Robert Stempien Posted June 11, 2013 Posted June 11, 2013 Nice, I think Libertarians can use "running for office" as a way of educating people though, they shouldnt even try to get elected though.
Lowe D Posted June 11, 2013 Posted June 11, 2013 This might be astute, if most libertarians stood a chance of being elected.
Kirk Olson Posted June 14, 2013 Posted June 14, 2013 I have mixed feelings about the matter. On the one hand I feel that "running for office" is maybe the worst example you could set if you truly believe in the libertarian (NAP) principles. On the other hand it's a fact that over here in Europe it's Ron Paul, and only Ron Paul, that actually got some people start thinking about the evils of big government in general, and the necessity of governments in particular. Surely Molyneux, Rothbard, Block, Hoppe or any other devout anarchist are right in condemning him as a hypocrite, or worse, but at least people know who he is and they want to know more about this theory called "libertarianism". Is that a bad thing? We even have a Libertarian Party here in the Netherlands now. I didn't vote for them because of the reason stated above. Some of my friends did however and I somehow felt that at least that was a step in the right direction. (A small step though, they got about 4000 votes, out of a total of nearly 9.5 million votes casted :-)
Robert Stempien Posted June 14, 2013 Posted June 14, 2013 I have mixed feelings about the matter. On the one hand I feel that "running for office" is maybe the worst example you could set if you truly believe in the libertarian (NAP) principles. On the other hand it's a fact that over here in Europe it's Ron Paul, and only Ron Paul, that actually got some people start thinking about the evils of big government in general, and the necessity of governments in particular. Surely Molyneux, Rothbard, Block, Hoppe or any other devout anarchist are right in condemning him as a hypocrite, or worse, but at least people know who he is and they want to know more about this theory called "libertarianism". Is that a bad thing? We even have a Libertarian Party here in the Netherlands now. I didn't vote for them because of the reason stated above. Some of my friends did however and I somehow felt that at least that was a step in the right direction. (A small step though, they got about 4000 votes, out of a total of nearly 9.5 million votes casted :-) I don't think voting or running for office village the NAP, at least if u do it right, if u do like Ron Paul and run solely on the platform of shrinking the state and then in office make an attempt to only shrink the state and not raise it than that to me is not immoral, as well with voting I believe even as far back as Lysander Spooner it was defended as a form of self defense, to vote in someone who is going to screw u over the least, and really u have no idea what the politician u vote for is going to do, so I don't think voting for anyone could truly be considered aggression because of the disconnect between what u vote for and what happens, now if we were, god forbid, in a direct democracy were people get to vote on who to go to war with or what is made illegal than I think participating in a vote on whether or not to kill all blondes or even one blonde named jaine would be immoral if u vote yes to the aggressive activity because u are in effect becoming an accessory to the activity sense it would not happen without your vote, but moral if u vote no.
Kirk Olson Posted June 14, 2013 Posted June 14, 2013 ... I think participating in a vote on whether or not to kill all blondes or even one blonde named jaine would be immoral if u vote yes to the aggressive activity because u are in effect becoming an accessory to the activity sense it would not happen without your vote, but moral if u vote no. I fundamentally disagree with you on this point. By taking part in a vote on whether to kill all blondes (or kill any blonde, or initiate any kind of agression for that matter) you implicitly agree with the fact that killing blondes can be a matter that is settled by taking votes. It can't, it's murder.
