That’s the kind of comment to be expected from ideological elitist whose views do more to push people away than draw them in. Of course it’s your ideological purity that is attracting thousands to agorism daily right? The agorist revolution is just days away! Soon the whole mass of people will wake up and decide to stop supporting the state! Keep dreaming. Reality has other plans.
I have more personal reasons for having distase in Paul.
And his tyrannical lust and affinity for the Constitution (which doesn’t help in any way move people towards desireing more freedoms) is both appauling and shows his true intentions, that is, he wants a society ruled by elietists, who, out of moral fiber and the goodness of their hearts, promise not to weild their sword against the individual. I’m not going to be as dumb as the first US citizens and buy into it. The current constitution has been one of the greatest power deals of american history.
Also, I didn’t become an argorist by being treated as a god for my love of Paul.
I’ll first apologize for my earlier comment. I have no excuse for personal attacks such as that.
I like Paul, not for his devotion to the Constitution, but for the other parts of his message. You know the free market, non-interventionsit, sound money, personal liberty, etc., etc. stuff. But even this misses the point. I support anyone that is willing to go out there and talk and actually work towards the goal of less government and more liberty. I’ve always felt there is a place for radical agorist actions as well as using the political machine if for nothing else as a big soap box to educate people from.
Here’s a good quote that pretty much sums up the way I feel about Ron Paul and his campaign:
[quote=“Anthony Gregory, [An Open Letter to Anarchist on Behalf of Ron Paul]
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory153.html)”]
The poet and pioneer in pharmacology, Dale Pendell, has formulated the concept of “horizon anarchism.”* Our goal should be to move ever closer toward anarchy, toward freedom and voluntarism, even if we do not achieve the full ideal in our lifetimes. To eschew all radical reform proposals that do not go all the way toward our ideal would be folly. After all, we will likely never see all criminality and violence eradicated, even if we were to somehow achieve political anarchy; yet that is no reason not to move forward and celebrate all progress toward our goal of a peaceful, voluntary society. Similarly, we might never see the total absence of government – this is no reason not to welcome all steps in that direction.
[/quote]
WHOA! What?
Ron Paul an Anarchist?
Immigrants are the only ones taking services? What?!?
You got it pretty ARSe backwards.
First, Ron Paul is not an Anarchist… AT ALL. Forget the immigration bit, he preaches it for “following the rule of law.” What Anarchist do you know that preaches “the rule of law” (i.e. government statutes)? Moreover, Ron Paul voted down a proposal to limit the gun waiting list from three days to one. Why? I don’t know. Maybe he rejected the premise based on the US’ Constitution. But that makes him a CONSTITUTIONALIST and not an ANARCHIST. Not to mention always voting for the payment of said systems he “opposses”. Now, maybe Ron Paul’s rhetoric is nice and even some of his actions are helpful, but to call him an Anarchist in disguise is SUCH a stretch!
Second, why does it matter where the people are from? Anyone taking a welfare check is obviously evil, mirite? What reason do you have for singling out brown people of a Catholic religion? What reason does Paul have? I’ll tell you, the fact is that Paul is NOT singling them out for that reason at all. He IS exploiting nationalism for the purpose of hurting another group of people - perhaps at his benefit, who knows? - and he IS guilty of an xenophobia. Ron Paul is a classic, wonderbread, Texas “good ol’ boy.” The only difference is that he’s read up on some Mises - forgetting that he too was an immigrant… Furthermore, going again to the Anarchist bit. If for the welfare, then why just single the immigrants out? Why not Native Americans and native Americans? Well, Paul says that it’s because the immigrants have “broken the law” and dem lawbrickers gottabe punish’d spitts in jar
[8-)]
P.S. No. I quite frankly couldn’t give less of a damn about “slow progress.” Your type of progress is paradoxical in nature - it’s a contradiction, a house made of sand.
Yes, I excuse Europeans because when I speak to European Anarchists, not only do they not support any facet of the state - who are you going to point to that does? The Non-Anarchist ATTAC that every Black Bloc participant other than the ATTAC’s themselves hate? - but they are FAR more responsive to the contradiction of a “libertarian” politician than their American-YankeeDoodle counterparts. Not to say that all Americans are like this, I’ve met many - converting more than Paul relative to the scale of resources - that are different, but the inherent trait is the acceptance of government as a necessary evil or a necessary evil for change.
Europeans reject both notions.
[/quote]
And if by “moving closer” through insubstantial and flash-in-the-pan means you paradoxically set the movement back farther? Then what? What of when you waste all of those resources? What then?
I do think Niccolo is a little too harsh on Paul, but on the other hand, we would be foolish not to recognize the danger and utterly misguided nature of an anarchist movement siding with conservatives, or constitutionalists. Just as Paul has a place in the revolution, I think Niccolo and his (sometimes) misguided sermon on Mount Agora against Paul has a place… and Bob Barr is a pissant.
