You’re Nicky. You were banned. But you can’t spell John Gault, and it tipped me off because it’s an inside joke behind the Community John Galt Appreciation Society.
You’ve already outed yourself in the last several posts to anyone who knew you from before.
Which the Ron Paul event got so much of. [8-)]
OH NOES! It’s the MSM/BELTWAY LIBERTARIAN CONSPIRACY!
my name isn’t nick.
i’m not entirely sure what you’re getting too.
I’m just guessing; they were checked before admitted into the area.
Well, at least they didn’t have any South Central blacks in the vicinity.
This is lame Nicky. You’ve obviously got some emotional issues, doing the sock puppet game is just sad.
Lol.
I just sifted thru all 4 (to date) pages of replies and can’t believe that some hasn’t ‘nominated’ this person - Alan, the Undertaker, Greenspan. He was mentioned as a note in another post here, but not as A major player in the Sell Out of Liberty contest here. After all, this brown nose who had written so well about money - in correct terms - then jumped into the Fed and immediately pulled the best imitation of Keynes that ever was!!! Keynes couldn’t have done a better job of funneling fund into the pockets of the Powers That Be even with coaching from Machevelli.
Jain
I nominate everyone in the libertarian movement who has ever said that mainstream philosophy is a joke and a waste of time.
Why? Because people don’t buy into the political process as a means to acheive anything? Now, don’t misintepret what I’m saying, I’m still undecided on the merits of the political process but it just seems to me that most people promoting Ron Paul point out all the people on these forums who are here as a result of his campaign and fail to realise the thousands of people that now equate libertarianism with watered down conservatism, the libertarians who now support a Berlin Wall around the USA whilst we have the welfare state and the people who now see libertarians as a bunch of xenophobes as a result of this. And what about all those people who before really couldn’t have cared less about politics and now fervently support states rights and the constitution?
LS, out of interest do you support a smoking ban in public places?
On one hand I often find myself thinking along these lines, we needn’t limit ourselves to a single means in attempting to abolish the state. There are people out there who no matter what will never practise counter economics for whatever reason, even if they’re perfectly aware of it’s merits. Even most radical libertarians, from what I’ve seen on this forum, are still unwilling to distance themselves from the political process, perhaps because for however many years of their life it was all they knew, I’m sort of in this group myself.
On the other hand I also think that the political process can be very counter productive to the liberty movement. One example is the LP, which has basically been hijacked by conservatives and has caused many people to look upon libertarians as a bunch of conservatives that don’t mind drug use or whatever. Furthermore, I see it useless for libertarian anarchists to ally with minarchists, at the end of the day there’s a huge difference between the two, far bigger than the difference between minarchists and big government types. I think the fact that most libertarians come to anarchism from libertarian makes them more friendly to minarchism than they should be. All this said, it makes even less sense to side with conservatives whom we now often consider to be our natural allies. It makes far more sense to look for potential allies amongst socialists, who at least often have the same ends as us and are just misguided on the means.
No.
You’re making a generalization that is refuted by plenty of evidence here on this forum.
They are on the first step of the liberty staircase. Look, like Ron Paul or not, no one else is reaching as many people, and no one else is bringing so many people to libertarian ideas, libertarian thought, and libertarian organization. No one. You can fault his methods, but I really don’t want to waste yet another day trying to defend Ron Paul against some imaginary standard no one else has reached, and it’s unlikely many if any will ever reach.
Ron Paul’s message is for a certain audience. It’s like a bike with training wheels. Speed racers like on this forum, might resent someone preaching hand signals, and ringing the bell and training wheels, but there are a LOT of people who have never considered their situation rationally, that benefit from having training wheels to get started.
Should guys like you and I be hanging on RP’s every word? Heck no, we’ve moved past that. But for many people, he’s an introduction to the path we have taken.
What is a public place? I believe in property rights, and thus if someone wants to allow smoking, or disallow smoking, that is their prerogative. If I was a club or restaurant owner, I would want to be able to allow smoking on my premises. As a recently reformed smoker, I don’t see a need to punish people by making them stand outside in the rain and snow to smoke, when the property owner would be just as happy to have them indoors.
I don’t even understand where that question comes from. I wake up every day and walk around with an intense distrust and resentment of the state.
I’m an anarchist. I’m just not a left-libertarian.
Care to point me in the direction of these refutations?
You’re right in that Ron Paul is reaching plenty of people, all I’m doing is questioning the message and the results. Don’t get me wrong, I’m here as a result of his campaign, before that I was a standard neo - con. Nonetheless, it doesn’t change the fact that his message has discouraged minorities, brought many libertarians over the idea of a Berlin Wall, done yet more to link libertarians to conservatism and more. I’m not saying he hasn’t helped the movement, he has, I’m just saying he’s done a lot to harm it.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m undecided on the merits of the political process and Ron Paul, I’m just saying his supporters ignore the damage he’s done. The problem is his message is love for the constitution, which most certainly isn’t libertarian, and that plenty of people who otherwise wouldn’t give a shit about politics are now very much in favour of the constitution.
I was just wondering, since it encourages people not to smoke, I thought it’d be an intervention you’d be in favour of, since it should bring down the cost of healthcare, at least whilst we have the welfare state, right?
It’s a useless distinction if you ask me, if you’re a sincere libertarian you’re a leftist, of course I don’t include minarchists and vulgar libertarians in this but that’s just cause they’re not really libertarian.
Vulgar Libertarians. Minarchists. Sincere Libertarians. Leftists.
No thanks. I’m happy to be an anarchist, and not have to fit myself into the right/left false paradigm. Others, may feel differently.
In a political sense I view “right” and “left” to be languages if you will. People on the right and the left can be brought into libertarianism but you need to speak their language. You need to address their concerns in different ways. I certainly agree libertarianism falls outside the right / left paradigm however. The Advocates for Self Government have a wonderful series of tapes and cds on communicating with different groups of people. They are a great resource.
How about Jacques Rousseau: Ideas on unlimited democracy: Will of people is voice of God
•
Karl Polanyi should also be listed here.
-Jon
Hm. What about the ‘libertarian’ founding fathers who were also slave holders ? That’s really messed up.
Responded to myself for bonus points. [:)]
It says a lot that this sort of question prompts a libertarian feeding frenzy. It seems imperfect libertarians are bigger threats and enemies than outright statists and authoritarians.
Imperfect? I though it was a matter of possible hyprocrisy, not perfectionism.