# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Libertarian Thought Is Rapidly Winning Hearts and Minds

## Ronin Truth

> *Libertarian Thought Is Rapidly Winning Hearts and Minds
> *
> By Jack D. Douglas
> 
> September 3, 2014 
> 
> Lew Rockwell has just shown how the New York Times and other Republicran media belittle the rapidly growing impact of serious Libertarian thinkers and actors on America and beyond and shows that a large and growing minority of serious people in America are thinking seriously about the ideas and goals of Libertarianism.
> 
> In short, the best and brightest of Americans are awaking more and more to the catastrophes of the System and to the realistic and moral alternatives Libertarians have been proposing forcefully for centuries.
> ...


http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/j...ht-is-winning/

Copyright © 2014 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are provided.

----------


## Christian Liberty

And yet even elements of RPF are clamoring for war with ISIS.  I don't buy it yet.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> And yet even elements of RPF are clamoring for war with ISIS. I don't buy it yet.


http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.pdf

----------


## Christian Liberty

> http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.pdf


I'm aware.  I'm just saying that the last few days have shown me that even many here aren't actually libertarians.  Let alone most people in the rest of the country.

----------


## Vanguard101

> And yet even elements of RPF are clamoring for war with ISIS.  I don't buy it yet.


Because ISIS is arguably a threat.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I'm aware. I'm just saying that the last few days have shown me that even many here aren't actually libertarians. Let alone most people in the rest of the country.


 Hence the NAP litmus test for all "libertarians" (so called) that I continue to and have now long endorsed.  Applies to LP members also.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Because ISIS is arguably a threat.


 That could then also mean that it's arguably not. Maybe just the current government fabricated scary boogie man, du jour. 

What's next OSIRIS?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Hence the NAP litmus test for all "libertarians" (so called) that I continue to and have now long endorsed.  Applies to LP members also.


Good point.  I don't demand perfect adherence to the NAP on fiscal or social issues before I'll endorse someone.  I think Ron Paul made one or two errors, as do most other people.  Mind you, I want something CLOSE to the NAP, but if someone makes a small number of mistakes I may still endorse them.

I have far less patience on foreign policy issues.

----------


## Cap

Once the seed is planted, it will grow. It just grows faster with some people. 5 stars.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Good point. I don't demand perfect adherence to the NAP on fiscal or social issues before I'll endorse someone. I think Ron Paul made one or two errors, as do most other people. Mind you, I want something CLOSE to the NAP, but if someone makes a small number of mistakes I may still endorse them.
> 
> I have far less patience on foreign policy issues.



I'm kinda sorry there, I'm just pretty much of a hardline purist when it comes to NAP adherence, if you want the right to claim the libertarian moniker.  For instance, I see no way for a true libertarian to hold a political office or a government job, or even vote for that matter.  

Fish or cut bait. Them's the choices.

----------


## jkr

> That could then also mean that it's arguably not. Maybe just the current government fabricated scary boogie man, du jour. 
> 
> What's next OSIRIS?

----------


## William Tell

> I'm kinda sorry there, I'm just pretty much of a hardline purist when it comes to NAP adherence, if you want the right to claim the libertarian moniker.  For instance, I see no way for a true libertarian to hold a political office or a government job, or even vote for that matter.  
> 
> Fish or cut bait. Them's the choices.


Well, that's why guys like you get nowhere. Ron Paul has done more to advance liberty than all the non voting libertarians combined.

----------


## kylejack

> Because ISIS is arguably a threat.


Haven't seen those credible arguments yet.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> And yet even elements of RPF are clamoring for war with ISIS.  I don't buy it yet.


In the end, the people who matter are the intelligent ones.

A few wayward, weak-minded waifs do not matter.  They have no influence and, being unintelligent, no reliable way to go about obtaining it.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Well, that's why guys like you get nowhere. Ron Paul has done more to advance liberty than all the non voting libertarians combined.


Really? I hadn't noticed. But then again, I've only been watching Ron for the last 30 years or so. Did I miss all of the legislation he got passed? Did I miss all of the national elections he won? My blanket elections boycott since 1972 have not changed the outcomes of ANY forgone opportunities. I at least consider myself to not be complicit in the continued subjugation and further enslavement of my brother and sister Americans. How about you? 

BTW, I'm just exactly where I want to be. Thank you very much. Get real!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I see no way for a true libertarian to hold a political office or a government job, or even vote for that matter.


