Something interesting is brewing over on Ron Paul Forums...

Reply

Josiah Schmidt Posted: Sun, Oct 5 2008 8:37 PM

rated by 0 users

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=161233

Bold.

Reply

Stranger replied on Sun, Oct 5 2008 8:51 PM

rated by 0 users

You know, the men who signed the declaration of independence weren't just making an empty declaration. They were making a declaration that they were going to fight if their independence wasn't respected. To fight, you need to have an organisation, and one year of planning is not going to be enough to build that organisation.

Reply

liberty student replied on Sun, Oct 5 2008 8:52 PM

rated by 0 users

I posted a new thread too late because I was making propaganda cat image.

Abolish the Government on 11/5/99

Agorism: Beat the State, show a profit, all in a non-violent way

Those sneaky Paulies.  Co-opting your anarchism!

Reply

liberty student replied on Sun, Oct 5 2008 8:54 PM

rated by 0 users

The people who got the Ron Paul bug don't worry about logistics and timelines.  They don't sweat the details.  They just do it, and see how far they can go.

The Founders didn't have the internet, YouTube, radio, cars, etc.

Reply

Stranger replied on Sun, Oct 5 2008 8:58 PM

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

The people who got the Ron Paul bug don't worry about logistics and timelines.  They don't sweat the details.  They just do it, and see how far they can go.

 

They're going to go as far as jail.

Reply

krazy kaju replied on Sun, Oct 5 2008 9:05 PM

rated by 0 users

Stranger:

They're going to go as far as jail.

My point exactly. There is a right time and a wrong time to do things. Now is definitely the wrong time for an anarchist movement.

Reply

liberty student replied on Sun, Oct 5 2008 9:08 PM

rated by 0 users

Stranger:

They're going to go as far as jail.

Maybe.  I'm sure some people said that about the Founders after reading Common Sense.

Reply

Josiah Schmidt replied on Sun, Oct 5 2008 9:11 PM

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

Stranger:

They're going to go as far as jail.

Maybe.  I'm sure some people said that about the Founders after reading Common Sense.

 

QFT.

Reply

Ahmed replied on Sun, Oct 5 2008 9:24 PM

rated by 0 users

''If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves'' Churchil

Reply

Josiah Schmidt replied on Sun, Oct 5 2008 9:30 PM

rated by 0 users

It all reminds me of Patrick Henry's speech: http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html

"And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight!"

Reply

krazy kaju replied on Sun, Oct 5 2008 9:54 PM

rated by 0 users

Inspirational quotes are by definition inspiring, but declaring that you will abolish the United States government within a year is ridiculous. Instead, you should be spreading libertarian ideals as much as possible to make an anarchist movement possible in the future. Right now, however, you are asking the federal government to go Waco on you.

Reply

Telpeurion replied on Sun, Oct 5 2008 10:04 PM

rated by 0 users

About 300 million people stand between you and your "anarchy".

Reply

krazy kaju replied on Sun, Oct 5 2008 10:06 PM

rated by 0 users

Telpeurion:

About 300 million people stand between you and your "anarchy".

Are you saying that we do nothing or that we stand up now and become a footnote of history?

Reply

Telpeurion replied on Sun, Oct 5 2008 10:15 PM

rated by 0 users

krazy kaju:

Telpeurion:

About 300 million people stand between you and your "anarchy".

Are you saying that we do nothing or that we stand up now and become a footnote of history?

Why not worry about reducing the power of the state first? People will only accept a few changes at a time, and "anarchy" is a radical proposition that will quickly be refused. The word anarchy is a sick thing to begin with, I thought you were all in favor of the rule of law, not the rule of none.

Reply

Josiah Schmidt replied on Sun, Oct 5 2008 10:16 PM

rated by 0 users

krazy kaju:

Telpeurion:

About 300 million people stand between you and your "anarchy".

Are you saying that we do nothing or that we stand up now and become a footnote of history?

