PDA

View Full Version : No More Marches on DC




Yvonne
09-14-2009, 09:17 AM
Lew Rockwell is exactly right: "DC is one nasty place. So why would anyone concerned about the state and its power “march on Washington”? Such events only dissipate energy, and fool people into thinking that their time and money have accomplished something, as the regime laughs up its sleeve. Indeed, that is the purpose. So stay home. Read, write, work, organize, and avoid DC like the plague it is." Read it all please: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/35963.html

Thank you very much.

Deborah K
09-14-2009, 09:24 AM
Lew Rockwell is starting to piss me off! Even Dr. Paul said to march. That is why I poured my heart into organizing the Revolution March last summer! :mad:

MRoCkEd
09-14-2009, 09:26 AM
You left out the best part:

For many years, pro-lifers have expended vast time, energy, and money “marching on Washington” every January, to exactly zero effect. Worse, they hark back to pro-redistribution events. And always, as with the latest 9/12 extravaganza headed by red-state fascists, the marchers assemble on the “National Mall,” the government grass that extends from Lincoln’s Roman temple — where he sits enthroned like Jupiter, fasces and all — to George Washington’s obelisk, an Eqyptian monument to the god Amon Re. In the distance is the capitol, whose dome copies the Roman Pantheon, temple to all the gods. In the top of the dome is a painting of Washington being assumed, like the divinized Julius Caesar, into Heaven upon his death. Even Jefferson is portrayed as a god in a Roman temple. Not far away is the the Greek temple where the nine supremes hand down the “law.” Then there is the vast executive apparatus, headed by a living god, and dedicated to killing, spying, taxing, redistributing, inflating, and controlling.

paulitics
09-14-2009, 09:30 AM
We need both. With the age of youtube, it is important for people to see the size of the disenfrachised, so that this myth of small government types only being a small minority can be dispelled. In that very large crowd, perhaps a small minority will now be inspired to affect change at the local level, that may have been to intimidated before. It's a numbers game.

Pericles
09-14-2009, 09:31 AM
Lew Rockwell is starting to piss me off! Even Dr. Paul said to march. That is why I poured my heart into organizing the Revolution March last summer! :mad:

From the anarchist perspective, trying to restore the Constitution, and constitutional government, is a distraction from the true objective.

Just as with "Neocons" and mainstream Republicans, working together where interests coincide is a good plan, and low key efforts to educate about the importance of liberty presents an opportunity to gain more strength.

Only conversing with the "pure" is a sure way for the libertarian philosophy to remain in the wilderness it has for the last 30+ years.

Deborah K
09-14-2009, 09:36 AM
From the anarchist perspective, trying to restore the Constitution, and constitutional government, is a distraction from the true objective.

Just as with "Neocons" and mainstream Republicans, working together where interests coincide is a good plan, and low key efforts to educate about the importance of liberty presents an opportunity to gain more strength.

Only conversing with the "pure" is a sure way for the libertarian philosophy to remain in the wilderness it has for the last 30+ years.

With all due respect to your anarchist position, I find it to be impractical and only worthy in theory. It relies too heavily on the good will of men. Edit: misread your last sentence.

MRoCkEd
09-14-2009, 09:38 AM
It relies too heavily of [sic] the good will of men.
Couldn't you say that about government?

New York For Paul
09-14-2009, 09:42 AM
Looks like we are going to have little debate.

I think Lew Rockwell's reasons for owning guns applies to having marches.

"A right exercised is a right retained."

The fact that we are organizing marches and are there is starting to change the dynamic.

" The simple act of having a gun is its own best use. Like a battleship parked off the coast its mere presence changes the dynamic of the situation without having to fire a single shot. By having a gun you become too dangerous to your predators. Criminals interviewed in jail say they don’t want anything to do with an armed civilian. That change in my human predators is exactly what I want to accomplish."

wizardwatson
09-14-2009, 09:45 AM
Lew Rockwell is starting to piss me off! Even Dr. Paul said to march. That is why I poured my heart into organizing the Revolution March last summer! :mad:

What pisses me off is the lack of any strategy from the Austrian wing.

Do not think liberty lovers that liberty comes from intellect. It is our compassion for our brothers and sisters, or our fear of them that brings us together and unites us under these ideals, not our ability to be clever, witty, or logical. These things are only useful for defending our ideals, rarely for spreading them. To spread them we must act in such a way that others see those ideals through our actions.

This is the primary reason Ron Paul gained support ( via his voting record ), and ONLY Ron Paul could have ganed so much traction within the liberty movement.

We should start on the offensive towards our cherished intellectuals, to see what high-minded strategies they can come up with.

