The enemies of freedom

[Christian Liberty]

Don't get me wrong, I do not believe everyone who disagrees with me hates freedom.

We're always going to have disagreements. We just aren't going to agree, for instance, whether Rand Paul is a saint or a traitor. There are lovers of liberty on both sides, and then there are people like me and Cajun who have opinions somewhere in between those two.

We're always going to disagree on electoral strategy. We're going to disagree on the utility of certain actions. We're going to disagree on constitutional issues, anarchism vs minarchism, abortion, and other issues like that.

That said, its not hard to tell the enemies of freedom when you see them. For one thing, when, rather than defending an action of civil disobedience, or even condemning it on utilitarian grounds, the "libertarian" turns around and actually defends law enforcement, as we saw with Mr. 666 "Satan" in this thread http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?422652-Adam-Kokesh-ordered-held-without-bond-in-D-C&p=5148649&posted=1#post5148649

Not to mention Stefan Molineux. Now, we'll have our debates on people like Rand, Cruz, exc. but there is no debate to be had on Ron Paul. He's a solid liberty supporter in any thread. Yet Molineux gets on his radio station and tells supporters not to vote, even for Ron Paul. Then he turns around and says Kokesh's resistance is "Too early."

We can tell that Stefan is also on the regime's side, by his actions.

[A Son of Liberty]

Your theory is that since Molyneux rejects the machinations of the politician, he is on the side of the politician?

I disagree with Molyneux on Ron Paul in a practical sense, but philosophically his justification is sound. He has very good things to say about Dr. Paul. He merely rejects the political process.

[Christian Liberty]

Your theory is that since Molyneux rejects the machinations of the politician, he is on the side of the politician?

I disagree with Molyneux on Ron Paul in a practical sense, but philosophically his justification is sound. He has very good things to say about Dr. Paul. He merely rejects the political process.

It wasn't just his comments on Ron Paul, but his comments about Kokesh just now. Its always "Too early."

I think he's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[Tod]

Your theory is that since Molyneux rejects the machinations of the politician, he is on the side of the politician?

I disagree with Molyneux on Ron Paul in a practical sense, but philosophically his justification is sound. He has very good things to say about Dr. Paul. He merely rejects the political process.

+1

[A Son of Liberty]

It wasn't just his comments on Ron Paul, but his comments about Kokesh just now. Its always "Too early."

I think he's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

While I admire Kokesh's stand, it is demonstrably so that it was "too early". As the old saying goes, "don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes". Yet it may well be that the time never comes. It may well be that we few lovers of human liberty will simply be swept along by the great, mewing tide of the American sheep, and the autocrats may never actually need to get within range.

As I posted in the other thread, it is seemingly as futile - and quixotic - as trying to hold back the ocean with a broom.

[Christian Liberty]

While I admire Kokesh's stand, it is demonstrably so that it was "too early". As the old saying goes, "don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes". Yet it may well be that the time never comes. It may well be that we few lovers of human liberty will simply be swept along by the great, mewing tide of the American sheep, and the autocrats may never actually need to get within range.

As I posted in the other thread, it is seemingly as futile - and quixotic - as trying to hold back the ocean with a broom.

That magical "Time" is never going to come, as LewRockwell.com so excellently pointed out in an article awhile back. We already are subject to indefinite detention, torture, and murder without trial. If the time isn't now... when?

Stefan Molineux isn't helping ANYTHING by making stupid comments like this, or by telling people not to vote for Ron Paul.

What's he trying to accomplish? He's controlled opposition IMO.

[BuddyRey]

I completely agree with the OP.

Molyneux's political nihilism is very annoying to me. The state isn't just going to magically abolish itself one day, and we'll never have voluntaryism if we don't actively fight and agitate for it in the sphere of public opinion.

[Christian Liberty]

Oh, I'm plenty nihilist myself. But I would never go on public radio and publicly encourage people not to vote for Ron Paul. That's just evil.

[TheTexan]

Advocating voting is a requirement to be a friend if liberty?

Shit, that rules me out

[Christian Liberty]

Advocating voting is a requirement to be a friend if liberty?

Shit, that rules me out

I don't care if you don't vote. I care that Molineux is actively telling other libertarians not to. Ceding the ground to the liberals and neocons.

At best, that's just stupid. Considering how "Smart" he is, I believe he's controlled oppositon.

[69360]

Oh you're just pissed because I neg repped you for calling American soldiers murderers. That was disrespectful and wrong.

[Christian Liberty]

Oh you're just pissed because I neg repped you for calling American soldiers murderers. That was disrespectful and wrong.

That you think that is disrespectful shows that you don't understand the liberty movement, or what "murder" means.

You're a worshipper of the golden calf. Repent.

[phill4paul]

Oh you're just pissed because I neg repped you for calling American soldiers murderers. That was disrespectful and wrong.


That you think that is disrespectful shows that you don't understand the liberty movement, or what "murder" means.

You're a worshipper of the golden calf. Repent.

Definitions. Murder is killing. Killing is killing.

v. killed, kill·ing, kills
v.tr.
1.
a. To put to death.
b. To deprive of life:

[Christian Liberty]

Definitions. Murder is killing. Killing is killing.

v. killed, kill·ing, kills
v.tr.
1.
a. To put to death.
b. To deprive of life:

Killing in self-defense is not murder. But that is NOT what "Our troops" do at all.

[mad cow]

You're a worshipper of the golden calf. Repent.

Are you one of them Child Preachers like Al Sharpton?

You should try the veal at the Golden Corral.It's to die for.

[Christian Liberty]

Are you one of them Child Preachers like Al Sharpton?

