PDA

View Full Version : 10%




catdd
09-10-2012, 08:26 PM
There are about 10% of you people that I consider true revolutionaries, the rest are no better than your average libtard or rino. The 10% know who they are, I think, and I'm not sure how they manage to hang around with the rest here. I hate the other 90% of you so I don't much care if you like me or not; the rest matter. I was a good member here...I donated, I fought hard for the cause, and I was always there when you needed a hand. I think the anarchists never belonged, I think they were using us as a platform to reach their own destination. and I've despised the entire lot of them since '07. The Libertarian Party has no claim to the real revolution as I see it, and the division between them concerning open borders was a major concern of mine. I believe the Constitution party best represents the future even though the anti abortion folks couldn't disagree more. Where does it go from here? Is there any one party that best represents the future? NO, I doubt if any party will best represent the revolution. I don't know where we go from here, but it seems that we should prepare ourselves for the chaos which is sure to come in the near future. Adios

nobody's_hero
09-11-2012, 06:32 AM
I felt the same way about some of the an-caps around here. Annoying little buggers.

But then I took a lot of time to reflect on what T. Jefferson said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences of too much liberty, than to those attending too small a degree of it."

So basically, you get to a point, after you've watched citizens get kicked in the gut by the government that allegedly 'serves' them, where you say to yourself, 'Fuck it. It's not worth arguing over. Maybe there is no 'exact' amount of freedom or control. Only two roads splitting off in different directions, one leading to liberty, the other to tyranny, and we should pick which one suits us and keep walking until our legs give out.'

Think of it this way, though. An army of 10,000,000 anarchists couldn't reverse the tide, at this point. It might take 20,000,000 just to stop government from growing any more. And thats if you could somehow get anarchists to organize, and if you thought organizing libertarians is like herding cats, organizing anarchists would be like herding the cat fleas, lol.

ronpaulfollower999
09-11-2012, 11:00 AM
Good luck in the Constitution Party. You'll need it.

TheGrinch
09-11-2012, 11:06 AM
Great, jsut what we needed, more divisiveness....

I've disagreed plenty with the an-caps, but we all agree on way too many important issues to try to eat our own like this.

KCIndy
09-11-2012, 11:06 AM
There are about 10% of you people that I consider true revolutionaries, the rest are no better than your average libtard or rino. The 10% know who they are, I think, and I'm not sure how they manage to hang around with the rest here. I hate the other 90% of you....


Whoa, whoa, slow down, not so fast!

I'm trying to take notes on this.



It's for my essay on "How to Win Friends and Influence People." :rolleyes:

sparebulb
09-11-2012, 11:11 AM
I don't know where I fit in all of this. Therefore, I am not offended with the labels and generalizations.

truthspeaker
09-11-2012, 11:15 AM
I don't know about the rest of the nation, but Texas has been working hard!

In Houston alone, for example, there was a major meeting of the Paul, Tea Party and republicans that felt disenfranchized by the joke of a convention at the RNC. In Texas the CP doesn't exist. I'm opting to influence the party that does exist in my state.

People are still fighting for freedom. My best recommendation is to keep an eye on those pieces of legislation that can harm our liberties. That is where United We Stand, Divided we fall!

TomtheTinker
09-11-2012, 11:29 AM
I felt the same way about some of the an-caps around here. Annoying little buggers.

But then I took a lot of time to reflect on what T. Jefferson said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences of too much liberty, than to those attending too small a degree of it."

So basically, you get to a point, after you've watched citizens get kicked in the gut by the government that allegedly 'serves' them, where you say to yourself, 'Fuck it. It's not worth arguing over. Maybe there is no 'exact' amount of freedom or control. Only two roads splitting off in different directions, one leading to liberty, the other to tyranny, and we should pick which one suits us and keep walking until our legs give out.'

Think of it this way, though. An army of 10,000,000 anarchists couldn't reverse the tide, at this point. It might take 20,000,000 just to stop government from growing any more. And thats if you could somehow get anarchists to organize, and if you thought organizing libertarians is like herding cats, organizing anarchists would be like herding the cat fleas, lol.

Rep

erowe1
09-11-2012, 11:31 AM
There are about 10% of you people that I consider true revolutionaries, the rest are no better than your average libtard or rino. The 10% know who they are, I think, and I'm not sure how they manage to hang around with the rest here. I hate the other 90% of you so I don't much care if you like me or not; the rest matter. I was a good member here...I donated, I fought hard for the cause, and I was always there when you needed a hand. I think the anarchists never belonged, I think they were using us as a platform to reach their own destination. and I've despised the entire lot of them since '07. The Libertarian Party has no claim to the real revolution as I see it, and the division between them concerning open borders was a major concern of mine. I believe the Constitution party best represents the future even though the anti abortion folks couldn't disagree more. Where does it go from here? Is there any one party that best represents the future? NO, I doubt if any party will best represent the revolution. I don't know where we go from here, but it seems that we should prepare ourselves for the chaos which is sure to come in the near future. Adios

Thanks for everything you're doing, Catdd. We'll never be truly free until more people show the courage it takes to be true revolutionaries by anonymously insulting others on the internet.

