Tom Woods: Iran Update, Plus: Rand Paul's Best Strategy

[whoisjohngalt]

Another part of politics that those in our movement who will never support Rand don't understand is that politicians will always move as far away as they can from their base until someone tries to cut in on that base.

There is no one even close to swiping any of Rand's base in the GOP primary. No one. That means that libertarians will either vote for him or vote for no one, there is no risk of him losing that support to another candidate. It allows him to go out and stretch to try and bring in supporters from other wings of the GOP. This is how all politicians work. It's why candidates always run to the center in the general; they want to appeal to independents and moderates and they know there is little to no risk of losing more than a small percentage of their base.

Lastly, Rand's assumes that libertarians are more attentive than the general voting population and will realize that in action he is nearly flawless. The general voting public vote for rhetoric despite actions that completely contradict that rhetoric. It's just how it is. You have to use that knowledge to your advantage.

Rand is a politician trying to win a campaign. You want him to be something else. What I can't understand is why you are wasting your time in his forum?

 

[Occam's Banana]

You have to confront the evil to it's face, boldly and in public. Over and over again.

Evil didn't win that way (by confronting good boldly and in public). It won by patient, gradual subversion.

And evil was able to win that way precisely because good failed to confront it boldly, publicly and vigorously.
Insidious obfuscation is evil's most potent weapon - and slow corruption and stealthy subversion are its surest means.
Being parts of its fundamental nature, evil is always going to be better at using that weapon and those means than good can ever hope to be.
In any game of "patient, gradual subversion," good will lose to evil every time ...

 

[Sola_Fide]

I have a soft spot for Tom (even though we've had some contentious email exchanges in the past). I think he's right. The hawks of the party are going to have several choices for president. There is a liberty contingent, a grassroots contingent, and an independent contingent in the primaries that want something different.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

And evil was able to win that way precisely because good failed to confront it boldly, publicly and vigorously.

No, evil won because evil better understands the average voter: i.e. that he is easily bamboozled.

So evil gets right to work bamboolzing him.

While good wastes time on a noble but futile quest to fix him - when good should be counter-bamboozling.

Put another way (without any additional use of the word bamboozle ), libertarians are still possessed by the democratic illusions of the classical liberals.

Romantic, lovable, but not based in reality.

 

[wizardwatson]

No, evil won because evil better understands the average voter: i.e. that he is easily bamboozled.

So evil gets right to work bamboolzing him.

While good wastes time on a noble but futile quest to fix him - when good should be counter-bamboozling.

Put another way (without any additional use of the word bamboozle ), libertarians are still possessed by the democratic illusions of the classical liberals.

Romantic, lovable, but not based in reality.

"Lie to them for their own good."

This is the spirit of the anti-Christ.

Anyone who follows this philosophy is a fool. It looks tempting but it is the same lie those you think you're competing against are telling themselves.

That is the path of evil.

Only the truth will prevail.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

^^^As a pacifist, you obviously have a good nose for practicality, so I'll be sure to consider your advice.

"Lie to them for their own good."

That's right

Only the truth will prevail.

Not so far

 

[wizardwatson]

^^^As a pacifist, you obviously have a good nose for practicality, so I'll be sure to consider your advice.



That's right

Not so far

Well, Boromir, I'm sure you and Hells_Unicorn and all the rest who approve of this philosophy will be able to use the Ring of Power for good to save us all.

 

[mad cow]

After a close run-off with the An-Caps,the Libertarian Party will be swept into the Whitehouse in 2016 by speaking truth to power.

 

[wizardwatson]

^^^As a pacifist, you obviously have a good nose for practicality, so I'll be sure to consider your advice.

I never labeled myself a pacifist. You goobers did. Nor is the Lamb a pacifist.

I'm a Jeet Kune Do man. But violence and subterfuge is high art that bozos whose first instinct is to lie to achieve their goals are light years from grasping.

Trying to control the future Is like trying to take the master carpenter's place. When you handle the master's tools, Chances are you'll cut yourself. Tao Te Ching

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Well, Boromir, I'm sure you and Hells_Unicorn and all the rest who approve of this philosophy will be able to use the Ring of Power for good to save us all.

