Yea, since you are a statist. I agree with you. I am just not part of your “us.”
Back to the OP, the only way that the RNC will be entertianing, is if a f___ starts (not fuck).
it makes it look like people like me really are Republicans
And we wouldn’t want that, now would we? It would be just terrible for our cause if Republicans viewed us as of their own kind. That’s why the MSM and the GOP has spent so much time trying to prove that we’re not.
YOURS. You baffoon.
I give Rand more attention than Ron? Huh, even I didn’t know that, you truly are a sage.
You guys gotta slow down. I won’t be able to follow the drama if you all keep posting this fast.
Yea, since you are a statist
Could you please point out where I ever advocated any form of statism?
I think you know I’m not a statist, as I’ve explained my username a number of time, and you’re a regular here.
You keep saying “us” as if we agree on this…
I would like to see the GOP “sink into the ocean” (shit the DNC too). I don’t want to be one of them. I am an anarchist, not a statist. And I’m with Henry David Thoureau and the Sons of Liberty. We should not be paying taxes (as a protest because it is as “non-violent” as you can get and is the single most damaging protest available) and people should be breaking things. Tear down a JPMorgan billboard. Anonymous should be trying to empty bank accounts and EDITING documents rather than stealing them.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
it might be your name, bro.
it might also be your support for statist politicians (any of them really)
Back to the OP, the only way that the RNC will be entertianing, is if a f___ starts
Ooh, let me guess: fight.
Or maybe flood (there is a hurricane predicted).
I am an anarchist, not a statist. And I’m with Henry David Thoureau and the Sons of Liberty. We should not be paying taxes (as a protest because it is as “non-violent” as you can get and is the single most damaging protest available) and people should be breaking things. Tear down a JPMorgan billboard. Anonymous should be trying to empty bank accounts and EDITING documents rather than stealing them.
How many people would it require for that to work?
How many people would it require for us (that would be libertarians) to succeed politically?
How much harder is it to convince someone to risk prison than to write a name on a piece of paper?
…but hey, as far as going around destroying things, I’m not stopping you. I’m also fairly sure neither of the Pauls are stopping you. Have at it.
fire
Ah, well that’s nice.
it might also be your support for statist politicians (any of them really)
So if one supports a politician who is a statist, one is therefore a statist?
I wouldn’t say that makes you a statist, I’d say it makes you a collaborator.
Everyone who is not at this moment resisting the State is a collaborator.
Incidentally, anyone who actually has a chance of reducing/eliminating the State is going to be a collaborator at least most of the time (as its rather hard to fight the State from prison).
But I’ll grant you your premise arguendo. So, Murray Rothbard…statist in your opinion?
For something so empty, it sure carried a lot of media attention and political weight. Tell me, if it’s so meaningless in real terms, and only matters to those pesky uncompromising Ron Paul supporters, why bother doing it?
And what’s more, not only was this endorsement a helluva lot more than some “yeah I support the Republican nominee”, it’s not the only time he offered it. He continued and continued in multiple broadcasts.
And then, campaigns for him? At what point does someone’s support become more than “an empty political gesture”, exactly?
He sold out a libertarian movement which his father started and which millions of libertarians assumed (incorrectly, evidently) that Rand was a part of. The fact that you don’t even attempt your acrobatics here, and try to portray Rand as some kind of libertarian is incredibly interesting, as it seems a large part of your argument here is that Rand is part of and helping a “cause”…when the only “cause” he was seen as a part of until this episode was the Ron Paul / libertarian cause.
And the continuation and reinforcement of that endorsement, and the campaigning for him, and the probable vote he’ll cast…all that’s just empty gesturing, which doesn’t really mean anything or help Romney in any way.
Yeah…“us”…statists. That’s the whole point. I think you’re probably right. And that’s the whole reason for the divide. People who are against statism agree with you…they realized that Rand probably will do good work for statists, and they therefore called him out on such.
Your whole problem is these anti-statists didn’t follow Rand down this road, but instead chose to remain the anti-statists they were before his overt proclamation of where he really stands.