Athan
09-11-2012, 11:33 AM
There are about a lot of you people that I consider true revolutionaries.

Fixed to prevent divisivness.

dbill27
09-11-2012, 11:38 AM
I represent the 90% and we're tired of the 10% controlling these forums or something like that, where's michael moore when you need him?

tangent4ronpaul
09-11-2012, 11:41 AM
And thats if you could somehow get anarchists to organize, and if you thought organizing libertarians is like herding cats, organizing anarchists would be like herding the cat fleas, lol.

LOL! - I never worried too much about the fleas.

t4rp - founder of operationcatherder

-t

WilliamShrugged
09-11-2012, 11:47 AM
There are about 10% of you people that I consider true revolutionaries, the rest are no better than your average libtard or rino. The 10% know who they are, I think, and I'm not sure how they manage to hang around with the rest here. I hate the other 90% of you so I don't much care if you like me or not; the rest matter. I was a good member here...I donated, I fought hard for the cause, and I was always there when you needed a hand. I think the anarchists never belonged, I think they were using us as a platform to reach their own destination. and I've despised the entire lot of them since '07. The Libertarian Party has no claim to the real revolution as I see it, and the division between them concerning open borders was a major concern of mine. I believe the Constitution party best represents the future even though the anti abortion folks couldn't disagree more. Where does it go from here? Is there any one party that best represents the future? NO, I doubt if any party will best represent the revolution. I don't know where we go from here, but it seems that we should prepare ourselves for the chaos which is sure to come in the near future. Adios

I am a an-cap that calls himself libertarian. Yet, i don't attack anyone for supporting the system of government. I understand that avoiding things like voting, campaigns, donations, etc do very little in advancing liberty. I will likely stay registered republican due to how the two parties work. I think you are wrong that the an-caps don't belong. You, just like myself, agree with less gov and more freedom. We also are likely influenced by Ron Paul.

TheGrinch
09-11-2012, 11:56 AM
I am a an-cap that calls himself libertarian. Yet, i don't attack anyone for supporting the system of government. I understand that avoiding things like voting, campaigns, donations, etc do very little in advancing liberty. I will likely stay registered republican due to how the two parties work. I think you are wrong that the an-caps don't belong. You, just like myself, agree with less gov and more freedom. We also are likely influenced by Ron Paul.
+1

I get so tired of the people who refuse to recognize that we're all fighting for the same things. Like Dr. Paul said, liberty is popular.

A better way to look at 10% is what the Minnesota chairman said at the Paul event in Tampa:

When you have less than 10% of a population who share ideas, the idea will grow slowly, but once you pass that threshold and have 10% who are unshakable in their beliefs, then the idea will grow much mroe quickly and eventually be adopted by the entire population. This is backed up through science.

Do not underestimate the power of an irate minority, especially as it's increasingly evident that we're right.

helmuth_hubener
09-11-2012, 12:06 PM
Ron Paul is an-cap. I recommend reading all the books on the Recommended Reading List at the end of The Revolution: A Manifesto. Then, read all those he recommends at the end of Liberty Defined. Then, you too will be an an-cap and your problem will be solved! The truth will set you free. Dr. Paul is trying to gently lead you along the path to the truth. Look at how the reading lists at the back of his books become gradually more and more an-cap with each book. Good luck and Happy Reading!

Some of the recommended reading from Liberty Defined:

Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View (http://mises.org/resources/3221/Mises-and-Austrian-Economics-A-Personal-View) by Ron Paul

For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (http://mises.org/resources.aspx?Id=ab1ba643-dc19-462f-82ff-2d34f46bb7f6) by Murray N. Rothbard

The Left, The Right, and The State (http://mises.org/store/Left-The-Right-and-The-State-The-P550.aspx) by Lew Rockwell (pdf here: http://mises.org/books/leftright.pdf )

Civil Disobedience (Resistance to Civil Government) (http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html) by Henry David Thoreau

Democracy: The God that Failed (http://mises.org/store/Democracy-The-God-That-Failed-P240.aspx) by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Let's Abolish Government (http://mises.org/resources/3450/Lets-Abolish-Government) by Lysander Spooner

Education: Free and Compulsory (http://mises.org/resources/2689) by Murray N. Rothbard

Meltdown (http://mises.org/store/Meltdown-P557.aspx) by Thomas E. Woods Jr.