The problem with your analogy is that, in reality, there is no Mount Doom.

I never labeled myself a pacifist.

Okay, so then you believe that violence is ethical under certain circumstances?

Because what you said in this thread strongly implied the opposite.

I'm a Jeet Kune Do man.

Me too, I like mine with duck sauce.

 

[wizardwatson]

The problem with your analogy is that, in reality, there is no Mount Doom.

In reality there is Calvary. Also known as Golgotha. "The place of the skulls." Much cooler name than "Mount Doom" if you ask me.

My analogies are typically awesome, sorry/not sorry.

Okay, so then you believe that violence is ethical under certain circumstances?

Because what you said in this thread strongly implied the opposite.

Oh, you mean the thread where I linked you to some Rothbard garbage where he called Tolstoy a pacifist and you parroted it like a lemming? Yeah, I never said I was there either. It "sounded like it" because you labeled me that way, goober.

Me too, I like mine with duck sauce.

It's easier to mock than to become aware of what you don't understand.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Oh, you mean the thread where I linked you to some Rothbard garbage where he called Tolstoy a pacifist and you parroted it like a lemming? Yeah, I never said I was there either. It "sounded like it" because you labeled me that way, goober.

Tolstoy was a pacifist.

As a self-ascribed "Tolstoyan Christian," shouldn't you know this?

 

[wizardwatson]

Tolstoy was a pacifist.

As a self-ascribed "Tolstoyan Christian," shouldn't you know this?

Tolstoy was a follower of the commands of Christ. Christ prohibited killing, yes, resisting evil, yes, but there's a little room in there for laying down your life for another that would perhaps negate the label of "pacifist" which makes "violence unjustifiable".

So I prefer to reject the label of pacifist. There's a little wiggle room in there to beat your ass if you try to rape my sister to use Rothbard's grotesque example that he falsely charges a Tolstoyan can't do.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Tolstoy was a follower of the commands of Christ. Christ prohibited killing, yes, resisting evil, yes, but there's a little room in there for laying down your life for another that would perhaps negate the label of "pacifist" which makes "violence unjustifiable" a pacifist

FIFY

So I prefer to reject the label of pacifist.

I prefer to think of myself as a large walrus, but it just ain't true.

There's a little wiggle room in there to beat your ass if you try to rape my sister...

Right, which is why you are not a pacifist and therefore not a Tolstoyan.

It is also why your claim that Rothbard's ethics are "Satanic" for permitting defensive/retributive violence is bizarre.

You wouldn't, by chance, be a crazy person would you?

 

[BUTSRSLY]

MODERATE VOLUNTARIST TAKES EXCEPTION TO MODERATE VOLUNTARIST'S MESSAGING

THIS NEVER HAPPENS

 

[wizardwatson]

FIFY



I prefer to think of myself as a large walrus, but it just ain't true.



Right, which is why you are not a pacifist and therefore not a Tolstoyan.

It is also why your claim that Rothbard's ethics are "Satanic" for permitting defensive/retributive violence is bizarre.

You wouldn't, by chance, be a crazy person would you?

Took you long enough, Beavis.

You admitted on the thread you linked that you hadn't read Ethics of Liberty. If you had perhaps you would understand why that "lifeboat situation" of "sister raping" doesn't invalidate the Tolstoyan/Christian moral theory.

Now here's some more Rothbard for you. This is a direct quote from Ethics:

In the first place, a lifeboat situation is hardly a valid test of a theory of rights, or of any moral theory whatsoever. Problems of a moral theory in such an extreme situation do not invalidate a theory for normal situations. In any sphere of moral theory, we are trying to frame an ethic for man, based on his nature and the nature of the world-and this precisely means for normal nature, for the way life usually is, and not for rare and abnormal situations. It is a wise maxim of the law, for precisely this reason, that "hard cases make bad law." We are trying to frame an ethic for the way men generally live in the world; we are not, after all, interested in framing an ethic that focuses on situations that are rare, extreme, and not generally encountered.

