Wednesday, March 12, 2014

2 Tweets That Display Rand's Damage to Libertarianism





This is what happens, when you get a sometimes libertarian poser, such as Rand, spouting non-libertarian, empire-advancing, foreign policy positions. The general public gets the terrible idea that it is somehow a failure of libertarianism, when it has nothing to do with libertarianism, nothing.

(ht Chris Rossini)

21 comments:

  1. Who the f*** is Zach Beauchamp?

    ReplyDelete
  2. We really have to retrench and give up on the word 'libertarian'. We have to go to 'Rothbardian' or 'Voluntaryist', something that can't be as easily corrupted. (I think an-cap scares people and they won't look into things any further)

    If we keep using the word 'libertarian' now it's only helping to muddy the meaning further. For the sake of trying to win the war we have to let this battle go.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Voluntaryists don't vote, ever. That's why they call themselves that rather than AnCaps.
      If you are willing to vote and call yourself Voluntaryist, you're muddying the meaning of a word yourself.

      Delete
    2. "Voluntaryists don't vote, ever. That's why they call themselves that rather than AnCaps."

      Fair enough, I never understood the technical distinction you've drawn until now...however you really shouldn't discount my statement over that minor technicality.

      "libertarian" has been corrupted and is irretrievable.

      Delete
    3. I mostly just call myself libertarian for ease of communication. But in reality i don't actually consider myself one because everyone and his mother is calling themselves libertarian these days. Fact is, the word has always been vague, and to be honest, the word was invented by a French leftist. We kind of stole it from them after progressives stole the word "liberal" from us.

      Yes, you could decide to call yourself Rothbardian. But what KIND of Rothbardian? The "old right" one or the "new left" one?

      I call myself market anarchist (because just as libertarian has been corrupted, so has capitalism), and individualist.

      Delete
    4. "I call myself market anarchist"

      I used to call myself that, but I find the word 'anarchist' scares the shit of people. I get tired of trying to explain it doesn't mean bomb thrower or chaos.

      I like "Voluntaryist" myself...or I simply explain that I follow the NAP...they seem more palatable to the sheeple mindset.

      Though I love Rothbard, I don't think it's healthy to potentially deify one person as a representative of the movement as it should be based on the best ideas...even if Rothbard has tons of them there should always be room for more or improvement so I guess "Rothbardian" while not easily corrupted may have some drawbacks.

      Delete
  3. The fallen nature of man trumps ideology.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The problem with Rand is that he has no backbone like his father or Pat Buchanan. The neocons feared Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, but they've got Rand right where they want him. Does anyone remember when the MSM tore Buchanan apart prior to the primaries for having Larry Pratt on his campaign staff and he refused to back down and ended up winning the New Hampshire primary despite their smears? Also, look where David Frum is now compared to Ron Paul or Buchanan. His Iraq war smear job on them prior to the Iraq war failed because they've been vindacated by history. Today, Frum is a nobody.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe Pratt was eventually asked to leave. Pat backed down again in the South Carolina campaign when they went after him about former David Duke supporters who were activists in his campaign (Rothbard wouldn't have seen a problem here), but Pat (most blame Bay) disowned their support very publicly and refused to fund key rural districts and ended up losing. If he had won, he'd have taken the nomination.

      Ron Paul on the other hand, was interested in winning, but his people, who raised millions for him, gave up numerous weekends and so forth, were but were met by a lousy staff with no interest in winning.

      Rand is far more gonzo, a man of a different time, in an absurd political world, and one can just enjoy the moral tale of the tempting of Rand Paul.

      (And certainly, I admire Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, as you do, for the same reasons but they also lost.)

      Delete
    2. Difference is also that Ron actually believes in liberty and has the record to back it up while Pat is a just different conservative flavor of statism who realizes the insanity of our foreign policy. I don't know why libertarians continue to talk up that POS like he's some beacon of liberty, he would point the government thugs at us if he ever got the chance.

      Delete
    3. Pat Buchanan is an economic nationalist and protectionist as well as a drug warrior.

      He is not our friend.

      Delete
  5. Who the hellis Zach Beuchamp and why am I suppose to be running and crying because he makes a blandly typical remark about libertarians?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The anecdote is disturbing because one has to assume outside esoteric discussions of libertarianism that the general populace might think the way Beuchamp does....

      Delete
    2. That wasn't a bland remark. He's tying Rand with libertarianism which is a huge black eye for libertarianism.

      Delete
    3. If we can survive having been "tied" to Lyndon LaRouche , I'm pretty sure we can survive being 'tied" to Rand.

      There are lots of reasons to be critical of Rand Paul. That he will "tarnish" libertarianism is not one of them. Hell, half the members of the LP tarnish libertarianism.

      People are experts at rationalizing whatever they want to believe. If they are not freedom-oriented, they will use anything to rationalize that belief. They may use Rand Paul, Robert Wenzel, or any of us to justify their belief system (for or against liberty), but ultimately it is difficult to change their internal belief system. Rand Paul will not have a significant effect upon that truth.

      Delete
    4. "If we can survive having been "tied" to Lyndon LaRouche , I'm pretty sure we can survive being 'tied" to Rand."

      For the record, I hope you and NY Cynic below are right.

      That being said, I have my doubts and lean towards Wenzel's observation of ongoing damage.

      There are some significant differences in being tied to the others versus Rand Paul:

      1. He's Ron's son. This is a big one.
      2. He's constantly in the media spotlight, unlike LP members that might be doing the same or the exposure LaRouche received.

      Delete
    5. If Rand ends up winning and being called a libertarian, just you WATCH how much he will tarnish libertarianism in the eye of the general population.
      Not everyone pays attention to stupid little opeds in the newspapers about LaRouche.
      Everyone pays attention to what the president does.

      Delete
  6. Not only bland but phony. Critics of libertarian non interventionism have to answer for the total shit policies of Obama and W. Why are those precedents superior again? Don't play defense, libertarians. Fuck the mainstream.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As Unknown pointed out the movement survived being tied to the LaRouche camp and I would also add that the movement has also survived Glenn Beck, Neil Boortz and Bill Marher camps. The movement will survive the Rand comparison and the way to do it, in my opinion is to educate the non-aggression principal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The movement will survive the Rand comparison and the way to do it, in my opinion is to educate the non-aggression principal."

      I have a question on this comment:

      How many members of the LP do you think strictly adhere to the NAP? As noted by Tony above, should we consider that Rothbard being 'ok' with voting as a violation of the NAP? Where does 'libertarian' stop and Voluntaryism start if they are both adhering to the NAP? In the Voluntaryist mind the act of voting is a NAP violation, so how could they consider Rothbard a follower of the NAP?

      Here's why I ask these questions: If we as a loose community can't even know between ourselves where the definitive line of the NAP precisely is...and we being interested people in such things actually study it...what hope does Joe Sixpack have when he hears day after day about "libertarian leaning Rand Paul" as the introduction on all the MSM channels?

      LaRouche didn't get that kind of press. Beck turned Neocon and disavowed libertarianism when it came to the brass tacks...but more importantly said so to his audience. Neil Boortz really doesn't get much press and neither does Bill Maher who really is most obviously liberal despite any 'libertarian leanings' he claims to have. In fact, they are demonstrating my point in a weird way.

      I hope you are right...but how many among us even feel that Cato is a hive of DC ass sniffing statists that have no real understanding(or don't care) of the NAP? When is the last time you heard anyone deny that they are libertarians?

      I don't know man....while I'm confident that the NAP is right intellectually...I'm not sure that 'libertarianism" as a word representing the movement is helping right now given that it seems to be applied to all sort of people that don't give two shits about the NAP.

      If we identify the "movement" as you put it with a word that has lost its meaning there is a very real danger that the movement can lose its identity as well.

      I like 'Rothbardian', Voluntaryist, NAP follower, stuff like that...stuff where people actually have to go back and explore but the word itself says something that can't be twisted....where the label itself is pretty clear.

      Delete
    2. While I personally don't too much involved in LP politics like I used to when I was in college. I'm still apart of mailing lists/yahoo groups for the NY LP and rarely is NAP mentioned in the discussions. I personally don't know what the percentage is but at least with LP members that I've interacted with still prefer to use constitutionalist instead of NAP, despite that I've pointed out that the constitution can have statism put into it while it's much harder to do with NAP.

      I think libertarians who read this blog and other libertarian sites like Lew Rockwell know that Cato and others similar like them know that they are more interested in getting pats on the head from conservatives and liberals than actually showing that the libertarian philosophy. Granted the Future of Freedom Foundation has posted in their email lists articles from Cato which are good but it's akin to the broken clock.

      Delete