What Has Government Done to Our Money? (http://mises.org/resources.aspx?Id=7184a3af-b7ff-4465-aab5-68a3c773b48b) by Murray N. Rothbard

Travlyr
09-24-2012, 11:05 AM
Ron Paul is an-cap. I recommend reading all the books on the Recommended Reading List at the end of The Revolution: A Manifesto. Then, read all those he recommends at the end of Liberty Defined. Then, you too will be an an-cap and your problem will be solved! The truth will set you free. Dr. Paul is trying to gently lead you along the path to the truth. Look at how the reading lists at the back of his books become gradually more and more an-cap with each book. Good luck and Happy Reading!

Some of the recommended reading from Liberty Defined:

Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View (http://mises.org/resources/3221/Mises-and-Austrian-Economics-A-Personal-View) by Ron Paul

For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (http://mises.org/resources.aspx?Id=ab1ba643-dc19-462f-82ff-2d34f46bb7f6) by Murray N. Rothbard

The Left, The Right, and The State (http://mises.org/store/Left-The-Right-and-The-State-The-P550.aspx) by Lew Rockwell (pdf here: http://mises.org/books/leftright.pdf )

Civil Disobedience (Resistance to Civil Government) (http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html) by Henry David Thoreau

Democracy: The God that Failed (http://mises.org/store/Democracy-The-God-That-Failed-P240.aspx) by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Let's Abolish Government (http://mises.org/resources/3450/Lets-Abolish-Government) by Lysander Spooner

Education: Free and Compulsory (http://mises.org/resources/2689) by Murray N. Rothbard

Meltdown (http://mises.org/store/Meltdown-P557.aspx) by Thomas E. Woods Jr.

What Has Government Done to Our Money? (http://mises.org/resources.aspx?Id=7184a3af-b7ff-4465-aab5-68a3c773b48b) by Murray N. Rothbard

Why do you do that? What is your purpose in claiming Ron Paul is an an-cap when Ron Paul has not claimed that label in his entire 77 years of living? Just because you want him to be an an-cap? Shouldn't Ron Paul be allowed to place labels on himself? It is just like Hans-Hermann Hoppe claiming that Ludwig von Mises was an anarchist. According to Hoppe, Mises became an anarchist after he died. It is disingenuous.

Was the real Helmuth Hubener a Nazi? He wrote about the Nazis all the time... does that make him one? The difference between Helmuth Hubener and Ron Paul is tolerance. Ron Paul tolerates people who don't agree with him but that does not make him one of them. Helmuth lost his life at an early age because he didn't tolerate the Nazis. You should let Ron Paul label himself. After all Ron Paul does claim to be "The Champion of the Constitution." Are all an-caps "Champions of the Constitution?"

ninepointfive
09-24-2012, 11:10 AM
Why do you do that? What is your purpose in claiming Ron Paul is an an-cap when Ron Paul has not claimed that label in his entire 77 years of living? Just because you want him to be an an-cap? Shouldn't Ron Paul be allowed to place labels on himself? It is just like Hans-Hermann Hoppe claiming that Ludwig von Mises was an anarchist. According to Hoppe, Mises became an anarchist after he died. It is disingenuous.

Was the real Helmuth Hubener a Nazi? He wrote about the Nazis all the time... does that make him one? The difference between Helmuth Hubener and Ron Paul is tolerance. Ron Paul tolerates people who don't agree with him but that does not make him one of them. Helmuth lost his life at an early age because he didn't tolerate the Nazis. You should let Ron Paul label himself. After all Ron Paul does claim to be "The Champion of the Constitution." Are all an-caps "Champions of the Constitution?"

Well, he's a voluntaryist - so isn't that somewhat of an anarcho-something?

In regards to the OP - yeah, we probably have 10% already - and 3-5 of those who are gonna be the rattlesnake ready to strike with teeth.

So what is the catalizing event? We need something to just go balls to the wall - I'm sick and tired of waiting. We already have enough to get er dun. Waiting for 50% is going to end with everyone in ruin.

Travlyr
09-24-2012, 11:20 AM
Well, he's a voluntaryist - so isn't that somewhat of an anarcho-something?

In regards to the OP - yeah, we probably have 10% already - and 3-5 of those who are gonna be the rattlesnake ready to strike with teeth.

So what is the catalizing event? We need something to just go balls to the wall - I'm sick and tired of waiting. We already have enough to get er dun. Waiting for 50% is going to end with everyone in ruin.

Right, I have heard Ron Paul say that he favors a voluntary society. As a self described "Champion of the Constitution", I take that to mean that he believes obeying the Rule of Law is the way to a voluntary society. He says it all the time.

Mises says it best in "Liberalism, State and Government (http://mises.org/liberal/isec1.asp)" which is a far cry from anything anarcho. Anarchism came after Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism was born from Socialism. Classical Liberalism describes a time when people on Earth were most peaceful, free, and prosperous. All other social philosophies simply undermine liberty.

helmuth_hubener
09-24-2012, 12:27 PM
Travlyr, what are your intellectual interests? Do you have any interest in anything other than this topic you know little to nothing about? You seem to be very interested in anarcho-capitalism. You love to argue about it. You love to chime in if you see it mentioned. The only thing about an-cap you seem to not be interested in is knowing anything about it.

