Walter E. Williams: Coalition Building For Libertarians
- Thread starter TaftFan
- Start date
Christian Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 19,707
Hmm... I've watched the video and am still mulling things over.
Is Walter Williams trying to say that the drug issue SHOULDN'T be addressed, or only that it shouldn't be a "litmus test"? Or something else entirely.
There are a lot of things that the libertarian philosophy demands that I generally would not discuss, or openly advocate, right this minute because there's really no purpose. If someone can't figure out from "non-aggression principle" that no, your laws against consensual incest or polygamy wouldn't hold up, I wouldn't bother to point them out in particular. Its a side issue, and in fact, to focus on it would in fact, as Walter Williams says, strengthen the false "Libertarianism is libertine" argument in the minds of the sheep.
However, the Republican Party, and the average neocon voter, hates us because of our views on foreign policy and the War on Terror. That's not something we can just "Put aside for a second" like you could with polygamy or intellectual property or some other random issue you could think up. That is a very crucial issue. The very FOUNDATION of freedom is gone if you don't fix that. Or at least, I believe this to be the case.
So really, it depends on the issue exactly what types of coalitions can be built.
When it comes to advocacy on a particular issue, absolutely. Ron Paul has worked with Barney Frank on trying to get marijuana legalized, or with Kucinich on Iraq. I'd never vote for either of them (Frank or Kucinich) but there's nothing wrong with working with them on particular issues. On the other hand, I'd only vote for candidates who predominately agree with me philosophically, in every area. Not every single little issue, but every major area. Economic liberty, civil liberty, and foreign policy are all critically important, and I couldn't vote for anyone who was critically deficient on any one of those three.
Is Walter Williams trying to say that the drug issue SHOULDN'T be addressed, or only that it shouldn't be a "litmus test"? Or something else entirely.
There are a lot of things that the libertarian philosophy demands that I generally would not discuss, or openly advocate, right this minute because there's really no purpose. If someone can't figure out from "non-aggression principle" that no, your laws against consensual incest or polygamy wouldn't hold up, I wouldn't bother to point them out in particular. Its a side issue, and in fact, to focus on it would in fact, as Walter Williams says, strengthen the false "Libertarianism is libertine" argument in the minds of the sheep.
However, the Republican Party, and the average neocon voter, hates us because of our views on foreign policy and the War on Terror. That's not something we can just "Put aside for a second" like you could with polygamy or intellectual property or some other random issue you could think up. That is a very crucial issue. The very FOUNDATION of freedom is gone if you don't fix that. Or at least, I believe this to be the case.
So really, it depends on the issue exactly what types of coalitions can be built.
When it comes to advocacy on a particular issue, absolutely. Ron Paul has worked with Barney Frank on trying to get marijuana legalized, or with Kucinich on Iraq. I'd never vote for either of them (Frank or Kucinich) but there's nothing wrong with working with them on particular issues. On the other hand, I'd only vote for candidates who predominately agree with me philosophically, in every area. Not every single little issue, but every major area. Economic liberty, civil liberty, and foreign policy are all critically important, and I couldn't vote for anyone who was critically deficient on any one of those three.
Christian Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 19,707
I'm an ancap. I watched the video
I'm curious what exactly Williams means, and what he advocates.
I've always liked him though. I've heard he doesn't agree with Ron on foreign policy, but I've also heard he doesn't really talk about it. Which for sure makes a difference. He also endorsed Ron despite this disagreement. And he's identified both Abraham Lincoln and the 1964 CRA for what they really are. Rock on, Williams!
This video actually gave me insight that I have long wondered about:
How do prominent libertarians such as Ron Paul and Milton Friedman, etc. remain so likeable and cheerful in the face of a society that regularly chooses immoral coercion and its inevitable downward spiral toward poverty and death? I myself find I all too regularly get outraged and incensed when debating the willing ignorant and the corrupt authoritarian, which inevitably causes my arguments--right as they may be--to fall on deaf ears.
Answer: Friedman, Paul, etc. smile not because their natural disposition is to smile at coercion and ignorance, but because smiling is a political tactic meant to retain the listener's attention for individuals are inherently distrustful of freedoms they have long since surrendered.
If I can remember Friedman's advice to Williams (e.g. "Smile when you speak of freedom"), then I may convert more minds, develop more diverse friendships, and become an overall happier person.
*I imagine Ron Paul learned this lesson himself after his 1988 failed Presidential bid. In that race (to my knowledge from the very old and limited interviews I saw), he was a firebrand but failed to gain traction with his ideas; decades later, he is a cheerful sprite of man whose ideas have sparked an intellectual revolution that will grow and reverberate for generations to come.
...The Future looks Bright.
How do prominent libertarians such as Ron Paul and Milton Friedman, etc. remain so likeable and cheerful in the face of a society that regularly chooses immoral coercion and its inevitable downward spiral toward poverty and death? I myself find I all too regularly get outraged and incensed when debating the willing ignorant and the corrupt authoritarian, which inevitably causes my arguments--right as they may be--to fall on deaf ears.
Answer: Friedman, Paul, etc. smile not because their natural disposition is to smile at coercion and ignorance, but because smiling is a political tactic meant to retain the listener's attention for individuals are inherently distrustful of freedoms they have long since surrendered.
If I can remember Friedman's advice to Williams (e.g. "Smile when you speak of freedom"), then I may convert more minds, develop more diverse friendships, and become an overall happier person.
*I imagine Ron Paul learned this lesson himself after his 1988 failed Presidential bid. In that race (to my knowledge from the very old and limited interviews I saw), he was a firebrand but failed to gain traction with his ideas; decades later, he is a cheerful sprite of man whose ideas have sparked an intellectual revolution that will grow and reverberate for generations to come.
...The Future looks Bright.
Last edited:
angelatc
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 50,703
Thats true. Nobody likes angry.
heavenlyboy34
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 59,093
I also generally agree...which is why I find it odd that so many here (almost all, it seems) don't even consider infiltrating the D party.
Ronin Truth
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2013
- Messages
- 22,510
I don't believe I've EVER heard Milton Friedman referred to as a libertarian. That would also come as a major surprise to his son David.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_D._Friedman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_D._Friedman
Well, now you have.
In addition to the above video series regarding the nature of libertarianism, I believe the follow video from Libertarianism.org is also useful in this thread as it discusses humility in relation to the libertarian cause:
Last edited:
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
If you have much exposure to libertarianism, that strikes me as almost impossible.
Ronin Truth
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2013
- Messages
- 22,510
thoughtomator
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
- Messages
- 11,267
This is 2013. The number of libertarians not willing to compromise in order to achieve real gains for liberty is so tiny that recycling this today is a veritable strawman. What year was that video produced? 1974?
Ronin... as much as I regret to say it, your links do not in any way support your suppositions. And years don't count for much if they are spent staring at padded walls.41+ years and counting.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman
Check the videos I posted above for Milton Friedman referring to himself as a libertarian over and over again, check the audience filled with libertarians; and if you need more videos, I or one of the more informed users of RPF would be happy to point you in the direction where you might gain the knowledge you're currently seeking.
Either way, our argument is moot. So let's let it go after this rather than bandy about meaningless credentials.
Last edited:
brushfire
Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2011
- Messages
- 6,472
Agreed, absolutely. He's referred to himself as a libertarian on several occasions - beyond what is already posted here.
http://youtu.be/Mckg2NtPrSQ?t=5m44s
Friedman was very influential and was right about many things, but he had said/done several things that had pi$$ed some economists off (rightly so) - even today there are some Austrian economists that really dont like Friedman. One thing, however, he was not afraid to admit when he was wrong, and he did so later in his life. Still with some, he'll never get any breaks for that. For a long time Friedman was contradicting himself for talking of small government, but advocating the need for the FED...
Despite his use of other people's work, and the fact that he had access to larger audience then he may have deserved, I'm still very grateful for this man. He is why I'm a libertarian, and he is essentially why I'm here on this forum today. I think, as a whole, the world is a better place for having him.
I also like Water Williams in the same way...
Ronin Truth
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2013
- Messages
- 22,510
Ah, so you just want to take your cheap shots and quit eh? I understand that lame tactic. Probably a very wise decision on your part.
Pericles
Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 9,921
Push a freedom issue that has the best chance of success with the voters. Suggestion was it will be easier to get a number of people on board with the idea of eliminating the Department of Education than will be willing to eliminate the Department of Defense.
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
41+ years and counting.
41+ years of doing what?
Also, in whatever browser you're using, do a search for the word "libertarian" on that page and notice what you find.
Ronin Truth
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2013
- Messages
- 22,510
I did. Now you can search for "Austrian". What was Milton's position on the NAP? (Just because you call yourself a "libertarian", doesn't make you one.)
LeFevre, Rothbard, Mises, Hayek, Nozick, Lane, Browne, Rockwell, Shaffer, Rand, Woods, DiLorenzo, Friedman (David), Watner, Hess, Spooner, Paul, etc.
Good enough?
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
Similar threads
