Is Lew Rockwell Harming The Liberty Movement With His Constant Use of Hyperbole?

[Vessol]

Yea, calling people evil just because they disagree with you politically is perfectly fine.

Paul Krugman is evil because of his morals which he uses to justify violence. Any initiation of force is violence. You don't think the initiation of force is evil?

Considering that Lew Rockwell is a market anarchist, I highly doubt he's labeling Krugman evil just because he disagrees with him.

Liberty is a ethical and philosophical stance not a political stance. That's what separates us from the moral relativist Statists.

[heavenlyboy34]

Spring, summer and fall of 2010 there was hardly a mention of Rand Paul on LewRockwell.com

That's all the explanation any clear thinking person needs.

WTF? That's a huge leap of logic there. Just because he doesn't do 24/7 coverage of a guy you're a fanboy for makes him "bad"?

ETA: I thought you didn't like "purity" tests.

[Zatch]

Paul Krugman is evil because of his morals which he uses to justify violence. Any initiation of force is violence. You don't think the initiation of force is evil?

Considering that Lew Rockwell is a market anarchist, I highly doubt he's labeling Krugman evil just because he disagrees with him.

Liberty is a ethical and philosophical stance not a political stance. That's what separates us from the moral relativist Statists.

By your definition everyone who isn't an anarchist is evil. Ron Paul is evil because he's not an anarchist.

[heavenlyboy34]

By your definition everyone who isn't an anarchist is evil. Ron Paul is evil because he's not an anarchist.

not exactly. RP doesn't agree with government aggression (yet). There are other positions than anarchists that are consistent with the Philosophy of Liberty (as described in the video). Voluntaryism, for one.

[jclay2]

Even though I love Alex Jones, I can understand people getting upset with him. But now Lew Rockwell? Cmon people, this is getting absurd.

[heavenlyboy34]

Paul Krugman is evil because of his morals which he uses to justify violence. Any initiation of force is violence. You don't think the initiation of force is evil?

Considering that Lew Rockwell is a market anarchist, I highly doubt he's labeling Krugman evil just because he disagrees with him.

Liberty is a ethical and philosophical stance not a political stance. That's what separates us from the moral relativist Statists.

+rep

[Vessol]

By your definition everyone who isn't an anarchist is evil. Ron Paul is evil because he's not an anarchist.

Ron Paul believes in the initiation of force? You don't have to be an anarchist to reject the initiation of force.

I'm not sure why so many here get so pissy about market anarchists, especially considering how many of Ron Paul's biggest influences are Mises and Rothbard(both of whom were market anarchists).

[Tal]

Even though I love Alex Jones, I can understand people getting upset with him. But now Lew Rockwell? Cmon people, this is getting absurd.

Yeah I agree, Lew Rockwell is a pussycat compared to Alex Jones.

[low preference guy]

I'm not sure why so many here get so pissy about market anarchists, especially considering how many of Ron Paul's biggest influences are Mises and Rothbard(both of whom were market anarchists).

Mises? What do you mean by market anarchist?

[South Park Fan]

Mises? What do you mean by market anarchist?

Not per se, though he advocated a democratic republic with the right to secession preserved.

[Vessol]

Mises? What do you mean by market anarchist?

While it could be argued that he was in favor of a most minimal government(defining property rights is about it), Mises would probably be a considered radical by many here who seem to take great offense of the anarchists here for whatever reason.

Market anarchist is simply that, the rejection of the State and the belief that the market is the best societal alternative. Anarcho-Capitalism is the same thing, though I prefer Market to Capitalism.

[low preference guy]

While it could be argued that he was in favor of a most minimal government(defining property rights is about it), Mises would probably be a considered radical by many here who seem to take great offense of the anarchists here for whatever reason.

Market anarchist is simply that, the rejection of the State and the belief that the market is the best societal alternative. Anarcho-Capitalism is the same thing, though I prefer Market to Capitalism.

This is a very confusing post. So market anarchism is the same thing as an anarcho-capitalist, and Mises was a market anarchist but not a anarcho-capitalist. Is that what you're saying?

[Vessol]

This is a very confusing post. So market anarchism is the same thing as an anarcho-capitalist, and Mises was a market anarchist but not a anarcho-capitalist. Is that what you're saying?

No, Market Anarchism and Anarcho-Capitalism are one and the same. I personally use Market Anarchism as it is free of the stigma that capitalism, a word coined by Marx, carries.
I think its a misnomer, capitalism. It comes off as amassing capital being the primary goal of the system. Market anarchism describes it much better IMO.

[low preference guy]

No, Market Anarchism and Anarcho-Capitalism are one and the same. I personally use Market Anarchism as it is free of the stigma that capitalism, a word coined by Marx, carries.
I think its a misnomer, capitalism. It comes off as amassing capital being the primary goal of the system. Market anarchism describes it much better IMO.

This guy doesn't sound like an anarchist to me:

Government as such is not only not an evil, but the most necessary and beneficial institution, as without it no lasting social cooperation and no civilization would be possible.

A shallow-minded school of social philosophers, the anarchists, chose to ignore the matter by suggesting a stateless organization of mankind. They simply passed over the fact that men are not angels. They were too dull to realize that in the short run an individual or a group of individuals can certainly further their own interests at the expense of their own and all other peoples’ long-run interests. A society that is not prepared to thwart the attacks of such asocial and short-sighted aggressors is helpless and at the mercy of its least intelligent and most brutal members. While Plato founded his utopia on the hope that a small group of perfectly wise and morally impeccable philosophers will be available for the supreme conduct of affairs, anarchists implied that all men without any exception will be endowed with perfect wisdom and moral impeccability. They failed to conceive that no system of social cooperation can remove the dilemma between a man’s or a group’s interests in the short run and those in the long run.

