Part of the Problem

[RonPaulFanInGA]

h ttp://randpaul.blogspot.com/2009/10/ahhh-republican-neocon-propagandarand.html

I don't know who owns this blog, but why in the hell he/she thinks it's a good idea to openly link and help that anti-Rand abortion nut blog is beyond me. And asking people to visit to boot (please don't visit that Graas blog.)

Also, "neocon" is a term that probably shouldn't be used if trying to convince Kentucky republicans.

[LibertyEagle]

Could you see a way to send him/her an email, because I sure couldn't?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Could you see a way to send him/her an email, because I sure couldn't?

Nope. Hopefully he/she reads this and will correct it.

Ask people to report that Graas blog as spam to Google, not visit her site and comment. That is the surest way to keep her on Google News and won't change anything because she just won't approve your comment if she doesn't like it.

[rprprs]

I'm gonna take this one step further.

I'm not only going to suggest that the link be removed, but rather the entire blog be taken down. Most of the articles posted contain back-handed criticisms of Rand's candidacy or, at the very least, question its viability.

Maybe I'm just too much of a cynic, but I am VERY suspicious of this blog.

[skyorbit]

He's a facebook friend of mine.

I e-mailed him already and told him to stop. Giving her hits and linking to it only makes it more likely she ends up at the top of google.

Tracy

h ttp://randpaul.blogspot.com/2009/10/ahhh-republican-neocon-propagandarand.html

I don't know who owns this blog, but why in the hell he/she thinks it's a good idea to openly link and help that anti-Rand abortion nut blog is beyond me. And asking people to visit to boot (please don't visit that Graas blog.)

Also, "neocon" is a term that probably shouldn't be used if trying to convince Kentucky republicans.

[skyorbit]

He's an anarchist/agorist, who supports Rand Paul -- but because he's a-political sort of sees the run as pointless.

[Ethek]

He's an anarchist/agorist, who supports Rand Paul -- but because he's a-political sort of sees the run as pointless.

Personal liberty is a plus for all. It might enlighten him to know that the founding fathers, based on thousands of years of world history saw the necessity of man to institute government to protect rights. The absence of government does not do one any favors except perhaps totalitarians. The government instituted must be very specifically chosen, our existing constitution was pretty close.

Lately, I have been wondering how to work with the 'anarchist' mind set. There are segments of society... pretty much everyone at one point in life that will thrive on 'chaos' of challenging a stagnant system, they see something wrong with or they are just plain old bored with the status quo. How does a framework become established to give everyone who is drawn to activism of any kind outlets for this 'activist churning' without compromising constitutionally protected individual rights for everyone else? Seems more or less a recipe for a Romp- a - room. Just thinking out loud.

[skyorbit]

Oh please. The Founders screwed up. I happen to be an anarchist myself.

I'm just not an anti-political as him.

I just think, perhaps he doesn't understand the Google rules is all.

[PubliUS_CorneliUS_TacitUS]

I think a lot of confusion comes into play when "anarchist" is defined as chaos. The theory of political anarchy, to the best of my ability, is that it reduces "government" to the individual and whatever voluntary associations that individual enters into wherein the individual transfers some power over themself to that association. However, unlike modern government any individual also has the right to voluntarily withdrawl from these associations.

I hope I got that right. (simplified version)

All of that said, I am not an anarchist by any definition.

[newbitech]

I think a lot of confusion comes into play when "anarchist" is defined as chaos. The theory of political anarchy, to the best of my ability, is that it reduces "government" to the individual and whatever voluntary associations that individual enters into wherein the individual transfers some power over themself to that association. However, unlike modern government any individual also has the right to voluntarily withdrawl from these associations.

I hope I got that right. (simplified version)

All of that said, I am not an anarchist by any definition.

not to sidetrack, but from my understanding chaos is at the root of any form of anarchism. This is because anarchist derive their sense of order from the principle of spontaneous order from chaos vis a vis voluntary association. I don't think there is anything wrong with that in and of itself, but the problem you described is something that anarchist brought upon themselves by labeling their ideology with such controversial terms. I think anarchist tend to focus too much on eliminating government completely rather than restoring liberty and freedom, which incidentally is also another key tenet of the philosophy.

