I wouldn't put you in the same camp as ML, who seems to think everyone here has some sort of phobia of taking action against the state. I think the burden of proof arguments must be what he's misinterpreting, as some sort of refusal to offer any alternative to the State. But that isn't what the argument is intended to show. Maybe he should just also accept that some people are better suited as thinkers, others as leaders, others as strategists &c., and stop holding everyone to the same standard. I'm with you on terminology, as I don't think we should constantly surrender terms to idiots whose purpose in life it is to not think and just to follow other idiots (i.e. state "intellectuals") who've bent them out of all proportion, pushing libertarians into corners all the time. Careful explanations are better than falling prone to semantic games.
-Jon
I cannot be caged. I cannot be controlled. Understand this as you die, ever pathetic, ever fools.
Irenicus' Diaries.
That's a good post. And I think it dovetails nicely with mine. Maybe the problem is that some people are more suited to being thinkers, and maybe this community is geared more to that segment.
As far as idiots owning us, and surrendering to the statists, this is merely a question of commitment, confidence and courage.
If one really believes that liberty is worth fighting for, then why aren't they? And I don't necessarily mean violent confrontation, but I am not going to include blogging and article writing as "pushing back".
I would make a great bureaucrat. Wanna see? Click here. It's fun.
His argument seems to be that his harshest critics are the people who are either doing things so secretively that they don't allow the same criticism they dole out, or that they are doing nothing but refuse to respond to a direct query about that.
I think what it truly boils down to is his way or the highway. If you don't buy into his way, you're "doing nothing". A huge mischaracterization.
I honestly came here thinking I would run into tomorrow's Lew Rockwells and maybe even a future Ron Paul or two. Instead, it's mostly anarchists, not minarchists, left-libertarians not Misesians who are much more prone to campfire every topic, than to stand up and yell charge.
It's not our fault (or my fault) that you clearly prefer minarchism over anarchism. In my view, that's your own shortcoming.
I think part of it is that people initially come into the libertarian movement entirely unaware of its history and literature, and then end up being shocked when they discover that they are interacting with anarchists.
As far as "Miseans" are concerned, what do you mean by the term? I'd venture to say that the Mises Institute is dominatantly "Rothbardian", with Rothbard representing an extension on Mises and a move in the direction of anarchism.
The recent tail-tucking "we can't use capitalism" and as you so wisely pointed out, even liberalism has been surrendered.
The rejection of the term "capitalism" is not a particularly popular position here, so it's not representative of the general crowd.
There is plenty of criticism of Ron Paul, from the very people whose primary tactic towards liberty is either (1) waiting out the state, or (2) blogging about how unfair the state is.
Once again, this is a misrepresentation. I also think that you severely devalue the internet as a tool for education and debate. I don't see why blogging about liberty should be viewed as a bad thing, wether it's just a personal blog to get one's thoughts out there or a serious attempt to educate. Indeed, if it weren't for libertarian internet blogs, I somehow doubt that half of us would be where we are now.
Don't get me wrong. Maybe this is natural and right. Maybe as an evolutionary process the Mises Institute is more about philosophy than following in the Austrian tradition of engaging the statists. Perhaps people like Ego (now departed), myself and ML are hunting deer with fishing rods.
I found "Ego" to be a troll who obviously entered the forum as a newb, without really knowing much about what or who he was dealing with.
Lots of knowledge to be had here. But knowledge without action is...
And action without knowledge is....
Any number of circumstantial factors might be involved. One may think taking action is too risky at this point and not worth the costs, or that other pursuits should come first (e.g. students wanting to educate themselves first, to get a handle on certain ideas before advocating them to others) and so on. I'm sure there are anarchists who are genuinely averse to doing anything but preaching, but there's no reason to generalize this to all those who have other priorities at present. ML is being unfair to a lot of people in his denunciations of them, and leaving himself vulnerable to the exact same criticisms, whilst blatantly ignoring circumstantial factors, that he could not possibly know without asking directly, and which might be none of his business anyway, as if he's some sort of inquisitor or something.
LibertyStudent: Because even if it is wrong, misguided or doomed to fail, I think he's provided sufficient evidence for the Philosopher Kings to ascertain that he is indeed attempting action.
His argument seems to be that his harshest critics are the people who are either....
I honestly came here thinking I would run into tomorrow's Lew Rockwells and maybe even a future Ron Paul or two.
Juan: Wait a second. Isn't Rockwell an anarchist ? At any rate the banner at LRC says ANTI-STATE, ANTI-WAR - what's that supposed to mean ?
Satan must be freezing; I always thought Rockwell was an anarcho-capitalist and/or vulgar libertarian
Juan:I don't know. Ancaps and vulgar libertarians are the same thing ? I thought that Rockwell was a voluntarist (and so his support for RP doesn't make much sense from that point of view) But then, LibertyStudent seems to believe that Rockwell/Mises Institute are mainly miniarchists, and so their support RP would make sense...
They're not necessarily the same thing, but I think that they overlap.
Brainpolice:I think what it truly boils down to is his way or the highway. If you don't buy into his way, you're "doing nothing". A huge mischaracterization.