 None of those actions _necessarily_ violates the NAP.  

They usually do.  

But it's _possible_ to hold political office, hold a government job, and vote, without violating the NAP.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> None of those actions _necessarily_ violates the NAP. 
> 
> They usually do. 
> 
> But it's _possible_ to hold political office, hold a government job, and vote, without violating the NAP.


 Are all of those folks getting paid by voluntary contributions? I view voting as a form of stealth violence and aggression by the hiring of proxies, and as such also a blatant violation of the NAP.

Any more questions?

----------


## William Tell

Did you miss all those people he woke up?

----------


## William Tell

> BTW, I'm just exactly where I want to be. Thank you very much. Get real!


OK, I kind of would like to live in a society with less tyranny, but I'm glad you are happy anyway

----------


## Ronin Truth

> OK, I kind of would like to live in a society with less tyranny, but I'm glad you are happy anyway


Might as well be, we've got a several light year journey ahead of us, in the opposite direction.  

Voting for less tyranny is like drinking for more sobriety.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Are all of those folks getting paid by voluntary contributions?


 Receiving any benefit that was funded involuntarily cannot be strictly against the NAP, in my opinion.  If it were, then it would be against the NAP to:

 Check out books and movies and otherwise obtain utility from the state library
 Work as a truck driver, on a system of -- you guessed it -- state roads
 Fly on an airplane that benefits from state air traffic controllers
 Put money into a bank that benefits from an FDIC funds guarantee
 Receive care in a state hospital or one that is so wrapped up in state money and control that it might as well be a part of the state
 Shop at a grocery store whose parent company has used eminent domain multiple times in the past to secure land for new store locations
 Buy food from farmers who have received agricultural subsidies

Do you agree?  Or have I failed to see some flaw in my logic?

Here's an interesting case, how about this one:

 Receive an income tax refund




> I view voting as a form of stealth violence and aggression by the hiring of proxies, and as such also a blatant violation of the NAP.


 Well, it depends on what one is voting for.  If I vote "Yes" on the question "Should the state stop taxing people, liquidate its assets, and cease to exist?" or some lesser step to stop a NAP violation, such as "Should this state legalize marijuana?" I do not believe that I have violated the NAP by doing so.  Now one vote doesn't matter, and so I probably won't bother to vote "Yes" on such a referendum, but I would be well within my libertarian rights to do so if I happened to have a lot of time to waste at the polls.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Did you miss all those people he woke up?


  Maybe. What's the count? Enough to make him POTUS?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Receiving any benefit that was funded involuntarily cannot be strictly against the NAP, in my opinion. If it were, then it would be against the NAP to:
> 
> • Check out books and movies and otherwise obtain utility from the state library
> • Work as a truck driver, on a system of -- you guessed it -- state roads
> • Fly on an airplane that benefits from state air traffic controllers
> • Put money into a bank that benefits from an FDIC funds guarantee
> • Receive care in a state hospital or one that is so wrapped up in state money and control that it might as well be a part of the state
> • Shop at a grocery store whose parent company has used eminent domain multiple times in the past to secure land for new store locations
> • Buy food from farmers who have received agricultural subsidies
> ...


Taxation is theft. Theft is aggression. Aggression is anti-NAP.  I like things simple. It requires less typing.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Haven't seen those credible arguments yet.


Whether ISIS is a threat or not, they are the closest thing we have seen to a legitimate threat since before 9/11.  Since we here on the libertarian ground are 1) The 'storefront' that most people see when they look at 'libertarians,' 2) unable to wield enough influence to make noticeable changes yet, and 3) pretty darn secure in our philosophies; wouldn't it make more sense to instead of just insisting that they cannot ever be a threat for any reason (clearly appearing irrational) state that, "there is a pretty good chance they are not really a threat, *BUT* _if they were_ a threat, then this is the proper way to deal with them."

If they turn out to not be a threat at all, everybody knows you were right, but that (to their surprise) you actually had a legitimate plan if they turned out to be a threat anyway.  If they do turn out to be a threat after all, you already know that TPTB are going to screw it up, so either you look like the only guy who had a real answer, or you look just as dumb as the PTB who screwed it up.

Strategically, politically, it is better to say, "I don't think they are that much of a threat, but if they were, then this is the best way to deal with it." than it is to say "Bull$#@!.  Ignore them and they will go away."  A month later some building blows up, maybe even completely unrelated, and in the eyes of 'your average voter' who is lacking credibility now?

