Why do some people think RP supporters are hardcore pure ideological Libertarians?

[buffalokid777]

Some people seem to think RP supporters are hardcore ideological CATO Libertarians. Here is where I lie on the Nolan Chart, mostly Libertarian, but not pure.
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/4886/nolanchart.jpg

You can take the survey here and see where you lie on the chart.

http://www.nolanchart.com/survey.php

I myself have always been an independent, no party affiliation.

Why I liked Ron Paul was to start with, he had the foresight and guts to go against his party on the Iraq war, this told me he was a man who did what he thought was right, even if it was unpopular, because of that he was able to convince me about other issues.

So please pure Libertarians, there are many different reasons, why many different people support Ron Paul, please don't pigeonhole us all as pure ideological libertarians, if we want the Liberty movement to succeed, we need to have a big tent, and find what we can agree on, rather than what we can't.

If you post on this thread in reply, take the nolan chart test, and show us the result like I did, It will give a little insight into what each of us believes so we can understand each other better.

[GunnyFreedom]

CATO are 'beltway libertarians,' total statists, and they tend to side with the neocons more than the Constitutionalists. Your selection of CATO as an example probably undermines your argument. I am not even a libertarian, I am a Constitutionalist full stop. My positions are very much aligned with libertarianism because the Constitution is a very libertarian document. However, I do not consider CATO to be very much of an ally at all -- not because of 'purity' or the lack thereof, but because they re more neocon than anything (IMHO) and their agenda runs counter to mine and ours.

I can't imagine a "pure" libertarian respecting CATO at all.

[low preference guy]

hardcore ideological CATO Libertarians

contradiction.

[dannno]

Which questions did you get wrong :confused:

[Kludge]

Secondly, "Libertarian" and "libertarian" are not the same. The capital L refers to a proper noun; a member of the Libertarian Party, which no pure libertarian ought to be of.

[buffalokid777]

CATO are 'beltway libertarians,' total statists, and they tend to side with the neocons more than the Constitutionalists. Your selection of CATO as an example probably undermines your argument. I am not even a libertarian, I am a Constitutionalist full stop. My positions are very much aligned with libertarianism because the Constitution is a very libertarian document. However, I do not consider CATO to be very much of an ally at all -- not because of 'purity' or the lack thereof, but because they re more neocon than anything (IMHO) and their agenda runs counter to mine and ours.

I can't imagine a "pure" libertarian respecting CATO at all.

I agree 100%, but they are always the most vocal here on they are the sole pure keeper of Austrian economic theories, though they never like to quote the fallacy of collectivism by Von Mises, when they defend the rights of corporations as equal to individuals.

[buffalokid777]

Which questions did you get wrong :confused:

Gun rights, I'm ok with a little regulation so the mentally insane don't get guns.

[low preference guy]

I agree 100%, but they are always the most vocal here on they are the sole pure keeper of Austrian economic theories, though they never like to quote the fallacy of collectivism by Von Mises, when they defend the rights of corporations as equal to individuals.

you're so fucking wrong. unbelievable.

[buffalokid777]

you're so fucking wrong. unbelievable.

What am I wrong about?

[low preference guy]

What am I wrong about?

the part i put in bold.

[dannno]

Gun rights, I'm ok with a little regulation so the mentally insane don't get guns.

How effective do you imagine this to be :confused:

[GunnyFreedom]

I agree 100%, but they are always the most vocal here on they are the sole pure keeper of Austrian economic theories, though they never like to quote the fallacy of collectivism by Von Mises, when they defend the rights of corporations as equal to individuals.

Stop the presses, I agree w/ LPG :D

The CATO people H A T E Ron Paul. I can't imagine there are CATO people on this forum for any purpose but to lurk and keep tabs on us radicals.


Gun rights, I'm ok with a little regulation so the mentally insane don't get guns.

Who gets to define what is "insane"? What happens when the progressives designate anybody who wants less government to be insane? What happens when the social cons designate anybody who wants us out of foreign wars to be insane?

[buffalokid777]

How effective do you imagine this to be :confused:

Well they do have that federal background check, I can live with that, not ideal, but I can live with it. Yes it has the ability to be abused by the gov, I understand that, but I can live with it.

[dannno]

Well they do have that federal background check, I can live with that, not ideal, but I can live with it. Yes it has the ability to be abused by the gov, I understand that, but I can live with it.

No, I mean, do you really think that federal gun laws will do a reasonable job of keeping guns out of the hands of insane people :confused:

What would be the results of having such a policy :confused: Waco, perhaps :confused:

[GunnyFreedom]

Well they do have that federal background check, I can live with that, not ideal, but I can live with it. Yes it has the ability to be abused by the gov, I understand that, but I can live with it.

What about people who are wrongly listed on the terror watchlists due to an administrative error? What about people who are denied the right to bear arms because of the unfortunate coincidence of having a similar name to someone else?

It is OK to open the potential for abuse just so long as you personally are not affected? :confused:

[buffalokid777]

Who gets to define what is "insane"?

