Libertarianism as Cult [Archive] - Ron Paul Forums / Liberty Forest

InterestedParticipant

08-08-2009, 08:05 PM

Epic

08-08-2009, 08:10 PM

It's a movement, not a "cult", and no Alex Jones is probably not a libertarian, though close in many ways.

Wise

08-08-2009, 08:11 PM

Fuc* Of* with that Bull S*it

AbolishTheGovt

08-08-2009, 08:13 PM

Sometimes, we display some cult-like characteristics, but in most other ways, we're the exact opposite of a cult. Trying to organize and brainwash us is like trying to herd cats. There's been a select few individuals who the large majority of libertarians have been able to coalesce around (Paul, Schiff, Napolitano, et. al.), but if you'll remember the 2008 election, we were all over the place (Baldwin, Barr, Paul write-ins, and even a few Obama and McCain). Heck, even when Ron Paul was running, there were libertarian groups like Reason that didn't accept him.

We have a wiiiide variety of beliefs, lots of different splinter groups, and do not willingly subject ourselves to the control of any overarching organizer or planner. As Tucker Carlson said, we're the farthest thing from a cult. We are able to come together and organize ourselves incredibly well at times though, as the Ron Paul and Peter Schiff campaigns have proven.

AbolishTheGovt

08-08-2009, 08:15 PM

What is Libertarianism? Define it!

The safest definition would probably be something along the lines of, "A belief that people ought not initiate aggression against others."

Brassmouth

08-08-2009, 08:19 PM

Is the Liberty movement a cult?

Is Libertarianism a movement?

As part of this "movement," are participants expected to support certain political actors, such as:

Peter Schiff
Rand Paul
Lew Rockwell
Ayn Rand
Alex Jones
Judge Napalitano
etc.
etc.
etc.

As participants in this movement, do we castigate and cast-off those who do not accept the wisdom of these Libertarian actors?

Must this movement consolidate our "forces" and act as a unified group?

What is Libertarianism? Define it!

What are we.... or, are we a "we" at all?

The only person on that list I support is Lew Rockwell, who has done more for libertarianism and freedom than any of the others combined; and all on a voluntary, free-market basis.

Schiff and Paul want to use guns to solve problems, so I'll never support them, and Rand never followed her philosophy to its logical extent, so she's out. As for Napolitano, I don't find him entertaining or interesting in any way. He's a typical Beltway "classical liberal." (Worse than a minarchist, blah!)

EDIT: Oh, and it goes without saying that I don't support the Alex Jones fool. What a joke of a man.

Kludge

08-08-2009, 08:19 PM

The "Liberty movement" describes a political movement in the United States demanding the restoration of many previously-respected liberties. While there are no principles that must necessarily be accepted nor candidates that must be supported, it is required that you demand less interference by government both in business and the home.

Those who do not support specific actors are more than welcome to be a member of the "Liberty movement", but, on this particular forum, posts which purposefully hinder ability to achieve the goals of Ron Paul (or the goals of the admin) are subject to deletion. Lew Rockwell is a welcome member of the "Liberty movement" although he does not support working with the system and his methods are not the same as the methods endorsed by Ron Paul.

There are significant ideological differences between the different segments of the "Liberty Movement" that will eventually split us up IF we begin to achieve our goals. While some claim liberty requires government protection, others claim liberty cannot exist with government protection. In the former group, there are splits over which liberties the government should protect and how they should go about it. In the latter group, there are disagreements over how liberty should be achieved and if liberties should be protected by non-"government" forces (as would happen in Rothbard's flavor of libertarianism).

There ARE cults within the liberty movement, but the "Liberty Movement" itself is not a cult but a loose tent that will eventually tear.

Andrew-Austin

08-08-2009, 08:21 PM

Is the Liberty movement a cult?

Is Libertarianism a movement?

As part of this "movement," are participants expected to support certain political actors, such as:

Peter Schiff
Rand Paul
Lew Rockwell
Ayn Rand
Alex Jones
Judge Napalitano
etc.
etc.
etc.

