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

[ClydeCoulter]

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

It's called, "The Genealogy of the Constitution", that's what it's about. Synopsis? It tells how it started in 1014, ended, started, ended, etc... and where we are today compared to the start.

You've probably spent an hour in this thread...it's really not that hard to focus on one subject for an hour.

 

[wizardwatson]

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.

I never said he made anti-Christian "remarks".

I'm saying his ENTIRE PHILOSOPHY OF RIGHTS as laid out in Ethics is anti-Christian.

Pay attention.

I showed you Rothbard's own words to back it up.

Your defenses:

"David doesn't understand what Rothbard said."
"David doesn't understand what Tolstoy was."
"David doesn't understand what a Christian is."

How do you back up your defense?

"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."

Translation?

"I'm not telling you how I know I know you're wrong, so NYAH!"

All your other points are too boring to address....again.

 

[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.

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

Where?

Bamboozling (telling either simplified truths and/or lies to persuade someone) is merely a tool. It can be wielded by anyone.

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.

Not if bamboozling is the means of winning elections, as is self-evidently true.

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.

Sounds like you're talking about an alternative to electoral politics (agorism, civil disobedience, revolt, whatever), which is all well and good, but irrelevant to my point.

I'm talking about the means by which libertarians can succeed in electoral politics.

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.

As if the bamboozling begins and ends on election day...

And truth is the best propaganda.

That must be why the candidate who wins the election is always the most honest..

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").

.

Our opponents seem to have accomplished precisely what you say is impossible.

The people have been bamboozled into support policies which will yield results contrary to those they actually desire (e.g. minimum wage vis a vis unemployment).

And those "reforms" have been extremely durable.

How is this possible? Because the people do not understand the causality involved. Our opponents fed them a false causal account.

You evidently think it would be enough to present them with a true causal account.

I'm saying that they aren't capable of distinguishing between the two.

They will buy the account which is shiniest, not the one which is true.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Where?

Immediately after I made the statement.

Bamboozling (telling either simplified truths and/or lies to persuade someone) is merely a tool. It can be wielded by anyone.

Of course lies and deceptions can be employed by anyone. I have not said or suggested otherwise.

And the best and most effective liars and deceivers will always be those without shame or scruples.

Striving to be a better liar and deceiver than the other guy may indeed help you win elections - but it's not at all edifying to contemplate what kind of "libertarian" society it might get you ...

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.

Not if bamboozling is the means of winning elections, as is self-evidently true.

Yes, even then. "Bamboozlement" is indeed a way of winning elections, but it is not at all self-evident that it is the only way to do so.

Your assertion avoids being a non sequitur only if there is no other way to win elections than by "bamboozlement."

But that is demonstrably not the case. (Exhibit A: Ron Paul)

Sounds like you're talking about an alternative to electoral politics (agorism, civil disobedience, revolt, whatever), which is all well and good, but irrelevant to my point.

I'm talking about the means by which libertarians can succeed in electoral politics.

It's relevant to your point because if the only things you've got are "bamboozlement" and "winning elections," then you haven't really got anything at all.

You are talking about one particular means ("bamboozlement") of winning elections. As I noted in a previous post, winning elections (by whatever method) is merely a means to an end, not an end in itself (except for the degenerate case of politicians who seek to retain their offices for no other reason than the personal status and other perks they derive therefrom - one of whom I assume we both agree that Rand is probably not).

But it will do no good at all to win elections if your purposes beyond election day do not have sufficient support to carry them through over the opposition of powerful vested interests. Even if the people who vote in elections are as contemptibly stupid and fickle (and as easily manipulable) as you say they are, the people who hold positions of actual power most assuredly are not. They, at least - to use an example from one of your previous posts in this thread - will NOT be "bamboozled" into abolishing the Department of Education (or any other such thing).

As if the bamboozling begins and ends on election day...

*shrug* Bamboozle 'round the clock, 24/7/365, but it still won't change the fact that politics is a lagging indicator - or that you can't trick people into being freer than they are actually willing to be be. (You can, however, bamboozle people into thinking they are freer than they actually are - which is yet another reason why the "bad guys" will always, on net, be able to out-bamboozle the "good guys" who try to play their game.)

And truth is the best propaganda.

That must be why the candidate who wins the election is always the most honest.

