PDA

View Full Version : Confronting Beltway Libertarianism and the Invasion of Left-Libertarians




Origanalist
08-03-2016, 09:10 AM
August 2, 2016 Tony Canzoner

One does not need to look any further than the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee to see the sad state of the libertarian movement and the tragic inconsistencies that plague the beltway libertarians of the left.

Yesterday as I was scrolling through Facebook, I stumbled upon a screenshot of a picture that the Libertarian Party itself shared. It read “No more Bushes, Clintons, or Pauls”, with a picture of Rand Paul in the middle. This post was made back in 2015.

http://i2.wp.com/libertyhangout.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Screen-Shot-2016-08-01-at-2.19.51-PM.png?resize=768%2C1010

But this year, after Gary Johnson had won the possible support of neocons like Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney, they were more than happy to announce this news publicly, and welcomed them and the rest of the establishment heads of the #NeverTrump movement “into the fold”.

http://i1.wp.com/libertyhangout.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/lp-jeb.jpg?w=750

This becomes even more ridiculous when you look at the reasons why the Libertarian Party so willingly slandered the Paul family. According to some of their dedicated activists, voters and followers, the reason for this was because Rand was too “socially conservative” on the issues of gay marriage, drug legalization and immigration. When one looks at the history of the libertarian movement and takes a more consistent approach to policy, they discover that the libertarian movement, for most of its lifetime, favored decentralized government (even in the area of marriage and drugs), and some of the most legendary libertarian thinkers (Hoppe, Rothbard, Rockwell etc.) were for stronger border controls as a necessary prerequisite for defending a culture of liberty.

It is believed that by keeping the power over these matters more locally controlled, it would more accurately represent the state of society under private property rule, and would be easier for citizens to manipulate than under the powerful thumb of a highly centralized government. All of this being said, Rand Paul was certainly not above criticism from the perspective of a libertarian purist….however, this was not why he was called out, and this becomes evident when you look at the record of the party’s presidential and vice presidential nominees.

Although Gary Johnson claims to be “fiscally conservative”, the budget and debt in the state of New Mexico went up under his watch. When Gary Johnson left office, he increased the budget from roughly $4 billion to nearly $8 billion, and took the debt from close to $2 billion all the way up to about $5 billion. While Gary Johnson talks a good game about cutting back spending, his record is rather unimpressive.

He has also advocated for continued funding of Planned Parenthood, has pushed for a 30% consumption tax, and has even entertained the idea of basic individual income. Gary Johnson has also called Hillary Clinton a “wonderful public servant”, stated that he thinks we need to stay in the United Nations, called religious liberty and the freedom of association a “black hole”, and advocated for humanitarian wars.

His running mate, Bill Weld, is a lifelong friend of Hillary Clinton, pushed for strict gun control legislation while he was governor, was for Obamacare, was for the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, was for eminent domain, was a co-chair of the CFR, and just recently said that their administration would seek to nominate progressive leftist judges to the Supreme Court. Needless to say, he doesn’t challenge the concept of legislation through the federal courts either. But as long as these candidates want to legalize pot and gay marriage (even if it means further centralizing the government), you won’t here any complaints from the Libertarian Party leadership or your typical beltway leftist libertarian.

When one looks at the most common reasons for attacking Rand Paul and the records of the two governors who are representing the Libertarian Party, it becomes evident that the moral priorities of this class of so called “libertarians” is, to say the least, bizarre. It is more important that you are for legalizing pot using whatever means necessary to appease leftists and get them to join the movement than it is to talk about the difficult questions and positions. As long as you believe in these things, supporting mass murder (Iraq war) and believing in progressive economics is just a minor policy difference.

How did the movement get to this point?

continued...http://libertyhangout.org/2016/08/confronting-beltway-libertarianism-and-the-invasion-of-left-libertarians/

Brian4Liberty
08-03-2016, 12:48 PM
Rand was too “socially conservative” on the issues of gay marriage, drug legalization and immigration.

More and/or open immigration is one of the highest priorities for the establishment, crony corporatists, globalists, neoconservatives and beltway libertarians. It brings people together. Perhaps that is the future of the "Libertarian" Party.

specsaregood
08-03-2016, 01:35 PM
maybe the right-libertarians shouldn't have been polishing trumps knob during the entire campaign cycle.

UWDude
08-04-2016, 03:17 AM
Solidarity is an illusion. Even in utopian libertarian ideology, humans mess it up.

Every movement is divided.

RestorationOfLiberty
08-04-2016, 04:54 AM
August 2, 2016 Tony Canzoner

One does not need to look any further than the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee to see the sad state of the libertarian movement and the tragic inconsistencies that plague the beltway libertarians of the left.

