Make a video about it.
Again, stop taking pot shots.
It's just like how you selective target the right while affording the socialist left a pass
What do you mean by "the socialist left"? People like Chomsky? I hate him and critisize him. Furthermore, I don't selectively target the right, I merely critisize the tendency of many libertarians to defend the right or act as if they are a part of it, and beg them to stop giving everyone the impression that this is more about anti-socialism and anti-leftism than it is about a broader principle.
you also choose to selectively ignore that Rothbard worked with paleocons.
I don't ignore that, I critisize that period and that tactic. It was perhaps the biggest mistake that Rothbard ever made.
That he started out as an "old right" conservative.
And changed his position once he discovered libertarianism, going into some very interesting and informative tirades against the conservative establishment. Where he started out is somewhat irrelevant.
That his outreach to the left was based on opportunism, not with ideological compatibility.
Even if this is true, it is equally true for the outreach to palecons, who are not ideologically compatible with libertarianism or anarchism. It was a clear case of oppurtunism, of making use of racial and cultural tensions.
Rothbard stood by Ron Paul. He also stood by Pat Buchanan.
Two mistakes, and a continual attempt on your part to appeal to the authority of Rothbard. Should Rothbard be immune from libertarian criticism?
It's absolutely hilarious that the grandchildren of his philosophical positions loathe the people he worked so hard for.
You speak as if Rothbard invented libertarianism when it predates him by about a century. You also act as if one must praise every single thing he ever did, which is silly.
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).
Again, not only do you continue to personalize, but the claims are dubious. You don't know what other people do in their personal lives.
The reason why these left agendas have gone nowhere IMO, is that the leadership is all from the rear.
Do you mean to imply that top-down organization is preferable? If so, this notion is fundamentally anti-thetical to libertarianism. You keep repeating assumed premises like this that are usually held by statists against libertarians.
You may hate Paul, but he is getting it done.
Getting what done? You seem more interested in getting something done, no matter what, irrespective of precisely what it is that's being done.
You may think Rockwell is a paleocon, but without him, the Mises Institute may not be what it is today.
I never claimed that Rockwell is a paleocon.
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.
That's already been done for you over the course of many posts on many threads. You're just willfully ignorant about it.
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.
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.
Anyone who starts out reading this thread that knows nothing about it will clearly see that the challenges presented by myslef have gone unanswered by the agorists and I in fact have explained why that is and explained the contradictions and why agorism can not achieve it's stated goal using the methods they are advocating.
The agorists "answers" ignore the questions and then run.
Niccolò: Maxliberty: The counter-economy has plenty of groups that look out for the police and statist activity. Have you ever been in a neighborhood that has high levels of crime, they have lookouts everywhere and they can spot cops in about five seconds. As you will notice, I have already pointed this out. The problem is that it is scarce and not wide enough - i.e. a tragedy of the commons. I think you're really overestimating that, by the way. If it were that effective, the US wouldn't be the largest prison nation in the world. Nice try though. Maxliberty: Not to mention gangs which are in part formed to protect the activity of the gang. How about the drug gangs in Mexico which are quite powerful and have undermined various parts of the Mexican judicial system. Those are jsut two examples all accomplished without agorist ideology. Great. Now if only that could be formalized and aggregated, which is what Agorism will do. Maxliberty: I don't think I ever said that people in business don't have obstacles or that there might be other incentives that might make people decide to limit their business activity. What that means is that people are pursuing their own self-interest. Are you saying that the goal of agorism is to convince people to pursue things contrary to their own self-interest? Of course you have. You've routinely demonstrated that you believe entrepreneurship is very seldomly involved in economic production. Your question didn't have to do with self-interest. It had to do with monetary profit - their business. Nice red herrings though, if only they weren't so obvious.
Maxliberty: The counter-economy has plenty of groups that look out for the police and statist activity. Have you ever been in a neighborhood that has high levels of crime, they have lookouts everywhere and they can spot cops in about five seconds.
The counter-economy has plenty of groups that look out for the police and statist activity. Have you ever been in a neighborhood that has high levels of crime, they have lookouts everywhere and they can spot cops in about five seconds.
As you will notice, I have already pointed this out. The problem is that it is scarce and not wide enough - i.e. a tragedy of the commons.
I think you're really overestimating that, by the way. If it were that effective, the US wouldn't be the largest prison nation in the world. Nice try though.
Maxliberty: Not to mention gangs which are in part formed to protect the activity of the gang. How about the drug gangs in Mexico which are quite powerful and have undermined various parts of the Mexican judicial system. Those are jsut two examples all accomplished without agorist ideology.
Not to mention gangs which are in part formed to protect the activity of the gang. How about the drug gangs in Mexico which are quite powerful and have undermined various parts of the Mexican judicial system. Those are jsut two examples all accomplished without agorist ideology.
Great. Now if only that could be formalized and aggregated, which is what Agorism will do.
Maxliberty: I don't think I ever said that people in business don't have obstacles or that there might be other incentives that might make people decide to limit their business activity. What that means is that people are pursuing their own self-interest. Are you saying that the goal of agorism is to convince people to pursue things contrary to their own self-interest?
I don't think I ever said that people in business don't have obstacles or that there might be other incentives that might make people decide to limit their business activity. What that means is that people are pursuing their own self-interest. Are you saying that the goal of agorism is to convince people to pursue things contrary to their own self-interest?
Of course you have. You've routinely demonstrated that you believe entrepreneurship is very seldomly involved in economic production.
