The FINAL opinion on Lew Rockwell?

[NOVALibertarian]

I'm curious as to how my fellow posters on this site feel about Lew Rockwell? I've heard mixed things about him, so I'm interested in seeing how the majority of the posters feel about him.

[eleganz]

It's what you think of him that matters, who cares what others think?

[fr33]

I love him.

[mczerone]

He's hung up on JFK like a ton of the new Paulites are hung up on 9/11, and he sometimes comes across a little harsh, but he has been a great force for spreading the liberty message and organizing the libertarian intelligentsia.

+1 for LR

[itshappening]

He's terrific. Have donated to LRC plenty of times even though I don't agree with all their bloggers it's good for spreading the message.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Lew is good at what he does, which is focusing on a very, very narrow segment of the libertarian market. As far as spreading the message to the masses, I don't think he is qualified for it, nor do I think he is very interested in doing so. Most of my colleagues have no idea who he is.

[Confederate]

Don't like him. He's more interested in creating a 'pure' libertarian circle jerk than any real change which requires political action.

[angelatc]

I still think he wrote the newsletters.

[heavenlyboy34]

Don't like him. He's more interested in creating a 'pure' libertarian circle jerk than any real change which requires political action.
Political action isn't real change, though.

What other major site has a Ron Paul archive on top of a bunch of other good archives?

[Confederate]

Political action isn't real change, though.

What other major site has a Ron Paul archive on top of a bunch of other good archives?

There is no change without political action.

[heavenlyboy34]

There is no change without political action.
Incorrect. Change happens without political action all the time. Change is in fact the only constant in our entropic universe. Political action is how genteel, charismatic mafiosi try to get their cut.
ETA: why are you interested in change? You're a self-admitted fascist who idealizes preventing change. (one of the reasons you don't understand it, btw)

[SewrRatt]

There is no change without political action.

"There is no change that doesn't come out of the barrel of a gun." < Fixed that for you

[The Northbreather]

You talking novelty theory..?

"Ears perked"

[green73]

I love him.


THIS!

[green73]

Lew is good at what he does, which is focusing on a very, very narrow segment of the libertarian market. As far as spreading the message to the masses, I don't think he is qualified for it, nor do I think he is very interested in doing so. Most of my colleagues have no idea who he is.

He must be doing something right. LRC is the #1 libertarian website.

[LibertyEagle]

Incorrect. Change happens without political action all the time. Change is in fact the only constant in our entropic universe. Political action is how genteel, charismatic mafiosi try to get their cut.
ETA: why are you interested in change? You're a self-admitted fascist who idealizes preventing change. (one of the reasons you don't understand it, btw)

There you go again calling someone else a fascist. What the hell is wrong with you?

Oh, and by the way...

“I have many friends in the libertarian movement who look down on those of us who get involved in political activity,” he acknowledged, but "eventually, if you want to bring about changes … what you have to do is participate in political action.” -- Ron Paul

[Confederate]

“I have many friends in the libertarian movement who look down on those of us who get involved in political activity,” he acknowledged, but "eventually, if you want to bring about changes … what you have to do is participate in political action.” -- Ron Paul

This needs to be repeated.

[Confederate]

He must be doing something right. LRC is the #1 libertarian website.

Mooching off Ron Paul for 30+ years?

[green73]

Mooching off Ron Paul for 30+ years?

Another utterly stupid comment from the supposedly 'reformed' fascist. Your hatred for Rockwell speaks volumes.

[Confederate]

Another utterly stupid comment from the supposedly 'reformed' fascist. Your hatred for Rockwell speaks volumes.

I was just trying to bait a -rep from you.

I think Lew is ok a times, but I don't worship him the way you do.

[LibertyEagle]

Mooching off Ron Paul for 30+ years?

That's going way too far.

Why are we always attacking the guys on our side? We may not agree on everything, but sheesh, Lew Rockwell certainly isn't the enemy.

[green73]

I was just trying to bait a -rep from you.

I think Lew is ok a times, but I don't worship him the way you do.

I don't worship him. I endeavor to get people to go to the site so they can truly wake up. It's not possible for a lot of people, however. Doug Casey thinks it has something to do with the genes.

[matt0611]

Neutral to positive.

Anyone who helped found the Mises institute can't be all bad IMO.

[qh4dotcom]

I voted positive even though he forgot about his libertarian principles with the RonPaul.com domain grab.

Even with disappointment, it's still clear that Rockwell is a great friend of liberty.

[July]

Actually, he used to scare me at first, haha...he really doesn't sugarcoat things or mince words and he would often say stuff that would just get under my skin or shock me. ;) But now I like him a lot and listen to his podcast regularly. I appreciate what he does.

[heavenlyboy34]

There you go again calling someone else a fascist. What the hell is wrong with you?