At the rate that Americans have been becoming libertarians over the past century, I'd say that maybe we'll be ready to go in another 4000 years.  Till then, sit back at the computer desk, and let's just keep "educating" and doing little-to-nothing else.

Will we be any less in danger of having the government go Waco on us 50 years from now?  100 years from now?  500?

Reply

krazy kaju replied on Sun, Oct 5 2008 10:17 PM

rated by 0 users

lol wut?

1. Please explain how "no rulers" is the same as "chaos."

2. Where did I ever say we need to promote anarchy outright?

Reply

krazy kaju replied on Sun, Oct 5 2008 10:19 PM

rated by 0 users

Freiheit:

At the rate that Americans have been becoming libertarians over the past century, I'd say that maybe we'll be ready to go in another 4000 years.  Till then, sit back at the computer desk, and let's just keep "educating" and doing little-to-nothing else.

Will we be any less in danger of having the government go Waco on us 50 years from now?  100 years from now?  500?

I guess you haven't really been following this entire Ron Paul thing going on then, huh? And it's nice to know that you've been doing absolutely nothing to spread libertarianism. My story, however, is different.

Reply

Josiah Schmidt replied on Sun, Oct 5 2008 10:24 PM

rated by 0 users

krazy kaju:

Freiheit:

At the rate that Americans have been becoming libertarians over the past century, I'd say that maybe we'll be ready to go in another 4000 years.  Till then, sit back at the computer desk, and let's just keep "educating" and doing little-to-nothing else.

Will we be any less in danger of having the government go Waco on us 50 years from now?  100 years from now?  500?

I guess you haven't really been following this entire Ron Paul thing going on then, huh? And it's nice to know that you've been doing absolutely nothing to spread libertarianism. My story, however, is different.

The Ron Paul thing where I convinced a dozen people to vote for Ron Paul in the primary, thinking I had converted them to libertarianism, only to have them all fall back into the lull of statist propaganda once again and be supporting either the Obama or the Palin ticket?  Even if the same rate of growth that the libertarian movement has experienced during the Ron Paul Revolution were to hold, then maybe we'll be ready to go in a century or two?

I didn't think I was doing absolutely nothing, but after working my BUTT off trying to coordinate as many people to oppose this financial bailout thing as I possibly could and spending hours and hours, calling, emailing, writing, faxing, and getting others to do the same, seeing 90% of the American people with me on this, and seeing Congress just go ahead and pass it anyway, it does pretty much seem like I did absolutely nothing.  That's the biggest footnote in history of all.

Reply

Solredime replied on Mon, Oct 6 2008 5:18 AM

rated by 0 users

Telpeurion:

The word anarchy is a sick thing to begin with, I thought you were all in favor of the rule of law, not the rule of none.

So uhm, having an entire ruling class above the law is your definition of the rule of law? When dictators can say "I am the law!"? That, is precisely what lawlessness is. And btw, the word for lawlessness is anomie, not anarchy. In fact, anarchy is a synonym for a lawful society, for only when there are no archons above the law, when everyone is equal before it, can there be a true rule of law. Any plans to create order and law by creating a ruling class above it, are futile and self-defeating.

Those are the definitions. I do agree though that the word "anarchy" is emotionally charged, and Voluntaryism is probably a better word to use for a movement.

Reply

liberty student replied on Mon, Oct 6 2008 5:38 AM

rated by 0 users

Freheit, don't take this the wrong way, but generally people here assume any overt attempts at confronting the state will fail.  I don't know why it's like that, but it is.  But it's good that you're inspired.  Stay inspired. 

Reply

Stranger replied on Mon, Oct 6 2008 6:33 AM

rated by 0 users

Telpeurion:

About 300 million people stand between you and your "anarchy".

No that is incorrect. The government is only a few million people, and most of them are not going to be involved in the fight. Only the police, the politicians and eventually the military will fight.

If you need inspiration, look at what recidivist protesters do. They deliberately break the law and end up in jail for it. But then they do it again.

Reply

hayekianxyz replied on Mon, Oct 6 2008 6:36 AM

rated by 0 users

Fred Furash:

Those are the definitions. I do agree though that the word "anarchy" is emotionally charged, and Voluntaryism is probably a better word to use for a movement.

I completely agree.

Reply

hayekianxyz replied on Mon, Oct 6 2008 6:39 AM

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

Freheit, don't take this the wrong way, but generally people here assume any overt attempts at confronting the state will fail.  I don't know why it's like that, but it is.  But it's good that you're inspired.  Stay inspired. 

The problem is, you make it seem like a now or never situation. Which it just isn't, there simply isn't enough support for libertarian ideas out there and acting prematurely will hurt the movement.

Reply

liberty student replied on Mon, Oct 6 2008 6:56 AM

rated by 0 users

GilesStratton:

The problem is, you make it seem like a now or never situation.

I apologize then.  It is not now or never.  It is, "Why not now?"

GilesStratton:

Which it just isn't, there simply isn't enough support for libertarian ideas out there and acting prematurely will hurt the movement.

The only way there will be support, is if people speak up.  If people aren't afraid to take chances, to risk confronting the state, and showing the way.  The Mises Institute and Ron Paul have done a lot in the last few years, but for every leap forward, the state is rolling it's tanks over the skulls of millions and taking for itself, bolder and bolder steps towards total control.

There has to be an urgency about freedom, otherwise it risks becoming complacency.

Each individual should determine their own level of urgency.  But I would say, those who don't like being chastised for (supposedly) "doing nothing" grand might want to think twice before trying to convince someone else to "not do something" grand.

Reply

hayekianxyz replied on Mon, Oct 6 2008 7:19 AM

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

I apologize then.  It is not now or never.  It is, "Why not now?"

People simply aren't ready for anarchism.

liberty student:

The only way there will be support, is if people speak up.  If people aren't afraid to take chances, to risk confronting the state, and showing the way.  The Mises Institute and Ron Paul have done a lot in the last few years, but for every leap forward, the state is rolling it's tanks over the skulls of millions and taking for itself, bolder and bolder steps towards total control.

I agree, people do have to speak up. In fact that's the most important thing, just getting the message out there. As long as the rest of the population consider the government to be both necessary and even desirable the rest of us will be stuck with it. That's why we have to educate people, introduce the to Callahan's book, introduce them to Rothbard and introduce them to the Mises institute. Even Ron Paul's new book would be a good way to get people into the movement.

But there just isn't the support in place for such a bold move as being stated there, it won't happen soon. The general public won't care if a couple of "radicals" get arrested, in fact they'll support the government for throwing them in prison. And until that changes the liberty movement doesn't have a chance. Of course, Ron Paul's campaign and the Mises Institute help greatly here.

liberty student:

There has to be an urgency about freedom, otherwise it risks becoming complacency.

I agree, there does, people need to educate themselves and introduce others to these ideas. But that doesn't mean being stupid about it.

liberty student:

but for every leap forward, the state is rolling it's tanks over the skulls of millions and taking for itself, bolder and bolder steps towards total control.

This isn't such a bad thing in terms of the liberty movement. In terms of lives lost and money wasted, yes it's horrible no doubt. Yet, the closer the government moves to total control the more it will show how inadequate it is to do so. It will show it's true nature. Look at the bailout, yes it's going to make things worse for the population and yet at the same time it creates a great opportunity for people to see the nature of the government and it provides an excuse to introduce them to Austrian Economics which correctly explains the current state of affairs. There needs to be the objective conditions in place for the government to be overthrown, if the government is tolerable people just won't be as eager to remove it, it'll be easier to tolerate. However, we also need the subjective conditions, the libertarian movement and its ideal need to be widely accepted, otherwise people will accept the answer they're spoonfed by the state that we need the state.