Yesterday as I was scrolling through Facebook, I stumbled upon a screenshot of a picture that the Libertarian Party itself shared. It read “No more Bushes, Clintons, or Pauls”, with a picture of Rand Paul in the middle. This post was made back in 2015.

http://i2.wp.com/libertyhangout.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Screen-Shot-2016-08-01-at-2.19.51-PM.png?resize=768%2C1010

But this year, after Gary Johnson had won the possible support of neocons like Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney, they were more than happy to announce this news publicly, and welcomed them and the rest of the establishment heads of the #NeverTrump movement “into the fold”.

http://i1.wp.com/libertyhangout.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/lp-jeb.jpg?w=750

This becomes even more ridiculous when you look at the reasons why the Libertarian Party so willingly slandered the Paul family. According to some of their dedicated activists, voters and followers, the reason for this was because Rand was too “socially conservative” on the issues of gay marriage, drug legalization and immigration. When one looks at the history of the libertarian movement and takes a more consistent approach to policy, they discover that the libertarian movement, for most of its lifetime, favored decentralized government (even in the area of marriage and drugs), and some of the most legendary libertarian thinkers (Hoppe, Rothbard, Rockwell etc.) were for stronger border controls as a necessary prerequisite for defending a culture of liberty.

It is believed that by keeping the power over these matters more locally controlled, it would more accurately represent the state of society under private property rule, and would be easier for citizens to manipulate than under the powerful thumb of a highly centralized government. All of this being said, Rand Paul was certainly not above criticism from the perspective of a libertarian purist….however, this was not why he was called out, and this becomes evident when you look at the record of the party’s presidential and vice presidential nominees.

Although Gary Johnson claims to be “fiscally conservative”, the budget and debt in the state of New Mexico went up under his watch. When Gary Johnson left office, he increased the budget from roughly $4 billion to nearly $8 billion, and took the debt from close to $2 billion all the way up to about $5 billion. While Gary Johnson talks a good game about cutting back spending, his record is rather unimpressive.

He has also advocated for continued funding of Planned Parenthood, has pushed for a 30% consumption tax, and has even entertained the idea of basic individual income. Gary Johnson has also called Hillary Clinton a “wonderful public servant”, stated that he thinks we need to stay in the United Nations, called religious liberty and the freedom of association a “black hole”, and advocated for humanitarian wars.

His running mate, Bill Weld, is a lifelong friend of Hillary Clinton, pushed for strict gun control legislation while he was governor, was for Obamacare, was for the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, was for eminent domain, was a co-chair of the CFR, and just recently said that their administration would seek to nominate progressive leftist judges to the Supreme Court. Needless to say, he doesn’t challenge the concept of legislation through the federal courts either. But as long as these candidates want to legalize pot and gay marriage (even if it means further centralizing the government), you won’t here any complaints from the Libertarian Party leadership or your typical beltway leftist libertarian.

When one looks at the most common reasons for attacking Rand Paul and the records of the two governors who are representing the Libertarian Party, it becomes evident that the moral priorities of this class of so called “libertarians” is, to say the least, bizarre. It is more important that you are for legalizing pot using whatever means necessary to appease leftists and get them to join the movement than it is to talk about the difficult questions and positions. As long as you believe in these things, supporting mass murder (Iraq war) and believing in progressive economics is just a minor policy difference.

How did the movement get to this point?

continued...http://libertyhangout.org/2016/08/confronting-beltway-libertarianism-and-the-invasion-of-left-libertarians/

Smell test are issues like Open borders, support for mass immigration, "Blank Slate" view, etc.

Brian4Liberty
08-04-2016, 10:01 AM
Yesterday as I was scrolling through Facebook, I stumbled upon a screenshot of a picture that the Libertarian Party itself shared. It read “No more Bushes, Clintons, or Pauls”, with a picture of Rand Paul in the middle. This post was made back in 2015.


There was always an anti-Paul contingent in the Libertarian Party. It manifested itself as support for Johnson over both Ron and Rand.

timosman
08-04-2016, 10:26 AM
More and/or open immigration is one of the highest priorities for the establishment, crony corporatists, globalists, neoconservatives and beltway libertarians. It brings people together.

How close is too close?:confused:

timosman
08-04-2016, 10:27 AM
Solidarity is an illusion.

How dare you!

euphemia
08-04-2016, 10:36 AM
I think this is because there are some people who would more properly be considered libertines than libertarians.

One of the things I say quite often is that liberty comes with responsibility. We have a responsibility to ourselves and to others. Too many people want the right to do whatever they want to do without considering the impact on others. As human beings who live in communities, we are linked together by the fact that we are people with souls. Ron Paul is a man of principle who believes in responsible liberty. That's why he's a doctor. That's why he went into the military. That's why he served in Congress. He owns his liberty and his responsibility.

I think the Libertarian party has gone over to the dark side. I am angry and disappointed. I will never, ever vote for another Libertarian again as long as I live. I am done with the Libertarian party. Just done.

Spikender
08-04-2016, 10:47 AM
I think this is because there are some people who would more properly be considered libertines than libertarians.