As participants in this movement, do we castigate and cast-off those who do not accept the wisdom of these Libertarian actors?

Must this movement consolidate our "forces" and act as a unified group?

What is Libertarianism? Define it!

What are we.... or, are we a "we" at all?

Alllllrighty then.... Define what you think a cult is.

I think what you are trying to see is half in your head and half collectivist generalization. Libertarians are about as independent/individualist and questioning as people come.

Combining such factors as:

a) Not liking people who strongly disagree with 'our' position

b) The tendency to champion certain ideological leaders

and

c) Having a handful of people who don't ask as many questions as they should

--does not a cult make.

Schiff and Paul want to use guns to solve problems, so I'll never support them,

Oh come on man, you should know that is nonsense. I can understand that you don't want to promote 'political action', but establishing the difference b/w ancaps and minarchists deserves a little more clarity than such a sound byte.

Objectivist

08-08-2009, 08:23 PM

You mean I have to buy candles now? Damn.:rolleyes:

AbolishTheGovt

08-08-2009, 08:28 PM

The only person on that list I support is Lew Rockwell, who has done more for libertarianism and freedom than any of the others combined; and all on a voluntary, free-market basis.

Schiff and Paul want to use guns to solve problems, so I'll never support them, and Rand never followed her philosophy to its logical extent, so she's out. As for Napolitano, I don't find him entertaining or interesting in any way. He's a typical Beltway "classical liberal." (Worse than a minarchist, blah!)

EDIT: Oh, and it goes without saying that I don't support the Alex Jones fool. What a joke of a man.

Schiff and Paul want to use guns to solve problems?? The entire REASON why they're in (and trying to get in to) government is to take away its own guns, and you have an advantage in that endeavor when you're on the inside. If every government position were filled with Austro-libertarians in the 2012 elections, you don't think that government size, power, and theft would immediately plummet to virtually nothing, if not actually nothing? That's why libertarians get into government--to pry the government's guns away easier.

(Hey OP, this argument is a great example of how un-cultlike our movement is. :) )

Fozz

08-08-2009, 09:05 PM

AbolishTheGovt

08-08-2009, 10:05 PM

Of those people, I do not like Ayn Rand and I think Alex Jones is a bit insane.

I like Ayn Rand's fiction, but not so much else about her.

Alex Jones is a pretty smart guy in terms of knowledge... he just uses really ineffective means to attain his sought-after ends (for instance: I don't know anyone that's ever been swayed to a cause or a belief after getting bullhorned at a traffic intersection).

torchbearer

08-08-2009, 10:09 PM

I like Ayn Rand's fiction, but not so much else about her.

Alex Jones is a pretty smart guy in terms of knowledge... he just uses really ineffective means to attain his sought-after ends (for instance: I don't know anyone that's ever been swayed to a cause or a belief after getting bullhorned at a traffic intersection).

Have you tried Ayn Rand non-fiction?
The Virtue of Selfishness is based off of a speech she gave explaining her philosophy of rational self-interest in detail.
If you haven't read it, i suggest it.

AbolishTheGovt

08-08-2009, 10:17 PM

Have you tried Ayn Rand non-fiction?
The Virtue of Selfishness is based off of a speech she gave explaining her philosophy of rational self-interest in detail.
If you haven't read it, i suggest it.

Nope, haven't read that one, but have read a lot of other lit on objectivism. Pretty stupid philosophy to be honest. Just vulgar Aristotelianism, really.

torchbearer

08-08-2009, 10:20 PM

Nope, haven't read that one, but have read a lot of other lit on objectivism. Pretty stupid philosophy to be honest. Just vulgar Aristotelianism, really.

that isn't what i got out of the works.
I found a way to figure out a system of virtues and values without an authoritarain priest or religious work telling me things on faith.
It showed how a virtuous life could be found through reason, and she outlines a way to find it.

ScoutsHonor

08-08-2009, 11:00 PM

that isn't what i got out of the works.
I found a way to figure out a system of virtues and values without an authoritarain priest or religious work telling me things on faith.
It showed how a virtuous life could be found through reason, and she outlines a way to find it.

