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

[LawnWake]

I like Tom, but he's off the mark here.

"How can Ron Paul supporters support Rand Paul's strategy?" Because Ron's strategy did not work and we've learned from it. Tom may have great experience talking to "right wingers" about foreign policy. But that's not gonna do you any good on TV or during debates when you have to rely on soundbites to get your point across. Then there's the moderators or anchors who are there to frame whatever is being said, etc. Yeah, in a conversation, or after one of your lectures (and think about it, the "right wing neo-cons" that seek out an an-cap's lecture are a cut above the rest when it comes to openmindedness).

 

[r3volution 3.0]

You admitted on the thread you linked that you hadn't read Ethics of Liberty.

Did I? Where? Show us the quote.

the lifeboat situation that Rothbard charges against the Tolstoyan of "sister raping" doesn't invalidate the general Tolstoyan/Christian theory.

ROFL

Right, so you're a pacifist except when it comes to using violence for defensive or retributive purposes (which you dismiss as "life-boat scenarios").

That's just fine, except that the whole point of pacifism is precisely the rejection of such violence!

That was certainly Tolstoy's point.

 

[wizardwatson]

You admitted on the thread you linked that you hadn't read Ethics of Liberty.

Did I? Where? Show us the quote.

I repeatedly charged that you haven't read Ethics because you show zero knowledge that you have. You linked to that thread where we discussed this in post #30 above which I quoted in #31. Our discussion began with my post #67 on the linked thread.

In post #72 of that thread you said:

Where? Where does Rothbard say anything like that? Show me the quote.

I showed you the quote in #77. If you had read the book you would have easily found it yourself.

Then in post #76 you said:

My position is that I've read lots of Rothbard

Why didn't you just say "Yes, I've read Ethics." Are you now saying you HAVE read Ethics and you've just been "messing with me"? No, you didn't openly admit you didn't read it but you are a confessed liar and I doubt you ever admit where you're deficient intellectually. Your admission is inferred and any reasonable outside observer would conclude you haven't read it based on your own words.

ROFL

Right, so you're a pacifist except when it comes to using violence for defensive or retributive purposes (which you dismiss as "life-boat scenarios").

That's just fine, except that the whole point of pacifism is precisely the rejection of such violence!

That was certainly Tolstoy's point.

Hey, Einstein, THOSE WERE ROTHBARD'S WORDS I quoted on which I based my argument. Rothbard himself rejects the idea that lifeboat scenarios invalidate a general moral theory. "lifeboat scenario" is HIS vocabulary. You are laughing at him not me. More evidence you definitely didn't read Ethics.

.......

Seriously, dude. Why do you keep responding to me? A simple "you're a wacko" would suffice. Are you actually trying to build or maintain some level of credibility by trying to deny my assertions with these half-hearted posts? If your credibility is important you should just put me on ignore like you claim to have done with others.

I've read the forum mission statement. It's against policy to call people names but it's also part of the mission statement that justice is a key concept, meaning you are responsible for the things you do and say and crimes you commit.

This is your post in this thread #26:

"Lie to them for their own good."

That's right

What am I supposed to do with that? We can call that sentiment you expressed nothing but elitist and Satanic. And you want RPF people to call it "mature"? What did you say above? You said, 'Show "us" the quote'. Who is "us"? Are you calling out to your elitist friends? Am I on the other side?

That sentiment you expressed is the very core of elitism. The bankers, and the oligarchs, and the cartels all have that same mentality. And your "fix" for the liberty movement is to adopt that mindset?

You and your friends can take comfort in the fact that us sheep are outnumbered and "fringe" but there is One on our side who I pray very soon will make those numbers meaningless. One who has his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are as the dust of his feet.

And when He comes there won't be a hole deep enough or a cave dark enough for the wolves to hide in.

Wocka-Wocka Do-Doo Yeah...

 

[wizardwatson]

And yet again, Tom needs to stick to what he knows which is history, law, and economics because he knows nothing about functional politics.

He has no clue what he is talking about and worst yet doesn't even realize he doesn't know what he is talking about. He is a brilliant orator, historian, and scholar but once he gets outside of his realm he is floundering like a fish out of water.

After Tom has focus group, polled, and tested his messaging ideas, then maybe he can come back to us and tell us what percentage of Republican primary voters will vote for a candidate who says the things that he recommends.