My definition would be someone who spent a period of time in a facility for the mentally insane. I am not ready to call them cured once they are on Big Pharma meds, actually I think they will tend to lose it once they are turned loose on Big Pharma meds.

[buffalokid777]

What about people who are wrongly listed on the terror watchlists due to an administrative error? What about people who are denied the right to bear arms because of the unfortunate coincidence of having a similar name to someone else?

It is OK to open the potential for abuse just so long as you personally are not affected? :confused:

The terror watch list i'm not cool with, only the mentally insane, everyone else should have guns, if a convicted violent felon wants a gun, i'm sure they'll get one without the background check.

[GunnyFreedom]

My definition would be someone who spent a period of time in a facility for the mentally insane. I am not ready to call them cured once they are on Big Pharma meds, actually I think they will tend to lose it once they are turned loose on Big Pharma meds.

People have been forced, against their will, to spend time in institutions because they believe in disciplining their children the way they did in the 50's 60's and 70's. So you believe that anybody who follows the biblical commandment to use corporal punishment when their child steals or maims should not be allowed to own a firearm for the rest of their lives?

Pople have been forced into institutions because they experience a traumatic event regardless of whether they ever show symptoms of PTSD or not. So now anybody who witnesses a tragic event should be permanently barred from owning firearms?

[buffalokid777]

the part i put in bold.

Well I see plenty of the CATO statist types who sure act that way.

[hugolp]

I agree 100%, but they are always the most vocal here on they are the sole pure keeper of Austrian economic theories, though they never like to quote the fallacy of collectivism by Von Mises, when they defend the rights of corporations as equal to individuals.

CATO are not big fan of austrian economics. In fact, I have heard CATO people mocking Rothbard or saying Mises is a thing of the past.

Are you confused or are you deliberately lying? Where are you getting all this ideas? They are just wrong.

[dannno]

My definition would be someone who spent a period of time in a facility for the mentally insane. I am not ready to call them cured once they are on Big Pharma meds, actually I think they will tend to lose it once they are turned loose on Big Pharma meds.

Sometimes you have to pretend you are in a libertarian society in order to answer libertarian questions.

If I was living in a prosperous libertarian society that wasn't taking half of what I produced, then on top of donating to charitable organizations I would donate to mental institutions where people would be free to come and go, and the type of medications made available would include natural remedies for their conditions, including cannabis.

The mental institution could have rules against having guns and enforce that, but if one of them decides they want to leave, and they want to protect themselves, or they want to shoot a bunch of innocent people, they will probably find a way to get a gun whether there are federal gun laws or not.

[GunnyFreedom]

The terror watch list i'm not cool with, only the mentally insane, everyone else should have guns, if a convicted violent felon wants a gun, i'm sure they'll get one without the background check.

The problem is that background checks are flawed. (see the RPF thread on a known-innocent man being listed as a sexual predator because of identity theft, and the 'officials' refuse to delist him -- he fails every background check he will ever endure, and he is totally innocent)

The problem is that the very definition of "insanity" changes depending on who is doing the defining. Some people -- even some people here on RPF's define all believing biblical Christians as "insane." Within your paradigm, all believing Christians would be banned for life from owning a weapon.

[buffalokid777]

People have been forced, against their will, to spend time in institutions because they believe in disciplining their children the way they did in the 50's 60's and 70's. So you believe that anybody who follows the biblical commandment to use corporal punishment when their child steals or maims should not be allowed to own a firearm for the rest of their lives?

Pople have been forced into institutions because they experience a traumatic event regardless of whether they ever show symptoms of PTSD or not. So now anybody who witnesses a tragic event should be permanently barred from owning firearms?

I understand what you are getting at, but I also know some people who totally lost it, who have no business having guns (Including one person I knew from high school who was in and out of psychiatric unit, beat up his girlfriend several times, and eventually killed his girlfriend and himself), I'd be ok with them having tazers to defend themselves. They can't really go postal that way.

[buffalokid777]

CATO are not big fan of austrian economics. In fact, I have heard CATO people mocking Rothbard or saying Mises is a thing of the past.

Are you confused or are you deliberately lying? Where are you getting all this ideas? They are just wrong.

From CATO website

http://find.cato.org/search?q=von+mises&btnG.x=0&btnG.y=0&btnG=Search&site=cato_all&client=cato-org&filter=p&lr=lang_en&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=cato-org&proxyreload=1&getfields=summary

they sure have an awful lot of papers on it, they just bend it for globalism.

[YumYum]

Sometimes you have to pretend you are in a libertarian society in order to answer libertarian questions.

If I was living in a prosperous libertarian society that wasn't taking half of what I produced, then on top of donating to charitable organizations I would donate to mental institutions where people would be free to come and go, and the type of medications made available would include natural remedies for their conditions, including cannabis.

The mental institution could have rules against having guns and enforce that, but if one of them decides they want to leave, and they want to protect themselves, or they want to shoot a bunch of innocent people, they will probably find a way to get a gun whether there are federal gun laws or not.

You make very good, valid points. Why do we elect mentally insane people into office? Or maybe they are not insane. Sociopaths are not insane; they are calculating.