One of the things I say quite often is that liberty comes with responsibility. We have a responsibility to ourselves and to others. Too many people want the right to do whatever they want to do without considering the impact on others. As human beings who live in communities, we are linked together by the fact that we are people with souls. Ron Paul is a man of principle who believes in responsible liberty. That's why he's a doctor. That's why he went into the military. That's why he served in Congress. He owns his liberty and his responsibility.

I think the Libertarian party has gone over to the dark side. I am angry and disappointed. I will never, ever vote for another Libertarian again as long as I live. I am done with the Libertarian party. Just done.

I feel your disappointment. The Libertarian Party is quickly becoming a third, mutant wing of the two party system, all because they want to be accepted and mainstream. It's sickening.

Your point about libertines and libertarians is also one that I personally stress a lot. +rep to you.

Brian4Liberty
08-04-2016, 12:34 PM
How close is too close?:confused:

People who aren't on the bleeding edge have no idea.

Had a candidate leave a robocall the other day, these were essentially the points:

- I (government) will work to solve traffic congestion.
- I (government) will work to solve the lack of housing and high housing prices and rents.
- I (government) will work to raise the minimum wage and raise wages for everyone.
- I (government) will work to fix the immigration system and increase immigration limits. Contact me if you need any help with visas. Thank you.

JustinTime
08-04-2016, 12:56 PM
More and/or open immigration is one of the highest priorities for the establishment, crony corporatists, globalists, neoconservatives and beltway libertarians. It brings people together. Perhaps that is the future of the "Libertarian" Party.

Id vote for Gary Johnson, if he weren't practically open-borders on immigration. I look around and cant see anyone who really represents me, so I'm voting for Trump, its the closest I can get to toilet-papering the White House lawn.

undergroundrr
08-04-2016, 01:09 PM
It depends what your priorities are. An alliance of the right with libertarianism seems to be friendly to immigration reform, 2A rights and business deregulation. But an anti-war message will never be accepted.

An alliance with the left gets anti-war people on board, but you have to handhold them through economic freedom somehow. I'm speaking of grassroots of course, not those in power, who are all for war.

In 2008 & 2012, there was room for a right-libertarian to make an impact. This time, a left-libertarian appeals more. The LP is a group of people operating democratically. It's subject to the collective whim of a lot of people with conflicting interests.

Pure libertarianism, via Ron, Ayn or Murray is a political non-starter. That's going to take every libertarian (left, right or up) on earth giving up what they're doing and becoming middle school/junior high teachers at public schools then waiting 30 years for the result.

CaseyJones
08-04-2016, 02:01 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRvCwtLLV6I

///

dannno
08-04-2016, 02:17 PM
I think this is because there are some people who would more properly be considered libertines than libertarians.

One of the things I say quite often is that liberty comes with responsibility. We have a responsibility to ourselves and to others. Too many people want the right to do whatever they want to do without considering the impact on others. As human beings who live in communities, we are linked together by the fact that we are people with souls. Ron Paul is a man of principle who believes in responsible liberty. That's why he's a doctor. That's why he went into the military. That's why he served in Congress. He owns his liberty and his responsibility.

I think the Libertarian party has gone over to the dark side. I am angry and disappointed. I will never, ever vote for another Libertarian again as long as I live. I am done with the Libertarian party. Just done.

Uh, I would judge who you vote for by the individual not the party... I thought I would never vote Republican again until Ron Paul ran. I thought I was going to vote libertarian this go-around but I'm still undecided.

Also there are a lot of libertines who are libertarian and responsible. I don't think the people getting naked and smoking pot and not hurting anybody are destroying the libertarian party.

I always thought the biggest contingent of beltway libertarians that were a problem were the ones who just wanted low taxes and were frustrated with the lack of fiscal conservatism of the Republicans. A lot of them don't care about legal weed, even though they might say they do just to fit in. A lot of them aren't hugely anti-war. I think of guys like Weld and maybe Kochs.

Natural Citizen
08-04-2016, 02:29 PM
One of the things I say quite often is that liberty comes with responsibility.



Very good, grasshoppa. For every right that an Individual has, there exists a correlative duty. Likewise, with each aspect of freedom there exists a corresponding responsibility. These are inseparable from one another. I'm really digging your posts in matters of Individual Liberty, euphemia. You've got quite a few good ones around here. Alot of them are pfffeeeeww. Right over heads. Heh. Good stuff from you, though. I like it.

Natural Citizen
08-04-2016, 02:30 PM
Also there are a lot of libertines who are libertarian and responsible. I don't think the people getting naked and smoking pot and not hurting anybody are destroying the libertarian party.



Doesn't appear that you understood her point in terms of Liberty/Responsibility.

Brian4Liberty
08-04-2016, 02:33 PM
It depends what your priorities are. An alliance of the right with libertarianism seems to be friendly to immigration reform, 2A rights and business deregulation. But an anti-war message will never be accepted.

An alliance with the left gets anti-war people on board, but you have to handhold them through economic freedom somehow. I'm speaking of grassroots of course, not those in power, who are all for war.

In 2008 & 2012, there was room for a right-libertarian to make an impact. This time, a left-libertarian appeals more. The LP is a group of people operating democratically. It's subject to the collective whim of a lot of people with conflicting interests.

Pure libertarianism, via Ron, Ayn or Murray is a political non-starter. That's going to take every libertarian (left, right or up) on earth giving up what they're doing and becoming middle school/junior high teachers at public schools then waiting 30 years for the result.

Perhaps Rothbard was more realistic than you imagine:



February 28, 2014
Murray Rothbard was Right on Libertarian Strategy
by Keith Preston

Murray Rothbard was one of the few modern libertarian or anarchist thinkers to give any serious thought to strategic questions. Not coincidentally, the growing libertarian movement of the present day is to a large degree the result of Rothbard’s visionary thinking in the area of strategy. In the early 90s, while the neolibertarian corporate apologists around groups like the CATO Institute were brown nosing the Republicans and other libertarians were similarly brown nosing the cultural Left, Rothbard and his circle recognized that a serious libertarian movement would have to be populist in nature, and not one that was oriented towards either the elites (like CATO) or towards the cultural far fringes and hard left (like the left-libertarians). Hence, the “paleo strategy” of Rothbard, Rockwell, and Raimondo.

It was the paleo strategy (i.e. a fusion of libertarian anti-statism, right-wing populism, and neo-isolationist foreign policy views) that became the foundation for the Ron Paul campaigns, which were the spark for the growth of libertarian movement over the past five or six years. To be sure, the growing libertarian movement has veered off into multiple directions, right, left, and center, but its overall growth positively correlates with the (relative) popularity of Ron Paul as a public figure.
...
http://attackthesystem.com/2014/02/28/murray-rothbard-was-right-on-libertarian-strategy/

euphemia
08-04-2016, 02:38 PM
Also there are a lot of libertines who are libertarian and responsible. I don't think the people getting naked and smoking pot and not hurting anybody are destroying the libertarian party.

I would necessarily describe those people as libertines unless that's all they want their liberty to do for them. Johnson is heavily invested in pot and has gained some notoriety because of it. That's why he's in politics. The free market isn't working so well for him in that regard. Like it isn't working for a lot of people who grow crops for people who need food.

undergroundrr
08-04-2016, 03:43 PM
Perhaps Rothbard was more realistic than you imagine:

Oh, I'm well aware. But it's not realism, it's now proven to be a massive misstep and a classic deal with the devil, maybe literally.

The quote from Mr. Preston you provided claims that this strategy set the foundation for the Ron Paul campaigns. Bull. Dr. Paul and his ideals were the foundation of those campaigns. The (later to be known as) alt-right nonsense (newsletters) that attached itself to him eventually dragged him and the whole movement down to irrelevancy.

Hence, Gary Johnson and left-libertarianism to the fore of the movement such that it is, while "loose cannon" establishment elite trump and socialist Sanders marshall grassroots energy.

I don't dismiss Rothbard's achievements for this, as I wouldn't dismiss Rand or Nozick for their missteps.

Krzysztof Lesiak
08-12-2016, 02:55 PM
In my opinion, the real divide in libertarianism is not anarchism versus minarchism, but rather paleolibertarianism versus leftist-libertarianism.

Paleolibertarianism might be on life support in the US (unfortunately Lew Rockwell has abondoned this label, though he and Tom Woods are arguably two of the last bations of paleolibertarianism in the US), but it's thriving in places like Poland (Partia KORWiN, Janusz Korwin Mikke) and Czech Republic (Svobodni). Hopefully, America will move in the direction of Hans Herman Hoppe rather than the "new and improved" Jeffrey Tucker.

Occam's Banana
08-13-2016, 04:56 AM
Paleolibertarianism might be on life support in the US (unfortunately Lew Rockwell has abondoned this label, though he and Tom Woods are arguably two of the last bations of paleolibertarianism in the US) [...]

:confused: What does Tom Woods have to do with paleo-libertarianism - let alone being a "bastion" of such?

I know that he has been critical of left- (or "thick") libertarianism, but that does not make one "paleo" ...

undergroundrr
08-13-2016, 08:39 AM
In my opinion, the real divide in libertarianism is not anarchism versus minarchism, but rather paleolibertarianism versus leftist-libertarianism.

Paleolibertarianism might be on life support in the US (unfortunately Lew Rockwell has abondoned this label, though he and Tom Woods are arguably two of the last bations of paleolibertarianism in the US), but it's thriving in places like Poland (Partia KORWiN, Janusz Korwin Mikke) and Czech Republic (Svobodni). Hopefully, America will move in the direction of Hans Herman Hoppe rather than the "new and improved" Jeffrey Tucker.

It seems there will always be a divide in libertarianism that adherents see as utterly polarizing.

The left-libertarians are thoughtfully critical and maybe snarky about areas of paleo doctrine with which they differ. Paleos just tend to tell anybody they perceive as being tainted by the left to eat lead. Regardless, as a result there's no coherent liberty movement and probably can never be. At this point, I'm very frustrated with the FOAD aspect of paleo-libertarianism, although I adhere more to its precepts. I remember back when Lew Rockwell used to have thoughtful discussions with Naomi Wolf and Glenn Greenwald.

r3volution 3.0
08-19-2016, 10:59 PM
Half the liberty movement dumped Rand before the first vote was cast because they hate Mexicans and love protectionism...

Half the movement's public figures did the same...

White nationalists have totally infiltrated the online libertarian community...

They troll us daily on RPF, which is now a de facto Trump fan site...

...but it's Gary Johnson and the left-libertarians who are damaging the liberty movement.

:rolleyes:

RJ Liberty
08-19-2016, 11:15 PM
Half the liberty movement dumped Rand before the first vote was cast because they hate Mexicans and love protectionism...

Half the movement's public figures did the same...

White nationalists have totally infiltrated the online libertarian community...

They troll us daily on RPF, which is now a de facto Trump fan site...

...but it's Gary Johnson and the left-libertarians who are damaging the liberty movement.

:rolleyes:

Yep. How quickly people forget. The wise Ron Paul warned us against voting for candidates who propose building walls (https://mises.org/blog/ron-paul-sums-his-anti-wall-anti-mass-deportation-views-immigration).


Ron Paul: How practical do you think this would be to round up 15 million people without any consideration for due process?


Daniel McAdams: You’d essentially need a police state because you’d practically have to be going to go door to door almost, because they don’t keep track of these people.


Ron Paul: I think it’s impossible.


Daniel McAdams: When we worked on immigration in your office, you were generally friendly with people who wanted some controls on the border. But we ran into terrible troubles with the extreme on [the conservative] side which wanted an authoritarian state here. They wanted "E-Verify" which means every American would have to prove he has a right to work in his own country. And then there's the wall they want.


Ron Paul: You’ll need a really efficient wall and a coast guard that goes up and down the coast blowing boats out of the water…The idea of building walls around the country, I think it’s a joke. I could never take a position that we need more barbed wire to solve this problem.

Natural Citizen
08-19-2016, 11:24 PM
Half the liberty movement dumped Rand before the first vote was cast because they hate Mexicans and love protectionism...

Half the movement's public figures did the same...

White nationalists have totally infiltrated the online libertarian community...

They troll us daily on RPF, which is now a de facto Trump fan site...

...but it's Gary Johnson and the left-libertarians who are damaging the liberty movement.

:rolleyes:

Absolutely, it's Gary Johnson and the left-libertarians who are damaging the liberty movement. They're the only ones organizing against its fundamental principles in its name. Never in a million years did I ever think that we'd see people who call themselves liberty lovers actively organizing for a leader who said that it would be his contention to send men from the government with guns to force Individuals to relinquish their right to property (Individual Liberty's principal support, btw) under the banner of "Liberty", no less. Never in a million years did I ever think we'd have libert lovers organizing for a leader who's open claim is that he'd consider dsigning off on a patently illegal transfer of power from the people to the President solely. But here we are. Hollllyyyy sht. Used to be Liberty meant just the opposite until the Johnson leftists chimed in. No the leftists within it are trying to redifine to a more culturally Marxist (and in some cases, patently communist) set of principles.

How's your Monarchy is the best form of government thread going, btw? Have you managed to sell the idea of Kings and servitude to anyone yet around here yet? Heh. I actually thought about you when I added that first quote in my sig line today.

r3volution 3.0
08-19-2016, 11:37 PM
In order to co-opt a movement, one must discredit its founders; make the movement rootless so that its stated goals ("liberty") can be subtly redefined in such a way that they eventually come to mean the exact opposite of what they originally meant, without anyone noticing the change. Ron's legacy is an obstacle to the white nationalists currently co-opting the liberty movement. Rand they've openly slandered, labelled a "cuck," insulted as a loser, and already effectively marginalized. Doing the same to Ron is much more difficult; they have to tip-toe around the issue, since Ron's still extraordinarily beloved as a personality even by those who have totally rejected (or more likely never really understood) his ideology. So, instead of attacking him directly, they just slowly remove him from the conversation, start implying that he's no longer relevant, that his was the old liberty, but times have changed and now we need a new liberty, etc. Given enough time, people will forget why they loved Ron and he too will become an object of ridicule. And then they'll have won and the liberty movement as we know it will end.

I'm not saying that's what will happen, but it's been heading that way for quite some time.

On the bright side, Trump's impending defeat should knock them down a peg or two.

Natural Citizen
08-19-2016, 11:42 PM
In order to co-opt a movement, one must discredit its founders; make the movement rootless so that its stated goals ("liberty") can be subtly redefined in such a way that they eventually come to mean the exact opposite of what they originally meant, without anyone noticing the change.

Which is exactly what Johnsons positions do. Thank You.