FreeTraveler
09-14-2009, 09:47 AM
Couldn't you say that about government?
Exactly. And you put that assumption of good will on a very small subset of the population; those who are willing to dedicate their careers to the manipulation and coercion of others. The scariest possible people to hold the reins of a society, assuming somebody has to be in control.

I agree with L. Neil:


The pursuit of coercive power over others will someday be universally recognized as a symptom of profound mental illness.

Mini-Me
09-14-2009, 09:47 AM
I agree with paulitics and New York for Paul, and I think Rockwell is partially missing the point. Although he's correct that a march will not directly affect policy, a sufficiently gigantic march (like Saturday's) can and will awaken disenfranchised people to the fact that many, many others exist, and it also gets people accustomed to the idea of mass demonstrations (which is good for the safety of future participants). It's good for morale and working up the energy to get involved.

Elwar
09-14-2009, 09:49 AM
I'd be all for boycotting all forms of commerce in Washington DC. A march on Washington brings millions of people who need to purchase food and water while they're there...what a great boon the the local economy.

I'd rather DC be a ghost town of people needing to leave thanks to those a$$holes in the big white dome.

Deborah K
09-14-2009, 09:50 AM
Couldn't you say that about government?

(fixed the typo - thanx)

Yes, you can say that about our current government. But the country was founded using the rule of law, not the rule of men. I don't see how a lawless society will promote freedom, based on the good will of men. Human nature dictates otherwise. And if I have to spend all day protecting my property against those people who lack good will, how does that make me free?

Mini-Me
09-14-2009, 09:51 AM
I'd be all for boycotting all forms of commerce in Washington DC. A march on Washington brings millions of people who need to purchase food and water while they're there...what a great boon the the local economy.

I'd rather DC be a ghost town of people needing to leave thanks to those a$$holes in the big white dome.

Realistically though, DC isn't going to be a ghost town until a tax revolt happens...and mass demonstrations and a show of numbers may be the only way to embolden people to take such a step.

Deborah K
09-14-2009, 09:57 AM
Realistically though, DC isn't going to be a ghost town until a tax revolt happens...and mass demonstrations and a show of numbers may be the only way to embolden people to take such a step.

I don't have the wherewithall to initiate a tax revolt, but I will tell you this....the minute I detect that a good number of fed-up Americans are ready to stop paying their taxes, I will go full force with all of my organizational abilities. I have been longing for a tax revolt for almost three years now.

FreeTraveler
09-14-2009, 10:01 AM
(fixed the typo - thanx)

Yes, you can say that about our current government. But the country was founded using the rule of law, not the rule of men. I don't see how a lawless society will promote freedom, based on the good will of men. Human nature dictates otherwise. And if I have to spend all day protecting my property against those people who lack good will, how does that make me free?
See post #10. By its nature, government puts the foxes in charge of the hen house. As Spock would say, "This does not compute." :eek:

Deborah K
09-14-2009, 10:02 AM
See post #10. By its nature, government puts the foxes in charge of the hen house. As Spock would say, "This does not compute." :eek:

edit: I'm skimmimg everything, and making mistakes, sorry. You were responding to post 13. I am for limited gov't that is overseen by the people it represents. This concept breaks down when the people become complacent. It's the same concept as when you own a company. Do your employees control you, or do you control your employees. We the people, have allowed our employees to control us.

Pericles
09-14-2009, 10:05 AM
With all due respect to your anarchist position, I find it to be impractical and only worthy in theory. It relies too heavily on the good will of men. Edit: misread your last sentence.

I think a careful reading of my posts show disagreement with the anarchist position as logically inconsistent and not well thought out, despite the constant reference to articles to read that would surely convince me of the anarchist position if I only had the intellectual capacity to understand them.

The problem is that I do understand them, with your reaction taken by me as some evidence of that.

FreeTraveler
09-14-2009, 10:24 AM
edit: I'm skimmimg everything, and making mistakes, sorry. You were responding to post 13. I am for limited gov't that is overseen by the people it represents. This concept breaks down when the people become complacent. It's the same concept as when you own a company. Do your employees control you, or do you control your employees. We the people, have allowed our employees to control us.
The general point, though, is that until minarchists can demonstrate a government that actually functions that way, it's a bit of pot-kettle to claim that the anarchists aren't being realistic. ;)

Don't get me wrong; all minarchists are fellow travelers as far as I'm concerned. When we get government down to 10% of what it steals now, we can discuss the rest. :)

Endgame
09-14-2009, 10:25 AM
Lew Rockwell is at best a closeted stormfronter who wants to return to a feudal political system with the Catholic church having the same level of power that it had during the middle ages. I stopped reading LRC back in 2004 when I realized what he and many of his close followers are really about. He thinks he can accomplish this by hijacking the liberty movement. Every time I read the word "paleolibertarian" I could puke.