[dannno]

Ok, so the government should know where all the guns are, what kind they are and who owns them...

What other questions did you get wrong :confused:

[YumYum]

Ok, so the government should know where all the guns are, what kind they are and who owns them...

What other questions did you get wrong :confused:

Are you against government? Should government not exist?

[buffalokid777]

Ok, so the government should know where all the guns are, what kind they are and who owns them...

What other questions did you get wrong :confused:

Not sure, it was a long time ago I took the test, but I saved the result graphic, I knew a llittle gun regulation wasn't going to be the full on libertarian answer.

[Anti Federalist]

The problem is that background checks are flawed. (see the RPF thread on a known-innocent man being listed as a sexual predator because of identity theft, and the 'officials' refuse to delist him -- he fails every background check he will ever endure, and he is totally innocent)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=254245

[buffalokid777]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=254245

Well at least the gun show loophole still exists, and if it ever gets closed, you could always ask grandma for an ak-47 for christmas :)

[dannno]

Are you against government? Should government not exist?

I'm not against a little minarchy, but I don't know that I'm totally against not having government, either. I think both would be a lot better than what we have now.

[Southron]

I understand what you are getting at, but I also know some people who totally lost it, who have no business having guns (Including one person I knew from high school who was in and out of psychiatric unit, beat up his girlfriend several times, and eventually killed his girlfriend and himself), I'd be ok with them having tazers to defend themselves. They can't really go postal that way.

Don't you think gun laws could be handled better at the state level?

[buffalokid777]

Don't you think gun laws could be handled better at the state level?

Definitely

[hugolp]

From CATO website

http://find.cato.org/search?q=von+mises&btnG.x=0&btnG.y=0&btnG=Search&site=cato_all&client=cato-org&filter=p&lr=lang_en&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=cato-org&proxyreload=1&getfields=summary

they sure have an awful lot of papers on it, they just bend it for globalism.

How is this an answer to what I said? If you did not had 1000+ messages I would though you were trolling.

[buffalokid777]

How is this an answer to what I said? If you did not had 1000+ messages I would though you were trolling.

You said they pick on austrian economics, yet they have tons of articles on their website to the contrary, where is your proof they pick on austrian economics rather than bending it to their globalist beltway view?

[GunnyFreedom]

I understand what you are getting at, but I also know some people who totally lost it, who have no business having guns (Including one person I knew from high school who was in and out of psychiatric unit, beat up his girlfriend several times, and eventually killed his girlfriend and himself), I'd be ok with them having tazers to defend themselves. They can't really go postal that way.

I understand what you are getting at too, but the problem is that any attempt at banning insane people from owning firearms requires an actual definition of "insanity," which definition is subjective at best.

Documented cases domestic abuse, at least, would be an OBJECTIVE standard. Prior violent convictions, at least, would be an OBJECTIVE standard. Something like a "ban for life" is immoral, and does not recognize a government's epic ability to royally screw things up.

In ANY case, the only legal authority for individual prohibitions would be at State or County level, even given an objective standard such as domestic abuse or violent convictions. The Fed.gov has absolutely no authority in the Constitution to prohibit firearm ownership to anybody for any reason whatever.

So there are many things wrong here:

1) "Insanity" is a SUBJECTIVE standard. Laws (including such prohibitions) are completely meaningless without an OBJECTIVE standard at least.

2) There is zero Constitutional authority at the Federal level to prohibit firearm ownership from any person for any reason whatsoever. Thus, such a prohibition is not legal or legitimate without a Constitutional amendment.

3) Even at the State level, most States have restrictive Constitutions that would make lifetime bans illegitimate, but could possibly allow temporal prohibitions requiring a demonstration of reformative action to reinstate.

4) The best place for such a prohibition (if there even is such a place) is at the County level and tied to the elected Sheriff. The Sheriff is in the best position to take complaints of domestic abuse and monitor whether that abuse continues or stops. This also allows the flasely accused to move out of the juristiction with little effort.

5) Firearms prohibitions simply do not work any more than drug prohibition. If someone is intent on killing they will find a way to get ahold of a gun whether they are legally allowed to buy one or not. Failing that, they will use a knife, or a hammer, or a needle-nose pliers, so in effect by prohibiting the guy from owning a firearm you are making the eventual victim's death much much more horrible at the point of a knife or at the end of a hammer -- or at the barrel of an illegal weapon making it much much more difficult to prosecute and convict the murderer.

[low preference guy]

Does anyone remember who was the Cato guy who said something like: we have stop Mises from having influence, even Milton Friedman thinks he is crazy.

[GunnyFreedom]

Well at least the gun show loophole still exists, and if it ever gets closed, you could always ask grandma for an ak-47 for christmas :)

And put grandma in prison with molesters, rapists, and murderers for making a straw purchase?

[GunnyFreedom]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=254245 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=254245)

thankee sai!

[buffalokid777]

I understand what you are getting at too, but the problem is that any attempt at banning insane people from owning firearms requires an actual definition of "insanity," which definition is subjective at best.

Documented cases domestic abuse, at least, would be an OBJECTIVE standard. Prior violent convictions, at least, would be an OBJECTIVE standard. Something like a "ban for life" is immoral, and does not recognize a government's epic ability to royally screw things up.

In ANY case, the only legal authority for individual prohibitions would be at State or County level, even given an objective standard such as domestic abuse or violent convictions. The Fed.gov has absolutely no authority in the Constitution to prohibit firearm ownership to anybody for any reason whatever.

So there are many things wrong here:

1) "Insanity" is a SUBJECTIVE standard. Laws (including such prohibitions) are completely meaningless without an OBJECTIVE standard at least.

2) There is zero Constitutional authority at the Federal level to prohibit firearm ownership from any person for any reason whatsoever. Thus, such a prohibition is not legal or legitimate without a Constitutional amendment.

3) Even at the State level, most States have restrictive Constitutions that would make lifetime bans illegitimate, but could possibly allow temporal prohibitions requiring a demonstration of reformative action to reinstate.

4) The best place for such a prohibition (if there even is such a place) is at the County level and tied to the elected Sheriff. The Sheriff is in the best position to take complaints of domestic abuse and monitor whether that abuse continues or stops. This also allows the flasely accused to move out of the juristiction with little effort.

5) Firearms prohibitions simply do not work any more than drug prohibition. If someone is intent on killing they will find a way to get ahold of a gun whether they are legally allowed to buy one or not. Failing that, they will use a knife, or a hammer, or a needle-nose pliers, so in effect by prohibiting the guy from owning a firearm you are making the eventual victim's death much much more horrible at the point of a knife or at the end of a hammer -- or at the barrel of an illegal weapon making it much much more difficult to prosecute and convict the murderer.

Pretty much, when taking the test, it's not like I am for gun regulation, I was pretty much Ok with a little, and it should be handled at the state/local level, that way if you don't like the regulation in your area, you can vote with your feet. Personally, I think law abiding citizens should be able to have automatic weapons if they want them.

[hugolp]

You said they pick on austrian economics, yet they have tons of articles on their website to the contrary, where is your proof they pick on austrian economics rather than bending it to their globalist beltway view?

Honestly, I am not going to spend time looking for the video just because someone has put into your head that CATO are austrian purist... If you really wanted to know the truth you would have done your investigation. I am going to recomend you a couple of austrian oriented websites that I visit:

http://mises.org/
http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/

Just for curiosity, what is the system you support? And what economic theories do you support or like?

[buffalokid777]

Honestly, I am not going to spend time looking for the video just because someone has put into your head that CATO are austrian purist... If you really wanted to know the truth you would have done your investigation. I am going to recomend you a couple of austrian oriented websites that I visit:

http://mises.org/
http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/

Just for curiosity, what is the system you support? And what economic theories do you support or like?

I support austrian economics, what I don't like about CATO, is they use it to form a beltway globalist view that favors collective corporations over individuals that only benefit the elite who control said collectives. Von Mises was quite clear that collectivism is a bad thing, because once it gains control, the collective stamps out the individual. I never said CATO are austrian purists, I said they like to appear they are and try to make it look like they are the all knowing austrian economists, while bending it to their own beltway globalist views of so called free trade (In reality what they call free trade is managed trade).

[hugolp]

I support austrian economics, what I don't like about CATO, is they use it to form a beltway globalist view that favors collective corporations over individuals that only benefit the elite who control said collectives. Von Mises was quite clear that collectivism is a bad thing, because once it gains control, the collective stamps out the individual.

Then what are we discussing about?

I 100% agree with what you are saying. Corporations as they are defined in our system should not exists. Corporations are a charter of government, they are just regulations giving some entities special treatment. Any honest libertarian should be against corporations.

PS: I distrust CATO as well. They have good material sometimes, but I tend to be very cautious towards them.

[low preference guy]

they like to appear they are and try to make it look like they are the all knowing austrian economists

Nobody who knows Austrian Economics has any trouble figuring out it's an act.

[Anti Federalist]

thankee sai!

Wow, great reference. +1776

Awesome series of books.

His best, I think.

;)

[jmdrake]

The survey itself is flawed. Just look at the first question. All 4 options are wrong.


1) Government should not restrict speech, press, media or Internet. The rights of free citizens who don't violate other people's rights must be respected and protected at all times. Exercise of eminent domain should be extremely limited and its use avoided whenever possible. Private property and privacy rights should be protected at all times.


Ok, the above is the closest to being right. But it's not perfect.


2) Speech, assembly, press, and Internet should be free except when it comes to protecting against terrorism and other threats to public safety. Free speech zones can be established to protect the right of free speech while insuring security at public events. Eminent domain should be maintained in practice, but it should not be available merely as a means to enrich private developers via enforced land transfers.


Not sure what's meant by "protecting against terrorism and other threats to public safety". If someone is using speech to command others to commit terrorist acts that goes against the "don't violate the rights of others" from option 1. But if someone is merely saying "America is evil" that's not an act of terrorism even if our backward government might define it as supporting terrorism. But "free speech zones" are totally unacceptable.


