# Start Here > Ron Paul Forum >  The Problem of the Libertarian Moocher (Re: Paul Fest)

## green73



----------


## jcannon98188

Yeah! Well Tom Woods doesn't do anything for the liberty movement!
</sarcasm>

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

That was somewhat obnoxious, and I'm no moocher.  

Besides a few people, I don't see anyone complaining about cost. Seriously, the cost is nearly nothing for what is being offered.  Any extras go toward electing liberty candidates.  

Instead, they're whining that 1/20 of the event might be taken up by someone they disagree with.  I'm not sure how those people live in a world where they encounter people every day, who don't 100% agree with them.  Wtf?  I spent 6 years convincing my own father that Paul was right instead of this "protecting our interests around the world" bull$#@!.  And for perspective, he was a Goldwater guy.

"Where is the money going?" is a legitimate question, but at least around here, I don't see a lot of people saying it should be free.  $77 for 3 days of stuff is almost free anyway.  If anythone thinks they can come down to Tampa and not spend double or triple that over 3 days, you're delusional.

----------


## AJ Antimony

Tom Woods is the best

----------


## Revolution9

I may have to rethink Tom Woods.

Rev9

----------


## rockandrollsouls

Yea, Tom is a smart man but I thought that was obnoxious. Giving the people trying to organize a great event a hard time is neither productive nor conducive to liberty. 

He could have spent 5 minutes on far more pressing issues than attacking our own people. Unfortunately, that seems to be the trend. Everyone is attacking everyone and we are further divided.

But then again, what would you expect from a guy that went to school for history. The only thing you can do with that is argue about it...




> That was somewhat obnoxious, and I'm no moocher.  
> 
> Besides a few people, I don't see anyone complaining about cost. Seriously, the cost is nearly nothing for what is being offered.  Any extras go toward electing liberty candidates.  
> 
> Instead, they're whining that 1/20 of the event might be taken up by someone they disagree with.  I'm not sure how those people live in a world where they encounter people every day, who don't 100% agree with them.  Wtf?  I spent 6 years convincing my own father that Paul was right instead of this "protecting our interests around the world" bull$#@!.  And for perspective, he was a Goldwater guy.
> 
> "Where is the money going?" is a legitimate question, but at least around here, I don't see a lot of people saying it should be free.  $77 for 3 days of stuff is almost free anyway.  If anythone thinks they can come down to Tampa and not spend double or triple that over 3 days, you're delusional.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> I may have to rethink Tom Woods.
> 
> Rev9


Just curious, what do you mean by this?

----------


## jj-

Tom is angry.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

So long as we are talking about "moochers," Tom Should stop masquerading under the name of the Mises school as an economist. He is not an economist, he is a history buff. 





> Tom is angry.

----------


## green73

> So long as we are talking about "moochers," Tom Should stop masquerading under the name of the Mises school as an economist. He is not an economist, he is a history buff.


Yeah, he doesn't know jack $#@! about economics.

----------


## Pisces

> So long as we are talking about "moochers," Tom Should stop masquerading under the name of the Mises school as an economist. He is not an economist, he is a history buff.


I think calling him just a history buff is not quite fair either. He has a PhD in history and can be properly called a historian.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Tom's right.  There are elements of leftist thought in the greater liberty movement that need to be exposed.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> Yeah, he doesn't know jack $#@! about economics.


At a minimum, he is easily an expert on Economic History ( a very important and underrated field)

----------


## green73

> At a minimum, he is easily an expert on Economic History ( a very important and underrated field)


He knows more than most economists, which isn't really saying much.

----------


## Revolution9

> Just curious, what do you mean by this?


Was not impressed with him prior. Another overhyped personality cult dude was my impression from those here who talked him up. I ain't a big Lew Rockwell/Mises Institute fan either. They are simply reading material I can glean basic data from and toss the opinions..like i do with everything else i read from any source. Can't stand Schiff or Stossel either. Talking heads are not my cup of tea. I don't need telling what to think or have a ditto dude i can listen to to back up my internal thought processes. And probably it is due more to people being sycophants about these people that turn me off. Just like Just Bieber hype or Lady gaga.


Rev9

----------


## cajuncocoa

Just watched the video...if you're not one of those asking for a freebie, I see no reason to complain about what he's saying:  he's right.

----------


## green73

> Was not impressed with him prior. Another overhyped personality cult dude was my impression from those here who talked him up. I ain't a big Lew Rockwell/Mises Institute fan either. They are simply reading material I can glean basic data from and toss the opinions..like i do with everything else i read from any source. Can't stand Schiff or Stossel either. Talking heads are not my cup of tea. I don't need telling what to think or have a ditto dude i can listen to to back up my internal thought processes. And probably it is due more to people being sycophants about these people that turn me off. Just like Just Bieber hype or Lady gaga.
> 
> 
> Rev9




G73

----------


## QuickZ06

Is this really that big of a deal? Nothing like going backwards.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

I think Tom is upset because people with throwing some elbows about his liberty classroom fees.

We are entitled to Liberty Classroom videos.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

Just saying, he is a historian. Not an economist. Completely out of line to pick our people apart and throw them under one tent.




> I think calling him just a history buff is not quite fair either. He has a PhD in history and can be properly called a historian.

----------


## jj-

> Is this really that big of a deal? Nothing like going backwards.


Is Tom overreacting to one or two angry internet posters?

----------


## rockandrollsouls

Well thank Tom for pushing it backwards. This video really was pointless. 




> Is this really that big of a deal? Nothing like going backwards.

----------


## QuickZ06

> Is Tom overreacting to one or two angry internet posters?


Well judging by the dislikes on the video just 4

----------


## rockandrollsouls

Even though I got into it with you last night, I do tend to agree with you on this point. I've found the material on the Mises site to be top notch, but the "fellows" and "faculty" have, at least in my opinion, spent most of their time telling everyone why they are wrong instead of trying to contribute usable studies to the field of economics.

I think the school of thought would be taken a lot more seriously if some of these people did actual research instead of harping on Bernanke all day...and now our own liberty guys. Not saying that Bernanke doesn't deserve to be harped on, but come on...