At worst he's a plant, and a very effective one due to the damage he's caused:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/124426.html

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/01/11/ron-pauls-ugly-newsletters/

This is why it is so important that some of our liberty candidates win in 2010. Dr. Paul can be easily smeared by this scandal whenever the MSM and their handlers deem necessary.

Deborah K
09-14-2009, 10:26 AM
I think a careful reading of my posts show disagreement with the anarchist position as logically inconsistent and not well thought out, despite the constant reference to articles to read that would surely convince me of the anarchist position if I only had the intellectual capacity to understand them.

The problem is that I do understand them, with your reaction taken by me as some evidence of that.


As I said, I am down with the concept of anarchy. It's trying to put it into practice that concerns me. And if you can't put a concept into practice then what is the point?

I know enough to know that anarchy is part of the cycle of government: Liberty; Complacency; Dependence; Tyranny; Revolution. Anarchy usually occurs during and after revolution. But, as the Articles of Confederation have shown us, it can't last.

Primbs
09-14-2009, 10:40 AM
Do Marches matter?

Here are some answers.

Measuring success entails more than body counts, which every organizer
inevitably inflates.

We have brought people together who have never met. Groups have sprung up in cities, more conservatives are running for office,

http://www.randpaul2010.com/

"When marches are successful, it's because they serve a community
mobilizing function that lasts beyond the event and leads to something down
the line," said John D'Emilio, a history professor at the University of
Illinois at Chicago"

The marches on Washington have tended (it is in part inferred in the
article) to be most successful when they focus on one issue--such as gun
control. MLK's march was backed up by local actions across the country and
had specific remedies for the discrimination.

We are doing local actions.


"I think the cultural impact that such events can have and the impact they can
have on participants should not be overlooked, even though legislators and others
often down play the impact social movements and organizations have on them."

"I am, like the writer, fairly short term and legislation victory results
oriented, but the results that diffuse impacts on culture can have are
worth considering".

"Also, the argument that resources mobilized for one activity are deducted from how many resources
can be mobilized for another event implies some kind of zero-sum relationship between giving patterns
from the entire public. I think the research shows this isn't likely true, or at least, not that simple."

tremendoustie
09-14-2009, 10:42 AM
Couldn't you say that about government?

Bingo. There will always be evil, power hungry men and women, who want to rule the lives of others. Why create a power structure ready made for them to do so?

jm1776
09-14-2009, 10:47 AM
What pisses me off is the lack of any strategy from the Austrian wing.

Do not think liberty lovers that liberty comes from intellect. It is our compassion for our brothers and sisters, or our fear of them that brings us together and unites us under these ideals, not our ability to be clever, witty, or logical. These things are only useful for defending our ideals, rarely for spreading them. To spread them we must act in such a way that others see those ideals through our actions. [...]

Thanks for the excellent post.

This is worth exploring. In general, what type of endeavors could we engage in that would be beneficial to our communities while providing an example of our ideals in action?

tremendoustie
09-14-2009, 10:49 AM
As I said, I am down with the concept of anarchy. It's trying to put it into practice that concerns me. And if you can't put a concept into practice then what is the point?

I know enough to know that anarchy is part of the cycle of government: Liberty; Complacency; Dependence; Tyranny; Revolution. Anarchy usually occurs during and after revolution. But, as the Articles of Confederation have shown us, it can't last.

How do you believe the Articles of Confederation show this? Also, don't you think there is a difference between the temporary lack of a government in a trasitional period, with a population supportive in general of the idea of coersive government, and a lack of government caused by a populace the majority of which by principle refuse to use or tolerate agressive force?

Deborah K
09-14-2009, 11:03 AM
Bingo. There will always be evil, power hungry men and women, who want to rule the lives of others. Why create a power structure ready made for them to do so?

And I suppose anarchy will make evil, power hungry men and women NOT want to rule the lives of others???? Anarchy relies too heavily on good will. Love the concept though.

Deborah K
09-14-2009, 11:10 AM
How do you believe the Articles of Confederation show this? Also, don't you think there is a difference between the temporary lack of a government in a trasitional period, with a population supportive in general of the idea of coersive government, and a lack of government caused by a populace the majority of which by principle refuse to use or tolerate agressive force?

Because the Articles of Confederation were as close to anarchy as we ever got. Even George Washington said that the near disaster at Valley Forge was due to the constitutional weakness of the Articles of Confederation.