Link

[Vessol]

In my previous post I went back on my statement of Mises being a market anarchist. He accepted government on the level of defining property rights, but little else.

[low preference guy]

In my previous post I went back on my statement of Mises being a market anarchist. He accepted government on the level of defining property rights, but little else.

but so do people who call themselves advocates of small government. i think far fewer people would object to anything Mises said than Rothbard (except for Mises' defense of conscription).

[steph3n]

He's not hurting anything, I don't read his site, most people never heard of it, it doesn't really matter.

[Vessol]

but so do people who call themselves advocates of small government. i think far fewer people would object to anything Mises said than Rothbard (except for Mises' defense of conscription).

Ok, but we are diverging off the topic.

My main point in bringing up Mises and Rothbard, especially Rothbard, is the fact that so many here seem to hold much disdain for anarchists(like Lew). Especially when anarchism, like constitutionalism is a large part of this Liberty "movement".

[sailingaway]

He speaks for himself.

[low preference guy]

Ok, but we are diverging off the topic.

My main point in bringing up Mises and Rothbard, especially Rothbard, is the fact that so many here seem to hold much disdain for anarchists(like Lew). Especially when anarchism, like constitutionalism is a large part of this Liberty "movement".

I don't get how bringing somebody who was not an anarchist and explicitly criticized anarchism, and even criticized the specific section of Rothbard's magnus opus which advocated for anarchism strengthens your point.

[Vessol]

I don't get how bringing somebody who was not an anarchist and explicitly criticized anarchism, and even criticized the specific section of Rothbard's magnus opus which advocated for anarchism strengthens your point.

Why are you continuously attacking me for this? I retracted what I said. Pardon me if I make a simple mistake in attribution of political beliefs while tired.

[low preference guy]

Why are you continuously attacking me for this? I retracted what I said. Pardon me if I make a simple mistake in attribution of political beliefs while tired.

I didn't see your retraction. I thought you were still saying that Mises was an anarchist. Saying that I don't understand your point is not an attack.

[Vessol]

While it could be argued that he was in favor of a most minimal government(defining property rights is about it), Mises would probably be a considered radical by many here who seem to take great offense of the anarchists here for whatever reason.

^Retraction^ (Yes I'm aware I came off as haughty in that post)

Again, can we return to the topic at hand instead of nitpicking a misattribution on my part?

What's wrong with labeling someone evil if their acts are evil? I never took many here to be moral relativists.

[low preference guy]

I disagree with your retraction, I don't think most people here would consider Mises a radical, but since you are exasperated, I won't argue any more.

[Zatch]

Ok, but we are diverging off the topic.

My main point in bringing up Mises and Rothbard, especially Rothbard, is the fact that so many here seem to hold much disdain for anarchists(like Lew). Especially when anarchism, like constitutionalism is a large part of this Liberty "movement".

Quit trying to make this about anarchism. This is about Lew Rockwell's lack of tact.

[Andrew-Austin]

Even though I love Alex Jones, I can understand people getting upset with him. But now Lew Rockwell? Cmon people, this is getting absurd.

QFT.

Really, if we are to start a witch hunt of liberty-leaning people who turn others away from the message, alienate people, and make Paul 'look bad' by being vaguely associated with him, then the hunt clearly has to start with Alex. I mean Lew is very outspoken and very radical (pluses, to me personally), dude argues for things like the legalization of drunk driving, bashes cops and soldiers, etc etc. But I still don't think all that compares to what Alex Jones has said and the tone he has said it in.

I mean the best argument/point in this thread thus far in favor of chastising Lew, was Malkusm's example that because of the more radical content on the LRC, people like Levin are given ammunition to dishonestly snivel their way out of proper arguments. I mean really, was there even a chance in hell of Levin being honest, of him being interested in real discussion in the first place? Nah, I don't think so.

[Vessol]

I disagree with your retraction, I don't think most people here would consider Mises a radical, but since you are exasperated, I won't argue any more.

Fair enough.

Quit trying to make this about anarchism. This is about Lew Rockwell's lack of tact.

Lew is an anarchist though. And someone brought up that it's wrong to call someone evil just because you disagree with them politically. I brought up the fact that Lew does not only disagree with Krugman politically, but also ethically.

[low preference guy]

Krugman is a blood-sucking monster. I can't believe anyone here wants to defend him.

[Anti Federalist]

QFT.

Really, if we are to start a witch hunt of liberty-leaning people who turn others away from the message, alienate people, and make Paul look bad by being vaguely associated with him, then the hunt clearly has to start with Alex. I mean Lew is very outspoken and very radical (pluses IMO), dude argues for things like the legalization of drunk driving, bashes cops and soldiers, etc etc. But I still don't think all that compares to what Alex Jones has said and the tone he has said it in.

Eh, I don't recall Alex Jones ghostwriting vaguely racist newsletters and putting Ron's name on them.

(Yeah, I went there)

[low preference guy]

Eh, I don't recall Alex Jones ghostwriting vaguely racist newsletters and putting Ron's name on them.

(Yeah, I went there)

Lew denied he did it. What's your proof?