wombatron: We could start a new thread, if there is any interest.
We could start a new thread, if there is any interest.
I am always interested in exploring ideas I have not encountered, or in exploring ideas further which I've touched but not dug into. I also think its vital to consider all sides - too many people have decided to close off their minds to 'certain ideas' without any logical foundation - based largely, IMO, on the unexamined assumptions that have been inculcated into them by external forces they often cannot even identify. I try to rid myself of all assumptions that cannot withstand scrutiny. Sometimes, I even succeed, which I consider remarkable. Thanks to evolution, man's capacity for self deception is boundless and astonishingly powerful. I don't think many people are actually aware of this basic truth about themselves, and even those who are, can barely manage to make a dent here and there once in a while.
I've read some Tucker, but not in a diligent way and not with any external input. Both would be helpful. Thanks much for the links - will be checking them out.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. - Goethe
liberty student: Ok, but the 1960's SDS is not today's SDS. What is being advertised, is today's SDS, which is decidely socialist IMO. It's like when Carsonoid the Mutualist links to the IWW on his blog. Chomsky is in the IWW. It's a marxist organization IMO. Why are libertarians getting tied up with socialists over fascists? Sounds a lot like a false choice to me. I'd rather be shoulder to shoulder with a corporatist than a socialist. A lot of right wingers are coming to libertarianism, while the libertarians continue to romance a left that could take or leave them.
Ok, but the 1960's SDS is not today's SDS. What is being advertised, is today's SDS, which is decidely socialist IMO. It's like when Carsonoid the Mutualist links to the IWW on his blog. Chomsky is in the IWW. It's a marxist organization IMO. Why are libertarians getting tied up with socialists over fascists? Sounds a lot like a false choice to me. I'd rather be shoulder to shoulder with a corporatist than a socialist. A lot of right wingers are coming to libertarianism, while the libertarians continue to romance a left that could take or leave them.
I went to a college with a very large SDS chapter last year (just transferred elsewhere). I'll share my experience with them.
They accept non-anarchists but most (90%ish) are anarchists. On the plus side, I found quite a few of them to be intelligent and somewhat open to libertarian ideas. I introduced Rothbard to one of them and he basically became an ancap although he preferred the term "market socialist." I was able to make some ground with a few others and convince them of some basic economic principles. I even met one SDSer who was a complete ancap and knew a good deal of Austrian economics, Rothbard, Mises etc.
On the minus side: most of them were only familiar with anarcho-communists; they were completely unaware of Spooner, Tucker and just about every individualist. Some were just petty idiots (90-99.9% of the world is) and were passive aggressive to me when they found out I was libertarian. And the worst part is that they got together to go to a lecture by some libertarian (I think it might have been David D. Friedman) and threw a pie at him while he was on stage. Yep, that's right; they smuggled in a pie and threw it at the lecturer. A lot of the cooler people in SDS really objected to that though.
So my conclusion is that they're not so bad of a group. They've got a healthy mix of intelligent people and blithering idiots. As far as right and left, I think we ought to just give up on all that stuff.
ozzy43:Well, I think you are throwing around terms which are far more complex than the meaning they seem to have in your context. For example, why do you fail to make a distinction between State socialism and Stateless socialism?
Because I am not as verbose as some here.
ozzy43:When you make this assertion: " I'd rather be shoulder to shoulder with a corporatist than a socialist" - you are rejecting Rothbardian libertarianism - are you aware of this?
I don't care.
ozzy43:When you say "A lot of right wingers are coming to libertarianism" do you perceive this as an unalloyed good??
Yes.
ozzy43:So I think we just disagree here, which is fine, of course
ozzy43:That means we have a lot more in common with Noam Chomsky than we do with "libertarian leaning" Republicans, at least at this stage of the game. That's the way it looks to me anyway.
Chomsky doesn't believe in the NAP. Neither does the SDS.
ozzy43:BTW, for what it's worth, I used to see things very much as you do: socialism was THE ENEMY, and I thought the Republicans were much to be preferred over the Democrats (aka G*DDAMN SOCIALISTS) - but I read, and I thought, and I exposed myself to more Rothbard and to dozens and dozens of other thinkers, some of whom made good sense, and others who were full of horsesh*t, and I got to where I am now, and I am not standing still, but I do know that my old, simplistic view was not aligned with reality, and so it had to change. It may be that yours will also.
Your presumption of my perspective is inaccurate.
Thank you. I value personal experience much more than theory. That's a balanced report, showing that while the SDS may have promise or potentially be allies, we shouldn't necessarily assume they are libertarians, they understand free market economics, or that their philosophical roots are in individual liberty.
This is why I get worried about the automatic co-opting of leftist groups, because there is this general assumption that left is compatible and right is not.