Ir'a running gag he and I have going (on this forum and another one). He knows I'm not serious. We take shots at each other pretty routinely. We're webbernet buds. :)

[Occam's Banana]

LewRockwell.com is the single most heaviily trafficked libertarian web site on the whole goddam Internet.

And don't even get me started on the Ludwig von Mises Institute (which would not even exist without Rockwell).

Whatever Lew Rockwell's flaws might be, they are more than compensated for by the existence of LvMI.


Lew is good at what he does, which is focusing on a very, very narrow segment of the libertarian market. As far as spreading the message to the masses, I don't think he is qualified for it, nor do I think he is very interested in doing so. Most of my colleagues have no idea who he is.

Confirmation bias, meet selection bias. Selection bias, confirmation bias.


There is no change without political action.

There can be no political action without ideological change. Politics is a lagging indicator, not a leading one.

There is some degree of "feedback" (ideological change induces certain political action, which in turn can foster some amount of further ideological change) - but this is not a chicken-and-egg conundrum.

If peoples' ideas don't change first, their politics certainly aren't going to. Ron Paul has explicity pointed this out - more than once.

In fact, all of Ron's runs at the presidency have been obvious attempts at achieving ideological change as the necessary prerequisite to political action per se.

[Ender]

LewRockwell.com is the single most heaviily trafficked libertarian web site on the whole goddam Internet.

And don't even get me started on the Ludwig von Mises Institute (which would not even exist without Rockwell).

Whatever Lew Rockwell's flaws might be, they are more than compensated for by the existence of LvMI.



Confirmation bias, meet selection bias. Selection bias, confirmation bias.



There can be no political action without ideological change. Politics is a lagging indicator, not a leading one.

There is some degree of "feedback" (ideological change induces certain political action, which in turn can foster some amount of further ideological change) - but this is not a chicken-and-egg conundrum.

If peoples' ideas don't change first, their politics certainly aren't going to. Ron Paul has explicity pointed this out - more than once.

In fact, all of Ron's runs at the presidency have been obvious attempts at achieving ideological change as the necessary prerequisite to political action per se.

Thank you!

I am amazed at so many so-called "liberty minded" people with so much prejudice against others in the movement.

Lew Rockwell is the reason I had the opportunity to become acquainted with Ron Paul and his ideas PLUS many others who are advancing the cause of freedom; Lew is a treasure house of info and connections to liberty ideals and people- not to mention integrity. The Mises Institute is phenomenal. His site updates every night and is usually the last thing I read on the net.

Talk about action- he is constantly moving and breathing life into the liberty movement. I'd like to compare his "actions" with any complainers on the forum- doubt they can hold a candle.

[helmuth_hubener]

Don't like him. He's more interested in creating a 'pure' libertarian circle jerk than any real change which requires political action. Is this your actual opinion, or your persona talking?

Is it just me or is this new persona totally different than eduardo? I think I liked eduardo better.

[Confederate]

Is this your actual opinion, or your persona talking?

Is it just me or is this new persona totally different than eduardo? I think I liked eduardo better.

It's my actual opinion. I don't hate Lew, I just don't particularly like him. He comes off as very arrogant and pedantic and his ego seems to only be matched by his irrelevancy in mainstream academia and politics.

Don't get me wrong, I love the LVMI and the work they do, I just wish they were led by someone more charismatic and amicable like Tom Woods.

[green73]

Is this your actual opinion, or your persona talking?

Is it just me or is this new persona totally different than eduardo? I think I liked eduardo better.

He's Eduardo?

[Confederate]

He's Eduardo?

I'm not handsome enough to be him.

[compromise]

I voted neutral.

Lew is a good economist and does a great job running the Mises Institute.

However, he does not understand politics at all.

[Occam's Banana]

However, he does not understand politics at all.

Actually, he understands it all too well ...

[FSP-Rebel]

Most true ancaps don't have the stomach for politics, I do. On one hand I really like Lew and all of his efforts in the pursuit of liberty. However, his site isn't something I'd promote to the average republican I talk to. On the other hand, because Lew tries to turn libertarians off to politics in such an almost militant manner, it neutrals out my thoughts on him.

[itshappening]

Some of the LRC writers aren't interested in winning over the GOP primary voters and just attack them, call them names and challenge their Christian doctrine.

Yes, it's annoying but we can't change anything unless we change minds and I dont think LRC's way works.

Tom Woods does a good job at trying to win over rather than disparage your average GOP voter and party member.

I don't think Lew cares, he's given up on the GOP and politics in general along time ago and just prefers to snipe.

[compromise]

Tom Woods does a good job at trying to win over rather than disparage your average GOP voter and party member.


Yeah, Woods is a good guy, his Meltdown book convinced DeMint to come over on monetary policy.

[Confederate]

I voted neutral.

Lew is a good economist and does a great job running the Mises Institute.

However, he does not understand politics at all.

Exactly why I voted neutral as well.

[Lucille]

I love that man.

[green73]

Exactly why I voted neutral as well.

Right... All his years in politics taught him nothing.

