I'm saddened by the reality that the primary reason the MSM is paying attention to him presently is because he attacked Cheney and is now seen as an unexpected ally against the right as a whole, which of course, the MSM embraces wholeheartedly.
Posted 01/06/10 11:24 PM Davidphaup north las vegas, NV
Indeed, they did try to play Dr. Paul against cheney. I think he handled it wonderfully though. Excellent outcome.
South Carolina Hates That Phony Baloney..They Love Ron Paul..Thanks To Jack Hunter, "The Southern Avenger" For His Show And Positive Influence In Exposing Lindsay Graham For The 'Lying Snake In The Grass' That He is..
Go Ron Paui...It's 2012 Or Bust Baby !!
Posted 01/06/10 11:32 PM mwadley cuyahoga falls, OH
With all of the attention and interviews Dr. Paul has been getting this past month, I feel that he is getting better and better at each one while racking up respect points at the same time.
Dr. Paul was definitely with it in this interview. He is playing it very smart and is obviously very careful in his interviews. Take notice, he is in the news alot! Keeping his message out there but being careful, and careful he must at this stage. He knows exactly what is going on, but to let it all out will probably do him more harm than good right now. Heed his carefully worded messages and warnings, this is no game going on right now, it is serious stuff, and dangerous.
He is rallying the people and our part is to join in and support the cause to protect our Freedom and Liberty!
Dr. Paul was brilliant, he made it very clear that HE is the one that is on the side of the American People and not statists like Lindsey Graham.
Damn I wish Senator Goldwater was still alive and in office, having Barry Goldwater and Ron Paul fighting the statists in Washington would be a sight to see.
Posted 01/07/10 01:58 AM SurveyinSC spartanburg, SC
As a politician who must know how the things a person says come across to the average person, it seems Lindsey Graham would realize how childish and stupid each "Ron Paul is taking over the party" sounds. It is actually good press for the wing of the party he hates:
Lindsey Graham = Cap and Trade
Ron Paul = Liberty (a.k.a. Liberty)
Doesn't he have a consultant to tell him these things.
Also, it was nice for Talbert Black to get some recognition.
Talbert Black is a very important part of C4L in South Carolina and needs to be appreciated for his work.
Did everyone catch the very last thing Maddow said about Congressman Paul? About him being a truly "nice" person!
This interview was fantastic.. And, even though we know he was most likely brought on to perpetuate the Chaney comment me made the other day, in the hopes that msnbc can sway voters away from voting for the GOP using Pauls inflence. But, i think what they end up getting when inviting the good dr. has a negative effect on both big establishment parties, just as he said. In these new times, where the media actually allows Paul to have nearly free reign, to discuss his principles in more than just a one liner as they used to, we get the full ideas out of Paul's mouth and into the ears of the people, which is exactly what attracts the masses to him. Might not be the best business move for democratic msnbc to be promoting such independent ideas to try to take votes from the gop because it will surely take votes and political positions from them too, and paulites arent exctly the uninvolved political thinkers that are typical to mainstream politics. Dont think they know what they are getting themselves into? creatures of their own demise.
@ jwfox1965, you said, "Dr. Paul...not statists like Lindsey Graham."
Implying that Ron Paul's not a statist... Last time I checked, he advocates "limited" government intervention, and last time I checked, government = state.
It scares me sometimes of how much I care for this man and the message he brings. I'm afraid of being led astray again by a politician,, and yet I know I am with good company, and things can be made better.
Posted 01/07/10 12:23 PM ajkather Cedar Rapids, IA
I thought the interview was really good, but you can see how Maddow was just bating him to throw some more zingers at the Cheney crowd so as to encourage a more disruptive republican party (which I don't really care much about). I do fear that the MSNBC tactic here is to create some type of "Ross-Perot" like splinter to help Democrats.
But, I was glad that Ron Paul was able to redirect the conversation against the establishment of both parties without much comeback from Maddow. That to me was the best part of the interview. Personally, i wouldn't mind if someone like Lindsey Graham was replaced in favor of a big gov't Statist in the Democrats/Progressives since he essentially is one.
I hope RP can get some interviews on Fox News to take on the war-hawk Neo-Cons. That to me is the missing piece to the puzzle. Until that time comes, it's up to us all to wake up our "Conservative" friends, family, co-workers to the principles of liberty!
http://andykatherman.blogspot.com ("Liberty For Laymen")
Thank you so much Dr. Paul. Your tireless effort to spread the message of liberty gives me hope that there will be a future for this country. "let freedom ring"
One of the best interviews I've seen RP give yet. He just had a great answer for everyone of the questions presented, and didn't have to deal with childish ad hominem attacks which made his points much easier to understand.
@jwfox1965 It is ok. I and almost everyone on here know that Ron Paul isn't statist. Ron Paul is for less state and more individual, while Lyndsey Graham is for big government, power of the state which is commonly referred to as statist.
It should not be lost on anyone on this site that the Obama administration is not opposed to the military industrial complex. In fact, it has now been announced that he wants the hardware which it supplies to the CIA to be used to buttress the climate scam.
Support for the state at any arbitratry level, whether that be minarchism or full blown state fascism, is statism. Period. Statism = support of the state, and even someone who considers it a "necessary evil" will cede that they support the state as "necessary" and "good" at some level. The difference between minarchism and state fascism is that they are in opposite ends of the gradient of statism, with minarchism being (far) less statist, and fascism being heavily statist. Without mincing words, acknowledging the sovereignty of the state... at any level... is a statist position.
Note this isn't an argument for or against statism it's just clarifying what it means. If Ron Paul supports limited government, yes, he is a statist, albeit a very, very low level one.
Positions aside, at this point I don't think it really matters at this point, I'm more inclined to believe Ron main goals, though, are simply to educate the masses about the principles and economics of liberty than anything else. This largely coincides with the reason he's given for entering politics in the first place and his reluctancy to run or desire to have positions which hold more power.
I definitely believe he would rather have people educating themselves and spread the message of liberty than be president. Lighting the fire for people to discuss the science and theories of liberty would be a far more powerful than any single person holding a position in office. I think he would be thrilled if we got to a point where the validity of the state in any form could be popular openly discussed and debated topic, regardless of his own opinion on it. :)
Smoke and mirrors... both parties ignore their base and feed only the differences.
TEA BAGGERS AND PROGRESSIVES agree on LOTS of things.
Both want torte reform in healthcare reform... nary a peep from their leadership.
Both want immigration reform - including deportation of all illegals. check out Huffingtonpost, Nation, Human Events, Freerepublic and Crooks n Liars.... both sides agree...
nary a peep from leadership on either side.
BOTH sides want Multi nationals OUT OF THE ELECTORAL PROCESS.... again.. LEFT AND RIGHT ARE IGNORED.
so when Rachel Maddow and Ron Paul agree... so what?
Neither side is listening... they listen to only monied Jews for Israel, Multi national corporations, and Wall st bankers...
WE THE PEOPLE ... blue red or purple just don't matter.
And until that subject is addressed by Maddow and company... she can pander all she wants to the left - and Paul can pander to the right...
NOTHING WILL CHANGE
the game is fixed and operated by the few against the many
Posted 01/07/10 3:15 PM BruceKoerber Cedar Rapids, IA
http://apoliticalpoliticalcommentary.blogspot.com/
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Rachel Maddow Interviews Ron Paul.