As I stated before, I am for limited government overseen by the people it represents. When it goes wrong, it is due to complacency. The Constitution dictates that elected officials in in the employment of the people. It's the same concept as when you own a business. If you don't hold your employees accountable, they will take over.

tremendoustie
09-14-2009, 11:38 AM
And I suppose anarchy will make evil, power hungry men and women NOT want to rule the lives of others???? Anarchy relies too heavily on good will. Love the concept though.

Well, again, I do not support aggressively coercive government, but I do support order and peace, so I'd prefer the term "voluntaryist" or "free society" if you don't mind.

In a free society, then, how will power hungry men and women be dealt with? I suppose the answer depends on how those power hungry people seek it. If they attempt to use force against their neighbors -- a traditional gang type of approach, they will be stopped by protection agencies, which would serve a similar function to that of police now. We know that they would not be as powerful as these protection agencies, because the economic power of one madman cannot come close to matching that of people who just want to be left in peace. It's the same reason the government is more powerful than street gangs now -- the government has the economic power of average people behind it.

Now, perhaps the crafty, power hungry individual will seek to rise to power in one of these protection agencies or other organization, and then use it for evil. A number of things prevent them:

1. Competition. There will be many competing protection agencies, which would quickly band together against the rogue. Also, people could easily and swiftly switch to a competitor, draining the rogue protection agency of resources, and bolstering the opposition.

This advantage does not exist with government -- government does not allow competition in protection services, nor does it obtain funding voluntarily, so there is no alternative ready to challenge a government should it become oppressive, and there is no way for people to "vote with their wallets" and remove support if the government starts to go out of control. If our power hungry individual takes over the government, they are far less easily opposed.

Monopolies always provide worse services and are far less accountable -- for forced monopolies, rather than natural ones, this is especially so.

2. No illusion of legitimacy. In a free society, no action would be considered legitimate if it uses aggressive force. By contrast, in our current situation, people believe government -- or the majority -- has the right to do what they will with the finances and lives of others. Many people who would never break into a neighbor's house, steal their TV, sell it, and use the money to help the poor, for example, will nonetheless support welfare, because of this false idea that government is somehow exempt from the moral code. This same false idea causes those with moral opposition to a government action, for example, to believe that they still must fund it with their taxes. After all, "majority rules". This illusion of legitimacy would also not exist in their "troops". Their personnel would likely desert them after their attempted takeover. There would be no "don't think, just obey orders" propaganda as there is for the military, police, etc.

3. No ready made power structure. In order to obtain taxes, government must create the necessary structure, including information on whatever is to be taxed -- trade, income, etc, and the means to enforce tax collection. In a free society, protection agencies and other services would send you a bill at the end of the month, and might eventually refuse service if the bills are not paid, but they do not have the ability to obtain information on income, etc. A potential tyrant would have to create the entire tax structure from scratch, as well as any other power structures he/she wished to obtain -- no easy feat.

This limitation does not exist in government, where the necessary structures are already in place for tyranny -- ready made for the tyrant's use, including at least taxation, but also usually secret agencies, tools for domestic espionage, border control, military, fiscal and trade controls, etc. Couple this with a populace taught that normal morality does not apply to government -- that government (police, FBI, IRS, etc) must always be obeyed, and the enforced ban on all competition, and you have a recipe for disaster. One which has occurred repeatedly through history, and continues to occur today.


This book has some good ideas regarding free market justice, although I don't necessarily agree with everything in it: http://mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf

tremendoustie
09-14-2009, 11:55 AM
Because the Articles of Confederation were as close to anarchy as we ever got. Even George Washington said that the near disaster at Valley Forge was due to the constitutional weakness of the Articles of Confederation.

A valid solution to lack of funding is not to start extorting money from people. Nor is an appropriate response to desertion to hang people who choose to leave. In reality, the revolution would have been far more effective had Washington not focused on regulars so much, and had there been more of an emphasis on sabotage assassinations, and surprise attacks. It was citizens and volunteers with rifles, causing chaos for the British, who won the war.



As I stated before, I am for limited government overseen by the people it represents. When it goes wrong, it is due to complacency. The Constitution dictates that elected officials in in the employment of the people. It's the same concept as when you own a business. If you don't hold your employees accountable, they will take over.

Yes, and when you own a business, can you threaten to throw people in cages if they do not subscribe to your service?

ShowMeLiberty
09-14-2009, 12:04 PM
We need both. With the age of youtube, it is important for people to see the size of the disenfrachised, so that this myth of small government types only being a small minority can be dispelled. In that very large crowd, perhaps a small minority will now be inspired to affect change at the local level, that may have been to intimidated before. It's a numbers game.

