Do any of you find it frightening that two Neo-Mercantilists are getting positive attention on Lewrockwell.com? What is going on? Protectionists are the most disgusting force on the planet, and yet are recieving endless praise for what!? For opposing war? Ha, only if that war is "not constitutional" or not a threat to "US Economic nationalism".
The Libertarians nominated a protectionist, what would Mises think?
<></>
http://www.myspace.com/telpeurion
Telpeurion:The Libertarians nominated a protectionist, what would Mises think?
Libertas est Veritas: Telpeurion:The Libertarians nominated a protectionist, what would Mises think?I agree wholeheartedly on the Barr and Buchanan thing, but the 'what would Mises think?'' part made me think of WWJD. Just saying... :)
My thoughts exactly. =p
Telpeurion: Do any of you find it frightening that two Neo-Mercantilists are getting positive attention on Lewrockwell.com? What is going on? Protectionists are the most disgusting force on the planet, and yet are recieving endless praise for what!? For opposing war? Ha, only if that war is "not constitutional" or not a threat to "US Economic nationalism". The Libertarians nominated a protectionist, what would Mises think?
Welcome to the paleoconservative infiltration of the libertarian movement, directly enabled and aided by the LewRockwell crowd. The idea is that if we pander to right-wing populists we can "take back the right" (as if we ever really had it in the first place). It's a silly idea.
Brainpolice:...the LewRockwell crowd. The idea is that if we pander to right-wing populists we can "take back the right" (as if we ever really had it in the first place).
I believe my brain just emitted an audible "click". Thanks.
The state won't go away once enough people want the state to go away, the state will effectively disappear once enough people no longer care that much whether it stays or goes. We don't need a revolution, we need millions of them.
histhasthai: Brainpolice:...the LewRockwell crowd. The idea is that if we pander to right-wing populists we can "take back the right" (as if we ever really had it in the first place). I believe my brain just emitted an audible "click". Thanks.
Come again? :)
I don't think so. We shouldn't automatically write off people outside of libertarianism when they have good ideas or do good work. Pat Buchanan has vehemently denied any connection to libertarianism. Someone actually accused him of being one on the McLaughlin Group once and he said outright that he wasn't one. Lew has posted articles by Gore Vidal recently, too. As well as throwing some limited support behind Kucinich's few good ideas at times. Gravel has been given some support where he has been correct in his opinions. You could say the same with Chalmers Johnson and many others. He's also made sure to post to lots of outside articles on various things -- mostly unrelated to politics.
I actually very much like Pat Buchanan and think he is a fascinating writer and speaker. He's probably one of the most intelligent people on TV today. Though that isn't saying much, I think he is witty and smart enough to go toe to toe with really anyone. What he says about race and immigration may not be thought out economically, but I think that he has always been in the "politics before economics" mode that he thinks the people's popular support should always trump what the economist says. Fine, he is wrong. But I don't think it takes anything away from his ability to think or his ability as a writer and historian. He's certainly not slowing down libertarianism or depurifying it. My biggest concerns re: fake libertarians have been people like Glenn Beck, Larry Elder, Neal Boortz, et al that always come out and call themselves "practically libertarians" or whatever and are really not. They are the so-called conservatives to look out for. Pat is good people, in my opinion.
The Libertarian Party is a Political party, not a church. If we want to spread the Ideas of liberty we need to water down the message for the masses to swallow, that is why I am supporting Bob Barr.
"The plans differ; the planners are all alike"
-Bastiat
ChaseCola: The Libertarian Party is a Political party, not a church. If we want to spread the Ideas of liberty we need to water down the message for the masses to swallow, that is why I am supporting Bob Barr.
...
Libertarianism needn't be watered down. The "L"P needs to be atoned in blood (figuratively) - along with the rest of the political system.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
JohnSchreimann: I don't think so. We shouldn't automatically write off people outside of libertarianism when they have good ideas or do good work. Pat Buchanan has vehemently denied any connection to libertarianism. Someone actually accused him of being one on the McLaughlin Group once and he said outright that he wasn't one. Lew has posted articles by Gore Vidal recently, too. As well as throwing some limited support behind Kucinich's few good ideas at times. Gravel has been given some support where he has been correct in his opinions. You could say the same with Chalmers Johnson and many others. He's also made sure to post to lots of outside articles on various things -- mostly unrelated to politics. I actually very much like Pat Buchanan and think he is a fascinating writer and speaker. He's probably one of the most intelligent people on TV today. Though that isn't saying much, I think he is witty and smart enough to go toe to toe with really anyone. What he says about race and immigration may not be thought out economically, but I think that he has always been in the "politics before economics" mode that he thinks the people's popular support should always trump what the economist says. Fine, he is wrong. But I don't think it takes anything away from his ability to think or his ability as a writer and historian. He's certainly not slowing down libertarianism or depurifying it. My biggest concerns re: fake libertarians have been people like Glenn Beck, Larry Elder, Neal Boortz, et al that always come out and call themselves "practically libertarians" or whatever and are really not. They are the so-called conservatives to look out for. Pat is good people, in my opinion.