Partisan politics and the politicians who play that game cannot tolerate the anti-establishment movement. They are the establishment.
We are so very fortunate to have a statesman to speak out on our behalf. Not only is Ron Paul a statesman but he is also a scholar of classical liberalism.
It was commendable of Rachel Maddow to give Congressman Ron Paul time to speak freely.
Does Dr. Paul's recent widespread (and frequent) mainstream media exposure make anyone else nervous? Remember that the was practically shut out in 2008 except for the occasional invitations they used to make fun of him.
Hm. Maybe I'm too skeptical but I just don't trust them...
Well, keep in mind they have to maintain relevance. Dr Paul has been making resounding waves in politics... Look at C4L, look at the candidates running that his campaign spawned, Audit the Fed... He is only growing in relevance, and the ideas that he became the face of, are increasingly being disussed, and as the current solutions become more and more obvious failures they will only continue to be discussed. There comes a point where things cannot simply be ignored, and when he is gaining more and more popular support (and being humble and polite about it) calling him a crank will not be in their best interest, he is becoming mainstream.
Honestly with his voting record, principles, and humility, we lucked out getting someone like him to speak about the principles of liberty... people attacking him are just gong to look like a jerk... look at Ben Stein.
I don't watch that trash anyway as it's largely just a gigantic spectacle, but the fact that they are giving him ample time and consideration just shows how far this has come, and it really is just the beginning... this movement is just getting started.
@ take your stand, Thank you for being intelligent.
I'm growing bored of seeing the argumentum ad populum fallacy on C4L, "everyone believes it so it must be true." This is what we're supposed to be against. Think critically people.
Different opinions should be welcomed and considered, not brushed off arrogantly and pretentiously by people posting in the comfort of their home team. "Everyone here agrees on everything, so hash3m must be wrong." At least TRY to get over your ego, please?
Check out our own C4L forums, you might be surprised to learn that some very well educated people disagree fiercely with the mainstream views being pushed on the front page here.
Posted 01/07/10 6:54 PM Paul Hogan Middle Village, NY
Politics is show business, and publicity goes a long way in both professions. If Ron Paul continues being invited to appear on mainstream media and continues handling himself the way he did with Rachel Maddow things can only get better.
hash3m; I always both welcome and respect your strong libertarian response (as well as agree with most of it
). Please do not feel frustrated that some topics or posts appear to be puerile in nature. Some of us cannot "yet" clearly articulate (in writing or speech) how we support the politics behind Ron Paul or the C4L movement; however it is important that we continue to work on it (and fast) by reading and taking action (via advice). We are all on the same side here and we have no other champions in the establishment. Folks like me are just starting to learn how even low-level statism may be (perhaps not directly) responsible (but more as an evolving process) for the current neocon/neo-liberal ideology. Does low-level statism mean the same as attenuated statism (and is that the type of government enacted by the constitution)? Does statism=statism at any level; and where does that fit into the composition of our founding government? I studied biology and not political science so thisis an advanced question for me. Therefore, I ususally do not post on such topics because of my lack of knowledge; however I am working on improvements to articulate and support my stance but in the interim I agree with most of the information here at C4L, which includes both views in accordance with pure libertarianism and low-level statism or an "attenuated" form of statism. Am I lost yet? LOL!
Posted 01/07/10 7:58 PM VictimOfFeds San Clemente, CA
"@ jwfox1965, you said, "Dr. Paul...not statists like Lindsey Graham."
Implying that Ron Paul's not a statist... Last time I checked, he advocates "limited" government intervention, and last time I checked, government = state."
Er... popular sovereignty isn't statism (in fact they are opposites) and Dr. Paul has always been an advocate of popular sovereignty.
It would appear that you feel that everyone that's not a total anarchist is a statist, which is a definition that most of the rest of the world doesn't happen to share.
When I looked up statism, it said this:
a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs. "Substantial" strikes me as the key word and as you said, Ron Paul advocates "limited" government intervention. So how is Ron Paul a statist?
The word "substantial" is a relative term. It's not very hard to argue that something as fundamental as issuing a monetary standard is a "substantial" economic control, for instance. In monoplizing money they are controlling all monetary transactions, to a degree, and interfering with the market.
Http://www.dictionary.com/browse/statism
The more clear and concise term would be the 2nd one. Regardless of your feelings about what "statism" means to you, or how you feel about being labelled as a statist or not, this is the better term. Whether or not statism is a good or a bad thing is not relevant here, just a clear definition. And the best one describes what statism is at it's core, support of the state. It doesn't matter if it's 100% or .0000000000001%. If you believe the state is a good thing to have at the latter level you are holding a .0000000001% statist position, which is still a statist position. The only 100% anti-statist position can be no support of the state... Anything else is SOME level of statism, though it may be extremely low. Recognizing the state as sovereign is a statist position, regardless of whether that's a hood or bad thing.
Again this has little to do with your or my position on statism, nor does it explain the pros or cons of statism, it's simply a definition. The reason people don't like being dscribed the term is because of the connotations involved. But you still must acknoledge that any form of statism, no matter how large or small is still statism to some degree.
@ jwfox1965, To flip your objection back on you: it would appear that you feel everyone who doesn't advocate big-government isn't a statist.
I've seen (probably) every Ron Paul youtube video since early 2007, I've read his books Revolution and End the Fed, and I've read countless articles by him. RP advocates "minarchy," or what's more commonly known as "limited" state intervention. Small shoes are still shoes, old computers are still computers, and "limited" state intervention is still statism.
"I've seen (probably) every Ron Paul youtube video since early 2007, and I've read his books Revolution and End the Fed, among countless articles by him. RP advocates "minarchy," or "limited" state intervention. Small shoes are still shoes, old computers are still computers, and "limited" state intervention is still statism."
Well except for the fact that statism is a philosophy that dictates all power (sovereignty) resides with a centralized authority and popular sovereignty is a philosophy that dictates that all power resides with people and governments are instituted by the consent of the governed and government authority is granted by consent of the governed. So by the generally accepted definition Ron Paul is about as far from a statist as one can get.
So to use your analogy it's not the size of the shoes that matters is how the shoes are manufactured and by whom.
"Some of us cannot "yet" clearly articulate (in writing or speech) how we support the politics behind Ron Paul or the C4L movement; however it is important that we continue to work on it (and fast) by reading and taking action (via advice)."
http://www.mises.org
it will help you in this regard. trust me. these are the ideas behind Ron Paul's words, they're his teachers and peers. And they explain things in a profound clarity. They host books for free for people to read. Anyone on this site is doing themselves a huge disservice if they haven't begun looking into the Austrian School. Reading books by the Austrian greats has done absolutely nothing short of a complete overhaul of my entire worldview from the ground up. And I mean that as profoundly as it sounds. It helped me reconcile things I didn't really know how, and I've never felt more like a free individual in my life.
In the first place, the Constitution didn't, can't, and doesn't establish government-by-consent. Lysander Spooner famously obliterated that lie some 140 years ago. Please become familiar with the essay, it's called No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority.
In the second place, I disagree with your explanation of statism. A state (legally defined, and this is agreed among scholars) is an institution with a monopoly on force. Ron Paul supports the Constitution, which establishes a government wielding a monopoly on force, and he is therefore a statist.
Ron Paul, Take Your Stand, and myself all recommend Mises.org. Please take awhile to enjoy its wealth of knowledge.