[itshappening]

Right... All his years in politics taught him nothing.

He's given up on politics along time ago. His years in politics was with Ron in the 70's as chief of staff then he setup the Mises institute

[green73]

He's given up on politics along time ago. His years in politics was with Ron in the 70's as chief of staff then he setup the Mises institute

He was in politics before that.

[FSP-Rebel]

Right... All his years in politics taught him nothing.
It jaded him I'm sure. But, since Ron reignited the libertarian-conservative brand in American politics there is much to be positive about. Point is, once one sidelines oneself they kill their positivity in the political realm for advocating change. Lew, on the other hand, is attempting to cherry pick libertarians away from politics which sabotages Ron's mission of restoring the GOP and the many of us involved in that endeavor. If you're not part of the solution, you're detracting from it's success.

[Todd]

Great website and great articles. I can take some personality flaws in most anyone who tries to seek the truth. I mostly have positive views of him.

[angelatc]

It jaded him I'm sure. But, since Ron reignited the libertarian-conservative brand in American politics there is much to be positive about. Point is, once one sidelines oneself they kill their positivity in the political realm for advocating change. Lew, on the other hand, is attempting to cherry pick libertarians away from politics which sabotages Ron's mission of restoring the GOP and the many of us involved in that endeavor. If you're not part of the solution, you're detracting from it's success.


And that's what he is going to do with the new media endeavors. Ron Paul's $9.99 podcast messages aren't going to be directed to the young enthusiastic activists - they're going to be directed to the same crowd the newsletters were.

Ron and Lew made a million every year off the newsletters. How many people are going to subscribe to his podcasts?

Yes, it's his right, but it's a total waste of the movement.

[Occam's Banana]

Some of the LRC writers aren't interested in winning over the GOP primary voters and just attack them, call them names and challenge their Christian doctrine.

You are indulging the same unfair tactic some of Rand Paul's critics employ.

Rand pursues a legislative rather than educative agenda and gets unfairly lambasted by some for failing to do something he's not even trying to do.

Most of the writers at LRC are NOT trying to "win over the GOP primary voters" - thus, it is simply NOT fair to condemn them for failing to employ rhetoric designed to appeal to "GOP primary voters" (or to accuse them of "not understanding politics" or whatnot).


Yes, it's annoying but we can't change anything unless we change minds and I dont think LRC's way works.

Tell it to all the LRC readers who email Lew Rockwell (or Lawrence Vance or other LRC writers) and who are frequently quoted in LRC blog posts as crediting LRC for "opening their eyes" or "converting them from neo-conservativism" or so forth.


Tom Woods does a good job at trying to win over rather than disparage your average GOP voter and party member.

I absolutely adore me some Tom Woods. Ironically, though, he is probably more deserving of (constructive) criticism in his rhetorical approach than any other LRC writer - precisely because (unlike the rest of them) he actually IS trying to sway GOP voters.

He often comes across as a tad too snarky or sarcastic. I have absolutely no problems with that myself - in fact, I enjoy the hell out of it. However, I am already a member of the choir. But in reading him, I often think to myself, "If I were trying to convince mainstreamers (as Tom is trying to do here), I would probably tone it down just a bit ..." (and by "tone it down", I mean in terms of manner of presentation, NOT in terms of intensity or substantive content).


I don't think Lew cares, he's given up on the GOP and politics in general along time ago and just prefers to snipe.

The idea that Lew Rockwell doesn't care is ludicrous. He just doesn't think that the political means can be a useful or fruitful avenue for genuine change.

You may reasonably (and even vehemently) disagree with him, but it is nonsense to say that he doesn't care or that he is "just sniping".

(And I am assuming that you are referring to the relatively very minor proportion of LRC content that is actually written by Lew himself - people have a bad habit of attributing everything at LRC directly to Rockwell.)

[angelatc]

The idea that Lew Rockwell doesn't care is ludicrous. He just doesn't think that the political means can be a useful or fruitful avenue for genuine change.




Curious about that statement, because history proves him wrong. But even aside from that, what does he think is a useful and fruitful avenue for genuine change? (Not pocket change, political change.)

[heavenlyboy34]

+rep for Mr Banana. :)

[heavenlyboy34]

Curious about that statement, because history proves him wrong. But even aside from that, what does he think is a useful and fruitful avenue for genuine change? (Not pocket change, political change.)
No it doesn't.

[green73]

+rep for Mr Banana. :)

Indeed.

[angelatc]

No it doesn't.

(Insert Monty Python argument skit here?)


What nation experienced any significant social change without political change?

[helmuth_hubener]

Curious about that statement, because history proves him wrong. But even aside from that, what does he think is a useful and fruitful avenue for genuine change? (Not pocket change, political change.)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc3xDhJFPIU

What Will Work

What will work?