+1


Looks like we are going to have little debate.

I think Lew Rockwell's reasons for owning guns applies to having marches.

"A right exercised is a right retained."

The fact that we are organizing marches and are there is starting to change the dynamic.

" The simple act of having a gun is its own best use. Like a battleship parked off the coast its mere presence changes the dynamic of the situation without having to fire a single shot. By having a gun you become too dangerous to your predators. Criminals interviewed in jail say they don’t want anything to do with an armed civilian. That change in my human predators is exactly what I want to accomplish."

^ This.


I agree with paulitics and New York for Paul, and I think Rockwell is partially missing the point. Although he's correct that a march will not directly affect policy, a sufficiently gigantic march (like Saturday's) can and will awaken disenfranchised people to the fact that many, many others exist, and it also gets people accustomed to the idea of mass demonstrations (which is good for the safety of future participants). It's good for morale and working up the energy to get involved.

Absolutely correct, imho.

tremendoustie
09-14-2009, 12:10 PM
+1



^ This.



Absolutely correct, imho.

Yes, I agree, marches are a good idea. Action, in general, is a good idea. Our problem IMO, if we have one, is not taking the wrong kind of action, it is not taking enough action.

RoamZero
09-14-2009, 12:18 PM
It would be much more effective if people marched on state conventions and try to take over as much chairmanship/committee positions as possible. The only good that can come from marches such as the one on Washington is an effort to try to sway and educate the neocons that have been swept in by the people that are trying to co-opt the movement.

tremendoustie
09-14-2009, 12:26 PM
It would be much more effective if people marched on state conventions and try to take over as much chairmanship/committee positions as possible. The only good that can come from marches such as the one on Washington is an effort to try to sway and educate the neocons that have been swept in by the people that are trying to co-opt the movement.

Yes, it would be better for state governments to start extracting themselves from the clutches of Washington. I think Washington may be beyond hope -- not that I don't support efforts at reform -- but I think efforts at reform in the state level, and especially civdis and agorist approaches are more likely to be effective. That said, education is also a vital goal, and national efforts are often more visible.

Deborah K
09-14-2009, 12:36 PM
A valid solution to lack of funding is not to start extorting money from people. Nor is an appropriate response to desertion to hang people who choose to leave. In reality, the revolution would have been far more effective had Washington not focused on regulars so much, and had there been more of an emphasis on sabotage assassinations, and surprise attacks. It was citizens and volunteers with rifles, causing chaos for the British, who won the war.



Yes, and when you own a business, can you threaten to throw people in cages if they do not subscribe to your service?

Don't mix apples with oranges. You need money to win a fight against tyranny. How would you have done it differently and had the same outcome - that being independence from England.

No, when you own a business you can't throw people in cages and you are mixing up the roles here. Government isn't the business owner - the people are.

Primbs
09-14-2009, 01:07 PM
Yes, it would be better for state governments to start extracting themselves from the clutches of Washington. I think Washington may be beyond hope -- not that I don't support efforts at reform -- but I think efforts at reform in the state level, and especially civdis and agorist approaches are more likely to be effective. That said, education is also a vital goal, and national efforts are often more visible.

There might be hope to change washington.

"the possible elevation of a movement that two years ago was insufficient to nominate its preferred candidate to a position of being able to change the policy debate and cow the very same Republican elites who lined up, almost to a person, behind other Republican presidential contenders."

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/ron-paul-rallies-v2009.html

We are doing better.

Bossobass
09-14-2009, 01:15 PM
Lew Rockwell's a pussy.

Bosso

brandon
09-14-2009, 01:17 PM
Agree with Rockwell. These types of demonstrations don't accomplish anything.

Build your own personal power and take back control of your life then same way they took control of your life. The ruling elite did not take control of this country by marching in the streets and waving signs. Maybe everyone should watch "An Idea Whose Time Has Come" again...

Primbs
09-14-2009, 01:18 PM
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/08/13/nate-silver-sees-major-gains-for-gop-in-2010.html#

Liberals predicting possible GOP takeover of the house in 2010 with a 50 seat democrat loss.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/likely-voters-and-unlikely-scenarios.html

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/looking-forward-to-2010.html


We have many Ron Paul republican running. There is a big wave coming. Now is the time for people to run for office.

The march is but one indicator, but a good one.

The liberals are very much paying attention to Ron Paul republicans now.

http://www.democraticwarrior.com/forum/showthread.php?p=351922

puppetmaster
09-14-2009, 01:25 PM
I would love to see an armed march on Washington. That may open some eyes.....

