Walter E. Williams: Coalition Building For Libertarians

[TaftFan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYr4wZ6ERmo

Please watch this for important insight.

[FrankRep]

Libertarians will promptly ignore this video.


Walter E. Williams is absolutely correct and this line of reasoning has caused many fights on RPFs.

[Christian Liberty]

Hmm... I've watched the video and am still mulling things over.

Is Walter Williams trying to say that the drug issue SHOULDN'T be addressed, or only that it shouldn't be a "litmus test"? Or something else entirely.

There are a lot of things that the libertarian philosophy demands that I generally would not discuss, or openly advocate, right this minute because there's really no purpose. If someone can't figure out from "non-aggression principle" that no, your laws against consensual incest or polygamy wouldn't hold up, I wouldn't bother to point them out in particular. Its a side issue, and in fact, to focus on it would in fact, as Walter Williams says, strengthen the false "Libertarianism is libertine" argument in the minds of the sheep.

However, the Republican Party, and the average neocon voter, hates us because of our views on foreign policy and the War on Terror. That's not something we can just "Put aside for a second" like you could with polygamy or intellectual property or some other random issue you could think up. That is a very crucial issue. The very FOUNDATION of freedom is gone if you don't fix that. Or at least, I believe this to be the case.

So really, it depends on the issue exactly what types of coalitions can be built.

When it comes to advocacy on a particular issue, absolutely. Ron Paul has worked with Barney Frank on trying to get marijuana legalized, or with Kucinich on Iraq. I'd never vote for either of them (Frank or Kucinich) but there's nothing wrong with working with them on particular issues. On the other hand, I'd only vote for candidates who predominately agree with me philosophically, in every area. Not every single little issue, but every major area. Economic liberty, civil liberty, and foreign policy are all critically important, and I couldn't vote for anyone who was critically deficient on any one of those three.

[Christian Liberty]

Libertarians will promptly ignore this video.


Walter E. Williams is absolutely correct and this line of reasoning has caused many fights on RPFs.

I'm an ancap. I watched the video:p

I'm curious what exactly Williams means, and what he advocates.

I've always liked him though. I've heard he doesn't agree with Ron on foreign policy, but I've also heard he doesn't really talk about it. Which for sure makes a difference. He also endorsed Ron despite this disagreement. And he's identified both Abraham Lincoln and the 1964 CRA for what they really are. Rock on, Williams!:cool:

[Article V]

This video actually gave me insight that I have long wondered about:

How do prominent libertarians such as Ron Paul and Milton Friedman, etc. remain so likeable and cheerful in the face of a society that regularly chooses immoral coercion and its inevitable downward spiral toward poverty and death? I myself find I all too regularly get outraged and incensed when debating the willing ignorant and the corrupt authoritarian, which inevitably causes my arguments--right as they may be--to fall on deaf ears.

Answer: Friedman, Paul, etc. smile not because their natural disposition is to smile at coercion and ignorance, but because smiling is a political tactic meant to retain the listener's attention for individuals are inherently distrustful of freedoms they have long since surrendered.

If I can remember Friedman's advice to Williams (e.g. "Smile when you speak of freedom"), then I may convert more minds, develop more diverse friendships, and become an overall happier person.

*I imagine Ron Paul learned this lesson himself after his 1988 failed Presidential bid. In that race (to my knowledge from the very old and limited interviews I saw), he was a firebrand but failed to gain traction with his ideas; decades later, he is a cheerful sprite of man whose ideas have sparked an intellectual revolution that will grow and reverberate for generations to come.

...The Future looks Bright. :)

[angelatc]

*I imagine Ron Paul learned this lesson himself after his 1988 failed Presidential bid. In the race, he was a firebrand but failed to get notice to his ideas; decades later, he was a cheerful spirit whose ideas sparked an intellectual revolution that will grow and reverberate for generations to come.

...The Future looks Bright.

Thats true. Nobody likes angry.

[heavenlyboy34]

Libertarians will promptly ignore this video.


Walter E. Williams is absolutely correct and this line of reasoning has caused many fights on RPFs.
I also generally agree...which is why I find it odd that so many here (almost all, it seems) don't even consider infiltrating the D party.