Just follow Ron Paul's reading advice. That's all you need to do. All your problems would be solved.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
09-24-2012, 02:05 PM
Thanks for everything you're doing, Catdd. We'll never be truly free until more people show the courage it takes to be true revolutionaries by anonymously insulting others on the internet.


*giggle*

DamianTV
09-24-2012, 02:53 PM
The people of this country are so hopelessly dependant on the system that they are willing to fight to protect that same system which has enslaved them. Revolutions have survived and triumphed with less than 1% of the people willing to rebel against their governments, but when you also need to defend yourself against the 99%, you've got a real problem. To understand what I mean, go ask a baby boomer if they think all interest on money (usury) should be prohibited, and they will tell you fuck no because then their retirement goes away. They are willing to defend the system that steals because they steal from others and give it to the baby boomers. They simply can not wrap their heads around the idea that the Quantity and Value of money are two completely different things, thus, they have submitted to being completely dependant on those that claim interest and unlimited money printing is an "honest" way to survive, and will fight anyone who opposes that system.

Acala
09-24-2012, 03:03 PM
The people of this country are so hopelessly dependant on the system that they are willing to fight to protect that same system which has enslaved them. Revolutions have survived and triumphed with less than 1% of the people willing to rebel against their governments, but when you also need to defend yourself against the 99%, you've got a real problem. To understand what I mean, go ask a baby boomer if they think all interest on money (usury) should be prohibited, and they will tell you fuck no because then their retirement goes away. They are willing to defend the system that steals because they steal from others and give it to the baby boomers. They simply can not wrap their heads around the idea that the Quantity and Value of money are two completely different things, thus, they have submitted to being completely dependant on those that claim interest and unlimited money printing is an "honest" way to survive, and will fight anyone who opposes that system.

I will say interest should not be prohibited because it is none of your business what arrangements I make with another consenting adult as to the terms of any loan of money one of us might make to the other. If one of us wants to charge interest and the other wants to pay it, it is a deal between the two of us and not you or anyone else. So butt out.

PaulConventionWV
09-24-2012, 03:08 PM
Ooh! Ooh! I wanna be on your list! I wanna be the top 10%!!

unklejman
09-24-2012, 03:10 PM
Here is a thought: Let's work together until anarcho-capitalism vs libertarianism arguments replace the right vs left paradigm on the national stage.

PaulConventionWV
09-24-2012, 03:11 PM
Thanks for everything you're doing, Catdd. We'll never be truly free until more people show the courage it takes to be true revolutionaries by anonymously insulting others on the internet.

Absolutely. Amen.

PaulConventionWV
09-24-2012, 03:14 PM
Ron Paul is an-cap. I recommend reading all the books on the Recommended Reading List at the end of The Revolution: A Manifesto. Then, read all those he recommends at the end of Liberty Defined. Then, you too will be an an-cap and your problem will be solved! The truth will set you free. Dr. Paul is trying to gently lead you along the path to the truth. Look at how the reading lists at the back of his books become gradually more and more an-cap with each book. Good luck and Happy Reading!

Some of the recommended reading from Liberty Defined:

Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View (http://mises.org/resources/3221/Mises-and-Austrian-Economics-A-Personal-View) by Ron Paul

For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (http://mises.org/resources.aspx?Id=ab1ba643-dc19-462f-82ff-2d34f46bb7f6) by Murray N. Rothbard

The Left, The Right, and The State (http://mises.org/store/Left-The-Right-and-The-State-The-P550.aspx) by Lew Rockwell (pdf here: http://mises.org/books/leftright.pdf )

Civil Disobedience (Resistance to Civil Government) (http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html) by Henry David Thoreau

Democracy: The God that Failed (http://mises.org/store/Democracy-The-God-That-Failed-P240.aspx) by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Let's Abolish Government (http://mises.org/resources/3450/Lets-Abolish-Government) by Lysander Spooner

Education: Free and Compulsory (http://mises.org/resources/2689) by Murray N. Rothbard

Meltdown (http://mises.org/store/Meltdown-P557.aspx) by Thomas E. Woods Jr.

What Has Government Done to Our Money? (http://mises.org/resources.aspx?Id=7184a3af-b7ff-4465-aab5-68a3c773b48b) by Murray N. Rothbard

Ron Paul is not an-cap bro. You're using your imagination to impose on him things he's never said.