Lew is a good man.

tremendoustie
09-14-2009, 01:26 PM
Don't mix apples with oranges. You need money to win a fight against tyranny. How would you have done it differently and had the same outcome - that being independence from England.

Were my goal to forcefully oppose the British, I would have worked to organize free people and their resources to that end, so, people who have money for rifles, etc, could be connected to those who want to volunteer, volunteers in need of homes could be connected with sympathetic homeowners nearby, etc. I would also donate my own resources, and perhaps, if events warranted, pick up a rifle myself.

There was plenty of willing money and resources to fund a resistance. If those resources did not exist, I would either do what I could with what I had, or would seek another method of resistance, more commensurate with my means.

Taking a rifle around and extorting money from people to pay for my resistance, or forcing them to fight, would not be an option, I would, I hope, sooner die than become such a thug, and tyrant, myself.



No, when you own a business you can't throw people in cages and you are mixing up the roles here. Government isn't the business owner - the people are.

Who are "the people"? The majority? How exactly does a majority have a right to extort money from a minority by threatening violence against them? You use the analogy of a business here, but it is not appropriate, because the government does not act on the basis of voluntary transactions, nor does it it permit competition. Nor, indeed, is "the people" a single unit, with a single will. In reality, the government is a tool used by some people, against other people. It is more like an attack dog than a business.

What if a person does not support the government, or wish to subscribe to it? Would you use this attack dog against them, to take their money, despite their protests, because "the people" (the majority) want it? What then, when the majority clamor for socialized medicine, a police state, the draft, and your very life, and the now giant dog is on your doorstep? Will you then complain when it bites you? Too bad, they will say, as you once did -- the majority want it!

No! Just let people be free with their lives and finances. Put the rabid dog down.

I'd like your opinion on this, if you don't mind: suppose at the creation of the world I find myself living near two other people. Now, suppose myself, and my first neighbor, wish to steal from the other. My second neighbor simply wishes to live in peace. My first neighbor and I hold a "constitutional convention", and determine by two thirds majority, that we will have a democracy. We then vote to steal from our neighbor, and the motion passes by two thirds majority, which of course is binding. It's now the law that we shall take the property of our neighbor, and since there are two of us and one of him, overwhelm him by force and do so immediately. Or, of course, we could give him a chance to leave, at which point we get his farm anyway.

Do you believe this scenario is any different, or more moral, than common theft?

TonySutton
09-14-2009, 01:48 PM
People need to march on their state capitals, this is where the change will need to occur. It only takes one state to fire the first volley for liberty!

Honestly I think we are very close to seeing it. We just need people to show their state officials we will back them up.

Original_Intent
09-14-2009, 01:50 PM
A few marches on MSM outlets might be more productive. I am sure they would not be downplaying the numbers if the protestors were around their studios....open-carrying.

angelatc
09-14-2009, 01:51 PM
Lew Rockwell is exactly right: "DC is one nasty place. So why would anyone concerned about the state and its power “march on Washington”? Such events only dissipate energy, and fool people into thinking that their time and money have accomplished something, as the regime laughs up its sleeve. Indeed, that is the purpose. So stay home. Read, write, work, organize, and avoid DC like the plague it is." Read it all please: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/35963.html

Thank you very much.

Another seriously flawed idea from a Libertarian. Go figure. He's never won any office with that strategy, I guarantee you.

Stay home and organize. Organize what? My sock drawer?

Lew Rockwell is not the leader of my movement.

angelatc
09-14-2009, 01:59 PM
Bingo. There will always be evil, power hungry men and women, who want to rule the lives of others. Why create a power structure ready made for them to do so?

It's entirely ridiculous that the anarchists and minarchists and the ancaps can't seem to respect that we aren't interested in debating Utopian philosophy past the age of 27. Ron Paul believes in Constitutional government, we believe in Constitutional government.

Because these are the Ron Paul Forums, we should have the right not to be incessantly harangued and sidetracked into defense of our platform. Go to Mises or something if you want to make friends, and stop hijacking every freaking thread that comes up.

tremendoustie
09-14-2009, 02:17 PM
It's entirely ridiculous that the anarchists and minarchists and the ancaps can't seem to respect that we aren't interested in debating Utopian philosophy past the age of 27. Ron Paul believes in Constitutional government, we believe in Constitutional government.


No one thinks things will be perfect with no aggressive government, or that it would be a utopia. There will always be problems in any society, and people who wish to harm others. The point is to consistently oppose immoral behavior. You oppose all murders, right? Does that mean you are a Utopian? Of course not -- the fact that you recognize that some murder will probably always exist does not mean that you find it acceptable.

Please speak for yourself, not whoever "we" is.