Whether ISIS is or is not a threat we have no way of knowing.  All the actual information necessary to determine that is kept classified, and this government is bat-shirt insane, so there is no connection whatever between any evidence (or lack thereof) of threat and how the government chooses to respond.

We won't know at this point in American civilization until something blows up (or fails to blow up) whether these people were in fact a threat or not.  It could be the real thing, or it could be just some made up fantasy that some bean counter thinks will encourage us to support something awful they want to do.

However, _assuming_ it's real, _assuming_ that they have declared some kind of war, and _assuming_ they have legitimate plans to deal death and destruction here in the US, what is the proper response of a libertarian nation to address that threat?  The NAP doesn't require 'just rolling over and taking it,' and electoral victory in the future requires people to see that we DO have some kind of plan in the event of the highly unlikely.  

Frankly, I think simply presuming these people _are_ a major threat, is just as dumb as simply presuming they_ are not_.  Maybe they are, maybe they aren't.  If they are, then what do we do?  Voters will be a lot more comfortable with a liberty minded President, if they understand that our philosophy allows for an effective self defense.

It won't hurt to let the voters know that a Liberty President is not just going to roll over and let terrorists have free reign.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Taxation is theft. Theft is aggression. Aggression is anti-NAP.  I like things simple. It requires less typing.


But receiving funds or in-kind benefits that originally came from theft is not the same act as theft.

I like things _true_.  It requires more thinking.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Whether ISIS is a threat or not, they are the closest thing we have seen to a legitimate threat since before 9/11. Since we here on the libertarian ground are 1) The 'storefront' that most people see when they look at 'libertarians,' 2) unable to wield enough influence to make noticeable changes yet, and 3) pretty darn secure in our philosophies; wouldn't it make more sense to instead of just insisting that they cannot ever be a threat for any reason (clearly appearing irrational) state that, "there is a pretty good chance they are not really a threat, *BUT* _if they were_ a threat, then this is the proper way to deal with them."
> 
> If they turn out to not be a threat at all, everybody knows you were right, but that (to their surprise) you actually had a legitimate plan if they turned out to be a threat anyway. If they do turn out to be a threat after all, you already know that TPTB are going to screw it up, so either you look like the only guy who had a real answer, or you look just as dumb as the PTB who screwed it up.
> 
> Strategically, politically, it is better to say, "I don't think they are that much of a threat, but if they were, then this is the best way to deal with it." than it is to say "Bull$#@!. Ignore them and they will go away." A month later some building blows up, maybe even completely unrelated, and in the eyes of 'your average voter' who is lacking credibility now?
> 
> Whether ISIS is or is not a threat we have no way of knowing. All the actual information necessary to determine that is kept classified, and this government is bat-shirt insane, so there is no connection whatever between any evidence (or lack thereof) of threat and how the government chooses to respond.
> 
> We won't know at this point in American civilization until something blows up (or fails to blow up) whether these people were in fact a threat or not. It could be the real thing, or it could be just some made up fantasy that some bean counter thinks will encourage us to support something awful they want to do.
> ...


First, it requires the nomination. Wake me later after that one's done and I'll give you the second step.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> But receiving funds or in-kind benefits that originally came from theft is not the same act as theft.
> 
> I like things _true_. It requires more thinking.


 I believe that would be labeled as "an accessory after the fact".  Though that's not exactly an area of my expertise.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I believe that would be labeled as "an accessory after the fact".  Though that's not exactly an area of my expertise.
> 
> "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein


So, am I an accessory after the fact, and guilty of violating the NAP, by using the local tax-funded library?

----------


## William Tell

> So, am I an accessory after the fact, and guilty of violating the NAP, by using the local tax-funded library?


And driving on the public roads.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> So, am I an accessory after the fact, and guilty of violating the NAP, by using the local tax-funded library?


  Probably. The NAP CAN be a pretty heavy trip, for those looking for loopholes.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> And driving on the public roads.