3) Speech, assembly, press, and Internet should be free, but the government has a role in regulating certain speech, such as criminalizing hate speech, regulating sexual or violent content on television, limiting campaign contributions, protecting the separation of church and state, preventing the imposition of religious beliefs in public schools, and use of eminent domain in certain cases to serve the public good.


Shouldn't libertarians be against "imposition of religious beliefs in public schools"? (Actually I guess the real libertarian position would be no public school.) I do think sometimes freedom of speech and of religion is violated in the name of "separation of church and state". But I don't think a forced state sponsored religion curriculum is very libertarian.


Government should regulate speech, press, media, Internet, and property rights at its own discretion within reason as needed to meet all of government's many obligations

Obviously wrong. So I guess "1" is the "correct" answer, but it's incomplete.

[buffalokid777]

The survey itself is flawed. Just look at the first question. All 4 options are wrong.


1) Government should not restrict speech, press, media or Internet. The rights of free citizens who don't violate other people's rights must be respected and protected at all times. Exercise of eminent domain should be extremely limited and its use avoided whenever possible. Private property and privacy rights should be protected at all times.


Ok, the above is the closest to being right. But it's not perfect.


2) Speech, assembly, press, and Internet should be free except when it comes to protecting against terrorism and other threats to public safety. Free speech zones can be established to protect the right of free speech while insuring security at public events. Eminent domain should be maintained in practice, but it should not be available merely as a means to enrich private developers via enforced land transfers.


Not sure what's meant by "protecting against terrorism and other threats to public safety". If someone is using speech to command others to commit terrorist acts that goes against the "don't violate the rights of others" from option 1. But if someone is merely saying "America is evil" that's not an act of terrorism even if our backward government might define it as supporting terrorism. But "free speech zones" are totally unacceptable.


3) Speech, assembly, press, and Internet should be free, but the government has a role in regulating certain speech, such as criminalizing hate speech, regulating sexual or violent content on television, limiting campaign contributions, protecting the separation of church and state, preventing the imposition of religious beliefs in public schools, and use of eminent domain in certain cases to serve the public good.


Shouldn't libertarians be against "imposition of religious beliefs in public schools"? (Actually I guess the real libertarian position would be no public school.) I do think sometimes freedom of speech and of religion is violated in the name of "separation of church and state". But I don't think a forced state sponsored religion curriculum is very libertarian.


Government should regulate speech, press, media, Internet, and property rights at its own discretion within reason as needed to meet all of government's many obligations

Obviously wrong. So I guess "1" is the "correct" answer, but it's incomplete.

I agree, to make 1 the correct answer, this line would need to be eliminated


Exercise of eminent domain should be extremely limited and its use avoided whenever possible.

Or changed to something like

Exercise of eminent domain should only be used in necessary need for national security and said land when claimed by government must compensate the property owner at 3x assessed value of the land based on the tax rolls.

I wouldn't care if the Gov took my land through eminent domain if they gave me 3x what it is worth. Just would mean I could buy 3x as much land somewhere else, it's a big country.

[Stary Hickory]

CATO gets some things right, they are not my idea of real libertarians but they are not as bad as some are making them out to be.

I mean we have Reason Magazine types too. One thing is for certain is that CATO lacks any understanding of Austrian Economics, and they are idiots about it. They have been wrong on the past on the economics issue and refuse to come clean and admit that Ron Paul and Austrian Economics is correct.

They are more a Chicago School bunch, which means they have flawed outlooks on the economy and the role of government in the economy as an extension of their ignorance on economics. So I don't view CATO as real libertarians but they are not Neocons either.

[buffalokid777]

Nobody who knows Austrian Economics has any trouble figuring out it's an act.

That is true, but I have seen many of them here, trying to draw those who don't know to their dark side vision of libertarianism. They are globalist managed trade advocates gone wild. They always have 2008-2009 join dates (long after RP was out of the POTUS race) and always rip on us who were here from the beginning as dumb isolationists, so I feel the need to stop by here every so often and and point out the CATO view of what they call free trade, is not free trade but managed trade, so some new people here don't fall into their false ideological trap.

[Vessol]

To the OP. You'll find very few, if any, CATO Libertarians here, or people from the Libertarian Party.

[buffalokid777]

To the OP. You'll find very few, if any, CATO Libertarians here, or people from the Libertarian Party.

I definitely see them time to time sporting their globalist managed trade (They call them free trade) views.

[low preference guy]

That is true, but I have seen many of them here, trying to draw those who don't know to their dark side vision of libertarianism.

I post often and I haven't seen them. Interesting. Do you have any names?

[buffalokid777]

I post often and I haven't seen them. Interesting. Do you have any names?

I'm not going to name names, but look up my posts on threads from about one to two weeks ago, I saw one vocal one, who has toned it down lately, he ripped on anti federalist too.

[low preference guy]

I'm not going to name names, but look up my posts on threads from about one to two weeks ago, I saw one vocal one, who has toned it down lately, he ripped on anti federalist too.

There is always a few wackos on almost every topic. What's the point of making a thread about it?

