Is Lew Rockwell Harming The Liberty Movement With His Constant Use of Hyperbole?

[Zatch]

Should Lew Rockwell tone done his rhetoric some? He seems like the libertarian version of Michael Savage except without the yelling.

[FrankRep]

Give an example.

[Zatch]

Give an example.

Stuff like this: "The Evil Paul Krugman Attacks Ron Paul"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wenzel/wenzel58.1.html

This one is actually by Wenzel but Lew uses the same kind of language.

[trey4sports]

He is very polarizing but to my knowledge he is rarely read by anyone other than Libertarians.

[Agorism]

Well his site via Alexa rankings is #1 in terms of Libertarian websites.

His site probably at least the size of Hotair.

[PreDeadMan]

Lew Rockwell isn't harming the liberty movement he's expanding it with his fine job with the website and his articles :)

[angelatc]

I'm not a Rockwell fan, but he's certainly an excellent writer. I can see where he puts people off, especially if he is saying something that they disagree with, but he is a friend of Ron Paul's. That's just that.

[specsaregood]

Well his site via Alexa rankings is #1 in terms of Libertarian websites.

His site probably at least the size of Hotair.

So what he is doing/has been doing is working? Sounds like an argument to keep doing it.

[Agorism]

Well maybe not. It's still quite large though.

Site Information for hotair.comGet Details Alexa Traffic Rank: 3,799 Traffic Rank in US: 794 Sites Linking In: 4,608

Site Information for nationalreview.comGet Details Alexa Traffic Rank: 5,696 Traffic Rank in US: 1,189 Sites Linking In: 5,413

Site Information for lewrockwell.comGet Details Alexa Traffic Rank: 6,667 Traffic Rank in US: 1,587 Sites Linking In: 5,114

Site Information for redstate.comGet Details Alexa Traffic Rank: 12,045 Traffic Rank in US: 3,013 Sites Linking In: 3,469

Site Information for dailypaul.comGet Details Alexa Traffic Rank: 14,315 Traffic Rank in US: 4,018 Sites Linking In: 1,011

Site Information for ronpaulforums.comGet Details Alexa Traffic Rank: 23,681 Traffic Rank in US: 5,073 Sites Linking In: 375

[angelatc]

Well his site via Alexa rankings is #1 in terms of Libertarian websites.

His site probably at least the size of Hotair.

His ranking is 6667, while Hot Air is 3799. He's got a little way to go.

ETA - oops - you posted. You notice that he has more sites linking in?

[Agorism]

Well bigger than redstate and nearly as large as national review.

[awake]

Dude, Ron Paul reads Lew Rockwell everyday, first story to last. Hyperbole?

[AuH20]

I saw Lew on Freedom Watch and almost passed out, when he said we shouldn't have re-instituted the Bush tax cuts?

[angelatc]

Well bigger than redstate and nearly as large as national review.

Oh, I didn't even notice that! That's awesome.

[Tal]

Nah I think Lew Rockwell's tone is just fine, I havent seen him use any sort of really over the top words.

[qh4dotcom]

Lew has also criticized the military....and he's Ok with not supporting the troops

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/snider1.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger64.html

[heavenlyboy34]

I saw Lew on Freedom Watch and almost passed out, when he said we shouldn't have re-instituted the Bush tax cuts?
I didn't see this, but usually when Lew starts on a subject this way, he follows it by saying taxes should be eliminated entirely or something along those lines. You'll have to listen for context before passing out next time. ;) :)

[NewRightLibertarian]

He's great and he shouldn't change a thing.

[Vessol]

I love reading Lew Rockwell's articles. He uses a LOT less hyperbole than other partisan writers and doesn't do the double talk that many of them also do.

[mport1]

Lew Rockwell tells things as they are without sugar coating them which is why I like him. We need people like him who call out statists for what they really are.

[William R]

I'm not a big fan. Lew does have lots to offer, but he is so angry he turns other pro liberty people off.