> Was not impressed with him prior. Another overhyped personality cult dude was my impression from those here who talked him up. I ain't a big Lew Rockwell/Mises Institute fan either. They are simply reading material I can glean basic data from and toss the opinions..like i do with everything else i read from any source. Can't stand Schiff or Stossel either. Talking heads are not my cup of tea. I don't need telling what to think or have a ditto dude i can listen to to back up my internal thought processes. And probably it is due more to people being sycophants about these people that turn me off. Just like Just Bieber hype or Lady gaga.
> 
> 
> Rev9

----------


## Henry Rogue

Libertarian moocher, isnt that an oxymoron? He may have been a little harsh, but who hasnt vented about something that may not be all that important. And yes I am a Tom Woods apologist. LOL. I  think one of the cool things about this forum, when forum members want something from other members, they offer to pay in reps.  Its a forum currency(Although not a very good currency, you can be punished for typing words) thats the Free Market at work. People should be commended for donating their time, effort and resources, but others should not expect it. Tom woods has enriched my life, maybe not monetarily, but knowing what I learned, I would have paid for it.

----------


## Revolution9

> G73


Sorry. Did I knock one of your idols from their ensconced perchery?

Rev9

----------


## messana

> Is Tom overreacting to one or two angry internet posters?


It not just two angry internet posters. It's a problem movement wide.

Just because libertarians/voluntarism promotes non state forced charity doesn't mean that everything has to be a _charity_. That's where I think the disconnect comes from.

----------


## green73

> Sorry. Did I knock one of your idols from their ensconced perchery?
> 
> Rev9


Yes. I'm a cultist.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> It not just two angry internet posters. It's a problem movement wide.
> 
> Just because libertarians/voluntarism promotes non state forced charity doesn't mean that everything has to be a _charity_. That's where I think the disconnect comes from.


why is complaining about price or haggling in violation of free market principles?

----------


## green73

> I think Tom is upset because people with throwing some elbows about his liberty classroom fees.
> 
> We are entitled to Liberty Classroom videos.


Moocher! :P

----------


## Revolution9

> Libertarian moocher, isn’t that an oxymoron?


Not in my personal experience. I can point to a thread where honchesses of the libertarian bunch that includes Woods tried to rip my artwork and scribble all over it and then when I upbraided them they used my artwork to make a contest to not use my artwork. $#@!ing free lunch mooches with no respect for others work product. Or the 2008 festival for RP i put on in Atlanta where part of the L faction wanted to take over my venue and get people involved in the L party. That was not why I pulled the $#@!ing permit.

----------


## green73

> Just saying, he is a historian. Not an economist. Completely out of line to pick our people apart and throw them under one tent.


What does one have to do with the other? 

This has been mentioned before. Walter Block has spoken about. There is a sector of the libertarian community always bitching when things aren't free and skeptical by default when someone stands to make a buck.

----------


## Revolution9

> Yes. I'm a cultist.


I can provide you deprogramming links if you want to shed that monkey.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> why is complaining about price or haggling in violation of free market principles?


Wanting it free is NOT haggling over price. It is stealing by proxy to demand something for free that is not offered in that spirit.

Rev9

----------


## green73

> I think the school of thought would be taken a lot more seriously if some of these people did actual research instead of harping on Bernanke all day...and now our own liberty guys. Not saying that Bernanke doesn't deserve to be harped on, but come on...


hahaha

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> Wanting it free is NOT haggling over price. It is stealing by proxy to demand something for free that is not offered in that spirit.
> 
> Rev9


I disagree.

I may *want* a ferrari for free, but that is not stealing by proxy?

Stealing implies force/coercion whereas desire for something doesn't.

----------


## green73

> I can provide you deprogramming links if you want to shed that monkey.
> 
> Rev9


Yes, please free me.

----------


## messana

> why is complaining about price or haggling in violation of free market principles?


It's not.

But things like complaining about having to pay a speaking fee for Napolitano or that people made money off of selling RP2012 merchandise is more or less giving (at least to me) the impression that people aren't complaining about the prices, but upset that they are even charging prices at all.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

So, in other words, yall are telling me (in the words of George W) that "Freedom aint free"?

----------


## green73

Speaking of deprogramming, I think a lot of this stems from Marxian indoctrination.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> Speaking of deprogramming, I think a lot of this stems from Marxian indoctrination.


I'll be serious for a sec.

My stance is as follows: People have every right to gripe about pricing etc, but no right to the product.  Pretty simple?

Why aren't they allowed to complain, I could see if someone threatened harm to Mr. Woods that this would be a tort and direction violation of our principles but merely posting random internet comments should be permissible?

----------


## green73

> I'll be serious for a sec.
> 
> My stance is as follows: People have every right to gripe about pricing etc, but no right to the product.  Pretty simple?
> 
> Why aren't they allowed to complain, I could see if someone threatened harm to Mr. Woods that this would be a tort and direction violation of our principles but merely posting random internet comments should be permissible?


I don't think Tom is talking about a principle here. He's just griping about what he finds to be an annoying faction of the libertarian community (and it's not just internet comments).

----------


## rockandrollsouls

In all seriousness, it's pretty true. All I hear Lew and Tom Woods and many of the other's say "You're wrong, wrong, wrong!"

I mean, people are more likely to believe you if you do some research or studies and put it out without a motive and say, "LOOK! We can fix this problem in a way Bernanke can't!"

Alas, the "You're wrong, wrong, wrong" attitude seems to be the prevailing one of the ideological libertarian wing. Always preaching and teaching and never doing.

Just remember, a lot of these so called "austrians" are employed in the things they rail against. Many in academia. Many aren't working hard in typical private sector jobs. Just taking your money so they can tell you about Austrian economics. I mean, you can make a case that's economically feasible but I think it is a bit of a cop-out. Make money to preach to you about how things should be...

I'd love for someone to contribute something useful. The last one to really do it was Rothbard, and no one's really even attempted any research or hard math to support our theories.