That might be a telling criticism of my remark if you think that merely winning elections is the one and only means of achieving libertarian objectives. I do not.

Having liberty candidates participate as sideshow barkers in the carnival of electoral politics has its place and uses - but it is not even remotely sufficient of itself.

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").

Our opponents seem to have accomplished precisely what you say is impossible.

Our opponents bamboozled people into being freer than they actually want to be? When did this happen - and how did I miss it?

The people have been bamboozled into support policies which will yield results contrary to those they actually desire (e.g. minimum wage vis a vis unemployment).

And those "reforms" have been extremely durable.

How is this possible? Because the people do not understand the causality involved. Our opponents fed them a false causal account.

But that is not what I said (or, more correctly, implied) was impossible. Of course (some of) "the people" can be duped into supporting things with deleterious consequences. Others who know better can be cowed into passive non-opposition. Still others actually and actively want irrationally contradictory policies. Unless and until there are "enough" people (however many that may be) who do not fall into those categories, no amount of "libertarian bamboozlement" is going to produce a significantly and substantively freer society.

But if I am wrong, and if the woeful state of current affairs is merely due to "the people" being as ovinely susceptible to "bamboozlement" as you would have it, then what point could there be in even bothering, since "the people" are invariably going to be just as easily herded in some other direction by the next bamboozler who comes down the pike ... ?

You evidently think it would be enough to present them with a true causal account.

No, it is not enough. But though it is not a sufficient condition, it is a necessary one.

And if, having been "presented with a true causal account," enough of them still don't want a free society, then there won't be a free society - and there isn't going to be one unless and until enough of them do want one. And no amount of "bamboozlement" will change that fact - anything such "bamboozlement" might achieve under such circumstances will be limited and ephemeral, at best.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

And the best and most effective liars and deceivers will always be those without shame or scruples.

So you assert.

Q: do you think that great actors must be shameless and unscruplusus?

"Bamboozlement" is indeed a way of winning elections, but it is not at all self-evident that it is the only way to do so.

Your assertion avoids being a non sequitur only if there is no other way to win elections than by "bamboozlement."

But that is demonstrably not the case. (Exhibit A: Ron Paul)

Sure sure, I don't want to speak in absolutes. I had the presidential election in mind.

The smaller the electorate, the easier it is to form coalitions, the less bamboozling one may have to do to build that coalition.

So let me rephrase: without effective bamboozling, libertarians cannot win enough elections to bring about major and lasting policy changes.

A handful of Ron Pauls is not enough, and his strategy (more or less complete honesty) is not replicable in enough CDs.

But it will do no good at all to win elections if your purposes beyond election day do not have sufficient support to carry them through over the opposition of powerful vested interests.

Why wouldn't they have sufficient support? The voters were bamboozled into supporting them for the election, ex hypothesi; can they not be bamboozled into continuing their support? Is that not precisely what our opponents do?

Incidentally, in the end, once libertarian reforms are actually passed, the need for bamboozlement (on those particular issues anyway) declines, temporarily, since the voters would be able to see for themselves the beneficial consequences.

the people who hold positions of actual power most assuredly are not. They, at least - to use an example from one of your previous posts in this thread - will NOT be "bamboozled" into abolishing the Department of Education (or any other such thing).

They don't need to be bamboozled, or converted. They just need to be outmaneuvered in elections and removed from office or (if you mean power behind the scenes) their creatures removed from office.

Our opponents bamboozled people into being freer than they actually want to be? When did this happen - and how did I miss it?

Our opponents bamboozled the people into following policies they do not understand, and to the extent that our opponents have maintained virtually unchecked control of the federal government for over a century.

But that is not what I said (or, more correctly, implied) was impossible. Of course (some of) "the people" can be duped into supporting things with deleterious consequences. Others who know better can be cowed into passive non-opposition. Still others actually and actively want irrationally contradictory policies. Unless and until there are "enough" people (however many that may be) who do not fall into those categories, no amount of "libertarian bamboozlement" is going to produce a significantly and substantively freer society.

As I said, you're still infected with the classical liberals' demophilia. You are never going to get the people to really understand (i.e. in such a way that they cannot be easily persuaded of the opposite by the next snake oil salesman) why policy X is bad or policy Y good. You can persuade them that it is, but you cannot make them understand why it is. Reflect carefully on the difference between those two things.