Johnsons openly admitted contention is one that patently rejects the concept of Individual fully because it's an open rejectin of Individual Liberty's principal support for the right to Life and Liberty itself. Actyually, it's a patently communist principle. Buy, hey, who's counting, right? Yaaaaaaay http://hyves-smileys.immerblei.com/img/smiley_sortof.gifLiberty http://hyves-smileys.immerblei.com/img/smiley_sortof.gif.

r3volution 3.0
08-19-2016, 11:48 PM
This whole threads calls to mind the old dictum:

Deny Everything, Admit Nothing, Make Counter-Accusations

Natural Citizen
08-19-2016, 11:56 PM
This whole threads calls to mind the old dictum


I refer to it as calling a spade a spade. Saves time.

ThePaleoLibertarian
08-20-2016, 12:43 AM
The liberty movement doesn't need to be co-opted by anyone; it was never politically effective in the first place. Libertarians have a chronic misunderstanding of democracy and have no idea how to sell libertarianism or how to manipulate the masses (and yes, that is necessary in a demotic state). I've seen so many libertarians who talk about the necessity of having good arguments and convincing people through evidence and logic. That's fine in a formal debate but completely useless in politics.

Libertarianism needs a heavy dose of realpolitik, but the lessons from Rand's 2016 run have yet to sink in. Maybe they never will.

Natural Citizen
08-20-2016, 01:18 AM
We need the principles and moral foundation in tact. I dont give a damn about mainstream politics. Policy doesn't define Liberty anyway. Fundamental principles do. And that's what is primarily at the receiving end of aggression. And (L)ibertarians making libertarianism political fodder is exactly how it's happening.

The Rebel Poet
08-20-2016, 06:07 AM
In order to co-opt a movement, one must discredit its founders; make the movement rootless so that its stated goals ("liberty") can be subtly redefined in such a way that they eventually come to mean the exact opposite of what they originally meant, without anyone noticing the change. Ron's legacy is an obstacle to the white nationalists currently co-opting the liberty movement. Rand they've openly slandered, labelled a "cuck," insulted as a loser, and already effectively marginalized. Doing the same to Ron is much more difficult; they have to tip-toe around the issue, since Ron's still extraordinarily beloved as a personality even by those who have totally rejected (or more likely never really understood) his ideology. So, instead of attacking him directly, they just slowly remove him from the conversation, start implying that he's no longer relevant, that his was the old liberty, but times have changed and now we need a new liberty, etc. Given enough time, people will forget why they loved Ron and he too will become an object of ridicule. And then they'll have won and the liberty movement as we know it will end.

I'm not saying that's what will happen, but it's been heading that way for quite some time.

On the bright side, Trump's impending defeat should knock them down a peg or two.
Well said. But I must spread some around.

presence
08-20-2016, 08:05 AM
I think its unfortunate that the term "left libertarian" is being used to describe pro pot, pro civil rights "johnsonism".

The classical left/right divide in libertarian economic theory is over whether property depends upon "life title" (Mises/Hayek ancap-propertarian) or "occupancy and use" (Proudhan/Tucker individualism-mutualism).

To me the distinction between what is private and what is common-usafruct is a much more sublime and noteworthy element of libertarian theory.

r3volution 3.0
08-20-2016, 12:58 PM
Libertarians have a chronic misunderstanding of democracy and have no idea how to sell libertarianism or how to manipulate the masses (and yes, that is necessary in a demotic state). I've seen so many libertarians who talk about the necessity of having good arguments and convincing people through evidence and logic. That's fine in a formal debate but completely useless in politics.

That's very true, but I hope you're not implying that Trump's candidacy is the model for libertarian realpolitik.

He's manipulating the masses, to be sure, but not for the purpose of advancing liberty.

We don't need any old demagogue, we need a libertarian demagogue.

P3ter_Griffin
08-20-2016, 04:17 PM
Which is exactly what Johnsons positions do. Thank You.

Johnsons openly admitted contention is one that patently rejects the concept of Individual fully because it's an open rejectin of Individual Liberty's principal support for the right to Life and Liberty itself. Actyually, it's a patently communist principle. Buy, hey, who's counting, right? Yaaaaaaay http://hyves-smileys.immerblei.com/img/smiley_sortof.gifLiberty http://hyves-smileys.immerblei.com/img/smiley_sortof.gif.

'You must spread more rep before you can -rep NC again.'

Natural Citizen
08-20-2016, 04:19 PM
'You must spread more rep before you can -rep NC again.'

That's okay. I gots way more ammo than you do. Way more. I'll just neg you back. Heh. Besides, I probably get about a dozen plus reps for every one of you loons' negs on a single post. True story.

I can drop your rep bar like a mofo, homeboy. And in no time at all. And even if your boys try to recover your rep, they still won't overcome the power of my neg. So think things through. Either way, it won't affect my day in any way. :)

Thing is, man, that people who go looking for fights are rarely ever as dangerous as those who are actually ready for one. So think about that. It's good advice.

But if you want a rep battle, I'll have one with you. It'll be a hoot.

