I wouldn’t put you in the same camp as ML, who seems to think everyone here has some sort of phobia of taking action against the state. I think the burden of proof arguments must be what he’s misinterpreting, as some sort of refusal to offer any alternative to the State. But that isn’t what the argument is intended to show. Maybe he should just also accept that some people are better suited as thinkers, others as leaders, others as strategists &c., and stop holding everyone to the same standard. I’m with you on terminology, as I don’t think we should constantly surrender terms to idiots whose purpose in life it is to not think and just to follow other idiots (i.e. state “intellectuals”) who’ve bent them out of all proportion, pushing libertarians into corners all the time. Careful explanations are better than falling prone to semantic games.
That’s a good post. And I think it dovetails nicely with mine. Maybe the problem is that some people are more suited to being thinkers, and maybe this community is geared more to that segment.
As far as idiots owning us, and surrendering to the statists, this is merely a question of commitment, confidence and courage.
If one really believes that liberty is worth fighting for, then why aren’t they? And I don’t necessarily mean violent confrontation, but I am not going to include blogging and article writing as “pushing back”.
I think what it truly boils down to is his way or the highway. If you don’t buy into his way, you’re “doing nothing”. A huge mischaracterization.
It’s not our fault (or my fault) that you clearly prefer minarchism over anarchism. In my view, that’s your own shortcoming.
I think part of it is that people initially come into the libertarian movement entirely unaware of its history and literature, and then end up being shocked when they discover that they are interacting with anarchists.
As far as “Miseans” are concerned, what do you mean by the term? I’d venture to say that the Mises Institute is dominatantly “Rothbardian”, with Rothbard representing an extension on Mises and a move in the direction of anarchism.
The rejection of the term “capitalism” is not a particularly popular position here, so it’s not representative of the general crowd.
Once again, this is a misrepresentation. I also think that you severely devalue the internet as a tool for education and debate. I don’t see why blogging about liberty should be viewed as a bad thing, wether it’s just a personal blog to get one’s thoughts out there or a serious attempt to educate. Indeed, if it weren’t for libertarian internet blogs, I somehow doubt that half of us would be where we are now.
I found “Ego” to be a troll who obviously entered the forum as a newb, without really knowing much about what or who he was dealing with.
Any number of circumstantial factors might be involved. One may think taking action is too risky at this point and not worth the costs, or that other pursuits should come first (e.g. students wanting to educate themselves first, to get a handle on certain ideas before advocating them to others) and so on. I’m sure there are anarchists who are genuinely averse to doing anything but preaching, but there’s no reason to generalize this to all those who have other priorities at present. ML is being unfair to a lot of people in his denunciations of them, and leaving himself vulnerable to the exact same criticisms, whilst blatantly ignoring circumstantial factors, that he could not possibly know without asking directly, and which might be none of his business anyway, as if he’s some sort of inquisitor or something.
What he[ML] is doing looks like a scam to me. And in my not humbly opinion, a cop/soldier like him should be, at the very least, ostracized, instead of being regarded as any sort of libertarian ‘leader’ (what a joke!)
That’s not an argument - that’s a fallacy.
Wait a second. Isn’t Rockwell an anarchist ? At any rate the banner at LRC says ANTI-STATE, ANTI-WAR - what’s that supposed to mean ?
I don’t know. Ancaps and vulgar libertarians are the same thing ? I thought that Rockwell was a voluntarist (and so his support for RP doesn’t make much sense from that point of view) But then, LibertyStudent seems to believe that Rockwell/Mises Institute are mainly miniarchists, and so their support RP would make sense…
I don’t think so. Most folks won’t own up to doing “anything”. I haven’t seen unchecked hubris on his part, he’s been very open to criticism and critique. Much more so than many people would be comfortable doing.
See, that’s what I am talking about. I don’t prefer minarchism. But minarchists are active. Anarchists are inert. Rothbard preferred minarchism towards the end. Now Murray wasn’t nuts, he knew exactly what he was doing, Lew knows exactly what he is doing supporting Ron Paul. These are not stupid men.
I think you need to get out of the house more. Honest. I’ve travelled to several countries, educated half way around the world, owned my own business and picked up bits and pieces of several languages. I might be further behind the reading curve of my early 20-year old anarchist tutors, but I am not lacking for life experience, not all or even most of which has been an experience in statism.
Arrogance.
I’d like to know what your pal Carson thinks a Misoid is. It’s not the Ludwig von Rothbard Institute last I checked. I read people here write that Mises was a minarchist, and then now I’m being sold that it’s really the Murray Rothbard Institute? C’mon now. Is Mises a minarchist or not? Ron Paul? Hayek? Hazlitt? These are the people who helped put this place together. Lew served on Paul’s congressional staff. If not minarchists now, surely they were minarchists when the Institute came into existence?
What general crowd?