I quite agree. She was a brilliant and original thinker-- philosopher actually.

Bucjason

08-08-2009, 11:03 PM

Brian4Liberty

08-08-2009, 11:32 PM

Have you tried Ayn Rand non-fiction?

Just curious. Did you read Peikoff's book on Objectivism? If you did , what did you think about it?

AbolishTheGovt

08-08-2009, 11:38 PM

that isn't what i got out of the works.
I found a way to figure out a system of virtues and values without an authoritarain priest or religious work telling me things on faith.
It showed how a virtuous life could be found through reason, and she outlines a way to find it.

Moral values can no more be found through pure reason than the value of any other thing. All value is subjective.

Vessol

08-08-2009, 11:57 PM

Probably the only person on that list I like the most is Peter Schiff.

The rest I have a lot of respect for, even a little bit for Alex Jones.

But I don't follow them unspokenly. I see them as leaders of our "movement", but not as unquestionable gods.

torchbearer

08-09-2009, 12:06 AM

Moral values can no more be found through pure reason than the value of any other thing. All value is subjective.

That is what she states.
But your values are objective to yourself.
You can place a value on the things and people in your life, and your base your virtues off of your values.
I don't see where you see a disconnect in what you said and what she said.

AbolishTheGovt

08-09-2009, 12:22 AM

That is what she states.
But your values are objective to yourself.
You can place a value on the things and people in your life, and your base your virtues off of your values.
I don't see where you see a disconnect in what you said and what she said.

According to Rand, man's life is the ultimate standard of value, rather than merely what he values, and reason is man's greatest value. She fundamentally rejected the subjectivism of Mises.

benhaskins

08-09-2009, 07:57 AM

I think about it in terms of spreading a "religion." Figureheads are important to the religion because they educate/influence large groups of people that may be unaware to the religion. Also, they generally are good at conveying the position of what this religion believes regarding certain topics.

I think what is important to understand is that the religion will always be greater than the figureheads. However, figureheads definately play a vital role in the "success" of the religion.

Sometimes I wonder how this movement will be affected after Ron Paul is no longer around.

inibo

08-09-2009, 09:08 AM

Peter Schiff
Don't know if I'd call him libertarian or not. Free market Austrian, absolutely. I don't know his position on the ZAP so for all I know his is a constitutional minarchist with libertarian leanings.
Rand Paul
Don't know if I'd call him libertarian or not. Free market Austrian, absolutely. I don't know his position on the ZAP so for all I know his is a constitutional minarchist with libertarian leanings.
Lew Rockwell
Libertarian, yes. Political opportunist, yes. He as a writer or thinker does not impress me me as much as he once did, but his work for the Mises Institute and LewRockwell.com collecting, synthesizing and disseminating libertarian ideas and Austrian economics is invaluable.
Ayn Rand
meh. Didn't she hate libertarians?
Alex Jones
Don't make me laugh, but if anyone in this list qualifies as an evil wicked cult leader it's him. :)
Judge Napalitano
Don't know if I'd call him libertarian or not. I don't know his position on the ZAP so for all I know his is a constitutional minarchist with libertarian leanings. He's a good guy.
etc.
etc.
etc.

As participants in this movement, do we castigate and cast-off those who do not accept the wisdom of these Libertarian actors?
I don't, but people who start off with Alex Jones or Ayn Rand have a strike against them in my book.

Must this movement consolidate our "forces" and act as a unified group?
No.

What is Libertarianism? Define it!
A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.

Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim. — L. Neil Smith (http://www.ncc-1776.org/whoislib.html)

What are we.... or, are we a "we" at all?
I'm not we. I'm me.

wsc321

08-09-2009, 10:15 AM

I never supported Dr. Paul because I felt I understood "Libertarian" philosophy - I supported him because he appeared to have the highest regard for and understanding of what is Constitutional. (He also appeared notably honest and honorable.) In fact, seems to me folks that support Dr. Paul could easily answer the question, "What is the Ron Paul movement about?" by simply saying, "We are a large, growing group of Americans that believe in the Constitution and want to see government restored to it's Constitutional role." Or, we could just say, "We are folks that believe in the Constitution."

dizi24

08-09-2009, 10:22 AM

[LIST]
Peter Schiff
Don't know if I'd call him libertarian or not. Free market Austrian, absolutely. I don't know his position on the ZAP so for all I know his is a constitutional minarchist with libertarian leanings.
Rand Paul
Don't know if I'd call him libertarian or not. Free market Austrian, absolutely. I don't know his position on the ZAP so for all I know his is a constitutional minarchist with libertarian leanings.

What is ZAP?

FreeTraveler

08-09-2009, 10:30 AM

What is ZAP?

"Zero Aggression Principle":
A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.

Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim. — L. Neil Smith

InterestedParticipant

08-09-2009, 11:43 AM

"Zero Aggression Principle":
A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.

Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim. — L. Neil Smith

In your interpretation, does aggression ever include verbal attacks (ie. name calling) on another individual for their beliefs or opinions? This is particularly pertinent in the Internet age, when so much information is presented virtually.

Bucjason

08-09-2009, 11:56 AM

"Zero Aggression Principle":
A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.

Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim. — L. Neil Smith

So then, why are so many libertarians in favor of abortion, which is the ultimate act of aggression ( murder) against a totally helpless and innocent human being ??

pcosmar

08-09-2009, 12:02 PM

Is the Liberty movement a cult?

As part of this "movement," are participants expected to support certain political actors, such as:

I don't remember seeing a rule book. Is that in there?

Or is this just more Troll droppings.

Careful, don't step in it.

Kludge

08-09-2009, 12:04 PM

So then, why are so many libertarians in favor of abortion, which is the ultimate act of aggression ( murder) against a totally helpless and innocent human being ??

Almost no libertarians actually believe in the NAP, even the "pro-life" ones.

InterestedParticipant

08-09-2009, 12:05 PM

I don't remember seeing a rule book. Is that in there?

Or is this just more Troll droppings.

Careful, don't step in it.
And here we have an excellent example of a forum member who's sole purpose here is to label others who have an opinion or evidence on reality that contradicts his/her own. Those that do not fit into their vision of reality are maliciously branded & labeled.

This is behavior similar to that found in cults. Is this what Libertarianism is about... it this what forum member here find acceptable? Or is tolerance the operative word?

Which way do people want to go?

Kludge

08-09-2009, 12:07 PM

And here we have an excellent example of a forum member who's sole purpose here is to label others who have an opinion or evidence on reality that contradicts his/her own. Those that do not fit into their vision of reality are maliciously branded & labeled.

This is behavior similar to that found in cults. Is this what Libertarianism is about... it this what forum member here find acceptable? Or is tolerance the operative word?

Which way do people want to go?

If your argument is that RPFs is a cult, then please come out and say it. I'd at least like to know what you're wanting us to argue.

InterestedParticipant

08-09-2009, 12:09 PM

If your argument is that RPFs is a cult, then please come out and say it. I'd at least like to know what you're wanting us to argue.
I want you to THINK!

Is that too much to ask?

pcosmar

08-09-2009, 12:11 PM

And here we have an excellent example of a forum member who's sole purpose here is to label others who have an opinion or evidence on reality that contradicts his/her own. Those that do not fit into their vision of reality are maliciously branded & labeled.

This is behavior similar to that found in cults. Is this what Libertarianism is about... it this what forum member here find acceptable? Or is tolerance the operative word?

Which way do people want to go?

Pfttt,
I however, have never claimed to be a libertarian.
I have made no claim other than an Independent Voter and Angry American.
Other than Ron Paul, I have never promoted those folks mentioned.

I do hunt Trolls while I'm here though. :D

Bucjason

08-09-2009, 12:11 PM

Almost no libertarians actually believe in the NAP, even the "pro-life" ones.

NAP or ZAP ??

...and thought L Neil Smith just told us that ALL libertarians do.

Now I'm just confused.....

Kludge

08-09-2009, 12:13 PM

I want you to THINK!