When Rand was running for the Senate he got very little coverage on Lewrockwell.com. I suspect father told Lew to remain silent.

[malkusm]

I posted a more lengthy rant about this some time ago: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?266372-Lew-Rockwell-is-the-most-unpalatable-abrasive-figure

[Anti Federalist]

Oh gawd, now Lew Rockwell has to shut up and be polite.

We're on the verge of national collapse into a NAZIesque tyranny and some people are still wringing their hands and getting the vapors over people not being polite?

FFS

Oh, and BTW, Alex Jones' "Infowars" blows all the sites noted in this thread, away.

Alexa ranking 2157

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/infowars.com

[low preference guy]

Stuff like this: "The Evil Paul Krugman Attacks Ron Paul"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wenzel/wenzel58.1.html

This one is actually by Wenzel but Lew uses the same kind of language.

that's perfectly fine, what a wuss.

[South Park Fan]

While I agree with most of what he says, it isn't hard to imagine myself repelled from libertarianism if that wasn't what I already believed. I think blogger David Kramer is even more bombastic the way he invariably invokes Godwin's Law. Of course, I am not really complaining, since its his website.

[malkusm]

Another recent example - when Tom Woods posted a rebuttal to Mark Levin on LRC, Levin jumped at the opportunity to link his followers to LRC articles calling American soldiers murderers, calling for the abolition of drunk driving laws, and calling Reagan a tyrant. I cringed when Woods posted it on LRC because I knew it was coming. It had nothing to do with the perfectly reasonable argument that the Constitution delegated war powers to Congress rather than the executive. Yet, that's the takeaway.

Lew is in a position where he could assert influence over many who are sympathetic to our small-government ideas, but by and large, he takes the opportunity to turn his page into an echo chamber that condemns the very people who might be influenced.

[William R]

Oh gawd, now Lew Rockwell has to shut up and be polite.

We're on the verge of national collapse into a NAZIesque tyranny and some people are still wringing their hands and getting the vapors over people not being polite?

FFS

Oh, and BTW, Alex Jones' "Infowars" blows all the sites noted in this thread, away.

Alexa ranking 2157

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/infowars.com

Spring, summer and fall of 2010 there was hardly a mention of Rand Paul on LewRockwell.com

That's all the explanation any clear thinking person needs.

[Vessol]

Spring, summer and fall of 2010 there was hardly a mention of Rand Paul on LewRockwell.com

That's all the explanation any clear thinking person needs.

Can you please explain that "explaination" to me?

[Zatch]

that's perfectly fine, what a wuss.

Yea, calling people evil just because they disagree with you politically is perfectly fine. /sarcasm

I read LRC on a regular basis and I'm not offended by his hyperbole. I'm just concerned it might be turning away libertarian newbs. Don't be a dick.

[heavenlyboy34]

Another recent example - when Tom Woods posted a rebuttal to Mark Levin on LRC, Levin jumped at the opportunity to link his followers to LRC articles calling American soldiers murderers, calling for the abolition of drunk driving laws, and calling Reagan a tyrant. I cringed when Woods posted it on LRC because I knew it was coming. It had nothing to do with the perfectly reasonable argument that the Constitution delegated war powers to Congress rather than the executive. Yet, that's the takeaway.

Lew is in a position where he could assert influence over many who are sympathetic to our small-government ideas, but by and large, he takes the opportunity to turn his page into an echo chamber that condemns the very people who might be influenced.

well, Lew isn't a conservative. You shouldn't expect nice, PC, GOP-friendly conservatism from him. IMHO, LRC is way too kind to mainstream republicans/conservatives. The best thing about LRC is that the writers there don't mince words or play games. mises.org has better analysis of the "right" (and "left") in that regard. /end rant

[Vessol]

Yea, calling people evil just because they disagree with you politically is perfectly fine.

Paul Krugman is evil because of his morals which he uses to justify violence. Any initiation of force is violence. You don't think the initiation of force is evil?

