Restore the Paleo-Alliance?

[LibertyEagle]

I see your point, and I agree. We are all different in our own fun little ways. I actually find it highly interesting to pick at your brains and how you all think. And as I said, I disagree with Lew (especially right now with his Trumpetering)...but his Paleo Alliance was a good idea I think....and maybe we could apply it to this resurgence of Paleo-Cons? I guess what I'm saying is...they are at a prime point for being indoctrinated into our clique, Lew tried to link arms with them...I want to convert them. Once the wool is removed, maybe then they can explore other libertarian ideas.

But Libertarians...screw em. Just as bad as Republicans and Democratics.

Well, I am a conservative; a real one. They started calling them paleocons after the neocons took over the movement. I have been here since '07 and have not been indoctrinated. You can credit the anarchists for that.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

I've always thought the best thing would be to focus on our own towns and states. Things like getting the UN's Agenda 21 thrown out of our communities. As we do that, there will be opportunities to join up with others on those things where we find agreement. Working together, both sides let down their defenses and listen to each other. To me, that has a lot better chance than getting in someone's face and flying whatever freak flag.

You're really harping on the freak flag comment. Please see it in context. Advocating against agenda 21 is flying the freak flag. Going against the grain. Telling the truth about things. That is what I mean.

Now your local based solution is excellent...except tyranny is already here. Central gov. oppression will continue regardless of if we raise our local millage or not.


I think we need activism at all levels

 

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah, I agree. When I said that about local/state, it's because I think the federal government is too far gone. I personally think we are wasting our time thinking we can get someone really good in as President. Maybe for the Senate, quite possibly for the House, but beyond that, I think we are wasting time we could spend on our own communities and states. Not to say they aren't corrupt too, because they are. But, it takes far fewer people and a whole lost less money to exact a change there.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

Yeah, I agree. When I said that about local/state, it's because I think the federal government is too far gone. I personally think we are wasting our time thinking we can get someone really good in as President. Maybe for the Senate, quite possibly for the House, but beyond that, I think we are wasting time we could spend on our own communities and states. Not to say they aren't corrupt too, because they are. But, it takes far fewer people and a whole lost less money to exact a change there.

I just hate the thought of conceding defeat at the Federal Level

 

[LibertyEagle]

I just hate the thought of conceding defeat at the Federal Level

There's still the House of Representatives and possibly, the Senate, with the right person.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

There's still the House of Representatives and possibly, the Senate, with the right person.

Very true. And we need to really focus on getting allies in their soon.

But Trumps success is encouraging. The electorate, I think, is so sick and tired of the powers that be, that they just want something fresh that isn't laced with bullshit. I honestly don't know who would be a good Pres pick for 2020...but getting guys in Congress would sure be a good step in the right direction. A tireless minority can sway a majority. Especially when they are being receptive.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

What do you guys think about working within the party versus going 3rd party (and I'm aware that some of you don't vote...that's fine, but you should still at least wish for allies to hold elected office...the more Rons the better)

 

[Antischism]

"Paleolibertarianism" is a perversion of libertarianism that caters to hardcore social conservatives and white supremacists/nationalists. It was part of the "southern strategy" Rockwell and Rothbard laid out in the 90s which gloriously backfired. Rockwell is a charlatan.

 

[LibertyEagle]

"Paleolibertarianism" is a perversion of libertarianism that caters to hardcore social conservatives and white supremacists/nationalists. It was part of the "southern strategy" Rockwell and Rothbard laid out in the 90s which gloriously backfired. Rockwell is a charlatan.

And it is this kind of BS, Libertas, that is why we can't have nice things.

 

[Antischism]

And it is this kind of BS, Libertas, that is why we can't have nice things.

Make no mistake, I still have a lot more in common with "paleolibertarians" than full-blown statists. ;]

 

[otherone]

Now your local based solution is excellent...except tyranny is already here. Central gov. oppression will continue regardless of if we raise our local millage or not.

Decentralization is the key, federal power is to be checked by state's power, not by individuals. Activism in regards to tyrannical amendments (like my sig) may unify libertarians, conservatives, and anarchists.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

"Paleolibertarianism" is a perversion of libertarianism that caters to hardcore social conservatives and white supremacists/nationalists. It was part of the "southern strategy" Rockwell and Rothbard laid out in the 90s which gloriously backfired. Rockwell is a charlatan.

