10%

[DamianTV]

The people of this country are so hopelessly dependant on the system that they are willing to fight to protect that same system which has enslaved them. Revolutions have survived and triumphed with less than 1% of the people willing to rebel against their governments, but when you also need to defend yourself against the 99%, you've got a real problem. To understand what I mean, go ask a baby boomer if they think all interest on money (usury) should be prohibited, and they will tell you fuck no because then their retirement goes away. They are willing to defend the system that steals because they steal from others and give it to the baby boomers. They simply can not wrap their heads around the idea that the Quantity and Value of money are two completely different things, thus, they have submitted to being completely dependant on those that claim interest and unlimited money printing is an "honest" way to survive, and will fight anyone who opposes that system.

 

[Acala]

The people of this country are so hopelessly dependant on the system that they are willing to fight to protect that same system which has enslaved them. Revolutions have survived and triumphed with less than 1% of the people willing to rebel against their governments, but when you also need to defend yourself against the 99%, you've got a real problem. To understand what I mean, go ask a baby boomer if they think all interest on money (usury) should be prohibited, and they will tell you fuck no because then their retirement goes away. They are willing to defend the system that steals because they steal from others and give it to the baby boomers. They simply can not wrap their heads around the idea that the Quantity and Value of money are two completely different things, thus, they have submitted to being completely dependant on those that claim interest and unlimited money printing is an "honest" way to survive, and will fight anyone who opposes that system.

I will say interest should not be prohibited because it is none of your business what arrangements I make with another consenting adult as to the terms of any loan of money one of us might make to the other. If one of us wants to charge interest and the other wants to pay it, it is a deal between the two of us and not you or anyone else. So butt out.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Ooh! Ooh! I wanna be on your list! I wanna be the top 10%!!

 

[unklejman]

Here is a thought: Let's work together until anarcho-capitalism vs libertarianism arguments replace the right vs left paradigm on the national stage.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Thanks for everything you're doing, Catdd. We'll never be truly free until more people show the courage it takes to be true revolutionaries by anonymously insulting others on the internet.

Absolutely. Amen.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Ron Paul is an-cap. I recommend reading all the books on the Recommended Reading List at the end of The Revolution: A Manifesto. Then, read all those he recommends at the end of Liberty Defined. Then, you too will be an an-cap and your problem will be solved! The truth will set you free. Dr. Paul is trying to gently lead you along the path to the truth. Look at how the reading lists at the back of his books become gradually more and more an-cap with each book. Good luck and Happy Reading!

Some of the recommended reading from Liberty Defined:

Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View by Ron Paul

For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray N. Rothbard

The Left, The Right, and The State by Lew Rockwell (pdf here: http://mises.org/books/leftright.pdf )

Civil Disobedience (Resistance to Civil Government) by Henry David Thoreau

Democracy: The God that Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Let's Abolish Government by Lysander Spooner

Education: Free and Compulsory by Murray N. Rothbard

Meltdown by Thomas E. Woods Jr.

What Has Government Done to Our Money? by Murray N. Rothbard

Ron Paul is not an-cap bro. You're using your imagination to impose on him things he's never said.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Travlyr, what are your intellectual interests? Do you have any interest in anything other than this topic you know little to nothing about? You seem to be very interested in anarcho-capitalism. You love to argue about it. You love to chime in if you see it mentioned. The only thing about an-cap you seem to not be interested in is knowing anything about it.

Just follow Ron Paul's reading advice. That's all you need to do. All your problems would be solved.

You know what else promised to solve all of our problems? Government.

 

[echebota]

Libertarian concept is a philosophy that unites us here. But many people just go through phases when it comes to how practically and SUSTAINABLY achieve the Libertarian goals.

I went through several phases myself, and now it seems to me that M.Rothbard is right! Individuals ought to enjoy as much freedom as possible and government as little power as possible. Government limiting itself is utopia, and US history is a vivid proof. Logical conclusion - the only sustainable free society is the one with no monopoly on force..

By the way, Rothbard is also Ron Paul’s most admired author

I like how Lew Rockwell explains it in "The left, the right, and the state":

"The main debate in our time thus concerns the direction and pace of reform toward market economics. This is all to the good and yet I would like to highlight what strikes me as a great confusion. The reformers here and abroad are widely under the impression that the liberty they seek for their societies can be imposed in much the way that socialist systems of old were imposed. The idea is that if Congress, the president, and the
courts would just get hip to the program, they could fix what’s wrong with the country in a jiffy. Thus we need only elect liberty-minded politicians, support a president trained in the merit of market incentives, and confirm judges who know all about the Chicago School of economics.