Probably. The NAP CAN be a pretty heavy trip, for those looking for loopholes.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

The NAP does not require, in enforced captivity, cooperation with one's captors.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> *(By Dr. Mary Ruwart from Ask Dr. Ruwart, from the Liberator Online Volume 18, No. 20. Subscribe here!)
> *
> *QUESTION:* What is the libertarian non-aggression principle (or non-aggression axiom)?
> 
> *MY SHORT ANSWER:* Libertarianism is based on a single ideal, the non-aggression principle, so libertarian rhetoric tends to be remarkably consistent.
> 
> Libertarians oppose the initiation of force to achieve social or political goals. They reject first-strike force, fraud or theft against others; they only use force in self-defense. Those who violate this non-aggression principle are expected to make their victims whole as much as possible.
> 
> This Good Neighbor Policy is what most of us were taught as children. We were told not to lie, cheat, steal, not to strike our playmates unless they hit us first. If we broke a friends toy, we were expected to replace it.
> ...


http://www.theadvocates.org/aggression/

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Probably. The NAP CAN be a pretty heavy trip, for those looking for loopholes.


 I'm not looking for loopholes.  Just looking for truth.

So, I need your moral guidance here.  We all do.  If using the library is immoral, I can stop using it.  That's an easy one.  And in fact, for years I did refuse to have a library card, because I didn't want to be part of that system of theft.

Am I an accessory after the fact, and guilty of violating the NAP, if I work as a truck driver, on a system of state roads?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> http://www.theadvocates.org/aggression/


If government has a monopoly on water, you are not required by the NAP to die of thirst.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I'm not looking for loopholes. Just looking for truth.
> 
> So, I need your moral guidance here. We all do. If using the library is immoral, I can stop using it. That's an easy one. And in fact, for years I did refuse to have a library card, because I didn't want to be part of that system of theft.
> 
> Am I an accessory after the fact, and guilty of violating the NAP, if I work as a truck driver, on a system of state roads?


Until the state is dead and we've finally taken over, it's all just a moot point anyway. Hypotheticals aren't really my thing either. 

Harm no one, and do as you please.

*"We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive." -- Albert Einstein*

----------


## Ronin Truth

> If government has a monopoly on water, you are not required by the NAP to die of thirst.


Screw the government, how would they receive a monopoly on water?  Dying of thirst may be the just reward for the stupidity of allowing that to happen.  Don't blame it on the NAP. 

http://www.watair.com/

----------


## osan

> I'm kinda sorry there, I'm just pretty much of a hardline purist when it comes to NAP adherence, if you want the right to claim the libertarian moniker.  For instance, I see no way for a true libertarian to hold a political office or a government job, or even vote for that matter.  
> 
> Fish or cut bait. Them's the choices.


Simplsitic view.  If I'm on the street and I see someone reaching for a weapons to do me in, I'm not waiting for him to take his shot.  I am shooting his ass right then and there.

This is not a question of NAP per sé, but rather one of the credibility and precise quality of a threat.  If we could trust those in positions of governance then I would have little trouble with sending troops or whatever to remove a threat.  Sadly, we cannot and are therefore reduced to far thinner margins of safety.  We need to be doing things differently, yet are unwilling to take the measures.  That leaves us in the unenviable position in which we find ourselves, and yet we have the temerity to complain about conditions. 

Mr. Cake, meet Mr. Haveittoo.

----------


## osan

> Am I an accessory after the fact, and guilty of violating the NAP, if I work as a truck driver, on a system of state roads?


No simple answer there.  When one's choice is to use those roads or come to some sorry pass, I see no sin in having used them because your choices were ARTIFICIALLY limited by third parties.  Had you been free to pursue life outside that system, you would have.  You were denied this opportunity, save to make the choice to live in some pitiably reduced manner that no man may demand of another.  There is no evil in making the best of a bad situation.  It is what we all do.

The fact is that we are currently in a hopeless maelstrom of _practically unavoidable_ mutual violation with few seeing a path leading to the exit.  Even so, when those who see attempt to take the path out, they are stopped in the ways that people from East Berlin were stopped from crossing over to the West.  The subtext there is if I am going to be in misery, you will stay here right alongside or I will shoot the life from your body.  It is the tyranny of the devil as pure as driven snow.  It is the purest evil imaginable thinly masquerading as morally valid authority under the various phony baloney monikers such as "the state", "the people", and so forth.  It is literally hell on earth.

----------


## osan

> Taxation is theft. Theft is aggression. Aggression is anti-NAP.  I like things simple. It requires less typing.


Simple = good.