PaulConventionWV
09-24-2012, 03:18 PM
Travlyr, what are your intellectual interests? Do you have any interest in anything other than this topic you know little to nothing about? You seem to be very interested in anarcho-capitalism. You love to argue about it. You love to chime in if you see it mentioned. The only thing about an-cap you seem to not be interested in is knowing anything about it.

Just follow Ron Paul's reading advice. That's all you need to do. All your problems would be solved.

You know what else promised to solve all of our problems? Government.

echebota
09-24-2012, 04:27 PM
Libertarian concept is a philosophy that unites us here. But many people just go through phases when it comes to how practically and SUSTAINABLY achieve the Libertarian goals.

I went through several phases myself, and now it seems to me that M.Rothbard is right! Individuals ought to enjoy as much freedom as possible and government as little power as possible. Government limiting itself is utopia, and US history is a vivid proof. Logical conclusion - the only sustainable free society is the one with no monopoly on force..

By the way, Rothbard is also Ron Paul’s most admired author :)

I like how Lew Rockwell explains it in "The left, the right, and the state":

"The main debate in our time thus concerns the direction and pace of reform toward market economics. This is all to the good and yet I would like to highlight what strikes me as a great confusion. The reformers here and abroad are widely under the impression that the liberty they seek for their societies can be imposed in much the way that socialist systems of old were imposed. The idea is that if Congress, the president, and the
courts would just get hip to the program, they could fix what’s wrong with the country in a jiffy. Thus we need only elect liberty-minded politicians, support a president trained in the merit of market incentives, and confirm judges who know all about the Chicago School of economics.

It cannot be, and I predict that if we continue to go down the path, we will replace one bad form of central planning with another. Genuine liberty is not just another form of government management. It means the absence of government management. It is this theme that I would like to pursue further.

I can present my own perspective on this up front: all reform in all areas of politics, economics, and society should be in one direction: toward more freedom for individuals and less power for government. I will go further to say that individuals ought to enjoy as much freedom as possible and government as little power as possible. Yes, that position qualifies me as a libertarian"

Travlyr
09-24-2012, 04:36 PM
Libertarian concept is a philosophy that unites us here. But many people just go through phases when it comes to how practically and SUSTAINABLY achieve the Libertarian goals.

I went through several phases myself, and now it seems to me that M.Rothbard is right! Individuals ought to enjoy as much freedom as possible and government as little power as possible. Government limiting itself is utopia, and US history is a vivid proof. Logical conclusion - the only sustainable free society is the one with no monopoly on force..

By the way, Rothbard is also Ron Paul’s most admired author :)

I like how Lew Rockwell explains it in "The left, the right, and the state":

"The main debate in our time thus concerns the direction and pace of reform toward market economics. This is all to the good and yet I would like to highlight what strikes me as a great confusion. The reformers here and abroad are widely under the impression that the liberty they seek for their societies can be imposed in much the way that socialist systems of old were imposed. The idea is that if Congress, the president, and the
courts would just get hip to the program, they could fix what’s wrong with the country in a jiffy. Thus we need only elect liberty-minded politicians, support a president trained in the merit of market incentives, and confirm judges who know all about the Chicago School of economics.

It cannot be, and I predict that if we continue to go down the path, we will replace one bad form of central planning with another. Genuine liberty is not just another form of government management. It means the absence of government management. It is this theme that I would like to pursue further.

I can present my own perspective on this up front: all reform in all areas of politics, economics, and society should be in one direction: toward more freedom for individuals and less power for government. I will go further to say that individuals ought to enjoy as much freedom as possible and government as little power as possible. Yes, that position qualifies me as a libertarian"

In that type of society, how do you go about stopping the guy with an unlimited money supply who claims the right to maintain and use a kill list?

thelaibon
09-24-2012, 04:50 PM
+1

I get so tired of the people who refuse to recognize that we're all fighting for the same things. Like Dr. Paul said, liberty is popular.

A better way to look at 10% is what the Minnesota chairman said at the Paul event in Tampa:

When you have less than 10% of a population who share ideas, the idea will grow slowly, but once you pass that threshold and have 10% who are unshakable in their beliefs, then the idea will grow much mroe quickly and eventually be adopted by the entire population. This is backed up through science.

Do not underestimate the power of an irate minority, especially as it's increasingly evident that we're right.

Love it!

helmuth_hubener
09-24-2012, 06:09 PM
Ron Paul is not an-cap bro. You're using your imagination to impose on him things he's never said. Have you read his recommended reading lists at the back of his books?

If you had, you'd be an-cap.

Why does Ron Paul want you to be an-cap?

The Free Hornet
09-24-2012, 06:23 PM
It is just like Hans-Hermann Hoppe claiming that Ludwig von Mises was an anarchist. According to Hoppe, Mises became an anarchist after he died. It is disingenuous.

Have you ever met a dead guy that wanted more government?