Because these are the Ron Paul Forums, we should have the right not to be incessantly harangued and sidetracked into defense of our platform. Go to Mises or something if you want to make friends, and stop hijacking every freaking thread that comes up.

I didn't bring up the topic, there were three or four posts on it just on the first page, which I was responding to. I also responded to the main point, disagreeing with LR, and agreeing that marches can be productive.

Also, again, please speak for yourself.


Edit: I also want to say that I absolutely consider us allies. I will always argue against the use of any aggressive force, but that does not mean I do not appreciate the efforts of those who are trying to reduce it, though not yet eliminate it. Many of RP's words and actions are heroic in my view, and I absolutely support him. I've called congress people and e-mailed friends in support of HR1207, I donate to schiff and rand, etc.

I don't want you to think I oppose the goals or work of constitutionalists such as yourself. Goodness knows there are enough 100% enemies -- I would be a fool to reject 90% friends.

tremendoustie
09-14-2009, 02:25 PM
I don't have the wherewithall to initiate a tax revolt, but I will tell you this....the minute I detect that a good number of fed-up Americans are ready to stop paying their taxes, I will go full force with all of my organizational abilities. I have been longing for a tax revolt for almost three years now.

That would be awesome :cool:.

And, by the way, I think the RPR march you helped organize was a smashing success, and helped a lot of people realize they are not alone. Thank you.

erowe1
09-18-2009, 01:33 PM
Robert Higgs posted an interesting blog about this topic the other day. I respect him enough that I thought it must deserve careful consideration.
http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=3403


What’s the Point of Demonstrating?

By Robert Higgs on Sep 14, 2009 in American History, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Personal Liberty, Police, Surveillance, The State

Thousands of Americans have just staged a demonstration in Washington, D.C., to express their displeasure with the growth of government in general and the Obama administration’s health-insurance proposals in particular. Such demonstrations are a tradition in this country. The First Amendment, which people usually associate with freedom of speech, religion, and the press, also stipulates that Congress shall make no law abridging “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The Founders knew that people would sometimes desire to complain publicly against government policies that affected them adversely. After all, their own revolution had begun amid many such protests against the British government.

So, in this country, people have a constitutionally guaranteed right to demonstrate and petition for redress of grievances, and they often exercise this right. Although the government sometimes tries to control when and how people demonstrate, especially when such protests might prove too visibly embarrassing to the emperor or to one of the two gangs that purport to be competing political parties in what is actually a one-party state, most of the time the rulers seem to appreciate that such demonstrations pose no genuine threat to their control of the state and that the wise course is to allow the peasants to blow off steam. Later, they can be told how fortunate they are to live in a country where the government permits freedom of speech, as if such speech in itself would feed the baby.

I have considerable experience as a demonstrator. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, I marched and otherwise participated in many protests against the U.S. war in Vietnam. Although I managed to get through all these experiences without getting my head scarred by a police night stick—an achievement of which many of my fellow demonstrators cannot boast—I did learn a fair number of lessons in what we might call “applied political science.”

Lesson number one is that the cops do not believe in your First Amendment rights, or any other rights of yours, for that matter. If they find it convenient for their own purposes, which often seem to include nothing more than throwing their weight around, they will yell at you, shove you, threaten you with night sticks, dogs, and horses, whack you with their clubs, and lob tear gas into your ranks. It’s all in a day’s work for those who have sworn “to serve and protect.” Best you remember, however, that the phrase is short for “serve and protect the state,” not for “serve you and protect your rights to life, liberty, and property.” Protecting your right to demonstrate peacefully against state policies is not part of the cops’ job description.