Is that too much to ask?

Think about what? Are you trying to have me think of Libertarianism as a cult, or RPFs as a cult?

pcosmar

08-09-2009, 12:17 PM

Think about what? Are you trying to have me think of Libertarianism as a cult, or RPFs as a cult?

No. Anyone except InterestedParticipant is leading you wrong.
we are not listening and following the advice and Guidance of InterestedParticipant.
Disagreeing just proves he is right.

and on and on and on.

Kludge

08-09-2009, 12:18 PM

NAP or ZAP ??

...and thought L Neil Smith just told us that ALL libertarians do.

Now I'm just confused.....

Smith was implying that being a libertarian necessarily requires you to be an anarchist, as that would be the only rational stance one could take if they believe in the NAP. I've argued that libertarians must be anarchists or else they are not libertarians, before, but I'm starting to rethink that since many people have different definitions of what liberty is (I think I mentioned that in my first post on this thread [edit: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2255150&postcount=7 third paragraph, but I only touched on it]).

InterestedParticipant

08-09-2009, 12:20 PM

Think about what? Are you trying to have me think of Libertarianism as a cult, or RPFs as a cult?
Are we a group, a movement, with predefined beliefs systems and certain authorized leaders that we support

OR

Are we a collection of individuals who believe in personal liberty and tolerance of opinion, irrespective of what that opinion is?

Or, are we something else... please define.

InterestedParticipant

08-09-2009, 12:21 PM

No. Anyone except InterestedParticipant is leading you wrong.
we are not listening and following the advice and Guidance of InterestedParticipant.
Disagreeing just proves he is right.

and on and on and on.
Added to my Ignore List.

mczerone

08-09-2009, 12:25 PM

"You are free to do as you wish" does not equal "You must obey"

pcosmar

08-09-2009, 12:27 PM

Trust NO One

http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~mdownes/bdhome/csm1.jpg

Kludge

08-09-2009, 12:37 PM

Are we a group, a movement, with predefined beliefs systems and certain authorized leaders that we support

OR

Are we a collection of individuals who believe in personal liberty and tolerance of opinion, irrespective of what that opinion is?

Or, are we something else... please define.

I don't tolerate certain opinions on RPFs because I willingly associate with RPFs. If this forum ever strays too far beyond my beliefs, I will probably leave because I don't want to be associated with what I don't believe in. I don't say I visit RPFs, but say I am a member because I believe in the goals of the admin.

Compare that to my views on libertarianism. I am a libertarian, but I don't often just say that I'm a libertarian because there are too many ideas and people associated with libertarianism that I don't agree with. Just look at the people you posted in the OP. Many have conflicting ideologies. Obviously, it would be irrational to expect any libertarian to agree with all of those you posted in the OP. Unless I feel like arguing semantics, I don't give a damn if you call yourself a libertarian even if you're a fascist because I don't call myself a libertarian. But, if you're a socialist or neoconservative on RPFs, you're going to get attacked with (almost?) every post you make.

benhaskins

08-09-2009, 12:53 PM

If you examine individual people who share common goals it's safe to assume that people will have differing opinions on topics in varying degrees.

I think the op had some interesting questions about the ron paul/liberty/freedom movement.

InterestedParticipant

08-09-2009, 12:53 PM

I don't tolerate certain opinions on RPFs because I willingly associate with RPFs. If this forum ever strays too far beyond my beliefs, I will probably leave because I don't want to be associated with what I don't believe in. I don't say I visit RPFs, but say I am a member because I believe in the goals of the admin.

Compare that to my views on libertarianism. I am a libertarian, but I don't often just say that I'm a libertarian because there are too many ideas and people associated with libertarianism that I don't agree with. Just look at the people you posted in the OP. Many have conflicting ideologies. Obviously, it would be irrational to expect any libertarian to agree with all of those you posted in the OP. Unless I feel like arguing semantics, I don't give a damn if you call yourself a libertarian even if you're a fascist because I don't call myself a libertarian. But, if you're a socialist or neoconservative on RPFs, you're going to get attacked with (almost?) every post you make.
I'm curious to know some of the opinions on RPF that you are unwilling to tolerate?

