Laurence Vance on Ted Cruz

[Christian Liberty]

Vance, of course, gets it:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/republicans-betrayed-conservatives/

[CPUd]

first!

[AuH20]

This could apply to Rand as well. Why don't all the Lew Rockwell fence sitters get in the fight and get their voices elected? I hate reading this stuff since you're not going to turn around the Titanic like a European sports car. The progs have installed a system that will have be slowly removed piece by piece unless there is a massive reset. Grab your pitchfork and get angry at Ted Cruz!!! Pathetic given what we're facing.

[Brett85]

I don't think Cruz is any more of a supporter of Social Security and Medicare than Ron Paul is. He's only said that the government has a contractual obligation to give out these benefits to people who have paid into these programs their entire lives. That's no different than what Ron has said. Cruz has never said that he supports Social Security and Medicare on a personal level.

[AuH20]

I don't think Cruz is any more of a supporter of Social Security and Medicare than Ron Paul is. He's only said that the government has a contractual obligation to give out these benefits to people who have paid into these programs their entire lives. That's no different than what Ron has said. Cruz has never said that he supports Social Security and Medicare on a personal level.

Does anyone think Rand supports the concept of SS or Medicare? I doubt it as well.

[Feeding the Abscess]

This could apply to Rand as well. Why don't all the Lew Rockwell fence sitters get in the fight and get their voices elected? I hate reading this stuff since you're not going to turn around the Titanic like a European sports car. The progs have installed a system that will have be slowly removed piece by piece unless there is a massive reset. Grab your pitchfork and get angry at Ted Cruz!!! Pathetic given what we're facing.

Because they don't believe in the state. Holding someone to a standard they don't support is silly at best, and more likely disingenuous.

[Brett85]

Does anyone think Rand supports the concept of SS or Medicare? I doubt it as well.

I know that he wouldn't. A lot of people are opposed to the concept of SS and Medicare but work to roll back these programs as much as is politically practical.

[AuH20]

Because they don't believe in the state. Holding someone to a standard they don't support is silly at best, and more likely disingenuous.

So non-swimmers are complaining about swimming competitions? I have empathy for those who don't believe in the state but they're wrong when they go down this cannibalistic route. Any push towards their ultimate goal is a win.

[Christian Liberty]

Does anyone think Rand supports the concept of SS or Medicare? I doubt it as well.

I think he probably doesn't, he spoke against it in the 90's. He's probably just playing the game right now. Admittedly, his administration probably won't really attack it either.

[Brett85]

I think he probably doesn't, he spoke against it in the 90's. He's probably just playing the game right now. Admittedly, his administration probably won't really attack it either.

He would try to get something passed like personal retirement accounts for Social Security. Really hardcore libertarians believe that Social Security has to abolished all at once and oppose any kind of reform and transitional system, but I think that personal retirement accounts would be a better system than we currently have.

[Christian Liberty]

He would try to get something passed like personal retirement accounts for Social Security. Really hardcore libertarians believe that Social Security has to abolished all at once and oppose any kind of reform and transitional system, but I think that personal retirement accounts would be a better system than we currently have.

I'm in both camps. I think immediate abolition would be the ideal. I don't agree with what Ron says about "obligations" because theft is theft. Ron has read Rothbard, so I suspect he may already know this, but he may have felt like he needed to run on a weaker stance. I really don't know. On the other hand, seeing as immediate abolition is not possible, I do support anything to move in that direction.

[Feeding the Abscess]

So non-swimmers are complaining about swimming competitions? I have empathy for those who don't believe in the state but they're wrong when they go down this cannibalistic route. Any push towards their ultimate goal is a win.

Yes, the same way non-athletes such as myself criticize the performance of professional athletes.

A push towards a slightly less smaller government is not a push in the direction of statelessness, as the implicit understanding is both huge and slightly less huge government is that the state is legitimate.

[FrankRep]

Publicly opposing Social Security and Medicare is a good way to get kicked out of office. Too many retired people depend on that and they vote.

