I like that.
Except you need love man. Its all about love. It all matters no more if there is no love. We gotta spread some love. Thats what libertarianism is all about.
@ Silva,
Well I would consider love as being under the living and happy part.
Maybe this is more common among the internet bourgeois. Like I said, it’s a case of psychological projection; I see most of Ron Paul/Tea Party’s support among the white lower class. At most half of the base is arguably a wealthier college demographic, but I’d need to see data to confirm that.
I don’t see it as often in the mainstream tv/radio media though as I think it can backfire on them. This is because the GOP (who the public still thinks is somewhat related to libertarianism) has had the edge in this rhetorical battle and has used it against liberals to great success (you know, the whole ‘big government limousine liberal elitist who cannot relate to the average American’ bit).
To me the bipartisan consensus view as spread by the media seems more along the lines of ‘insane racist prole’.
Which is only a short hop from ‘Timothy McVeigh’s best friend/terrorist’.
The biggest problem with libertarian rhetoric is that it is not being projected 24/7 to all major forms of media, that people are not forced to learn it in schools, and that it is not favoured by academics. Libertarian rhetoric only fails against statist rhetoric because of the sheer propaganda power of the latter, and the resources - both in terms of money and sheer force - that back it up.
Well not really. In schools you hear the words: freedom, equality, opportunity for all! Freee speech, free people, rights for all, etc, etc.
Its that the words do not match with the actions that they portray. People think that the words like freedom, equality, opportunity for all, free speech, free people, rights, etc, are all supposed to be part of politics and government, instead of just a normal aspect of life itself.
So how, then, is that libertarian rhetoric???
Its not. People hear freedom and opportunity, free speech, etc,etc private property, american dream, capitalism etc, etc.
Its just that they do not know WHAT It is!
You spout libertarian rhetoric at a statist and theyll think youre talking about romney or bush or reagan.
While in fact we talkin bout rothbard, ron paul, and anarchy.
Why have this notion that if it is continually presented in front of them that they will the accept it? This whole “educate them till they are libertarian” thing doesn’t seem to have legs to me. People are different. Few do not know about libertarianism. Why try to continually force it in front of them?
Who is forcing who?
If they tell you that they dont want to hear it, you ought to shut your mouth or they might punch you in the face.
If libertarian propaganda were as ubiquitous as statist propaganda - forced upon people from cradle to grave - libertarianism would probably have the same status as statism does today. But there is nothing in it for those who hold power to effect that.
I’ll stop talking about liberty when people stop forcing their way of things on me.
what if they force your mouth shut?
"What, that approximately 50 percent of voters support someone advocates government intervention over someone who can’t express their ideas and who is perceived as a corporate dog? What would have been revealed if Romney had won?
It is exactly that Obama’s policies WON’T WORK. And that things will get worse, and be more associated with big government.
We will see a whole generation that has never known a popular president or government, and has seen leaders from both side of the isle fail time and time again. What more could we hope for to lead to more despair over government? What more could we ask for in an attempt to destroy the two party system than this?"
If you see it that way ;-). It’s similiar ot the ESM here in Europe, it can not work but hopefully will help to end this era.
Anyway I can not see any popular president or governement for more than a generation. At least not in my life-span. And that’s now around 46 years ;-(
Why have this notion that if it is continually presented in front of them that they will the accept it? This whole “educate them till they are libertarian” thing doesn’t seem to have legs to me. People are different. Few do not know about libertarianism. Why try to continually force it in front of them?
To Andrew Cain:
Exactly. This is why we should wait for the system to collapse and to, before that happens, position ourselves in such a way that we can prevent any new national state from asserting itself. Attempts at revolution or succession IMO, w/o the general socio-political preconditions present are all in vain and only encourages the statists. Likewise education is nearly worthless since (1) our ideas do not require that everyone should hold them and (2) people lack the prior knowledge to make sense of our doctrines.
The only value in education is in “preaching-to-the-choir”, that is, in establishing a firm remnant that can carry on our thoughts.
Y’all be tripping. Not only does majority vote not matter, Nobody won it anyway. Only about half the people eligible to vote, did.
(Apparently Willy bet me to that point)
the majority vote, is the majority of those who vote, not the majority of those who are eligible to vote.
How can there be a majority vote without the majority? That makes it a minority vote. Racist.
I think the problem is actually more insidious than that. In my view, every human is born a libertarian. We don’t even need “cradle-to-grave propaganda” to convince people to be libertarian. They’re born that way. The propaganda is required to sustain the statist quo.
I think that the upper echelons of the Elites are fully aware of this and are doing what they are doing with eyes wide open. As Kelvin mentioned already, the words “freedom” “liberty” and so on are hijacked in the schools. In my view, this is only the most mild form of hijacking. In other words, the Establishment proactively works against libertarianism and treats outbreaks of liberal sentiment as a disease to be stamped out as quickly as possible.
As an example, take the civil rights movements. You have “(ethnic) minority rights”, you have “women’s rights”, you have “gay rights”. There are a few others but these are the heavy hitters in modern political discourse. These rights movements serve the exact opposite purpose of actually granting popular rights. Huh? They act as a firewall or “pressure release” for the public demand for greater freedom. They channel freedom sentiments in certain, safer directions.
And, furthermore, they can be “cross-linked” with other anti-liberty ideas. For example, you will find that women’s rights and gay rights folks generally believe you have to have a powerful welfare state. What is the connection? There is no connection except that everyone says there’s a connection. So, rather than having genuine interest in freedom (sub-heading: women or sub-heading: gays), you have this idea that “we want to preserve the rights of women and gays brain-scramble so we need a big welfare state.” The right-wing is trapped in the same thing… “we want the right to free association and dissocation brain-scramble so we need a powerful military and massive civil rights violations”.
These cross-linked memes are not happenstance. They are devised by the think-tanks, which are really extensions of the Pentagon and CIA… they are part and parcel of the control complex. One of the useful things that libertarians can do is identify and vaccinate these virulent memes. It’s fairly easy once you know how to see the patterns and you know how to “snap” the memes. For example, one technique is to take two memes and splice them together against their own will - what if a couple have a child on the way through surrogate pregnancy and the surrogate mother decides she wants to abort when the father discovers that he’s gay because she doesn’t believe a child should be raised by gay parents? Whose rights take precendence? Gay rights or women’s rights? And so on. You can do the same with punishments and invasions (e.g. they can’t keep shivs and drugs out of prison and they do cavity searches in prison… so what is the purpose of nudie scanners again?) and so on.
Every time you point out these kinds of dilemmas, you call into question the sincerity of the government’s “commitment” to “rights”. Why was the Pentagon the last organization in the US to repeal its homophobic policies when US law has required private companies to respect gay rights for decades?? If the government cares about the welfare of poor people, why is it collecting taxes from Americans who are struggling to put food on their table and sending “foreign aid” to foreign countries? We’re supposed to believe that every last mouth in America has been fed, every last person sheltered, every last health expense has been paid and we have billions of dollars left over to send around the world? Because if that’s not the case, I don’t see how you can justify taking from hungry people here to pad the pockets of foreign dictators and the domestic banksters they are in debt to feed poor people over there.
Carlin was a master at this. “They don’t give a fuck about you, they don’t give a fuck about you, they don’t care about you at all, at all, at all!” The foundation-stone of modern governance is that “government cares”. And we have the upper hand because all we have to do is just keep pointing out the obvious. We don’t need statistics (they can help but we don’t need them). We don’t need studies or think-tanks. We don’t need big-budget advertising. All we have to do is point out the obvious and keep telling the solid-gold truth.
The person telling the truth has the upper hand because when what you’re saying is true, you only have to say it once and it sticks in people’s brains and they can’t shake it out. All the evidence around them keeps resurrecting that one remark you made a few years back. “Governments print money and cause inflation. The Fed prints money and is responsible for inflation.” “No, sir, that is false!!” OK, come back and talk to me in 20 years. As prices rise exponentially, the truth becomes more and more insistent. It’s like an alarm clock that you can’t shut off and only becomes louder and louder. Eventually, you’re going to wake up whether you like it or not.
This is why Ron Paul has been so effective. While he’s definitely juiced up the freedom movement far more than any other single individual, we don’t need to keep “trying to win”. It has helped us immensely, but business as usual is what will win it. I keep seeing a lot of people saying “we need to reform the system” or “we need to infiltrate the political parties.” This is the classic mistake that has been made a million times before. Early successes lead to impatience for completion, which leads to a willingness to jump on bandwagons promising quick change. There is no quick change worth having. If you want change worth having, you’re going to have to be patient and wait for people to see the light and really change their minds. That takes time. But they themselves will help us do it… all you have to do is keep telling the truth. Nothing is as infectiously repeatable as the truth. No engineered meme has a chance to keep up.
Clayton -
Well either way my point that the only problem with libertarian rhetoric is that it is crowded out by statist propaganda stands.
politics has always had a minority of a population involved.
i’m not sure libertarian ethics or at least the book an ethics of liberty would be enherent or known to every child. the philosophy seems more of years of human advancement in thought then anything people would be born with.
i think we are born in a way that would include predation and slaugher of one another, at least that would be learned from environment of creatures in nature partipating in predation and slaughter of each other.
chimpanzies engage in predadation and slaughtering of each other, i don’t think there is anything magical about human nature so different.
societies have violence inside and outside the family