56 votes

Welcome to all neocons, elitists, liberals, anarchists, and even progressives

I welcome everyone to the liberty movement and to read this awesome website. I am encouraged to see people of all different schools of thought and walks or life to come together for a common purpose. Our purpose is to advance the cause of liberty throughout the land. This means we must spread the message into every group/situation that presents us the opportunity. Our job is to educate the liberals, neocons, progressives...everyone.

We all want freedom, but we disagree about how to bring freedom. The answer in my opinion lies in all of us. That's right, even the progressives want freedom they just believe that only the Government can give/protect freedom. It's up to us to change that and show everyone that freedom is inherent in a sovereign individual. Groups of sovereign individuals making choices based on free association can spontaneously organize into a massive movement. I ask each and every one of you here to please stop cutting others out of the movement. This movement is for everyone.

This thread is a call to everyone to come together. United we stand, divided we fall.

Have a great Saturday friends. God Bless you all



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Implying...

Implying that anarchist are in the same philosophical level as neocons, liberals and progressives >.>

"Bringing" people into the movement...

I've been doing stuff since 1971, when I wrote a letter to the editor that was spotted by a group of libertarians forming a new party. What fools, I thought. But the thrill of finding and conversing with people who were actually as smart as I thought I was, and some even sharper, was a tonic that instantly addicts.

Long story short, "we" geezertarians are looking for a web commerce partner. We have the outlook and content, need Houston-area hourly web work plus a partnership offer. Looking for that Rothbardian-radical who understands what it will take to bring in those intelligent progressives on the verge of intellectual breakthrough. Some of my best friends are progs who own guns, so we are halfway there already.

You build it, tweak it, and some will come, and others laugh. The more humor is built in, the better. Imagine a website that takes a page (perhaps literally) from DP, LRC, ActivistPost, ZeroHedge, TrendSources, RT (a phenomenon worth examining itself), antiwar.com, etc etc etc. Reply to genevictus@hushmail.com

"To the morally inverted, war appears as a quick, clear path to the top." -- Preston Parker
firelightermedia@gmail.com

To win, we must tell the public the truth

And in that vein, please watch this video, which shows how the CIA created Al Qaeda and used it to attack Egypt:

Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/55980866

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8Lam9V_9tE

02-06 Hess – Anarchism Without Hyphens

MP3: http://goo.gl/3V7uh

Markets not Capitalism, Ch 10, Karl Hess:
"An anarchist, the only kind, as defined by the long tradition and literature of the position itself, is a person in opposition to authority imposed through the hierarchical power of the state. The only expansion of this that seems to me reasonable is to say that an anarchist stands in opposition to any imposed authority. An anarchist is a voluntarist. Now, beyond that, anarchists also are people and, as such, contain the billion-faceted varieties of human reference.. They spring from a single seed, no matter the flowering of their ideas. The seed is liberty. And that is all it is. It is not a socialist seed. It is not a capitalist seed. It is not a mystical seed. It is not a determinist seed. It is simply a statement. We can be free. After that it’s all choice and chance. Anarchism, liberty, does not tell you a thing about how free people will behave or what arrangements they will make. It simply says the people have the capacity to make the arrangements. Anarchism is not normative. It does not say how to be free. It says only that freedom, liberty, can exist."

Agreed

Good post.

relax :)

Joe, I am not sure what your getting at? Are you saying your against bringing other people into the movement? Are you trying to say that we shouldn't welcome liberals, democrats, republicans, conservatives, marxists or whatever?

IMO we shouldn't fear opposing viewpoints. why not converse with others? The only way that I was able to come to my viewpoint on non-aggression and liberty was through listening and conversating with others. I say welcome to all that are curious and even to all that oppose the message let them try to offer a good reason to modify my belief, i do not fear changing my mind, I only fear closing it :)

No.7's picture

Well said

"IMO we shouldn't fear opposing viewpoints. why not converse with others? The only way that I was able to come to my viewpoint on non-aggression and liberty was through listening and conversating with others. I say welcome to all that are curious and even to all that oppose the message let them try to offer a good reason to modify my belief, i do not fear changing my mind, I only fear closing it"

I agree 100%, my signature agrees too

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

Nice Post!