"Well except for the fact that statism is a philosophy that dictates all power (sovereignty) resides with a centralized authority and popular sovereignty is a philosophy that dictates that all power resides with people and governments are instituted by the consent of the governed and government authority is granted by consent of the governed. So by the generally accepted definition Ron Paul is about as far from a statist as one can get. "
what exactly is government if not a centralized authority? wWhat if *I* don't cede to such authority? Does that make me exempt? Whether you cede that authority or not it's still centralized authority, a state is still a state, and a shoe is still a shoe regardless of the manufacturer.
Another brilliant interview by the good doctor. I really hope that people realize that 98% of the members of congress are totally worthless and only support themselves and corporations. In the next wave of elections... yeah they will probably vote the other way and more republicans will get a seat... but what really needs to happen is for voters to realize there are other choices out there. We need to stop the 2 party system.
the arguement is being made that if one possesses even a miniscule amount of statist ideology then one can be called a statist. then conversely if one possesses even a miniscule amount of anarchist ideology then one can be labeled an anarchist. therefore the vast majority of Americans are both anarchists and a statists at the same time. one can choose to ignore the prevailing definitions of statist, anarchist, substantial if one wants. however to arbitrarily define words based on ones belief of what they should be vs the generally accepted definition leaves one open to the criticism that they don't know what they are talking about. obviously that is not the case here, since to varying degrees the posts here reflect a knowledge of issues that goes well beyond the average. to have others perceive ignorance where there is none would be unfortunate, both to the individual and the cause.
@ Dr Mike, anarchism means one is opposed to state intervention. Thus, support for state intervention makes one a non-anarchist, not a partial-anarchist. One is either opposed to state intervention or he isn't. Conversely, neither can a "partial statist" exist. One is either for state intervention, or he isn't. Ron Paul supports "limited" state intervention.
Your error therefore is a simple non sequitor: claiming that one can both support state intervention AND support the absence of state intervention.
"anarchism" would be not supporting the state in any form. This is binary, there is no graduation on thus you either do or you don't.
"statism" is a gamut. It's a gradient from simply acknowledging the state, even if it doesn't really have the power to do much of anything. You at some level believe the state is something necessary and/or good at SONE level. where that level lies is arbitrary and subjective to the person holding that opinion. He will believe anything more is statist and anything less that the zone he decides is good would be chaos.
"ignorant" would be someone who doesn't understand the concept of the state. Babies & small children, mentally handicapped, someone who never interacted with civilization, etc.
And "undecided" as someone who just doesn't hold an opinion.
Statism is a scale, the rest are pretty much on or off. You can't be "sort of" "anarchist" because it is outside of the statism gamut, along with the 2 others.
The defining characteristic of a statist is that he supports state intervention; the amount or type or motive is irrelevant. Most are simply unaware that economics has been showing rigorously for a century that state intervention is 100% unnecessary.
Both Ron Paul and myself recommend Mises.org and Rothbard and Lew Rockwell; I think everyone here would be pleasantly surprised to study them, and to learn of the amount and status of scholars who have been ironing out Austro-Libertarian/Anarchist theory for many years.
The mainstream stereotype of an anarchist as chaotic and ignorant is totally backwards, as is this new concept that liberty and government are compatible.
If there's one thing I love about the left is that when they have Ron Paul on (whether it's this show, or even things like the daily show), they are very respectful towards him. Which is much more than you can say about the right. I can't even describe the frustration I felt with how the right, fox news, and the other runner-ups for the 2008 election treated Paul.
As much as I disagree with them on pretty much everything, the left seems to treat him better than the right. So, kudos on that.
On the Ron Paul being a statist issue. I'm still not convinced that Paul supports government on an ideological level. I've heard him advocate a limited government, and the constitution, that's true. But I have never heard him say that those systems are the best, the ultimate, or superior to anything else.
In fact, the point I hear him make most of the time is that:
all government = terrible
more government = bad
less government = good
And then he stops. I always just read between the lines and assumed that the next line is "no government = best"
Now, I don't know, maybe this makes me a cynic, but I think that Paul purposefully leaves his ideas of Anarchy at home for the sake of not appearing as a loon in the public's eye. And I think that's a good thing. So I do believe that Ron Paul is a closet Anarchist.
I mean, if you read his stuff, and read the material that he says that he himself has read and was influenced by, then there is no way that he can support a minarchy.
I just don't recall him ever saying that we need a government. He always kinda dodges that.
"what exactly is government if not a centralized authority? wWhat if *I* don't cede to such authority? Does that make me exempt? Whether you cede that authority or not it's still centralized authority, a state is still a state, and a shoe is still a shoe regardless of the manufacturer."
It's a rather simple concept, I'm not quite sure why some people are getting confused by it, either you believe that all power resides in the central authority which then grants certain "rights" to the people (a statist point of view) or you believe that all power resides with the people which in turn grant certain powers to a central authority pursuant to their common interests (a popular sovereignty point of view).
As it relates to the original question,
Lindsey Graham has demonstrated (to me anyways) the he views things from a statist point of view.
Ron Paul has demonstrated (to me anyways) the he views things from a popular sovereignty point of view.
People can call Ron Paul a statist if they wish, makes no difference to me (I suspect that it doesn't really bother Dr. Paul either), however such people shouldn't be surprised if other people look at them funny when they do.
"It's a rather simple concept, I'm not quite sure why some people are getting confused by it, either you believe that all power resides in the central authority which then grants certain "rights" to the people (a statist point of view) or you believe that all power resides with the people which in turn grant certain powers to a central authority pursuant to their common interests (a popular sovereignty point of view)."
okay, that's all well and good, but as I said earlier a central authority is still a central authority, and a state. Whether you cede power to it voluntarily or not. And if *I* do not choose to cede power to it voluntarily, where does that leave me? Your scenario would require every person in a society to accept that state as their sovereign authority.
But the bottom line is, just as I said earlier, willingly or not, that central authority is a state, and thus those supporting it are statists.
BigJohn... I wouldn't even be remotely suprised. In fact reading up on the school that Ron gets his ideology from has really put his campaign, C4L, and his reactions to the immense amounts of support and his humility into perspective.
He seems like he wants to educate more than anything else. Not to get into positions of power in attempts to fix things. I think the biggest reason he'd even accept the presidency is for such a broad audience.
"It's a rather simple concept, I'm not quite sure why some people are getting confused by it, either you believe that all power resides in the central authority which then grants certain "rights" to the people (a statist point of view) or you believe that all power resides with the people which in turn grant certain powers to a central authority pursuant to their common interests (a popular sovereignty point of view)."
I'm sorry, but the way I see it, there's a 3rd option which I believe in:
I believe that I, and I alone, have all the power and I do not grant that power to anyone. End of story.
Saying that "all power resides with the people which in turn grant certain powers to a central authority", means that other people can grant MY power away. Which as far as I'm concerned, they may not. So they'd have to do it by force, which makes them a government/state.
"But the bottom line is, just as I said earlier, willingly or not, that central authority is a state, and thus those supporting it are statists."
Sure if you wish to make up your own definitions for the word, be my guest, it still has no bearing on my point which hash took exception to.
That being said, no one is stopping you from finding a some wilderness retreat some place and building your own little government free utopia, however if you wish to participate in the benefits of having a central authority (like having your life, liberty and property protected) then you are obliged to play by the agreed upon rules, you can't have it both ways. It's just as if your neighborhood home owners association hires a security company to protect your neighborhood and then you say "well what if I don't want to pay my share of it", in which case your HOA's response would be "then move to another neighborhood".