The Free Hornet
09-24-2012, 06:36 PM
There are about 10% of you people that I consider true revolutionaries, the rest are no better than your average libtard or rino. The 10% know who they are, I think, and I'm not sure how they manage to hang around with the rest here. I hate the other 90% of you so I don't much care if you like me or not; the rest matter. I was a good member here...I donated, I fought hard for the cause, and I was always there when you needed a hand. I think the anarchists never belonged, I think they were using us as a platform to reach their own destination. and I've despised the entire lot of them since '07. The Libertarian Party has no claim to the real revolution as I see it, and the division between them concerning open borders was a major concern of mine. I believe the Constitution party best represents the future even though the anti abortion folks couldn't disagree more. Where does it go from here? Is there any one party that best represents the future? NO, I doubt if any party will best represent the revolution. I don't know where we go from here, but it seems that we should prepare ourselves for the chaos which is sure to come in the near future. Adios

It may be the case that the very nature of a political party prevents both of these from existing in the same pro-liberty organization

a) ideological purity (the opposition to state power whether as minarchists or anarchists)
b) political power (relevance as an organization independent of elected positions)

I have little reason to believe a political party can represent MY interests AND have power. As such, I treat them as no different than any other tool of force whether it is a Senator, a gun, or a mob. We should seek to focus all parties towards liberty solutions just as we would seek every elected office.

UMULAS
09-24-2012, 06:43 PM
You want liberty but hate immigrants? Then the constitution party is for you!

Travlyr
09-24-2012, 07:50 PM
Have you ever met a dead guy that wanted more government?

Mises was a believer in "Liberalism, State and Government (http://mises.org/liberal.asp)" which does not allow for government to grow beyond that. It is not an oppressive state. Liberalism limits the size of government when it is understood and respected.


"The program of liberalism, therefore, if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property, that is, private ownership of the means of production... All the other demands of liberalism result from his fundamental demand." - Mises


The anarchists consider state, law, and government as superfluous institutions in a social order that would really serve the good of all, and not just the special interests of a privileged few. Only because the present social order is based on private ownership of the means of production is it necessary to resort to compulsion and coercion in its defense. If private property were abolished, then everyone, without exception, would spontaneously observe the rules demanded by social cooperation.

It has already been pointed out that this doctrine is mistaken in so far as it concerns the character of private ownership of the means of production. But even apart from this, it is altogether untenable. The anarchist, rightly enough, does not deny that every form of human cooperation in a society based on the division of labor demands the observance of some rules of conduct that are not always agreeable to the individual, since they impose on him a sacrifice, only temporary, it is true, but, for all that, at least for the moment, painful. But the anarchist is mistaken in assuming that everyone, without exception, will be willing to observe these rules voluntarily. - Mises


In an anarchist society is the possibility entirely to be excluded that someone may negligently throw away a lighted match and start a fire or, in a fit of anger, jealousy, or revenge, inflict injury on his fellow man? Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints.

Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. - Mises

Mises clearly understood anarchism and he was no anarchist. It is dishonest to apply that label to him.

What limits does anarchism put on rulers who claim the right to maintain kill lists of people and hunt them down with predator drones to kill them?

FreedomFighter1776
09-24-2012, 08:28 PM
I applaud EVERY faction that believes in liberty and freedom. Some may choose to do things with their freedom that I would not.

Everyone fighting against the state is on our side.

Anarchists, AnCaps, "write in Ron Paul" folks, Johnson supporters (now that Paul is out), Constitution party supporters, Big L libertarians, small L GOP'ers, some within the "occupy" movement - and I'm sure there are lots of "labels" that I'm missing.

I don't give a damn if we disagree on 2 or 3 things. You all have a place at my table anytime. I'll be proud to sit beside you.

The Free Hornet
09-24-2012, 08:39 PM
What limits does anarchism put on rulers who claim the right to maintain kill lists of people and hunt them down with predator drones to kill them?

a) There would be no rulers to make 'kill lists".

b) The "-capitalist" part of "anarcho-capitalist" implies that those acting contrary to the freedom philosophy may face consequences just as murderers do today.



In that type of society, how do you go about stopping the guy with an unlimited money supply who claims the right to maintain and use a kill list?

I suspect someone with lots to lose ("unlimited money supply") would realize the folly of making enemies that can harm him or those he cares for with a $0.05 bullet and nobody will give a fuck because he was such an asshole and it is "that type of society". Quote: "The most dangerous weapon in the world; A man with nothing left to lose (http://www.i-club.com/forums/bay-area-15/most-dangerous-weapon-world%3B-man-nothing-left-lose-231818/)".



Mises clearly understood anarchism and he was no anarchist. It is dishonest to apply that label to him.