What is compatible is a rational philosophy compatible with the NAP. Being anti-war or anti-state is not enough.
wombatron: ozzy43: liberty student: Full marks for trying to be funny. Care to explain why you have a SDS graphic in your sig? Rothbard made numerous favorable remarks about SDS - saw some common ground where some common work might be done, IIRC. His 'Betrayal of the American Right' includes this bit of history. Agreed. The latest iteration of the SDS is even better, from a libertarian standpoint, than the original ever was. It is explicitly anarchist and anti-authority, and leaders of the SDS have openly asked for support from libertarians and anti-state rightists. BTW, I differ from plumb-line Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism in only a few ways. I can't actually call myself a Rothbardian, technically, as I derive rights from the capacity for rationality (a la Rasmussen, Den Uyl, Long, and Plauche) rather than axiomatic self-ownership. I just think that the mutualists and individualist anarchists have several insights that are usually missed by libertarians.
ozzy43: liberty student: Full marks for trying to be funny. Care to explain why you have a SDS graphic in your sig? Rothbard made numerous favorable remarks about SDS - saw some common ground where some common work might be done, IIRC. His 'Betrayal of the American Right' includes this bit of history.
liberty student: Full marks for trying to be funny. Care to explain why you have a SDS graphic in your sig?
Full marks for trying to be funny. Care to explain why you have a SDS graphic in your sig?
Rothbard made numerous favorable remarks about SDS - saw some common ground where some common work might be done, IIRC. His 'Betrayal of the American Right' includes this bit of history.
Agreed. The latest iteration of the SDS is even better, from a libertarian standpoint, than the original ever was. It is explicitly anarchist and anti-authority, and leaders of the SDS have openly asked for support from libertarians and anti-state rightists.
BTW, I differ from plumb-line Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism in only a few ways. I can't actually call myself a Rothbardian, technically, as I derive rights from the capacity for rationality (a la Rasmussen, Den Uyl, Long, and Plauche) rather than axiomatic self-ownership. I just think that the mutualists and individualist anarchists have several insights that are usually missed by libertarians.
SEK3 always said that we Agorists were more Rothbardian than even Rothbard. I think that's a pretty fair distinction.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
liberty student: Your presumption of my perspective is inaccurate.
Perhaps this explains it:
liberty student: Because I am not as verbose as some here.
It's not verbosity that is lacking - it is clarity.
I have just described how lots of 'right wingers coming to libertarianism' has, in the past, led to dilution of the fundamental principles of libertarianism and the institutionalization of quasi-Statists within 'libertarian' organizations, yet you still insist that this is an 'unalloyed good'. The logic here is this: dilution of fundamental libertarian principles to the point of quasi-Statism is preferrable to associating with 'socialists' - even those opposed to the State.
This is what you just said. If it is not what you meant, I suggest you take the cap off and explain what you meant to say.
Dogmatism has its place, but taking it to the extreme of treating an anti-Statist as an enemy, and quasi-Statists as friends, makes zero sense to me.
ozzy43: liberty student: Your presumption of my perspective is inaccurate. Perhaps this explains it: liberty student: Because I am not as verbose as some here. It's not verbosity that is lacking - it is clarity. I have just described how lots of 'right wingers coming to libertarianism' has, in the past, led to dilution of the fundamental principles of libertarianism and the institutionalization of quasi-Statists within 'libertarian' organizations, yet you still insist that this is an 'unalloyed good'. The logic here is this: dilution of fundamental libertarian principles to the point of quasi-Statism is preferrable to associating with 'socialists' - even those opposed to the State. This is what you just said. If it is not what you meant, I suggest you take the cap off and explain what you meant to say. Dogmatism has its place, but taking it to the extreme of treating an anti-Statist as an enemy, and quasi-Statists as friends, makes zero sense to me.
Precisely. This is what I don't understand. It makes no sense to ally with conservative statists and minarchists (which has lead to the dillution of the libertarian movement and its co-option by the political right) while outright rejecting other anarchists who happen to be socialistic.
Apparently anti-"left" takes precedence over anti-statism or anti-authoritarianism as such, to the point of allying with statists/authoritarian in the name of anti-socialism.
liberty student: Thank you. I value personal experience much more than theory. That's a balanced report, showing that while the SDS may have promise or potentially be allies, we shouldn't necessarily assume they are libertarians, they understand free market economics, or that their philosophical roots are in individual liberty. This is why I get worried about the automatic co-opting of leftist groups, because there is this general assumption that left is compatible and right is not. What is compatible is a rational philosophy compatible with the NAP. Being anti-war or anti-state is not enough.