Simplistic != good, most often.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Simplsitic view. If I'm on the street and I see someone reaching for a weapons to do me in, I'm not waiting for him to take his shot. I am shooting his ass right then and there.
> 
> This is not a question of NAP per sé, but rather one of the credibility and precise quality of a threat. If we could trust those in positions of governance then I would have little trouble with sending troops or whatever to remove a threat. Sadly, we cannot and are therefore reduced to far thinner margins of safety. We need to be doing things differently, yet are unwilling to take the measures. That leaves us in the unenviable position in which we find ourselves, and yet we have the temerity to complain about conditions. 
> 
> Mr. Cake, meet Mr. Haveittoo.


Simplistic only works about 98% of the time.  Kinda like the Golden Rule.  For the rest, just use your best judgment and wing it.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Screw the government, how would they receive a monopoly on water?  Dying of thirst may be the just reward for the stupidity of allowing that to happen.  Don't blame it on the NAP. 
> 
> http://www.watair.com/


You are now the subject of a SWAT Raid for stealing potential rain from the State.  It does not matter how they receive their monopolies on anything, they have them.  Just because we, mundanes, have to operate in this environment does not mean that 'drinking from the City tap = stealing = a violation of the NAP.'  It simply means you are thirsty, and have to drink.

Participation does not imply consent, particularly when participation is driven fundamentally by a lack of consent.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Simple = good.
> 
> Simplistic != good, most often.


 Don't make me dig out my Einstein quote on simple again.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Until the state is dead and we've finally taken over, it's all just a moot point anyway.


 What are you talking about 'it's a moot point'?  Either I am acting morally, or I'm not.  Either I am aggressing, or I'm not.

If you actually think that driving on tax-funded roads is aggression, then come out and say so.  Don't be a weasel.

If you don't, then say that instead.




> Hypotheticals aren't really my thing either.


 Driving is a hypothetical?  Get real!  I just got back from driving, and guess what I drove on?  A theft-funded, monopoly-run state road.

So have I violated the NAP by driving on that, or haven't I?




> Harm no one.


 That's the point: Am I harming anyone (more precisely, aggressing against them)?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You are now the subject of a SWAT Raid for stealing potential rain from the State.  It does not matter how they receive their monopolies on anything, they have them. Just because we, mundanes, have to operate in this environment does not mean that 'drinking from the City tap = stealing = a violation of the NAP.' It simply means you are thirsty, and have to drink.
> 
> Participation does not imply consent, particularly when participation is driven fundamentally by a lack of consent.


Drink Brawndo, it's got electrolytes!

----------


## Ronin Truth

> What are you talking about 'it's a moot point'? Either I am acting morally, or I'm not. Either I am aggressing, or I'm not.
> 
> If you actually think that driving on tax-funded roads is aggression, then come out and say so. Don't be a weasel.
> 
> If you don't, then say that instead.
> 
> Driving is a hypothetical? Get real! I just got back from driving, and guess what I drove on? A theft-funded, monopoly-run state road.
> 
> So have I violated the NAP by driving on that, or haven't I?
> ...


 Fine. I'm a weasel.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Drink Brawndo, it's got electrolytes!


Marie Antoinette said "let them eat cake" and she lost her head.  Most people nowadays are already basically headless, so you might want to watch your back.

----------


## William Tell

> Fine. I'm a weasel.


OK.

----------


## Brett85

> In the end, the people who matter are the intelligent ones.
> 
> A few wayward, weak-minded waifs do not matter.  They have no influence and, being unintelligent, no reliable way to go about obtaining it.


Then I guess Rand doesn't matter and isn't intelligent.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Marie Antoinette said "let them eat cake" and she lost her head. Most people nowadays are already basically headless, so you might want to watch your back.


  Easier than watching my head.  I know, I've tried.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> No simple answer there.  When one's choice is to use those roads or come to some sorry pass, I see no sin in having used them because your choices were ARTIFICIALLY limited by third parties.


 But that actually _is_ a relatively simple answer.  Your answer is: No.  Not guilty.  No sin against the NAP.

That is the answer I happen to agree with.

Basically, Walter Block solved this problem and came up with the same answer you and I came up with.  See here,  here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Then I guess Rand doesn't matter and isn't intelligent.


FF was not talking about Rand.  Neither was I.  Some reading comprehension and some quick addition might give some clues as to whom I _was_ referring.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Fine. I'm a weasel.


 I just like to _think_ and engage in genuine dialogue.  That means trying to get other people to think, too (otherwise, I'm just talking to myself).

I'm sorry, but I'm going to just be honest: with you, Ronin Truth, this sometimes feels to me like pulling teeth.