But if I am wrong, and if the woeful state of current affairs is merely due to "the people" being as ovinely susceptible to "bamboozlement" as you would have it, then what point could there be in even bothering, since "the people" are invariably going to be just as easily herded in some other direction by the next bamboozler who comes down the pike ... ?

That's right. Hence, for as long as we live under this outlandish system called democracy, liberty (either achieving it or maintaining it once achieved) requires an unceasing bamboozlement. We will never arrive at a point where the people "get it" and are thenceforth immune to the bamboozling efforts of our opponents.

And if, having been "presented with a true causal account," enough of them still don't want a free society, then there won't be a free society

Ah, well, I don't share your cynicism.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

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.

Butthurt. Did you even listen to them? Rand wouldn't even be here today if Ron had acted like Rand in 08-12.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

Would this forum exist if Ron had run a campaign like Rand is running? I don't think so. Rand isn't making libertarians, he's trying to gain power through deception. I might not be a libertarian today if Ron had run like Rand is. Ron made libertarians. Play the long game Rand. This "revolution" isn't about sitting in the oval office, it's about waking people up.

 

[Matt Collins]

Butthurt. Did you even listen to them? Rand wouldn't even be here today if Ron had acted like Rand in 08-12.

Ron and Rand are trying different approaches.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

If Rand is bold he'll win. Pussyfooting around doesn't inspire anybody.

 

[idiom]

If Rand is bold he'll win. Pussyfooting around doesn't inspire anybody.

The establishment is adapting. He needs to kick it up a notch.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Q: do you think that great actors must be shameless and unscruplusus?

Actors (and novelists, etc.) are not lying to or deceiving their audiences - not in any sense relevant or analogous to what we are discussing here.

Yul Brynner was not trying to "bamboozle" people into thinking he was really the King of Siam ...

They don't need to be bamboozled, or converted. They just need to be outmaneuvered in elections and removed from office or (if you mean power behind the scenes) their creatures removed from office.

This touches upon another critical aspect of the question of whether (or to what extent) significant and lasting change can be achieved via electoral politics, entirely apart from the other things we've discussed to this point. The electoral dimension of the system under which we live is largely a facade for public consumption - it is largely a "dog-and-pony show" that operates to divert attention from the real nature of that system.

One of the many "democratic illusions" under which people labor in modern America is that elected politicians (at least on the federal level) actually control anything in any real or substantive way. I see no particular reason for thinking that this is the case. As far as I can tell, for example, the president is not much more than the figurehead on the prow of the executive ship. The illusion that these people actually run things has been maintained to date by their own self-important publicization of that supposed fact, and by the fact that none of them have had any particular desire to act contrary to the system's overall interests. On those rare occasions when they do act so (almost always for reasons of partisanship, rather than of principle), the "system" openly flouts their efforts with impunity. (The spectacle of the IRS effectively telling Congressional "overseers" that they can shove their subpoenas up their collective ass is a recent example of this. And none of this is even to mention that the IRS et al. have guns, while Congressional "oversight" committees do not ...) Should any elected officials - including the President himself - ever pose a really serious and credible threat to the power or purview of the vast plantation of executive agency (or any significant part thereof), we will discover just where the equities of power really lay ...

The "creatures" to which you refer - essentially life-tenured civil service bureaucrats - will not be so easily dislodged as your remark seems to suggest, regardless of the outcomes of any elections. They enjoy the support of networks of special interests (from both within and without the executive agency itself) that operate entirely beyond the purview of electoral politics. Under the old "spoils system" (about which Murray Rothbard wrote an excellent essay, for those who are interested), entire swathes of such functionaries could be gotten rid of and replaced in toto with the winners' preferred personnel (right down to the level of clerks and bottom-rung "pencil pushers"). As susceptible to corruption as such a system was, it was at least also susceptible to the outcomes of elections - and everyone (politicians and voters) knew it and acted accordingly. (This, BTW. is what Tammany Hall scion George Plunkitt infamously referred to as "honest graft.") But the spoils system was eventually replaced with our current regime of "civil service" bureaucracy, which was explicitly and intentionally designed to severely limit and stymie the very sort thing you are talking about. Thus and sadly, winning elections (by "bamboozlement" or other means) has little chance of consigning the "powers behind the scenes" into that libertarian goodnight (gently or otherwise).