*Instead, Tom chooses to spend his time criticizing many of the people that are PAYING him money to talk about economics...and he's not even an economist. I think he should consider himself fortunate he's even in the position he's in.
*



> hahaha

----------


## Revolution9

> I disagree.
> 
> I may *want* a ferrari for free, but that is not stealing by proxy?
> 
> Stealing implies force/coercion whereas desire for something doesn't.


You may want a Ferrari for free but the moment you attempt to get the salesman to give you that for free you are looked at as one who is not willing to pay for possession. Since that is not the prupose of the manufacture nor point of purchase presentation of the product for sale and since you damned well know it costs money to possess any attempt to ger this for free is quite well considered as an attempt to  steal the value of the auto hoping someone may be stupid enough to play along. It would be stupid at the least to ask for a Ferrari for free. The moment you start badgering for negotiations for such a fruitless exchange is the moment that you can be  considered suspicious and any wariness of you after that point is well justified.

Rev9

----------


## green73

> In all seriousness, it's pretty true. All I hear Lew and Tom Woods and many of the other's say "You're wrong, wrong, wrong!"
> 
> I mean, people are more likely to believe you if you do some research or studies and put it out without a motive and say, "LOOK! We can fix this problem in a way Bernanke can't!"
> 
> Alas, the "You're wrong, wrong, wrong" attitude seems to be the prevailing one of the ideological libertarian wing. Always preaching and teaching and never doing.
> 
> Just remember, a lot of these so called "austrians" are employed in the things they rail against. Many in academia. Many aren't working hard in typical private sector jobs. Just taking your money so they can tell you about Austrian economics. I mean, you can make a case that's economically feasible but I think it is a bit of a cop-out. Make money to preach to you about how things should be...
> 
> I'd love for someone to contribute something useful. The last one to really do it was Rothbard, and no one's really even attempted any research or hard math to support our theories.
> ...


hahahahaha

----------


## green73

I was going write a point by point response to that comment but I think its ridiculousness speaks for itself. Perhaps the worst load of prattle I've ever read on this sight. No small feat.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

He makes a lot of his money talking about a subject he is not an expert in and he makes even more money now because of how the liberty movement has exploded. That's a fact. Not saying it's right or wrong.

My personal opinion is he shouldn't bite the hand that feeds him. Just saying. I think he's very lucky to be a historian yet have the good fortune to talk about hard economics and get paid to do so.

And if you're going to begin personally insulting me for my opinion, and act as if you are too good to offer a response, you could at least spell correctly. It's "site"

Should probably drop that condescending attitude. If you act that way towards everyone who disagrees with you you're probably not getting far in life...




> I was going write a point by point response to that comment but I think its ridiculousness speaks for itself. Perhaps the worst load of prattle I've ever read on this sight. No small feat.

----------


## Victor Grey

"Free"dom movement.

----------


## green73

> He makes a lot of his money talking about a subject he is not an expert in and he makes even more money now because of how the liberty movement has exploded. That's a fact. Not saying it's right or wrong.
> 
> My personal opinion is he shouldn't bite the hand that feeds him. Just saying. I think he's very lucky to be a historian yet have the good fortune to talk about hard economics and get paid to do so.
> 
> And if you're going to begin personally insulting me for my opinion, and act as if you are too good to offer a response, you could at least spell correctly. It's "site"
> 
> Should probably drop that condescending attitude. If you act that way towards everyone who disagrees with you you're probably not getting far in life...


Oh gawd. First, they are writers. They always have a book or two in the works. Tom has written NYT bestsellers. Does that qualify as a job? Second, they are educators. Lew runs a libertarian think tank and the most popular libertarian website in the world. Almost all the content is free. These guys put in 12-16 hour days doing what they do. Seriously, what more could they be doing for the cause? 

Tom may not be credentialed in economics but neither is Ron Paul, yet they've both earned the reputation as experts in the field. Academic credentials are secondary to what somebody actually knows, especially when so much academia is garbage. And what's the matter with libertarian luminaries working in academia? At least some kids are getting properly educated. 

What's this nonsense about all they do all day is tell people they are wrong and never offer solutions? 

Oh and don't point out mistakes people make in internet forums. It really is about the most petty thing you can do.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

rockandrollsouls is now banned.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> rockandrollsouls is now banned.


Yes, and that is sad.  He is a good guy and has always been a big supporter of Ron Paul and liberty.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

Not trying to incite, was he banned because of this thread?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Not trying to incite, was he banned because of this thread?


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4507807

----------


## Crystallas

I think Tom makes a good, but unfair point. Many in the movement do a great deal pro bono, and they are important to the cause as well. I would have preferred if Tom drew that distinction in his vlog. I certainly hope he agrees with me on that point. I have donated over my annual salary to liberty causes over the years, I do know what he is talking about to some degree, so as long as there is some benefit of doubt to be given, Tom does get that very benefit of the doubt from me.

----------


## QuickZ06

> Yes, and that is sad.  He is a good guy and has always been a big supporter of Ron Paul and liberty.


Guess we really do like eating our own kind, sad.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> 


Yes...well. I think you say doing for free because your perception of citizenship is scrambled, tombo. _Freedom to do_....not doing for free. Yer premise is all fudged up. Of, by and for "the people" means the living, breathing ones that our founding fathers built this house for. Not so and so .INC who just bought enough power to claim citizenship and rewrite the rule book, ya dolt.

Jiminy crickets, man. You miss the entire point. Plus you can't reframe the issue very well. Nice try though.

----------


## Revolution9

> Guess we really do like eating our own kind, sad.



He had said enough. He just wouldn't stop. He was trying to eat SA fer breakfast. I had no problem with him prior to that thread.

Rev9

----------


## Barrex

> Yeah, he doesn't know jack $#@! about economics.





> So long as we are talking about "moochers," Tom Should stop masquerading under the name of the Mises school as an economist. He is not an economist, he is a history buff.



Ron Paul. Yeah, he doesn't know jack $#@! about economics. He is not an economist, he is a gynecologist...


Tom made a point. Harsh but effective... and he is right.