I agree with this general point and was joking. That said, is there a reference to support "Hans-Hermann Hoppe claiming that Ludwig von Mises was an anarchist"? A lot of Anarcho-capitalists were influenced by Mises and maybe that causes trouble. Also, an anarcho-capitalist is not necessarily going to consider themselves an anarchist (and they have every right to define the terms within the limits of reason, consistency, precedent, et cetera). The examples you give to be contrary to anarchism may indicate a definitional disagreement. E.g., is wanting a government voluntarily funded the same as anarcho-capitalism? How is that different from voluntarily funding your own protection and system of justice?

FWIW, I don't know which is better: minarchism or anarcho-capitalism. Zero force or the wee bit tiniest amount necessary? Less is better, IMO, but I can't say which paradigm is more feasible and more likely to lead to a free or significantly more free society. If ever there would be a case for tolerance, it would be among libertarians, constitutionalists, and anarcho-capitalists. OP's efforts against that are somewhat disgraceful although I applaud a good purging of the riff-raff too - my opinion would differ on who those are.

helmuth_hubener
09-24-2012, 09:12 PM
You know what else promised to solve all of our problems? Government. Yeah, but Ron Paul actually gets 'er done. He also delivered Chuck Norris. With a round-house kick.

QuickZ06
09-24-2012, 09:35 PM
I applaud EVERY faction that believes in liberty and freedom. Some may choose to do things with their freedom that I would not.

Everyone fighting against the state is on our side.

Anarchists, AnCaps, "write in Ron Paul" folks, Johnson supporters (now that Paul is out), Constitution party supporters, Big L libertarians, small L GOP'ers, some within the "occupy" movement - and I'm sure there are lots of "labels" that I'm missing.

I don't give a damn if we disagree on 2 or 3 things. You all have a place at my table anytime. I'll be proud to sit beside you.

As well as mine.

Travlyr
09-24-2012, 11:42 PM
a) There would be no rulers to make 'kill lists"
There will always be rulers. The choices are self-evident ... does one want representative rule? Or does one want to have no voice and be ruled by others? The long forgotten "Golden Rule" is as old as the hills. "He who has the most gold rules." The way they do it is that they buy the most powerful military money can buy, give them all the weapons they want, and control the people. It has been that way throughout much of history except for a brief time when the classical liberal experiment was tried.

Amerika is the empire it is today because they have the most gold, the most powerful military, and the most weapons. The Federal Reserve supplies them with unlimited "gold". That is why representative government is so important, and it is why Ron Paul has asked for people to get politically active.


"Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." - Pericles, 430 B.C.


Ron Paul (http://mises.org/books/paulmises.pdf),
The utilitarians may be neutral or antagonistic regarding the origins of life and liberty, but this in no way weakens their explanation of the technical advantages of a free economic system. However, those who accept a natural rights philosophy have no choice whatsoever but to accept laissez-faire capitalism.

Mises’s utilitarian defense of the market opens political careers for those who believe in liberty, courage, and even dares one who truly believes in the system to present it in political terms.

Mises in Human Action says:

The flowering of human society depends on two factors: the intellectual power of outstanding men to conceive sound social and economic theories, and the ability of these or other men to make these ideologies palatable to the majority.

Ludwig von Mises certainly provided sound economic and social theories. I hope that my modest success in politics may encourage others to try it, and help prove Mises “wrong,” showing that a political career is open to men and women who do not identify themselves with the interests of a pressure group, but with the liberty of all.

Who can prove Mises "wrong?" Ron Paul has been working on it for years.



I agree with this general point and was joking. That said, is there a reference to support "Hans-Hermann Hoppe claiming that Ludwig von Mises was an anarchist"?
Fair enough question. I'll have to look that up again as I can not find that quote presently.



A lot of Anarcho-capitalists were influenced by Mises and maybe that causes trouble. Also, an anarcho-capitalist is not necessarily going to consider themselves an anarchist (and they have every right to define the terms within the limits of reason, consistency, precedent, et cetera). The examples you give to be contrary to anarchism may indicate a definitional disagreement. E.g., is wanting a government voluntarily funded the same as anarcho-capitalism?
Perhaps.



How is that different from voluntarily funding your own protection and system of justice?
I see a lot of difference, but those differences are not so important to me to elaborate unless you really want me to do that. What we know works for sure, proven through an accurate reading of history, is Classical Liberalism.



FWIW, I don't know which is better: minarchism or anarcho-capitalism. Zero force or the wee bit tiniest amount necessary? Less is better, IMO, but I can't say which paradigm is more feasible and more likely to lead to a free or significantly more free society. If ever there would be a case for tolerance, it would be among libertarians, constitutionalists, and anarcho-capitalists. OP's efforts against that are somewhat disgraceful although I applaud a good purging of the riff-raff too - my opinion would differ on who those are.

Mises clearly believed that classical liberalism (http://mises.org/liberal.asp) was a superior social order.

