Jon Stewart on elitests: "Not only do I want an elite president, I want someone who's embarrassingly superior to me."
It may have been said in jest, but truth my lie in it. IMHO, I wouldn't want someone superior to me in office, as they may think they are omniscient and omnipotent, and act accordingly. They think they may have the solutions for everything, where in their brilliance, they are blind to the fact that many solutions cause more problems. I would want someone who let's me do whatever the eff I want to do granted I am not harming anyone else.
Well, if I may restate your post, step 1: you want a government that's so small it doesn't matter who runs it; step 2: you want someone with sufficient moral character and intelligence to know that government must be kept so small it doesn't matter who runs it. Obviously democracy won't get you there.
I think Stewart's sentiments may be all right but he doesn't really have an intellectual framework for them. If you give intelligent people a huge tax base and nuclear weapons you're exactly right: they'll think they're the agents of God on earth. OTOH, I think the Bush presidency is a prime example of what happens when you elect someone without critical thinking skills.
I don't watch his show, but he was probably just trying to defend Obama. Obama is an elitist, meaning he (like most leftists) view the average person (and his/her ability to reason) with disdain.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Byzantine: Well, if I may restate your post, step 1: you want a government that's so small it doesn't matter who runs it; step 2: you want someone with sufficient moral character and intelligence to know that government must be kept so small it doesn't matter who runs it. Obviously democracy won't get you there.
I disagree... Democracy CAN get us there (not necessarily WILL), as long as the leaders who will do so actually have the guts to enter the race and take on the mainstream, as opposed to, say, advocating a complete withdrawal from the political process (ala agorists).
The worst only get on top because the heroes of our society shirk their responsibility to enter politics and challenge them! Probably wielding their own fortunes (the heroes, that is) to ward off the corruption inherent in the contribution process, but that's a tactical issue...
"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke
maxpot46: I disagree... Democracy CAN get us there (not necessarily WILL), as long as the leaders who will do so actually have the guts to enter the race and take on the mainstream, as opposed to, say, advocating a complete withdrawal from the political process (ala agorists).
Once you declare that it is the people and not the system that is the problem, you have become no different than the communists.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Stranger: maxpot46: I disagree... Democracy CAN get us there (not necessarily WILL), as long as the leaders who will do so actually have the guts to enter the race and take on the mainstream, as opposed to, say, advocating a complete withdrawal from the political process (ala agorists). Once you declare that it is the people and not the system that is the problem, you have become no different than the communists.
I can't speak for him, but it sounds like he's saying that it's possible for certain people to stand up to the plate, not that they are the problem because they aren't "showing up for duty".
Id like a president who is so elitist and pompous that hes actually a complete moron and actually the only one that takes himself seriously in the entire country. Hopefully this would run the presidency into the ground and get the whole institution abolished. Just some kind of wishful thinking. I like when politicians make jackasses of themselves.. Moreso than usual.
Hey, this is a private residence man...
Ego: I can't speak for him, but it sounds like he's saying that it's possible for certain people to stand up to the plate, not that they are the problem because they aren't "showing up for duty".
So why have they failed over and over for the past 200 years?
Stranger: Once you declare that it is the people and not the system that is the problem, you have become no different than the communists.
Indeed. For example: the free market is a system whereby the self-interested entrepreneurs, perhaps espousing greed, through the system end up benefiting the consumers.
The government on the other hand, is a system dependent on monopoly, collusion and coercion, giving bad people tools they could not coneivably obtain under a free market. I'm afraid this applies to all governments, though to varying degrees.
Besides, we know that even the best politicians, as rare as they are, are still not incorruptible to power. To depend on them prevailing and being elected by going against the status quo, and then further pursuing their promises, seems like a fantasy to me.
If you try to trick the market, it will get its revenge.
Solreyus
Leftists in their own words hate elitism, but when they use the state to allocate resources instead of letting people to do that, they are practising economic elitisim.
My idea is that nobody could be over me, if I don't allow him to do that. I didn't allow my president to "rule me", but I did it with my proffesor or my future boss.
Easy, now... I'm on your side. The system is definitely the problem. The reason it attracts the worst is because the state's monopoly on coercion is a powerful incentive to enter politics for them and a disincentive for those with pro-freedom views. Thus the deck is currently heavily stacked against a pro-freedom leader. My view, however, is that "heavily stacked" is not synonymous with "insurmountable". IMO an exceptional pro-freedom leader can enter the system and then remove its coercive elements by 1) eliminating the fed and re-establishing a free market in money, and 2) create an income stream for the government that is non-coercive (via voluntary "taxation" aka liturgies, participation in business, sales of federal property, and other methods which I'm not brilliant enough to invent). When the proper function of politicians is fund-raising (for public projects, not their own campaigns) and not picking winners and losers by "redistributing" coerced funds, the worst will have much less incentive to enter public life and the heroes will have much more.