Considering that Lew Rockwell is a market anarchist, I highly doubt he's labeling Krugman evil just because he disagrees with him.

Liberty is a ethical and philosophical stance not a political stance. That's what separates us from the moral relativist Statists.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

[heavenlyboy34]

Spring, summer and fall of 2010 there was hardly a mention of Rand Paul on LewRockwell.com

That's all the explanation any clear thinking person needs.

WTF? That's a huge leap of logic there. Just because he doesn't do 24/7 coverage of a guy you're a fanboy for makes him "bad"?

ETA: I thought you didn't like "purity" tests. ;)

[Zatch]

Paul Krugman is evil because of his morals which he uses to justify violence. Any initiation of force is violence. You don't think the initiation of force is evil?

Considering that Lew Rockwell is a market anarchist, I highly doubt he's labeling Krugman evil just because he disagrees with him.

Liberty is a ethical and philosophical stance not a political stance. That's what separates us from the moral relativist Statists.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

By your definition everyone who isn't an anarchist is evil. Ron Paul is evil because he's not an anarchist.

[heavenlyboy34]

By your definition everyone who isn't an anarchist is evil. Ron Paul is evil because he's not an anarchist.

not exactly. RP doesn't agree with government aggression (yet). There are other positions than anarchists that are consistent with the Philosophy of Liberty (as described in the video). Voluntaryism, for one. :cool:

[jclay2]

Even though I love Alex Jones, I can understand people getting upset with him. But now Lew Rockwell? Cmon people, this is getting absurd.

[heavenlyboy34]

Paul Krugman is evil because of his morals which he uses to justify violence. Any initiation of force is violence. You don't think the initiation of force is evil?

Considering that Lew Rockwell is a market anarchist, I highly doubt he's labeling Krugman evil just because he disagrees with him.

Liberty is a ethical and philosophical stance not a political stance. That's what separates us from the moral relativist Statists.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

+rep

[Vessol]

By your definition everyone who isn't an anarchist is evil. Ron Paul is evil because he's not an anarchist.

Ron Paul believes in the initiation of force? You don't have to be an anarchist to reject the initiation of force.

I'm not sure why so many here get so pissy about market anarchists, especially considering how many of Ron Paul's biggest influences are Mises and Rothbard(both of whom were market anarchists).

[Tal]

Even though I love Alex Jones, I can understand people getting upset with him. But now Lew Rockwell? Cmon people, this is getting absurd.

Yeah I agree, Lew Rockwell is a pussycat compared to Alex Jones.

[low preference guy]

I'm not sure why so many here get so pissy about market anarchists, especially considering how many of Ron Paul's biggest influences are Mises and Rothbard(both of whom were market anarchists).

Mises? What do you mean by market anarchist?

[South Park Fan]

Mises? What do you mean by market anarchist?

Not per se, though he advocated a democratic republic with the right to secession preserved.

[Vessol]

Mises? What do you mean by market anarchist?

While it could be argued that he was in favor of a most minimal government(defining property rights is about it), Mises would probably be a considered radical by many here who seem to take great offense of the anarchists here for whatever reason.

Market anarchist is simply that, the rejection of the State and the belief that the market is the best societal alternative. Anarcho-Capitalism is the same thing, though I prefer Market to Capitalism.

[low preference guy]

While it could be argued that he was in favor of a most minimal government(defining property rights is about it), Mises would probably be a considered radical by many here who seem to take great offense of the anarchists here for whatever reason.

Market anarchist is simply that, the rejection of the State and the belief that the market is the best societal alternative. Anarcho-Capitalism is the same thing, though I prefer Market to Capitalism.

This is a very confusing post. So market anarchism is the same thing as an anarcho-capitalist, and Mises was a market anarchist but not a anarcho-capitalist. Is that what you're saying?