You call this “confusion” and imply petulance and ignorance or simple-mindedness on their part, but the reality is you’re the one who is either dumb enough to favor of statism, or dumb enough to think you can rollback statism by playing the political quid pro quo.
Here you go again with this “us” stuff. When will you get it through your head, the entire point of this divide we’re talking about is because your “us” doesn’t include all the people who have called out and oppose Rand? You keep trying to lump everyone together and I don’t really know why.
You freely admit you’re a minarchist, that’s even your handle for crissake, and a great number of the people who called out Rand would not identify with that label. Get it…they do not agree with you.
It doesn’t even have anything to do with Rand at this point. You advocate something different than they do (the least of which is statist politicians.)
I honestly can’t tell if you really are just too dense to understand this, or if you just need to keep pretending so as to make it seem like you have more people on your side.
When your politicians make things bad enough...
I’m a lover, not a fighter. I am with Noam Chomsky on this one; ‘burn your draft card, encourage protest and if you want partcipate, I however do not’ (protest) I couldn’t find what I wanted to link to but it is in this book (On Resistance). And Rothbard says it most clearly in his essay on Revolution,
People willing to go out and destroy things aren’t the ones theorizing…WE are the theorizers, the blue collar working stiffs are the destroyers.
“It takes all kinds to make a revolution.”
For something so empty, it sure carried a lot of media attention and political weight. Tell me, if it’s so meaningless in real terms, and only matters to those pesky uncompromising Ron Paul supporters, why bother doing it?
It mattered to mainstream Republicans, which was the point. It should not have mattered to Paulites.
The fact that you don’t even attempt your acrobatics here, and try to portray Rand as some kind of libertarian is incredibly interesting, as it seems a large part of your argument here is that Rand is part of and helping a “cause”…when the only “cause” he was seen as a part of until this episode was the Ron Paul / libertarian cause.
Is it possible for a politican to be useful to the libertarian cause without themselves being a libertarian? Might libertarians be able to form coalitions with non-libertarians to achieve specific, common goals? Hmm…
And the continuation and reinforcement of that endorsement, and the campaigning for him, and the probable vote he’ll cast…all that’s just empty gesturing, which doesn’t really mean anything or help Romney in any way.
Your sarcasm notwithstanding, that is absolutely correct. No Paulite is going to vote for Romney because of Rand’s endorsement. It didn’t help Romney. It helped our image in the eyes of Republicans in general, at no cost to us - well, it would have been no cost if Paulites had seen it for what it was and not freaked out.
Yeah…“us”…statists. That’s the whole point. I think you’re probably right. And that’s the whole reason for the divide. People who are against statism agree with you…they realized that Rand probably will do good work for statists, and they therefore called him out on such.
Your whole problem is these anti-statists didn’t follow Rand down this road, but instead chose to remain the anti-statists they were before his overt proclamation of where he really stands.
You call this “confusion” and imply petulance and ignorance or simple-mindedness on their part, but the reality is you’re the one who is either dumb enough to favor of statism, or dumb enough to think you can rollback statism by playing the political quid pro quo.
Is Ron Paul a statist?
Christ you’re not seriously trying for this, are you? You really are Jack Hunter.
haha, uh, yeah
You supported Ron Paul, correct? Ron Paul is a statist, correct?
Christ you’re not seriously trying for this, are you? You really are Jack Hunter.
I’m making the point that it is absurd to label a person a statist simply because they support a politician who is a statist.
Ron Paul stated seveal times he wanted to do away with income taxes, become isolationist, and do away with involuntary governmental sanction. He was (and still is) the sole modern exception to the rule. Why do you think there is outrage over his child endorsing the bombing of Iran?
hahaahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahaha
have you heard of the laws of thought?
One of them says that, “A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time.” Saying you support Rand is saying you support the bombing of Iran…you can’t have it both ways (I’ll reinvent the wheel and appeal to Aristotle to demonstrate the logic of this.) emphasis is sarcastic, JJ.