We almost always agree.  We agree on essentially everything politically.  I find one tiny issue on which I seem to disagree with you and so I want to discuss why it is that you think the way you do, instead of the way I do on this matter.  But yet, you are completely incapable or uninterested in engaging with me.  It's like talking to a brick wall.  That makes me wonder.  You must be open-minded and curious, or else how could you have found libertarianism way back in the 1970s or 1980s?  But where is that now?

It makes me worry about my own future.

----------


## Brett85

> FF was not talking about Rand.  Neither was I.  Some reading comprehension and some quick addition might give some clues as to whom I _was_ referring.


It sounded like you were talking about people on this forum who support military strikes against ISIS.  I don't really understand why you and others give Rand a free pass on that but not those of us on this forum who agree with him.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

I don't know what "giving a free pass" means.  I don't think you've thought this through.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I just like to _think_ and engage in genuine dialogue. That means trying to get other people to think, too (otherwise, I'm just talking to myself).
> 
> I'm sorry, but I'm going to just be honest: with you, Ronin Truth, this sometimes feels to me like pulling teeth.
> 
> We almost always agree. We agree on essentially everything politically. I find one tiny issue on which I seem to disagree with you and so I want to discuss why it is that you think the way you do, instead of the way I do on this matter. But yet, you are completely incapable or uninterested in engaging with me. It's like talking to a brick wall. That makes me wonder. You must be open-minded and curious, or else how could you have found libertarianism way back in the 1970s or 1980s? But where is that now?
> 
> It makes me worry about my own future.


  Don't worry, you aren't me.  I used to talk more about this stuff when I was still working to convince myself.  I finally got there. 

I don't like my teeth pulled or my mind picked or typing.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> It sounded like you were talking about people on this forum who support military strikes against ISIS.  I don't really understand why you and others give Rand a free pass on that but not those of us on this forum who agree with him.


I am sorry.  There is something right there that I truly do not understand, and maybe you can help me.  "people ... who support _military strikes against ISIS._"

What exactly are 'military strikes against ISIS,' and what exactly can these strikes hope to accomplish?

----------


## Brett85

> I am sorry.  There is something right there that I truly do not understand, and maybe you can help me.  "people ... who support _military strikes against ISIS._"
> 
> What exactly are 'military strikes against ISIS,' and what exactly can these strikes hope to accomplish?


Hopefully they would accomplish taking out ISIS's infrastructure.  How exactly would granting letters of marque and reprisal work in this situation when you have a 100,000 member army of terrorists?  It seems to me like letters of marque and reprisal are more appropriate to go after individual terrorists who are hiding in a cave somewhere.  I'm not necessarily even arguing with you or disagreeing with your position, but I guess I just don't understand how letters of marque and reprisal could actually work against a large army.  Perhaps you can explain again in more detail.  I just don't really understand how it would work.  I always just thought that letters of marque and reprisal are basically just a financial reward to anyone who kills or captures a terrorist.

----------


## TheTexan

> Well, that's why guys like you get nowhere.


I agree 100%.  We're getting somewhere with this voting business.  Let's keep up the good work.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I agree 100%. We're getting somewhere with this voting business. Let's keep up the good work.


Yeah, about 40 years ago, I thought that too. Then I grew up. Check back in, in about another 20 years and see how it's going.


*"If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it." --  Mark Twain*

----------


## Ronin Truth

> But that actually _is_ a relatively simple answer. Your answer is: No. Not guilty. No sin against the NAP.
> 
> That is the answer I happen to agree with.
> 
> Basically, Walter Block solved this problem and came up with the same answer you and I came up with. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.



I think you missed one.  Walter will be pissed.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Then I guess Rand doesn't matter and isn't intelligent.


Correct.

Within the context of advancing human liberty, Rand no longer matters, and clearly is not intelligent.  He has come out in favor of deficit spending on the part of the US government, which funds itself through three theft-based practices - taxation, borrowing, and printing.  You may try to suggest that he hasn't, but by advocating on behalf of attacking "ISIS", within the context of the present paradigm, there is no way that such advocacy does not translate into deficit spending.  A principled stand which as Ron Paul has shown is not "popular enough" to sway "voters" requires speaking truthfully about such matters.  Further, Rand Paul's position isn't even a utilitarian one, as the government's own "Intelligence Agency" itself has concluded - "interventionism", doublespeak for blowing up lots of people whether they deserve it or not, results in "blowback", which is of course a polite way of pointing out that interventionism is relatively the same as shooting oneself in the dick.  