[Ronin Truth]

I don't believe I've EVER heard Milton Friedman referred to as a libertarian. That would also come as a major surprise to his son David.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_D._Friedman

[Article V]

I don't believe I've EVER heard Milton Friedman referred to as a libertarian.Well, now you have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PaN9M4WwHw

In addition to the above video series regarding the nature of libertarianism, I believe the follow video from Libertarianism.org is also useful in this thread as it discusses humility in relation to the libertarian cause:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bibfslEFk2s

[erowe1]

I didn't realize until almost 5 minutes in that he was talking about the Libertarian Party. At that point I lost interest.

[erowe1]

I don't believe I've EVER heard Milton Friedman referred to as a libertarian

If you have much exposure to libertarianism, that strikes me as almost impossible.

[Ronin Truth]

If you have much exposure to libertarianism, that strikes me as almost impossible.

41+ years and counting. ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman

[thoughtomator]

Libertarians will promptly ignore this video.


Walter E. Williams is absolutely correct and this line of reasoning has caused many fights on RPFs.

This is 2013. The number of libertarians not willing to compromise in order to achieve real gains for liberty is so tiny that recycling this today is a veritable strawman. What year was that video produced? 1974?

[Article V]

41+ years and counting. ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_FriedmanRonin... as much as I regret to say it, your links do not in any way support your suppositions. And years don't count for much if they are spent staring at padded walls.

Check the videos I posted above for Milton Friedman referring to himself as a libertarian over and over again, check the audience filled with libertarians; and if you need more videos, I or one of the more informed users of RPF would be happy to point you in the direction where you might gain the knowledge you're currently seeking.

Either way, our argument is moot. So let's let it go after this rather than bandy about meaningless credentials.

[brushfire]

If you have much exposure to libertarianism, that strikes me as almost impossible.


Agreed, absolutely. He's referred to himself as a libertarian on several occasions - beyond what is already posted here.

http://youtu.be/Mckg2NtPrSQ?t=5m44s

Friedman was very influential and was right about many things, but he had said/done several things that had pi$$ed some economists off (rightly so) - even today there are some Austrian economists that really dont like Friedman. One thing, however, he was not afraid to admit when he was wrong, and he did so later in his life. Still with some, he'll never get any breaks for that. For a long time Friedman was contradicting himself for talking of small government, but advocating the need for the FED...

Despite his use of other people's work, and the fact that he had access to larger audience then he may have deserved, I'm still very grateful for this man. He is why I'm a libertarian, and he is essentially why I'm here on this forum today. I think, as a whole, the world is a better place for having him.

I also like Water Williams in the same way...

[Ronin Truth]

Ronin... as much as I regret to say it, your links do not in any way support your suppositions. And years don't count for much if they are spent staring at padded walls.

Check the videos I posted above for Milton Friedman referring to himself as a libertarian over and over again, check the audience filled with libertarians; and if you need more videos, I or one of the more informed users of RPF would be happy to point you in the direction where you might gain the knowledge you're currently seeking.

Either way, our argument is moot. So let's let it go after this rather than bandy about meaningless credentials.

Ah, so you just want to take your cheap shots and quit eh? I understand that lame tactic. Probably a very wise decision on your part.

[Pericles]

Hmm... I've watched the video and am still mulling things over.

Is Walter Williams trying to say that the drug issue SHOULDN'T be addressed, or only that it shouldn't be a "litmus test"? Or something else entirely.

There are a lot of things that the libertarian philosophy demands that I generally would not discuss, or openly advocate, right this minute because there's really no purpose. If someone can't figure out from "non-aggression principle" that no, your laws against consensual incest or polygamy wouldn't hold up, I wouldn't bother to point them out in particular. Its a side issue, and in fact, to focus on it would in fact, as Walter Williams says, strengthen the false "Libertarianism is libertine" argument in the minds of the sheep.

However, the Republican Party, and the average neocon voter, hates us because of our views on foreign policy and the War on Terror. That's not something we can just "Put aside for a second" like you could with polygamy or intellectual property or some other random issue you could think up. That is a very crucial issue. The very FOUNDATION of freedom is gone if you don't fix that. Or at least, I believe this to be the case.

So really, it depends on the issue exactly what types of coalitions can be built.

When it comes to advocacy on a particular issue, absolutely. Ron Paul has worked with Barney Frank on trying to get marijuana legalized, or with Kucinich on Iraq. I'd never vote for either of them (Frank or Kucinich) but there's nothing wrong with working with them on particular issues. On the other hand, I'd only vote for candidates who predominately agree with me philosophically, in every area. Not every single little issue, but every major area. Economic liberty, civil liberty, and foreign policy are all critically important, and I couldn't vote for anyone who was critically deficient on any one of those three.

Push a freedom issue that has the best chance of success with the voters. Suggestion was it will be easier to get a number of people on board with the idea of eliminating the Department of Education than will be willing to eliminate the Department of Defense.

[erowe1]

41+ years and counting. ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman

41+ years of doing what?

Also, in whatever browser you're using, do a search for the word "libertarian" on that page and notice what you find.

[Ronin Truth]

41+ years of doing what?

Also, in whatever browser you're using, do a search for the word "libertarian" on that page and notice what you find.

I did. Now you can search for "Austrian". What was Milton's position on the NAP? (Just because you call yourself a "libertarian", doesn't make you one.)

LeFevre, Rothbard, Mises, Hayek, Nozick, Lane, Browne, Rockwell, Shaffer, Rand, Woods, DiLorenzo, Friedman (David), Watner, Hess, Spooner, Paul, etc.

Good enough?

[erowe1]

I did. Now you can search for "Austrian". What was Milton's position on the NAP? (Just because you call yourself a "libertarian", doesn't make you one.)

LeFevre, Rothbard, Mises, Hayek, Nozick, Lane, Browne, Rockwell, Shaffer, Rand, Woods, DiLorenzo, Friedman (David), Watner, Hess, Spooner, Paul, etc.

Good enough?

No. Not good at all. Frankly terrible.

Have you already forgotten your own words?

I don't believe I've EVER heard Milton Friedman referred to as a libertarian

[Ronin Truth]

No. Not good at all. Frankly terrible.

Better than yours I'd wager.

Have you already forgotten your own words?

No, prior to today, when I wrote that it was true. Hence my post. DUH!

[erowe1]

No, prior to today, when I wrote that it was true. Hence my post. DUH!

Right. And like I said, that looks like a sign of very little exposure to libertarianism. If that's not true, then you're exceptional. It would be extremely difficult for someone not to encounter Friedman being labeled as a libertarian.

Please correct your quote of me. You altered it to make it look like I said something I didn't. I'm not sure what you're trying to indicate with the "Better than your's I'd wager" part. But I never said that. As can be seen in post #20, it has not been edited. What it reads now is what I wrote in it initially.

[erowe1]

In fact, prior to 2008, wouldn't Milton Friedman have to be more widely reputed to be a libertarian than any other human being in recent memory? I would guess probably even more so than Ayn Rand. Obviously Ron Paul has since eclipsed him.

Rightly or wrongly, that's how he was known.

To have exposure to libertarianism and not to have encountered that a single time just seems weird. That would be like if I asked an American Baptist pastor about Billy Graham, and he replied, "Who?"

[Ronin Truth]

Right. And like I said, that looks like a sign of very little exposure to libertarianism. If that's not true, then you're exceptional. It would be extremely difficult for someone not to encounter Friedman being labeled as a libertarian.

Please correct your quote of me. You altered it to make it look like I said something I didn't. I'm not sure what you're trying to indicate with the "Better than your's I'd wager" part. But I never said that. As can be seen in post #20, it has not been edited. What it reads now is what I wrote in it initially.

The bold was my response to you.

DING!

My time and interest in "silly" has run out for the day.

[erowe1]

The bold was my response to you.


It didn't make any sense as a response. What did you mean for the antecedent of "yours" to be?

[Henry Rogue]

I also generally agree...which is why I find it odd that so many here (almost all, it seems) don't even consider infiltrating the D party.I honestly think it is a good idea HB. You should run on the D ticket.

[Haribol2332]

im confused between library and libraty......

[heavenlyboy34]

I honestly think it is a good idea HB. You should run on the D ticket. If I didn't abhor politics with a purple passion, I would. :) Perhaps someday if I'm not busy and the mood strikes me, I'll go for it....start a chipin on RPFs and the whole 9. :cool: