He’s trying to appeal to emotion as oppossed to logic - like Human Action or For a New Liberty. The problem is that the Constitution isn’t that romantic and Hoover Taft or whatever DEFINITELY isn’t romantic.
It’s like bringing a girl a bouqet of dandalions and expecting her to marry you.
A possible ally isn’t an ally that already stands with you. A possible ally is one that agrees with much of your theory and can be convinced with your arguments given certain appeals.
I think you’re being persnickety. And the book has nothing to do with a romanticization of the constitution – though I doubt you’ve even read it to make such a characterization. And there’s nothing in this book that is anti-immigrant or against feminists. Though, why are these groups of people any more important than any other? I didn’t say the book was lowest common denominator marketing. Or even a marketing effort. That would be a meaningless gesture. Mises.org doesn’t write article after article keeping people updated on the feminist movement either, but few would argue that it is not an indispensable to distributing information about libertarianism. If pandering to groups is the big idea, then people will never grow up and think of themselves as individuals. But continue to be groupthink infants. People like that are not ready to call themselves individualists and it doesn’t matter.
Well, I’m sure that sounded relevant when you were writing it, at least.
I’m sure your pompous and vague criticism at the outset sounded relevant to you.
[:D]
And Niccolo has read zero pages. Yet we get two expert critiques of the text. Great!
This is what I am talking about. You don’t get the American mentality. The Constitution is infintely romantic to Americans. Moreso than any other book or document, short of the Bible.
If you go through the whole text, there are more mentions of Rothbard and Mises than any former president or American politician. And he also quotes Americans like Walt Whitman (not just “founding fathers”)… in addition to quoting Bastiat and at one point Bertrand Russel (the point being his quoting is all over the place). He quotes a few senators and other politicians (like Jeff Sessions) in order to mock their propaganda. In the case of Jeff Sessions, Sessions brought up the constitution in 2007 when he said “some in this chamber love the constitution more than they love their safety. We should send President Bush a letter thanking him for protecting us.” His quoting is not that much of the book, but he makes good use of what he does quote… hardly to appeal to any imaginary authority of some other time. But to make points.
Surely you’ve heard of Lysander Spooner? Or this American (me), who despises the constitution and holds that it has no authority (just as Spooner did). I most certainly want nothing to do with some collectivist “American mentality”, especially one that fetishizes the law.
I think I see the problem. You both are going to discredit him because he believes in minarchism (and the constitution) instead of full purist anarchism.
Though I am for anarchism, I have no hatred for minarchists. This is irrational. I think if you espouse the same economic principles as being true (and Ron has demonstrated great knowledge of Austrian economics), it is silly to simply have a scathing hatred of libertarians for not going all the way and believing in private police, military, etc.
I believe that the functionality of a minarchist, and especially a constitutionalist, barely differs from your average liberal or conservative when it comes down to it. Their minimal state becomes a floating abstraction that can be entirely comparative and the constitution becomes a legitimizing device devoid of any principle.
Neither do I. Hate is a strong word. But they most certainly do not merit outright endorsement.
Anarchists and minarchists don’t necessarily espouse the same economic principles, or if they do, they nonetheless draw entirely different conclusions from them. Furthermore, economic principles alone does not suffice. What about principles of justice? Espousing laissez-faire economics is meaningless if not even counterproductive if it has no real backbone grounded in libertarian theory and if the objective content of one’s policy positions nonetheless contradict laissez-faire in various ways.
Again, at least in my case, there is no such hatred. Hell, I don’t necessarily hate state-socialists or fascists (as people) for that matter. What I find to be irrational is an outright endorsement of this and to essentially concede to the minarchists or to continue to enable their delusion.
Paul is not trying to recruit Spooner or you. That’s my damn point. No one gives a crap what Nicky thinks. He plays within his incestuous little coven of anarchists, and spits on everyone else.
It’s one thing to think that the agora is the only way to bring about liberty.
It’s another thing to alienate 99.5% of the population and think you can accomplish it.
Paul understands that there needs to be a fundamental shift. That gradualism as a short term strategy is not only useful and desirable but necessary. The masses don’t metamorphisize into angry young men overight and start reading Rothbard.
What do you guys get, that Paul is NOT speaking to you? Are you lonely? Insecure? Need someone to pay attention to you (like Nick’s sad blog rants crying for the attention his parents have denied him)?
Nicky spits on me and others, but a good many of us are here because of Paul. And we’re ready to learn and listen, but not to be ridiculed and spoken down to.
Nicky’s lame little game (which you constantly endorse with your timely defenses) undoes whatever good Paul has done, and doesn’t seek to add anything. Nick’s the wealth destruction of inspiration. The wealth destruction of populist inertia.
The problem is that we don’t think that political populism is conductive to the end being sought. In fact, it undermines it. So yes, I will gladly counteract “populist inertia” and faith in the political process as means towards the ends of liberty. However, if by “populist inertia” you mean the economic means or the inertia of society itself independant of political bonds, I gladly endorse it and proclaim the political process to be entirely contrary to it on a fundamental level.
What means towards ends? All you guys do is mentally masturbate in tiny corners of the internet. Do you really think you’re bringing on the revolution? Arrogance and delusions of grandeur.
This type of argument (if it can be considered one at all) personalizes it and consequentially distracts from the point actually being made. This post does nothing to address the criticism of the impracticality of political means towards libertarian ends, it merely shifts or avoids the burden of proof.
Why is so much attention being given to Ron Paul when there are far better, more consistent libertarian thinkers out there? I mean alright, the guy’s good on the theory (to an extent), but if I am to devote scarce time to reading something I’d rather it be something like The Law or For A New Liberty (the actual libertarian manifesto) &c.
-Jon
And yet you hypocritically indulge and encourage Nicky to personalize all of the time.
You can search for your burden of proof. There are people motivated and out doing things. They might be doing the wrong things, but no one is going to stop and take heed of the sidewalk foreman who leads from the seat, not the front.
Because while people are recycling the books of the past, Paul is growing a movement in the present. Sure you have an obligation to be as educated and knowledgable as possible, but the attraction of actually gaining momentum, adding mass is pretty attractive, and in this regard Paul is the most successful libertarian ever.
Not only is he undermining statist Republicanism, he does it from within the state. He’s actually doing more than talking.
What? I gave no implication that I was reviewing the book. I went further than Banned and said “I’m sure it’s a fine book.” I’m critiquing the purpose of the book, the premise of the book, the author, what the book is being promoted as, and the marketing implications people like Llewellyn Rockwell and whoever else at LewRockwell.com are advertising.
But this applies to almost everyone. Everyone is a possible ally. And in my experience, it is far easier to persuade other stereotypes than feminists, since modern feminism is very much based on coercing statistical equality.