People who want instant gratification will be disappointed, but my answer is the same answer that Albert Jay Nock gave in his classic essay "Isaiah's Job" and the same answer that Leonard Read gave in his classic essay "How to Advance Liberty" (also a video lecture).

What we can do to advance liberty is to work first and foremost on the one unit of society we're actually capable of improving: ourselves. Each of us can learn more about liberty, learn more about history, learn more about Austrian economics. We can learn to improve ourselves in every respect, especially in our speaking and writing skills so we can then pass the things that we learn on to others.

But our purpose shouldn't be to go out and foist our ideas on others who haven't asked for them. People don't appreciate that; it will make them close their minds to you. Also, that kind of approach gets too close to the mentality that statists have, that they need to go out and reform other people to make them more like they want them to be. That's not a healthy attitude.

Instead, because we'll make ourselves the best we can be, other people will be drawn to us. Because of the character and intellect that we will cultivate, they'll want to hear what we have to say. Other people, following our example, will then spread the ideas to others, and slowly we'll see the ideas seep more and more into the culture. Eventually, we'll see them pop up in unexpected places; we'll hear them coming back to us out of the mouths of people from whom we wouldn't have expected to hear them.

This isn't far-fetched. We have a perfect example of this phenomenon in the real world today. In fact, this method I advocate explains in large part why libertarianism suddenly seems to be everywhere. Our perfect example is Ron Paul. Did Ron Paul ever really seek mass appeal? Did he attract his massive following through pandering to the masses? No. All he did was communicate his ideas clearly and consistently for decades, through whatever forums have been available to him, while maintaining an exceptionally high level of personal integrity.

Then — almost as if by magic — hundreds of thousands of people were drawn to him, wanting to hear his ideas, wanting to learn from him. And now, look at all the people who he's inspired, who have gone out and begun to learn more and begun to spread the word themselves. Look at how we see the names of Mises and Hayek turning up in newspapers and magazines and on television, coming now from people who aren't necessarily libertarians, but who are aware of these things because the ideas have gotten out there. This is how our ideas advance.

The Mises Institute also provides an example of this phenomenon. Did the Mises Institute attract its huge following through advertising in popular media? Did it have a plan — or ever try — to go out and convert the masses to liberty? Not that I know of. All the Mises Institute did was build a great institution and a great website and put the ideas out there, making them as freely available as possible to anyone who wanted to come find them. And then, because the Mises Institute is a light in the middle of a world of darkness, people were drawn to it.

Now some might say, "That's great, but how do we actually get liberty?"

One way we can get liberty that's perfectly consistent with the strategy I've just described is to create institutions that serve as alternatives to government institutions. People who homeschool their children are doing this — they're freeing their children from the coercion and indoctrination of the government schools. And notice that this came about because a bunch of people just started doing it — they didn't wait for liberty-friendly politicians to be elected, they didn't wait for liberty-friendly judges to be on the courts, and they didn't ask anybody's permission.

But I know some people will still say, "Okay, that's fine, but how do we get a libertarian society? How can we get rid of the state?"

The answer is that we have to keep doing our never-ending job of self-improvement, and we have to be patient.