[Vessol]

This is a very confusing post. So market anarchism is the same thing as an anarcho-capitalist, and Mises was a market anarchist but not a anarcho-capitalist. Is that what you're saying?

No, Market Anarchism and Anarcho-Capitalism are one and the same. I personally use Market Anarchism as it is free of the stigma that capitalism, a word coined by Marx, carries.
I think its a misnomer, capitalism. It comes off as amassing capital being the primary goal of the system. Market anarchism describes it much better IMO.

[low preference guy]

No, Market Anarchism and Anarcho-Capitalism are one and the same. I personally use Market Anarchism as it is free of the stigma that capitalism, a word coined by Marx, carries.
I think its a misnomer, capitalism. It comes off as amassing capital being the primary goal of the system. Market anarchism describes it much better IMO.

This guy doesn't sound like an anarchist to me:


Government as such is not only not an evil, but the most necessary and beneficial institution, as without it no lasting social cooperation and no civilization would be possible.


A shallow-minded school of social philosophers, the anarchists, chose to ignore the matter by suggesting a stateless organization of mankind. They simply passed over the fact that men are not angels. They were too dull to realize that in the short run an individual or a group of individuals can certainly further their own interests at the expense of their own and all other peoples’ long-run interests. A society that is not prepared to thwart the attacks of such asocial and short-sighted aggressors is helpless and at the mercy of its least intelligent and most brutal members. While Plato founded his utopia on the hope that a small group of perfectly wise and morally impeccable philosophers will be available for the supreme conduct of affairs, anarchists implied that all men without any exception will be endowed with perfect wisdom and moral impeccability. They failed to conceive that no system of social cooperation can remove the dilemma between a man’s or a group’s interests in the short run and those in the long run.

Link (http://www.nattvakt.com/onlineenglish/misesonanarchism.htm)

[Vessol]

In my previous post I went back on my statement of Mises being a market anarchist. He accepted government on the level of defining property rights, but little else.

[low preference guy]

In my previous post I went back on my statement of Mises being a market anarchist. He accepted government on the level of defining property rights, but little else.

but so do people who call themselves advocates of small government. i think far fewer people would object to anything Mises said than Rothbard (except for Mises' defense of conscription).

[steph3n]

He's not hurting anything, I don't read his site, most people never heard of it, it doesn't really matter.

[Vessol]

but so do people who call themselves advocates of small government. i think far fewer people would object to anything Mises said than Rothbard (except for Mises' defense of conscription).

Ok, but we are diverging off the topic.

My main point in bringing up Mises and Rothbard, especially Rothbard, is the fact that so many here seem to hold much disdain for anarchists(like Lew). Especially when anarchism, like constitutionalism is a large part of this Liberty "movement".

[sailingaway]

He speaks for himself.

[low preference guy]

Ok, but we are diverging off the topic.

My main point in bringing up Mises and Rothbard, especially Rothbard, is the fact that so many here seem to hold much disdain for anarchists(like Lew). Especially when anarchism, like constitutionalism is a large part of this Liberty "movement".

I don't get how bringing somebody who was not an anarchist and explicitly criticized anarchism, and even criticized the specific section of Rothbard's magnus opus which advocated for anarchism strengthens your point.

[Vessol]

I don't get how bringing somebody who was not an anarchist and explicitly criticized anarchism, and even criticized the specific section of Rothbard's magnus opus which advocated for anarchism strengthens your point.

Why are you continuously attacking me for this? I retracted what I said. Pardon me if I make a simple mistake in attribution of political beliefs while tired.

[low preference guy]

Why are you continuously attacking me for this? I retracted what I said. Pardon me if I make a simple mistake in attribution of political beliefs while tired.

I didn't see your retraction. I thought you were still saying that Mises was an anarchist. Saying that I don't understand your point is not an attack.

[Vessol]

While it could be argued that he was in favor of a most minimal government(defining property rights is about it), Mises would probably be a considered radical by many here who seem to take great offense of the anarchists here for whatever reason.

