. That’s you’re plan. You’re special plan that is not rooted in anything logical, ie. universal for each single person. It’s you’re plan, but don’t think for a moment that I consent to what you are saying. If you want to actually be productive, I already gave some options. You’re plan of special pleading is nothing other than a free rider looking for a free lunch. Get a job or do some work in joining the market.
chloe732
I have two thoughts on this. Either we reform the 2 party system or we get rid of it and replace it with proportional representaiton. There is nothing stopping a 3rd party from existing except that the Democrats and the Republicans control the rules of the game. I think a lot could be done with campaign finance rules, and, private donations by individuals and the system could very well be fixed. Alternatively, we can just admit that the two party system only seeks to divide people and shuts out opposing views. In that case- we could just set up a system that allows proportional representation. I would have no problem with that. Our current system shuts down 3rd party voices. They can keep 3rd parties from entering in national debates. In other countries classical liberals and libertarians are even allowed to gain political power. They don’t have that problem.
I think it would require a fundamental shift in the philosophy of the governed. I think while we can persuade the masses to the side of liberty and get them to vote for anarchist or libertarian or classical liberal parties in order to change the system we might have to work within the system. I acknowledge that the nature of government is to want to get bigger… but we would need to persuade them that it’s in their best interest to not.
wilderness
I don’t really agree with that logic. First of all, I’m not working for any special interest. The only interest I have in mind would be making the government follow the laws of the land that it lays out for itself. The constitution is supposed to be a supreme binding principle and the government is ignoring it. All I would be doing would be to pressuring it to slow the excessive increase in government. Secondly, if you don’t stop the state you won’t really have much of a market to begin with. You can say that you shouldn’t use the state for any means all you want. But the people in the state are using the state against the market. The only thing I would be calling for would be for the state to stop its excessive encroachement against individual liberties and the market. All I’m saying is that if we don’t change the fundamental philosophy or nature of the state ourselves- we won’t really have much of a market left. we don’t really have a free-enterprise market right now. If we don’t step up and try to change the fundamental market philosophy of the government we’ll have fascism before you know it. And don’t say we already have fascism right now… because we haven’t really seen anything yet.
“The only interest I have in mind would be making the government follow the laws of the land that it lays out for itself. The constitution is supposed to be a supreme binding principle and the government is ignoring it.”
I’d tend to say that the people are ignoring it. But, in all fairness, the constitution does give the federal government some pretty broad powers. Obviously, the power to tax and the power to regulate interstate commerce was enough to justify obamacare.
But, back to my first point, you and I could come up with some rules we were going to obey but if no one wants to obey our rules and we can’t get anyone to enforce them, they’re really irrelevant. Wouldn’t you say? If so, that’s basically what’s happening. We have a majority of people in this country who really don’t give much of a shit about the constitution and, to be fair, understand it well enough to know that they can, in fact, give the federal government an enormous amount of power through certain channels in the constitution. Obviously, the commerce clause is that channel right now. The whole premise of the constitution was that if the people ever felt that they were being oppressed that they would rise up and overthrow the government. But that’s not happening.
I’m not saying I have a solution to this problem, I’m just saying this seems to be the problem.
And as far as “what do we have now?”
I’d say we have elements of lots of different variations on what we might call socialism intermixed with what we might call capitalism to make an ungodly mess of a system.
That being said, from a political point of view, it works for a lot of people and so the odds of finding the political will to REALLY change things (especially all at once) are slim to none imo.
of course you don’t. because you think the “only” way to stop the state is with the state. But it’s completely arbitrary. It’s your personal opinion not grounded in anything of logical argumentative value that makes it absolutely the “only” way. You’ve created a strawman to how it can be done by making your opinion seem to be the only opinion. It doesn’t consider what other people may think. Therefore you think your opinion is special.
Great! Try it. I mean it’s not like your going to do anything else at this point. You’ve made a choice. Good for you. I don’t deny your choice other than I argue against it. But my argument is my opinion based on a logically valid argument.