In followup to that, is tolerance of opinion not relatively proportional to individual liberty? For, with more liberty do we not have to tolerate more individual opinions? If you agree with this, how do you explain lack-of-tolerance at RPF?

Also, what is the admin's goals... is that posted somewhere?

Finally, if Libertarianism is NOT a cult, then wouldn't one expert there to be a myriad of beliefs and opinions within Libertarianism? Isn't it the key attribute of being a libertarian that a variety of beliefs are tolerated?

pcosmar

08-09-2009, 12:57 PM

This,
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=51014

Welcome to Liberty Forest, (LibertyForest.com). Named after the Liberty Tree, a famous elm tree that stood near the commons of Boston, Massachusetts Colony, in the days before the American Revolution. The tree was a rallying point for the growing resistance to the rule of England over the American colonies. In the years that followed, almost every American town had its own Liberty Tree—a living symbol of popular support for individual liberty and resistance to tyranny.

We are the Liberty Forest so to speak, as the internet is one large meeting place and we welcome all who rally here in defense of freedom and liberty.

Kludge

08-09-2009, 01:02 PM

I'm curious to know some of the opinions on RPF that you are unwilling to tolerate?

Advocating violence.

In followup to that, is tolerance of opinion not relatively proportional to individual liberty? For, with more liberty do we not have to tolerate more individual opinions? If you agree with this, how do you explain lack-of-tolerance at RPF?

Because individual liberties exist and the "Right to use RPFs" has not yet been created by the government, admin can create rules for using their service. Members on RPFs can only exist as long as the admin allow them.

Also, what is the admin's goals... is that posted somewhere?

There has been consideration of posting a detailed "statement of intent", but it hasn't been done, yet. Until then, I'll just assume based on their decisions to delete and move threads to "private" subforums.

Finally, if Libertarianism is NOT a cult, then wouldn't one expert there to be a myriad of beliefs and opinions within Libertarianism? Isn't it the key attribute of being a libertarian that a variety of beliefs are tolerated?

Sure, but you seem to be trying to merge "Libertarianism" and "Ron Paul Forums" again. I don't think it would be "moral" to take anything away from anyone, but I do think it would be proper to stop granting them permission to use RPFs. I support censorship so long as the censorship does not involve aggression.

RM918

08-09-2009, 01:20 PM

Eh, I think folks following under Obama or McCain would be more appropriate to the terminology of 'cult', i.e., they latch onto a charismatic facade and follow along with any action or demand even if their leader's actions counteract their beliefs.

Meanwhile, those set behind Paul are in fact led by the actions entirely. As anyone can tell you, Paul is about as charismatic as a rock. I hold the man in high esteem, but his positions are where my support comes from. Take those away and I wouldn't support him, which is more than you can say for diehard mainstreamers. I don't imagine many here would either.

pcosmar

08-09-2009, 01:22 PM

Added to my Ignore List.

Oh goody.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

InterestedParticipant

08-09-2009, 02:04 PM

Because individual liberties exist and the "Right to use RPFs" has not yet been created by the government, admin can create rules for using their service. Members on RPFs can only exist as long as the admin allow them.
So, tolerance of beliefs and attitudes at RPF only exist within the limits prescribed by the admins, whoever they are?

There has been consideration of posting a detailed "statement of intent", but it hasn't been done, yet. Until then, I'll just assume based on their decisions to delete and move threads to "private" subforums.
So, we don't know who they are, and what they believe? What ruleset is being operated under here then? It's clearly not anarchy, for then there would be NO moderation. So, there is clearly some guidelines, but do we know what they are?

Sure, but you seem to be trying to merge "Libertarianism" and "Ron Paul Forums" again. I don't think it would be "moral" to take anything away from anyone, but I do think it would be proper to stop granting them permission to use RPFs. I support censorship so long as the censorship does not involve aggression.
So, what you are saying is that this forum is not necessarily a Libertarian forum, is that correct? Are you suggesting then, that my question in the OP is directed at the wrong audience?