Your question didn't have to do with self-interest. It had to do with monetary profit - their business.
Nice red herrings though, if only they weren't so obvious.
Just for those that might be reading the first posts and saying, "Gee... This Jim Jones type guy sure is making a lot of sense."
Then again, I don't know what the use of communicating to untreated schizos at the public library would be...
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Maxliberty: 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. Anyone who starts out reading this thread that knows nothing about it will clearly see that the challenges presented by myslef have gone unanswered by the agorists and I in fact have explained why that is and explained the contradictions and why agorism can not achieve it's stated goal using the methods they are advocating. The agorists "answers" ignore the questions and then run.
You really haven't. If only you would stop lying about it.
They certainly took the LTV in the same direction he did... and were not fond of interest. But other than that, they were not socialists in the sense the term has acquired today. If "socialist" means being against economic exploitation, then fine in that sense they are, but again that has nothing to do with what Liberty Student was speaking of.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
Jon Irenicus: They certainly took the LTV in the same direction he did... and were not fond of interest. But other than that, they were not socialists in the sense the term has acquired today. If "socialist" means being against economic exploitation, then fine in that sense they are, but again that has nothing to do with what Liberty Student was speaking of. -Jon
I just find it kind of odd that everyone always assumes socialist = spawn of Karl Marx.
Most socialists in history have nothing to do with Karl Marx and though he was popular in the slavic and pig-slavic speaking worlds - well, just in the very far reaches of Eastern Europe - during his time he was not even close to being as influential as say a Proudhon.
I don't know what libby was talking about, I rarely do.
liberty student: 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: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.
OK, that's far enough. Scroll up to the top of this page and here is what you will see - note this is a cut and past, no modification was performed:
liberty student: ozzy43:When you say "A lot of right wingers are coming to libertarianism" do you perceive this as an unalloyed good??Yes.
ozzy43:When you say "A lot of right wingers are coming to libertarianism" do you perceive this as an unalloyed good??
Putting words in your mouth? I am quoting your exact response to a very specific question, which had no reference to now, then or anything else. In fact, you DID say it was an unalloyed good, as you can see if you simply refer to your earlier post. In the immortal words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, as flawed a figure as ever bestrode Capital Hill, 'you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are NOT entitled to your own facts.'
This temporal distinction makes no sense to me, and I see little reason to continue this conversation. The lessons of history are lost on you, it seems.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. - Goethe
ozzy43:This temporal distinction makes no sense to me, and I see little reason to continue this conversation. The lessons of history are lost on you, it seems.
Ozzy, I might have a failure to adequately communicate what I mean, but I assure you, I have no need or desire to lie to you or backtrack on a comment. I stand by not only what I posted, but what I meant. What you posted is some manner of interpretation that had nothing to do with what I wrote.
Speaking of temporally,
REPEAT: 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.
This is what came before,
REPEAT: Yes.
So I said that right wingers coming to libertarianism was good, then you brought up the past which was totally irrelevant to our discussion about the present. Speaking temporally, the order of the discussion matters. Rhetorically tacking on conditions to someone else's answer is offside.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Right-wingers coming to libertarianism is good. Keeping their right-wing baggage while calling themselves libertarians (*cough* Barr *cough*), thats not so good.
Admittedly, the same thing applies, in theory, to left-wingers. In practice, I'm not so sure, especially as far as the radical left is concerned. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Barr is not a libertarian. And I wouldn't call him a conservative either. He's a big government opportunist. Not to mention W.A.R. is a wanker.
I don't have a problem with anyone who is willing to embrace the NAP. Left or right. I just see that most of the people coming over are coming from the right, and yet the right is constantly villified, while the left continue doing their socialist thang, and some libertarians think being Rothbardian means kissing the New Left's ass. The New Left is dead. The Old Right is dead. Rothbard was no wiser to associate with the left than he was with the right. He was still fooling around with horizontal, not vertical politics.
He was still fooling around with horizontal, not vertical politics.
A commonly reoccuring theme throughout your commentary is the notion that top-down organization is preferable or even the only possible way to effectively do things. This seems very contradicary to libertarianism to me.
BP, it is 11:30, the end of what has turned out to be an excellent day, and you are still crying about soggy crumpets and cold tea.
Where have I advocated top down organization?
The vertical vs. horizontal was in reference to a Nolan Chart. That libertarianism is higher than statism, and leftist and rightist ideologies.
For a guy who polices brains, you sure generate a lot of false positives during your investigations.
liberty student:
I never got that chart. How the hell can you seperate economic and personal freedom?
banned:I never got that chart. How the hell can you seperate economic and personal freedom?
Because most people do not have rational, informed opinions or definitions even of what freedom is. The chart serves the purpose of convincing people on the right that they are not for personal freedom, and people on the left, that they are not for economic freedom. It's fantastic in my opinion.
Sometimes you have to look at things as others see them. Obviously, you are pretty enlightened. But there is no profit in preaching to the crowd, unless you are particularly narcisstic, which is why it is in our interests to see things from the statist perspective to better "know our enemy".
Another chart question:
How can there be a "Libertarian Left?"
Also, that website "agorism.info" is about as useless as websites can be. i was highly disappointed.
"Every civilization depends on the quality of individuals it produces. If you over-organize humans, over-legalize them, suppress their urge to greatness-they cannot work and their civilization collapses." -Frank Herbert, from Children of Dune
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