An optimistic view, yes, but preferable IMO to the only conceivable alternative of armed confrontation and conflict in which, no matter the ideological justification, would likely result in the loss of innocent lives and property.
Stranger: Ego: I can't speak for him, but it sounds like he's saying that it's possible for certain people to stand up to the plate, not that they are the problem because they aren't "showing up for duty". So why have they failed over and over for the past 200 years?
The deck is stacked against pro-freedom leaders, thus far insurmountably so. I remain optimistic that this can change, given the rise of the internet, the continued spread of Austrian ideas, and the recent appearance in politics of the 4 necessary components for such a pro-freedom leader to succeed (albeit in separate candidates, we need them in the same candidate). If someone appeared with the economic understanding of Ron Paul, the charisma of Barack Obama, the fortune (and willingness to spend it) of Ross Perot, and the logistical skills of Newt Gingrich, I think he could really do a lot to turn back the "New Fair Great Socialism" we underwent in the 20th century.
But they are using that in completely different ways. The communists use it to say why their system does not work. He was not mentioning the people in why free markets don't work, he is simply saying that like everything requires, it requires human action to bring about a free market and currently we don't have much of that.
maxpot46: The deck is stacked against pro-freedom leaders, thus far insurmountably so.
The deck is stacked against pro-freedom leaders, thus far insurmountably so.
Would you not say that pro-freedom leader is almost an oxymoron? How can you be pro-freedom if you lead people against their will? Of course we could have people like Ron Paul in power, but that's still not freedom, it's just less oppression. We would still have a monopoly on coercion and hence the potential to do bad as soon as the wrong kind of person comes into power.
Fred, any form of a state is still oppressive. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
Many of us would argue, however, that it is less oppressive to have a Ron Paul in power than a Barrack Obama.
No matter which method(s) you choose, dismantling the state is a long process.
Double-post... I'll ask this sort-of-on-topic question, instead: Does anyone else dislike Jon Stewart?
Fred Furash: Would you not say that pro-freedom leader is almost an oxymoron? How can you be pro-freedom if you lead people against their will? Of course we could have people like Ron Paul in power, but that's still not freedom, it's just less oppression. We would still have a monopoly on coercion and hence the potential to do bad as soon as the wrong kind of person comes into power.
Ideologically, I'm an anarchist. Practically, I have to admit that there are a lot of people out there unwilling to embrace anarchy... many people are not cut from the cloth of leaders and prefer a strong leader in whom to place their trust. Children are this way, many women are this way, and it's an approach that works for them in their daily life so they naturally turn to it when politics comes up. They will not ever embrace anarchy, which is beloved by the strong, proud, and independent... and uncommon. So I think approaches like agorism are doomed to fail.
IMO the best system is something akin to democracy but with a relatively toothless state. I don't think it inevitable that the state will always get stronger. It can be dismantled from within, which is why those on top work so hard to cement their advantage. They can be defeated by the proper strategy combined with the necessary resources, and they know it. And once the statists are defeated, the defenders of freedom must be ever vigilant... we'll never win "once and for all" by implementing the right anarchic system. There will always be statists ready to take from others by force, so they'll always need to be engaged.
IMO engaging them via a democratic process seems preferable to PDA's squaring off with government troops. Sure, democracy is the God that failed, but monarchy is never coming back so we'll just have to make it work. A big problem however is that Austrians don't want to enter politics. I attended Mises U. in 2005 and no one that I spoke to was willing to entertain the idea of one day entering politics. IMO they mistake what they personally prefer for what needs to be done, but I'm not here to pass judgement. Again, I consider it a failure of leadership. I hope to one day address this by entering politics myself and hopefully inspiring other Austrians to do the same, but until then I'll content myself with learning more, plotting strategies and tactics, and sharing my optimism over message boards
Ego: Fred, any form of a state is still oppressive. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Many of us would argue, however, that it is less oppressive to have a Ron Paul in power than a Barrack Obama. No matter which method(s) you choose, dismantling the state is a long process.
Oh absolutely, but you must understand that if/when we ever have enough numbers to actually elect him, at that point in time the agorist plan of economic secession would also be valid, or perhaps there are some other non-political ideas floating about.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap