Libertarianism is neither left wing, or right wing. Either association spells going nowhere in terms of revolution.
I would rather go nowhere than have a revolution. The term revolution and revolutionaries sends an immediate uneasyness in my stomach. But yeah, the left has been a master at getting away with the tactics you described, the right usually has a bit more trouble pulling it off.
“I would rather go nowhere than have a revolution.”
Oh great, you prefer the status quo?
“The term revolution and revolutionaries sends an immediate uneasyness in my stomach.”
Why? Libertarianism is a revolutionary movement.
I guess you’re not a libertarian then?
“But yeah, the left has been a master at getting away with the tactics you described, the right usually has a bit more trouble pulling it off.”
There is no real “left” or “right”. There are the rulers and the ruled. The “left” isn’t any better than the “right” at this. They take turns. I think during the cold war the “right” did remarkably “well”, no?
I was with you until that. What makes you not want to listen to music?
I’d rather listen to a lecture tha music usually.
Conza:
I think it’s a reservation about where revolutions have historically ended up: abject tyranny.
Granted, it’s my personal belief that this must happen, and then the tyranny ultimately fail as they always do, before we will ever see anything resembling freedom again.
“I think it’s a reservation about where revolutions have historically ended up: abject tyranny.”
And you don’t think the intellectual revolution underpining libertarianism and this movement is different to the previous ones in any way? Those maintained a role for the state (or iniation of violence, i.e spanish anarchists). This one doesn’t. Seems like a pretty big difference to me.
"The steady decline in the underpinnings of our civilization began in the late nineteenth century, and accelerated during the World Wars I and II and the 1930s. The decline consisted of an accelerating retreat back from the Revolution, and of a shift back to the old order of mercantilism, statism, and international war. In England, the laissez-faire capitalism of Price and Priestly, of the Radicals and of Cobden and Bright and the Manchester school, was replaced by a Tory statism driving toward aggressive Empire and war against other imperial powers. In the United States the story was the same, as businessmen increasingly turned to the government to impose cartels, monopolies, subsidies, and special privileges.
Here as in Western Europe, the advent of World War I was the great turning point — in aggravating the imposition of militarism and government-business economic planning at home, and imperial expansion and intervention overseas. The medieval guilds have been re-established in a new form — that of labor unions with their network of restrictions and their role as junior partners of government and industry in the new mercantilism. All the despotic trappings of the old order have returned in a new form. Instead of the absolute monarch, we have the President of the United States, wielding far more power than any monarch of the past. Instead of a constituted nobility, we have an Establishment of wealth and power that continues to rule us regardless of which political party is technically in power.
The growth of a bipartisan civil service, of a bipartisan domestic and foreign policy, the advent of cool technicians of power who seem to sit in positions of command regardless of how we vote (the Achesons, the Bundys, the Baruchs, the McCloys, the J. Edgar Hoovers), all underscore our increasing domination by an elite that grows ever fatter and more privileged on the taxes that they are able to extract from the public hide." –
I turn on Beck almost every night and partially tune in, waiting for an excuse to turn it off. Tonight when the camera switched to Tom Woods for the first time I spontaneously broke out in a cheer of joy and laughter. I was so happy. And Dr. Woods did a great job.
Tom, if you’re listening, THANK YOU.
I hope Beck invites you back on his show more often.
I guess you’re not a libertarian then?
Dunno, I’ll let you define that
Oh great, you prefer the status quo?
At my current time and place it is much better than a massive revolt, yes; this compounds itself even more when looking at the revolutionary nature of the West since the 1500’s, I just don’t see much good from them. I prefer personal insurrection when it is possible, and I prefer neither myself or friends and family not dying or being the victim of “the good cause”.
There is no real “left” or “right”.
Many people are willing and capable to make a distinction, as it tends to b e useful when classifying specific problems and trends. If you can not or are unwilling to do that, that is fine, but the dialogue for this specific conversation can go nowhere.
The “left” isn’t any better than the “right” at this.
While I strongly disagree, value is subjective.
I think during the cold war the “right” did remarkably “well”, no?
For propaganda and control of information, no. The last gasp of the right was the New Deal, and even by then it was on major life support.
I guess you’re not a libertarian then?
Dunno, I’ll let you define that
Yeah, really, if you consider an amoral cosmopolitam with anti-state and customary law leanings as 'libertarian; then fine.
Every time I see anything Misesian or actually conservative on FOX I get less and less surprised. It’s not too far fetched to consider that they now feature such people as Woods, Judge Napolitano’s frequent shout outs/ etc mainly because there isn’t a Republican serving as President.
But hey, I think it’s great! The way Napolitano’s show goes down some times makes me wish a show of its caliber would be on every news channel, every day. FOX really don’t care about Austrianism as much as they care about being anti-Obama and Democrat, and they’re probably be shooting themselves in the foot by giving classical liberalism more publicity. But hey, it’s publicity!