Political Suicide. Laurence Vance should know better.

[Brett85]

I'm in both camps. I think immediate abolition would be the ideal. I don't agree with what Ron says about "obligations" because theft is theft.

But the benefits that people get when they retire are just an example of people getting their own money back, getting money back that was originally stolen from them. It's hard to argue against giving people their own money back that was originally stolen from them.

[Christian Liberty]

Publicly opposing Social Security and Medicare is a good way to get kicked out of office. Too many retired people depend on that and they vote.

Political Suicide. Laurence Vance should know better.

Laurence Vance doesn't care, because he actually stands on principle.


But the benefits that people get when they retire are just an example of people getting their own money back, getting money back that was originally stolen from them. It's hard to argue against giving people their own money back that was originally stolen from them.

Its not really hard. The money isn't there. It was stolen, by government. Any proposal to "phase out" social security is a proposal to deliberately allow theft for a certain period of time in order to compensate the people stolen from.

If I may: an analogy.

Let's say we're in a neighborhood. The mafia systematically steals from each person's paycheck, and gives some of that money to retired people who can no longer work. Eventually, the mafia thugs are caught by the police and arrested. Should the police then say "Sorry, working class people, but the retired people are really depending on this money, so we're going to allow the mafia to keep extorting your money for the next 20 years. After all, we're only giving these people back what was stolen from them."

Do you see the absurdity of this sort of logic?

I'm OK with taking every dime from every Congressmen and every fractional-reserve banker in order to give back to those people. I'm OK with then enslaving these wicked people for life in order to pay them back. But don't even THINK about suggesting that the taxpayers should foot the bill, as if we actually owed them anything.

[FrankRep]

Laurence Vance doesn't care, because he actually stands on principle.

Ron Paul supports Opting Out of Social Security.


Ron Paul: Allow Young People to Opt Out of Social Security and Medicare (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r98GT2uol_I)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r98GT2uol_I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r98GT2uol_I

[Christian Liberty]

Ron Paul supports Opting Out of Social Security.


Ron Paul: Allow Young People to Opt Out of Social Security and Medicare
http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-04-27/ron-paul-allow-young-people-to-opt-out-of-social-security-and-medicare/

Which ultimately pretty much means killing it. I presume Ron Paul already knows this, but is being subtle about it.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Ron Paul supports Opting Out of Social Security.


Ron Paul: Allow Young People to Opt Out of Social Security and Medicare
http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-04-27/ron-paul-allow-young-people-to-opt-out-of-social-security-and-medicare/

He's also said that SS and Medicare should eventually be ended.

[AuH20]

Yes, the same way non-athletes such as myself criticize the performance of professional athletes.

A push towards a slightly less smaller government is not a push in the direction of statelessness, as the implicit understanding is both huge and slightly less huge government is that the state is legitimate.

A stateless society is a pipedream unless the dial is moved and perceptions are altered. But don't tell Vance that.

[Feeding the Abscess]

A stateless society is a pipedream unless the dial is moved and perceptions are altered. But don't tell Vance that.

Supporting a different flavor of statism isn't moving the dial or altering perception. It's continuing perception and ratcheting up the dial by giving further legitimacy to the state.

[Brett85]

Its not really hard. The money isn't there. It was stolen, by government. Any proposal to "phase out" social security is a proposal to deliberately allow theft for a certain period of time in order to compensate the people stolen from.

Not if people are allowed to opt out of paying the Social Security and Medicare tax, which is what Ron advocated. There would be no more "stealing" in that case. Either people wouldn't be paying the tax, or they would voluntarily choose to pay the tax, which wouldn't be "stealing." The Social Security benefits would then be paid for by cutting overseas spending and cutting other spending.

[FrankRep]

Ron Paul supports Opting Out of Social Security.

Ron Paul: Allow Young People to Opt Out of Social Security and Medicare
http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-04-27/ron-paul-allow-young-people-to-opt-out-of-social-security-and-medicare/

Which ultimately pretty much means killing it. I presume Ron Paul already knows this, but is being subtle about it.

Opting Out and Abolishing Social Security are two different things.

[AuH20]

Supporting a different flavor of statism isn't moving the dial or altering perception. It's continuing perception and ratcheting up the dial by giving further legitimacy to the state.

You need to allay the conditioned fears of the everyday citizen by removing barriers little by little. Less statism is the answer. It's kind of like releasing a domesticated animal into the wild.

[Christian Liberty]

Not if people are allowed to opt out of paying the Social Security and Medicare tax, which is what Ron advocated. There would be no more "stealing" in that case. Either people wouldn't be paying the tax, or they would voluntarily choose to pay the tax, which wouldn't be "stealing."

I agree with you here.


The Social Security benefits would then be paid for by cutting overseas spending and cutting other spending.

Ultimately that would still be stealing, because the money is still being stolen. But, one step at a time, obviously. The ultimate goal would be to not have any compulsory redistribution of wealth.

[Brett85]

I still don't think that it's accurate to say that someone "supports" Social Security and Medicare philosophically just because they oppose abolishing those programs, particularly if they're a politician. People like Rand and Cruz just know that it's not politically realistic to advocate the repeal of Social Security and Medicare. If Ted Cruz came out and said that he would've voted in favor of creating Social Security and Medicare in the first place, then I would change my mind.

[mac_hine]

Was hoping Vance would call out Cruz for his unwavering love for the 51st state, and the billions they have been given to support their apartheid state.

[Christian Liberty]

I still don't think that it's accurate to say that someone "supports" Social Security and Medicare philosophically just because they oppose abolishing those programs, particularly if they're a politician. People like Rand and Cruz just know that it's not politically realistic to advocate the repeal of Social Security and Medicare. If Ted Cruz came out and said that he would've voted in favor of creating Social Security and Medicare in the first place, then I would change my mind.

If they don't even want to abolish them gradually, they're in favor of them.

I agree with you that they aren't necessarily in favor of those programs if they want to phase them out. Although I still don't like it.


Was hoping Vance would call out Cruz for his unwavering love for the 51st state, and the billions they have been given to support their apartheid state.

Vance isn't in favor of that either.

[Brett85]

If they don't even want to abolish them gradually, they're in favor of them.

What if they want to ultimately abolish them, but just don't advocate that publicly because it would be political suicide?

[A Son of Liberty]

You need to allay the conditioned fears of the everyday citizen by removing barriers little by little. Less statism is the answer. It's kind of like releasing a domesticated animal into the wild.

NO STATE is the answer.

Without people like Laurence Vance and the rest of the "LRC crowd", there would be no public voice against the state at all. They need to continue to advance the position of statelessness, for if they do not, then there will only be those people who support the state, whether they think it should be big or small.

The anti-state voice must be heard, or there will be nothing but degrees of slavery.

[William R]

No one can be elected dog catcher if they run on doing away with social security and Medicare. Not even Ron Paul ran on that.

[Christian Liberty]

What if they want to ultimately abolish them, but just don't advocate that publicly because it would be political suicide?

What if Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum were secretly Rothbardian Anarchists, but only ran on a statist program (and acted in a statist manner while governor/senator) because that's what they thought they could get elected on?:p'

I can only go by what I can actually see.




NO STATE is the answer.

Without people like Laurence Vance and the rest of the "LRC crowd", there would be no public voice against the state at all. They need to continue to advance the position of statelessness, for if they do not, then there will only be those people who support the state, whether they think it should be big or small.

The anti-state voice must be heard, or there will be nothing but degrees of slavery.

:thumb:

[Sola_Fide]

Does anyone think Rand supports the concept of SS or Medicare? I doubt it as well.

It would be nice to hear him say it every once in a while.

[Brett85]

NO STATE is the answer.

Without people like Laurence Vance and the rest of the "LRC crowd", there would be no public voice against the state at all. They need to continue to advance the position of statelessness, for if they do not, then there will only be those people who support the state, whether they think it should be big or small.

The anti-state voice must be heard, or there will be nothing but degrees of slavery.

I still prefer libertarianism over anarchism.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Anarchism-libertarianism-by-Don-Smith-Anarchism_Anarchism_Anarchism-Anarchy-Anarchist_Anarchists-131004-872.html

"What's called libertarian in the United States, which is a special U. S. phenomenon, it doesn't really exist anywhere else -- a little bit in England -- permits a very high level of authority and domination but in the hands of private power: so private power should be unleashed to do whatever it likes. The assumption is that by some kind of magic, concentrated private power will lead to a more free and just society. Actually that has been believed in the past. Adam Smith for example, one of his main arguments for markets was the claim that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets would lead to perfect equality. Well, we don't have to talk about that! " Anarchism is quite different from that. It calls for an elimination to tyranny, all kinds of tyranny. Including the kind of tyranny that's internal to private power concentrations."

[Brett85]

What if Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum were secretly Rothbardian Anarchists, but only ran on a statist program (and acted in a statist manner while governor/senator) because that's what they thought they could get elected on?:p'

I never heard Romney or Santorum advocate personal retirement accounts for Social Security. Rand and Cruz at least support that, which I view as a transition to ultimately getting rid of the program.

[Christian Liberty]

I never heard Romney or Santorum advocate personal retirement accounts for Social Security. Rand and Cruz at least support that, which I view as a transition to ultimately getting rid of the program.

I'm not saying they did. I'm just saying that "What if" scenarios like this are hypothetically possible but not really helpful. We go with what we know.

[Christian Liberty]

I still prefer libertarianism over anarchism.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Anarchism-libertarianism-by-Don-Smith-Anarchism_Anarchism_Anarchism-Anarchy-Anarchist_Anarchists-131004-872.html

"What's called libertarian in the United States, which is a special U. S. phenomenon, it doesn't really exist anywhere else -- a little bit in England -- permits a very high level of authority and domination but in the hands of private power: so private power should be unleashed to do whatever it likes. The assumption is that by some kind of magic, concentrated private power will lead to a more free and just society. Actually that has been believed in the past. Adam Smith for example, one of his main arguments for markets was the claim that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets would lead to perfect equality. Well, we don't have to talk about that! " Anarchism is quite different from that. It calls for an elimination to tyranny, all kinds of tyranny. Including the kind of tyranny that's internal to private power concentrations."

I'm not sure if they're talking about anarcho-capitalism there.

[Brett85]

I'm not sure if they're talking about anarcho-capitalism there.

I think they're talking about anarcho-communism, but that's what you could end up with if the government were abolished. Communists want to abolish the current government in order to abolish capitalism and put in place a Communistic system where everything would be shared.

[Christian Liberty]

I think they're talking about anarcho-communism, but that's what you could end up with if the government were abolished. Communists want to abolish the current government in order to abolish capitalism and put in place a Communistic system where everything would be shared.

anarcho-communism is hopelessly idealistic and utopian. No such society would ever survive.

[erowe1]

I don't think Cruz is any more of a supporter of Social Security and Medicare than Ron Paul is. He's only said that the government has a contractual obligation to give out these benefits to people who have paid into these programs their entire lives. That's no different than what Ron has said. Cruz has never said that he supports Social Security and Medicare on a personal level.

I don't think Ron has said that.

He has said that the government should keep paying those who are presently dependent on those programs. But has he really ever said that a contract the government gets into placing financial obligations on taxpayers without their consent can be valid?

[erowe1]

I'm not sure if they're talking about anarcho-capitalism there.

They're not. But the reason anarcho-capitalists have "capitalist" in their name is to distinguish them from all the other anarchists.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't think Ron has said that.

He has said that the government should keep paying those who are presently dependent on those programs. But has he really ever said that a contract the government gets into placing financial obligations on taxpayers without their consent can be valid?

isn't that kind of the logical conclusion, though?

[Brett85]

I don't think Ron has said that.

He has said that the government should keep paying those who are presently dependent on those programs. But has he really ever said that a contract the government gets into placing financial obligations on taxpayers without their consent can be valid?

I'm not sure. He said this:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/on-morning-joe-sam-stein-grills-ron-paul-about-why-he-collects-social-security/

"But this is one program we were supposed to be paying into an insurance program.”

[erowe1]

isn't that kind of the logical conclusion, though?

I don't think so. I think Ron is just being practical in that. He thinks it should be phased out. But at some point there have to be people who paid for others to get SS and who won't get paid any themselves.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not sure. He said this:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/on-morning-joe-sam-stein-grills-ron-paul-about-why-he-collects-social-security/

"But this is one program we were supposed to be paying into an insurance program.”

In my opinion Ron Paul presented the wrong answer to that question. Walter Block's answer is the correct one (essentially: Government is a thief, and to "steal" money from a thief is not immoral.)

[Christian Liberty]

I don't think so. I think Ron is just being practical in that. He thinks it should be phased out. But at some point there have to be people who paid for others to get SS and who won't get paid any themselves.

Exactly, which is why Ron's position is not logical.

[erowe1]

Exactly, which is why Ron's position is not logical.

But I don't think he ever said that everyone who paid in should get something back, or that there's some legitimate contract entitling them to something from someone else. His phaseout suggestion isn't based on that.

I agree with you that the position he ran on isn't the right position ideologically. But as a plan to offer the people when running for office, it makes sense.

[Woods]

I still don't think that it's accurate to say that someone "supports" Social Security and Medicare philosophically just because they oppose abolishing those programsWho says criticism has to be accurate? I think it might depend on how the program was abolished. Is the "Mafia" going to put assets to make as many people as possible as whole as possible?

[Christian Liberty]

But I don't think he ever said that everyone who paid in should get something back, or that there's some legitimate contract entitling them to something from someone else. His phaseout suggestion isn't based on that.

I agree with you that the position he ran on isn't the right position ideologically. But as a plan to offer the people when running for office, it makes sense.

Honestly, and I say this with all due respect to the man who is very possibly the best American politician ever, but his position is simply irrational. There is absolutely no logical or ideological reason for "putting off" the abolition of social security. The only possible justification for that would be if he was unable to cut the tax rates beyond a certain point, and had money left over from foreign policy cuts. And even then, honestly, it would be more justifiable to give every single American some kind of lump sum at that point, rather than continuing to redistribute from workers to retirees. But even then, he should be fighting constantly to drive those tax rates down even further, and ultimately, to 0, as quickly as he possibly can.

So ultimately, either its political, or its a misguided sense of charity and compassion, or both.

[A Son of Liberty]

I still prefer libertarianism over anarchism.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Anarchism-libertarianism-by-Don-Smith-Anarchism_Anarchism_Anarchism-Anarchy-Anarchist_Anarchists-131004-872.html

"What's called libertarian in the United States, which is a special U. S. phenomenon, it doesn't really exist anywhere else -- a little bit in England -- permits a very high level of authority and domination but in the hands of private power: so private power should be unleashed to do whatever it likes. The assumption is that by some kind of magic, concentrated private power will lead to a more free and just society. Actually that has been believed in the past. Adam Smith for example, one of his main arguments for markets was the claim that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets would lead to perfect equality. Well, we don't have to talk about that! " Anarchism is quite different from that. It calls for an elimination to tyranny, all kinds of tyranny. Including the kind of tyranny that's internal to private power concentrations."

How many times are you going to make posts like this where you pretend to not know where anti-statists like me are coming from?

If it weren't for the fact that other people read this tripe, it would truly be boring at this point.

[Brett85]

How many times are you going to make posts like this where you pretend to not know where anti-statists like me are coming from?

If it weren't for the fact that other people read this tripe, it would truly be boring at this point.

I was just giving you crap, trying to be funny. My apologies.