Robert Stempien Posted June 14, 2013 Posted June 14, 2013 ... I think participating in a vote on whether or not to kill all blondes or even one blonde named jaine would be immoral if u vote yes to the aggressive activity because u are in effect becoming an accessory to the activity sense it would not happen without your vote, but moral if u vote no. I fundamentally disagree with you on this point. By taking part in a vote on whether to kill all blondes (or kill any blonde, or initiate any kind of agression for that matter) you implicitly agree with the fact that killing blondes can be a matter that is settled by taking votes. It can't, it's murder. not nessicarily, u would have to look at the situation, what if we live in a society where guns are completely illegal and the state is so big that it can effectively squash any resistance attempts, voting no on initiating force might be the only way a conserned group of people could stop such aggression from happening. and by participating in a statist election I'm not admitting that an election has the right to decide anything, I'm simply using the system I'm forced to live with to try and minimize its damage. that would be like saying sense I drive on a government road I consent to the government stealing from me and stealing land to build roads, I don't, but the road is there, I'm forced to pay for it, so I might as well use it
Kirk Olson Posted June 14, 2013 Posted June 14, 2013 not nessicarily, u would have to look at the situation, what if we live in a society where guns are completely illegal and the state is so big that it can effectively squash any resistance attempts I actually live in such a society. Although I have to admit our government rarely agressively "squashes" resistance attempts. Mainly because there hardly ever is one, mostly sheeple down here. , voting no on initiating force might be the only way a conserned group of people could stop such aggression from happening. and by participating in a statist election I'm not admitting that an election has the right to decide anything, I'm simply using the system I'm forced to live with to try and minimize its damage. I guess you would be somewhat right if you voted for changing the gun laws or for taking away the right of the government to "squash" resistance, since in those cases you would not be voting for the initiation of violence (as you would by voting for killing blondes). I still feel however that by participating in a statist election on these matters you give the wrong signal because, as I said before, you then implicitly agree these matters may be settled by taking votes. What if your side loses? Then you also lose all credibility to denounce the very matters you want to change. "Hey we gave you a chance to change it, but you lost, now shut up will you!" that would be like saying sense I drive on a government road I consent to the government stealing from me and stealing land to build roads, I don't, but the road is there, I'm forced to pay for it, so I might as well use it You have a point, I agree in this day of age it's impossible not to use at least some government facilities since they're so omnipresent. I do feel however we should actively try to minimize it, and never stop advocating free market solutions. But I'm sure that's something we DO agree on :-)
Robert Stempien Posted June 14, 2013 Posted June 14, 2013 not nessicarily, u would have to look at the situation, what if we live in a society where guns are completely illegal and the state is so big that it can effectively squash any resistance attempts I actually live in such a society. Although I have to admit our government rarely agressively "squashes" resistance attempts. Mainly because there hardly ever is one, mostly sheeple down here. , voting no on initiating force might be the only way a conserned group of people could stop such aggression from happening. and by participating in a statist election I'm not admitting that an election has the right to decide anything, I'm simply using the system I'm forced to live with to try and minimize its damage. I guess you would be somewhat right if you voted for changing the gun laws or for taking away the right of the government to "squash" resistance, since in those cases you would not be voting for the initiation of violence (as you would by voting for killing blondes). I still feel however that by participating in a statist election on these matters you give the wrong signal because, as I said before, you then implicitly agree these matters may be settled by taking votes. What if your side loses? Then you also lose all credibility to denounce the very matters you want to change. "Hey we gave you a chance to change it, but you lost, now shut up will you!" that would be like saying sense I drive on a government road I consent to the government stealing from me and stealing land to build roads, I don't, but the road is there, I'm forced to pay for it, so I might as well use it You have a point, I agree in this day of age it's impossible not to use at least some government facilities since they're so omnipresent. I do feel however we should actively try to minimize it, and never stop advocating free market solutions. But I'm sure that's something we DO agree on :-) its not really giving Implicent concent, its like if a thief points a gun at u and says "your wallet or your watch" your not concenting to being robbed by deciding to give him your cheap rollex nockoff as opposed to your wallet filled with lots of federal reserve notes. the thing with voting for people like Ron Paul is I can do that without breaking laws, all other ways of fighting the state involve things like agorism where u stop paying taxes and don't comply with state licensing and while I have absolutely no moral issues with doing either of those I don't want to deal with all the extra risk of the state kidnapping me for not following its rules, while voting is alot less effective way to fight the state I can at least do something without putting my own life and family at risk.