[buffalokid777]

I'm not going to name names, but look up my posts on threads from about one to two weeks ago, I saw one vocal one, who has toned it down lately, he ripped on anti federalist too.

There was also another who threatened to kill people if he had to pay more for his cheap goods from globalist managed trade policies ceasing to exist. That one really blew me away because it was so over the top.

[buffalokid777]

There is always a few wackos on almost every topic. What's the point of making a thread about it?

This thread is really about the CATO institute, and that they aren't really libertarians, they are globalists posing as libertarians, trying to get you on board with a global collective.

[low preference guy]

This thread is really about the CATO institute, and that they aren't really libertarians, they are globalists posing as libertarians, trying to get you on board with a global collective.

yep. also, water is wet.

[heavenlyboy34]

CATO are not big fan of austrian economics. In fact, I have heard CATO people mocking Rothbard or saying Mises is a thing of the past.

Are you confused or are you deliberately lying? Where are you getting all this ideas? They are just wrong.

I've heard RPFers doing that. :p:(

[ClayTrainor]

Penn Jillette is a fellow at CATO (http://www.cato.org/people/penn-jillette)... Never knew that.

At least they got at least one hardcore libertarian.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Cato used to be good for a few years. Then the Kochtopus got so enamored with Milton, and dismissed every Austrian. I wonder how many even know that CATO was founded partially by Murray Rothbard. CATO is a waste. Ironically, I think Murray was making fun of CATO in his LP address (late 80s) on youtube that I linked to a few days ago where the institution ceases to exist to advance liberty, and instead lives to....live so people can have a salary, etc. In essence, a racket. CATO is a racket.

Penn is awesome, but he is in the wrong institute.

[heavenlyboy34]

Cato used to be good for a few years. Then the Kochtopus got so enamored with Milton, and dismissed every Austrian. I wonder how many even know that CATO was founded partially by Murray Rothbard. CATO is a waste. Ironically, I think Murray was making fun of CATO in his LP address (late 80s) on youtube that I linked to a few days ago where the institution ceases to exist to advance liberty, and instead lives to....live so people can have a salary, etc. In essence, a racket. CATO is a racket.

Penn is awesome, but he is in the wrong institute.

+a zillion.:cool:

[dannno]

There was also another who threatened to kill people if he had to pay more for his cheap goods from globalist managed trade policies ceasing to exist. That one really blew me away because it was so over the top.

That doesn't sound like a libertarian position :confused:

[Sentient Void]

That doesn't sound like a libertarian position :confused:

He's taking it out of context as well as misquoting it, that's why. I believe the thread is somewhere in the economics forum and it was one of the free trade threads that went on for a zillion pages.

[buffalokid777]

That doesn't sound like a libertarian position :confused:

I didn't think so either, and sentinent void was correct, it was in the economics section and it went on for a zillion pages, but I stand by what I said, the person who made that statement was a CATO globalist managed trade libertarian. If I misquoted it and took it out of context, the thread title was something like free trade lunacy, if you want to see the context for yourself. It was quite a heated discussion between many on this forum.

[dannno]

I didn't think so either, and sentinent void was correct, it was in the economics section and it went on for a zillion pages, but I stand by what I said, the person who made that statement was a CATO globalist managed trade libertarian.

So his little green dot would be where on the chart :confused:

[Sentient Void]

I didn't think so either, and sentinent void was correct, it was in the economics section and it went on for a zillion pages, but I stand by what I said, the person who made that statement was a CATO globalist managed trade libertarian. If I misquoted it and took it out of context, the thread title was something like free trade lunacy, if you want to see the context for yourself. It was quite a heated discussion between many on this forum.

How do you know he was a 'CATO globalist'? Not saying you're right or wrong, I just don't remember anything that would particularly label him as such and wodnering how you came to that conclusion.

If I remember correctly, he and I and a couple others supported the position of supporting free trade (while acknowledging that we don't have real full free trade), but saying that reacting to the situation by advocating protectionist tariffs will do a *lot* more harm than good. We were all against protectionist tariffs as an appropriate response - instead advocating as much free trade as possible, and reducing taxation, regulation and market distorting subsidies as the real answer to the problem.

We supported the division of labor and maximizing free trade. The other side (Jace, et al) was advocating protectionism as the answer.

My green dot, BTW, is right at the tippety-top! 100% personal & 100% economic.

[Liberty Star]

Majority is hardcore pure ideological Libertarians not willing to compromise on core principles but there is some moderate libertarians and some neoconnsih folks also. It's a good mix, variety is spice of any movement.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

CATO is summed up with one word; DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOO.

[buffalokid777]

How do you know he was a 'CATO globalist'? Not saying you're right or wrong, I just don't remember anything that would particularly label him as such and wodnering how you came to that conclusion.

If I remember correctly, he and I and a couple others supported the position of supporting free trade (while acknowledging that we don't have real full free trade), but saying that reacting to the situation by advocating protectionist tariffs will do a *lot* more harm than good. We were all against protectionist tariffs as an appropriate response - instead advocating as much free trade as possible, and reducing taxation, regulation and market distorting subsidies as the real answer to the problem.