That's the smartest thing you've ever said.
majevska: I went to a college with a very large SDS chapter last year (just transferred elsewhere). I'll share my experience with them. They accept non-anarchists but most (90%ish) are anarchists. On the plus side, I found quite a few of them to be intelligent and somewhat open to libertarian ideas. I introduced Rothbard to one of them and he basically became an ancap although he preferred the term "market socialist." I was able to make some ground with a few others and convince them of some basic economic principles. I even met one SDSer who was a complete ancap and knew a good deal of Austrian economics, Rothbard, Mises etc. On the minus side: most of them were only familiar with anarcho-communists; they were completely unaware of Spooner, Tucker and just about every individualist. Some were just petty idiots (90-99.9% of the world is) and were passive aggressive to me when they found out I was libertarian. And the worst part is that they got together to go to a lecture by some libertarian (I think it might have been David D. Friedman) and threw a pie at him while he was on stage. Yep, that's right; they smuggled in a pie and threw it at the lecturer. A lot of the cooler people in SDS really objected to that though. So my conclusion is that they're not so bad of a group. They've got a healthy mix of intelligent people and blithering idiots. As far as right and left, I think we ought to just give up on all that stuff.
I met a girl at an SDS chapter once. We hooked up, but it didn't work out in the end.
All in all, however, I'd say that the intelligent people outnumber the idiots and I appreciate their willingness to be active.
Brainpolice: ozzy43: liberty student: Your presumption of my perspective is inaccurate. Perhaps this explains it: liberty student: Because I am not as verbose as some here. It's not verbosity that is lacking - it is clarity. I have just described how lots of 'right wingers coming to libertarianism' has, in the past, led to dilution of the fundamental principles of libertarianism and the institutionalization of quasi-Statists within 'libertarian' organizations, yet you still insist that this is an 'unalloyed good'. The logic here is this: dilution of fundamental libertarian principles to the point of quasi-Statism is preferrable to associating with 'socialists' - even those opposed to the State. This is what you just said. If it is not what you meant, I suggest you take the cap off and explain what you meant to say. Dogmatism has its place, but taking it to the extreme of treating an anti-Statist as an enemy, and quasi-Statists as friends, makes zero sense to me. Precisely. This is what I don't understand. It makes no sense to ally with conservative statists and minarchists (which has lead to the dillution of the libertarian movement and its co-option by the political right) while outright rejecting other anarchists who happen to be socialistic. Apparently anti-"left" takes precedence over anti-statism or anti-authoritarianism as such, to the point of allying with statists/authoritarian in the name of anti-socialism.
It's the history that is involved. The left have traditionally favored some sort of collectivist approach even when advocating against the state. It's the lack of individualism on the left that leads to skepticism of their true intentions. On the right although the minarchists advocate some state issues they are very indivdual oriented in their overall thinking. I think it is the lack of emphasis on the individual and the promotion of labor versus capital on the left that causes concern that the leftists don't really desire the same thing as those whose focus is on the individuals freedom.
I can see this thread has pretty much come to an end. The challenges to agorism having been unanswered I think the outcome is exactly as I defined it my last post on this subject. Agorism as a strategy to grow the counter-economy and thus overthrow the state has been discredited, and the strategy of forming counter-institutions in the US has been shown to be the least likely approach to be effective. Agorism RIP.
Maxliberty: I can see this thread has pretty much come to an end. The challenges to agorism having been unanswered I think the outcome is exactly as I defined it my last post on this subject. Agorism as a strategy to grow the counter-economy and thus overthrow the state has been discredited, and the strategy of forming counter-institutions in the US has been shown to be the least likely approach to be effective. Agorism RIP.
Stop this immature declaration of victory when you've yet to present much resembling a sound argument or demonstrate that you even understand what you're trying to critisize to begin with. All you've done is repeat the same sweeping assertions over and over again while being highly disingenous and insulting.
Your blatant trolling of agorists is annoying.
ozzy43:It's not verbosity that is lacking - it is clarity.
Clarity or comprehension?
ozzy43:I have just described how lots of 'right wingers coming to libertarianism' has, in the past, led to dilution of the fundamental principles of libertarianism and the institutionalization of quasi-Statists within 'libertarian' organizations, yet you still insist that this is an 'unalloyed good'.
I did not insist that was unalloyed good. I insisted that right wingers coming to libertarianism NOW is an unalloyed good. Please don't put words in my mouth.
ozzy43:The logic here is this: dilution of fundamental libertarian principles to the point of quasi-Statism is preferrable to associating with 'socialists' - even those opposed to the State.
That is the logic of the strawman.
ozzy43:This is what you just said.
No it is not. It is what you are claiming I said.
ozzy43:If it is not what you meant, I suggest you take the cap off and explain what you meant to say.
Not only is it not what I meant, it is not what I wrote. It is a failure of comprehension, that from my perspective, has been wholly created by you.
ozzy43:Dogmatism has its place, but taking it to the extreme of treating an anti-Statist as an enemy, and quasi-Statists as friends, makes zero sense to me.
Another strawman. I am looking for adherents to the NAP. Not anti-(this)-state socialists who would replace the state with another state like SDS, which is not for anarchy, but participatory democracy. Which has no foundation on austrian or free market economics, which organizes within their group into a black caucus, and a female caucus. That campaigns for "workers rights" and protests for defunding the war, so the state can fund their educations.
Again, the left is as bankrupt as the right. I'm seeing growth in libertarianism from the right, more people coming from that end of the spectrum to the NAP, and then there are from the left. It seems the libertarian love affair with the left is the age old story of unrequited love. They'll accept your company and support, but they will not march under your flag.
Brainpolice:Precisely. This is what I don't understand.
There are many things you do not understand. Read my post to Ozzy.
Brainpolice:It makes no sense to ally with conservative statists and minarchists (which has lead to the dillution of the libertarian movement and its co-option by the political right) while outright rejecting other anarchists who happen to be socialistic.
But ultimately, if they don't accept the NAP, if they aren't willing to stand shoulder to shoulder when the $$$t hits the fan, then they aren't "with us" regardless if they are from the right or the left. I'm not looking for allies. That's cover for people who aren't confident and motivated in their beliefs. I am looking to recruit resources, manpower and passion. Passion for the NAP and liberty. Not for workers rights. Not for collectivist caucuses. Not for state funding of education.
Socialists are not allies. There should be no argument on this point. Neither socialists or fascists are allies. Playing the "left better than right" game has yielded nothing in the last 30 years. What has grown libertarianism has been a little old country doctor from the right, named Ron Paul. He is the one who has galvanized libertariansism on the campuses. He is the one bringing up Lysander Spooner on network TV.
That doesn't validate the right, but it certainly undermines the notion that the right has nothing to offer libertarianism in opportunities or platforms.
Brainpolice:Apparently anti-"left" takes precedence over anti-statism or anti-authoritarianism as such, to the point of allying with statists/authoritarian in the name of anti-socialism.
I had you figured for the scarecrow, but that doesn't mean you HAVE to post strawmen.
Brainpolice:Your blatant trolling of agorists is annoying.
Et tu?
liberty student: Again, the left is as bankrupt as the right. I'm seeing growth in libertarianism from the right, more people coming from that end of the spectrum to the NAP, and then there are from the left. It seems the libertarian love affair with the left is the age old story of unrequited love. They'll accept your company and support, but they will not march under your flag.
Again, you're on crack.
The fact that the right has so long been a heel on the libertarian movement is a fact that can't be disregarded. Talk to someone about libertarianism in the states and you hear, "oh.. republican-lite?"
The Left is where libertarians should focus for the mere fact that conservatives tend to be much more steadfast in their beliefs as opposed to the left who not only do not want their government to be violent - and cringe when you show the gun in the room - but they're looking for something more radical.
In the zogby poll I linked to in the Ron Paul/xenophobe/racist thread, most self-described conservatives are against secession, far more so than self-described leftists. If the right is a pool full of liberty fish, then they certainly are funny about jumping from the water.
liberty student: Socialists are not allies.
Socialists are not allies.
Really? Because Rothbard pretty much adored Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker!
That is equivocation. They were not socialists in the sense he is referring to them.
That aside, I am very doubtful about the so-called "right". They seem to attached to things like the war on drugs, national unity, mercantilistic concerns &c. and too bound to these beliefs to make for good conversion material. Their collective of choice supersedes the market.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
What Jon said. And, Rothbard worked for Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul. So don't lecture me on how Rothbard was this great leftist, because he was a right winger prior to libertarian, and one could argue, he was right leaning at the end of his life as well.
Niccolò:Again, you're on crack.
I don't do drugs. I worked around addicts for a year. It was incredibly depressing seeing man reduced to animal.
Niccolò:The fact that the right has so long been a heel on the libertarian movement is a fact that can't be disregarded. Talk to someone about libertarianism in the states and you hear, "oh.. republican-lite?"
I don't care what the public thinks. Since when did the masses become authorities on political philosophy? These are the same people who believe in the system, why do we allow them to define the boundaries and definitions we use to market our agenda and philosophy?
Niccolò:The Left is where libertarians should focus for the mere fact that conservatives tend to be much more steadfast in their beliefs as opposed to the left who not only do not want their government to be violent - and cringe when you show the gun in the room - but they're looking for something more radical.
That's a generalization. And I imagine you have limited experience. Of the newer libertarians on this board, I, banned, NitroAdict, KingMonkey and several others are here due to Ron Paul. Most of, if not all of us are anarchists now. The evidence staring you in the face contradicts your supposition.
Niccolò:In the zogby poll I linked to in the Ron Paul/xenophobe/racist thread, most self-described conservatives are against secession, far more so than self-described leftists. If the right is a pool full of liberty fish, then they certainly are funny about jumping from the water.