P3ter_Griffin
08-20-2016, 04:29 PM
That's okay. I gots way more ammo than you do. Way more. I'll just neg you back. Heh. Besides, I probably get about a dozen plus reps for every one of you loons' negs on a single post. True story.

I can drop your rep bar like a mofo, homeboy. And in no time at all. So think things through. Either way, it won't affect my day in any way. :)

<--- Gives no fucks. What r3v said was absolute truth. The question I am trying to figure out is whether you are intentionally part of the group trying to undermine Ron or if you're just to ------ to realize what is going on.

Natural Citizen
08-20-2016, 04:33 PM
<--- Gives no $#@!s. What r3v said was absolute truth. The question I am trying to figure out is whether you are intentionally part of the group trying to undermine Ron or if you're just to ------ to realize what is going on.

Rev's a Monarchist. He openly organizes for the concept of Kings and servitude. This is patently anti-Individual Liberty. And he openly rejects The Natural Law that is Individual Liberty's foundation for moral code and establishes its fundamental principles for proper Man-to-Man/Government-to-Man relations.



http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6291049#post6291049)


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by misterx http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6285827#post6285827)

our rights are not derived from God...



I agree




Monarchy Is the Best Form of Government (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?475690-Monarchy-Is-the-Best-Form-of-Government&p=5883130&viewfull=1#post5883130) - r3volution 3.0

Fuck r3volution 3.0 and the stalking horse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking_horse)he rode in on. And I'll tell him that to his face.


The first quote in my sig-line is good reading. It's good reading because it's patently true.



Also. Since you had the stones to mention the statesman...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYF7aRGtNcg


I'm not even going to bother posting a video of Ron's thoughts on private property being the principal support for Life and Liberty.


End of the day. I'm rather confident that Me and Ron are precisely on the same page.

undergroundrr
08-20-2016, 05:01 PM
Rev's a Monarchist.

Apparently you haven't read Hoppe. Hoppe is a GREAT libertarian thinker.

Natural Citizen
08-20-2016, 05:38 PM
Apparently you haven't read Hoppe. Hoppe is a GREAT libertarian thinker.

Ha. Please. I'm likely far more read than you may imagine, my friend.

Ancap form of government would be the most dangerous, tyrannical, oppressive form of government Man has ever seen.

Natural Citizen
08-20-2016, 05:58 PM
Anarcho-Monarchism. Heh. Now there's a word. Anyone want to pick it apart? :)

P3ter_Griffin
08-20-2016, 06:37 PM
Rev's a Monarchist. He openly organizes for the concept of Kings and servitude. This is patently anti-Individual Liberty. And he openly rejects The Natural Law that is Individual Liberty's foundation for moral code and establishes its fundamental principles for proper Man-to-Man/Government-to-Man relations.





Monarchy Is the Best Form of Government (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?475690-Monarchy-Is-the-Best-Form-of-Government&p=5883130&viewfull=1#post5883130) - r3volution 3.0

Fuck r3volution 3.0 and the stalking horse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking_horse)he rode in on. And I'll tell him that to his face.


The first quote in my sig-line is good reading. It's good reading because it's patently true.



Also. Since you had the stones to mention the statesman...


I'm not even going to bother posting a video of Ron's thoughts on private property being the principal support for Life and Liberty.


End of the day. I'm rather confident that Me and Ron are precisely on the same page.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhOKXT7D6oc

If your time is short skip to 1min45sec.

P3ter_Griffin
08-21-2016, 03:44 AM
Rev's a Monarchist. He openly organizes for the concept of Kings and servitude. This is patently anti-Individual Liberty. And he openly rejects The Natural Law that is Individual Liberty's foundation for moral code and establishes its fundamental principles for proper Man-to-Man/Government-to-Man relations.


Monarchy Is the Best Form of Government (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?475690-Monarchy-Is-the-Best-Form-of-Government&p=5883130&viewfull=1#post5883130) - r3volution 3.0

Fuck r3volution 3.0 and the stalking horse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking_horse)he rode in on. And I'll tell him that to his face.



Ha. Please. I'm likely far more read than you may imagine, my friend.

Ancap form of government would be the most dangerous, tyrannical, oppressive form of government Man has ever seen.

You and r3v agree on this.

You have not answered the question directly, but when asked 'if you agree with coercive taxation' you quoted a George Washington speech/letter stating that when an individual chooses to live within a society he gives up full control of some rights (assuming by me to mean full control over his wages). You both agree here as well. I disagree with you both.

You think that a constitutional republic will promote maximum liberty, and r3v thinks monarchy will promote maximum liberty. I think you are both framing the question entirely wrong.

As far as the principles of liberty, you are both in agreement. R3v does not believe rights come from God, but this amounts to the Spooner discussion. If everyone abided by either your perception of individual liberty or r3v's perception of individual liberty it would result in the same 'man to man' and 'government to man' relations you champion for.