Kirk Olson Posted June 14, 2013 Posted June 14, 2013 its not really giving Implicent concent, its like if a thief points a gun at u and says "your wallet or your watch" your not concenting to being robbed by deciding to give him your cheap rollex nockoff as opposed to your wallet filled with lots of federal reserve notes. the thing with voting for people like Ron Paul is I can do that without breaking laws, all other ways of fighting the state involve things like agorism where u stop paying taxes and don't comply with state licensing and while I have absolutely no moral issues with doing either of those I don't want to deal with all the extra risk of the state kidnapping me for not following its rules, while voting is alot less effective way to fight the state I can at least do something without putting my own life and family at risk. You have more than that: your freedom of speech to proclaim the immorality of all the things you speak of. In the end I think only sound arguments can change peoples minds, not elections.
Robert Stempien Posted June 14, 2013 Posted June 14, 2013 its not really giving Implicent concent, its like if a thief points a gun at u and says "your wallet or your watch" your not concenting to being robbed by deciding to give him your cheap rollex nockoff as opposed to your wallet filled with lots of federal reserve notes. the thing with voting for people like Ron Paul is I can do that without breaking laws, all other ways of fighting the state involve things like agorism where u stop paying taxes and don't comply with state licensing and while I have absolutely no moral issues with doing either of those I don't want to deal with all the extra risk of the state kidnapping me for not following its rules, while voting is alot less effective way to fight the state I can at least do something without putting my own life and family at risk. You have more than that: your freedom of speech to proclaim the immorality of all the things you speak of. In the end I think only sound arguments can change peoples minds, not elections. iI do use my freedom of speech for that(I blog about my beliefs) and your probably right that in the end the state will be destroyed because everyone realizes its immoral, but its good to keep in mind other methods to lessen the power of the state, like agorism and voting. to be honest, I think we cannot possibly change the government from within at the federal level, elections mostly work the best at the state and local level but the feds r locked in. what a federal election ends up serving as is a way to educate people, it can really make people think when they ask who u r voting for and instead of saying what ever D & R is running u say "I'm going to vote for (insert lp candidate name here) the libertarian party candidate"
Kirk Olson Posted June 14, 2013 Posted June 14, 2013 I do use my freedom of speech for that(I blog about my beliefs) and your probably right that in the end the state will be destroyed because everyone realizes its immoral, but its good to keep in mind other methods to lessen the power of the state, like agorism and voting. to be honest, I think we cannot possibly change the government from within at the federal level, elections mostly work the best at the state and local level but the feds r locked in. what a federal election ends up serving as is a way to educate people, it can really make people think when they ask who u r voting for and instead of saying what ever D & R is running u say "I'm going to vote for (insert lp candidate name here) the libertarian party candidate" Well, like I said in my first post I have mixed feelings about it. I stated my objections in my other posts, but it's just a plain fact that hardly anyone down here has ever heard of Stefan Molyneux, or Murray Rothbard, or Hans Herman Hoppe, or even people like Milton Friedman or Ayn Rand for that matter. But they have heard of Ron Paul, and most of them do want to know more about what he stands for. I suppose that would not have been the case if he hadn't "run for office". I'm off to bed, nice talkin to ya, I'll visit your blog any day soon!