^Retraction^ (Yes I'm aware I came off as haughty in that post)

Again, can we return to the topic at hand instead of nitpicking a misattribution on my part?

What's wrong with labeling someone evil if their acts are evil? I never took many here to be moral relativists.

[low preference guy]

I disagree with your retraction, I don't think most people here would consider Mises a radical, but since you are exasperated, I won't argue any more.

[Zatch]

Ok, but we are diverging off the topic.

My main point in bringing up Mises and Rothbard, especially Rothbard, is the fact that so many here seem to hold much disdain for anarchists(like Lew). Especially when anarchism, like constitutionalism is a large part of this Liberty "movement".

Quit trying to make this about anarchism. This is about Lew Rockwell's lack of tact.

[Andrew-Austin]

Even though I love Alex Jones, I can understand people getting upset with him. But now Lew Rockwell? Cmon people, this is getting absurd.

QFT.

Really, if we are to start a witch hunt of liberty-leaning people who turn others away from the message, alienate people, and make Paul 'look bad' by being vaguely associated with him, then the hunt clearly has to start with Alex. I mean Lew is very outspoken and very radical (pluses, to me personally), dude argues for things like the legalization of drunk driving, bashes cops and soldiers, etc etc. But I still don't think all that compares to what Alex Jones has said and the tone he has said it in.

I mean the best argument/point in this thread thus far in favor of chastising Lew, was Malkusm's example that because of the more radical content on the LRC, people like Levin are given ammunition to dishonestly snivel their way out of proper arguments. I mean really, was there even a chance in hell of Levin being honest, of him being interested in real discussion in the first place? Nah, I don't think so.

[Vessol]

I disagree with your retraction, I don't think most people here would consider Mises a radical, but since you are exasperated, I won't argue any more.

Fair enough.


Quit trying to make this about anarchism. This is about Lew Rockwell's lack of tact.

Lew is an anarchist though. And someone brought up that it's wrong to call someone evil just because you disagree with them politically. I brought up the fact that Lew does not only disagree with Krugman politically, but also ethically.

[low preference guy]

Krugman is a blood-sucking monster. I can't believe anyone here wants to defend him.

[Anti Federalist]

QFT.

Really, if we are to start a witch hunt of liberty-leaning people who turn others away from the message, alienate people, and make Paul look bad by being vaguely associated with him, then the hunt clearly has to start with Alex. I mean Lew is very outspoken and very radical (pluses IMO), dude argues for things like the legalization of drunk driving, bashes cops and soldiers, etc etc. But I still don't think all that compares to what Alex Jones has said and the tone he has said it in.

Eh, I don't recall Alex Jones ghostwriting vaguely racist newsletters and putting Ron's name on them.

(Yeah, I went there)

[low preference guy]

Eh, I don't recall Alex Jones ghostwriting vaguely racist newsletters and putting Ron's name on them.

(Yeah, I went there)

Lew denied he did it. What's your proof?

[Anti Federalist]

Lew denied he did it. What's your proof?

None.

[low preference guy]

None.

I'm skeptical about the accusation, considering that they came from the Kock camp, a long-time enemy of Lew.

Also, the writing style is different from what I am used to read from Lew, although I suppose a good writer can fake a style.

[ronaldo23]

Reason asserted that "a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul" had identified Rockwell as the "chief ghostwriter" of the Ron Paul newsletters published from "roughly 1989 to 1994." According to Reason, Rockwell has denied responsibility for the disputed material and has called the accusations "hysterical smears aimed at political enemies."

I don't know anything about libertarian internal politics, and maybe Rockwell didn't write them; but who did? Wasn't Rockwell responsible for overseeing all the letters going out?

[low preference guy]

..

[Anti Federalist]

I'm skeptical about the accusation, considering that they came from the Kock camp, a long-time enemy of Lew.

Also, the writing style is different from what I am used to read from Lew, although I suppose a good writer can fake a style.