Oh, I didn’t say that Paul doesn’t have a place, just that his time is over and now it’s time to deconstruct and destroy any ounce of dignity he has attained. You could say that Ron Paul was the “necessary evil.”
One thing I forgot to mention is that Niccolo seems to know his target audience pretty well. He is probably not steering potential libertarians away from libertarianism because his target audience is already radical anarchistic libertarians who are still infatuated with the political means. So I dont think we should worry too much about him scaring the general public. Correct me if Im wrong Nic…
Agreed
Direct hit.
Once in business school, you really do have an ability to understand who knows what about marketing. [;)]
Once you have a business, and have to turn a profit to eat, then you start to understanding marketing.
Because customer service is a component of building a base.
The most successful entrepreneur, is the one who can maximize profit. Good luck maximizing profit by putting yourself inside a niche within a niche.
You are anecdotal evidence of the contrary. Don’t you see the irrationality to what you are posting?
Let’s work with the idea that Paul is trying to recruit libertarians. He recruited you. In this regard he’s a success. If you truly believe that his Constitutional rhetoric is harmful, and should be discarded, then it totally undoes the notion that his preaching Constitutionalism is going to lead to all sorts of undesirable consequences.
That is, unless you see yourself as superior to most other people.
Paul is only just getting started. After the election is over, he will be one of the most popular political figures in America with the platform to speak to and influence ideas.
Deconstructing and destroying him is a futile waste of energy. Promote your ideas. Promote what’s good about your position.
Only the very young, angry and confused will buy into “hating the man” as a reason for joining a movement.
Sigh…
[8-)]
When you show me you have any ounce of knowledge pertaining to the academic applications of business, marketing, economics, etc. I’ll take you seriously on your suggestions in regards to whom I should target. Until then.
[D]
If you want to be associated with the wonderbread Paul, then fine. Please, distinguish yourself from libertarianism and ask Paul to do the same thing though.
And no, Paul, the Constitution is not “pretty libertarian.” It’s a government document, the opposite of libertarianism.
Also, you’re trying to give me advice on marketing again… [D]
Well there are a lot of very young, angry and confused Americans.. .
More than that, I doubt people will join a movement just for hating Ron Paul - personally, I think he’s a kind old man, just confused and a bit of a xenophobe. I, however, am trying to convey that reform will not work, it will only suck the life out of the movement. Ron Paul happens to be the ring leader of the reformists - the head. In Ron Paul’s case, thanks to people like Llewelyn Rockwell, he has become so entrenched within the Ron Paul movement that if his followers were to see him as discredited they would become so disenfranchised that there’s little possibility in reconciling with the man.
Ron Paul will be discredited one day, whether by me or another. I am trying to distinguish my product first and remove it from Ron Paul. Chances are, the “Paulians” will fall in line with a similar doctrine once Ron Paul is exposed and the flame of his “legacy” as a faux-libertarian is extinguished. Look, he’s a nice old man, but he’s not uncompromising and he’s not a full blooded libertarian. Movements tend to either radicalize or compromise as they progress. I’m betting the Ron Paul movement will radicalize with his disappointment.
You want the strategy, that’s it.
That’s what I said.
Please find me the EXACT quote where I said immigrants were the only ones taking welfare services. Stop to try and make it look like I said something that I didn’t.
I say that about you with every single one of your post.
How is it a stretch? And besides I said I THINK he is one and I could be completely wrong. But that doesn’t matter does it. Any advancement towards more liberty is far better than your idea of standing in the corner crying because no one is doing things your way. And for you edification the bill you are referring to are amendments to HR 2122 which was sponsored by Carolyn McCarthy. House Amendment 216 required a mandatory three day waiting period if you were buying a gun at a gun show, which Paul voted against. The other amendment 215 required that background checks be completed WITHIN 24 hours. Not that you had to wait 24 hours before you could get your gun but that the dealer couldn’t wait around and had to get the background check done that day. I don’t see why that is such a bad vote?
I don’t single out people from Mexico. I single out people from Mexico, South Korea, Brazil, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan or wherever they come from. Again, you are trying to make it look like I don’t like Mexicans or something. I don’t like people sucking off of welfare – period – and I don’t really fell like supporting another 30 million people, and I don’t care where they are from.
Gee…I always thought it was because our welfare system can’t even support the people who live in this country and when people from other countries move here and don’t pay into the system and suck more money out of it making MY taxes go up then why shouldn’t I be concerned about immigration? The more people that come here and the more screwed up the welfare state gets in this country is only going to make politicians want to throw MORE money at the problem. Where does that money come from? My pocket. Get rid of the welfare system and then I don’t care WHO moves here because I wont be supporting them anymore. Until the welfare system is gone I see no reason why I should support open borders. It’s just going to cost me more money.
Except he’s not a Texan. He’s a Yankee. Just cause he lives in Texas don’t make him one. You can’t argue this one. I happen to be a Texan and to suggest that ANYONE from another area of the world is a Texan just cause they move here is an insult (see my nationalism shining through?).
Ah, so now he’s against all immigrants? Wow…
I don’t think I’ve ever, EVER seen an instance where Paul has EVER supported the welfare system. In fact I’ve seen PLENTY of places where he says stuff like:
[quote=“Ron Paul, [Rethinking Birthright Citizenship]
(http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/130/rethinking-birthright-citizenship/)”]
Make no mistake, Americans are happy to welcome immigrants who follow our immigration laws and seek a better life here. America is far more welcoming and tolerant of newcomers than virtually any nation on earth. But our modern welfare state creates perverse incentives for immigrants, incentives that cloud the issue of why people choose to come here. The real problem is not immigration, but rather the welfare state magnet.
[/quote]
Or
[quote=“Ron Paul, [Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State]
(http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=707)”]
No one can deny that welfare programs have undermined America’s moral fabric and constitutional system. Therefore, all those concerned with restoring liberty and protecting civil society from the maw of the omnipotent state should support efforts to eliminate the welfare state, or, at the very last, reduce federal control over the provision of social services…More importantly, since federal funds represent resources taken out of the hands of private individuals, increasing federal funding leaves fewer resources available for the voluntary provision of social services,…Today, government welfare programs have supplemented the old-style private programs. One major reason for this is that the policy of high taxes and the inflationary monetary policy imposed on the American people in order to finance the welfare state have reduced the income available for charitable giving. Many over-taxed Americans take the attitude toward private charity that “I give at the (tax) office.”…Voluntary charities also promote self-reliance, but government welfare programs foster dependency. In fact, it is the self-interests of the bureaucrats and politicians who control the welfare state to encourage dependency. After all, when a private organization moves a person off welfare, the organization has fulfilled its mission and proved its worth to donors. In contrast, when people leave government welfare programs, they have deprived federal bureaucrats of power and of a justification for a larger amount of taxpayer funding… hope my colleagues will learn the lessons of the failure of the welfare state and embrace a constitutional and compassionate agenda of returning control over the welfare programs to the American people through large tax cuts."
[/quote]
[quote=“Ron Paul, [Sorry, Mr. Franklin, We’re All Democrats Now]
(http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=661)”]
Domestic welfare programs are not sustainable and do not accomplish their stated goals.
[/quote]
What I’ve never been able to understand is your hatred for anyone who is trying to bring even a little bit of liberty back to the people? I personally think it would be a win against the state if we could get rid of some regulations, get rid of some taxes, maybe even the income tax, get rid of the welfare state, etc. It’s the all or nothing attitude of agorist that will see them winning no friends and influencing no one. They will continue to live in their sad little angry worlds while others are out there trying to make real changes to the way things are done.
If that’s not what you meant, then why are you singling them out?
It’s a stretch because if you called him that in public, he would jump in disgust.
Second, no. That isn’t the bill I’m referencing. There was a bill, some time back I don’t give a shit about the number, that would have reduced the waiting period to purchase a gun from three days to one. I believe there were a few minor compromises, but none that would cancel it out.
So you’re just a xenophobe and not a racist? Good for you. [*-)]
My question still stands. Why then just “kick out” the immigrants? Why not the black community? Or the white community? Hell! Why not just kick out everyone that can’t get by thanks to the artificial barriers to entry into the market placed by the government and its hoards of big businesses?
Actually, Ron Paul’s argument is that the welfare state cannot co-exist with justice (i.e. open borders) because it will drive the nation bankrupt - excuse his inability to actually do math there… - and so because America is good and righteous, all nationalists have to build a fence and keep them out.
Besides, they took 'er JAM!
By the way, talk about bitching about the problem and not doing anything to stop it.
You don’t like taxes? STOP PAYING TAXES! I have.
[^o)]
Well why not? More immigrants means more people and libertarians HATE people, mirite? Who knows… They might… they might take… WELFARE!!!
Who knows what that could lead to!
No. I meant if his xenophobia is because of his worries about the welfare state, then why not Native Americans and native Americans? Why not kick them out to?
Well, I proposed a reason. Because immigrants without papers tend to give less of a shit about the state’s statutes and so they don’t follow them.
His argument comes down to, “follow our immigration laws.”*
*Rethinking Birthright Citizenship
What type of Anarchist cares about the state’s statutes?
First, Agorists are making real changes all over. Head out to New Hampshire. Though they are not conscious of their counter-economics there, they certainly are practitioners. Then head out to my neck of the woods where things are just beginning. Now if only I had $25 million dollars to blow on losing my presidential bid only to spend it on my congressional seat later… Ouch.
Second, “rolling back” is fine until it confuses and contradicts the general movement itself. Ron Paul, if left to his own devices, will run the movement into the ground of Republican-lite (much like the US’ LP has). He’s compromised and so - corruptible.