Lesson number two is that the people in the demonstrations are there for all sorts of reasons, despite what one might suppose from their announced issue(s) as signified by signs, banners, and group statements. I often bemoaned the lack of seriousness in many of the antiwar demonstrators with whom I marched. A great many of the younger ones seemed to be there mainly because demonstrating against the war was, literally, a sexy thing for a college student to do: at the demonstration, one might meet someone suitable for a not-very-subsequent sexual liaison—in plain language, participating in a demonstration served as a reasonably promising avenue to getting laid. Beyond this quite understandable motivation, however, people had all sorts of other reasons for participating. Some fancied themselves radicals out to overthrow the government. Others were worried that children, grandchildren, or other relatives and friends might be drafted, shipped to Vietnam, and killed. Some of us actually cared about the countless hundreds of thousands of Asians being slaughtered by U.S. forces for no good reason. Although we were all against the war in some way, our ways varied widely. The participants in most demonstrations, including the recent one in Washington, no doubt have this same heterogeneous quality. In a protest, however, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Lesson number three is that the mainstream media are in league with the government when they report on demonstrations. For example, they will minimize any violence the police use against the demonstrators and exaggerate any violence the demonstrators perpetrate. I recall one protest in particular, where our group included tens of thousands of marchers passing through the streets of downtown Seattle. The police, as usual, were out in force, lining the streets and salivating for a chance to crack some heads. Present also were the undercover agents with their cameras; for some reason, the authorities always wanted lots of photos of us dangerous protesters—college students, hippies, grandmothers, little kids in their mother’s arms, and so forth, all obviously dangerous subversives. At this particular protest, the organizers took great pains to instruct everybody about scrupulously avoiding any kind of violence, because we all knew that the media would use it to discredit everything about the event. So we maintained absolute order, or so I thought as I made my way through the streets somewhere in the middle of the long parade. No violence whatsoever did I see. Hooray! The next morning, however, the banner headline in the Seattle Times read, “Violence Mars Antiwar Demonstration.” Someone, it seems, had broken ranks and smashed a shop window, an occurrence so inconsequential that even I, positioned right in the middle of the affair, had not noticed it. This incident illustrates well what passes for journalistic impartiality and balance in this country. Rest assured that if you are bucking the system, the system’s guardians in the news media will smack you down by stigmatizing you as some sort of dangerous hooligan or totally out-of-touch wing-nut. They’ll also minimize your group’s numbers, again seeking to marginalize and trivialize your efforts.

Lesson number four is that the powers that be don’t give a damn about your demonstrations or the reasons that have impelled you to participate in them, except to the extent that your actions create bad press for them and their policies. The minute they conclude that your demonstrations actually imperil their personal grip on power, they will cease to be so accommodating of your First Amendment rights. They might even cook up something called COINTELPRO, whereby they employ every political dirty trick in the book against you, up to and including murder. (If you suppose I’m exaggerating, I suggest you do some research on COINTELPRO and other such government schemes to violate the people’s civil rights systematically.) Nowadays, the USA PATRIOT Act lends itself splendidly to broad-gauge surveillance and disruption of peaceniks and other troublemakers.

After the Vietnam War ended, I stopped participating in public demonstrations, not because I thought the government no longer deserved protest and petition for redress of grievances, but because I lost all faith in the efficacy of the demonstrations. I was gaining a sounder appreciation of how the state operates, and as my understanding deepened, I found myself unable to suppose that the people who constitute the state have any interest in doing what might loosely be called “the right thing.” As for those of us outside the precincts of the state and its supporting coalition of special-interest groups, the state wants us to buckle under to its dictates, shell out the taxes, fees, and fines it demands from us, and shut up. As long as we faithfully comply with the first two requirements, it is willing to cut us some slack on the third, but only up to the point at which our expressions of grievance might actually weaken its iron grip on power. So, when I see demonstrations like the one that just took place in Washington, I sympathize with the people who’ve gone to the trouble of protesting against the government’s abuses, but I find myself wondering, Do these poor souls really think they’ll accomplish something by this protest?

webstar
09-18-2009, 01:40 PM
There are public relations downsides to these marches:

http://blog.buzzflash.com/contributors/2073

Maybe Lew Rockwell simply knows how to spell?

CCTelander
09-18-2009, 04:39 PM
It's entirely ridiculous that the anarchists and minarchists and the ancaps can't seem to respect that we aren't interested in debating Utopian philosophy past the age of 27. Ron Paul believes in Constitutional government, we believe in Constitutional government.

Because these are the Ron Paul Forums, we should have the right not to be incessantly harangued and sidetracked into defense of our platform. Go to Mises or something if you want to make friends, and stop hijacking every freaking thread that comes up.

Get with the freakin' program, will you?

THIS WEEK'S Witch Hunt is aimed at neocons, Obamabots, LaRouche supporters, and people who kick puppies.

The anarchist witch hunt resumes NEXT WEEK.

What, you didn't get the memo?

libertarian4321
09-18-2009, 06:05 PM
All protest marchs should be moved to a more centralized location- maybe Denver.

DC is just too damned far away for most people who live in the central or western part of the country.

pacelli
09-18-2009, 06:05 PM
Lew Rockwell is all about doing nothing.

raystone
09-18-2009, 07:29 PM
I agree with paulitics and New York for Paul, and I think Rockwell is partially missing the point. Although he's correct that a march will not directly affect policy, a sufficiently gigantic march (like Saturday's) can and will awaken disenfranchised people to the fact that many, many others exist, and it also gets people accustomed to the idea of mass demonstrations (which is good for the safety of future participants). It's good for morale and working up the energy to get involved.


+1