----------


## sailingaway

> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4507807


It wasn't specifically about that thread, either.  You can't see it all because I moved it and a bunch of it is in pms, or in other threads, but for days he and another guy kept posting about Gary in Ron's forum; when  I moved it to opposing candidates they objected and he started an all out harassment program about it.  It was really about fifty times more cause for a ban than most get, it just built up over two days.  At this point it is a three day ban but I'm not the only mod who had problems with him.

----------


## parocks

> That was somewhat obnoxious, and I'm no moocher.  
> 
> Besides a few people, I don't see anyone complaining about cost. Seriously, the cost is nearly nothing for what is being offered.  Any extras go toward electing liberty candidates.  
> 
> Instead, they're whining that 1/20 of the event might be taken up by someone they disagree with.  I'm not sure how those people live in a world where they encounter people every day, who don't 100% agree with them.  Wtf?  I spent 6 years convincing my own father that Paul was right instead of this "protecting our interests around the world" bull$#@!.  And for perspective, he was a Goldwater guy.
> 
> "Where is the money going?" is a legitimate question, but at least around here, I don't see a lot of people saying it should be free.  $77 for 3 days of stuff is almost free anyway.  If anythone thinks they can come down to Tampa and not spend double or triple that over 3 days, you're delusional.


I've argued that the $77 will be high for some, and it's been effectively counter argued that, basically, if those people need more than a gathering of Ron Paul supporters for their $77, they are not the type of people that are wanted at this Paul Festival.  It's a pretty pure vision, which I like.  But $77 for whats been announced won't bring in too many semi-interested people.  It's a win for the die hards though.  It's Ron Paul Grassroots Festival.  It's aimed squarely at people who are here, have been here.  It does bring the value to the hard core.

----------


## Barrex

I love your new avatar. I just love it. It is the best avatar that I ever saw.

----------


## angelatc

> Was not impressed with him prior. Another overhyped personality cult dude was my impression from those here who talked him up. I ain't a big Lew Rockwell/Mises Institute fan either. They are simply reading material I can glean basic data from and toss the opinions..like i do with everything else i read from any source. Can't stand Schiff or Stossel either. Talking heads are not my cup of tea. I don't need telling what to think or have a ditto dude i can listen to to back up my internal thought processes. And probably it is due more to people being sycophants about these people that turn me off. Just like Just Bieber hype or Lady gaga.
> 
> 
> Rev9


Who do you like, Rev?

----------


## angelatc

> I'll be serious for a sec.
> 
> My stance is as follows: People have every right to gripe about pricing etc, but no right to the product.  Pretty simple?
> 
> Why aren't they allowed to complain, I could see if someone threatened harm to Mr. Woods that this would be a tort and direction violation of our principles but merely posting random internet comments should be permissible?


Even Tom is allowed to complain about the complainers.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I think Tom makes a good, but unfair point. Many in the movement do a great deal pro bono, and they are important to the cause as well. I would have preferred if Tom drew that distinction in his vlog. I certainly hope he agrees with me on that point. I have donated over my annual salary to liberty causes over the years, I do know what he is talking about to some degree, so as long as there is some benefit of doubt to be given, Tom does get that very benefit of the doubt from me.


His video was awkward. Event organizers certainly need to be cost conscious, as it can get out of hand fast. How much is reasonable? That is purely subjective. To some, charging a penny to preach to the choir is too much. For others, what is seen as a reasonable fee can vary greatly. Tom's idea that a "chip-in" could be created for the fees of a given speaker would be problematic. Any controversy he has seen about fees to this point would be multiplied many times if it was put out to a "chip-in" vote.

This is always an issue for a campaign like this. If you are a true believer and are lucky enough to be in a position to charge for your services, how much do you charge? Many feel that pro-bono is their contribution. How much would you be comfortable charging? It might be much easier to work for a candidate or cause that you don't really beleive in, therefore there would be no considerations other than time and money.

Quite the sticky wicket.

----------


## jj-

> His video was awkward. Event organizers certainly need to be cost conscious, as it can get out of hand fast. How much is reasonable? That is purely subjective. To some, charging a penny to preach to the choir is too much. For others, what is seen as a reasonable fee can vary greatly. Tom's idea that a "chip-in" could be created for the fees of a given speaker would be problematic. Any controversy he has seen about fees to this point would be multiplied many times if it was put out to a "chip-in" vote.
> 
> This is always an issue for a campaign like this. If you are a true believer and are lucky enough to be in a position to charge for your services, how much do you charge? Many feel that pro-bono is their contribution. How much would you be comfortable charging? It might be much easier to work for a candidate or cause that you don't really beleive in, therefore there would be no considerations other than time and money.
> 
> Quite the sticky wicket.


Way too much thought. Everyone should charge whatever they want, and everyone should offer to pay whatever they want.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Way too much thinking. Everyone should charge whatever they want, and everyone should offer to pay whatever they want.


Certainly, but this issue does arise. How many people on this forum got very agitated about the fact that a certain person from this forum might have received some kind of payment from the official Ron Paul campaign?

If you are a professional, how much would charge the Ron Paul campaign if you worked for them? Would you charge an industry standard rate? Would you give a discount because you believe in the cause? Would you charge more than you have ever made before in your life because you felt you were doing something more important than before? Some people face these very questions. Woods seems to be jumping into the middle of these common controversies.

----------


## jj-

> If you are a professional, how much would charge the Ron Paul campaign if you worked for them? Would you charge an industry standard rate? Would you give a discount because you believe in the cause? Would you charge more than you have ever made before in you life because you felt you were doing something more important than before? Some people face these very questions. Woods seems to be jumping into the middle of these common controversies.


Each situation is different and each person probably will consider the context of his decision to charge what he thinks is the best price according to his objectives.

I do think that getting mad at angry anonymous internet posters and making a video about it is a waste of time.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Each situation is different and each person probably will consider the context of his decision to charge what he thinks is the best price according to his objectives.
> 
> I do think that getting mad at angry anonymous internet posters and making a video about it is a waste of time.


Fair enough.

The additional complication seems to be that these negotiations somehow became public, and people then gave their always helpful "input".

----------


## jj-

> The additional complication seems to be that these negotiations somehow became public, and *people then gave their always helpful "input"*.


lol.

If you let 'the internet' tell you what to do, you'll run into some problems.

----------


## soulcyon

> Was not impressed with him prior. Another overhyped personality cult dude was my impression from those here who talked him up. I ain't a big Lew Rockwell/Mises Institute fan either. They are simply reading material I can glean basic data from and toss the opinions..like i do with everything else i read from any source. Can't stand Schiff or Stossel either. Talking heads are not my cup of tea. I don't need telling what to think or have a ditto dude i can listen to to back up my internal thought processes. And probably it is due more to people being sycophants about these people that turn me off. Just like Just Bieber hype or Lady gaga.
> 
> 
> Rev9


Do you mind if I make you my personal talking head?  Your opinions are far more intriguing than whats normally found on the interwebs :d

----------


## anaconda

The grassroots doesn't ask for pay. So, who is part of the grassroots and who is not? Maybe Napolitano is not part of the grassroots. It seems if a million people are working for liberty for free and donating gobs of money, maybe Napolitano should join in and speak for no fee. Did MLK have "speaking fees?"

----------


## Crystallas

> The grassroots doesn't ask for pay. So, who is part of the grassroots and who is not? Maybe Napolitano is not part of the grassroots. It seems if a million people are working for liberty for free and donating gobs of money, maybe Napolitano should join in and speak for no fee. Did MLK have "speaking fees?"


Supply and Demand. We claim to understand economics in this movement, it's about time we apply the same rules. Everyone is welcome to fill Judge Nap's shoes.

----------


## anaconda

> Supply and Demand. We claim to understand economics in this movement, it's about time we apply the same rules. Everyone is welcome to fill Judge Nap's shoes.


Well, I have enjoyed Napolitano...but he's not gonna get a dime from me for giving a speech. So I guess my contribution to the Napolitano "demand curve" is quite minimal.

----------


## Revolution9

> Who do you like, Rev?


Facts and processes. I ain't too keen on celebs having worked for a slew and known many personally. I get along better with salt of the earth common sense folk that are curious. I looked through a rag while getting tires recently chronicling all these "people" and the BS they are up to daily. My good lord Jesus..what a bunch of inhuman monsters with their tight assed pulled out grimaces, their mass infidelities, their pregnancies and biological dysfunctions, psychological melodramas and bootlicking money grubbing publicity BS. I eschewed all that  and it's benefits when I was young and I have even more wisdom now.

I like authentic people is probably another way to put it succinctly if we are discussing people and not how to receive and transmit info and data.. This is why RP has my attention. I liked John Lennon for the same authenticity. Yogi Bera. Nikola Tesla. I hope for him/RP to be a role model of authenticity...to be who you are and not your brand or have someone else own the real estate between your ears. The world is so full of phonies and poseurs I rarely venture out into it anymore as I cannot hold my tongue for too long and wish to remain well mannered. I don't own a TV. I don't listen to radio. I go for facts. I toss opinion garnishing those facts.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> Do you mind if I make you my personal talking head?  Your opinions are far more intriguing than whats normally found on the interwebs :d


Probably because I actually go through thought processes that take into account all corner cases when listening to ideas and philosophies. I went to school when you actually had to answer questions and write essays and not just tick a checkbox with a one in four chance of getting the right answer and you could fail or get put back a grade. Whhen I finally got all the reading and writing and 'rithmetic down I skipped class and spent it in the library. I got my diploma in some of the darkest hollows of North American underground society. Like Ron Paul..I want YOU to be your own talking head. I have a tendency to scoot the other direction when I start getting guru robes trying to adorn me against my true nature.

Rev9

----------


## parocks

> The grassroots doesn't ask for pay. So, who is part of the grassroots and who is not? Maybe Napolitano is not part of the grassroots. It seems if a million people are working for liberty for free and donating gobs of money, maybe Napolitano should join in and speak for no fee. Did MLK have "speaking fees?"


Is the grassroots turning down money?  Are people offering grassroots money?

----------


## Travlyr

+ rep Tom Woods.

People in the liberty movement seem to think that Freedom means that everything is free. It's bull$#@!. They like to think that stealing is okay as long as it is not government sanctioned. Steal artwork, or ideas, or copyrights, or IP. That is all okay because Robert Murphy says it is okay. Don't pay your way into the concert because the artist should be giving his work away. Don't pay for the festival because it is just Capitalists taking advantage of the poor. Seriously, many people in the liberty movement read the first page of a book and promote ignorance. ProIndividual is a prime example. He actually cut 1/2 of my quote and then posted it in his signature as if that is what I posted. It's only 1/2 right. It pisses me off because the people in the liberty movement who are not honest discredit the movement. + rep Tom Woods. Good video.

----------


## Cowlesy

If I think a fee for a liberty event is too high, then I don't go to the event.  I don't feel like it's my place to make demands on the organizers.  Generally, I am appreciative of the organizers because it can be a royal pain in the ass for very little thanks to organize these events.

It's not just "Hey Tom Woods, we'll buy you a plane ticket come to NYC to speak!" and then the event happens.

It's more pick a date that everyone wants, find a venue?  Is it the summer and hot? Could it rain? Better be indoors.  Indoors usually costs money.  Do you want tables for vendors?  Is there enough electric for them? Are there bathrooms to support the crowd volume?  Is there water available if it's an extended event? How about food?  Is there audio setup? How do regulate crowd control?  How do you make sure everyone who comes has tickets?  Do you need to rent tables or are they available? Are there enough?  What about skirting for the tables? Are there seats available?  Are there enough vantage points to see/hear the speakers?  If vendors are bringing setups, can they bring them early?  What if they need help setting up?  Do these vendors not want to be near these vendors?  After a 14 hour day, who is responsible for tearing down everything? Did half the staff leave, and now it's you? What is the policy on trash?  Is there going to be a medical tent, or how do we deal with medical emergencies?  Do we need liability insurance?  How do event staff communicate with each other-walkie-talkies? How do you deal with disruptors? Is there alcohol? How do make sure only 21 year olds are served?

^^Stuff like that is why I would never organize an event for free.  And there are some folks who will do all that for basically nothing, but they do need to raise money via fees for a plethora of those small items that add up to a large cost.

