Well, full disclosure - I actually volunteered on Ron Paul’s campaign and put up quite a few signs for him, even though there’s a lot I disagree with him about,
because Ron has a coherent viewpoint and set of principles and sticks to them consistently, even if its alienates powerful people
and
because he’s pragmatic about his beliefs - he understands that even if he dislikes all ‘big government,’ he knows he can’t do everything and so he has priorities for what he’d go after first, because, for example, an illegitimate tax to fund illegitimate violence is more egregious than an illegitimate tax to pay for old people’s health care, even if we accept that both are illegitimate.
Honestly though, I find that kind of coherence lacking in most politicians who invoke libertarian arguments - it’s usually just libertarianism when politically convenient, which usually breaks down as "socialism for the rich and well-connected, but capitalism for everyone else - in other words corporatism, and I’d take real capitalism over that any day, (even if it’s not my first choice, because I’m pragmatic).
Regarding the ‘shock’ that some Republicans/Tea Partiers are defending this: what do you expect? It’s politics. If it was a Republican being assaulted by Obama supporters, you’d see a lot of Democrats doing their best to justify it. These people need to protect their group identity.
And regarding the curb stomp, I just saw the brutal Sopranos curb stomp for the first time a few days ago. I wouldn’t wish that on even the most annoying leftist.
That goes without saying. Leftists like to place themselves on moral pedestals but they refuse to actually educate themselves when it comes to the issues. What defines the left is their ignorance of economic theory and their endless appeals to emotion.
That goes without saying. Leftists like to place themselves on moral pedestals but they refuse to actually educate themselves when it comes to the issues. What defines the left is their ignorance of economic theory and their endless appeals to emotion.
Moving into politics, it is pretty difficult maintain the fiction of principle. Since by its nature it is a position of privilege. This is why most of the political people attack each for either having stupid principles or not following their ‘supposed’ principles. You’re pretty much asking for big questions and can only hope to God no one asks them. Or if people do ask them, they are too distracted… or you can fire back with ‘you too!’
Still, I think that it would be more rational for RP and this young person to have an authentic discussion. Maybe even one that deals with some of the anxiety the young person has around the experience of RP himself. And resolve these issues realistically. I find the avoidance of such discussions to be a problem. There shouldn’t be any violence, but at the same time there should not be such meanspirited ridicule towards RP unless RP even knows what they even mean to say and can respond in earnest. Maybe they do have something so important to say that RP will quit or people will not vote for him. But that doesn’t seem to be the case if they give him some ‘Republicorp’ badge so they can later have a snicker on their blogs.
Even if I think both would be better off quitting politics, I don’t see why this rational way of dealing with it wouldn’t be better.
-as a sidenote, I do not yet understand how Rand Paul has become so popular. He seems more low profile and not garnering a big following like his father. It is surprising to see ‘loyal followers’, violent or not. I suppose in comparison to many of the tea party candidates, he seems to be well-read.
I don’t think it is if she advocates curbstomping people into her statist system. Quid pro quo.
I’m almost sure she is anti-war, anti-drug war, pro civil liberties. So, it’s ok to stomp her because the parts of the statist system she supports are aid for the poor? Is it ok to stomp a right wing minarchist, like Ron Paul, or Mises? Are you saying she personally aggressed on people…if that’s true, so have you tax payer/benefit reciever/road driver. Is it ok to stomp you?
Huh? You have a real problem with reading comprehension.
In other words, curb stomping a young lady is obviously wrong. No libertarian would ever support such aggression, but the question remains, namely what does this have to do with me, and why are we talking about this at all?
My apologies. But it would seem the context of what you said was “that goes w/o saying that Lilliburne (the voice of reason) would be the only one to denounce the curb stomp.”
I don’t advocate those things. That is what counts. I’m a contractarian. Reject the NAP social contract, be fair game for aggression. I’m not a pacifist.