by Bengera » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:01 am
by Galloism » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:08 am
by The Black Forrest » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:10 am
by Whittoria » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:12 am
Did Ron Paul just win?
by Oterro » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:13 am
by Galloism » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:14 am
by New Conglomerate » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:14 am
by Augarundus » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:14 am
by Ile Normaine » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:15 am
Galloism wrote:Do we normally ransack homes in Germany?
by Ile Normaine » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:16 am
Augarundus wrote:Is this an official Ron Paul ad? I know it's based off of his very eloquent "imagine" speech....
Ron Paul is an admirable candidate (and sometimes a very eloquent one); I'm shocked that some of his supporters are intelligent. They stand out in the political puppet-show of elections in the US.
But Ron Paul will be (and already is) subject to ludicrous criticisms by the media (which, at least, is better than being outright ignored). In office, he will face widespread, bipartisan opposition (the Republicans will fight his anti-war policies, the Democrats will fight his economic liberalization, and everyone will defend the fed). The ecosystem of parasites dependent on the state will riot against any small policy he chooses to enact; he will have literally no political capital in office.
For libertarians, engaging the state is a hopeless pursuit...
by Augarundus » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:19 am
New Conglomerate wrote:Wow. He even lied in the video. Obama never promised to bring all of our troops home. Just that he would end the Iraq War.
Well done ad, though. I must admit that.
by The Floridian Coast » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:19 am
by Bengera » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:20 am
New Conglomerate wrote:Wow. He even lied in the video. Obama never promised to bring all of our troops home. Just that he would end the Iraq War.
by Augarundus » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:22 am
Ile Normaine wrote:Then there is no point in living in America. At all.
Before we start talking about how to achieve a stateless society, I think that it is important to spend some time talking about how not to achieve a stateless society. For the past several hundred years – really since the late 18th century – intellectuals, priests, philosophers, academics and activists of every stripe and hue have been striving with all their considerable intellectual and moral might to place theoretical and practical limits upon the power of the state. The original American experiment was at least intellectually founded upon the ideal of creating a government by and for the people, with the express knowledge that the state was a dangerous servant and a terrible master. It is hard to think of other examples in history where so many checks and balances were placed upon centralized political power – and it is also impossible to think of a more dangerous and powerful government than the modern American leviathan. The abysmal failure of such a noble experiment should give all moralists pause. If the smallest possible government has grown into the largest conceivable government – within a few hundred years – it is hard to imagine what kind of theoretical system could conceivably control state growth in the future. [Political action] This approach takes as its fundamental axiom the idea that if the general citizens were educated enough, and motivated enough, and insistent enough, then the natural democratic process would shrink the size and power of the state. Candidates such as Ron Paul would gain enough of a popular mandate to stride into Washington, wrestle the entrenched special interest groups, flush out the sewage of accumulated corruption, and take back the government for the people! To this end, libertarians of all persuasions have either directly participated in or supported the pursuit of political action, usually from a grassroots level. The political process is considered either to be a practical way of gaining – and thus diminishing – political power, or at the very least a “bully pulpit” from which to communicate to a wider audience the libertarian ideals of small government. It hardly seems premature to compare the goals of libertarianism to its actual achievements. This scarcely violates the basic principles of libertarianism, as it claims to be a logical and empirical approach to determining truth and value in the world. One of the central libertarian arguments against statist solutions is that they promise endless benefits, but deliver endless disasters. “Look at the welfare state!” libertarians pontificate. “It promised to reduce poverty, but since it has been instituted, poverty has only gotten worse!” Similarly, libertarians say, governments claim to protect their citizens, while in fact continually attacking their persons and property. Thus libertarianism rejects theoretical proclamations in favor of tangible, real world empirical evidence. […]Free market economists constantly tell us that people respond to incentives. Whatever you subsidize increases – and whatever you tax decreases. Libertarians also tell us that statist bureaucracies will never solve the problems they are created to solve, because if the welfare state were to actually eliminate poverty, it would have to disband, throwing everyone within it out of work. It is to the advantage of the welfare state, libertarians and economists tell us, to actually increase the numbers of poor people, since that results in increased funding for anti-poverty programs.5 It is interesting to note that these esteemed thinkers do not say that everyone except libertarians responds to incentives – thus we can reasonably assume that libertarian organizations are subject to the same economic principles as every other group. If the funding of libertarian groups increases as the size of the state increases, then we can reasonably assume that those who run libertarian groups are actually being paid to increase the size of the state – just as the heads of welfare agencies are paid to increase the numbers of the poor. I understand and accept that these are not conscious motives – any more than some welfare czar wakes up every morning, rubs his well-oiled moustache and giggles with glee at the reality that creating more poor people expands his political empire. It is not through the malevolence or bad intent of any particular individuals that such things come to pass, but rather it is an inevitable law of economics, since people respond to incentives. I do not speak theoretically here – without a doubt, the largest political campaign in libertarian history was the Ron Paul candidacy, which raised over $20 million, at a time when the growth of state power was considered the most dangerous. As the size and power of the state grows, so does the money and attention rolling into libertarianism. Perhaps you feel that this charge is unreasonable, or even shocking? Perhaps. However, there is a simple empirical test. Libertarians would be able to easily destroy any charge of corruption by simply and honestly reviewing and examining their catastrophic failures over the past few decades – let alone the past few centuries. Sadly, however, such self-criticism and self-examination is not only not part of the movement – it is actively avoided and attacked if it ever dares to raise its head. If libertarians genuinely believe that they themselves are immune to financial incentives, then they are saying that they are excluded from a founding principle of economics. If libertarians can pursue their primary goal in opposition to economic incentives, then surely this would be possible for statist bureaucracies as well. If those who inhabit statist bureaucracies always follow their economic incentives, then surely that same law must apply to libertarians as well. When an organization consistently achieves the exact opposite of its stated goals, refuses to examine or change its strategy, continually takes in more money the worse things get, and attacks anyone who questions its fundamental approaches, then by any reasonable standard that organization has become irredeemably corrupt, and must be abandoned by the sane and rational – or at least those to whom the reduction of state power is a real goal, and not just a bait for income.