So you see, in the same way that the lifeboat situations that Rothbard outlines in Chapter 20 don't invalidate the moral theory that he proposes, the lifeboat situation that Rothbard charges against the Tolstoyan of "sister raping" doesn't invalidate the general Tolstoyan/Christian theory.

You haven't read Tolstoy.
You haven't read Ethics.

But you sit around here playing gatekeeper pretending to know "the way forward" as if you are the future leader of some elite faction when really all you are promoting is an agenda of lies and division between the elite "smarties" and the "mundanes".

Unfortunately for us sheep you are not alone. Stop the lying and follow moral law.

....

In this world, yes, I'm certainly crazy. I believe that Noah's Ark was true, and that Jesus walked on water and that God rained fire down on Sodom and Gommorrah and parted the Red Sea.

Christian truth begins and is rooted in the absurd. Why? Because God despises the wisdom of men. He thinks it's trash.

1 Corinthians 3:19-20 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

Care to try again?

I can't promise a response. I find you quite boring so there's a good chance I'll be responding to something more interesting like Tom Brady's moral reprehensibility.

 

[Occam's Banana]

No, evil won because evil better understands the average voter: i.e. that he is easily bamboozled.

So evil gets right to work bamboolzing him.

That is just a rephrasing of what I said about evil. ("Insidious obfuscation is evil's most potent weapon ...")

While good wastes time on a noble but futile quest to fix him - when good should be counter-bamboozling.

Good will never be able to out-bamboozle evil. Evil lives and breathes bamboozlement. Bamboozlement is its life-blood. Folks of genuinely good will who are honestly desirous of human liberty (as I believe Rand Paul is) will never beat sociopathically facile liars at their own game - they are too glibly & consciencelessly expert at it. It's just not going to happen.

Put another way (without any additional use of the word bamboozle ), libertarians are still possessed by the democratic illusions of the classical liberals.

Certainly not this libertarian. Except on the most local and decentralized of scales, I have little but loathing for democracy and the myriad illusions arising therefrom ...

Romantic, lovable, but not based in reality.

Under present circumstances, I agree that "bold" and "public" denouncements of evil of the sort that Tom Woods et al. would like to see from candidates for high public office would not be conducive to achieving electoral success. (They are critically important in other venues and for other purposes, however). The notion that such a strategy would be effective for the purpose of winning elections is indeed "romantic" and "not based in reality" - but no more so than the notion that winning elections via "bamboozlement" will be any more efficacious in actually accomplishing libertarian objectives (an end for which the winning of elections is, after all, supposed to be a means, and not an end in itself).

Unfortunately, the reality is that politics is a lagging indicator, not a leading one. I was never under any illusion that Ron Paul's vigorous and outspoken defense of what is right was going to win him the White House (or for that matter, that the White House is even such a great prize as it is cracked up to be). Needless to say, Rand Paul's approach differs markedly from his father's - and I wish him (and us) the best of it. Both the boldness of Paul the Elder and the "subtlety" (shall we say) of Paul the Younger have their virtues and uses - but the simple fact is that until enough people actually want liberty (and all that it implies), nothing is going to change in any substantial or significant way. And such a change absolutely does require "bold" and "public" (and non-"bamboozly") identifications and denouncements of evil ...

 

[idiom]

If Rand wanted to be more libertarian and still have a shot at winning, he would have to be way more, not just a little.

He would have to be in the streets, getting beat on by cops leading protests. He would have to be leading a strong coalition fighting NAFTA, the drug war and the war on poverty, while being pro-defense and pro-israel.

I don't know that he has that sort of MLK persona in him, the media wouldn't know how to handle him, and I don't think the voting public has it in them to elect a radical leader. That sort of wholesale change, they say they want, but at the end of the day it scares the shit out of them.

 

[Brett85]

If all we care about is winning an election, we've already lost the war.

When did anyone say that's all we care about? That's only part of it.

 

[Brett85]

There is no one even close to swiping any of Rand's base in the GOP primary. No one. That means that libertarians will either vote for him or vote for no one, there is no risk of him losing that support to another candidate.

I've actually come across some Ron Paul supporters who are supporting Cruz, believe it or not.