Not to mention that Tom completely misses the strategy. Rand isn't trying to "win the warmonger vote" as Tom alleges. What Rand is trying to do is to ensure that he doesn't get pinned down like Ron did and labeled an extremist.

And candidates don't get elected by telling the electorate that they are wrong on the issues. And there are not enough liberty minded voters to win a Presidential nomination process in the Republican Party. It's just that simple.

As much as people give you crap Matt, you said it well. The problem I see is that Rand's opponents will have an easy time SHOWING that Rand disagrees with the electorate on the issues while all the super-liars will be able to blend in. I just feel like this strategy will fall apart midstream. Maybe Rand has more up his sleeve but I've been saying all along he's playing a dangerous game.

I just don't feel Rand is going to be able to "ninja" his way into the White House.

But as many have pointed out, Rand isn't "at the Helm", he's running parallel to the movement, so while I feel the need to point out where I disagree with his strategy I don't think he's anti-liberty but I do think he's "undercover" to where we can't publicly claim him and he can't publicly claim us.

 

[Acala]

One of the most serious problems among libertarians is that they are all rationalists who fail to realize that most people are NOT rationalists and will not be moved by rational arguments no matter how finely honed and oft repeated they are. You could have the pure truth communicated with perfection to every single voter, and you would lose the vote. Liberty candidates will lose and lose and lose again until they learn to speak to people's emotions on one hand and reason on the other. And that is going to require walking a fine line that will sometimes look to rationalist like waffling and hedging. I think Rand is doing a great job of it.

 

[ctiger2]

Your support actually would hurt Rand Paul. He doesn't want it or need it.

Excellent! Even IF he somehow got on the ballot (no chance) I wouldn't vote, for him, or anyone else. Rand isn't my savior.

 

[ctiger2]

I like Tom, but he's off the mark here.

"How can Ron Paul supporters support Rand Paul's strategy?" Because Ron's strategy did not work and we've learned from it. Tom may have great experience talking to "right wingers" about foreign policy. But that's not gonna do you any good on TV or during debates when you have to rely on soundbites to get your point across. Then there's the moderators or anchors who are there to frame whatever is being said, etc. Yeah, in a conversation, or after one of your lectures (and think about it, the "right wing neo-cons" that seek out an an-cap's lecture are a cut above the rest when it comes to openmindedness).

lol, Ron is hands down the MOST successful politician of the past decade without winning anything or passing any legislation.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

In post #72 of that thread you said:

r3vo: "Where? Where does Rothbard say anything like that? Show me the quote.."

I showed you the quote in #77. If you had read the book you would have easily found it yourself.

You charged that Rothbard made anti-Christian remarks. I said I never saw any such thing in Rothbard. You showed me a quote of Rothbard criticizing pacifism: which is to say that I still haven't seen any of these alleged anti-Christian remarks. As I said in the thread, only a nutter such as yourself would consider criticism of pacifism anti-Christian, as 99% of Christians are not pacifists.

Then in post #76 you said:

r3vo: "My position is that I've read lots of Rothbard"

Why didn't you just say "Yes, I've read Ethics." Are you now saying you HAVE read Ethics and you've just been "messing with me"?

I'm saying now that I never said or implied that I hadn't read EoL, and your assumption that I hadn't was always baseless.

ROFL

Right, so you're a pacifist except when it comes to using violence for defensive or retributive purposes (which you dismiss as "life-boat scenarios").

That's just fine, except that the whole point of pacifism is precisely the rejection of such violence!

That was certainly Tolstoy's point.

Hey, Einstein, THOSE WERE ROTHBARD'S WORDS I quoted on which I based my argument. Rothbard himself rejects the idea that lifeboat scenarios invalidate a general moral theory. "lifeboat scenario" is HIS vocabulary. You are laughing at him not me. More evidence you definitely didn't read Ethics.

If you think that Rothbard's words support your claim that one can simultaneously be a pacifist and justify violence in certain circumstances, you obviously misunderstood what he was saying. Perhaps, in addition to your own fringe interpretation of Christianity, you have your own personal interpretation of the English language?

Seriously, dude. Why do you keep responding to me?

good question

We can call that sentiment you expressed nothing but elitist and Satanic. And you want RPF people to call it "mature"? What did you say above? You said, 'Show "us" the quote'. Who is "us"? Are you calling out to your elitist friends? Am I on the other side?