Deep down, everybody knows that what is called “society” is little more than a series of violent mythologies designed to keep the powers that be aloft. Biologically, people are designed for conformity with the group rather than integrity to the truth, since conformity encouraged survival, and integrity mostly got you killed. When you ask a man to admit the violence and mythology of what he calls “morality,” it is not the rulers who primarily make him afraid, but rather it is his peer social group – his friends, acquaintances, work colleagues and family. I say this based on 25 years of experience – I am sure you have had exactly the same experience – which is that I have been arguing for voluntarism and freedom for decades, and have never once been attacked, sanctioned or even goosed by state agents. No, it is always and forever only my fellow citizens who attack the truth – who attack me, rather, since the truth cannot be “attacked,” but only accepted or disproved. When I posed a series of rational and empirical questions and criticisms of the efficacy of the Ron Paul campaign, I was not audited by the IRS or cornered by men in black. Rather, it was the libertarian community and the Ron Paul supporters who turned against me. Everyone knows that when you begin to question the philosophical and moral assumptions – often unconscious, to be sure, but even more dangerous because of that – of your peer social group, they will turn on you most savagely. Every Christian knows that if he begins to persistently question the existence of God, he will be rapidly ejected from his supposedlyloving peer group. And he also knows, deep down, that he will be ejected not because he is wrong, but rather because he is right.Meletus decided to attack Socrates, rather than any of the other thousands of Sophists infesting the culture of ancient Greece – because Socrates was right – not necessarily in all his conclusions, since no one achieves that, but rather in his fluid, empirical and rational methodology for approaching the truth. Everyone knows that what they consider necessary conformity is actually just enslavement to error. Everyone knows that it is not the state that keeps us in chains; we keep each other in chains. The state merely profits from our willingness – eagerness even – to attack each other. It is far cheaper to keep slaves when the slaves eagerly police themselves. Religion is fundamentally not a belief in an invisible God, but the fear of attack by the peer group. Statism is fundamentally not the belief that the government is virtuous, but the fear of attack by the peer group if one dares to say otherwise. Libertarianism is fundamentally not the belief that political action, religious affiliation and academic education will bring freedom, but rather the fear of attack by the libertarian peer group if one dares to question these axioms.
by Free Soviets » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:22 am
by Augarundus » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:24 am
by Xanixi » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:27 am
Most Astounding FactDr. Carl Sagan wrote:“They say astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.”
#AupaAtleti #ContigoHastaElFinal
American and Spanish
by The Soviet Technocracy » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:32 am
Bengera wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY&feature=player_embedded#!
Amazingly thought provoking ad. I just think it needs to be turned down a few thousand notches. He brings up some excellent points though.
by Augarundus » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:40 am
Xanixi wrote:Except, Ron, our military bases are either fighting threats to OUR SOIL, or were invited BY THE HOST NATION. Not to mention that I don't see US troops ransacking Spanish, English, Russian, Chinese, Canadian, or other foreign nation's houses, and killing their inhabitants. Iraq and Afghanistan are wars against people who dress like the civilians living there. I'm not saying that justifies the civilian casualties, but it justifies us having to search houses and villages.
Xanixi wrote:E
Obama found Osama, eliminated him, and calls for the withdrawal of all US troops in Iraq by September of this year.
How fast do you think you can withdraw troops, Ron? We're fighting a war, not just having them stationed there.
by Ragnarsdomr » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:43 am
Conservative Morality wrote:By accepting yourself and who you are. Accept violence. Accept aggression. Accept dominance. Not as a man, but as a human. Accept conflict, and find a place for it in life. Neither deny nor revel in it. Revel in one thing and one thing only: humanity. What higher goal is there, after all? Embrace who you are, what you are, and what you can be. Throw off the shackles of shame, refuse self-loathing, refuse misandry, refuse misogyny, refuse misanthropy, instead, love what you are. Love mankind, love man and woman, and love yourself.
by Augarundus » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:44 am
Ragnarsdomr wrote:Excellent, he still thinks China is the bigger threat. The Canadian disinformation campaign continues its devilish work...
by Kvatchdom » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:46 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Al-Haqiqah, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Glorious Freedonia, Hrstrovokia, Ifreann, Likhinia, Novarisiya, Plan Neonie, Roostaria, Sarduri, Sarolandia, Satakha, Shrillland, Valrifall, Washington Resistance Army
Advertisement