Where did I imply otherwise?
-Jon
Right, this would be all of the illegal, anarchist hispanics you run into. [8-)] Nothing like the American, voting hispanics who were at the Rally for the Republic.
Yeah, I’ve heard he isn’t very big in Italy with all of the bigtime anarchists and tax protesters.
are you implying that hispanics are usually inclined to be antagonistic to the libertarians?
rally for a republic? why?
max stirner came long before ayn rand. if you prefer her over him, I think you might be the one applying aesthetic fetishes.
Niccolo got banned? What did he say if I may ask?
Ask Anton Sugar. That’s his latest sock puppet.
You say this in jest but I actually have met people who fit your description. I live in South Florida, I can tell you, people such as these actually do exist.
Because that is how you get earned media.
By outdoing the RNCWC and the RNC and holding a huge rally of 12,000 people, with all sorts of speakers. It was like a Ron Paul rock concert. It would have made you uncomfortable to see so many people cheering Rockwell when he mentioned Rothbard, and chanting against the FED.
And then that is how you have a big press conference with 3 other candidates, to ask people to vote 3rd party, or to become a principled non-voter.
It’s anarchy in steps. It’s working…
Possibly. If the minarchists / limited government types could get free association wider regonition I would be a bit more optimistic. I still think reformism & direct action need to go hand-in-hand, despite my personal preferrence for direct action.
I’m still a bit surprised he managed to get the other 3rd parties to agree with going against the FED though (minus Barr who is still out in la la LP land).
Today, there was a thread about Rockwell on the CFL. We know he constantly says voting is a waste of time, and his official position is education over reform. It’s coming. People can’t be rushed to what comes so easily for you young fellas who haven’t necessarily solidified previous forms in your minds and lives. It’s easy when you are single and unencumbered to be radical, not so simple with society’s norms dragging you from morning to night.
That was a real coup. Even though Barr acted like a child, he was done now that Palin had solidified the disgruntled GOP base, and the Paulites were split on not voting and Baldwin. Getting Nader to agree is big because Ralph does a lot of rallies and talks, he campaigns very aggressively and he has a very substantial base of activist leftists.
That’s the test around here, everyone wants to argue that leftists are more likely to be anarchists than rightists, well, getting Nader to promote peace, sound money, the debt is a gateway. These people will bounce to the CFL site, and possibly here or LRC.
I’m sure the same people who will cry about Ron Paul’s immigration ads, will cry about Nader being a socialist, but they are really missing the point. It’s the young Naderites who have never considered libertarianism or austrian economics or anarchy that are the prize worth catching, not converting Ralph.
Anything is possible under anarchy. [:D]
no. why a “republic”? if he’s such a libertarian, why a “republic”? in fact, why “the republic”?
by the way, what media attention did you people get, anyways? you really think that jesse ventura is the type of role model that libertarians ought to look at as a pillar for inspiration? you really believe that any of it will last as long as the cloud of those two early 1990’s articles for USA today linger in the background?
if anything connected to Llewellyn Rockwell ever did get big, it wouldn’t be difficult to tear it all apart. it would happen as soon as rockwell launched from the ground.
if you’re building your foundation on the caricature of Lew Rockwell, you’re constructing your house on sand. As soon as the subject of Rodney King is brought up, say good-bye to libertarianism and hello to a new dark age for the liberty movement.
I’m wondering out of pure curiosity. Why?
If I were to agree there, it would only be as an appeasement to the sensitive reformists who will cry in a loud howl because agorists won’t let them join in on all the reindeer games.
I’m wondering. What good is it to devote all resources to a bueracracy as opposed to a market?
Why do you think that ron paul’s sites and rockwell’s sites are the epitomy of libertarian and without which, no one is a libertarian?
I personally find both rather a waste of time, redundant, and generally just conservative.
Well, Ventura hasn’t been banned from Mises yet, so in that regard, he is one up on you Nicky.
The idea is not to appeal to cynical passive libertarians. It is to appeal to people who are NOT libertarians. You’re not the remnant. The people out there who need education and a push in the right direction are!