And by the way, I think Judge Napolitano's fee is $5,000.  That's actually a pretty low speaking fee.  Some people with an 1/8th the knowledge of Judge Napolitano but with bigger self-brand recognition can get $75,000 to $150,000.  And his speech is awesome!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> That was somewhat obnoxious, and I'm no moocher.  
> 
> Besides a few people, I don't see anyone complaining about cost. Seriously, the cost is nearly nothing for what is being offered.  Any extras go toward electing liberty candidates.  
> 
> Instead, they're whining that 1/20 of the event might be taken up by someone they disagree with.  I'm not sure how those people live in a world where they encounter people every day, who don't 100% agree with them.  Wtf?  I spent 6 years convincing my own father that Paul was right instead of this "protecting our interests around the world" bull$#@!.  And for perspective, he was a Goldwater guy.
> 
> "Where is the money going?" is a legitimate question, but at least around here, I don't see a lot of people saying it should be free.  $77 for 3 days of stuff is almost free anyway.  If anythone thinks they can come down to Tampa and not spend double or triple that over 3 days, you're delusional.


I tend to agree.  I'm no moocher, and I haven't seen people act like this.  Maybe there are, but I still think $77 for Paul Fest is over-valued.  I understand it costs a lot to put on the event, but what are you really getting for your money?  That's why I wouldn't go.  I'm not saying they should do it for free.  I'm saying I don't think it's worth the $77 for me.  They may very well need $77 to put on the event, but it's not worth it to me.  It may be to other people, but that's under their own discretion.  

I also agreed that sounded a bit obnoxious to me, and I think he may have misunderstood some of those people.  There may be moochers here, but for the most part, I think most people  on these boards know that for-profit ventures are just part of the market.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I may have to rethink Tom Woods.
> 
> Rev9


In what way?  Fer or agin'?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Was not impressed with him prior. Another overhyped personality cult dude was my impression from those here who talked him up. I ain't a big Lew Rockwell/Mises Institute fan either. They are simply reading material I can glean basic data from and toss the opinions..like i do with everything else i read from any source. Can't stand Schiff or Stossel either. Talking heads are not my cup of tea. I don't need telling what to think or have a ditto dude i can listen to to back up my internal thought processes. And probably it is due more to people being sycophants about these people that turn me off. Just like Just Bieber hype or Lady gaga.
> 
> 
> Rev9


I agree, and I still think he's a personality cult figure.  I don't see how this would change that.  He's still 'the smartest person in the world' to some people on here who fawn at every word he says.  He doesn't impress me that much.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I think Tom is upset because people with throwing some elbows about his liberty classroom fees.
> 
> We are entitled to Liberty Classroom videos.


Oh, that makes more sense now.  Yeah, he has a reason to be annoyed with that.  I don't listen to him anyway, so I'm not one of those complainers.

The video was still pointless, though.  Who cares?  I don't.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Sorry. Did I knock one of your idols from their ensconced perchery?
> 
> Rev9


What does G73 mean?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> He makes a lot of his money talking about a subject he is not an expert in and he makes even more money now because of how the liberty movement has exploded. That's a fact. Not saying it's right or wrong.
> 
> My personal opinion is he shouldn't bite the hand that feeds him. Just saying. I think he's very lucky to be a historian yet have the good fortune to talk about hard economics and get paid to do so.
> 
> And if you're going to begin personally insulting me for my opinion, and act as if you are too good to offer a response, you could at least spell correctly. It's "site"
> 
> Should probably drop that condescending attitude. If you act that way towards everyone who disagrees with you you're probably not getting far in life...


I agree with you.  Green73 is being obnoxious.  The points you made were valid and don't require a long, thought-out response to argue against.  At the very least, it's not the most ridiculous thing on this site by a long, long shot.  You are mostly right that Tom Woods gets paid well to speak about something he's not an expert in.  You are also right that there are not many studies coming from the Mises Institute.  That should be pretty common sense, but green73 seems to think deriding you is satisfactory logical discourse.  He's an idiot if he thinks that pointing out facts don't warrant a response because of how ridiculous it is.  He's just defending the cult with his condescension.  I don't have a problem with him being in a cult as long as he still sees the value of making logical arguments instead of talking down at people.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Oh gawd. First, they are writers. They always have a book or two in the works. Tom has written NYT bestsellers. Does that qualify as a job? Second, they are educators. Lew runs a libertarian think tank and the most popular libertarian website in the world. Almost all the content is free. These guys put in 12-16 hour days doing what they do. Seriously, what more could they be doing for the cause? 
> 
> Tom may not be credentialed in economics but neither is Ron Paul, yet they've both earned the reputation as experts in the field. Academic credentials are secondary to what somebody actually knows, especially when so much academia is garbage. And what's the matter with libertarian luminaries working in academia? At least some kids are getting properly educated. 
> 
> What's this nonsense about all they do all day is tell people they are wrong and never offer solutions? 
> 
> Oh and don't point out mistakes people make in internet forums. It really is about the most petty thing you can do.


That wasn't too hard, was it?  Don't talk down to people if you want them to take you seriously.  Also, pointing out mistakes on an internet forum is as old as the internet itself.  You do it, so don't knock it.

----------


## Bruehound

This thread reinforces his point. This is getting to be a joke. Carry on o wise ones.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> I tend to agree.  I'm no moocher, and I haven't seen people act like this.  Maybe there are, but I still think $77 for Paul Fest is over-valued.  I understand it costs a lot to put on the event, but what are you really getting for your money?  That's why I wouldn't go.  I'm not saying they should do it for free.  I'm saying I don't think it's worth the $77 for me.  They may very well need $77 to put on the event, but it's not worth it to me.  It may be to other people, but that's under their own discretion.



A good dinner for two in Tampa will run you $77.  You could do that instead.  I'll take 3 days of festival, myself.  There are lots of pretty much free things to do in Tampa, too.  If anyone wants to be in Tampa doing free stuff, you can easily fill up a week.

----------


## Revolution9

> In what way?  Fer or agin'?


Just rethinking. Did not like too much prior as I saw him as a part of the "in" crowd and in my long experience the in-crowd usually sucks enough to be the out-crowd the next season.