Nearly everybody in this forum knows that. That’s a given.
yes. They are special pleaders. They appeal to emotion and coercion to get something done that people will not do without the special pleaders having to have to resort to aggression.
ok. Is that relevant to the current discussion?
The state isn’t the market. As long as there is a state there is a place in the market being socialized. Socialism isn’t the free market.
And you say “All I’m saying”. No. That’s not all you’re saying. I initially responded to you because you said the “only” way to stop the state is with a state. How do you stop something that you are using? It’s illogical. You contradict yourself.
Secondly, it’s only your opinion that the “only” way to do that is via your method. That is an act of special pleading on your part. You think that’s the only way to do it and then plead for your special, meaning, arbitrary method.
fascism is already here. and the gov’t is absolutely anti-market. The market is never free with a gov’t intervening in it. And the only way a gov’t exists is by intervention. The gov’t is the complete antagonist of the free market. The market is never near being free as long as there is a gov’t. And the way to stop the rise of any further gov’ts in the future (or now) is to act with justice and stop any criminals before they once again special plead themselves into some coercive position.
We have fascism now. That doesn’t mean it’s not going to get worse. And as long as you want to use a state, then the state will exist or at least be special pleaded to exist.
But what is the state? Who created it?
Is it not a tool like any other tool?
Check out this thread. I encourage you too. It’s a very good discussion that is building up from a very good foundation that the last few posts come to this same question. I encourage you to read through that thread and respond to that last post to keep that thread going. It’s was a very informative thread in my opinion.
But the quick answer, that I had already given in that thread is: It begins with special pleaders. And special pleaders create it in their fantasy.
If you call a machine gun on constant fire a tool, then yes. The gov’t isn’t a tool in which the trigger is ever released. It never reloads either. It is on constant fire.
But do we need to go down this path? You know my answer. I know yours.
No, you’re right, we’ve done this before ad nauseum.
This is a terrible analogy.
The state does not constantly utilize actual physical force akin to constant machine gun fire to reinforce it’s existence. If it did, it would be far more popular of an idea amid citizens to overthrow or resist outright tyranny.
However, you might eventually see this as the middle classes ( lower, upper; yes even the maligned Tea Partiers are included in this) become more & more aware of how screwed they are becoming from the Entitlement (State) Society.
Grudge the anti-entitlement actors (which include statists, but are not limited to) all you want for not being anarchistic or purely libertarian, but it would be far more effective to fight the state when there is less entitlements being funded by less sapping upon incomes.
Case in point, secession & the reduction of a federal government, where the focus of activism would become more decentralized & more asymmetrically active, & ,more likely, effective, on a smaller state level across various states that are largley ignoring a, at some point, bankrupt or irrelevant federal bureaucracy.
The threat of coercion does not equal coercion until it is actually utilized, & the inability to see state coercion as consequentially ineffective or wrong is what prevents the monopoly design from being questioned, let alone challenged, resisted, or out competed by non-coercive competitors.
Yes, you can say but if one threatens coercion, it means they would use it, until you realize this would include superficial remarks like “I’m going to kill you” said to your friends out of annoyance, but it never actually occurs.
Threat of coercion is a social reality until it is acted upon in reality by agents & has measurable consequences. It would be highly inefficient for the state to constantly back-up every instance where coercion could be used, & relying upon popular compliance & consent largely fills in this gap where physical coercion is not required by the state (I’ve always thought this was obvious by now, but oh well).
ok. It was an analogy and wasn’t to be taken literally, meaning, I wasn’t trying to say it “constantly utilizes actual physical force”. But if I try to break away from it any further, such as not paying taxes do you think it will not be backed by physical force to stop me? I once didn’t pay property taxes for one year. The local authority sent a letter that said pay up or lose the house by years end. Of course I paid it.
The whole act of ‘breaking away’ is a qualitative proposition that involves a myriad of events. Consent or no consent is quality rather than concrete. I can speak, think, or materially not consent. But that doesn’t mean the state and it’s myraid of ways of enforcement, ie. verbal propaganda and material coercion, suddenly disappears.
chalk it up to poor analogy on my part as words become futile events sometimes to express what is meant