According to this news presentation from what I believe is a political action committee supporting Lyndon LaRouche. It’s pretty funny if you make it through the whole way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiSMBG4WSxY
P.S.: If anybody could tell me how to embed Youtube videos here, it would be much appreciated. I realize there is a Flash button on here, but I couldn’t get it to work.
These are libertarians and it’s a parody. Right? Right?
I’m pretty sure it’s not, this came from Larouche’s Labor-supporters. The Windows Movie Maker text was added by a libertarian though.
Oh. You’re saying the creator of the video is the idiot and the uploader put it on YouTube to make fun of it? PS, for the format, I’m too lazy to look right now, but just respond to a post in the January Low-Content Thread and see how they formatted the video to make it show up.
Hitler was an Austrian!!!
He and Ernst Kaltenbrunner were such Austrians!
And who started WW1? Austrians! Do you see the pattern?
Seriously though, libertarians need a response to the “they wanna cut social spending” argument. We’re always a little hapless in the face of it. The problem is that the other side gets to equate government cuts with, you know, starving the poor. They can sneak in their main premise, that government spending helps the poor, by never stating it out loud. Since they leave it unstated we can’t refute it. So I think we should attack that implicit premise: Government spending is not good for the poor. Without government spending the poor would be vastly better off because the economy would be more productive.
As an anarchist, I am comfortable that the mainstream think Austrian Economics is un-american…
I used to stop by and talk to the LaRouche guys as they canvas all over the place around my town. They are truely comical and extremely easily to confuse, which is probably due to a lack of understanding in their own beliefs. I never had problems in confusing them on just about any issue. They would always be polite so it was easy to engage in fruitful discussion. Though in the process I found that many of them hadn’t been as well read as they like to present themselves.
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
As an anarchist, I am comfortable that the mainstream think Austrian Economics is un-american…
[/quote]
I agree, I don’t mind of people see it that way you can arguably make the case that if the USA adopted more Austrian ideas it would become a stronger nation thus strengthening America (sounding pro-american). Of course in reality a lot more people than just Americans would benefit but you get the idea. You could make your case sounding more pro-american and humanitarian than the government supporters (without sounding pro-state).
I sometimes go that route and make my opponent sound like he supports the actions of criminals and hates his fellow citizens, but only when I know there’s no hope with the person I’m debating with and won’t absorb logical discourse. So I throw a curve ball at them and they’ll either think I’m totally nuts or get hit with a perspective probably no one has ever rendered them with and leave them thinking. Neither outcome I object to 
Ah, the LaRouche folks. They were wandering around a certain campus last year, trying to hook the children with lines line “You don’t want Obama to kill you, do you?” Naturally, I sidled up to them, listened for five minutes, and then pointed out the obvious. “Oh, no, no,” said I, “Obama isn’t going to kill anyone, though his ideals might. Your disguised socialism, however, will starve and murder millions.” And, as the crowd laughed, they defended their honor. “But we aren’t socialists! We’re totally different. You see, we think that money is going to kill us all, and we don’t really need it since we can all just have credit cards or some garbage, and you can totally understand because it’s obvious, even though you don’t see it, like electromagnetic waves. You can’t understand them because they are invisible, but they work even if we don’t know it, just like our ideas!”
So how else could I respond? “Are you suggesting that magic will save us? If not, please explain. Because you’ve made very, very broad strokes, suggested that it is something intangible, but somehow you seem to understand it. If you are human and can understand, then so can we. Please explain how this is not magic.”
And, the stock response, as usual: “You’re not the kind of person we’re here to talk to. You’re a bullshitter.”
The crowd laughs merrily and walks away. Game set, Valject 1, LaRouche 0. Though I’m tempted to give them a 0.5, since none of them shouted “But ham will fall from the sky!” as everyone walked away.