Like I said, I have nothing concrete.

A bunch of people said one thing, Lew said another and that's all I know.

And I'm a fan of Lew as well, I enjoy his sites and his writing.

But if we're going to start talking about people to throw overboard...

[Andrew-Austin]

But if we're going to start talking about people to throw overboard...

lol fine, if we are, I still stand by what I said that Alex should be one of the first, certainly before Lew.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z44YhGjX2is&feature=channel_video_title

etc (http://www.youtube.com/user/vilemonkey#p/u/3/rI0klCcLzsk) , etc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ct21YCEiWMM&feature=channel_video_title) ,

I mean he is making a pretty rock solid case right there that he should be the first.

[specsaregood]

Lew denied he did it. What's your proof?

None.

http://melibeeglobal.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/rodney_king.jpg

[hugolp]

Stuff like this: "The Evil Paul Krugman Attacks Ron Paul"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wenzel/wenzel58.1.html

This one is actually by Wenzel but Lew uses the same kind of language.


that's perfectly fine, what a wuss.

Exatcly, I dont see whats wrong with that article.

[PatriotOne]

Rome is burning and your worried about Lew being polite to the arsonists. Shakes head in wonder.

[Sola_Fide]

Lew is abrasive. Its a style that we diehards love but regular people don't respond to.

[acptulsa]

Lew is abrasive. Its a style that we diehards love but regular people don't respond to.

Is Rockwell even a libertarian? Or an ancap?

Read what you will. But be a little thoughtful about what you turn n00bs on to first. Work them up to the advanced courses before you send them in.

[thedude]

Work them up to the advanced courses before you send them in.

I second this! It is sad but true.

[Pericles]

Another recent example - when Tom Woods posted a rebuttal to Mark Levin on LRC, Levin jumped at the opportunity to link his followers to LRC articles calling American soldiers murderers, calling for the abolition of drunk driving laws, and calling Reagan a tyrant. I cringed when Woods posted it on LRC because I knew it was coming. It had nothing to do with the perfectly reasonable argument that the Constitution delegated war powers to Congress rather than the executive. Yet, that's the takeaway.

Lew is in a position where he could assert influence over many who are sympathetic to our small-government ideas, but by and large, he takes the opportunity to turn his page into an echo chamber that condemns the very people who might be influenced.
That ^ I don't spend much time there anymore as
(A) I already know what everybody is going to say because there is nothing new
(B) Well reasoned analysis of why libertarianism provides the best solution to most of the problems of "public policy" is lacking. It is easier to rant than put forth the effort into dissecting the liberal and conservative positions that lead to increased tyranny of the government over the individual.

[Vessol]

I'd say we already dissected the liberal/conservative positions that lead to tyranny. We already did that years ago.

So either we can repeat it constantly, sounding like a broken record. Or we can just have some fun and stroke our egos.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Lew is an anarchist. I like him. Libertarians who think that anything can be done through the political process are usually turned off by him. Im all in for the Ron Paul 2012 thing, but in my heart of hearts I know it wont change anything and government is essence will continue to grow, I dont care what you put in a constitution.

[Vessol]

Lew is an anarchist. I like him. Libertarians who think that anything can be done through the political process are usually turned off by him. Im all in for the Ron Paul 2012 thing, but in my heart of hearts I know it wont change anything and government is essence will continue to grow, I dont care what you put in a constitution.

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” -Lysander Spooner

Many people have questioned why I support Ron Paul and other liberty candidates by going to CPAC and posting here and such. I don't view it as trying to get a political victory, but I view it as trying to get an educational victory.

[WyoLiberty]

LRC might turn some people off...who cares? That wasn't the voice of reason for that particular person. We shouldn't sit here wringing our hands over something or someone we cannot (should not) change. We need to worry about those that continue to applaud the burgeoning size of the US gov't that seeks to oppress us. Lew is one of the good guys. We can talk about "refining liberty" when we actually win, not cut our own throats because we don't like the delivery of someone's message.

