These two statements contradict one another. An anarchist wants to do away with “everything”.
Please figure out what you are.
…
I would like to get to the point where we could do away with everything.
Um, I thought most supporters of libertarianism wanted to make really radical changes and do away with government right away? Am I wrong then?\
Also, I meant that a lot of people would be repelled by the ones that want to do away with all the stuff about discrimination. People would think you’re just going back to the 60s and stuff. That’s what I meant.
We don’t need to persuade them, but educate them.
When the mases will realize that they do not really need a government then they will act consequently…
What is the motivation for the “masses” to support limiting governemt agencies?
Even if someone found the button that would motivate people to give it a try, what benefits would they see afterwards?
Would these potential benefits, if any, outweigh the comfort of simply supporting the status-quo?
And what is the problem with that? Is smoking weed ‘immoral’? If so why?
Nothing in excess is harmless. Though you are not going to get lung cancer from smoking a single joint.
Well if they don’t have legal marriages…then they don’t have every freedom you and I have do they? When the state is eliminated, I will consider this a non-issue but until that day it is a social injustice.
You need to talk to more people besides just myself.
You still don’t get it as do many of Paul’s supporters. This is irrelevant. What matters is what people believe and unless you want to deal with the problem you will never get anywhere. Associating truthers with Paul’s campaign was catastrophic.
This shows a lack of strategic thought and understanding.
What was the goal? To get all of Paul’s supporters labeled nutjobs? If so then they did an EXCELLENT job! Yes the polls were spammed.
How Ron Paul Supporters Spam Polls Exposed
No I understand the reality far too well. Campaigns are all about image, Paul’s got ruined for many reasons and ignoring them does not make them go away.
Marketing and spamming are two different things. Paul supporters spammed like crazy, thus were associated with Junk Mailers. Marketing is about selling your product not spamming it.
The problem? You think campaigning for something that causes brain damage is a good thing? What does morality have to do with anything?
There is extensive scientific evidence of the negative respiratory effects of smoking weed…
Impact On Lungs Of One Cannabis Joint Equal To Up To Five Cigarettes (British Medical Journal)
Long-term Marijuana Smoking Leads To Respiratory Complaints (Archives of Internal Medicine Journal)
Marijuana associated with same respiratory symptoms as tobacco (Yale School of Medicine)
Marijuana Smoke Contains Higher Levels Of Certain Toxins Than Tobacco Smoke (ACS Chemical Research In Toxicology Journal)
Marijuana Smokers Face Rapid Lung Destruction – As Much As 20 Years Ahead Of Tobacco Smokers (Respirology Journal)
Marijuana Worsens COPD Symptoms In Current Cigarette Smokers (American Thoracic Society)
Research Confirms Adverse Effects of Cannabis on Respiratory Health (University of Otago, New Zealand)
“Social injustice” what are you politically correct now? So you support statist recognition? Irony?
Many things caused bodily damage however just because it does that does not infer that we should stop people from partaking in it and naturally to partake in it you have to have it.
Yes I know that. I never stated it was harmless when used in excess. If I were to smoke a joint once in my life, I’m not going to die because of that one joint. If I smoke weed for 20 years then I may have some problems.
…No…I’m not politically correct. That is just what I call it. And WHILE the state exists, establishing equality in RIGHTS is what I believe to be a goal in libertarianism.
Actually, I don’t need to do anything. And you don’t know how who or how many people I talk to. The statement is like many of your other posts. You assume knowledge you don’t have.
Indeed, it is a problem. Most people are like you. What they believe is amoral and conflicts with objective reality. Which is why the walls are falling down around them.
I agree. But that was the reality of the campaign.
This proves my point. You confuse online organization and mobilization as spamming, and won’t credit the fund raising to it, but you make this point…
Quoting the neocon idiot blog LGF. Unbelievable. Combine this with your other positions, and I think you just outed yourself as a neocon. Did you read the sort of comments made about Paul on that site? Do you really use LGF for any sort of libertarian purpose?
Second of all, do you even understand what that post is trying to claim? Did you read it? Can you understand what they are calling spam?
This reminds me of when that neocon douchebag Sean Hannity accused Paulies of spamming the post debate text polls, when it’s a known fact that you can only text once per phone #, so in order to spam, people would have had to had registered thousands of cell phones.
It may have looked like spam, BECAUSE PAUL HAD THE MOST ORGANIZED ONLINE CAMPAIGN THAT WAS DECENTRALIZED AND EVERYWHERE AT ONCE. It was anarchy in action for crissakes.
Paul’s campaign was not about image, and it was not about winning. It was about ideas.
Indeed. I work in this field daily.
First, this is an attempt to conflate some people with hundreds of thousands of online supporters. Second junk mailing is a specialized business, and the people who junk mailed did it deliberately to damage his campaign. There was an expose on TechCrunch or Wired or something like that. Again, you only have the first bit of what you have heard, you don’t have intimate knowledge of the subject matter.
Secondly, you seem bound and determined to attack people who engaged in legit activism on and offline.
You should leave the marketing talk to the people who took part in the Paul campaign, and do some of this stuff for a living.
Poptech,
Maybe you should take your own advice. You’re babbling about marketing and tailoring messages. You should then realize that your clueless remarks about drugs are not the kind of thing that sensible libertarians want to hear. Again, if you are a puritan, or want to appeal to puritans, then go preach to puritans.
Libertarianism is all about laissez-faire - letting people alone. If on the other hand, you want to pander to control freaks who are interested in dictating what their neighbors drink, smoke, watch, etc, then you are in the wrong place.
This guy seems to do nothing but parrot the neocon line on everything. Linking to the flag-waving Nazis at LGF is really beyond the pale. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that he “supports the troops” or some such idiocy.
The question the neocons never quite answer: what prevented the supporters of the other candidates from doing the same (so-called) “spamming” as the Ron Paul supporters? Nothing.
No, that’s libertinism. Perhaps it is you that is in the wrong place. Libertarianism is about letting certain lifestyles compete with one another in the market place, and let me give you a clue, high time preference lifestyles aren’t viable when they’re not being subsidized by the state.
People need to have the right to make mistakes, and learn from them. Freedom of choice, anyone?
No, that’s libertarianism. Please spare me your clueless conservative dogma.
No and he’s not said that.
Equality in rights, if you want to get married to your gay partner, that’s a choice. What you’re advocating is using the state to pander to everybody’s own preferences.
Have you been hanging out at Cato lately? Because that sounds a lot like their modal libertarian nonsense.
You can’t keep on repeating that sort of nonsense. People do lots of things that clueless conservatives don’t like, or understand, or both. The idea that activities that are as old as the human race exist because they are subsidized by the roosevelt welfare state (or similar) is a joke.
You are wrong. Libertaranism is synonymous with laissez-faire.
You assume they must compete, and cannot cooperate. This is an error you have been repeating for months. It’s the result of having a very narrow vision of free markets.
High time preference lifestyles may not be EASY in the absence of the state, saying they are not viable is less than straight. You only have to look at the diversity between peoples and countries now, as we have a sort of non-world government anarchy going on. Not all are equal, and not all share the same time preferences in culture and custom, but nonetheless, there are different systems working to achieve different ends.
I think he implicity states it.
Equality in rights is a choice?
What I am advocating is that the state allow that which they already afforded to other individuals.
You clearly don’t know basic economics. High time preference destroys wealth, low time preference creates wealth. In a free market, wealth is everything.
What does this sentence mean?