Supporting censorship is quite surprising, as I would think that censorship could be considered an act of violence against a population. For, without speech, how does one attain right to life? Is not suppressing life a violent act?

I appreciate the answers, but my questions would meant to address the concept of Libertarianism, and how people view and interpret this construct. Its seems that your answers deal with RPF exclusively. Perhaps it is my fault then, as I had always assumed that RPF espoused a Libertarian framework, but perhaps I am wrong in my assumption.

Kludge

08-09-2009, 02:19 PM

So, tolerance of beliefs and attitudes at RPF only exist within the limits prescribed by the admins, whoever they are?

So, we don't know who they are, and what they believe? What ruleset is being operated under here then? It's clearly not anarchy, for then there would be NO moderation. So, there is clearly some guidelines, but do we know what they are?

Right. This isn't anarchy which is why moderators exist. There is a list of explicit "rules" here, but keep in mind that admin can do whatever they want at their own discretion: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22

So, what you are saying is that this forum is not necessarily a Libertarian forum, is that correct? Are you suggesting then, that my question in the OP is directed at the wrong audience?

Maybe. There are a lot of libertarians here, but this isn't necessarily a libertarian forum (neither in ideology or practice).

Supporting censorship is quite surprising, as I would think that censorship could be considered an act of violence against a population. For, without speech, how does one attain right to life? Is not suppressing life a violent act?

I don't believe in rights, but I do believe in the NAP as guidance in all my actions. Censorship itself isn't aggression, but there are many methods of censoring which are aggression. If positive outcomes are hindered because of non-aggressive censorship, it is unfortunate, but negligence is not necessarily aggression, and more importantly, I think this forum should be focused only on censoring speech that encourages violence or reflects poorly upon us (at the discretion of the admin, of course). Again, I will stay here only so long as I agree with the admin's goals.

I appreciate the answers, but my questions would meant to address the concept of Libertarianism, and how people view and interpret this construct. Its seems that your answers deal with RPF exclusively. Perhaps it is my fault then, as I had always assumed that RPF espoused a Libertarian framework, but perhaps I am wrong in my assumption.

Yeah.... RPFs has a lot of libertarians, but we have conservatives and liberals, too -- even a few neocons and socialists.

anaconda

08-09-2009, 02:32 PM

It's a movement, not a "cult", and no Alex Jones is probably not a libertarian, though close in many ways.

Alex seems like a full blown libertarian to me. Why would you say he isn't? Just curious..

Anti Federalist

08-09-2009, 03:24 PM

Alex seems like a full blown libertarian to me. Why would you say he isn't? Just curious..

Because he's loud, and wild of eye and over the top.

He embarrasses and makes uncomfortable some of our more staid fellow travelers.

I imagine, no, I know that there were any number of "gentlemen" in the colonies who thought the same thing of Sam Adams, Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine.

That being said, I do not see the point of this thread other than to stir shit for no good reason.

Failure, on a massive scale.

anaconda

08-09-2009, 03:32 PM

Because he's loud, and wild of eye and over the top.

He embarrasses and makes uncomfortable some of our more staid fellow travelers.

I imagine, no, I know that there were any number of "gentlemen" in the colonies who thought the same thing of Sam Adams, Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine.

That being said, I do not see the point of this thread other than to stir shit for no good reason.

Failure, on a massive scale.

So I guess he's a full blown libertarian, then. Just a "loud' one.

Anti Federalist

08-09-2009, 03:39 PM

So I guess he's a full blown libertarian, then. Just a "loud' one.

If I had to pigeonhole him, I'd say a constitutional populist with libertarian leanings.

Bucjason

08-09-2009, 04:39 PM

I'm curious to know some of the opinions on RPF that you are unwilling to tolerate?

In followup to that, is tolerance of opinion not relatively proportional to individual liberty? For, with more liberty do we not have to tolerate more individual opinions? If you agree with this, how do you explain lack-of-tolerance at RPF?

I think there is tolerance here, otherwise I'd be banned already for being a Mark Levin fan , lol :D