Brainpolice:It's not our fault (or my fault) that you clearly prefer minarchism over anarchism. In my view, that's your own shortcoming.
Brainpolice:I think part of it is that people initially come into the libertarian movement entirely unaware of its history and literature, and then end up being shocked when they discover that they are interacting with anarchists.
Brainpolice:As far as "Miseans" are concerned, what do you mean by the term? I'd venture to say that the Mises Institute is dominatantly "Rothbardian", with Rothbard representing an extension on Mises and a move in the direction of anarchism.
Brainpolice:The rejection of the term "capitalism" is not a particularly popular position here, so it's not representative of the general crowd.
Brainpolice:Once again, this is a misrepresentation. I also think that you severely devalue the internet as a tool for education and debate. I don't see why blogging about liberty should be viewed as a bad thing, wether it's just a personal blog to get one's thoughts out there or a serious attempt to educate. Indeed, if it weren't for libertarian internet blogs, I somehow doubt that half of us would be where we are now.
Brainpolice:I found "Ego" to be a troll who obviously entered the forum as a newb, without really knowing much about what or who he was dealing with.
Brainpolice:And action without knowledge is....
Juan:What he[ML] is doing looks like a scam to me. And in my not humbly opinion, a cop/soldier like him should be, at the very least, ostracized, instead of being regarded as any sort of libertarian 'leader' (what a joke!)
I dunno. Hating on the cops is so juvenile in my opinion. There are literally billions of people who work with, or for the state. I'm not ready to condemn them just because a bunch of (not referencing you) 20 something anarchists have never had a chance to escape mommy and daddy long enough to make compromises and get some dirt under their nails.
Juan:Wait a second. Isn't Rockwell an anarchist ? At any rate the banner at LRC says ANTI-STATE, ANTI-WAR - what's that supposed to mean ?
I don't doubt Lew is an anarchist. I just think he's got a more seasoned and mature attitude about it than the young folk who preach straight from the book.
Didn't Rothbard work in a University? Wouldn't have received income subsidized by the state in one shape or form?
It's fine and dandy being a puritannical anarchist when others make the compromises for you. Not so easy when you have to go out and compromise like the rest of us.
See, that's what I am talking about. I don't prefer minarchism. But minarchists are active. Anarchists are inert. Rothbard preferred minarchism towards the end. Now Murray wasn't nuts, he knew exactly what he was doing, Lew knows exactly what he is doing supporting Ron Paul. These are not stupid men.
You have a bad misconception of anarchists. You rely on faulty assumptions in claiming that "minarchists are active, anarchists are inert". I also don't buy into arguements from authority.
I think you need to get out of the house more. Honest. I've travelled to several countries, educated half way around the world, owned my own business and picked up bits and pieces of several languages. I might be further behind the reading curve of my early 20-year old anarchist tutors, but I am not lacking for life experience, not all or even most of which has been an experience in statism.Arrogance.
It's interesting that you're personalizing everything.
I'd like to know what your pal Carson thinks a Misoid is. It's not the Ludwig von Rothbard Institute last I checked. I read people here write that Mises was a minarchist, and then now I'm being sold that it's really the Murray Rothbard Institute? C'mon now. Is Mises a minarchist or not? Ron Paul? Hayek? Hazlitt? These are the people who helped put this place together. Lew served on Paul's congressional staff. If not minarchists now, surely they were minarchists when the Institute came into existence?
All I was saying is that the Mises Institute is dominated by Rothbardians, and Miseans are different from Rothbardians. There are conflicts between the views of Mises and Rothbard. Yes, all the people you mentioned were minarchists. What are you getting at? It seems like you're grasping at straws and dancing around.
What general crowd?
The general crowd at this website and on this message board.
LMAO. I owned more domains last year than you will probably own in a lifetime. I've been at this since 1995. I don't devalue the internet. I devalue people who think that blogging is their big contribution. Who do you think raised that money for Ron Paul? Web professionals in marketing and search engine optimization, or people with blogger accounts? It sure as hell wasn't his staff.
I never claimed that blogging is my big contribution, nor did I see anyone else claim this. It's you who keeps up bringing blogging as a personal attack against people who blog here. You constantly do this - personally attack me and others for spending time blogging about libertarianism. It's an easy cheap shot to make without having to actually make an argument about anything.
Of course you did. Ego tried to directly confront you. He might not always have been right, but you almost always sought to evade his questioning.
Nonsense. Ego strawmanned the hell out of me and others. He clearly didn't understand what he was dealing with.
Well, you charge up that big brain of yours. Maybe one day you'll be leading the revolution, shouting quotes from Prodhoun and Tucker.
At least I have half a clue about what I'm talking about, unlike those who never heard of Tucker or even demonize and oppose such libertarian figures while claiming to be libertarians themselves.
Both Rothbard and Hoppe had privately funded seats at UNLV. I agree on Rockwell, I think he's great.
Oh quit trolling. Now the Mises Institute is overrun with Rothbardians, not Misesians. Hence, Rothbardian values trump Misesian values.
My friend, I think you have half a clue, and none of the gumption. Have a nice night.