Why do the Paranoid in this movement want to march backwards?

[Matthew Zak]

If you looked at Liberty-minded candidates on a scale from Communist to Libertarian (or whatever), wouldn't you support the candidates who are closer to the Libertarian extreme? Why then, do certain people lose their minds when certain Libertarian candidates reveal themselves to be 98.5% perfect rather than the 100% perfect we were really hoping for? How spoiled are we?

 

[DjLoTi]

some....more then others. lol

 

[Anti Federalist]

If you looked at Liberty-minded candidates on a scale from Communist to Libertarian (or whatever), wouldn't you support the candidates who are closer to the Libertarian extreme? Why then, do certain people lose their minds when certain Libertarian candidates reveal themselves to be 98.5% perfect rather than the 100% perfect we were really hoping for? How spoiled are we?

Because some of us are sick of "compromise".

When you do this for more than 25 years, like I have, it becomes very clear that 98.5 percent quickly becomes 80 percent that becomes 60 percent that becomes 30 percent that becomes nothing.

Feet will be held to the fire, consequences be damned.

 

[Rancher]

Where are the leaders?

If you looked at Liberty-minded candidates on a scale from Communist to Libertarian (or whatever), wouldn't you support the candidates who are closer to the Libertarian extreme? Why then, do certain people lose their minds when certain Libertarian candidates reveal themselves to be 98.5% perfect rather than the 100% perfect we were really hoping for? How spoiled are we?

Leadership is missing.

 

[DjLoTi]

You also got to remember, there are a few people with a few thousand posts that just keep fighting and fighting and fighting for their 'perfection'. It makes it harder for the rest of us who just want to move in the right direction the best possible way with the best we have.

I mean, jesus isn't running for congress any time soon, so for now we have to accept the imperfect human beings.

but it's important for us not to allow the dissenters to undermine us or frustrate us. We just have to keep moving forward...

 

[cbc58]

you can still be principaled and achieve your goals. i think the "our way or the highway" approach is the reason this movement doesn't get anywhere... and why many people choose not to support it. it's not this movement that is waking people up - it's the direct impact on their wallets... which makes them question things and seek out information.

you can not force people into your frame of mind... they have to get there by themselves.

 

[SelfTaught]

I mean, jesus isn't running for congress any time soon, so for now we have to accept the imperfect human beings.

If Jesus ran for Congress, some people on this forum would label him a neocon.

 

[Travlyr]

The FED

We need leadership to focus on what is really wrong.

It seems to me that the biggest obstacle we have is that fascist cartel called: The Federal Reserve.

Who besides Ron Paul is saying, "End The Fed"?

 

[RevolutionSD]

If you looked at Liberty-minded candidates on a scale from Communist to Libertarian (or whatever), wouldn't you support the candidates who are closer to the Libertarian extreme? Why then, do certain people lose their minds when certain Libertarian candidates reveal themselves to be 98.5% perfect rather than the 100% perfect we were really hoping for? How spoiled are we?

Well, a good topic for debate for sure.

The word "libertarian" has been completely bastardized in the media and around here. Ron Paul was a libertarian in that he wanted to end most federal agencies, end the war on terror, bring all troops home, end the fed, end the income tax and replace it with nothing, etc. Now, suddenly we're okay with "a little interventionism", replacing the income tax with another tax, tweaking the fed instead of ending it, and fighting terror instead of looking at causes.

Liberty means I can do what I want as a free person, as long as I am not harming others.

Liberty does not mean the government can violate my property rights for whatever it thinks is good for me.

Huge difference. Compromising on this principle will compromise the movement completely, much more than not supporting this or that candidate.

 

[RevolutionSD]

If Jesus ran for Congress, some people on this forum would label him a neocon.

If he supported wars and taxes I don't care what he calls himself, I would never support him.

 

[DjLoTi]

If he supported wars and taxes I don't care what he calls himself, I would never support him.

We're talking about the Jesus jesus. And since he's against killing and stealing, I don't think he'd support war or taxes.

Now I understand and agree with you that we shouldn't waiver on our principals, like little taxes here and there even though they're smaller then the current status quo. But we need to be flexible and reasonable when communicating to people. And I know libertarians are for liberty, but when I hear libertarian part of me cringes. Not that I have anything against them, but I just hate labels. Even though I label myself a republican, I consider it more of an adjective then a noun.

We SHOULD just be people, Americans, doing the right thing. Libertarian, republican, socialist, anarchist, I mean, I don't care as long as the ideas are right and good. As long as the ideas are right and good, anybody can support right and good.

People have different ideas on what's right and what's bad. Unfortunately nearly everybody isn't going to get everything they want, and is going to end up with something they might disagree with, one way or the other.

One thing we can agree on, is that our country is headed in the wrong direction. We need to get the country back on track. And if it can't be 100% all the way perfect back on track, I'd rather it be 10% right on track then 90% backwards like our current democratic congress is doing.

Sometimes 10% right isn't good enough, even if it's currently 110% wrong. So those people just fight, fight, fight. Not everyone can keep trying to do as much as they can when other people are telling them they're not doing enough/are not good enough. We need to support each other and our overall goal. Otherwise, we'll just implode like we did in 2008

 

[cheapseats]

...i think the "our way or the highway" approach is the reason this movement doesn't get anywhere... and why many people choose not to support it.

THAT is bankable.

it's not this movement that is waking people up - it's the direct impact on their wallets... which makes them question things and seek out information.