LMAO. I owned more domains last year than you will probably own in a lifetime. I’ve been at this since 1995. I don’t devalue the internet. I devalue people who think that blogging is their big contribution. Who do you think raised that money for Ron Paul? Web professionals in marketing and search engine optimization, or people with blogger accounts? It sure as hell wasn’t his staff.
Of course you did. Ego tried to directly confront you. He might not always have been right, but you almost always sought to evade his questioning.
Well, you charge up that big brain of yours. Maybe one day you’ll be leading the revolution, shouting quotes from Prodhoun and Tucker.
I dunno. Hating on the cops is so juvenile in my opinion. There are literally billions of people who work with, or for the state. I’m not ready to condemn them just because a bunch of (not referencing you) 20 something anarchists have never had a chance to escape mommy and daddy long enough to make compromises and get some dirt under their nails.
I don’t doubt Lew is an anarchist. I just think he’s got a more seasoned and mature attitude about it than the young folk who preach straight from the book.
Didn’t Rothbard work in a University? Wouldn’t have received income subsidized by the state in one shape or form?
It’s fine and dandy being a puritannical anarchist when others make the compromises for you. Not so easy when you have to go out and compromise like the rest of us.
You have a bad misconception of anarchists. You rely on faulty assumptions in claiming that “minarchists are active, anarchists are inert”. I also don’t buy into arguements from authority.
It’s interesting that you’re personalizing everything.
All I was saying is that the Mises Institute is dominated by Rothbardians, and Miseans are different from Rothbardians. There are conflicts between the views of Mises and Rothbard. Yes, all the people you mentioned were minarchists. What are you getting at? It seems like you’re grasping at straws and dancing around.
The general crowd at this website and on this message board.
I never claimed that blogging is my big contribution, nor did I see anyone else claim this. It’s you who keeps up bringing blogging as a personal attack against people who blog here. You constantly do this - personally attack me and others for spending time blogging about libertarianism. It’s an easy cheap shot to make without having to actually make an argument about anything.
Nonsense. Ego strawmanned the hell out of me and others. He clearly didn’t understand what he was dealing with.
At least I have half a clue about what I’m talking about, unlike those who never heard of Tucker or even demonize and oppose such libertarian figures while claiming to be libertarians themselves.
How am I trolling? Trolling would be to purposefully be inflammatory to get a response. I’m merely making observations and arguments. You react to them with venom (and you enter the discussion with venom, clearly taking pot shots at me, before I even say anything). That’s not my intention, it’s your own shortcoming. Clearly you have an axe to grind with me, since you constantly target me.
All I’m doing is observing that most of the people at The Mises Institute are closer to Rothbard’s ideology than Mises’s (which, personally, I view as a good thing). You do realize there is a difference between the two, right? For one random example, Mises was more of a utilitarian while Rothbard hated utilitarianism. I don’t know what’s so shocking obout this observation that makes it worthy of a vitrolic response.
You’re making a knee-jerk reaction to me based on misconceptions. There’s nothing I can do about that besides try to clear up the misconceptions, but that seems futile given your attitude.
I already called you out today on strawmanning, and now for you to call me out on personalizing, when you have personalized several posts to me (likely more to others) makes you a troll. In fact, this deliberate hit and run nonsense, where you refuse to directly answer a question, or accept a challenge to debate a tactic (Agorism) you have endorsed.
I get it. You’re trying to frustrate me and wear me out. That’s a great tactic, if I don’t know you are doing it.
Yeah. Mises ended up with an Institute named after him.
My attitude is that you’re quick to criticize, slow to respond. Which, is the making of a hypocrite.
I have to go, I’ll be back tomorrow to see if you’re willing to debate or answer back honestly, without practicing the art of the dodge.
What about some individuals who frankly have to take a while to respond because they are still learning & don’t feel confident about what is being discussed? Surley being a student is an automatic qualifier for being a hyprocrite.
Hmm, I don’t like or agree with your comments; I think you are trolling. [:O]
When I was young I didn’t hate the cops because I didn’t have a clue about how the system worked. Having taken a closer look at things, I’m afraid I feel no love for these fine and honorable gentlemen.
But despite my feelings for them, I think my point is valid ? Cops have nothing to do with libertarianism. On the other hand, if you think that ML’s project is worthwhile you’re free to join him, no ? And I’m free to hate the cops ?
Here’s the closing of a podcast from Lew Rockwell, posted today
“I would also argue that we need to get angry at the people who’ve done this to us. This is not a matter of error. These are not people who’ve made an error and they really didn’t mean it and by mistake have put us in this situation. These are people who’ve ripped us off. They’ve ripped off the average American with their inflation their spending their wars their regulations, all for the benefit of the government itself, and the special interests connected with the government, which, folks, does not include you and me.”
Thanks for the unsolicited covering fire. I do appreciate it.
My point in starting this thread was to simply argue that if there is no demonstrated viable alternative to the state then the statists win by default. We can’t simply continue to argue that the state is this great evil doing all these horrible things and then have no solution. I will be making a new post about other actions we can take so I look forward to your comments.