Thanks for the uplifting read! Liberty is a Big Umbrella!

No.7's picture

Thank you

I appreciate the encouragement. I'm not a perfect example of welcoming everyone, but I'm getting better at it!

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

No

I'm not buying it. I've had it. I'm FED up.

I've been called an anarchist, and even (possibly) called an anarchist by Ron Paul, at one of his speeches in Las Vegas.

Look, people, why do you allow those Counter-Revolutionary-Forces into your brain?

Example:

"That's right, even the progressives want freedom they just believe that only the Government can give/protect freedom."

Why give up on government just because the counterfeiters tell you that all government is bad, their counterfeit example, so you listen?

Now that someone told you that all government is bad, you parrot the lie, spreading it, as if no government was ever good for anything?

What do you think works to stop the heater in your house from starting a fire?

Why give up on factual information just because some goon in a suit feeds a steady flow of better lies, and enough dupes pay him (or her) everything they can steal from you for such good lies?

I don't get it.

Joe

No.7's picture

It's cool, your input is appreciated

I don't get it either. Government hypocrisy, shadow governments, constant doublespeak, conspiracy after conspiracy, brainwashing, agenda 21, and Nuvos Ordo Seclorum.... The world is effing crazy.

My point is, that even though you are an anarchist and I am a conservative libertarian we can work together to spread the message of liberty to others. We can work with people from any political faction because almost everyone wants freedom. As Obi Wan said below, Education is key. We must constantly educate ourselves and others.

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

Miss the point?

"My point is, that even though you are an anarchist..."

What is an anarchist?

If someone defines what an anarchist is, say that guy over there blowing up a government building full of innocent people, and that anarchist is paid to do it, and paid well, by someone else, then does that NAME make me guilty of that crime?

If it is crime, why not call it crime?

Who benefits from the false front?

Joe

No.7's picture

Of course not

I just assumed you were what people called an anarchist, or in my words, a person who believes in no Governments. I don't know what you are? I assume you're a human who subscribes to Libertarian beliefs, you could be an alien from jupiter sent to infiltrate my brain.... I don't really know lol.

I don't understand what you're trying to say....

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

That is the point.

"I just assumed you were what people called an anarchist, or in my words, a person who believes in no Governments."

If there is an anarchist that is defined by those words then one could fess up. Where is one that defines anarchism in that way?

Self contained stupidity?

Liar?

Criminal?

Who says one thing and does another thing?

"I don't know what you are? I assume you're a human who subscribes to Libertarian beliefs, you could be an alien from jupiter sent to infiltrate my brain.... I don't really know lol."

Smiles are wonderful. Thanks.

"I don't understand what you're trying to say...."

Voluntary government is not only possible it worked as intended in many examples throughout history. I can explain in detail.

So it is demonstrably false to claim that all government is bad, as well as it is demonstrably false to claim that involuntary government is the only way to defend against crime.

In other words, Anti-Revolutionary-Forces include two ideas that may be infecting many brains, so try it out to see if it is in your brain first, and then asks someone else - for a suggestion, a voluntary government type thing to do, if you please.

1. No government can be voluntary
2. The only way to stop crime is to be a criminal

How did you do?

I've been called an anarchist and I've called myself an anarchist, but with the qualification that I get to define the meaning of anarchism, not someone else.

Joe

No.7's picture

Gotcha

Our Government is supposed to be voluntary and is to an extent. Most of us voluntarily pay taxes even though we are opposed to the principle and opposed to what our money is doing. However, one could argue that it is not voluntary since the Government forces us to pay taxes with guns. Well, they enforce it with guns when we don't volunteer.

There is no way to stop crime, only a way to discourage it by providing negative incentives to commit crime or encourage not committing crime with positive incentives.

Now that I further understand your beliefs I would call you a voluntarism supporter.

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

Not so fast on Gotcha - please

"Our Government is supposed to be voluntary and is to an extent."

That is factually incorrect, or patently false, or merely inaccurate.

In point of fact the Consolidated government is strictly involuntary by design, so what explains your word choices?

I can ask, please.

What explains your word choices that are demonstrably false?

These words:

"Our Government is supposed to be voluntary and is to an extent."

Evidence:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol3/...

Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes.

That quote goes on to offer more evidence.