Someday — we don't know when — the existing Leviathan will collapse, just as the Soviet Union collapsed. Nothing lasts forever — especially not a socialist or fascist government. When that day comes, however it comes, if we've done well in spreading our ideas, there will be a natural aristocracy of libertarian leaders ready to help rebuild society on a better foundation.
...
So let's keep learning, let's keep improving ourselves, let's keep communicating our ideas to others, let's create more liberty for ourselves without the politicians' help, and let's take joy in all of that.

~~~

In short, there are other possible avenues for change outside of political means. Above are a few snippets of some ideas (all of which could be elaborated and expanded upon a lot) and there are also many others.

There are also reasons for thinking that non-political means can be effective. The most dramatic political change in the world to occur during our lifetimes, in my opinion, was the collapse of the former Soviet Union, and that was brought about by non-political means (the singing revolution in the Baltic states, the Velvet Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution) in Czechoslovakia, the mass protests in Armenia, etc.).

[angelatc]

I am not reading a wall of text, nor can I watch video on this laptop.

The collapse of the Soviet Union did not usher in a wave of liberty for Russians, I might point out. And it was brought about by economic collapse, not by some people singing in the streets.

[green73]

I am not reading a wall of text...

Reading is hard.

[angelatc]

Reading is hard.


A quick scan indicates that aside from the last paragraph, it's an opinion piece. I asked a simple question and got some obscure Utopian dreamer's advice in a non-reply.

I might have more faith for the opinion if one could document any success that I can relate to.

The protests in the Baltic states weren't driven by a passion for economic liberty. They were being starved and frozen.

[helmuth_hubener]

I am not reading a wall of text, nor can I watch video on this laptop. I was merely trying to help. It appears you are offended by my attempt, and so I apologize.


The collapse of the Soviet Union did not usher in a wave of liberty for Russians, I might point out. And it was brought about by economic collapse, not by some people singing in the streets. There were many peoples and countries who labored under the Soviet yoke, not just Russians. For most of these people, liberty was indeed enhanced by the USSR's collapse.

The Soviet Union had been in a state of economic collapse for many decades. The political change occurred in the late 1980s. Why? Why then? Why not the 1950s or the 1960s or the 1970s? Human actions have consequences. The beliefs that people hold have consequences. When 25% of a country's population shows up to protest in the streets, that is not without consequences. In this case, the consequence was the dissolution of an empire.

The consequence to economic collapse is not always increased liberty, and certainly not the wholesale dissolution of the empire in which it takes place. Economic collapses can be shown to lead to many widely different outcomes historically. The outcome in this one instance was good only because of good choices made by humans who wanted more liberty. Point of Information: there was no particular economic panic/recession/collapse that occurred in the late 1980s in the USSR. They were simply in a horrible economic condition that had gone on for many decades. This ongoing economic doldrum had not precipitated the political collapse of the empire in any of the decades preceding. Why did it in the 1980s? Because the people decided they'd had enough. If they hadn't, the USSR could have easily continued for another 50 years, or indefinitely for that matter, and our politicians would still be dealing in anti-Soviet fear-mongering.

As another fascinating meta-note: there is a reason that you, angelatc, are so easily jotting off in an internet post that the USSR's demise "was brought about by economic collapse". And that reason has everything to do with Lew Rockwell. This point about the inevitable economic collapse of Communism is a point which comes from the Austrian School, which school was saved from oblivion by none other than Lew Rockwell. It was made by Ludwig von Mises, whose writings were singlehandedly kept in print and spread to an ever-increasing audience by... who? One Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr.: torch bearer through dark times and remnant-gatherer extraordinaire.

And so because of that, there's lots of little, almost imperceptible consequences, such as that "economic collapse" is now the standard explanation on the internet for the USSR's collapse (rather than "Reagan was tough as nails and stared them down"), so much so that it's just taken for granted. You see, education matters. Ideas matter. Even to people who think ideas don't matter, they still matter.

[Ender]

Curious about that statement, because history proves him wrong. But even aside from that, what does he think is a useful and fruitful avenue for genuine change? (Not pocket change, political change.)

What in the world are you talking about? Do you think that the American Revolution started because some colonists woke up one morning and decided to have a war?

There has to be a societal change in at least 3% of a country's thinking before any real political change will come about.

There has to be a Jefferson who was influenced by John Locke, Voltaire, etc. Today's Jefferson is Ron Paul; the Mises Institute is a foundation for liberty minded people. Positive political change does NOT come about until there is enough people who believe in the same ideals.

So- you should be asking yourself what YOU are doing to help make this happen- not criticizing those that are actually in the forefront doing something.

[fisharmor]

If it wasn't for Lew, I wouldn't have found Gary North or Will Grigg, my top two favorite bloggers.
Lew didn't snap me out of my intellectual complacency: Ron did. However Ron didn't do a whole lot to refine my positions: that was mostly Lew.

I joke sometimes that a general axiom of life is "There is no intermediate documentation". You generally go straight from "Windows for Dummies" to "Creating ASP.Net extensions for SQL Server Reporting Services" in one step.
Lew is the one case where I can genuinely say there is some intermediate documentation available. It goes well beyond a Ron Paul college rally, but doesn't deconstruct Human Action.


The collapse of the Soviet Union did not usher in a wave of liberty for Russians, I might point out.

Really? I mean, really?

'Cause I kind of thought the fact that they have enough food and toilet paper and can actually leave if they want to might have amounted to something.

[Confederate]

'Cause I kind of thought the fact that they have enough food and toilet paper and can actually leave if they want to might have amounted to something.

That's not really true, though. There are millions of Russians living in extreme poverty, especially pensioners who live off less than $100/month. Also, getting a passport is no easy task in Russia. Also, to live in cities like Moscow you need a special permit. Not exactly liberty.

[itshappening]

Lew wants us to be educated - which we are - but then do nothing politically. Maybe we can join him on the sidelines and whine?

He doesn't believe the GOP can be taken over and that it's corrupt. Yes, I agree it is but their corruption just opens the door. If they want to be in power again they have to expand their ranks and considering its supposed be a conservative party then conservative (and liberty) activists can take it over if they show up in big enough numbers.

If Rand Paul wins Iowa and New Hampshire's GOP presidential primary then it's effectively taken over. What can the corrupt dinosaurs on the RNC do then? Nothing. Rand is their nominee. They either fall in line or resign and withdraw support and look like bad losers.

[itshappening]

The only way we can cut spending dramatically and reform the Federal government and reduce it in size is to take the presidency.

That's the big prize. Keep your eyes on the big prize.

Lew doesn't want the presidency. He says we need to be educated and then do nothing politically and just let these idiots go unchallenged.

He's wrong about that. We can take the presidency. Rand is the most viable candidate to do that but does Lew and other libertarians seriously think Rand being president and implementing his budget which cuts funding to departments and reduces the size of government a waste of time ? That we shouldn't bother ?

[fisharmor]

Lew wants us to be educated - which we are - but then do nothing politically. Maybe we can join him on the sidelines and whine?...
The only way we can cut spending dramatically and reform the Federal government and reduce it in size is to take the presidency.


Maybe you could read between the lines and realize that the sort of things that would bring about real political change are not up for discussion, because at this point the people who talked about them would get a black bag thrown over their heads, dragged off to Gitmo, and ritually urinated on for the rest of their short, miserable lives.

This is the America you're trying to reform. This isn't a game where we get together and rock-paper-scissors our way to victory. The things that Lew has on his radar have been in existence since at least John Adams' presidency.

And frankly, before we start discussing real options, I'd like to know that there are people out there that would take the slightest bit of exception to that black-bag thing, and that requires education.

[helmuth_hubener]

A quick scan indicates that aside from the last paragraph, it's an opinion piece. I asked a simple question and got some obscure Utopian dreamer's advice in a non-reply. The last two paragraphs were my own (set off from the rest by the "~~~"). Above was Jacob Huebert. My own view of him is contrary to yours. I have read his book Libertarianism Today and it is very even-handed, level-headed, and informative. In his speech I referred you to in my post, I find his assessment of our situation and the prospects for liberty realistic and firmly grounded. No pie in the sky for Huebert. I don't know what it is in him you find Utopian or dreamy. But then, I am not female :o. ;)


I might have more faith for the opinion if one could document any success that I can relate to. Or, alternatively, if you read it. That always seems to help me.

I can understand your lack of time, however. I did try to alleviate that by bolding various portions of the talk. Here they are in a simple list format for your increased convenience:

*Make ourselves the best we can be
*Maintain an exceptionally high level of personal integrity
*Create institutions that serve as alternatives to government institutions
. . -- As an example of the above: homeschooling
*Self-improvement
*Through becoming an awesome person, you become a part of the "natural aristocracy" of society.
*Having a natural aristocracy of libertarian leaders could have a huge impact on history.

A "real-life" example of successful implementation of this strategy would be Ron Paul. Another would be Peter Thiel. We need many more of these kind of heroes: men who excel at what they do, who are admirable, and who also are knowledgeable libertarians, able to make a case for liberty to those who respect them. What if Steve Jobs had been a libertarian? What if your local pastor were? The owner of the main business in town? One can become influential in many ways, but one of the best is by being a respectable, outstanding person. Long-term, by improving ourselves we can make radical improvements in the world around us. It works. It's real. It's proven. It doesn't make victory inevitable, but it's something we can do.


The protests in the Baltic states weren't driven by a passion for economic liberty. Actually, they kind of were,
They were being starved and frozen.and actually, to whatever extent they were "starving and frozen" in 1989, they had been "starving and frozen" for many decades previously. Their economic condition was no worse -- it had not measurably deteriorated. See Points of Information in my previous post. If anything, their economic well-being was probably much better than it had been in the '50s. But yet, their satisfaction level with that amount of well-being suddenly decreased tremendously. That dissatisfaction was the key to the political collapse.

[itshappening]

Maybe you could read between the lines and realize that the sort of things that would bring about real political change are not up for discussion, because at this point the people who talked about them would get a black bag thrown over their heads, dragged off to Gitmo, and ritually urinated on for the rest of their short, miserable lives.

This is the America you're trying to reform. This isn't a game where we get together and rock-paper-scissors our way to victory. The things that Lew has on his radar have been in existence since at least John Adams' presidency.

And frankly, before we start discussing real options, I'd like to know that there are people out there that would take the slightest bit of exception to that black-bag thing, and that requires education.

Everyone could be educated about liberty and the constitution but if they dont participate politically - taking over the GOP and showing up to meetings - how does anything change? is the idea to have a mass of educated people who don't do anything politically and just whine on Facebook and message boards all day? Is that the "grand plan"?

If we take the presidency then a lot will change. The president has enormous power and while it is being used for bad things it can be used to go in the OTHER direction if the right person had it.

[Occam's Banana]

Lew wants us to be educated - which we are - but then do nothing politically. Maybe we can join him on the sidelines and whine?

Why do you need to join Lew on the sidelines in order to whine? You seem to be doing it just fine without being on the "sidelines" at all.


He doesn't believe the GOP can be taken over and that it's corrupt. Yes, I agree it is but their corruption just opens the door. If they want to be in power again they have to expand their ranks and considering its supposed be a conservative party then conservative (and liberty) activists can take it over if they show up in big enough numbers.

You have just shown that you understand nothing about what Rockwell believes.

Rockwell believes that all State politics (not just the GOP) is always (not just until "the good guys" can "take over") inherently and inescapably corrupt, and that no good can come of trying to use the political means to achieve liberty.

You may disagree with this. You may disagree with it very strongly. You may disagree with it completely. Reasonable people may do those things.

Rightly or wrongly, however, Rockwell believes it - and pissing & moaning because he doesn't pretend otherwise is silly, pointless & ridiculous.

If a man tells you that he believes X and does not believe Y, then you might reasonably be able to disagree with him about those things - but you cannot reasonably bitch & throw fits because he doesn't go around saying, "I believe Y and do not believe X."

[helmuth_hubener]

Everyone could be educated about liberty and the constitution but if they dont participate politically - taking over the GOP and showing up to meetings - how does anything change? By doing things which they love and which are better suited to their talents, and in so excelling become so influential and respected as to generate another 10 or 100 of themselves -- people with their views on liberty, many of whom will happen to be people who do enjoy things like showing up to GOP meetings.

[green73]

Lew says all the time that the solution is for enough people to withdraw their consent (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard78.html).

[itshappening]

Why do you need to join Lew on the sidelines in order to whine? You seem to be doing it just fine without being on the "sidelines" at all.



You have just shown that you understand nothing about what Rockwell believes.

Rockwell believes that all State politics (not just the GOP) is always (not just until "the good guys" can "take over") inherently and inescapably corrupt, and that no good can come of trying to use the political means to achieve liberty.

You may disagree with this. You may disagree with it very strongly. You may disagree with it completely. Reasonable people may do those things.

Rightly or wrongly, however, Rockwell believes it - and pissing & moaning because he doesn't pretend otherwise is silly, pointless & ridiculous.

If a man tells you that he believes X and does not believe Y, then you might reasonably be able to disagree with him about those things - but you cannot reasonably bitch & throw fits because he doesn't go around saying, "I believe Y and do not believe X."

I do disagree, that's the point.

I don't know what the endgame to all this educating is if it's not to attain political power some day - mostly through the presidency - in order to reverse things?

Or does he want a violent revolution?

[heavenlyboy34]

There is no change without political action.

lolz :D

"Radio and podcasting are a much more powerful means of communication than speaking on the floor of Congress. I welcome this chance to work with Norm and Courtside and interact with America in a new way, delivering a message that is timelier than ever and a philosophy that people are clearly hungry to hear more about,” ;)
Ron Paul To Host Daily Radio Program and Podcast (http://lewrockwell.com/rep4/ron-paul-to-host-daily-radio-show.html)

[heavenlyboy34]

I do disagree, that's the point.

I don't know what the endgame to all this educating is if it's not to attain political power some day - mostly through the presidency - in order to reverse things?

Or does he want a violent revolution?

Lew's approach is to make the regime irrelevant. Basically the La Boetie approach: “Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces.” – Etienne de La Boetie, The Politics of Obedience (https://mises.org/rothbard/boetie.pdf), p.47

If you actually pay attention to Lew instead of the smears by his opponents, you'd know one of his favorite bits of advice is to simply laugh at The State. He's very much opposed to violent revolution.

[mac_hine]

Lew says all the time that the solution is for enough people to withdraw their consent (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard78.html).

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to green73 again.

Everybody should read that

And then this: The Anatomy of the State http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard62.html

And then watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ywcOrcZ7bA

I credit Lew with helping me make the shift from constitutional minarchist to unabashed anarchist.

[Occam's Banana]

I do disagree, that's the point.

No, the point is that you and others keep complaining that LR won't do things that he doesn't think will work.

He might be right. He might be wrong. But it isn't fair to criticize him for not doing & saying things that he does not believe in.


I don't know what the endgame to all this educating is if it's not to attain political power some day - mostly through the presidency - in order to reverse things?

Or does he want a violent revolution?

green73 already answered this:


Lew says all the time that the solution is for enough people to withdraw their consent (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard78.html).

Politicos (politicians, GOTV activists, etc.) are "bacon salesmen". Lew Rockwell is a "devout Muslim".

He isn't going to buy what they are selling. And he's not going to sell it for them, either.

He believes that if enough people "convert to Islam", the whole "bacon production & distribution" system will eventually go out of business.

[sailingaway]

mixed

as long as he stays Ron's best friend and not his manager or his 'voice behind the scenes', I have no problem with him. He is a very intelligent man. I've previously addressed my issues with his manner of speech.

[LibertyEagle]

Look guys, whether you believe we can make additional gains through political action or not, you have to admit that Ron Paul running for President, which IS political action by the way, opened many more eyes, increased the reader base at mises and rockwell's websites and brought many more into this movement.

That would not have happened without Ron Paul running for President.

So, when Lew runs articles that appear to be discouraging people from continuing said political action, that he benefited directly from, I find it rather disingenuous and more than frustrating.

[heavenlyboy34]

Look guys, whether you believe we can make additional gains through political action or not, you have to admit that Ron Paul running for President, which IS political action by the way, opened many more eyes, increased the reader base at mises and rockwell's websites and brought many more into this movement.

That would not have happened without Ron Paul running for President.

So, when Lew runs articles that appear to be discouraging people from continuing said political action, that he benefited directly from, I find it rather disingenuous and more than frustrating.
What do you think of the RP quote I posted in post 69 above^^? (no snark intended-serious question)

[helmuth_hubener]

Lew wants us to be educated - which we are If you think you are educated, you're not. If you're satisfied with your level of knowledge, then you clearly have no idea of how far you have to go, how much there is to know, and not just trivial things, but thoughts of tremendous worth. We need to get ourselves educated. We need to be learning and growing. We need to all be twice as knowledgeable as we are now, and to be twice as modest about it. Twice as skillful in presenting our case, and twice as good at understanding the other guy's perspective. We need to have twice as many answers, and be twice as willing to admit we might not know all the answers.

It seems like you're saying "OK, we know all the answers now. Time to stop learning and start shoving -- the answers down everyone's throats, that is." I don't think that's what you're trying to say, but it's what it comes across as, to me. Instead, let's admit how far we have to go and keep learning and becoming educated. "Educated - which we are"? Not hardly.

[green73]

If you think you are educated, you're not. If you're satisfied with your level of knowledge, then you clearly have no idea of how far you have to go, how much there is to know, and not just trivial things, but thoughts of tremendous worth. We need to get ourselves educated. We need to be learning and growing. We need to all be twice as knowledgeable as we are now, and to be twice as modest about it. Twice as skillful in presenting our case, and twice as good at understanding the other guy's perspective. We need to have twice as many answers, and be twice as willing to admit we might not know all the answers.

It seems like you're saying "OK, we know all the answers now. Time to stop learning and start shoving -- the answers down everyone's throats, that is." I don't think that's what you're trying to say, but it's what it comes across as, to me. Instead, let's admit how far we have to go and keep learning and becoming educated. "Educated - which we are"? Not hardly.

Thank you.

[Occam's Banana]

Curious about that statement, because history proves him wrong. But even aside from that, what does he think is a useful and fruitful avenue for genuine change? (Not pocket change, political change.)

I meant to reply to this sooner, but got distracted. Sorry about that.

Lew thinks that the proper approach is to "withdraw consent" from "the system" by refusing to engage with it on its own terms (by seeking political office or pushing for legislation, for example). It isn't so much that he thinks that "refusing to engage the system" (all by itself) will somehow magically result in "changing things". It's that he believes the system is utterly corrupt and rotten to the very core - and that its very nature is inherently inimical to the cause of liberty. He doesn't think it's possible to achieve any significant or durable advancements for the cause of liberty by political means. His enthusiasm for Ron Paul's presidential bids were not based on any belief that Ron would actually win - or that RP (if he somehow did win) would be able to successfully enact a legislative or executive "liberty" agenda. He supported Ron because Ron was "getting the message out" and "waking people up" and so forth (and, of course, because Ron is a close personal friend of his).

Of course, political change must occur if liberty is to be achieved. But Rockwell et al. see political change as being the consequence - not the cause - of genuine advancements for liberty. Once the ideas & ideals of liberty truly take hold and become widespread enough, political change will inevitably follow. It's a position well summed up by the phrase, "politics is a lagging indicator, not a leading one." So Rockwell's "useful and fruitful avenue" is to "withdraw consent", educate people, promote the ideas & ideals of liberty, and hammer away at the corruption and "violence inherent in the system". The political system itself will then wane accordingly.

As I've said before, reasonable people can disagree with him about all of this - and disagree with him quite vehemently - but it's just not rational or fair to denounce him for failing to "rally the GOP-insurgency troops" or to "appeal to generic Republican primary voters" or any such thing. He is expressly not trying to do any of those things - and (rightly or wrongly) he doesn't think any of that stuff will actually work. So condemning Lew (in this particular regard) is like bitching that a hammer is not very good at driving screws.

As for my own opinion, I would say that I agree with Lew's take on things at 9 on a scale of 1 to 10. Rockwell's only use for politics is as a vehicle for "Ron Paul style" education, and nothing more. I don't think "engaging the system" is totally useless for genuinely advancing the cause of liberty. But apart from education, its usefulness comes almost entirely in the form of ancillary "side beneifits" (such as increasing the currency and "social credibility" of liberty ideas & ideas - which is related to but not *quite* the same thing as "education"). That is why I think there are benefits to supporting & promoting people like Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, etc. Aside from this, though, I think Lew is pretty much correct - the political means in and of itself cannot do anything for us. At best, it can only serve as a vehicle or platform for (some of) the other things we need. TPTB simply have their hooks set too deeply for us to be able to vanquish them on their own turf and on their own terms.

[Giuliani was there on 911]

what's to not like about him ? Seriously I don't know

[anaconda]

I still think he wrote the newsletters.

Did anyone ever ask him if he did? On camera?