As Ron says, Liberty brings people together. If hardcore social conservatives or white supremacists believe in paleo-libertarian government (which is neither socially conservative or white supreacist), then so be it. Im all for diversity of opinion.

I think it would be good to note that opposition to things such as CRA 64 are out of principle, not racism. I think one of the two articles says something to the effect of 'i oppose both forced segregation and also forced integration'. Freedom of association, is a good thing, and should be encouraged. The western civilization, is a good thing, and should be encouraged.

White supremacists (many of whom are less supremacist and more advocates of European Interests) may like the above idea. And that is fine. They can think whatever they want, as long as they do not try to impose "group" rights on the whole....like has been done by other "minority groups".

Individuals are equal under the law and in their God given Rights. Other than that, egalitarianism has led to rivers of blood and tyranny. We should stay away from that kind of relativist, anything goes, type of thought.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

Decentralization is the key, federal power is to be checked by state's power, not by individuals. Activism in regards to tyrannical amendments (like my sig) may unify libertarians, conservatives, and anarchists.

I know of two sure fire ways to decentralize. One is peaceful, the other is not. Im just working with the cards im willing to play.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

Make no mistake, I still have a lot more in common with "paleolibertarians" than full-blown statists. ;]

That's fair, but which general points do you not like and why (from the first article linked)

Briefly, paleolibertarianism, with its roots deep in the Old Right, sees:

I. The leviathan State as the institutional source of evil throughout history.

II. The unhampered free market as a moral and practical imperative.

III. Private property as an economic and moral necessity for a free society.

IV. The garrison State as a preeminent threat to liberty and social well being.

V. The welfare State as organized theft that victimizes producers and eventually even its “clients.”

VI. Civil liberties based on property rights as essential to a just society.

VII. The egalitarian ethic as morally reprehensible and destructive of private property and social authority.

VIII. Social authority – as embodied in the family, church, community, and other intermediating institutions – as helping protect the individual from the State and as necessary for a free and virtuous society.

IX. Western culture as eminently worthy of preservation and defense.

X. Objective standards of morality, especially as found in the Judeo-Christian tradition, as essential to the free and civilized social order.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[staerker]

I forget; who exactly gets to spend that money once it's collected? Does it provide extra government services to the individuals that paid it?

The producer pays it upfront, but spreads the cost to the consumer. The money is spent paying down the national debt . . . nevermind, yeah, extra services.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

I love ripping on taxes and debt....but im not sure how exactly that convo got started

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

NOTE: But, you know, if you were actually trying to kick off a project, I apologize. I certainly didn't intend to derail your effort. I will delete my posts. After watching what has been allowed to go on here, I must admit that I have become pretty cynical.

No need to do so, I'm not really a "projects kind of guy. I was just thinking about the topic at lunch and figured that I'd try to gin up a conversation to see what you guys thought about it. You are one of few to actually give thought out answers, and i appreciate that. I enjoy the discussion

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

Well, I am a conservative; a real one. They started calling them paleocons after the neocons took over the movement. I have been here since '07 and have not been indoctrinated. You can credit the anarchists for that.

How would you differentiate between a real conservative, like yourself, and the platform that lew puts forward?

I've always kind of considered myself as a believer in both libertarian type government, and traditionalist type society. Liberty is tyrannnical and evil without Virtue.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

How would you differentiate between a real conservative, like yourself, and the platform that lew puts forward?

I've always kind of considered myself as a believer in both libertarian type government, and traditionalist type society. Liberty is tyrannnical and evil without Virtue.

That's why my own formulation of the libertarian view begins by defining it as believing in "the maximum liberty under God," or God's law, and then define liberty as per the non-aggression principle. This ensures the Author of Liberty is acknowledged, and thereby Virtue is baked into the cake. As for what a real pro-liberty conservative is, as opposed to what current "conservatives" stand for, I appeal to Rockwell's summary comment:

The problem with American conservatism is that it hates the left more than the state, loves the past more than liberty, feels a greater attachment to nationalism than to the idea of self-determination, believes brute force is the answer to all social problems, and thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy. It has never understood the idea of freedom as a self-ordering principle of society. It has never seen the state as the enemy of what conservatives purport to favor. It has always looked to presidential power as the saving grace of what is right and true about America.