Political Theory

Re: Right Libertarianism

IDigSluts_ky — Thu, 29 May 2008 08:51:57 GMT

I am a leftist and an anarchist.

Ask.

Re: Right Libertarianism

banned — Thu, 29 May 2008 07:33:50 GMT

Ok?

What do you mean by that?

Re: Right Libertarianism

IDigSluts_ky — Thu, 29 May 2008 07:30:45 GMT

I am a leftist and an anarchist.

Re: Right Libertarianism

banned — Thu, 29 May 2008 06:57:19 GMT

liberty student:
I believe Paul personally believes in the right to secession. I have heard Paul say that he doesn't really favor democracy. I believe that the Ron Paul we see most often doing interviews and populist speeches, is a far more complex gentleman than many might be willing to admit.

Which Is why I was blocked from his youtube page after posting an anti-constitutional argument?

I had made posts about how he was a populist, a tyrant, but then when I posted negatively about the constitution, the comment was removed and I was blocked. He certainly is doing a strange job of showing his complexity.

By the way, McCain is a complex guy, I think he's a market anarchist really, I'm voting for him.

On the subject of Democracy: Most Paleocons are opposed to democracy and support something called "republic". Which is so much better! I guess they think the system leads to less government intervention.

Re: Right Libertarianism

Niccolò — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:59:21 GMT

liberty student:

Hunh? Paul doesn't defend the entire Constitution. I think you're way off base judging him the way you do. His rhetoric is his vehicle to educate and attack the government from within.

I've seen all the evidence to the contrary.

[We] in Congress need to fulfill our oath of office and protect and defend the constitution and our republic. Our constituents deserve no less, and should demand it of all of us.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, please, feel free to reveal it.

I doubt you have seen all of the evidence in the world. I'm probably quite sure I've got dozens of hours of debate and interviews on you, not to mention books and speeches. And I don't think I have seen all of the evidence in the world.

Then you would not be so stingy in revealing it.

Back to being condescending. "Sheeple", and then cheap rhetoric about being a pagan (he's a Protestant).

They are sheeple though...

Watch this...

Ron Paul is a pagan because he worships men (James Madison, George Washington, John Hancock, Alexander Hamilton, etc.) as gods.

Re: Right Libertarianism

Ego — Sun, 18 May 2008 16:19:21 GMT

Yeah, I removed that sentence while you were posting; I was trying to get at this: The government can spend all it wants; if it's not getting money through taxes, no one should care.

I removed it because the political reality is that taxes aren't going to fall without cutting spending.

Re: Right Libertarianism

JAlanKatz — Sun, 18 May 2008 16:15:44 GMT

Ego:
I agree; of all the ways to cut back spending, why choose a tiny one like this that will insult a lot of people?

Well, I think the "why" is obvious, and really has little to do with saving money - even if that's Sabrin's reason for it, he knows that people will support him for other reasons, and he's encouraging them to do so. Wonderful.

My concern is not so much that it will insult a lot of people - I'm concerned that it will disenfranchise a lot of people, and make them unable to access monopolized services. Look, emergency response should be decentralized and provided by competing firms in the marketplace - and if it were, I wouldn't care what language they do it in. But it isn't - everyone is fforced to pay for, and use, the same monopoly service. So what we're telling people who don't speak English is that they cannot access the service they are being charged for already, and must die instead.

I disagree, though, that taxes are teh problem, not spending. I'd say both are. GIven the option of leaving taxes alone and eliminating 100% of spending, I'd go for it. Just let the politicians pocket the money, and allow the marketplace to provide all needed services. Yes, they'd be parasites, doing nothing, but that's better than also harming economic calculation.

Re: Right Libertarianism

Ego — Sun, 18 May 2008 16:03:31 GMT

I agree; of all the ways to cut back spending, why choose a tiny one like this that will insult a lot of people?

Re: Right Libertarianism

JAlanKatz — Sun, 18 May 2008 15:42:38 GMT

krazy kaju:

The entire point is to eliminate having ballots and whatnot in 30 languages.

That reduces spending, which is a good thing.

A perfect example of what we call vulgar libertarianism. Here's an example Anthony Gregory used with me once:

All else being equal, we could reduce spending tremendously by making a small change in the way the federal government operates: simply eliminate cafeterias in federal prisons, without making any other changes. Would this, too, be good, since it reduces spending, or would you admit that in this case, there might be a mistake?

Re: Right Libertarianism

liberty student — Sun, 18 May 2008 13:47:59 GMT

Niccolò:
Paul favors a republic. Paul defends secession only because of the 10th amendmant.

Hunh? Paul doesn't defend the entire Constitution. I think you're way off base judging him the way you do. His rhetoric is his vehicle to educate and attack the government from within.