Rev9

----------


## MelissaCato

I think maybe this is a que to get different people to step up on the stage and speak. There's alot of members here who do an excellent job of wording a paragraph, especially members in the Constitution section of the forums. Those members I'm sure given a mic would be a valuable speaker for any Liberty or Ron Paul Revolution event.

Moving forward, we cannot expect (like Woods said) people like the Judge to speak for free. So why not find mini-me Judges and Ron Pauls amongst our roots ? 

I tend to see some good in everything  so maybe this is our que to bottom up some great people. IE: cswake, Philosophy-of-Politics, DisabledVet to name a few I would like to listen to on a mic.

Just saying.

----------


## sailingaway

Yeah, a stable of good, local speakers would be a good thing to have...

I was thinking about this with Ron, not Paul fest, which is priced by the organizers and a choice for where people spend their dollars.  I think of Ron differently.  I am assuming he will still be available for speeches etc through C4L or whatever, after he leaves the House.  Up to then he has been getting a House salary and no pay for speaking, but if he is NOT getting a salary, he'd be absolutely entitled to one for taking that on as a job.  On the other hand, I personally really want him to continue to speak to colleges where they have to struggle to raise the fees for the events and his travel, much less a speaker fee.  I am hoping C4L will collect donations, give Ron a salary to cover his time in those trips, and he would be available to schools.  I'd far rather donate for that than for high ticket people drafting emails I don't like anyhow.  The legislative action and Ron speaking could happen hand in hand.  C4L had liberty stuff before, and I don't see why it couldn't continue that way.  I hope it does.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

So Tom made this video specifically because of PaulConventionWV?

So far he's the only person to complain about it being "overvalued". I'm a bit annoyed at the video and how he makes it seem like it's a large group of people that make up the movement who want things for free when in reality that is far from the truth.

----------


## green73

> So Tom made this video specifically because of PaulConventionWV?
> 
> So far he's the only person to complain about it being "overvalued". I'm a bit annoyed at the video and how he makes it seem like it's a large group of people that make up the movement who want things for free when in reality that is far from the truth.


Yeah. He reads this site and saw one comment and made a video.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain



----------


## Matthanuf06

I agree with Tom though, and the truth is these mooches are more like anti- state leftists than someone for liberty.

Ron Paul is to the GOP as the moochers are for liberty.

As in you are part of the group, but it's moreso for convenience and necessity than similar ideologies.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> His video was awkward. Event organizers certainly need to be cost conscious, as it can get out of hand fast. How much is reasonable? That is purely subjective. To some, charging a penny to preach to the choir is too much. For others, what is seen as a reasonable fee can vary greatly. Tom's idea that a "chip-in" could be created for the fees of a given speaker would be problematic. Any controversy he has seen about fees to this point would be multiplied many times if it was put out to a "chip-in" vote.
> 
> This is always an issue for a campaign like this. If you are a true believer and are lucky enough to be in a position to charge for your services, how much do you charge? Many feel that pro-bono is their contribution. How much would you be comfortable charging? It might be much easier to work for a candidate or cause that you don't really beleive in, therefore there would be no considerations other than time and money.
> 
> Quite the sticky wicket.


Well...Seems like maybe to find the Remnant that one may actually have to look beyond a theortical or hegelian perception of  how  the "Remnant" is understood by the masses. Just an observation though. I could be wrong. Of course, I could be right too. Whatever though.

----------


## parocks

> I think maybe this is a que to get different people to step up on the stage and speak. There's alot of members here who do an excellent job of wording a paragraph, especially members in the Constitution section of the forums. Those members I'm sure given a mic would be a valuable speaker for any Liberty or Ron Paul Revolution event.
> 
> Moving forward, we cannot expect (like Woods said) people like the Judge to speak for free. So why not find mini-me Judges and Ron Pauls amongst our roots ? 
> 
> I tend to see some good in everything  so maybe this is our que to bottom up some great people. IE: cswake, Philosophy-of-Politics, DisabledVet to name a few I would like to listen to on a mic.
> 
> Just saying.


agreed!

----------


## parocks

> So Tom made this video specifically because of PaulConventionWV?
> 
> So far he's the only person to complain about it being "overvalued". I'm a bit annoyed at the video and how he makes it seem like it's a large group of people that make up the movement who want things for free when in reality that is far from the truth.


Depending on how many threads on this here that Tom Woods read, there's a handful more that are pro Free.  WV isn't making the case that Paul Festival should be free, or I didn't catch that.  There was one person, not WV, who made the case that Paul Fest should be free.  Paid for by chipins.  This was about a week or 2 ago.

----------


## parocks

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4493219

Tom Woods is talking about "Just Another Genius"

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4493219
> 
> Tom Woods is talking about "Just Another Genius"



Who showed up whining an entire 22 posts pre-ban?  And that becomes such a significant faction, that this Woods guy needs to go off on a rant?

Did woods say that, or is it a guess?

----------


## parocks

> Who showed up whining an entire 22 posts pre-ban?  And that becomes such a significant faction, that this Woods guy needs to go off on a rant?
> 
> Did woods say that, or is it a guess?


Oh, I don't think that Woods made the video because one person said one thing.    He gave many examples of situations where moocherness manifests.

Someone had argued that WV was responsible.  WV was not exhibiting classic moocher behavior.  "just another genius" was exhibiting that classic moocher behavior.  Woods is talking about "just another genius", even if he has not read "just another genius" posts.  "Just another genius" is a stereotypical moocher.

----------


## Okie RP fan

> So Tom made this video specifically because of PaulConventionWV?
> 
> So far he's the only person to complain about it being "overvalued". I'm a bit annoyed at the video and how he makes it seem like it's a large group of people that make up the movement who want things for free when in reality that is far from the truth.


Perhaps it is a large group, perhaps it is not. Did he literally say he thought it was a large group? 

It is no lie that we have some of the more "liberal" libertarians who want things paid for and are those strong anti-corporate types. I mean, every group and following has their free loaders, that's just the human in us.

----------


## nobody's_hero

I wonder how much of the 'mooching' is just frustration that people can't really afford to get involved. 