I've been in the clouds a bit lately looking at the bigger picture and not focusing on the now. But after looking into Trump and his compatriot's comments and dealings with FP and then taking a refresher on what Clinton is offering FP wise, it is quite apparent that if the loss of life concerns you, getting GJ elected is important. If Caslte was in a position where he could possibly be elected it would be worth looking into him. But he is not, and so I wont. And now this may sound 'single-issue' just like the 'cake-bakers'. First, it is not, and second, an individual's life is the most important aspect of liberty. Without it the individual has no ability to posses anything, property rights and being forced to bake cakes is of no concern to the dead man. And as to why Gary is not a single issue candidate, of the three who are worthy of considering, he offers the greatest economic and personal liberties(with the understanding these are one-in-the-same).

Here we are, 15 years into a war blitz, 13 years into foreign policy decision to shake up the middle east-- and the world in doing so-- and we are discussing whether or not to support an individual that wishes to end this, because he believes a business should be forced to serve any customer with the funds to pay for his desired goods-- because his understanding of liberty is unpure. I must ask you, how important are the lives of the individuals who are on the receiving end of our FP to you?

RandallFan
08-23-2016, 02:06 AM
maybe the right-libertarians shouldn't have been polishing trumps knob during the entire campaign cycle.

Trump only dates queens like Melania & Ivana & Marla Maples. He's not a Jeb or an Arnold who'll hump anything. He's not letting Joe Blow.

osan
08-23-2016, 10:10 AM
How did the movement get to this point?

The desperate terminal cancer patient will shell out to the snake-oil salesman who is sufficiently brazen to put up and maintain that convincing front of authoritative knowledge that his poisons will remove those metastases, all for the low low KMart price of...

So it is even with many men who claim to want freedom. Just as that cancer patient does not want to face the reality of their malady, the less-than libertarian (LTL) doesn't want to face the less appealing aspects of freedom's price structure. They are thereby ripe for the picking by the snake oiler who shows the brass to tell them authoritatively that they can be free without paying that little snippet of the price. We could call it "discounted freedom". The LTL allows himself to be fooled into believing he can have full-monty freedom at a discounted price. This is like buying that beautiful Pagani Huayra at 50% off, not realizing that that price one does not include an engine.

http://storage.pagani.com/crop/1228/525/2010-12-11-Pagani-03-049DEFDEF-4.jpg

This is the perennial problem of the average man. He wants what he wants and will cling like a starving child to it dead mother's breast unto his own destruction for the sake of getting that which he wants. Because they are not possessed of themselves, but are rather owned by their desires, they become easy targets for the snake oilers.

I once had to laugh at the nonsense that I found the Unitarian Universalist "faith" to be. They are one of the acmes of pandering to mens' desire to have it all their way - freedom, big tits, and great squirting penises all for free. "We dare not fence the spirit". Well then alrighty, I think I'll go right over there and rape that little boy who's looking so invitingly cute.

People feverishly tend to seek comfort, whatever that may be for them - and the range is remarkably broad. They will sell their daughters into whorehouses for the sake of having that which they desire and ANYONE with the balls to stand up and tell them that they can have it will become as God to those timid, grasping men who are willing to debase and demean themselves to nearly any degree and in any manner conceivable in exchange for nothing more than the mere hint of a vaguely stated almost-promise of something they think they want.

That is at least partly why some faction of the liberty movement was able to be co-opted and transmuted into a bowel movement .

Freedom is great, but not unlike a Huayra, it is expensive as all hell, challenging to drive at times, and potentially very dangerous. However, unlike the Huayra whose nature cannot be disputed by any but perhaps the most willfully stupid, men will attribute all manner of confabulated nonsense to freedom in their relentless pursuit to rationalize their beliefs that one can be free at no cost. Anything for the sake of getting something for nothing.

As we can see, it's not just the degenerates in the ghettoes with this problem. Many of them live in McMansions on Skyline Drive.

osan
08-23-2016, 10:19 AM
maybe the right-libertarians shouldn't have been polishing trumps knob during the entire campaign cycle.

Right-libertarian... left-libertarian... daft-libertarian...

These labels are dangerous.

IMO one is either a libertarian in accord with a firm and unyielding definition of the term, or he is something else. It is my opinion that those who call themselves x-libertarian should be challenged at every opportunity and exposed as the charlatans they are.

Words are important.

osan
08-23-2016, 10:21 AM
How close is too close?:confused:

Lets just say you don't want me humping your leg like a dog.

undergroundrr
08-23-2016, 10:23 AM
Here we are, 15 years into a war blitz, 13 years into foreign policy decision to shake up the middle east-- and the world in doing so-- and we are discussing whether or not to support an individual that wishes to end this, because he believes a business should be forced to serve any customer with the funds to pay for his desired goods-- because his understanding of liberty is unpure. I must ask you, how important are the lives of the individuals who are on the receiving end of our FP to you?

Precisely.

+rep

timosman
08-23-2016, 10:40 AM
Precisely.

+rep

Let us not kid ourselves.