If that is the recent poll DiLorenzo linked to in teh LRC Blog, then big deal. Only 1 in 5 Americans believe in secession at all, which is a depressingly low number. It's not that the right are a pool full, but that many former right wingers and conservatives like myself were raised with an intellectual, rather than emotional (leftist) approach to politics. That is why when someone like Paul makes good sense about money, about taxes and small government, we "get it". That's why when we come here, and are exposed to ideas about anarchy, "we get it". We aren't asking stupid questions like
WAT WILL HAPPENZ TO THE POOR PEOPLES?
We're more apt to ask how sophisticated issues like abortion are reconciled with anarchy. How the provision of defense and law will occur.
I think a fundamental issue is that your limited life experience and circle of social interaction leads to the assumption that all rightists are Bush Republicans, or Compassionate Pro-War conservatives. That couldn't be further from the truth.
Jon Irenicus:That aside, I am very doubtful about the so-called "right". They seem to attached to things like the war on drugs, national unity, mercantilistic concerns &c. and too bound to these beliefs to make for good conversion material. Their collective of choice supersedes the market.
Some, but not all. Honestly, in Canada, we have a different conservative tradition, but I haven't ever met someone who was pro war on drugs, pro mercantilism and regarded him as a fellow rightist. And I have never met anyone who fits the complete stereotype you pointed out, although I acknowledge they exist certainly in the US (from my discussions online) but again, these are not the rightist intellectuals or philosophers. These are the rank and file racist, nationalist, American-excellence obsessed Christian fanatics. They are no more conservative than Bush is.
liberty student: What Jon said. And, Rothbard worked for Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul. So don't lecture me on how Rothbard was this great leftist, because he was a right winger prior to libertarian, and one could argue, he was right leaning at the end of his life as well.
Rothbard went nuts in his later years. Obviously.
Jon Irenicus: That is equivocation. They were not socialists in the sense he is referring to them. That aside, I am very doubtful about the so-called "right". They seem to attached to things like the war on drugs, national unity, mercantilistic concerns &c. and too bound to these beliefs to make for good conversion material. Their collective of choice supersedes the market. -Jon
Except they were socialists.
So unless libby wants to clarify, he's wrong; socialists are more friendly than rightists.
liberty student: I don't care what the public thinks. Since when did the masses become authorities on political philosophy? These are the same people who believe in the system, why do we allow them to define the boundaries and definitions we use to market our agenda and philosophy?
You were the one that brought up people. If I'm not mistaken, the public = people.
liberty student: That's a generalization. And I imagine you have limited experience. Of the newer libertarians on this board, I, banned, NitroAdict, KingMonkey and several others are here due to Ron Paul. Most of, if not all of us are anarchists now. The evidence staring you in the face contradicts your supposition.
And many others that were turned onto libertarianism were immediately turned off to it by Ron Paul. In a forum I used to frequent for music called, The Comatorium, for example, most immediately shunned libertarianism specifically because it was, at the time, being associated with xeonophobia, nationalism, and capitalist rhetoric - i.e. vulgar libertarianism.
That Ron Paul peddles vulgar libertarianism is the very reason why he is not a libertarian. It does seem, however, that two of those you mentioned have since revolted against the Paulians.
Now, maybe peddling vulgar libertarianism will hook a good few fish, but most of the salmon in the barrel, I find, are the weak ones that got mixed up with the rest. I am here thinking of people like you.
liberty student: LRC Blog
LRC Blog
Ew...
You still pay attention to that? It's a breeding ground for paleoconservatives.
liberty student: then big deal. Only 1 in 5 Americans believe in secession at all, which is a depressingly low number, It's not that the right are a pool full,
then big deal. Only 1 in 5 Americans believe in secession at all, which is a depressingly low number, It's not that the right are a pool full,
Only?!?
I was shocked to hear that only 22% in between the land mass known as the USA supporter secession - a direct confrontation to the inherent legitimacy asserted by governments.
You do realize that the US revolution was only fought with less than a third of the population in support, right?
liberty student: but that many former right wingers and conservatives like myself were raised with an intellectual, rather than emotional (leftist) approach to politics. That is why when someone like Paul makes good sense about money, about taxes and small government, we "get it". That's why when we come here, and are exposed to ideas about anarchy, "we get it". We aren't asking stupid questions like WAT WILL HAPPENZ TO THE POOR PEOPLES? We're more apt to ask how sophisticated issues like abortion are reconciled with anarchy. How the provision of defense and law will occur.
but that many former right wingers and conservatives like myself were raised with an intellectual, rather than emotional (leftist) approach to politics. That is why when someone like Paul makes good sense about money, about taxes and small government, we "get it". That's why when we come here, and are exposed to ideas about anarchy, "we get it". We aren't asking stupid questions like
First, former?!? What the hell? You are definitely no "former rightist." You stink of reactionary conservativism!
Second, conservativism is hardly intellectual - especially your brand. Its about as pseudo-intellectual as you get - addressed below.
Third, Ron Paul makes about as much sense as a baptist preacher in the south. Sure, lots of the choir think it's good stuff, but Paul is clumsy at best and embarassing at worst, just like much of the LRC crowd. Bunch of gold-bug, Shavais sitting around a campfire recreating the French-Indian wars getting wet dreams about rubbing elbows with John Guilt and making love to a very unloveable, very dry Ayn Rand.
Sure, its useful and sometimes informative, on a very plebian level with occassional strikes of brilliance, but come on! Give the gold standard stuff a rest and quit hocking the "end-of-the-world federal-reserve-bank-will-kill us all in our beds tomorrow" stories. Honestly, I get headaches from having to explain to people why Paul's unsophisticated arguments and his style of interpretation do not mean the conclusions of anti-imperialism are as inadequate.
Seriously, that you would think poverty is not as big of an issue as abortion or enforcing John D. Rockefeller's land permits originally granted to him by congress is just so indicative of why you and people like you are such jokes. You still think you're apart of the elite and I think that's just cute, but don't take yourselves to seriously, because the ones you poo-poo are the ones that have a common interest in some of the conclusions you say you want - though I'm very suspect of that. You think you're sophisticated because you read a few articles on mises.org and think you know some economics?Let me give you a little bit of information, you're not and only you have the illusions of it. You're such a caricature of a vulgar libertarian. It's really just quaint, I think.
liberty student: I think a fundamental issue is that your limited life experience and circle of social interaction leads to the assumption that all rightists are Bush Republicans, or Compassionate Pro-War conservatives. That couldn't be further from the truth.
Please. Save me the age bollix and the teen angst associated with people that talk about Bush or the right as if they're some evil, mass conspiracy of religious nut jobs and hill billies. I'm neither concerned about age or what you call a "lack of life experience" - which is complete bull - nor am I one to mention George W. Bush... ever, really.
I dislike conservatives for one reason - they're conservative! Do you know what conservative means? Put it into a political perspective. Calling yourself a conservative implies that you desire government, just government under control. I hate that. I despise it actually. I dislike conservatives not because I have an illusion that they're all pro-war, but because I have a very real notion that they're all nationalists with a very inaccurate understanding of their own history or philosophical leanings - though they think playing dress-up in the backyard counts as a demonstration of knowledge. I despise conservatives because they're pseudo-intellectuals that attack "pseudo-intellectuals."
liberty student: Brainpolice:Precisely. This is what I don't understand. There are many things you do not understand. Read my post to Ozzy. Brainpolice:It makes no sense to ally with conservative statists and minarchists (which has lead to the dillution of the libertarian movement and its co-option by the political right) while outright rejecting other anarchists who happen to be socialistic. But ultimately, if they don't accept the NAP, if they aren't willing to stand shoulder to shoulder when the $$t hits the fan, then they aren't "with us" regardless if they are from the right or the left. I'm not looking for allies. That's cover for people who aren't confident and motivated in their beliefs. I am looking to recruit resources, manpower and passion. Passion for the NAP and liberty. Not for workers rights. Not for collectivist caucuses. Not for state funding of education. Socialists are not allies. There should be no argument on this point. Neither socialists or fascists are allies. Playing the "left better than right" game has yielded nothing in the last 30 years. What has grown libertarianism has been a little old country doctor from the right, named Ron Paul. He is the one who has galvanized libertariansism on the campuses. He is the one bringing up Lysander Spooner on network TV. That doesn't validate the right, but it certainly undermines the notion that the right has nothing to offer libertarianism in opportunities or platforms. Brainpolice:Apparently anti-"left" takes precedence over anti-statism or anti-authoritarianism as such, to the point of allying with statists/authoritarian in the name of anti-socialism. I had you figured for the scarecrow, but that doesn't mean you HAVE to post strawmen.
But ultimately, if they don't accept the NAP, if they aren't willing to stand shoulder to shoulder when the $$t hits the fan, then they aren't "with us" regardless if they are from the right or the left. I'm not looking for allies. That's cover for people who aren't confident and motivated in their beliefs. I am looking to recruit resources, manpower and passion. Passion for the NAP and liberty. Not for workers rights. Not for collectivist caucuses. Not for state funding of education.
I'm talking about socialist anarchists who do accept the NAP, who are anti-statist and do not advocate forcing socialism as a universal system - a concept that seems foreign to your preconcieved false dichotomies. Stop taking me out of context. My point was that declaring actual other anarchists to be enemies while making alliances with "soft" statists (at best) on the right makes no sense at all.
Ron Paul has done practically nothing for libertarianism as a political philosophy or movement. He needs to stop being treated as some kind of messiah. He's not. He hasn't "grown" libertarianism - libertarianism "grew" long before he was even born if we want to be technical. It's the "libertarians are natural allies with conservatives" game that has failed for the past half century or more.