“At my current time and place it is much better than a massive revolt, yes”
Who said anything about massive revolt? Talk about a red herring.
I prefer personal insurrection when it is possible, and I prefer neither myself or friends and family not dying or being the victim of “the good cause”.
Your complete misunderstanding of what the meaning of the term “revolution” is [for Ron Paul, Rockwell etc.], is not my problem.
“Many people are willing and capable to make a distinction, as it tends to b e useful when classifying specific problems and trends. If you can not or are unwilling to do that, that is fine, but the dialogue for this specific conversation can go nowhere.”
Many people are unwilling and incapable of making the distinction that there is 5 letters of difference between the two. If you cannot do that, it’s your loss in terms of understanding the current epoch.
“For propaganda and control of information, no. The last gasp of the right was the New Deal, and even by then it was on major life support.”
lol, wut. Yeah, because the ‘National Review and the triumph of the new right’ never took place..
Your complete misunderstanding of what the meaning of the term “revolution” is
When I use the term “revolution”, I refer to it as a social or political act, which are ultimatly failures that can only raise up other political or social conditions. Insurrection is a personal calculation and valuation of self discontent within a certain framework; that which falls outside said framework can be “rendered unto Ceaser”.
That’s my last response to you on this thread, I won’t address the rest or go into any more detail, as I just have a hunch it would be rather pointless for both of us, unless someone else on this thread was actually interested in the conversation.
I’m the same way. I don’t watch TV or listen to the radio anymore. When I’m driving I listen to recorded lectures or audiobooks. I only listen to music while I am studying (to drown out the noise around me).
When I use the term “revolution”
That’s great, except you were responding to my post. Maybe you should have made efforts to understand the way I [Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell] and others use it.
That’s my last response to you on this thread
It’s been a pleasure.
Fox Business Network is better.
They gave Stossel his own show, and now Judge Napolitano’s Freedom Watch is starting real soon as well.
Saw it via LRC:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/59300.html
That was a really excellent show, notwithstanding what I think of Glenn Beck in general.
This John Stossel piece about the ‘education cartel’ that LibertyPen just put up is also great:
Glenn Beck is a putz, but ever so often he does something great, like this show.
Am I the only one that was disappointed by the Beck piece. Maybe I expect too much, which I shouldn’t from Beck, but it seemed to me like he was just sort of dancing around what could have been actually interesting but never quite getting there. The questions he asked Tom were sort of strange as well. Like he would have this lead up sentence and then ask something that was only half related. Then he brought up business cycles, but Tom never really got the chance to bring in much ABCT, although I don’t think I knew about what was going on in Canada at the time and that they didn’t have a central bank.
I hope Tom worked on him during the breaks and that Beck can get more LvMI folks on regularly. Don’t know or care if he is a big phony or is only 10% libertarian, he has a big following, and if LvMI can ride his coat tails for a bit, I don’t see the problem. Although I wouldn’t want to get too closely associated with him. When is Freedom Watch going to start airing on television?
But thats twice now in the past couple of months or so that Road to Serfdom has been HEAVILY featured on Fox shows. Stossel did one as well. Its seems like Hayek and Rand is about as far as tv is ready to go at the moment. I guess Rothbard is not ready for primetime.
I think Tom Woods is really good for TV, because he can hide his anarchism really well, especially behind his constitutional knowledge, and he does a pretty good job of appealing to the layman.
Are there any young rising stars out there in the Austrian School? Some good looking and charming dudes who are camera friendly?
Ok, so which stage are we at? I’d say between “ignore” and “laugh”
When Tom Woods in confronted with his desires to abolish the government, then we’ll know we’re at stage 2, “laugh at you”
Same goes for Ron Paul. When he is confronted about his close ties to people like Lew Rockwell, we will be at stage 2.
For now, the statist media would rather not risk it.
@ Joe
Peter Schiff is up and coming although he isn’t very young.
The ignore stage was Ron Paul, the media blackout on his campaign and Fox news (them barring him from the debates).
The laugh stage was Ron Paul in the debates he was allowed on, and the responses from the republicans in relation to his views on foriegn policy. Or it was Peter Schiff and all the laughing heads on every business channel he went on.
The subvert stage is underway, as always. Co-op the anti status quo forces and bring them under your control. It was the CIA, National Review and William Buckley converting the old right, into the new right. It was the “anti war” movement and demonstrations and open hatred of Bush etc, which changed absolutely nothing via the election of democrats.
When people finally realise the false left / right paradigm for what it is. Only then can we proceed. Alternatively, the system collapses itself. What is put in place of it… world government? Who knows.
The fight you stage then gets underway.
Then we win.