It cannot be, and I predict that if we continue to go down the path, we will replace one bad form of central planning with another. Genuine liberty is not just another form of government management. It means the absence of government management. It is this theme that I would like to pursue further.

I can present my own perspective on this up front: all reform in all areas of politics, economics, and society should be in one direction: toward more freedom for individuals and less power for government. I will go further to say that individuals ought to enjoy as much freedom as possible and government as little power as possible. Yes, that position qualifies me as a libertarian"

 

[Travlyr]

Libertarian concept is a philosophy that unites us here. But many people just go through phases when it comes to how practically and SUSTAINABLY achieve the Libertarian goals.

I went through several phases myself, and now it seems to me that M.Rothbard is right! Individuals ought to enjoy as much freedom as possible and government as little power as possible. Government limiting itself is utopia, and US history is a vivid proof. Logical conclusion - the only sustainable free society is the one with no monopoly on force..

By the way, Rothbard is also Ron Paul’s most admired author

I like how Lew Rockwell explains it in "The left, the right, and the state":

"The main debate in our time thus concerns the direction and pace of reform toward market economics. This is all to the good and yet I would like to highlight what strikes me as a great confusion. The reformers here and abroad are widely under the impression that the liberty they seek for their societies can be imposed in much the way that socialist systems of old were imposed. The idea is that if Congress, the president, and the
courts would just get hip to the program, they could fix what’s wrong with the country in a jiffy. Thus we need only elect liberty-minded politicians, support a president trained in the merit of market incentives, and confirm judges who know all about the Chicago School of economics.

It cannot be, and I predict that if we continue to go down the path, we will replace one bad form of central planning with another. Genuine liberty is not just another form of government management. It means the absence of government management. It is this theme that I would like to pursue further.

I can present my own perspective on this up front: all reform in all areas of politics, economics, and society should be in one direction: toward more freedom for individuals and less power for government. I will go further to say that individuals ought to enjoy as much freedom as possible and government as little power as possible. Yes, that position qualifies me as a libertarian"

In that type of society, how do you go about stopping the guy with an unlimited money supply who claims the right to maintain and use a kill list?

 

[thelaibon]

+1

I get so tired of the people who refuse to recognize that we're all fighting for the same things. Like Dr. Paul said, liberty is popular.

A better way to look at 10% is what the Minnesota chairman said at the Paul event in Tampa:

When you have less than 10% of a population who share ideas, the idea will grow slowly, but once you pass that threshold and have 10% who are unshakable in their beliefs, then the idea will grow much mroe quickly and eventually be adopted by the entire population. This is backed up through science.

Do not underestimate the power of an irate minority, especially as it's increasingly evident that we're right.

Love it!

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Ron Paul is not an-cap bro. You're using your imagination to impose on him things he's never said.

Have you read his recommended reading lists at the back of his books?

If you had, you'd be an-cap.

Why does Ron Paul want you to be an-cap?

 

[The Free Hornet]

It is just like Hans-Hermann Hoppe claiming that Ludwig von Mises was an anarchist. According to Hoppe, Mises became an anarchist after he died. It is disingenuous.

Have you ever met a dead guy that wanted more government?

 

[The Free Hornet]

There are about 10% of you people that I consider true revolutionaries, the rest are no better than your average libtard or rino. The 10% know who they are, I think, and I'm not sure how they manage to hang around with the rest here. I hate the other 90% of you so I don't much care if you like me or not; the rest matter. I was a good member here...I donated, I fought hard for the cause, and I was always there when you needed a hand. I think the anarchists never belonged, I think they were using us as a platform to reach their own destination. and I've despised the entire lot of them since '07. The Libertarian Party has no claim to the real revolution as I see it, and the division between them concerning open borders was a major concern of mine. I believe the Constitution party best represents the future even though the anti abortion folks couldn't disagree more. Where does it go from here? Is there any one party that best represents the future? NO, I doubt if any party will best represent the revolution. I don't know where we go from here, but it seems that we should prepare ourselves for the chaos which is sure to come in the near future. Adios

It may be the case that the very nature of a political party prevents both of these from existing in the same pro-liberty organization

a) ideological purity (the opposition to state power whether as minarchists or anarchists)
b) political power (relevance as an organization independent of elected positions)

I have little reason to believe a political party can represent MY interests AND have power. As such, I treat them as no different than any other tool of force whether it is a Senator, a gun, or a mob. We should seek to focus all parties towards liberty solutions just as we would seek every elected office.

 

[UMULAS]

You want liberty but hate immigrants? Then the constitution party is for you!

 

[Travlyr]

Have you ever met a dead guy that wanted more government?

Mises was a believer in "Liberalism, State and Government" which does not allow for government to grow beyond that. It is not an oppressive state. Liberalism limits the size of government when it is understood and respected.

"The program of liberalism, therefore, if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property, that is, private ownership of the means of production... All the other demands of liberalism result from his fundamental demand." - Mises

The anarchists consider state, law, and government as superfluous institutions in a social order that would really serve the good of all, and not just the special interests of a privileged few. Only because the present social order is based on private ownership of the means of production is it necessary to resort to compulsion and coercion in its defense. If private property were abolished, then everyone, without exception, would spontaneously observe the rules demanded by social cooperation.

It has already been pointed out that this doctrine is mistaken in so far as it concerns the character of private ownership of the means of production. But even apart from this, it is altogether untenable. The anarchist, rightly enough, does not deny that every form of human cooperation in a society based on the division of labor demands the observance of some rules of conduct that are not always agreeable to the individual, since they impose on him a sacrifice, only temporary, it is true, but, for all that, at least for the moment, painful. But the anarchist is mistaken in assuming that everyone, without exception, will be willing to observe these rules voluntarily. - Mises

In an anarchist society is the possibility entirely to be excluded that someone may negligently throw away a lighted match and start a fire or, in a fit of anger, jealousy, or revenge, inflict injury on his fellow man? Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints.

Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. - Mises

Mises clearly understood anarchism and he was no anarchist. It is dishonest to apply that label to him.

What limits does anarchism put on rulers who claim the right to maintain kill lists of people and hunt them down with predator drones to kill them?

 

[FreedomFighter1776]

I applaud EVERY faction that believes in liberty and freedom. Some may choose to do things with their freedom that I would not.

Everyone fighting against the state is on our side.

Anarchists, AnCaps, "write in Ron Paul" folks, Johnson supporters (now that Paul is out), Constitution party supporters, Big L libertarians, small L GOP'ers, some within the "occupy" movement - and I'm sure there are lots of "labels" that I'm missing.

I don't give a damn if we disagree on 2 or 3 things. You all have a place at my table anytime. I'll be proud to sit beside you.

 

[The Free Hornet]

What limits does anarchism put on rulers who claim the right to maintain kill lists of people and hunt them down with predator drones to kill them?

a) There would be no rulers to make 'kill lists".

b) The "-capitalist" part of "anarcho-capitalist" implies that those acting contrary to the freedom philosophy may face consequences just as murderers do today.

In that type of society, how do you go about stopping the guy with an unlimited money supply who claims the right to maintain and use a kill list?

I suspect someone with lots to lose ("unlimited money supply") would realize the folly of making enemies that can harm him or those he cares for with a $0.05 bullet and nobody will give a fuck because he was such an asshole and it is "that type of society". Quote: "The most dangerous weapon in the world; A man with nothing left to lose".

Mises clearly understood anarchism and he was no anarchist. It is dishonest to apply that label to him.

I agree with this general point and was joking. That said, is there a reference to support "Hans-Hermann Hoppe claiming that Ludwig von Mises was an anarchist"? A lot of Anarcho-capitalists were influenced by Mises and maybe that causes trouble. Also, an anarcho-capitalist is not necessarily going to consider themselves an anarchist (and they have every right to define the terms within the limits of reason, consistency, precedent, et cetera). The examples you give to be contrary to anarchism may indicate a definitional disagreement. E.g., is wanting a government voluntarily funded the same as anarcho-capitalism? How is that different from voluntarily funding your own protection and system of justice?

FWIW, I don't know which is better: minarchism or anarcho-capitalism. Zero force or the wee bit tiniest amount necessary? Less is better, IMO, but I can't say which paradigm is more feasible and more likely to lead to a free or significantly more free society. If ever there would be a case for tolerance, it would be among libertarians, constitutionalists, and anarcho-capitalists. OP's efforts against that are somewhat disgraceful although I applaud a good purging of the riff-raff too - my opinion would differ on who those are.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

You know what else promised to solve all of our problems? Government.

Yeah, but Ron Paul actually gets 'er done. He also delivered Chuck Norris. With a round-house kick.

 

[QuickZ06]

I applaud EVERY faction that believes in liberty and freedom. Some may choose to do things with their freedom that I would not.

Everyone fighting against the state is on our side.

Anarchists, AnCaps, "write in Ron Paul" folks, Johnson supporters (now that Paul is out), Constitution party supporters, Big L libertarians, small L GOP'ers, some within the "occupy" movement - and I'm sure there are lots of "labels" that I'm missing.

I don't give a damn if we disagree on 2 or 3 things. You all have a place at my table anytime. I'll be proud to sit beside you.