As I said, you're still infected with the classical liberals' demophilia. You are never going to get the people to really understand (i.e. in such a way that they cannot be easily persuaded of the opposite by the next snake oil salesman) why policy X is bad or policy Y good. You can persuade them that it is, but you cannot make them understand why it is. Reflect carefully on the difference between those two things.

That's right. Hence, for as long as we live under this outlandish system called democracy, liberty (either achieving it or maintaining it once achieved) requires an unceasing bamboozlement. We will never arrive at a point where the people "get it" and are thenceforth immune to the bamboozling efforts of our opponents.

It honestly seems to me that you are much more concerned than I with the precepts to which "demophilia" is prone - if only in a negative sense. You persist in framing matters in terms of "the people" as some sort of monolithic entity, to be dealt with and addressed only as a single homogeneous unit. But nothing in what I have said depends upon any particular quality or attribute of "the people" in general, or as a whole - or even upon that subset of "the people" who are sufficiently "demophiliac" to go to the trouble of voting in elections. The position I have argued depends only upon some limited number of people the amount of which I have denoted by the term "enough" - however few or many that may be - some, many, or possibly even most of whom might not even be voters. Even if you think my argument is otherwise entirely incorrect and utterly unrealistic, given that I have previously and explicitly stated that the "enough" to which I refer is unlikely to constitute a majority (or perhaps even a plurality) of "the people" (and that it does not need to, just so long as it is "enough" to be efficacious) - as well as the fact that my position is not dependent in any way upon the outcomes of elections, whatever those outcomes might be - I fail to see how my position partakes of "demophilia" in any way.

More specifically - and as I have said before - nothing in what I've previously stated requires "the people" to "really understand" anything at all. All that is necessary is that "enough" people begin to passively cease or actively refuse to go along with the (federal) system's wishes.- regardless of whether they posses any philosophical, academic, theoretical, intellectual and/or abstract "understanding" of "why" they are (or should be) doing so. (As for how much "enough" might be, that is, as I have also said previously, contingent upon time, place and many particulars of circumstance.) For just two particularly notable historical examples of the general principle involved with what I am talking about, one may refer to the (violent) American Revolution - in which the "patriots" (from among "patriots," "loyalists," and "neutrals") were not (initially) in the majority (and may not even have enjoyed a plurality) - and the (non-violent) collapse of the Soviet Union, for which no one voted and which did not require any "understanding" of economic principles or political philosophy on the part of "the people" in order to be accomplished (it merely required that "enough" people stopped "going along" with the ruling Communist Party apparatus - and that is exactly what happened).

And if, having been "presented with a true causal account," enough of them still don't want a free society, then there won't be a free society

Ah, well, I don't share your cynicism.

How is it "cynicism" to express the belief that a society can't and won't be free unless enough of its members want it to be free ... ?

The belief that liberty can only (or best) be achieved by the "bamboozlement" of an unfastidiously vague and all-encompassing mass called "the people" - who are to be regarded as universally, unrelievedly and contemptibly hapless bozos who are fit only to be used, manipulated and deceived by their betters - is far, far more cynical than anything I have expressed, by many orders of magnitude.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Tom Woods Interviews Scott Horton on Iran and Discusses Rand Paul's Political Strategy

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YoiG-rsNO30

Plus rep to whoever can post the tube. Posting from your phone is truly annoying. Like, soon to throw this POS at a wall annoying.

Wasn't sure where to post this. Feel free to move if needed. Preferably not to Hot Topics.

 

[Suzanimal]

Already posted.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ds-Iran-Update-Plus-Rand-Paul-s-Best-Strategy

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Already posted.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ds-Iran-Update-Plus-Rand-Paul-s-Best-Strategy

The tl;dr being that Tom is a good libertarian and an extremely able academic historian/economist, but knows next to nothing about the practice of electoral politics.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Actors (and novelists, etc.) are not lying to or deceiving their audiences - not in any sense relevant or analogous to what we are discussing here.

Persuading someone to believe something which is false is a skill (the same skill required to persuade someone to believe something which is true).

In either case, the motives of the person doing the persuading have no bearing on his effectiveness at persuasion.

No more than my motives in using a hammer affect my ability to use it.

The idea that lying cannot possibly be used for good is absurd on its face, and your argument to that effect is pure assertion.