Well, I do like watching and reading Patrick Buchanan - but I agree with almost nothing he says, I just, like you, think he has some wit and is pretty entertaining. Bob Barr, however, is the classic, blue-eyed peckerwood.
Libertarianism needn't, but the Libertarian Party must, I am afraid. Because the masses cannot swallow Anarcho-Capitalism in one bite. One bite at a time. As for Agorism there is no way in hell that without an educated public people would not look for a government after the states inevitable collapse. I just dont see how a counter economy could stop the state, unless the people are educated. That comes from involvement in the media and poliical system.
Buchanan and Barr. One's fear mongering to sell dumbed down drivel while the other lives his own delusion while perverting a political philosophy...they sound like two typical politician/swindlers.
ChaseCola: Libertarianism needn't, but the Libertarian Party must, I am afraid. Because the masses cannot swallow Anarcho-Capitalism in one bite. One bite at a time. As for Agorism there is no way in hell that without an educated public people would not look for a government after the states inevitable collapse. I just dont see how a counter economy could stop the state, unless the people are educated. That comes from involvement in the media and poliical system.
To begin, I hate when people say "masses" or "vast majority," you're not VI Lenin, most people, majority, or the general populous will do fine. Sorry, just a pet peeve of mine.
Second, mass conversion DOES NOT OCCUR. People cannot be converted en masse. Yes, some people will happen to be converted at the same time and even because of the same event, but the implication of an individual renders the concept of mass conversion illiterate.
Third, education does NOT come through the political system, it comes through personal relationships. Yes, some have been influenced by public policies, but their influence is just one very small variable in what changes the minds of people. For the most part, focusing on individuals and emphasizing the message in practice and speech is what converts people. It is hard for a group to be convinced by one person, but it is easy for one person to be convinced by a message. The effectiveness of politics is far outweighed by the costs that go into it. The efficiency of politics is lacking.
Fourth, it seems that your emphasis on political pseudo-action comes from a kind of laziness. As Voltairine de Cleyre,
But the evil of pinning faith to indirect action is far greater than any such minor results. The main evil is that it destroys initiative, quenches the individual rebellious spirit, teaches people to rely on someone else to do for them what they should do for themselves; finally renders organic the anomalous idea that by massing supineness together until a majority is acquired, then through the peculiar magic of that majority, this supineness is to be transformed into energy. That is, people who have lost the habit of striking for themselves as individuals, who have submitted to every injustice while waiting for the majority to grow, are going to become metamorphosed into human high-explosives by a mere process of packing!
Fifth the idea that politics can be an educational tool seems directly contradicted by the message of "watering it down." If the purpose is to educate, and not in fact to actually win, then it's a contradiction to advoate "watering it down." After all, what are you trying to educate them about? Something watered down? If it's educational then you're just calling X, Y. What does that surve to do? Confuse? Yes.
Sixth, that point alone is enough to disuade people away from participating in politics. What more does political pseudo-action do than confuse libertarians? Libertarianism is the antithesis to politics. Yet, you're using it and calling it libertarian? Then radical libertarians begin to do things outside of the system, challenging the law as inane, arbtirary, and inconsequential; only to have your beloved politicians make more of them or advocate "the rule of law." It doesn't make sense and it serves as a great manner of confusion, I have personally found, for many.
Seventh, education is something done by individuals. You can much more effectivelly - at least I have - communicate the message of liberty through the Agorist route, printing a multitude of free and accessible Left-Libertarian pamphlets and posting them in opportune places. I myself have about sixteen people in my area interested in Left-Libertarianism, conversing with eachother and myself often, at this time. How about you?
Eigth, do you even know the system of Agorism or are you going off of a rumor? Agorism is a system based on phases. What do you think phase one is?
JohnSchreimann:We shouldn't automatically write off people outside of libertarianism
Libertas est Veritas: JohnSchreimann:We shouldn't automatically write off people outside o
JohnSchreimann:We shouldn't automatically write off people outside o