I'd implore you to read that book I posted before being so dismissive. Life, liberty, and property can not only be protected in stateless society, but most likely more efficiently.
I'm not advocating a utopia, I'm advocating a society free from government monopolization and theft.
Laissez-faire free market society does not mean lawlessness or chaos, and liberty is the mother of prosperity, not the government. If you believed the other way around, then I'm not sure why you're here in the first place.
jwfox1965 - I have to agree with takeyourstand, you should really look into the materials that he recommends. I mean no offense, but it seems like there is a big hole in your knowledge of these issues.
This line alone tells me that your understanding is lacking on this topic:
"however if you wish to participate in the benefits of having a central authority (like having your life, liberty and property protected) then you are obliged to play by the agreed upon rules"
A central authority (call the dog in its name, it's a government) cannot and does not provide you with any kind of service that protects your life and/or liberty. In fact, by definition, it robs you of your liberty.
As far as security goes, Government doesn't provide that. The police does. And the private market will offer that service better, cheaper, and to more people without government there.
Unless of course you're talking about national security, in which case the argument is very easy that government hurts us in that regard as well. I'd feel much safer without a government to get me into conflicts with foreign countries constantly.
and to "you can't have it both ways." :
You most certainly can have it both ways. You just haven't figured out how yet.
let me also point out that it wasn't even too long ago that I was one of the people calling hash3m out on being a "utopian"
then I started reading up on Austrian Economics, and the source of Ron Pauls message. As I said earlier it's done nothing less than changed my entire outlook on life.
What struck me most about this interview was the comment from the anchor “lady” that people who attend tea parties are “illiterate racists.”
I went to an April 15th tea party.
I agree that Ron answered the questions well, but I wish he hadn't answered them at all, as the hostess, her network, its sponsors, and viewers, don't rate a reply.
Speaking of sponsors-- why not post a list on this site of the commercials that appear on her station, and boycott all of their companies' products and services? I don't buy their propaganda, why should I buy their crap, especially when it pays her salary?
"I mean no offense, but it seems like there is a big hole in your knowledge of these issues. "
No offense taken, however I'm a student of history and one theme is clear throughout the fabric of history, the strong have always and will always exploit the weak which is why anarchism has never been and will never be practical on any significant scale unless human nature is dramatically altered to remove this tendency.
We can engage in theory all we like about how much better government-less societies might be but until it can be demonstrated to be practical at scale it's all just so much theoretical discussion. The fact of the matter is that no society of scale in the recorded history of mankind has ever demonstrated that organizing a society along such lines is feasible. There is no perfect system and thus we are left with attempting to restore and adhere to the best yet still imperfect system that was left to us by our founders, that is the fight that I am interested in undertaking and it's also the fight that I believe Dr. Paul is engaged in.
But again, this is all going off on a completely different trajectory than the original point which was Ron Paul doesn't meet the criteria of a statist and for that matter neither does he meet the criteria of an anarchist.
"I'd implore you to read that book I posted before being so dismissive. Life, liberty, and property can not only be protected in stateless society, but most likely more efficiently."
Funny thing is, I hear the same sort of things from the radical left when they wax philosophical about all the great benefits of there favorite flavors of collectivism.
Personally I'm not interested in abandoning our constitution and our founding principles for a system that has never worked on any scale throughout recorded history. Call me stubborn or call me crazy but I prefer to dance with the one that brung me even if that means having to tolerate the necessary evil of government and I suspect neither are the vast majority of Americans....
"I am an anarchist. I kill my neighbor. Am I punished? If so, by whom?"
again, a laissez-faire society is not lawless. there are still courts of arbitration, there are still police/security. the difference is that these functions are solved through free market principles instead of a government monopoly on said service, which results in competition for better service.
if you *really* want to learn more, please just read up on it. that book i posted is a very good outlining of the theory of liberty. im not even going to bother going into detail because he explains what a free market solution may look like far better than anything i could possibly write in a post here.
BillNM - You will be punished. If it is proven that you are in-fact the murderer, then the maximum punishment that you will receive will be capital punishment. The person that will punish you will be either the person who was murdered, through his will of course, or his heirs, or the person he entrusted with executing his will. If you're interested, Rothbard wrote about this precise issue, and it is explained much better than I can right now. You can read it here:
jwfox1965 - To that I will say, before anything was ever tried, it was brand new. So should we not have invented the automobile because the idea of a horseless-carriage was never tried before? Or maybe we should return the United States to a Monarchy then?
We must move forward. By sticking only to familiar things, we will always remain static.
If you are a student of History, then you should take a historic look at the possibility of Anarcho-Capitalism. You should find both For A New Liberty, and The Myth of a National Defense very interesting. They both give many examples from history where government-less liberty succeeded, and where government failed. It is true though, while each system has existed on its own in history without government and succeeded, there was never a land where all the systems existed together.
I don't see it as a reason to not try though. If the systems work in pieces, they should work together as well. I have yet to meet an argument that contradicts that, except for fear.
Hash and I have been around the block on this before; and I'm with Rothbard right up to the point where he begins speaking for God. If our rights come from our Creator then is seems to me that our responsibilities spring from the same Source. If you are on the page (if not then disregard) His first commandment was to go forth and replenish the earth. (Should give us pause.) So, I agree that I should be punished under any system and the punishment should fit the crime as dictated by the same Source. In my view, remove the standard and you're left with whatever tickles your fancy. Must be the mathematician in me.
-"but again, this is all going off on a completely different trajectory than the original point which was Ron Paul doesn't meet the criteria of a statist and for that matter neither does he meet the criteria of an anarchist."
quite frankly you are being rather presumptuous to claim that you know Dr. Pauls standings on this issue. I will not claim to know what his true feelings are. And again, if he does believe in limited government. yes that does make him a statist. and again, whether that is a good or a bad thing is arguable. the problem is you don't like the word because of the connotations associated with it. i'm not particularly fond of "anarchist" because of the connotations associated with that either, as i'd rather call it libertarianism, laissez-faire, or free market capitalism. but i'm not going to lie to myself and pretend "anarchism" is not what it is.
you are making up your own definition of what a state is and is not because being called a "statist" doesn't suit you. but that is what it is. minarchism, limited government is low level statism. it's not complete government control, but it is statism nonetheless. you are simply trying to dress the state up as something "wholly voluntary" and as such it cannot be that evil "statist" stuff. sorry, but it is. as much as a completely free market is an "anarchy", a limited government is a "state". period.
-"Funny thing is, I hear the same sort of things from the radical left when they wax philosophical about all the great benefits of there favorite flavors of collectivism.
Personally I'm not interested in abandoning our constitution and our founding principles for a system that has never worked on any scale throughout recorded history. Call me stubborn or call me crazy but I prefer to dance with the one that brung me even if that means having to tolerate the necessary evil of government and I suspect neither are the vast majority of Americans.... "
that's fine, and that's your prerogative. again i'm going to say you, and anyone else here who are dismissing the source of Ron Paul's message of liberty and freedom are doing themselves a disservice, but to remain ignorant of it is their own choice. I find it rather funny that you are a Ron Paul supporter and are equating the very thing, the *very school of thought* he derives his message from (and i'm assuming you're supporting him for his message) and equating it to something you are agaisnt such as radical leftism. all you are doing is keeping yourself ignorant. how does it hurt to read something? it may just give you a better understanding of what you believe in.
i've found an immense amount of clarity in Ron Paul's entire campaign, in his reactions, in the way he conducts himself, in the message he's trying to spread... by going to the source. I read it and I came to my own conclusions. You should too. I don't even think it would be such a terrible thing to simply read radical leftist material. its not like you have to agree with it after reading it, and it will more likely give you a better stance on why you are for or against it.