How were they socialists? Because they bought into the flawed aspects of Marx's system? Because they were against capitalism? Wendy McElroy had a great post on these guys and the sense in which they were "socialists". It is not the same as what the word means today.
Brainpolice:I'm talking about socialist anarchists who do accept the NAP, who are anti-statist and do not advocate forcing socialism as a universal system - a concept that seems foreign to your preconcieved false dichotomies. Stop taking me out of context. My point was that declaring actual other anarchists to be enemies while making alliances with "soft" statists (at best) on the right makes no sense at all.
If they believe in the NAP, and not in coercive social orders, then I am fine with them. If they see themselves establishing a new, more benevolent state, I have no use for them.
Brainpolice:Ron Paul has done practically nothing for libertarianism as a political philosophy or movement. He needs to stop being treated as some kind of messiah. He's not. He hasn't "grown" libertarianism - libertarianism "grew" long before he was even born if we want to be technical. It's the "libertarians are natural allies with conservatives" game that has failed for the past half century or more.
He gets more than a few hundred views on YouTube. People listen. He has the opportunity and has capitalized on it, to shape a lot of minds.
Look, I know you know everything. Paul has done nothing, you are doing everything. I get it. It's just that Paul who might be the most prominent populist libertarian since the revolution, and Rothbard, arguably the most prominent and important anarcho-libertarian in the 20th century, all came from, and ended up within the right.
In my limited understanding, the left has contributed very little outside of philosophy.
Niccolò:Rothbard went nuts in his later years. Obviously.
Yes, and his younger years. And some of the years inbetween.
In all sincerity, who are the heroes the left has contributed?
Niccolò:So unless libby wants to clarify, he's wrong; socialists are more friendly than rightists.
I am sure socialists are more friendly. I'm sure they smile more. That is totally irrelevant to the discussion.
From Kevin Carson,
I frequently find myself in full agreement with left-wing commentators in their complaints concerning the evils of corporate capitalism, while pulling out my hair in frustration at their inability to identify the causes and proper solutions to these evils.
But even Carson is a leftist, and he misses the point as usual. In fact, his philosophy as an anti-capitalist misses the point. Corporate Capitalism is not the problem. The state is. Without a state, there cannot be corporate capitalism . And without corporate capitalism, aka corporatism or fascism to be more precise, there is no need to trash Capitalism. But he does trash all capitalism, with his "anti-Capitalist" sloganeering, when he knows full well that it is corporate capitalism aka corporatism or fascism to be precise, that is the issue.
Typical leftist. Destroy the language and then express your frustration that others can't identify cause and solutions. When it was that same person who contributes to the destruction of the language necessary to craft effective, multi-generational propaganda.
liberty student:Without a state, there cannot be corporate capitalism . And without corporate capitalism, aka corporatism or fascism to be more precise, there is no need to trash Capitalism. But he does trash all capitalism, with his "anti-Capitalist" sloganeering, when he knows full well that it is corporate capitalism aka corporatism or fascism to be precise, that is the issue.
Y'know, the Agrarian side of the old right can be quite anti-capitalist.
Anyways, I don't find myself Gung-Ho about siding with anyone who's going to accept the state as a viable means, be they left or right.
banned:Anyways, I don't find myself Gung-Ho about siding with anyone who's going to accept the state as a viable means, be they left or right.
Hallelujah brother!
It's not like we have a John Galt appreciation society going, or anything...
Jon Irenicus: How were they socialists? Because they bought into the flawed aspects of Marx's system? Because they were against capitalism? Wendy McElroy had a great post on these guys and the sense in which they were "socialists". It is not the same as what the word means today. -Jon
First, neither were even remotely influenced by Karl Marx.
Second, yes, because they were against capitalism and economic exploitation.
Brainpolice: Maxliberty: I can see this thread has pretty much come to an end. The challenges to agorism having been unanswered I think the outcome is exactly as I defined it my last post on this subject. Agorism as a strategy to grow the counter-economy and thus overthrow the state has been discredited, and the strategy of forming counter-institutions in the US has been shown to be the least likely approach to be effective. Agorism RIP. Stop this immature declaration of victory when you've yet to present much resembling a sound argument or demonstrate that you even understand what you're trying to critisize to begin with. All you've done is repeat the same sweeping assertions over and over again while being highly disingenous and insulting. Your blatant trolling of agorists is annoying.
Intellectually I have wiped the floor with the agorists. I don't think it is even a debateable issue anymore.
liberty student: I am sure socialists are more friendly. I'm sure they smile more. That is totally irrelevant to the discussion.