You should try the veal at the Golden Corral.It's to die for.

The bottom line is that 666 is an idolatrer of government, and by implication, her hired killers. That's it.

[phill4paul]

Killing in self-defense is not murder. But that is NOT what "Our troops" do at all.

v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v.tr.
1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.

Killing is killing. Murder is a subsect of killing sanctioned in degrees by humans. A hawk does not "murder" a mouse. A Blacksnake doesn't "murder" a young rabbit.

[Christian Liberty]

v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v.tr.
1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.

Killing is killing. Murder is a subsect of killing sanctioned in degrees by humans. A hawk does not "murder" a mouse. A Blacksnake doesn't "murder" a young rabbit.

OK, if you want to be technical, "our troops" slaughter the innocent.

Saying "Murder" is simpler but conveys the point.

[fr33]

Get the guillotine! We'll do this French Style! :rolleyes:

[KEEF]

AF said it best in another thread...

Brother, I understand...I'm off by myself up to the hills of New Hampshire. I could, and would love to do nothing more than retreat and live my life comfortably up in the hills of God's Country. I pray for the day.

But I must be "proactive" myself, in my own way.

I have to worry, I have no choice but to do everything I can am brave enough to undertake, and to support, as much as I possibly can, those that are brave enough to risk it all, in any attempt to bring hurt to The System.

I have to worry about what kind of world I am leaving to my children.

I do not want them to live in a prison planet, as I'm sure you don't want yours to.

So I support Adam, even if he may be a little off kilter.

I support Rand, even though he has pissed me off by playing the "political game" closer to the breast than I care for.

I support Alex Jones, even if some find him to be offensive.

I support Glenn Greenwald, even though he may very well be a socialist.

See what I'm getting at?

Long and the short of it, I hopefully think that everyone is on this forum to gel our ideas so to make some sort of difference before the inevitable shit hits the fan.

[A Son of Liberty]

Oh, I'm plenty nihilist myself. But I would never go on public radio and publicly encourage people not to vote for Ron Paul. That's just evil.

That's absurd, FF. It's not as though he encouraged people to vote for Romney or Obama... and frankly, a case could be made to do so and it wouldn't be "evil".

It is perfectly reasonable from a pro-liberty perspective to reject the political process, which is by definition the implementation of force against other human beings to some degree or another and as such something which all philosophically consistent anti-statists must reject.

[Occam's Banana]

While I admire Kokesh's stand, it is demonstrably so that it was "too early".

It's easy to tell the pioneers from everyone else - the pioneers are the ones with arrows in their backs ...

Someone's always gotta go first, and such people can always in some sense be said to be "too early." Although I do not follow Molyneux regularly, I've heard enough from him that I suspect (in this context) he means "too early" in just such a sense.


It is perfectly reasonable from a pro-liberty perspective to reject the political process, which is by definition the implementation of force against other human beings to some degree or another and as such something which all philosophically consistent anti-statists must reject.

It is a position that can rationally and consistently be defended.
At absolute worst, Molyneux is simply wrong about this.
Wrong does not equal evil.

[Christian Liberty]

That's absurd, FF. It's not as though he encouraged people to vote for Romney or Obama... and frankly, a case could be made to do so and it wouldn't be "evil".

In the general? I'd argue it would be at least idiotic to give either one your vote. As a Christian, I'd say its a violation of Romans 3:8 as well. I think Obama winning was better than Romney winning, but that had little to do with Obama himself and a lot to do with other people (For instance: talk show hosts suddenly acting like civil libertarians, the fact that Obama can't run again and therefore leaving 2016 potentially open for Rand, exc.)


It is perfectly reasonable from a pro-liberty perspective to reject the political process, which is by definition the implementation of force against other human beings to some degree or another and as such something which all philosophically consistent anti-statists must reject.

I don't see that as necessarily being true. First of all, of course, there is Rothbard's argument, that to pick one master or another is not necessarily an endorsement of slavery. But second of all, who is Ron Paul going to exercise force against? Unless Republicans finally decide to do something about abortion (And IMO that would be a GOOD law, YMMV) Ron Paul is not going to be passing any laws that use force against other people, so I don't see why even a "philosophically consistent" ancap would have a problem with him.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I completely agree with the OP.

Molyneux's political nihilism is very annoying to me. The state isn't just going to magically abolish itself one day, and we'll never have voluntaryism if we don't actively fight and agitate for it in the sphere of public opinion.

Molyneux says the same thing, he has said numerous times that running an educational campaign is fine, and even recently said that if he had the option to dismantle the government in one fell swoop, he wouldn't do it - the results would be too harsh for most people, that it will take generations to melt the state away. His objection is to those who believe freedom will come from the political process.

[Feeding the Abscess]

In the general? I'd argue it would be at least idiotic to give either one your vote. As a Christian, I'd say its a violation of Romans 3:8 as well. I think Obama winning was better than Romney winning, but that had little to do with Obama himself and a lot to do with other people (For instance: talk show hosts suddenly acting like civil libertarians, the fact that Obama can't run again and therefore leaving 2016 potentially open for Rand, exc.)



I don't see that as necessarily being true. First of all, of course, there is Rothbard's argument, that to pick one master or another is not necessarily an endorsement of slavery. But second of all, who is Ron Paul going to exercise force against? Unless Republicans finally decide to do something about abortion (And IMO that would be a GOOD law, YMMV) Ron Paul is not going to be passing any laws that use force against other people, so I don't see why even a "philosophically consistent" ancap would have a problem with him.

Most people, unless he nullified the vast majority of federal laws with the stroke of a pen.