As far as the blog itself, I think any pure anarchist should just go ahead and remain politically neutral and get involved by staying out of the way of politics. I believe blogs like this only hurt the chances of reigning in government and give pause to anyone considering taking a more balanced approach to activism.

[skyorbit]

It's the inherent order underlying chaotic systems. By chaotic in this scientific sense we simply mean "unpredictable" like the weather.

When you try to interfere in a chaotic system to try and "make it better" you actually end up making it worse.

Chaos theory is the basic for a lot of things nowadays "permaculture" for instance. In computer programing almost every web app from my understanding is a few simple codes, and then you see how they interact with each other and "emerge."

The Market economy too.

On a Macro level though choatic systems in this scientific mathematical definition of the word is actually much more orderly and resilient.

The root of anarchy just means NO - Archy. That's all.

It doesn't mean chaos.

The old individualist anarchist (like JRR Tolkien) had a symble with an A perfectly inside an O and it stood for "Anarchy is Order."

Anyway,

I don't care about that for now. Getting Rand in the Senate will help prevent further Archy so I'm for that.

TRacy

[newbitech]

It's the inherent order underlying chaotic systems. By chaotic in this scientific sense we simply mean "unpredictable" like the weather.

When you try to interfere in a chaotic system to try and "make it better" you actually end up making it worse.

Chaos theory is the basic for a lot of things nowadays "permaculture" for instance. In computer programing almost every web app from my understanding is a few simple codes, and then you see how they interact with each other and "emerge."

The Market economy too.

On a Macro level though choatic systems in this scientific mathematical definition of the word is actually much more orderly and resilient.

The root of anarchy just means NO - Archy. That's all.

It doesn't mean chaos.

The old individualist anarchist (like JRR Tolkien) had a symble with an A perfectly inside an O and it stood for "Anarchy is Order."

Anyway,

I don't care about that for now. Getting Rand in the Senate will help prevent further Archy so I'm for that.

TRacy

meh, there are indeed other threads for that topic. I thought it was interesting tho that it got brought up in this particular thread topic. Kind of telling in a sense.

But I agree, the philosophical discussion detracts from the goals of the thread, what matters is that people who support Rand understand that by linking up with anti-Rand sites, they are going to be making the anti-Rand stuff more popular.

[Ethek]

meh, there are indeed other threads for that topic. I thought it was interesting tho that it got brought up in this particular thread topic. Kind of telling in a sense.

But I agree, the philosophical discussion detracts from the goals of the thread, what matters is that people who support Rand understand that by linking up with anti-Rand sites, they are going to be making the anti-Rand stuff more popular.

Im with you on the point of the thread.

Not meaning to have stirred everything up I will finish out my thoughts on the 'anarchy' It does lend to hyperbole, exaggerations, and ad homonym attacks against Rand if a group of vocal supporters promote it right now. Attacks like that are a favorite of people who are so intertwined in the current system they can not see what the world would be like without current regulations.

Being sheltered by a nanny state that thinks for them, how much can you expect people like that to understand concepts behind no regulations at all? People asked to imagine less government, like a child asked to play without any previous exercise of imagination will simply sit there and wonder what they are supposed to do without some type of outside stimulation.

I will say my take that Government as a necessity is that people institute governments to do things they cannot necessarily do for themselves. If every individual could count on others not to institute government, which is force, then anarchy would be fine. I really don't see any system where a group would decide to leave others with resources they want or need alone. My way of understanding anarchy right now is that its a type of centralist utopia argument (like in a road to serfdom), only reaching a polar opposite conclusion for the same reasons.

The founders made a pretty good stab at a system.. The constitution itself was a procedural framework. It in no way elaborated on the intents and purposes behind the framework. People need to be informed, to understand, just the same as if the system was principled on anarchy.

The constitution was also incomplete in a lot of ways. Compromised from the start by the skirmishes between the federalist and the anti-federalist who promoted a powerful centralized government with gotchas like 'general welfare' and 'interstate commerce' I'm sure in a thread delving into anarchy this will be a stretch but I think our current system is not representational enough. www.thirty-thousand.org

[skyorbit]

Agreed.
Tracy