Nevertheless, brief and all too limited as the supremacy of liberal ideas was, it sufficed to change the face of the earth. A magnificent economic development took place. The release of man's productive powers multiplied the means of subsistence many times over. On the eve of the World War (which was itself the result of a long and bitter struggle against the liberal spirit and which ushered in a period of still more bitter attacks on liberal principles), the world was incomparably more densely populated than it had ever been, and each inhabitant could live incomparably better than had been possible in earlier centuries. The prosperity that liberalism had created reduced considerably infant mortality, which had been the pitiless scourge of earlier ages, and, as a result of the improvement in living conditions, lengthened the average span of life.

Nor did this prosperity flow only to a select class of privileged persons. On the eve of the World War the worker in the industrial nations of Europe, in the United States, and in the overseas dominions of England lived better and more graciously than the nobleman of not too long before. Not only could he eat and drink according to his desire; he could give his children a better education; he could, if he wished, take part in the intellectual and cultural life of his nation; and, if he possessed enough talent and energy, he could, without difficulty, raise his social position. It was precisely in the countries that had gone the farthest in adopting the liberal program that the top of the social pyramid was composed, in the main, not of those who had, from their very birth, enjoyed a privileged position by virtue of the wealth or high rank of their parents, but of those who, under favorable conditions, had worked their way up from straitened circumstances by their own power. The barriers that had in earlier ages separated lords and serfs had fallen. Now there were only citizens with equal rights. No one was handicapped or persecuted on account of his nationality, his opinions, or his faith. Domestic Political and religious persecutions had ceased, and international wars began to become less frequent. Optimists were already hailing the dawn of the age of eternal peace.

Indy Vidual
09-24-2012, 11:48 PM
+rep


Thanks for everything you're doing, Catdd. We'll never be truly free until more people show the courage it takes to be true revolutionaries by anonymously insulting others on the internet.

@OP
The movement needs a large number of people, not divisive, useless postings.

PaulConventionWV
09-25-2012, 10:31 AM
Have you read his recommended reading lists at the back of his books?

If you had, you'd be an-cap.

Why does Ron Paul want you to be an-cap?

There you go, imposing on him non-existent qualities out of thin air. You can't really tell me that Ron Paul wants me to be an-cap if he hasn't said so himself. You can't judge what someone wants just cuz they tell you to read a book. There are many more things you can get from that book than "an-cap society is obviously the best solution to everything."

Don't be naive. I know you're not that stupid. And no, I would not necessarily be an-cap if I read those books.

PaulConventionWV
09-25-2012, 10:32 AM
Have you ever met a dead guy that wanted more government?

I've never met a dead guy that wanted anything.

helmuth_hubener
09-25-2012, 12:09 PM
And no, I would not necessarily be an-cap if I read those books. Oh yes, you most definitely would be. You only think there's any hope you wouldn't be because you haven't actually read the books. If you

a) value truth, and
b) value liberty,

and I presume you value both because you are a Ron Paul supporter, then you will be totally crushed under the inescapable deluge of truth and reason that will assault you from the pages of these books that Ron Paul recommends you read. You will not be able to escape from the relentless logic. There will be no way out and no excuses left to you.

So are you brave enough to put me to the test and prove me wrong? Do you have the courage to read what Ron Paul has challenged you to read?

Travlyr
09-28-2012, 12:28 PM
I get so tired of the people who refuse to recognize that we're all fighting for the same things.

I wish this was true. When it becomes true, then we will achieve what we want.

There are people on this board and in media that will fight to the death to keep the truth from being told. CoIntelPro is alive and well. Hegelian dialect is alive and well as well. It is not always easy to determine who is fighting the truth because they don't understand it, or if they are fighting the truth to keep their privileged position. Rev9 could spot them on this board in an instant. They did everything they could to disrupt this board during the election. Rev9 hasn't been posting since his last ban. He may be getting tired of getting banned. Yet he is a true freedom fighter.

Jingles
09-28-2012, 01:13 PM
So what exactly is wrong with taking the NAP, self ownership, and private property rights to their logical conclusion (anarcho-capitalism)? I will say that a government that would strictly follow the Constitution would be much better than what we have of course. I just won't defend the constitution because I'm not going to defend the existence of any state.

Travlyr
09-28-2012, 01:17 PM
So what exactly is wrong with taking the NAP, self ownership, and private property rights to their logical conclusion (anarcho-capitalism)? I will say that a government that would strictly follow the Constitution would be much better than what we have of course. I just won't defend the constitution because I'm not going to defend the existence of any state.

The state is not based on the non-aggression principle. Laws are. Hume, Locke, Mises, and Paul are all pro-State guys. Ron Paul's message has always been obey the Constitution. He has been saying that over and over consistently for 40 years or more. I think he knows what he is talking about.

Andyc3020
09-28-2012, 01:58 PM
Do you remember the speech at the We are the Future Rally about the Freedom Train metaphor? I think it is relevant