But that is up to you. You're disregard of the source material that Ron Paul's ideology on the basis that it goes outside your comfort zone, is only going to hold you back, not me. I'd love it if you read it, because I think you would likely get a lot out of it, and if you're here and a Campaign for Liberty member you can at least be assured you will find some interesting discussion considering it's Ron's crowd.
Alas, I'll leave it up to you to make your own decisions on educating yourself on what you claim to stand for.
BTW Rothbard was quite the historian as well and gives quite a few examples about historic examples of exactly how things like courts and jails became state functions. They weren't always that way in every society.
"Hash and I have been around the block on this before; and I'm with Rothbard right up to the point where he begins speaking for God. If our rights come from our Creator then is seems to me that our responsibilities spring from the same Source. If you are on the page (if not then disregard) His first commandment was to go forth and replenish the earth. (Should give us pause.) So, I agree that I should be punished under any system and the punishment should fit the crime as dictated by the same Source. In my view, remove the standard and you're left with whatever tickles your fancy. Must be the mathematician in me. "
I'm not sure i follow, are you saying that State punishment is sanctioned by God?
Take, Our laws are originally derived from common law and are Bible based (Blackstone) like it or not. We can either defer to those laws or make up our own. If we make up our own who decides? When the old law was given, judges were set up to settle both criminal and civil matters and were strictly warned not to pervert justice. That is about as simple a governmental system short of complete anarchy I could envision. Taxes were 10%.
Today, State justice and punishment for the most part is perverted. The question is why? And the answer is......
And here's your problem, Judges are "strictly warned" not to pervert justice. guess what happens in a monopoly. perversion. State monopoly on courts leaves no competition and therefore nothing to keep the courts in check.
there is still a final arbitrator in a free market society, the difference is courts compete and good business, like any other will excel... again i'm not going to go into some long diatribe because others far more concise than I have explained what a potential free market court system might look like.
State justice and punishment today is perverted precisely because it is a State function. there is no competition, and where there is no competition there is stagnation and abuse of the Market. and that is your answer.
I am not advocating for that system; just stating a fact. There was competition as there was no State monopoly. The point is that the system we have now created the war on drugs. That led to multiple new laws that were self serving to the people in the State. Where was the war on drugs in common law? Or for that matter any of the State prohibitions? And, State justice is perverted not simply because it is State defined, but because it serves special interests. If there is to be law and punishment then what is the source? Have we not been making it up as we go?
there's a few theories on law, Rothbard's is based on property rights, and the Non Aggression Principle... I haven't looked into Friedman's yet, but he theorized a voluntary law system which is completely contract based (if i'm getting that right0
haven't gotten around to this yet but it's sitting in my coffee table in the to-read list:
maybe you'd like to take a look into that? again i don't want to go into deep discussion about these things because i don't feel there is appropriate space here, and again others have made cases far stronger and more concise than i. i don't want to play telephone, i'd rather you read things straight from the theorists and make up your own decisions on their validity instead of listening to my bastardization.
also i don't quite follow what you were talking about the State not having a monopoly on courts and how you got into drugs and special interests. those are perversions because the state has a monopoly on law interpretation and the court system, giving them the ability to simply legislate what "we" supposedly want to become law, which obviously if you're here, know is not quite true. when largely, as you said it's a perversion of liberty in our name because legitimized through the power we supposedly cede to the state through our democratic elections.
Whether you're punished and by whom is irrelevant to the fact that whatever solution was arrived at (if it were truly free market anarchism), it would be more moral, more practical, and better for the economy. Ron Paul says the same thing, he just doesn't talk about it in application to our justice system.
"I'm a student of history and one theme is clear throughout the fabric of history, the strong have always and will always exploit the weak which is why anarchism has never been and will never be practical on any significant scale unless human nature is dramatically altered to remove this tendency."
If anything, this is an obvious case for free markets aka anarchy. If the strong will exploit the weak, and the "strong" are naturally drawn to power, then they will be (and are) inclined to join government, hence the saying "if men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one." See, you're practically an anarchist, you just haven't dared to consider it. Relevant to your claim, obviously a corrupt provider of law and order won't last long on a free market where they aren't endlessly funded through tax-theft.
"There is no perfect system and thus we are left with attempting to restore and adhere to the best yet still imperfect system that was left to us by our founders"
Why does it follow from the fact that you're unaware of a better system that therefore the only solution is to revert to the government established by some ignorant thugs some 220 years ago?
"Personally I'm not interested in abandoning our constitution"
No one's asking you to, bro. Lol, I feel like a missionary, but the book comes highly recommended. At least take a peek at Mises.org and check out an article or two before you run us over. These are the people who Ron paul admits were influential to him. And on your assertion that theory is somehow not workable, you, sir, should what theory is, so I don't have to write an entire article about it. Ron Paul talks endlessly about education being the most important goal. Look at the quote at the bottom of the front page. What kind of education do you think they're talking about? Theoretical. You're already lost if you're suggesting that theory is somehow necessarily not true.
"that's fine, and that's your prerogative. again i'm going to say you, and anyone else here who are dismissing the source of Ron Paul's message of liberty and freedom are doing themselves a disservice, but to remain ignorant of it is their own choice."
You're assuming that one cannot be a student of the Austrian School or a proponent of liberty and freedom without advocating anarchy? that is simply an incorrect assumption, as people like Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater among many others have already proven.
Also one does not have to be "ignorant" of a point of view to disagree with it, This is the sort of a statement that again reminds me of those on the radical left that are simply shocked when others don't see the "wisdom" of their points of view.
"Why does it follow from the fact that you're unaware of a better system that therefore the only solution is to revert to the government established by some ignorant thugs some 220 years ago? "
Do you think history has nothing to teach us? do you think that human nature suddenly changes because we wish it to be so?
Those "ignorant thugs" fought to establish a nation that has risen to become the most prosperous nation in the history of humanity, a nation that has produced far more good than harm and one that still has the hope of becoming the beacon of liberty once again if we care to heed the wisdom of those "ignorant thugs".
Please remind me again, what did all those great anarchists throughout history accomplish?
"You're assuming that one cannot be a student of the Austrian School or a proponent of liberty and freedom without advocating anarchy? that is simply an incorrect assumption, as people like Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater among many others have already proven.
Also one does not have to be "ignorant" of a point of view to disagree with it, This is the sort of a statement that again reminds me of those on the radical left that are simply shocked when others don't see the "wisdom" of their points of view. "
Wow, how in the world did you twist what I said so badly. I'm actually kind of amazed.
I said nothing about advocating anarchy, and everything about *reading*. You clearly said you were disinterested in the book I linked solely on the basis that it was theorizing stateless society. Where did you get that I said you had to be an anarchist to be a student of the Austrian School or a proponent of liberty? I have absolutely NO CLUE what brought you to that assumption.
Obviously someone doesnt have to be "ignorant" of a point of view to disagree with it. in fact I'd say you'd have a stronger case for disagreeing with it if you understood that. i even stated that reading "radical leftist" material wouldnt be unproductive as at least you would have a clear understanding of why you thought the way you did about it. i said that right in my post, how did you completely flip what i said around like that?
and again, my entire point about you perpetuating your ignorance was based on your dismissal of a strong theme in Austrian Economics and the Austrian School completely and utterly because it is outside your comfort zone. and so you'd rather remain ignorant of it and criticize it from afar as something "not worth even looking at" than looking at it and getting at the very least a clear reason why you disagree with it. as stated earlier by someone else, you obviously don't have a clear understanding of what you are against by statements you've made. and you are choosing to remain ignorant of the subject because its too radical or whatever. its funny how you seem to talk about it as if reading things automatically makes you a convert.
i'm not shocked at all. in fact i think its pretty standard. i still think you are doing yourself a disservice by at least not even trying to educate yourself on all forms of liberty, since you seem to be an advocate of it. i never said you had to agree with it. i just said read it and make up your own mind. jeez.
@jwfox1965, history has everything to teach us, that's the point. But attempting to decypher history or human nature while ignoring economics is a pointless endeavor. And economics has proved that a state is always and necessarily counter-productive to the markets, contrary to human nature, and profoundly impractical. Yes, the economics of the very people Ron Paul recommends, so I recommend you become familiar with them. Please, you might actually enjoy it.
Those ignorant thugs didn't found the USA on the Constitution, it was founded on the Articles of Confederation, and the ideas of freedom and liberty of our founders were within the Articles, not the constitution. The Articles wouldn't even let the federal government tax, because the founders were opposed to taxation. The Cosntituitonal coup was a movement to overthrow the government that had already existed under the Articles. Ron Paul talks about this in End the Fed, perhaps you'd enjoy reading that as well.
So you're missing the point. Yes, America was great, but your clearly confused about WHY it was great. Are you the one who said you were a student of history? Well no better time than the present to learn economics so you can understand the history instead of just (claiming that you) know it.
I think Ron Paul played right into Maddow's hands. She wanted him to come on to rail against republicans. I think Ron didn't do enough to rail against BOTH parties. She seemed glib and happy to see the split of the republican party, and tried to frame the democrat party as though they are angels in all of this. Ron should be watching these shows he comes on to get a better context of how to respond, when asked questions, because often it seems like they are using his answers to subliminally program the viewers to think that the other party is superior or without fault. I love to watch the faces of Maddow, Matthews, Cavuto, etc. When Paul rails against their respective parties and makes a point that BOTH parties suck and are at fault and to blame for this mess...
You guys are defining statist as meaning for a government in any amount at all because "statist" has the word "stat(e)" in it??? How "logical", but you're stretching the definition of the word.
Statism historically and widely has a specific meaning at one end of the scale towards the belief that the state trumps the individual and must be used to make everyone equal and everything fair.
The "common sense" (and in this case, dictionary) meaning of statist goes like this...
--------------------------
Wikipedia:
..is an economic position that includes a major state role in directing the economy, either directly through state-owned enterprises and other types of machinery of government, or indirectly through economic planning
Ayn Rand:
"The political expression of altruism is collectivism or statism, which holds that man's life and work belong to the state- to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good."
Dictionary.com:
the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.
Merriam-webster dictionary:
concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry
-------------------------------------
Limited, necessary government(minarchism), is neither anarchism nor statism like pure water isn't considered an acid or base. Or green is neither yellow nor blue. "Small shoes are still shoes", but small socks are not shoes.
no dude, it's not a stretch. statism is a gradation of positions. you can be "more" statist, and you can be "less" statist. the question here is "when does someone become statist?"
the answer is "when they support the state", playing into you're own definition...
"Statism historically and widely has a specific meaning at one end of the scale towards the belief that the state trumps the individual and must be used to make everyone equal and everything fair. "
even in a minarchy, this is exactly what is happening from someone who holds a stateless perspective. police, monetary policy, laws and courts. to someone who believe these are not functions of the state to monopolize suddenly these become drastic interference into individuals lives and the market.
lets break it down to the furthest point. if i cannot cede myself from the State, where does that leave me? I have been trumped. Regardless of whether everyone else in that society voluntarily supported the state, if it is using coercion to keep me a part of it, the State has trumped the individual, in your own words.
here's the other definitions from dictionary.com
"2. support of or belief in the sovereignty of a state, usually a republic."
"n. The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy."
---
and here's the problem with what you're saying... you're still looking at it from a subjective definition viewpoint. in doing this you are just going to make up your own line as to what is considered statist and what is not based on where you feel that line lies.
the difference is everyone who has a line below yours is going to think you are a statist, and you're going to consider everyone above your line a statist. this line is arbitrary. its completely subjective to your own view.
to ask where that line actually starts we must ask "what is the smallest amount of statism possible?" the answer to that is "at the smallest amount of support of the state" because anything less than that can NOT be statist, and everything above that just gets increasingly so.
it's funny because you are going to get all these people drawing different lines to where statism lies based on their subjective view, and everything above this they are going to believe is statist, and everything below whatever other line they think government is necessary is going to be "chaos". little do they realize that someone who supports less state than they do is going to consider them statist, and supporting the state too much. and to someone who does not support the state at all, any is too much.
"Limited, necessary government(minarchism), is neither anarchism nor statism like pure water isn't considered an acid or base. Or green is neither yellow nor blue. "Small shoes are still shoes", but small socks are not shoes."
yes, but green and blue are both points on a scale of colors.
the purity of water is a point on the pH scale.
minarchism is on a (very low level) point on the scale of statism.
fascism, state communism, etc is a point on the opposite end of the spectrum of statism.
"Limited, necessary government(minarchism), is neither anarchism nor statism like pure water isn't considered an acid or base. Or green is neither yellow nor blue. "Small shoes are still shoes", but small socks are not shoes."
yes, but green and blue are both points on a scale of colors.
the purity of water is a point on the pH scale.
minarchism is on a (very low level) point on the scale of statism.
fascism, state communism, etc is a point on the opposite end of the spectrum of statism.
"@jwfox1965, history has everything to teach us, that's the point. But attempting to decypher history or human nature while ignoring economics is a pointless endeavor. And economics has proved that a state is always and necessarily counter-productive to the markets, contrary to human nature, and profoundly impractical. Yes, the economics of the very people Ron Paul recommends, so I recommend you become familiar with them. Please, you might actually enjoy it.
Those ignorant thugs didn't found the USA on the Constitution, it was founded on the Articles of Confederation, and the ideas of freedom and liberty of our founders were within the Articles, not the constitution. The Articles wouldn't even let the federal government tax, because the founders were opposed to taxation. The Cosntituitonal coup was a movement to overthrow the government that had already existed under the Articles. Ron Paul talks about this in End the Fed, perhaps you'd enjoy reading that as well.
So you're missing the point. Yes, America was great, but your clearly confused about WHY it was great. Are you the one who said you were a student of history? Well no better time than the present to learn economics so you can understand the history instead of just (claiming that you) know it."
That's funny since I didn't even mention the Constitution nor did I say anything about economics, History is what it is and it has not proven that the state is "contrary to human nature" and "profoundly impractical", it has proven quite the opposite actually.