Either people are too thin-skinned to take LRC (or any liberty-type for that matter) or they are more resilient than we are giving them credit for...and will have to seek someone else they can relate to. If they are reading LRC at all - at least that means they are searching for an answer. You don't just flip the switch on liberty because you dislike a person's commentary.

[Fredom101]

Hyperbole won't help our movement at all. Also, these days Lew is looking like a homeless man, not sure what happened but he really let himself go. Image is everything, and his poor image won't help the movement either.

[Vessol]

Hyperbole won't help our movement at all. Also, these days Lew is looking like a homeless man, not sure what happened but he really let himself go. Image is everything, and his poor image won't help the movement either.

It really gets on my nerves that so many apparently are so worried about "What will the mainstream think about us *wring handkerchief in worry*"

All of us are on the morally right side. We shouldn't have to worry about "sanitizing" our message. The only people who will care about this are those who we will never "win over" to begin with, like Mark Levine.

Even if we get rid of the "offensive" material, they will still find something to attack us on.

[Fredom101]

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” -Lysander Spooner

Many people have questioned why I support Ron Paul and other liberty candidates by going to CPAC and posting here and such. I don't view it as trying to get a political victory, but I view it as trying to get an educational victory.

Q F T! I keep saying this too, getting RP in front of as many people as possible with his message is the goal, not numbers of votes. You never know who he may light a fire under when he's on CNN or Fox and speaking about taxes or the war on drugs or another radical platform of his.

[Fredom101]

It really gets on my nerves that so many apparently are so worried about "What will the mainstream think about us *wring handkerchief in worry*"

All of us are on the morally right side. We shouldn't have to worry about "sanitizing" our message. The only people who will care about this are those who we will never "win over" to begin with, like Mark Levine.

Even if we get rid of the "offensive" material, they will still find something to attack us on.

I completely agree with you. But, I would prefer if prominent libertarians like Lew stay away from hyperbole (and name calling). It really doesn't help no matter what the underlying message is, and how right it is.

[Vessol]

Q F T! I keep saying this too, getting RP in front of as many people as possible with his message is the goal, not numbers of votes. You never know who he may light a fire under when he's on CNN or Fox and speaking about taxes or the war on drugs or another radical platform of his.

Many attack Ron Paul for his style of speech, just like they do to Lew Rockwell or Alex Jones.

Many neocons hate Ron, yet love Rand. Even though they have the same beliefs.

Does that mean Ron should tone down what he says and how he says it?

[WyoLiberty]

I don't view it as trying to get a political victory, but I view it as trying to get an educational victory.

This^.

If Ron Paul becomes president, it is merely a happy consequence of spreading the message of liberty...

[acptulsa]

Everyone runs here to whine about how they hate being associated with everyone else here. Well, liberty isn't pretty. Makes for strange bedfellows.

In fact, the only thing uglier than liberty is the lack of it.

[lester1/2jr]

no

[Vessol]

Everyone runs here to whine about how they hate being associated with everyone else here. Well, liberty isn't pretty. Makes for strange bedfellows.

In fact, the only thing uglier than liberty is the lack of it.

Even people I may have many disagreements with, I still don't mind being associated with them.

I remember when I was at CPAC I spent about 20 minutes at the John Birch Society stand, talking with them. I believe they were wary of my big 'ole Anarcho-Capitalist button I had, but they seemed to get along with me. I even shook the hand of the President of the JBS, John F. McManus and had a small discussion on the history of the JBS which I knew little about.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

I don't view it as trying to get a political victory, but I view it as trying to get an educational victory.

I feel the same way. The more people become educated about liberty and the more people that demand it...that's the best chance we have.

[specsaregood]

FWIW: I have a podcast playing of the jason lewis show (from monday where he talks about libya) and he plugged lewrockwell.com, postively.