So yes, Rand doesn't matter and isn't intelligent because his position is that we should make ourselves poor and blow our balls off, and no one should listen to anyone who takes such a position.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Correct.
> 
> Within the context of advancing human liberty, Rand no longer matters, and clearly is not intelligent.  He has come out in favor of deficit spending on the part of the US government, which funds itself through three theft-based practices - taxation, borrowing, and printing.  You may try to suggest that he hasn't, but by advocating on behalf of attacking "ISIS", within the context of the present paradigm, there is no way that such advocacy does not translate into deficit spending.  A principled stand which as Ron Paul has shown is not "popular enough" to sway "voters" requires speaking truthfully about such matters.  Further, Rand Paul's position isn't even a utilitarian one, as the government's own "Intelligence Agency" itself has concluded - "interventionism", doublespeak for blowing up lots of people whether they deserve it or not, results in "blowback", which is of course a polite way of pointing out that interventionism is relatively the same as shooting oneself in the dick.  
> 
> So yes, Rand doesn't matter and isn't intelligent because his position is that we should make ourselves poor and blow our balls off, and no one should listen to anyone who takes such a position.


Actually, I think Rand is quite intelligent.  He has libertarians convinced that he's just like his dad, and he has most of the country convinced that he's more moderate.  I still don't have him figured out.  He clearly has a plan to win the Presidency, and he has very good odds of succeeding.

I can't be certain he's on our side.  But he is definitely intelligent.

I agree that his stance on ISIS is awful.  But unfortunately, although it isn't utilitarian for the US, it is politically expedient for him.  That's why he's taking it, and its frankly immoral and disgusting.  But it is smart for him, for his goal of becomming President.

I'm still going to vote for Rand, and I still think he's better than the other senators, but I don't love him either.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

As I said, within the context of advancing human liberty, Rand no longer matters and is not intelligent.  I didn't say that within the context of self aggrandizement that he doesn't matter and isn't intelligent.  

Understand that, given his present political rhetoric, you may well be voting in favor - granting your social sanction - of generational theft and wholesale, wanton slaughter.  

I can't imagine that's something a liberty-loving Christian wants on his conscience.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> As I said, within the context of advancing human liberty, Rand no longer matters and is not intelligent.  I didn't say that within the context of self aggrandizement that he doesn't matter and isn't intelligent.  
> 
> Understand that, given his present political rhetoric, you may well be voting in favor - granting your social sanction - of generational theft and wholesale, wanton slaughter.  
> 
> I can't imagine that's something a liberty-loving Christian wants on his conscience.


Take a look at Raimondo's comment in Warlord's Reason article, that comment was somewhat reassuring in some ways (I KNOW Justin Raimondo isn't a compromiser).  The tricky thing with Rand is that I'm not totally sure what he really believes.  I do know that its impossible to dismantle the State in 4 years, what I do want to know is whether Rand will move things in the correct direction, and I think I will.

I couldn't morally justify doing what Rand is doing, but I think I CAN justify voting for LESS generational theft and wholesale slaughter (FOr the record, I haven't seen Rand support anything that would rise to the level of "wholesale slaughter" as of yet, if you could find it I'd be more inclined to not support him) even as I speak out against the whole thing.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> The tricky thing with Rand is that I'm not totally sure what he really believes.


Then how on earth could you ever, as a liberty-loving Christian, cast a vote for him to wield the power of the office of the president of the US?




> I couldn't morally justify doing what Rand is doing, but I think I CAN justify voting for LESS generational theft and wholesale slaughter (FOr the record, I haven't seen Rand support anything that would rise to the level of "wholesale slaughter" as of yet, if you could find it I'd be more inclined to not support him) even as I speak out against the whole thing.


"Less" is a relative term.  voting for "less generational theft and wholesale slaughter" is a vote FOR generational theft and wholesale slaughter.  As you well know, we must justify our actions before God.  Personally, I have no intention of trying to explain away granting social sanction to generational theft and wholesale slaughter.

Indiscriminate bombings will result in a wholesale slaughter, FF.  Those innocent deaths that Rand will order may not rise to levels achieved by previous tyrants, but they will be innocent dead.  I've said it here before - I will spend my time before St. Peter begging for mercy for my sins, but among those sins I will NOT count granting social sanction to the ascension of such inhuman power.

----------


## Dianne

> Because ISIS is arguably a threat.


They must not be too much of a threat.    Obama sent all the border patrol agents home with the gates wide open.

