hells_unicorn;6081973[B said:
]I'm sorry, but this stuff is basically pie-in-the-sky, and I swallowed most of it back in 2012. When you fight the establishment the way we were doing, you get roughed up and shutdown and nothing changes. Any lasting change will have to occur under more practical and gradual conditions and will involve an entire change in the culture of everyone here.[/B]
This whole "tireless minority" thing assumes that the American Revolution was a success for liberty, but a careful analysis of the early history of this country proves this to be a lie. At best, we had a brief period of relative liberty during the Articles of Confederation, but the eventual enshrining of the so-called U.S. Constitution put the so-called revolution on the road to destruction, beginning by the gradual destruction of the state churches and sovereignty of each former colony, until it was all finished when "The Union" fully prevailed in 1865.
A tireless minority in a modern American context will fast become an insane minority, and this lunatic woman who decided to back an unabashed authoritarian in Donald Trump because Rand wasn't whispering sweet nothings in her ear often enough leads me to believe that the so-called "rELOVution" was made up primarily of crazed Jacobins. I wonder who this Diana Orrick lady plans to guillotine first when her "anointed one" takes his throne?
What exactly is your idea of how to affect change "practically and gradually"? Someone told me you were around 25. Which means at the date of joining this forum you were 18ish. So were you one of these 'Jacobin' whacked-out leftist R3volutioneers who joined here a month before me (who has 'reformed' perhaps?) or are you just a tourist?
Rothbard talks about strategy. And here's what he says about gradualism.
Ethics of Liberty Chapter 20
The libertarian goals-including immediate abolition of invasions of liberty-are "realistic" in the sense that they could be achieved if enough people agreed on them, and that, if achieved, the resulting libertarian system would be viable. The goal of immediate liberty is not unrealistic or "Utopian" because-in contrast to such goals as the "elimination of poverty"-its achievement is entirely dependent on man's will. If, for example everyone suddenly and immediately agreed on the overriding desirability of liberty, then total liberty would be immediately achieved. The strategic estimate of how the path toward liberty is likely to be achieved is, of course, an entirely separate question.
Thus, the libertarian abolitionist of slavery, William Lloyd Garrison, was not being "unrealistic" when, in the 1830's, he raised the standard of the goal of immediate emancipation of the slaves. His goal was the proper moral and libertarian one, and was unrelated to the "realism," or probability of its achievement. Indeed, Garrison's strategic realism was expressed by the fact that he did not expect the end of slavery to arrive immediately or at a single blow. As Garrison carefully distinguished: "Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend." Otherwise, as Garrison trenchantly warned, "Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice."
Gradualism in theory, in fact, totally undercuts the overriding goal of liberty itself; its import, therefore, is not simply strategic but an opposition to the end itself and hence impermissible as any part of a strategy toward liberty.
I agree with Rothbard concerning strategy. It's probably my favorite chapter in that book. I take issue with that body of work as a whole because I'm a political Tolstoyan for the most part.
I disagree with your abstract appeal to gradualism and so does Rothbard.
This movement has disintegrated to its current state in my opinion due to lack of leadership. And intellectuals who berate the movement instead of taking initiative and actually providing leadership and strategic options are far more to blame than the sign waving, boots on the ground, Ron Paul supporters.
A lot of people have differing opinions about when things went downhill. Both with respect to the movement in general and Rand's campaign (with respect to his support from his father's base). I pinpoint the downfall of the cresting of the movement in early 2009 with the failure of CFL.
This thread is quite relevant:
11-25-2009 Real politics is about precinct organizing, not sign waves or YouTube clips
In it was discussion of
an article posted by Steve Bierfeldt, a CFL staffer at the time where he also berates the movement, for some valid reasons, but only offers "vote harder" as a strategic option.
InterestedParticipant was the last post in that thread and I feel it was quite prophetic:
For a brief moment in time there was an organically developing movement arising from the public ranks. Now we are all witnessing the fracturing and dismantling of everything and anything that might be used as a foundation for its continued operation or growth.
Toss it all out and start over. It's all been infected.
The problem with this movement is really in that quote. There was a rising but it never materialized into an organization. We have YAL, and CFL, but they are really, in my opinion, just supporting contact lists for campaigns. CFL had promise before they gutted the social network capabilities of their website, now it's useless. "Vote harder" is the current strategy. And now it seems there's a consensus on "well, vote every 4 years at least". This will not do.
Even before Steve's beratement which was really just him saying what many were thinking, there was already a "cheese touch" impression with many in the movement. "9/11 truther crazies" is the first thing that comes to mind. And even back in July 2007 in Iowa after Ron crashed the venue he wasn't invited to I saw first hand grassroots supporters getting shut down by campaign staff when voicing their ideas and basically being told, "this is how we need to do things".
I took Steve's stab at the movement somewhat personally, because I was the sign supplier in Iowa. I sold about 2000 signs over the course of a few months in person at two rallies and online along with about 25,000 bumper stickers at $0.10 a piece. The only reason I did this was because people wanted signs for their yard (which was odd since we were over a year from the election) and people online were price gouging.
So your quote to me represents nothing but the same gradualist rationalization of inaction that continues to berate the movement and turn people off. If you want to put some ideas out there that isn't included in the current consensus of "vote harder" I'm all ears. But no matter how thick the cynicism gets around here I'm not going to let peanut gallery intellectuals get by on here (if I see it and have the time) with feathering their nest of do-nothing-because-I-like-to-hear-myself-talk, using the R3volution members that this site exists because of as a punching bag, because they know that the minute real strategies and organization starts up again, if it does, they will be useless in their current form.
Say what you want about the crazies. Ron was the first one. And he didn't berate the movement like so many others have.
...
As to the OP article, good riddance.
Seriously, to hell with everyone who tries to use Ron Paul as political leverage only when leaving. If you care, why do I not see you say, "I'm still all about Ron Paul, lets do something." Instead all I see, is attempts to rally Ron Paul supporters as they're leaving the party. Charlatans.
They co-opted the Tea Party, and now Trumpaloompas are trying to co-opt "liberty" along with everyone else.
What the hell is this? [from article]
Mr. Smack said many of the more extreme libertarians among the father’s followers have retreated from GOP politics altogether, while others have flocked to Mr. Trump.
"I don’t think the gravitation to Trump is that he is the next Ron Paul. It is that Trump is willing to throw everything out the baby with the bathwater. I think there is some libertarian appeal to that for some reason," he said.
"Burn it all down." Yes, that's very libertarian, idiot.
I'm not giving up. What's to give up on? We all knew what we were in for. Ron Paul was the most unelectable person possible that wasn't literally unfit for office. People who think the R3volution is about winning elections never understood it in the first place.