As well as mine.

 

[Travlyr]

a) There would be no rulers to make 'kill lists"

There will always be rulers. The choices are self-evident ... does one want representative rule? Or does one want to have no voice and be ruled by others? The long forgotten "Golden Rule" is as old as the hills. "He who has the most gold rules." The way they do it is that they buy the most powerful military money can buy, give them all the weapons they want, and control the people. It has been that way throughout much of history except for a brief time when the classical liberal experiment was tried.

Amerika is the empire it is today because they have the most gold, the most powerful military, and the most weapons. The Federal Reserve supplies them with unlimited "gold". That is why representative government is so important, and it is why Ron Paul has asked for people to get politically active.

"Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." - Pericles, 430 B.C.

Ron Paul,
The utilitarians may be neutral or antagonistic regarding the origins of life and liberty, but this in no way weakens their explanation of the technical advantages of a free economic system. However, those who accept a natural rights philosophy have no choice whatsoever but to accept laissez-faire capitalism.

Mises’s utilitarian defense of the market opens political careers for those who believe in liberty, courage, and even dares one who truly believes in the system to present it in political terms.

Mises in Human Action says:

The flowering of human society depends on two factors: the intellectual power of outstanding men to conceive sound social and economic theories, and the ability of these or other men to make these ideologies palatable to the majority.

Ludwig von Mises certainly provided sound economic and social theories. I hope that my modest success in politics may encourage others to try it, and help prove Mises “wrong,” showing that a political career is open to men and women who do not identify themselves with the interests of a pressure group, but with the liberty of all.

Who can prove Mises "wrong?" Ron Paul has been working on it for years.

I agree with this general point and was joking. That said, is there a reference to support "Hans-Hermann Hoppe claiming that Ludwig von Mises was an anarchist"?

Fair enough question. I'll have to look that up again as I can not find that quote presently.

A lot of Anarcho-capitalists were influenced by Mises and maybe that causes trouble. Also, an anarcho-capitalist is not necessarily going to consider themselves an anarchist (and they have every right to define the terms within the limits of reason, consistency, precedent, et cetera). The examples you give to be contrary to anarchism may indicate a definitional disagreement. E.g., is wanting a government voluntarily funded the same as anarcho-capitalism?

Perhaps.

How is that different from voluntarily funding your own protection and system of justice?

I see a lot of difference, but those differences are not so important to me to elaborate unless you really want me to do that. What we know works for sure, proven through an accurate reading of history, is Classical Liberalism.

FWIW, I don't know which is better: minarchism or anarcho-capitalism. Zero force or the wee bit tiniest amount necessary? Less is better, IMO, but I can't say which paradigm is more feasible and more likely to lead to a free or significantly more free society. If ever there would be a case for tolerance, it would be among libertarians, constitutionalists, and anarcho-capitalists. OP's efforts against that are somewhat disgraceful although I applaud a good purging of the riff-raff too - my opinion would differ on who those are.

Mises clearly believed that classical liberalism was a superior social order.

Nevertheless, brief and all too limited as the supremacy of liberal ideas was, it sufficed to change the face of the earth. A magnificent economic development took place. The release of man's productive powers multiplied the means of subsistence many times over. On the eve of the World War (which was itself the result of a long and bitter struggle against the liberal spirit and which ushered in a period of still more bitter attacks on liberal principles), the world was incomparably more densely populated than it had ever been, and each inhabitant could live incomparably better than had been possible in earlier centuries. The prosperity that liberalism had created reduced considerably infant mortality, which had been the pitiless scourge of earlier ages, and, as a result of the improvement in living conditions, lengthened the average span of life.

Nor did this prosperity flow only to a select class of privileged persons. On the eve of the World War the worker in the industrial nations of Europe, in the United States, and in the overseas dominions of England lived better and more graciously than the nobleman of not too long before. Not only could he eat and drink according to his desire; he could give his children a better education; he could, if he wished, take part in the intellectual and cultural life of his nation; and, if he possessed enough talent and energy, he could, without difficulty, raise his social position. It was precisely in the countries that had gone the farthest in adopting the liberal program that the top of the social pyramid was composed, in the main, not of those who had, from their very birth, enjoyed a privileged position by virtue of the wealth or high rank of their parents, but of those who, under favorable conditions, had worked their way up from straitened circumstances by their own power. The barriers that had in earlier ages separated lords and serfs had fallen. Now there were only citizens with equal rights. No one was handicapped or persecuted on account of his nationality, his opinions, or his faith. Domestic Political and religious persecutions had ceased, and international wars began to become less frequent. Optimists were already hailing the dawn of the age of eternal peace.