That sentiment you expressed is the very core of elitism. The bankers, and the oligarchs, and the cartels all have that same mentality. And your "fix" for the liberty movement is to adopt that mindset?

You and your friends can take comfort in the fact that us sheep are outnumbered and "fringe" but there is One on our side who I pray very soon will make those numbers meaningless. One who has his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are as the dust of his feet.

And when He comes there won't be a hole deep enough or a cave dark enough for the wolves to hide in.

Wocka-Wocka Do-Doo Yeah...

....but not here, we've hijacked this thread enough already.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Good will never be able to out-bamboozle evil.

If that were true (it isn't), it would mean that good could not succeed in electoral politics.

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.

If you think 51% of the population will ever understand libertarianism (or any other political ideology), you are.

It is no less insane to expect that, than to expect 51% of the population to understand nuclear engineering or 14th century Slavic poetry.

Politics, like those other fields, is a specialized science which the majority of people will never understand - some because they can't, others because they just don't care enough to learn; the result is the same. Elections are not decided by rational argument, they are decided by propaganda. He who propagandizes best wins.

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).

What's unrealistic about someone like Rand getting elected on a watered down libertarian platform, and then implementing some libertarian reforms?

 

[willwash]

You know, I'm sure Tom Woods is awesome, but I just can't get past that smug f**king look on his face on every YouTube video enough to click on it.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

@Rev 3.0,

The population doesn't need to know rocket science or political science to understand they are being bamboozled. You care confusing the professional with the average Joe. They just need to be told in straight forward speech and that speech backed up. Now, the rocket scientist needs to know rocket science, and perhaps a politician could use political science, but not the people.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Really, go watch the video posted here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...nne-Hall-on-the-Genealogy-of-the-Constitution

Then come back to this thread.

 

[Matt Collins]

One of the most serious problems among libertarians is that they are all rationalists who fail to realize that most people are NOT rationalists and will not be moved by rational arguments no matter how finely honed and oft repeated they are. You could have the pure truth communicated with perfection to every single voter, and you would lose the vote. Liberty candidates will lose and lose and lose again until they learn to speak to people's emotions on one hand and reason on the other. And that is going to require walking a fine line that will sometimes look to rationalist like waffling and hedging. I think Rand is doing a great job of it.

Exactly. Being right isn't enough to get you over the finish line. Winning campaigns are more about messaging, logistics, timing, and strategy than ideas. It's just the way the world works.

 

[Matt Collins]

Excellent! Even IF he somehow got on the ballot (no chance) I wouldn't vote, for him, or anyone else.

You won't vote at all?

Then you obviously don't care about liberty.

Rand isn't my savior.

Why are you looking for a savior in politics? We are voting for people to run the government, not be our spiritual leader.

 

[presence]

Tom completely misses the strategy. Rand isn't trying to "win the warmonger vote" as Tom alleges. What Rand is trying to do is to ensure that he doesn't get pinned down like Ron did and labeled an extremist.

And candidates don't get elected by telling the electorate that they are wrong on the issues.

And there are not enough liberty minded voters to win a Presidential nomination process in the Republican Party. It's just that simple.

this too

 

[presence]

You won't vote at all?

Then you obviously don't care about liberty.

You can care for liberty at the ballot box or care for liberty with a sword,
but all liberty really needs from you is your wide eyed witness and clear spoken testimony.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

@Rev 3.0,

The population doesn't need to know rocket science or political science to understand they are being bamboozled. You care confusing the professional with the average Joe. They just need to be told in straight forward speech and that speech backed up. Now, the rocket scientist needs to know rocket science, and perhaps a politician could use political science, but not the people.

It was once said of poor old Kaiser Wilhelm II that, if you wanted to know his view on an issue, just ask the last person he talked to.

It's the same with the voting public.

It's not that a libertarian cannot stand up on the soapbox and persuade Joe to abolish the Dept. of Education - he can.

It's that a socialist can get up on his own soapbox the very next day and persuade Joe of the exact opposite.

This is what I mean when I say the voting public will never understand the issues. They can have a view on them, to be sure, even the libertarian view; but their reasons for holding that view are so superficial, emotional, irrational (such as the charisma or perceived authority of the speaker) that they are easily persuaded to change their position.