Niccolò:
I've seen all the evidence in the world to suggest he, the individual, is a conservative statist and absolutely no evidence to contradict it.

I doubt you have seen all of the evidence in the world. I'm probably quite sure I've got dozens of hours of debate and interviews on you, not to mention books and speeches. And I don't think I have seen all of the evidence in the world.

Niccolò:
I will admit that the sheeple of his cult are convertable, but the man himself is a state worshipping pagan, through and through.

Back to being condescending. "Sheeple", and then cheap rhetoric about being a pagan (he's a Protestant).

Re: Right Libertarianism

Niccolò — Sun, 18 May 2008 10:45:37 GMT

liberty student:

Niccolò:
I'm curious; do you really believe that Paul is anything less than a nationalist? Do you really believe he doesn't adhere to simply "reducing" government to its Constitutional levels - minus the slavery?

I believe Paul personally believes in the right to secession. I have heard Paul say that he doesn't really favor democracy. I believe that the Ron Paul we see most often doing interviews and populist speeches, is a far more complex gentleman than many might be willing to admit.

Paul favors a republic. Paul defends secession only because of the 10th amendmant.

I've seen all the evidence in the world to suggest he, the individual, is a conservative statist and absolutely no evidence to contradict it. I will admit that the sheeple of his cult are convertable, but the man himself is a state worshipping pagan, through and through.

Re: Right Libertarianism

Niccolò — Sun, 18 May 2008 10:43:28 GMT

krazy kaju:

The entire point is to eliminate having ballots and whatnot in 30 languages.

That reduces spending, which is a good thing.

Weigh the smallest fraction of retaining a dozen or so translators (maybe adding to an annual of one million a year - IF THAT) to translate these documents to monopolizing one culture over another by force and the libertarian answer is clear.

Re: Right Libertarianism

Niccolò — Sun, 18 May 2008 10:41:56 GMT

Ego:

As I've said all along, I agree it's impossible to win using purely political means. On the same taken, it's impossible to win using purely non-political means; if you let everyone else decide who runs the state and how it's run, it will run all over you and your agorist paradise.

In the past (I'm not sure whether you still agree with this position), you stated that it's hypocritical to participate in elections if you are opposed to democracy; no it's not; it's self-defense.

The point of Agorism, eggy, is to evade the state in the first place. You can say that the guvment is going to get much bigger if Ron Paul and Bob Barr aren't on their knees begging it not to - while simultaneously pushing through a war on drugs and immigrants - but the fact is that we as Agorists simply don't care. Agorists will evade the state whether it is big or small. We will ignore it and if it comes to our door steps, we will shoot it - together.

Your problem is that you're accepting the system implicitly.

Re: Right Libertarianism

krazy kaju — Sat, 17 May 2008 23:29:22 GMT

The entire point is to eliminate having ballots and whatnot in 30 languages.

That reduces spending, which is a good thing.

Re: Right Libertarianism

Brainpolice — Sat, 17 May 2008 10:27:44 GMT

scineram:
Check out this gem! No wonder we are not conservatives.

In this article, the following is stated:

"Whatever the difficulties of conservatism, surely one can improve upon the typical performance of those who take it upon themselves to explain it. In place of the conventional accounts, try this one: Conservatism is the defense of legitimacy wherever it happens to exist. “Legitimacy” here is defined in the empirical, Weberian sense: that is, an institution is legitimate if and only if the opinion has become widespread that it is right (for whatever reason or lack thereof) to obey it. The conservative, in short, cultivates obedience to existing institutions. This definition, I submit, has all the advantages of the conventional definitions, none of their defects, and some important advantages of its own."

I can immediately see some huge defects with this way of viewing things. For one thing, it defines "legitimacy" in terms of majority or public opinion, which can often be dead wrong. Social convention in and of itself is not necessarily rational or true. Something is not legitimate just because a mob of people think it is. With this method of viewing the world, literally any institution or norm that currently exists can be defended. This attitude is one of stagnation; it tries to legitimize currently existing conditions and keep them static. If this were applied to the 18th or 19th century, chattel slavery would have to be defended.

In contrast, libertarians question legitimacy based upon an independant standard of justice. If currently existing conditions and institutions contradict such an independant standard, then to that extent the libertarian opposes them and advocates changes. The libertarian does not believe that you have an unchosen positive obligation to obey existing institutions just because they are percieved as being legitimate or have been there for a long time. The libertarian has some concept of civil disobedience. The libertarian believes in progress and evolution. Society is not static, nor should we attempt to make it so.

For the rest of the article, the guy goes on to deny the very implications of his own definition of conservatism.