I would grant that history indicates that the nation state form is not very scalable and it has many flaws, however it is the best that we have to work with at present and I wish you the best of luck convincing any sort of critical mass of the populace to abandon it.
By the way have you figured out what statism means yet?
"I said nothing about advocating anarchy, and everything about *reading*. You clearly said you were disinterested in the book I linked solely on the basis that it was theorizing stateless society."
So what the heck are you advocating then? and perhaps you'll do me a favor and go back to what I wrote and tell me where I made any comment on your "recommended reading links"? just because I didn't immediately run out and read what you linked doesn't mean I refuse to do so. Hell I don't expect you to follow my reading list either, nor do I really care if you don't agree with me from a philosophical standpoint and I'm certainly not going to characterize you as "ignorant" for not doing either, that is the province of fanatics.
"
Where did you get that I said you had to be an anarchist to be a student of the Austrian School or a proponent of liberty? I have absolutely NO CLUE what brought you to that assumption. "
Probably right about the time you posted this -->
"that's fine, and that's your prerogative. again i'm going to say you, and anyone else here who are dismissing the source of Ron Paul's message of liberty and freedom are doing themselves a disservice, but to remain ignorant of it is their own choice."
Since nobody was "dismissing the source of Ron Paul's message of liberty and freedom" in the first place (BTW I respect Dr. Paul and his ideas but he doesn't tell me what to think nor do I view everything he says and believes as "gospel"), I was simply disagreeing with Hash on the meaning of the political philosophy of statism because he took exception to me characterizing Ron Paul as not being one. As far as my reference to the radical left I was characterizing your reaction in that frame, not your beliefs, since the radical left has a tendency to react just the way you did to those that don't fall in line i.e. "remain ignorant" if you wish.
"That's funny since I didn't even mention the Constitution nor did I say anything about economics, History is what it is and it has not proven that the state is "contrary to human nature" and "profoundly impractical", it has proven quite the opposite actually.
I would grant that history indicates that the nation state form is not very scalable and it has many flaws, however it is the best that we have to work with at present and I wish you the best of luck convincing any sort of critical mass of the populace to abandon it.
By the way have you figured out what statism means yet?"
he didn't say history taught us those things, he said economics does. Ron's message is the same thing, state intervention is impracticle and contrary to human nature. And hash has a far better understanding of what statism is than you do, obviously. You don't even want to learn about what the state is and what statism or statelessness is in any regard, you just want to pretend you know everything you need to know and make up your own arbitrary definitions for what things are.
"Since nobody was "dismissing the source of Ron Paul's message of liberty and freedom" in the first place (BTW I respect Dr. Paul and his ideas but he doesn't tell me what to think nor do I view everything he says and believes as "gospel"), I was simply disagreeing with Hash on the meaning of the political philosophy of statism because he took exception to me characterizing Ron Paul as not being one. As far as my reference to the radical left I was characterizing your reaction in that frame, not your beliefs, since the radical left has a tendency to react just the way you did to those that don't fall in line i.e. "remain ignorant" if you wish."
but you are, you are completely disregarding fundamental principles in Austrian economics, which is the source of Ron's ideology. No one said you took Rons word as gospel. I don't even pretend I know Ron's actual stance on these issues. You do. You have a terrible and completely arbitrary definition of "statism", a complete lack of knowledge of the principles of Austrian Economics, and you don't want to seek out more information or an understanding of the source of Ron's message because it challenges your worldview too much for you to be comfortable with. Again I find it rather funny that you are equating Austrian Economics with radical leftism, as it is the basis of the ideology on this site as well... Look at where the books link to in the "education" section and the authors. I never said you had to agree with anything. I said your limiting yourself to a small scope of the ideas that this campaign is even based on, because you don't want to learn about *all* the ideas behind them and make up your own mind.
***Where did you get that I said you had to be an anarchist to be a student of the Austrian School or a proponent of liberty? I have absolutely NO CLUE what brought you to that assumption. "
Probably right about the time you posted this -->
"that's fine, and that's your prerogative. again i'm going to say you, and anyone else here who are dismissing the source of Ron Paul's message of liberty and freedom are doing themselves a disservice, but to remain ignorant of it is their own choice." ****
how did you get that out of what I said. Again I'm talking about you dismissing learning more about it. I never said anything about advocation. The only thing I'm saying is you are limiting yourself if you are not learning about every aspect of what it is your fighting for, whather that be limited government, statelessness, whatever. If you are not learning about all forms of liberty you ate deliberately staying ignorant of it and limiting your own point of view and your ability to make up your own mind on the subject in depth.
"You have a terrible and completely arbitrary definition of "statism", a complete lack of knowledge of the principles of Austrian Economics, and you don't want to seek out more information or an understanding of the source of Ron's message because it challenges your worldview too much for you to be comfortable with."
LOL, ok, whatever you say, you're apparently the expert, do you feel better about yourself making arbitrary pronouncements about people you know nothing about? I certainly hope your holier than thou exercise here has at least accomplished that.
I never claimed to be an expert. I will be the first to concede that i have a lot to learn, and you've seemed to miss the point that that's exactly what I'm advocating. You're the one who seems to regard himself an expert enough not to need to learn more about the principles and ideas that found the ideologies of those he supports and follows. And it's already been stated that you don't seem to have a good grasp on what Austrian economics teaches us by the statements you've made.
Anyway, I'm done here too. When you've gotten over your stubbornness and read up on those things you are against and can demonstrate a better grasp of these ideas, we can further discuss their pros and cons, until then your willful ignorance is simply not going to make discussion worthwhile.
jwfox1965, Who cares what statism means to one person or another, we were simply pointing out that Ron Paul DOES indeed advocate state intervention, which is plainly obvious. Everyone and every scholar I'm aware of, and obviously the one's Ron Paul was admittedly influenced by, calls this "statism." I can only naturally conclude that this definition is the one in line with what Ron Paul himself calls "statism," that is, support for statist ideologies, those ideologies relying on state intervention. At it's most basic, the word is State-ISM; it's not totalitarian-ISM or commune-ISM. I really don't know where you learned your understanding of "statism" besides from a sentence out of Wikipedia or an isolated dictionary definition, and yet even your own definition vindicates mine. One doesn't have to be a totalitarian dictator or a communist to be a STATE-ist. Everything I've ever read about statism is in line with this definition, as is the very etymology of the word itself.
Anyway, the point now is that you, and everyone interested in libertarianism beyond the current events of the last 2 years, should consider checking out some of the sources that come highly recommended. Mises.org, Rothbard, and Lew Rockwell. Heck, Lew Rockwell appeared on the C4L front page again today, and other authors from Mises.org and LRC often do. Ron Paul himself talks about the influences of Rothbard and Mises.org. Mises.org hosts RP material, it's like the original libertarian website, all the scholarly knowledge you'll ever care to know about economics and liberty, human nature, and history as it relates to liberty/statism is free there. Just give them a look, you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Let me point out that I even went to the length of saying my bastardization of people who actually could be considered experts would only impede in clarifying these ideas because they've already demonstrated them far mire expertly and concisely than i could.
And that's exactly why i was advocating reading about these theories directly from those that theorized them.
It seems like the talk is about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Free market, statism, limited statism, etc.; none of which will lead to utopia. The reason is simple; people are involved.
The barbarians always come out of the north and raid the agrarians. At first they kill them and steal the crops. Then they realize that if they don't leave some of the agrarians alive there won't be crops to steal next season. And that can occur in a free market.