We supported the division of labor and maximizing free trade. The other side (Jace, et al) was advocating protectionism as the answer.

My green dot, BTW, is right at the tippety-top! 100% personal & 100% economic.

I can't say I know for sure, but I think the quotations of killing people who would make him pay more for goods might be a clue.

I am a person that believes fair trade is free trade, I just can't see how china pays us an average 2% tariff for goods shipped here while we pay an average 20% tariff for goods shipped to china is free trade and it is definitely not fair trade. To me goods we ship to china we pay 0 tariffs and goods shipped to us from china pay 0 tariffs, that is free trade, it is also fair trade. When we pay differing tariffs, that is not free trade, it is managed trade. In my book, Fair trade, is the purest form of free trade,

[Sentient Void]

See Bastiat's parody argument against the sun on behalf of candlemakers.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Since I am playing the game of statism, as soon as the guns are on my side, I am using the guns to eliminate all of the insane people who think force should be used against people who do not injure anyone or damage property.

[buffalokid777]

Since I am playing the game of statism, as soon as the guns are on my side, I am using the guns to eliminate all of the insane people who think force should be used against people who do not injure anyone or damage property.

And your point is?

[emazur]

CATO is summed up with one word; DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Actually CATO is pretty damn consistent about a non-interventionist foreign policy. Dondero, while agreeing with Harry Browne on most libertarian principles on paper, in action is willing to throw them away to "counter" terrorists and Muslims, which he goes absolutely ape-shit over.

[thehunter]

Majority is hardcore pure ideological Libertarians not willing to compromise on core principles but there is some moderate libertarians and some neoconnsih folks also. It's a good mix, variety is spice of any movement.

That is something that has to be kept in mind going into 2012 -- fighting for freedom should not be a purity test but rather offering a counter position whenever the options of how to spend money/take more control come up. Let's also remember that libertarians are distinct from anarchists, a matter that even I have troubles in recalling from time to time.

[dannno]

And your point is?

'Insane' people should be treated like individuals :confused:

[Anti Federalist]

There was also another who threatened to kill people if he had to pay more for his cheap goods from globalist managed trade policies ceasing to exist. That one really blew me away because it was so over the top.


He's taking it out of context as well as misquoting it, that's why. I believe the thread is somewhere in the economics forum and it was one of the free trade threads that went on for a zillion pages.


I didn't think so either, and sentinent void was correct, it was in the economics section and it went on for a zillion pages, but I stand by what I said, the person who made that statement was a CATO globalist managed trade libertarian. If I misquoted it and took it out of context, the thread title was something like free trade lunacy, if you want to see the context for yourself. It was quite a heated discussion between many on this forum.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2785841&postcount=57


tmosley
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,502

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jace
They will pry his Wal-Mart double-knee twill Dickies pants from his cold dead fingers.

Force me to pay double, and I will kill you. I'm 100% serious. I will happily put one in the head of any fucking thief that dares to steal from my on a systematic basis.

You people are worthless. I'm repopulating my ignore list. Enjoy your grinding peasant lifestyle. I hope you choke on your millet.

[Anti Federalist]

BK777 had his quote right.

There was no taking it out of context.

He said he would kill anybody that made him pay more for his cheap Wal Marx shit.

[Sentient Void]

BK777 had his quote right.

There was no taking it out of context.

He said he would kill anybody that made him pay more for his cheap Wal Marx shit.

Or perhaps people should actually read the thread. :-/

[heavenlyboy34]

BK777 had his quote right.

There was no taking it out of context.

He said he would kill anybody that made him pay more for his cheap Wal Marx shit.

lolz...RPF thread wars are funny! :D

[Anti Federalist]

Or perhaps people should actually read the thread. :-/

I invite them to.

In fact, I hope they do.

I made it a point to bump it back to the top.

[Anti Federalist]

lolz...RPF thread wars are funny! :D

Me?

Thread warring?

Nevah!

Seriously, I consider everybody here to be brothers and sisters in liberty, even if some become unhinged at the various forms that may take.

I leave the "warring" for the great unwashed masses of asses out there, with whom, my patience is wearing thin.

[heavenlyboy34]

Me?

Thread warring?

Nevah!

Seriously, I consider everybody here to be brothers and sisters in liberty, even if some become unhinged at the various forms that may take.

I leave the "warring" for the great unwashed masses of asses out there, with whom, my patience is wearing thin.

awwww! I feel all warm and fuzzy now.:) I get the feeling sometimes that we are at war with each other-probably because the text isn't as clear in meaning as verbal communication.

[hugolp]

Cato used to be good for a few years. Then the Kochtopus got so enamored with Milton, and dismissed every Austrian. I wonder how many even know that CATO was founded partially by Murray Rothbard. CATO is a waste. Ironically, I think Murray was making fun of CATO in his LP address (late 80s) on youtube that I linked to a few days ago where the institution ceases to exist to advance liberty, and instead lives to....live so people can have a salary, etc. In essence, a racket. CATO is a racket.

Penn is awesome, but he is in the wrong institute.

