What we call ourselves.!

[John_James]

@grant.w.underwood

When you say that capitalism doesnt fully express the details, that EXACTLY why im for it.

So you’re for labeling something, just so long as the label doesn’t really give anyone a good understanding of what’s inside. Great philosophy.

It doesnt require the 95% of the population to believe in anything different from what they believed yesterday.

Here again I think you’re really getting close to delusion.

Lets do it the other way around! if 95% of the population knows that capitalism works best economically then lets push that!

One more time:

“Abolish capitalism, and replace it with socialism.”

“I’m pro-intervention”

“[Capitalism doesn’t work]”

President of the United States: “[Capitalism] doesn’t work. It has never worked.”

(Yes, yes, “THAT’S NOT CAPITALISM” blah blah blah. Again, I just don’t think you’re going to trick people into being against intervention by somehow convincing them they just don’t have the right definition of a single word. To be honest I’m not even sure how you’re going to convince them about the definition in the first place, but even if you could I’m not sure how that’s supposed to change the political philosophy of interventionism espoused by more than 95% of the population…people that you claim actually are for the opposite.)

@grant.w.underwood

We want to unite the people not divide it. We can talk all day to people about freedom and they wont care. Ask if capitalism works, and they will agree.

You have got to be kidding. You go around and ask 20 people if “capitalism works” and I’ll go ask another 20 if they’re “pro-freedom”, and we’ll see who gets more "yes"s.

I’m afraid you really are delusional.

"people are literally outright saying “I’m pro-intervention” - just as we are the innovators, the 2.5%, those people are the 2.5% for socialism.

1. advocating freedom does not make us “innovators” by any stretch of the imagination. I’m sorry to be the one to break this to you.

2. if only 2.5% of the population is in favor of socialism, how in the hell do you explain Barack Obama getting almost 70 million votes [23% of the population]? Then you got another 60 million for John McCain. That’s anoter 20%. So that’s more than 40% of the population (63% of the voting public) outright casting their support for socialism.

And I’m supposed to believe “pro-intervention” is only 2.5%? Flip it around. I will bet you any amount you want that it is less than 2.5% that isn’t pro-intervention.

Not kidding. Bring me anyone who doesn’t already identify with the term “anarcho-capitalist” and I’ll show you how they’re pro-intervention.

All i care about is the silent majority in the middle with 68% of the population. If those are the people we are up against we cant lose. If we draw a line in the sand, that government isnt capitalism (which i believe vast majority of people will understand and believe)

Then my friend you are delusional.

@grant.w.underwood

then those advocating intervention will have to say they are something other than capitalist.

They already proclaim it, loud and proud. I have no idea what you think this will accomplish. It’s as if you think everyone wants to be known as a “capitalist”, and they’ll do anything to be part of that club…so all you have to do is convince enough people that interventionism isn’t capitalism, and the interventionists either have to convert or get shunned.

This is total nonsense.

as for gary johnson’s campaign stragedy - they still have to vote libertarian which only 17% will do. Could we of really asked for a better candidate than Ron Paul? How do we expect anyone to be better than him?

Ah so you think Gary’s problem isn’t his strategy, it’s just he’s using the wrong word. Instead of telling everyone they’re libertarian, he should be telling them they’re capitalists, and then all of a sudden he’ll be President.

Okie dokie.

Plus I really want to reiterate this point. “Capitalism” does not imply anarchism. This is the reason for the specificity of the terms that are more widely used to describe the political philosophy of property rights and non-aggression.

i was the in the 68% and didnt even waste time looking at ron paul. Although i like a lot of what he said i didnt waste anytime reading up on him because i thought he was just like every other politician (basically because i knew he wasnt going to win).

Well then you’re in a severe minority of the population you group yourself in with.

So i picked up ‘revolution’ and then he had to convince me that in fact those things that i disagreed with him on that I was the one that was wrong. Thats almost impossible considering how hard headed i am.

Would you look at that. Ron Paul converted even a hard headed curmudgeon like you. Yeah. Total failure, this guy.

@grant.w.underwood

If he just would of preached capitalism, something that i knew was right and moral, pointed out how the other candidates arent capitalists i would of been voting for him without a second thought. Thats something i could relate to. Thats something 95% of the population relates to.

No, it isn’t. You’re delusional. 95% of the population does not believe “capitalism” is “right and moral”. Did you see this? Have you talked to any random person outside the Mises forum?

Do we as libertarians really care if people vote for libertarianism in the name of capitalism? Do we care if social democrats vote for libertarianism because economically speaking its the right choice? NO.

What we wont get, as Ron Paul proved, a majority of the people voting for our concept of liberty.

what? Then what the hell are you arguing? You seriously just made my point for me. Your entire argument is that people innately support “capitalism”, and all you have to do is convince them that “capitalism” is anarchy, and they’ll be on your side…because they already support capitalism…so once they get the definition right, everything will be right as rain.

…yet here you literally just said that just because people vote for libertarianism in the name of capitalism, it won’t lead to a majority of people voting for our concept of liberty.

So what in the world are you arguing?

P.S.

“Capitalism” does not imply anarchy. This is the reason for the specificity of the terms used to refer to the political philosophy of property rights and non-aggression.