"to libertarianism" was accidentaly omitted.
liberty student: From Kevin Carson, I frequently find myself in full agreement with left-wing commentators in their complaints concerning the evils of corporate capitalism, while pulling out my hair in frustration at their inability to identify the causes and proper solutions to these evils. But even Carson is a leftist, and he misses the point as usual. In fact, his philosophy as an anti-capitalist misses the point. Corporate Capitalism is not the problem. The state is. Without a state, there cannot be corporate capitalism . And without corporate capitalism, aka corporatism or fascism to be more precise, there is no need to trash Capitalism. But he does trash all capitalism, with his "anti-Capitalist" sloganeering, when he knows full well that it is corporate capitalism aka corporatism or fascism to be precise, that is the issue. Typical leftist. Destroy the language and then express your frustration that others can't identify cause and solutions. When it was that same person who contributes to the destruction of the language necessary to craft effective, multi-generational propaganda.
No, in fact, capitalism is the problem because capitalism is not free-market. Capitalism is about a structure of the wealthy exploiting the unwealthy. It is about entrepreneurs being subjected to the will of virtual monopolies on top. Without the state, capitalism cannot exist - that is precisely because capitalism requires the state.
I identify with Carson a lot, though find myself more in agreement with SEK3 than anyone, and that he is a leftist is no problem for me. I think the left holds a larger pool of bigger fish to catch for libertarianism.
Maxliberty:Intellectually I have wiped the floor with the agorists. I don't think it is even a debateable issue anymore.
If, by "wiped the floor" you really mean, "repeated a bunch of unfounded assertions, ignored every valid response to my criticisms, and unilaterally declared myself the victor," then yeah, you win.
============================
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."
Maxliberty: Intellectually I have wiped the floor with the agorists. I don't think it is even a debateable issue anymore.
First, I've answered and countered you repeatedly. You've yet to respond to those answers.
Second,
david_z: Maxliberty:Intellectually I have wiped the floor with the agorists. I don't think it is even a debateable issue anymore. If, by "wiped the floor" you really mean, "repeated a bunch of unfounded assertions, ignored every valid response to my criticisms, and unilaterally declared myself the victor," then yeah, you win.
Well, it's easy to be the winner when you ignore everything else, I guess.
I love his definition of "win" though. I'm still confused as to how you can "win" on an internet forum.
Again, your second comment is entirely irrelevant to what I'm refering to. It's a reoccuring straw man.
He gets more than a few hundred views on YouTube.
Still taking pot shots at me I see. Stop it.
People listen. He has the opportunity and has capitalized on it, to shape a lot of minds.
Yes, he has shaped a lot of minds. A good part of the shaping has been negative.
Look, I know you know everything. Paul has done nothing, you are doing everything. I get it.
Again with the personalizing everything.
It's just that Paul who might be the most prominent populist libertarian since the revolution,
Libertarian + populist = contradiction in terms. Populism is connected with political democracy. It is demagoguery.
and Rothbard, arguably the most prominent and important anarcho-libertarian in the 20th century, all came from, and ended up within the right.
Nice appeals to authority, while conveniently ignoring the left-libertarian period and Rothbard's various positions throughout his life that are blatantly anti-conservative.
You seem to have this reoccuring theme of assuming that philosophy is somehow pointless or bad. It isn't, it is very important and libertarianism is meaningless without it.
Brainpolice:Still taking pot shots at me I see.
Make a video about it.
Brainpolice:Again with the personalizing everything.
What can I say? You bring out the best in me.
Brainpolice:Nice appeals to authority, while conveniently ignoring the left-libertarian period and Rothbard's various positions throughout his life that are blatantly anti-conservative.
It wasn't an appeal to authority. It's just like how you selective target the right while affording the socialist left a pass, you also choose to selectively ignore that Rothbard worked with paleocons. That he started out as an "old right" conservative. That his outreach to the left was based on opportunism, not with ideological compatibility. Rothbard stood by Ron Paul. He also stood by Pat Buchanan. It's absolutely hilarious that the grandchildren of his philosophical positions loathe the people he worked so hard for.
Brainpolice:Again, your second comment is entirely irrelevant to what I'm refering to. It's a reoccuring straw man.
What strawman? That is exactly what the SDS wants to do, and we were discussing the SDS.
Brainpolice:You seem to have this reoccuring theme of assuming that philosophy is somehow pointless or bad. It isn't, it is very important and libertarianism is meaningless without it.
No. I don't think philosophy is pointless. I reject the notion that it is more important than action. That if one is busy being a philosopher, then they are doing their part. Like arguing for Agorism, but having no intention of practicing it yourself (which some here apparently have admitted to).
The reason why these left agendas have gone nowhere IMO, is that the leadership is all from the rear. You may hate Paul, but he is getting it done. You may think Rockwell is a paleocon, but without him, the Mises Institute may not be what it is today. Some people lead from the front, some from the rear.
Feel free to respond to my question about the accomplishments of the great left libertarian leaders. I'd love to know who they are and what they have done.
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