We've got some of the most enlightened fighters for freedom in the world of politics. 

And also, the poorest.

Ironically, there's nothing like watching a bunch of minimum-wage earning college kids support the candidate (Ron Paul) who wants to save the middle class from being wiped out, while the middle-class mostly supports candidates who want to wipe out the middle class (Obamney).

Of course, once things get bad enough economically, they'll all want to support Ron Paul, but then _they'll_ be too poor to do so. 

Politics ain't a poor man's sport.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

Is Matt Collins listening?

----------


## anaconda

> Is the grassroots turning down money?  Are people offering grassroots money?


The grassroots donates money. So I guess that's sort of like turning it down. No one is offering the grassroots money, as a whole.

----------


## green73

> Is Matt Collins listening?


rep

----------


## AdamT

Serious pwnage right there.

----------


## Narmical

> I think calling him just a history buff is not quite fair either. He has a PhD in history and can be properly called a historian.


Or how bout Dr. Woods? that's appropriate too.

----------


## Thrashertm

> Was not impressed with him prior. Another overhyped personality cult dude was my impression from those here who talked him up. I ain't a big Lew Rockwell/Mises Institute fan either. They are simply reading material I can glean basic data from and toss the opinions..like i do with everything else i read from any source. Can't stand Schiff or Stossel either. Talking heads are not my cup of tea. I don't need telling what to think or have a ditto dude i can listen to to back up my internal thought processes. And probably it is due more to people being sycophants about these people that turn me off. Just like Just Bieber hype or Lady gaga.Rev9


I am a big fan of Schiff and Stossel, but not because they have particularly brilliant insights or tell me what I don't already know (by now). I like them because they effectively advocate my point of view to the wider world.

----------


## Thrashertm

My response: What's wrong﻿ Tom, getting some complaints that LibertyClassroom isn't free? Perhaps you're not satisfied with subscription volume? Normally I enjoy your videos, but this feels rather self serving, and I think the vindictive tone is inappropriate. Moochers are always and everywhere, and we all mooch in one way or another. Why not explore the economics involved instead of taking this antagonistic tone?

----------


## Thrashertm

> I think Tom is upset because people with throwing some elbows about his liberty classroom fees.
> 
> We are entitled to Liberty Classroom videos.


This. He's defensive because not everyone is willing to pay for what he is selling. Unfortunately for Tom, not everyone values his wisdom enough to pay $100. Don't feel bad Tom - most people wouldn't pay $5 for my wisdom.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## DeMintConservative

Would Ghandi or Thoreau speeches be any worse or less relevant if they had charged for them?

----------


## messana

> This. He's defensive because not everyone is willing to pay for what he is selling.


How do you know this?

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## PierzStyx

> I think Tom is upset because people with throwing some elbows about his liberty classroom fees.
> 
> We are entitled to Liberty Classroom videos.


I suppose you're also entitled to welfare, my pocketbook, his clothes, and your neighbor's wife? Take your socialist bullcrap somewhere else. You're entitled to nothing. Earn it or shut up.

----------


## PierzStyx

> What were Ghandi's speaking fees? Did Thoreau charge anything to make an appearance? Silly me; they pale in significance to Judge Nap and Tom Woods.


Actually Gandhi and Thoreau both did speaking engagements where they charged money. So did Ralph Waldo Emerson and MLK Jr.

----------


## Carehn

I agree with Tom. We also have to come to realize that charity is not more effective then 'for profit' when trying to advance any cause other then statism. 

I stand ready for the attacks.

----------


## Carehn

You know Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged because some lady who liked her book 'the fountainhead' said that she had a responsibility to write more and her readers where entitled to her ideas. 

I $#@! you not... Look it up.... 

How do you read the fountainhead and then tell Rand you have a right to her writings???

----------


## parocks

> Actually Gandhi and Thoreau both did speaking engagements where they charged money. So did Ralph Waldo Emerson and MLK Jr.


If I had to guess, I would think that those folks might not charge for their own thing, but if someone else was having a thing, and wanted them there, they might charge for it.  Rationing, scarce resources, etc.

----------


## Jingles

So if I don't believe in IP like most AnCaps am I suddenly a libertarian moocher?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> So if I don't believe in IP like most AnCaps am I suddenly a libertarian moocher?


Nah.  I don't think even Woods would argue that.  The very nature (super-abundance and intangiblility) of IP makes it impossible to "steal" or "mooch".  Mises U gives plenty of literature and media away free (including anti-IP stuff).  I'm amazed that some "libertarians" argue for it.

----------


## Harry96

> This. He's defensive because not everyone is willing to pay for what he is selling. Unfortunately for Tom, not everyone values his wisdom enough to pay $100. Don't feel bad Tom - most people wouldn't pay $5 for my wisdom.


Meh. There's a BIG difference between "I don't feel that your product is worth $100, therefore I'll do without it" and "I don't feel that your product is worth $100, therefore you should give it to me free."

----------


## DeMintConservative

> Honestly, I can't fathom a circumstance in which either would charge for their speeches. It simply wouldn't be part of their character. Entertaining the thought requires thinking in one of those alternate-reality scenarios. What would Ghandi's "March to the Sea" for salt have been like if he charged admission and personally profited from it? I think I would answer the query by saying "Yes, the speeches/actions would have less relevance," because they wouldn't have been taken to heart by nearly as many people.
> 
> _Come join Ghandi on his march to the sea. Twenty three days of personal, up-close revelry with Ghandi himself. Only 20 rupees per person. Moochers excluded._


I'm fairly sure Ghandi would often be paid to make speeches and conferences. No idea about Thoreau. 


Why would anyone see the speeches differently if their authors were paid? I sure wouldn't. Speeches, like any thesis or argument, are worth for what they are. Isn't that so? Who is making them and if that person is being paid is irrelevant for the value of the argument. 

I think the underlying reasoning is, as Woods suggests, very anti-libertarian, as it's rooted in some notion that money and profit are "dirty". That it can somehow taint the speaker and the speech. I don't see how a speech gains in value or his author in authority just because he's offering it instead of selling it.

----------