Reply

liberty student replied on Mon, Oct 6 2008 1:14 PM

rated by 0 users

GilesStratton:

liberty student:

but for every leap forward, the state is rolling it's tanks over the skulls of millions and taking for itself, bolder and bolder steps towards total control.

This isn't such a bad thing in terms of the liberty movement. In terms of lives lost and money wasted, yes it's horrible no doubt. 

I think if it was your loved ones living under the bombs, your attitude might be a little different.  It's definitely a different perspective when you are the bomber, and not the bombed.

Reply

Anonymous Coward replied on Mon, Oct 6 2008 1:20 PM

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

Freheit, don't take this the wrong way, but generally people here assume any overt attempts at confronting the state will fail.  I don't know why it's like that, but it is.  But it's good that you're inspired.  Stay inspired. 

Tell me in your honest opinion if you think something like the Whiskey Rebellion could take root today.

Not only do you need the core group but also the general public giving sympathetic support through not throwing the protesters in jail if they are on a jury trial hearing one of these cases.

I would posit that the biggest uprising today is a counter reaction to the War on Drugs where there aren't too many people willing to jury nullify for 'making the streets a little less safe' and not to mention strict federal sentencing guidelines that keep the 'protesters' locked up for much longer than any reasonable person would deem necessary.

If the populus is willing to lock up all these non-violent drug offenders for extended periods of time what do you thing they would be willing to do to supress a movement that was trying to destroy their precious government?

Plus, as opposition to the bailout bill (even by those being 'saved') shows, the government doesn't place too much emphasis on the 'will of the people'. They know that no matter what kind of fallout happens there will still be a two party system at the end of the day and the needs of the whole supercedes the needs of the individuals in this case.

Worse that happens is they get kicked out of office and get a lobbying job while collecting their government pension.

Reply

hayekianxyz replied on Mon, Oct 6 2008 1:26 PM

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

GilesStratton:

liberty student:

but for every leap forward, the state is rolling it's tanks over the skulls of millions and taking for itself, bolder and bolder steps towards total control.

This isn't such a bad thing in terms of the liberty movement. In terms of lives lost and money wasted, yes it's horrible no doubt. 

I think if it was your loved ones living under the bombs, your attitude might be a little different.  It's definitely a different perspective when you are the bomber, and not the bombed.

Did I not specifically point out that I thought the exact same thing?

Reply

liberty student replied on Mon, Oct 6 2008 6:42 PM

rated by 0 users

Anonymous Coward:

Tell me in your honest opinion if you think something like the Whiskey Rebellion could take root today.

Without a doubt.

Reply

liberty student replied on Mon, Oct 6 2008 6:43 PM

rated by 0 users

You may have.  If you did and I missed it, I apologize.

Reply

krazy kaju replied on Mon, Oct 6 2008 6:58 PM

rated by 0 users

Freiheit:

The Ron Paul thing where I convinced a dozen people to vote for Ron Paul in the primary, thinking I had converted them to libertarianism, only to have them all fall back into the lull of statist propaganda once again and be supporting either the Obama or the Palin ticket?  Even if the same rate of growth that the libertarian movement has experienced during the Ron Paul Revolution were to hold, then maybe we'll be ready to go in a century or two?

Actually, there are a lot of converts to libertarianism via Ron Paul. I'm one of them.

I didn't think I was doing absolutely nothing, but after working my BUTT off trying to coordinate as many people to oppose this financial bailout thing as I possibly could and spending hours and hours, calling, emailing, writing, faxing, and getting others to do the same, seeing 90% of the American people with me on this, and seeing Congress just go ahead and pass it anyway, it does pretty much seem like I did absolutely nothing.  That's the biggest footnote in history of all.

Which is my point: that's what you should be doing. By informing people about basic economics, you will bring them closer to the libertarian fold. However, by declaring that you plan on abolishing the state, you make yourself an outcast.