Think of competing political ideologies as syllogistic arguments. This is a long and complex chain of reasoning, and the average voter is never going to appreciate the whole thing. He only has enough intelligence, knowledge, and/or attention-span to hear the conclusion of the argument. He does not know that the conclusion is true in the same way as the hardcore devotee does (namely, by reference to the preceding argument which proves it to be true). He accepts the conclusion, if he does, for the most superficial, emotional, and irrational reasons ("Well Romney ran a business, and seems like a family man, so he must know about economics policy...").

Electoral politics is the game of producing these nonsensical reasons (aka propaganda) for the masses to accept your conclusion, and doing it better than the other guy. Sometimes, the best propaganda is truthful - other times not. All I'm saying is, be practical, and use whatever propaganda works best. If you can get people to abolish the Dept. Education by convincing them that it makes good economic sense, great. If you can convince them to abolish the Dept. of Education by convincing them that lizard people will eat them if they don't, that works equally well.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Really, go watch the video posted here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...nne-Hall-on-the-Genealogy-of-the-Constitution

Then come back to this thread.

So, did anyone do this? ^^^

 

[r3volution 3.0]

^^^It's over an hour, not clear what it's about, how about a synopsis so I can decide whether it's worthwhile?

 

[Occam's Banana]

Good will never be able to out-bamboozle evil.

If that were true (it isn't), it would mean that good could not succeed in electoral politics.

It is true, and I explained why it is true (a refutation of which explanation you have eschewed in favor of mere contrary assertion).

But even if it wasn't true, your claim that it would (if true) preclude the possibility of good people winning elections is simply a non sequitur.

If you think 51% of the population will ever understand libertarianism (or any other political ideology), you are.

I do not and I am not.

It is no less insane to expect that, than to expect 51% of the population to understand nuclear engineering or 14th century Slavic poetry.

I did not say or imply anything whatsoever about 51% of any group (including "the population" at large - or even just those who bother voting, which is not the same thing) understanding anything at all. And framing matters in terms of such absolute majoritarianism is one of those very "democratic illusions" to which you obliquely criticized others for adhering. You can't have it both ways. (And if we are going to be all "specialized" and "politically scientifficky," it should be "50% + 1," not "51%" - not to mention that the mere winning of US federal elections requires only a simple majority, not an absolute one.)

Politics, like those other fields, is a specialized science which the majority of people will never understand - some because they can't, others because they just don't care enough to learn; the result is the same.

Until a sufficient number of people actually and genuinely want to be free (regardless of whether they have - or are even able to have - any academic or theoretical "understanding" of this, that or the other abstract "political ideology"), nothing is going to change. As for what constitutes a "sufficient number of people", this will vary from time, place and circumstance. But there is no need for it to be - nor is there any reason to expect that it will be - anywhere close to an absolute majority. It just has to be enough (however much or little that might be) to make "the powers that be" unable or unwilling to pay the cost of continuing to enforce their wishes.

Politics, as I noted before, is a lagging indicator - not a leading one. The outcomes of elections are expressions of those indicators, not the causes of them. Politics and policies are not going going to change until and unless peoples' attitudes change - and peoples' attitudes are not going to change (except for the worse) by trying to "trick" them into being free when they don't really want to be. (And this is yet another reason why "evil bamboozlers" will always be one up on any ostensibly "good bamboozlers.")

Elections are not decided by rational argument, they are decided by propaganda. He who propagandizes best wins.

And truth is the best propaganda.

What's unrealistic about someone like Rand getting elected on a watered down libertarian platform, and then implementing some libertarian reforms?

Nothing is unrealistic about it. What is unrealistic and "romantic" (in a perverse sort of way) is the notion that you can "bamboozle" people into being freer than they actually want to be (as is the notion that any reforms erected upon such a foundation will be in any way durable or lasting). Even more unrealistic is the notion that you can so "bamboozle" the system under which those people live, composed, as it is, of bamboozlers par excellence (and not of any variety of "good").

If enough people come to support significant or substantial libertarian platforms or reforms, then is there is no need for "bamboozlement" in the first place. And if there is not enough support for those things, no amount of "bamboozlement" is going to achieve them - no matter how efficacious it may be in winning elections ...