THAT, and the alarming ratcheting up of nosey authoritarianism -- Gladys Kravitz with Uncle Sam's heavy hand.

you can not force people into your frame of mind... they have to get there by themselves.

"A man convinced against his will if of the same opinion still."

 

[CCTelander]

Because some of us are sick of "compromise".

When you do this for more than 25 years, like I have, it becomes very clear that 98.5 percent quickly becomes 80 percent that becomes 60 percent that becomes 30 percent that becomes nothing.

Feet will be held to the fire, consequences be damned.

I've been actively involved for 35+ years now, and I can't even estimate how many times I've seen exactly this happen.

The nature of politics is compromise. It's almost always a situation where you have to give a little to get a little. Plus, unless the individual politician is a flat out expert on every issue, they wind up unknowingly giving in areas where they're ignorant of the potential danger. As AF said, over time, and it usually doesn't take all that long, that 98.5% drops to something totally unacceptable.

When all is said and done, the result has ALWAYS been bigger more intrusive government at all levels and less freedom.

The ONLY way to prevent this inevitable slide (if it's possible at all) is to go in with 100% dedication to "pure" liberty and never give an inch. It's the EXTREMELY rare individual that can hold to principles that steadfastly, and almost no politician starts at 100%.

On top of that, even "good" guys who do manage to stick to their principles wind up doing significant harm, while thinking they're doing good. I personally know a guy that ran for a local position as a libertarian and won. He started out between 80% and 90% IMO. He's a "good" guy. But, after having secured office he's wound up doing a LOT of things that are flat out anti-liberty. People are seldom aware of the real harm that can come from trying to do "good."

Ultimately, if you don't demand perfection, you're likely not to even get good.

 

[cbc58]

The ONLY way to prevent this inevitable slide (if it's possible at all) is to go in with 100% dedication to "pure" liberty and never give an inch.

First you have to get them in there...

I have never understood how people can get elected on the platform and promise of change and reform.. only to go in and within 6 or so months totally conform to the system. It's like they get brainwashed or just give up.

 

[__27__]

If you looked at Liberty-minded candidates on a scale from Communist to Libertarian (or whatever), wouldn't you support the candidates who are closer to the Libertarian extreme? Why then, do certain people lose their minds when certain Libertarian candidates reveal themselves to be 98.5% perfect rather than the 100% perfect we were really hoping for? How spoiled are we?

I assume you voted for John McCain, right?

 

[LDA]

The debate has turned to "libertarianism versus anarchism." The anarchists fail to understand that in absense of government, government will arise. Most libertarians hold that some sort of government is necessary to protect individual rights. The anarchists, by definition, demand ideological purity. They demand that there be no government, and anyone that says otherwise is in direct opposition to their position. They imagine a "free market" system in which justice/defense companies would protect rights. Of course, in that situation, those companies would be the government.

There will always be government. We have to have a constitution and an armed population to relentlessly beat it into submission. Multiple governments won't work; it must be capable of protecting from imperialistic, foreign invaders.

 

[RevolutionSD]

The debate has turned to "libertarianism versus anarchism." The anarchists fail to understand that in absense of government, government will arise. Most libertarians hold that some sort of government is necessary to protect individual rights. The anarchists, by definition, demand ideological purity. They demand that there be no government, and anyone that says otherwise is in direct opposition to their position. They imagine a "free market" system in which justice/defense companies would protect rights. Of course, in that situation, those companies would be the government.

There will always be government. We have to have a constitution and an armed population to relentlessly beat it into submission. Multiple governments won't work; it must be capable of protecting from imperialistic, foreign invaders.

Where in history has government ever protected individual rights, particularly in modern history? We have to go back to first principles. This organization claims to protect you but does so first by violating your property rights.

It's just like the mob offering "protection money", by forcing you to pay at gunpoint. You don't get protection from government, you get threats of violence.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The debate has turned to "libertarianism versus anarchism." The anarchists fail to understand that in absense of government, government will arise. Most libertarians hold that some sort of government is necessary to protect individual rights. The anarchists, by definition, demand ideological purity. They demand that there be no government, and anyone that says otherwise is in direct opposition to their position. They imagine a "free market" system in which justice/defense companies would protect rights. Of course, in that situation, those companies would be the government.

There will always be government. We have to have a constitution and an armed population to relentlessly beat it into submission. Multiple governments won't work; it must be capable of protecting from imperialistic, foreign invaders.

You do realize Anarchists---- Voluntaryists, have no problem with Government right? We want a STATEless society. A State and a Government are two completely seperate entities.

 

[LDA]

The government has protected individual rights many times. Everytime the government captures a thief and returns the stolen goods to the rightful owner, they have protected someone's individual rights.

The point you're making is that any tax is a violation of rights, so any action by the government that uses that tax money is also a violation. If you want your rights to be protected, it has to be paid for. It cannot and will not be done for free. Perhaps you advocate a society where no one is protected, and everyone is responsible for their own protection. Any that case, any talk of rights is pretty useless, because no one will be protected from anything unless they themselves can protect against it.

You do realize Anarchists---- Voluntaryists, have no problem with Government right? We want a STATEless society. A State and a Government are two completely seperate entities.

Okay. And it will be necessary to cede some autonomy to such an entity. Without a state, we just get taken over by other states.

 

[MelissaWV]

Q. Why do the Paranoid in this movement want to march backwards?

A. So they can always look out behind them?