This touches upon another critical aspect of the question of whether (or to what extent) significant and lasting change can be achieved via electoral politics,

The fundamental problem is democracy, and there is no good or lasting solution to the problem as long as democracy exists.

The scales are permanently tilted against liberty under that dreadful system.

Any movement toward liberty through electoral politics will require a herculean effort and a great deal of luck.

And if once we do succeed, the same effort and luck will be required to preserve our gains.

But there is no realistic alternative at the present time.

One of the many "democratic illusions" under which people labor in modern America is that elected politicians (at least on the federal level) actually control anything in any real or substantive way. I see no particular reason for thinking that this is the case.

The politicians do whatever gets them re-elected.

What gets them re-elected is pursuing policies that big donors and voters want them to pursue.

The people want what the media tells them to want, because they don't know enough to have their own opinions.

And the same big donors control the media.

This is the only sense in which politicians "don't really control things."

Thus and sadly, winning elections (by "bamboozlement" or other means) has little chance of consigning the "powers behind the scenes" into that libertarian goodnight (gently or otherwise).

No, a President, or other politician, can absolutely pursue policies antithetical to those vested interests provided either (a) he is willing to lose the next election, or (b) he can propagandize the people better than those vested interests and thus ensure he wins the next election despite their opposition. Obviously, Option B is what we should be aiming for. The odds are massively against us, because we do not control the major opinion-molding institutions - but it isn't impossible. If it were impossible, Rand and others would never have been elected to the offices they currently hold. But, to the main point I've been making, success in this endeavor requires that we not handicap ourselves by sticking stupidly to the truth in those cases where a lie would get us further (e.g. endorsing a part of the system to which we object but which is highly popular amongst the voters we are trying to attract).

It honestly seems to me that you are much more concerned than I with the precepts to which "demophilia" is prone - if only in a negative sense. You persist in framing matters in terms of "the people" as some sort of monolithic entity, to be dealt with and addressed only as a single homogeneous unit. But nothing in what I have said depends upon any particular quality or attribute of "the people" in general, or as a whole - or even upon that subset of "the people" who are sufficiently "demophiliac" to go to the trouble of voting in elections.

If you think there is an advantage in telling the truth in electoral politics, and a disadvantage in lying, this entails that you think the people can distinguish between truth and falsity on political questions, which means you are attributing to them more knowledge that they have, or can reasonably be expected to ever have.

All that is necessary is that "enough" people begin to passively cease or actively refuse to go along with the (federal) system's wishes.

Yes, your alternative to electoral politics: civil disobedience.

I can tell you exactly how many "enough" is.

Ready?

50% + 1 of voters.

Politicians will not change course unless they feel threatened at the voting booth. Why would they?

A democratic state will simply force the minority to comply.

Civil disobedience is not an alternative to electoral politics.

(That said, it can be a useful supplement to electoral politics, if it changes voting behavior.)

(As for how much "enough" might be, that is, as I have also said previously, contingent upon time, place and many particulars of circumstance.) For just two particularly notable historical examples of the general principle involved with what I am talking about, one may refer to the (violent) American Revolution - in which the "patriots" (from among "patriots," "loyalists," and "neutrals") were not (initially) in the majority (and may not even have enjoyed a plurality) - and the (non-violent) collapse of the Soviet Union, for which no one voted and which did not require any "understanding" of economic principles or political philosophy on the part of "the people" in order to be accomplished (it merely required that "enough" people stopped "going along" with the ruling Communist Party apparatus - and that is exactly what happened).

This is something else entirely.

In the first case, you're talking about a violent revolution. That, indeed, does not require a majority. But it does require an extremely highly motivated minority, well armed, and organized. I see no reason to believe that it would be easier to violently overthrow the US government than to persuade a majority of voters to change it peacefully - rather to the contrary.

In the second case, you're talking about the collapse of a state through mismanagement. For that, we need not do anything at all. Just wait and see what happens. Maybe the US government will collapse at some point. Of course, there's no guarantee (or any reason to believe) that the result will be an improvement. It will most definitely be another state, not anarcho-capitalism, and who knows whether better or worse. In the Russian case, the state got better, but - given the starting point - that's not saying much.

How is it "cynicism" to express the belief that a society can't and won't be free unless enough of its members want it to be free ... ?

Because it's unrealistic to expect most of the people to want freedom.