Now, the barbarians are in Washington and the Federal Reserve. Their job is to convince us that they are needed and to figure out how much they can steal without killing so many of us that we can't keep supporting them.
It is in the nature of our system for the non-productive consumer sector to outgrow the productive consumer sector of our population. There comes a time when it has to collapse.
I have done the reading; from Noch's "Our Enemy the State" right on through Rothbard and years of Ron Paul. In my view it all distills to people vs people. Ron Paul's measures are altruistic and in the best interest of the people at large, but even if all of his recommended measures were implemented it would not produce a perfect society.
The system of judges I mentioned were operating under a Theocracy where the law had been given by God. It eventually devolved to a Theocratic Monarchy. But, even that would not work because of self interest. As the Apostle Paul would say many years later that the law was spiritual, but became weak when mixed with the flesh.
We ain't getting out of here except in a pine box.
you're right that none of it will lead to utopia, because utopia is unnatural. we live in a world of scarcity with limited resources and utopia requires absolute abundance.
and you're right about the fact that there will always be thugs and people who would rather take than produce. a protective service must be rendered, whether that be through the market, or through the State. the State monopolizing the market will only produce more expensive, less efficient results. the market allows for failure of bad service and support of good service. the point is not to create utopia, but to minimize the bad parts. less corruption is possible when a monopoly does not have a stranglehold on the market.
It is the nature of our *current* system for non-productive elements to grow too large because they are propped up by state intervention. bad business is propped up by state intervention. the state monopolizes on services and creates less efficient services, and it pays for all this intervention by theft from it's citizens.
When the state (monarchy) seizes the Judicial/Arbitration market, as you said it devolves into a tyrannical, corrupt monopoly on that service.
We may not be "getting out of here except in a pine box" but that doesnt mean we can't minimize coercion and allow as much liberty as humanly possible while we are here. :)
BillNM, you make a valid point that a perfect society won't be achieved. First, this is an obvious implication of the fact that humans are, by nature, imperfect. Second, that doesn't mean that we therefore shouldn't strive for the nearest perfect we're aware of, right? It would be obviously bizarre to intentionally aim for anything less, particularly when the least-imperfect system has been established.
And I totally agree with your view of barbarians, particularly those in Washington. But for as much as you've read, you should know by now that it's in the nature of humans to be cooperative and peaceful, not to be barbarians. This is an obvious implication of economic principles like the division of labor and the law of marginal utility, among others. I don't think history, human nature, or economics supports the idea that humans are by nature uncooperative barbarians, and that we therefore need a state to beat us into submission.
We might get out of here in a pine box, but we don't experience reality inside of a pine box. Obviously liberty is important to us during life, that's why we're on this site. I agree with Lew Rockwell and Stephen Kinsella, that economics is the most important thing people in our age need to learn. If educated masses are the only sure reliance for preservation of liberty, then economics is the first thing we should educate them about. Economics is the supreme tool for obliterating statist fallacies, surely then, it's a primary key to achieving liberty.
We're pretty much on the same page. I don't expect to experience reality in that pine box. I've met the terms and have expectations beyond the grave. Cheers.
The American electoral process and media will not permit an alternate party to garner real vote numbers apart from the Rep/Dem gov't parties. Notice the independent vote (biggest voting block in U.S.) is again forced into voting for one of the sancioned gov't parties.
Besides Americans are conditioned to vote like chimps:
Well thank Jesus, only 103 posts and Hash and "Take your stand" landed on reality .... Gravity must be working again, now excuse me while the rest of the 99.99999999% of the population go about our daily lives trying to figure out how best to get from point A to point B while ignoring you frigging egoistical ivory tower intellectuals ... (yeah we have to live in the REAL WORLD) ....
And I've been calm and collected for all 103 of them until your last arrogant pretentious comment. Go read something bro.
99.99% of people are often wrong, there's nothing magical about a majority that makes them right just because they all agree on something. That's why it's an elementary fallacy, argumentum ad populum. Nothing is true or right JUST BECAUSE people agree on it. There's ESPECIALLY nothing magical about you that makes you right simply because you agree with 99.99% of ignorant people. You must be either 5 or 75, because only babies and old people are as hardheaded as you.
You've demonstrated an utter lack of comprehension or interest in anything relevant to liberty or economics. I don't know what "real world" you live on, but around here those "ivory tower" intellectuals like Ron Paul and the Mises.org scholars have been paving the way for liberty. Yeah, I'm sure it looks like an ivory tower through your thick skull from your high horse. Don't say we didn't invite you to get a better view.
look. i'm not going to argue with you. and i haven't once moved anywhere on my stance, so if you think i've "landed on reality" then you must have seen something true about what i've been saying. i don't know what you even meant by that statement.
second of all, again, i'm trying to tell you that i have absolutely no desire to argue with you. i'm not an "expert". i'm not "holier than thou". and i'm not an "ivory tower intellectual".
the only thing i've been saying this entire time, is that you should read the books, and the ideas, and the works of the people who have influenced this movement. not radical leftism. THIS. movement. you should take them all into consideration. i never said you had to advocate anything. i never said you should agree with what i'm saying. i told you to read it and make up your own mind. that is all. i don't know why in the world you want to butt heads so badly.
we're both far closer in our views to each other than either of us are to the mainstream. i'm not saying mine is not more radical than yours. but guess what? mine AND yours was more radical than the mainstream when it came to Pauls campaign for presidency. i was in your shoes not too long ago. i was the one raggin on hash3m for ranting about the things he rants about in the comment at C4L. But when it came time to look into Austrian Economics, which i wanted to know more about, and *which Dr Paul recommended*, i read many things that changed my view. quite drastically in fact.
i'm with the program. in fact i'm probably a slightly farther bit along the program than you are.
and as far as realistic... there is hardly anything more "realistic" than economics, it's ignoring the way they work that causes ideals of utopia and a vast amount of social problems.
You are right "take your stand". We are all on the same side and I feel at home with the people on this site b/c I can at least sympathize with all the different beliefs put out on this site.
I don't think you, Hash or Rothbard are "farther along". I agree with those such as Locke, Jefferson, and/or Hayek, and not everything Rothbard wrote, as I now have realized.
Yes, everyone should agree logically that free markets are the fairest, and most efficient way to distribute limited resources of any kind, but there are other variables to take into account.
For example, yes, a free market in children would work for a time, and is better than what we already have but children are not and should not be a commodity to be bought and sold. Humans have a priceless value that can not be obtained using supply and demand.
Another, yes, anarchy sounds fantastic and like it should work, but it ultimately is the same folly as communism. It isn't taking into account all aspects of human nature. All men might be created equal but they don't stay that way. 90% of people are sheeple. One or more of those theorized free market "law providers" and/or security would sooner or later become in effect a tyrannous government.
That is why a limited government, chained by a powerful constitution, with power dispersed as low and far as possible, to enforce laws and property rights has to be used. At least until humans as a whole become more than they are.
As you have always pointed out, the message of freedom is really a battle of ideas. More warfare and welfare versus more individual liberty. The establishment versus the individual.
Liberty, prosperity, and peace through sound money.
I think it is that simple.
Posted 01/11/10 04:44 AM fecklessman San Marcos, CA
i've recently referenced/responded to this video on my vlog, if anyone is interested to check it out.
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