[Pericles]

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” -Lysander Spooner

Many people have questioned why I support Ron Paul and other liberty candidates by going to CPAC and posting here and such. I don't view it as trying to get a political victory, but I view it as trying to get an educational victory.

As anarchism was the natural state of man, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

[Romulus]

I think we need people of all walks. Rand is speaks in milder tone and Lew is the raw truth. People use different methods I suppose to achieve desired ends.

[mczerone]

As anarchism was the natural state of man, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

I get your point, but two critiques: (1) pre-historical anarchy did not have a mission statement that sought to preserve rights and defend against tyranny, while the U.S. Constitution did have such a stated purpose, and (2) any modern hypothetical anarchy would be based in voluntary institutions that function nothing like a "state of nature" anarchy.

[Pericles]

I get your point, but two critiques: (1) pre-historical anarchy did not have a mission statement that sought to preserve rights and defend against tyranny, while the U.S. Constitution did have such a stated purpose, and (2) any modern hypothetical anarchy would be based in voluntary institutions that function nothing like a "state of nature" anarchy.

Fair enough, but this is the type of discussion that needs to take place, but doesn't. (1) There is no claim that the US Constitution is self enforcing. It is a tool to be used by the citizens to control government - too many citizens have failed to perform the duties of a citizen. (2) In terms of general principles, such an organization has a good chance of maximizing individual liberty and wealth - the risk is in protecting that liberty and wealth from external displacement - not that it wouldn't work as a closed system,

[Vessol]

As anarchism was the natural state of man, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

Market Anarchism=/=Pre-State "Anarchism"

Nice try though.


Fair enough, but this is the type of discussion that needs to take place, but doesn't. (1) There is no claim that the US Constitution is self enforcing. It is a tool to be used by the citizens to control government - too many citizens have failed to perform the duties of a citizen. (2) In terms of general principles, such an organization has a good chance of maximizing individual liberty and wealth - the risk is in protecting that liberty and wealth from external displacement - not that it wouldn't work as a closed system,

I only use that quotation as a nice simple catch-all critique of the Constitution. The U.S Constitution was badly written and left major holes for the Federal government to rapidly expand. I wouldn't even call them holes, as holes are often mistakes. The Federalists wanted a large and powerful Federal government. You could argue into your face is blue about the duties of the citizens, but have citizens ever done their "duty"? The State exploded in size as soon as it was created.

[Anti Federalist]

Everyone runs here to whine about how they hate being associated with everyone else here. Well, liberty isn't pretty. Makes for strange bedfellows.

In fact, the only thing uglier than liberty is the lack of it.

That ^^^

[jmdrake]

Should Lew Rockwell tone done his rhetoric some? He seems like the libertarian version of Michael Savage except without the yelling.

No. He's not hurting the liberty movement and neither is Alex Jones for that matter. And more and more Michael Savage is sounding like a libertarian. (Now he's against the Iraq, Afghan and Libyan wars. He talks about how Bush helped rob the country blind for the bankers etc.)

Here's the deal. The neocons don't wring there hands about whether or not people like Michelle Malkin and Bill O'Reilly hurt their movement. Liberals don't worry if Keith Olberman or Rachel Maddow hurt their movement. That's because they've been doing this longer and have a better idea of how the system, especially segmented media, works. Someone who would be turned off by Lew Rockwell to the point of not voting for someone just because Lew speaks well of him (Ron Paul) is so for gone they won't vote for Dr. Paul anyway. Lew helps energize the people that read and like him. Those who don't like him will tune him out.

Why do you think the Michael Moores of the world have been so successful? Why do you think movements aligned with people like Moore have had some success despite the bankruptcy of their ideas? It's because they understand psychology and the average liberty person does not. Once you wrap your mind around the fact that this is an information/propaganda war and not some popularity contest you will sleep better and night and the movement will be more successful.

[doodle]

Bit of passion is good, Rockwell is a good writer from articles I have read.