For the interested: http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon37.html

[Anti Federalist]

awwww! I feel all warm and fuzzy now.:) I get the feeling sometimes that we are at war with each other-probably because the text isn't as clear in meaning as verbal communication.

I am as loud, blunt and profane in person as I am here.

;)

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

And your point is?

I did not have one I just wanted to express myself on the mentally ill and express that I support getting rid of mentally ill people who fantasize about force being used on people who have not injured anyone or damaged property. I seen a couple people talking about the mentally ill so it seemed like a good thread to chime in with personal opinion.

[SociallyRenderedImage]

Some people seem to think RP supporters are hardcore ideological CATO Libertarians. Here is where I lie on the Nolan Chart, mostly Libertarian, but not pure.
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/4886/nolanchart.jpg

You can take the survey here and see where you lie on the chart.

http://www.nolanchart.com/survey.php

I myself have always been an independent, no party affiliation.

Why I liked Ron Paul was to start with, he had the foresight and guts to go against his party on the Iraq war, this told me he was a man who did what he thought was right, even if it was unpopular, because of that he was able to convince me about other issues.

So please pure Libertarians, there are many different reasons, why many different people support Ron Paul, please don't pigeonhole us all as pure ideological libertarians, if we want the Liberty movement to succeed, we need to have a big tent, and find what we can agree on, rather than what we can't.

If you post on this thread in reply, take the nolan chart test, and show us the result like I did, It will give a little insight into what each of us believes so we can understand each other better.
"pure ideological Libertarians" is obviously YOUR characterization.

Actually, most people think Ron Paul supporters (those who have taken posession of Ron Paul's message for the sake of amnesty and other vanity issues...most avatars on this forum) are anarchists.

Ron Paul's message is not represented here, however, vanity, narcissism, and bizarre political projection is. Freaks have taken over his Conservative message and used it to their advantage. Take for instance the issue of illegal immigration from Mexico. Ron Paul is against it, for sealing the border and the rule of law. When these issues come up it provokes the forum owner and admin to "pull out"
one of many login identities to bury the issue.

This is one example of why people think of RP supporters as hardcore anarchists.

[Sentient Void]

^^^ lol

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

"pure ideological Libertarians" is obviously YOUR characterization.

Actually, most people think Ron Paul supporters (those who have taken posession of Ron Paul's message for the sake of amnesty and other vanity issues...most avatars on this forum) are anarchists.

Ron Paul's message is not represented here, however, vanity, narcissism, and bizarre political projection is. Freaks have taken over his Conservative message and used it to their advantage. Take for instance the issue of illegal immigration from Mexico. Ron Paul is against it, for sealing the border and the rule of law. When these issues come up it provokes the forum owner and admin to "pull out"
one of many login identities to bury the issue.

This is one example of why people think of RP supporters as hardcore anarchists.

Yeah, I mean it's that, not that Ron Pauls' best allies and friends (throughout his life also) are gasp..

Thomas Woods - Voluntaryist
Lew Rockwell - Voluntaryist
Murray Rothbard - Voluntaryist
Justin Raimondo - Voluntaryist
etc.

Not only that, Ron has himself come out in support of Voluntaryism while talking to Motorhome Diaries (two voluntaryists!!).

It is not the libertarians trying to co-opt Ron's philosophical message, it is the PALEO-CONs that are. Ron has never been, nor ever will be a Paleo-Con.

I mean seriously, Ron did a video with Joseph Salerno (Voluntaryist), Hans Hermann-Hoppe (Voluntaryist), etc. with the LvMI on Money, Banking, & the Fed.

98% of Austrians are Voluntaryists, even the ones who eschew the more hardlined methodology (Caplan, et. al). Ron is a devout Austrian.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon31.html

(David Gordon -- Voluntaryist)


For libertarians, no such letter should be necessary. Ron Paul is a libertarian and, moreover, the only presidential candidate in either the Republican or Democratic Parties who is a libertarian. It should not then be necessary to write an open letter: libertarians should support Ron Paul because he is one of us! What could be more evident?

Ron Paul can't come out as long as he is working in politics for the abolishment of the State, but he can destroy 98% of its institutions. A conservative does not destroy 98% of any State institutions. Conservatives seek to conserve, and they do a damn well job of it..:mad:


PS: Can you tell me how many Conservatives have come out for the abolishment of the CIA, FBI, BATF, etc.?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

"pure ideological Libertarians" is obviously YOUR characterization.

Actually, most people think Ron Paul supporters (those who have taken posession of Ron Paul's message for the sake of amnesty and other vanity issues...most avatars on this forum) are anarchists.

Ron Paul's message is not represented here, however, vanity, narcissism, and bizarre political projection is. Freaks have taken over his Conservative message and used it to their advantage. Take for instance the issue of illegal immigration from Mexico. Ron Paul is against it, for sealing the border and the rule of law. When these issues come up it provokes the forum owner and admin to "pull out"
one of many login identities to bury the issue.

This is one example of why people think of RP supporters as hardcore anarchists.

Here is a good example of mentally ill and completely talking out of your ass.