Robert Stempien Posted June 14, 2013 Posted June 14, 2013 I do use my freedom of speech for that(I blog about my beliefs) and your probably right that in the end the state will be destroyed because everyone realizes its immoral, but its good to keep in mind other methods to lessen the power of the state, like agorism and voting. to be honest, I think we cannot possibly change the government from within at the federal level, elections mostly work the best at the state and local level but the feds r locked in. what a federal election ends up serving as is a way to educate people, it can really make people think when they ask who u r voting for and instead of saying what ever D & R is running u say "I'm going to vote for (insert lp candidate name here) the libertarian party candidate" Well, like I said in my first post I have mixed feelings about it. I stated my objections in my other posts, but it's just a plain fact that hardly anyone down here has ever heard of Stefan Molyneux, or Murray Rothbard, or Hans Herman Hoppe, or even people like Milton Friedman or Ayn Rand for that matter. But they have heard of Ron Paul, and most of them do want to know more about what he stands for. I suppose that would not have been the case if he hadn't "run for office". I'm off to bed, nice talkin to ya, I'll visit your blog any day soon! nice talking to u too, hope u like my blog, and Ron Paul's legacy that he will be remembered for I think will be all of his education efforts, not any political success, politics was just his vehicle
Guest darkskyabove Posted June 14, 2013 Posted June 14, 2013 We've got three, and only three, choices. #1, Sit on our asses. #2. Vote for some goober. #3. Pick up an assault rifle (I recommend a FN-LAR, with attached infrared scope, and 40mm grenade launcher) and say, " F*** you". If more people would choose option #3, like the "original" Americans, the problem would be solved sooner than anyone might think. Bullies are COWARDS. The American government has become a bully. Therefore, they are cowards. And if the NSA is reading this: F*** you!!! Who died and made you king? If you can't even understand the US Constitution, then you are a tyrant. And we all should know what was said, a long time ago: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed, from time to time, by the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." (Thomas Jefferson) Why is this even being debated any longer? Why was Adam Kokesh "arrested" at a pot rally? Why is the media treating abuse of liberty with "kid gloves"? (As s if there's a consensus on freedom.) It's time to deal with the truth. It has been said, "If you're not with us, you're against us." What about, "If you're you're not with freedom, you're against freedom." There are no justifications, no excuses. Either you are for freedom, or against. The time to decide is running out. I would love to see the Feds come into Washington, and try to exert their tyrannical powers. It would be the last straw. Remember, our neighbor is Idaho. The most armed, and anti-government state; no matter how their goober's vote in Congress. Next to that is Montana, and Wyoming. I know people in all four states, and they will not stand idly by. There are a significant portion of American's who will not bow down and become slaves. Who is with them? "When people fear the government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is liberty." My apologies to all who hold some idealistic view of the NAP. I'm talking about defense against aggression, not the initiation. Don't quibble when your life is on the line. If you think your life is not on the line: good luck with that!
Robert Stempien Posted June 14, 2013 Posted June 14, 2013 We've got three, and only three, choices. #1, Sit on our asses. #2. Vote for some goober. #3. Pick up an assault rifle (I recommend a FN-LAR, with attached infrared scope, and 40mm grenade launcher) and say, " F*** you". If more people would choose option #3, like the "original" Americans, the problem would be solved sooner than anyone might think. Bullies are COWARDS. The American government has become a bully. Therefore, they are cowards. And if the NSA is reading this: F*** you!!! Who died and made you king? If you can't even understand the US Constitution, then you are a tyrant. And we all should know what was said, a long time ago: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed, from time to time, by the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." (Thomas Jefferson) Why is this even being debated any longer? Why was Adam Kokesh "arrested" at a pot rally? Why is the media treating abuse of liberty with "kid gloves"? (As s if there's a consensus on freedom.) It's time to deal with the truth. It has been said, "If you're not with us, you're against us." What about, "If you're you're not with freedom, you're against freedom." There are no justifications, no excuses. Either you are for freedom, or against. The time to decide is running out. I would love to see the Feds come into Washington, and try to exert their tyrannical powers. It would be the last straw. Remember, our neighbor is Idaho. The most armed, and anti-government state; no matter how their goober's vote in Congress. Next to that is Montana, and Wyoming. I know people in all four states, and they will not stand idly by. There are a significant portion of American's who will not bow down and become slaves. Who is with them? "When people fear the government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is liberty." My apologies to all who hold some idealistic view of the NAP. I'm talking about defense against aggression, not the initiation. Don't quibble when your life is on the line. If you think your life is not on the line: good luck with that! u have to be careful when defending yourself against state aggression like this that it does not end up being aggression on your part, so try to avoid thinga like killing innocents in the cross fire
Guest darkskyabove Posted June 15, 2013 Posted June 15, 2013 Apologies for the tirade. Good beer and bad politics don't mix well. It was somewhat of a relief to dump some frustration to get ready for the next round of stupidity and tyrany.
Robert Stempien Posted June 15, 2013 Posted June 15, 2013 Apologies for the tirade. Good beer and bad politics don't mix well. It was somewhat of a relief to dump some frustration to get ready for the next round of stupidity and tyrany. don't worry, lots of frustration like this happens to libertarians, its born out of the public ignoring us
Recommended Posts