----------


## TheTexan

> "Less" is a relative term.  voting for "less generational theft and wholesale slaughter" is a vote FOR generational theft and wholesale slaughter.  As you well know, we must justify our actions before God.  Personally, I have no intention of trying to explain away granting social sanction to generational theft and wholesale slaughter.


Well, the important thing is that he's voting, because his vote really makes a difference.  Good man.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Then how on earth could you ever, as a liberty-loving Christian, cast a vote for him to wield the power of the office of the president of the US?
> 
> 
> 
> "Less" is a relative term.  voting for "less generational theft and wholesale slaughter" is a vote FOR generational theft and wholesale slaughter.  As you well know, we must justify our actions before God.  Personally, I have no intention of trying to explain away granting social sanction to generational theft and wholesale slaughter.
> 
> Indiscriminate bombings will result in a wholesale slaughter, FF.  Those innocent deaths that Rand will order may not rise to levels achieved by previous tyrants, but they will be innocent dead.  I've said it here before - I will spend my time before St. Peter begging for mercy for my sins, but among those sins I will NOT count granting social sanction to the ascension of such inhuman power.


I gave a long response justifying myself here, and then my internet blanked out and I lost it.  The short answer is this: I spend a lot of my time justifying why I won't vote for establishment candidates that are more of the same.  At the same time, if a candidate is SIGNIFICANTLY better than the alternative, I have a hard time not trying to keep America as free as possible.  Voting isn't the most important thing, but I don't think its completely useless either.  If it were Rand Paul against Judge Napolitano, I would absolutely vote for the latter.  But realistically if Rand is the GOP candidate he's going to be against a hardcore progressive warhawk like Hillary, and I think Rand is SIGNIFICANTLY better than the alternative there.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Ron has been calling himself a voluntaryist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7otK5NsuA4k

Here's a statement of purpose:



> *Statement of Purpose:* Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.


http://voluntaryist.com

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Hopefully they would accomplish taking out ISIS's infrastructure.  How exactly would granting letters of marque and reprisal work in this situation when you have a 100,000 member army of terrorists?  It seems to me like letters of marque and reprisal are more appropriate to go after individual terrorists who are hiding in a cave somewhere.  I'm not necessarily even arguing with you or disagreeing with your position, but I guess I just don't understand how letters of marque and reprisal could actually work against a large army.  Perhaps you can explain again in more detail.  I just don't really understand how it would work.  I always just thought that letters of marque and reprisal are basically just a financial reward to anyone who kills or captures a terrorist.


You're using "army" way too loosely here, IMO.  From the language of the Constitution and the Federalists, I consider an "army" to be a trained and regulated (that is, "made regular" in Federalist jargon).  "Terrorists" by nature aren't professional, regulated soldiers.  If ISIS is indeed a highly trained, regulated organization, they ought to be called a militia of some sort, IMO.
ETA: Now that I think about it, calling ISIS a "militia" would provide a way to make a "war" practical.  You could write up a declaration of war with a clear goal in mind instead of invading and occupying Syria for eternity or the end of Amerika.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Hence the NAP litmus test for all "libertarians" (so called) that I continue to and have now long endorsed.  Applies to LP members also.


It's not the litmus test. Read up on libertarian ethical theories throughout libertarian history and in contemporary libertarianism. Never mind...we've "discussed" this before and you short circuited when I provided cited and linked proof. It might be YOUR litmus test, or the MAJORITY (of libertarians') litmus test, but that's it.

Funny how I don't believe in the NAP or objective ethics and yet IN PRACTICE am more libertarian than many around here who claim the NAP is objective and the litmus test for being libertarian. Funny how I reject the idea ISIS is a direct and measurable threat to us, and many of them do not.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> It's not the litmus test. Read up on libertarian ethical theories throughout libertarian history and in contemporary libertarianism. Never mind...we've "discussed" this before and you short circuited when I provided cited and linked proof. It might be YOUR litmus test, or the MAJORITY (of libertarians') litmus test, but that's it.
> 
> Funny how I don't believe in the NAP or objective ethics and yet IN PRACTICE am more libertarian than many around here who claim the NAP is objective and the litmus test for being libertarian. Funny how I reject the idea ISIS is a direct and measurable threat to us, and many of them do not.



Just hilarious! 

Stick to your anarchy.

----------


## Rond

> Because ISIS is arguably a threat.


Threat to who?

----------

