lololololololololololololol
Libertarianism Is Not ‘No Gun In The Room’ | VforVoluntaryTV
+1 Nielsio!!!
I think some libertarians actually are for “putting down the guns” on an idealistic optimism regarding the perfectibility of human nature (i.e. that it is possible to have property in an absolutely pacifistic society). I think Roderick Long is very close to this view.
And you’re 100% correct that it’s not enough to say “I’m against aggression” because people define aggression in various ways. “Taxation isn’t aggression, it’s just the price of living in a civilized country. If you don’t want to be ‘aggressed’ against, move to Somalia and see how much better you like it there.” It doesn’t matter whether you’re defining aggression as “initiation of violence”, the real question is what are the legitimate uses of violence. Most people accept initiation of violence as legitimate in many scenarios besides protection of property. Just citing the NAP to them does not constitute a substantial challenge to their point-of-view and actually comes across as dogmatic.
Clayton -
I think the best way to get to some people is to talk about the golden rule and social cooperation. Most everyone is aware of the golden rule, but they are not really aware of the NAP. Point out that the vast majority of people do not even use violence (offensive or otherwise) on any given day, and that almost everyone engages purely in voluntary and social cooperation. Then talk about certain actions that if we, the regular people, were to engage in, we would be committing crimes, but if agents of the state do it, it’s considered okay. Don’t bring up taxation yet. The first actions to bring up should be obvious cases of police brutality or other cases of hypocrasy among lawmakers. Start with actions that are just obviously wrong to anyone. Over time, you work towards actions that are less obvious, but still seen as “reasonably” bad by most people. Such actions might be police breaking into an innocent man’s house and arresting him, only to apologize later. Start talking about strict unlimited liability for police. That if you or I were to break down a man’s door and arrest him and find out later we were wrong, we would be imprisoned for trespass, breaking a man’s door down, false imprisonment, kidnapping, assault, etc.
Once you get someone started on the path of eliminating double standards that are obviously bad, then even if they never make the leap to anarchy, you still have someone fighting to eliminate some double standards.
Taxation should be one of the last things to bring up. It’s not obviously wrong the same way murder is obviously wrong. Plus, in theory (and in practice for certain things), taxation is supposed to pay for services and whatnot. So most people will shut their mind down.
Does anyone know of a good writeup or video on the absurdity of the “lesser of two evils” nonsense?
Propaganda technique: Lesser Of Two Evils
@JJ: Wow, I think that could be really effective in illustrating the point!
I think this actually occurs on a grander scale than just Democrats versus Republicans. For example, it is my view that al-Shabaab in Somalia is a creature of CIA. It is a breakaway group of hardline Islamicists (not all of them are actually Somalis). The idea is to inflict al-Shabaab on the country and then allow the UN to “swoop in” with its “real government” that will deliver the Somalis from the dreaded hardline Islamicism.
Clayton -
Schooling Amazing Atheist on States Rights
Does the Fed have any bullets left?
http://buzz.money.cnn.com/2012/06/01/does-the-fed-have-any-bullets-left/?google_editors_picks=true
lol at the pic
Why the unemployment rate will fall
http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/01/news/economy/unemployment-benefits/?google_editors_picks=true
The contradictions inherent in the system must inevitably come to one helluva crash, at the worst possible moment. The 2008 crash was just the beginning.
These sorts of things will be inevitable as long as politicians are allowed to monkey with economic policy, creating artificial distortions in markets and price structures that eventually become untenable and result in far worse consequences than the policies were designed to avoid in the first place.
And always with good intentions. The 2008 housing crash was caused by the idea that ‘every American should be able to own their own home.’ It sounded good, sounded compassionate. It was stupid.
We need, among other limits, a government constitutionally limited with a separation of economy and state.
Hundreds of years ago, via the experience of our ancestors in bloody Europe, we learned why a separation of church and state was necessary. Now we need to learn this new lesson. No better time than now. No better people than we.
Obama a socialist? Many scoff, but claim persists
Attorney: George Zimmerman was confused, fearful
MF Global trustee threatens suit against Corzine
Radio host Boortz retiring, with Cain to step in
Kids could someday get on Facebook, without lying
These Reports Prove Aid Doesn’t Fuel Tuition Inflation…Except They Don’t
Ron Paul’s GOP Battle Reveals Some Truths About Political Parties
The truely ironic part of this dumb article could be that the unemployment rate could and is rising despite the number of people leaving unemployment roles and falling into the “Grey” economy.
There is one positive point, that when the crash of the size that Peter Schiff and others are predicting, the USA will desperately need the services of “Grey” an “Black” markets to keep the country going.
Where is their evidence that the Fed had any “Bullets” to begin with. The Fed does not create wealth. It simply creates money to buy current debts. In essence it moves wealth to those who the Fed pays with money created from thin air to those who lose wealth because their money is worth less. Now the the Austrian Economists have for 3 generations pointed out that money and or credit expansion does not create long run wealth but mearly sets in motion the business cycle. And the worst part is that as more and more money gets created to create the appearance of new wealth the bigger the crash.
I think this headline is hilarious:
Spain says markets shutting it out, seeks EU help for banks
Translation: “People aren’t lending to us anymore, so we need to take money from them anyways!”
Obama says he’ll portray Romney as extreme libertarian
President Barack Obama is previewing his next strategy in the 2012 campaign — an audacious effort to paint former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and the majority GOP as radical libertarians that have abandoned mainstream American politics.
ThatOldGuy, I daresay that that won’t be Obama’s strategy to be elected over Mitt Romney as it will be to try to break the liberty movement’s momentum.
Oh you daresay do you? (this is meant in jest)
But seriously, couldn’t such statements -once the media get a hold of them- be rejected by Romney supporters thus hampering the liberty movement? (i.e. “Romney’s not a libertarian… he might want to scale back government [yeah right], but he’s not so naive as to be a libertarian”). Portraying him as being associated with the liberty movement is clearly meant as an attack on his thought process, credibility, image, or platform.
I don’t see this “strategy” and your opinion to be at odds with each other.
Maybe Obama won’t actually use this strategy but this could hamper the movement. It could make people (perhaps those unfamiliar with the Austrian School or anarchocapitalism) feel more uncomfortable in admitting their libertarian perspective to their peers if this story is circulating. Maybe they could be pressured to gravitate toward certain political views as a result. Paul’s campaign -the results of the convention notwithstanding- has given an enormous gift to the movement by making relatively obscure political discussions not only relevent but intriguing (would thousands of college kids pick up their buddies, hop-in-the-van-style, to go hear a speech delivered by a 76 year old OB/GYN talk about monetary policy with out Ron Paul? Who knows- but he’s done it). I doubt that this single strategy could “undo” all that Paul has done, but it can hamper the advance of the movement.
‘Mr. Trololo,’ Russian singer who found unlikely Internet fame, dead at 77
Покойтесь с миром.