The way I see it, you can lead, follow or continue to whine about what Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell are doing wrong, instead of going out and doing something right on your own.
Complainers are, typically people with too much free time on their hands, and no accomplishments of their own to talk about.
And you were banned and rejected from this forum, and for some reason, had to sign up again, and hang out where you are not wanted, and anyone with self-respect would have had the good sense to stay away from (for some time at least) such a place. I know, I’ve been banned from a forum or two in my lifetime. You move on, you don’t hang around. That’s lame.
Why do you read LRC if you think so little of it? Why do you comment on Ron Paul if you have a more persuasive argument?
You don’t have a better argument, you don’t have any resources and you are not making things happen with your philosophy, so you’re behaving like those shills at TNR, Reason and Weekly Standard, attacking someone else, because you have nothing to offer.
Take a break. If you are using Firefox, install Leechblock. Start your own blog. Write about a tactic, or a book review or something. Because tearing other people down, is not a method to build yourself up.
What are you talking about?
so do you think jesse ventura is someone people ought to look to as an example of libertarianism or not? if not, then what are you trying to do here? be intentionally deceiving? appealing to people on a less stringent level is one thing. deceiving them into believing that their ideas are already libertarian is another.
I don’t know what I have to do with it. you know nothing about me and know nothing of what i do. i’m here on an internet forum and so are you, if you’re going to define that as “doing nothing” then isn’t that calling the kettle black?
i’m sure not even errico malatesta spent every waking second directly battling the state.
when was i banned? who do you think i am?
i actually don’t read Lew rockwell’s site anymore, nor do I comment on Ron Paul outside of this forum. And as far as “a more persuasive argument,” critiques are apart of making persuasive arguments.
If Ventura is not a libertarian, that does not mean that everything he says has no value. That’s your problem. You take everything to an extreme. Nuance eludes you. The sort of person who gets frustrated trying to read poetry because it is not bashing you in the face with a brick.
It was a rally for the Republic. Ventura rallied for the Republic. Libertarians got some time, but it wasn’t a libertarian rally.
I know that you spend a lot of time writing attacks on things, rarely explaining anything, or offering a new idea. I know you have some anger issues, and you lash out people who are several degrees closer to your ideology than the thousands of statists you reserve no judgment for. Which is sorta, very phony.
Lol.
IMO, I see little good to complain about those who still prefer reformism despite being informed of direct action; some will always remain reformists, some will eventually go to direct action, some direct action users might go to reformism, etc. Conversations , discussions, certain individuals, etc. may or may not have a hand in that.
As per my desire of a voluntary society, I don’t see it as appeasement to accept that reformists might not agree with you. Appeasement would be ceasing one’s own activities to devote one’s resources to one’s cause (in this case, for you*, the market as opposed to bueracracy).
*[I say for you only in that in my current position, I am in little position to exert my resources into the market aside from mild forays into ideas (a blog to organize & develop my thought, card game to explore the alternatives to statism & associated political thought via parody & game, etc.)]
The moment I start focusing on my opinion somehow being “superior” to the reformist’s opinion, I am reminded of some of the very things I do not advocate: elitism, political power over another (even if it’s only perceived political power or, in this case, the power of my opinion being sueperior to theirs), forcing my opinion onto others (i do not think you are necessarily doing that, but I think the thought of one’s opinion being superior, leading in a possible discussion into a tangent of who wins & loses an argument, leads eventually to such), etc.
It would be a further waste of my time complaining to those who think reformism works better than direct action, but do not discourage direct action.
I’d rather spend time talking with reformists who are close-minded to direct action, as well as aforementioned direct action myself, than to analyze why my opinion on direct action is not winning over others.
To get back to the point, I see reformism & direct necessary percisley because not everyone is going to soley go with one approach over another. I take a meta-view and view the dedication to one single approach as ultimatley self-defeating & a possible tactical error.
Power concentrates & intersects at many points, & so must the fight against such power (in this case, statism). Arguing for one approach over another goes against an overall dencetralized approach of fighting power.
Sorry for the wordy post, I could’ve been a bit more concise, I admit.