George Mason, and many others, were not necessarily discrediting consolidation (collectivism) at the State level, as in to say collect up all the defensive power of all the families, all the towns, all the counties, inside the boarders of this consolidated government known as a State, and employ that collected power strictly for the uses enumerated in the State Constitution in this present Free Market of Government working presently on this Continent as we, in Virginia, offer potential tax payers a better government than our competitors to the north, and to the south.

George Mason may prop himself up as a much more benevolent dictator than any other, in that market, and as one, more or less, he is more or less in an authoritative position to call a spade a spade, being one.

Hey, look what those guys are doing there, they are taking over the whole enchilada. Where once there was a Free Market of competitive governors dueling for Top Spot and seeking volunteers to join the best that money can buy, where once competition in free market government reigned supreme, those guys are usurping that Liberty, those guys are Consolidating our State Sovereignty.

Is that not understandable?

Is that not this:

"Our Government is supposed to be voluntary and is to an extent."

Does it depend upon who you ask?

Hey, Alexander, ahhhh, yea you, Mr. Hamilton: is it voluntary or not?

You designed the thing, so what is it?

Is it this:

"Our Government is supposed to be voluntary and is to an extent."

If the answer were true, then the answer would be something along the lines of sure, as voluntary as you want, so long as I get my Central Bank that works Nation Wide?

Is it this:

"Our Government is supposed to be voluntary and is to an extent."

If you ask George Washington?

His answer is this:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/...

And whereas, it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit;

Therefore, and in pursuance of the proviso above recited, I. George Washington, President of the United States, do hereby command all persons, being insurgents, as aforesaid, and all others whom it may concern, on or before the 1st day of September next to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes. And I do moreover warn all persons whomsoever against aiding, abetting, or comforting the perpetrators of the aforesaid treasonable acts; and do require all officers and other citizens, according to their respective duties and the laws of the land, to exert their utmost endeavors to prevent and suppress such dangerous proceedings.

Quotes abound

How about if John Adams is asked if it is or is not voluntary?

http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Alien.html

"These laws were designed to silence and weaken the Democratic-Republican Party."

What is this:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amend...

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

What is this:

"Our Government is supposed to be voluntary and is to an extent."

That is demonstrably false.

"There is no way to stop crime, only a way to discourage it by providing negative incentives to commit crime or encourage not committing crime with positive incentives."

I disagree strongly. Stop paying criminals so well and crime will not pay so well, and what happens?

1.
End the FED
2.
End the IRS
3.
Bring the Troops Home.

I think that stops a lot of criminals in their tracks.

"Now that I further understand your beliefs I would call you a voluntarism supporter."

Now that you claim to understand my viewpoints, I'm asking if your claims are based upon facts?

When Waco was going on, in real time, as in Reality Television. I'll never forget that moment when the "reporter" reported how the "cultists" in the "compound" where "killing themselves" as military tanks with flame throwers drove through a church full of babies, kids, teenagers, young women, women, boys, young men, men, old women, and old men, slaughtering them, after torturing them.

At that time I was working much overtime, hard labor, raising a family, and at that time a lady, girl scout (ha, ha, ha,) was organizing an armed march on Washington. I signed up on the phone. I have since purchased an M1 Garand rifle through the Division of Civilian Marksmanship, a government agency, but I had, and still have, a second one at that time.

The idea is to prove to the criminals that the victims have had enough, and that the victims are too powerful for the criminals to even think about victimizing again, to be a defensive deterrent against lies, threats, and violence.

Things didn't pan out with Linda Thomson, so later I tried running for congress. Since then I think I have an accurate, competitive, perspective on what I am.

"Now that I further understand your beliefs I would call you a voluntarism supporter."

So...what does your name calling have to do with me?

Are you judging me?

I'm here to compete. There are forces, which can be called Counter-Revolutionary-Forces, deceiving, threatening, and violently removing Revolutionary Forces in our time.

A competitive method of going the other way ought to be recognized in time to avoid further "progress" toward absolute despotism in America.

A Democratic Federated Republican form of Free Market, Voluntary, Competitive Government works as intended, proven in cases where it works as intended, including that time period between 1776 and 1788, if anyone cared to look and learn.

Then this won't be so common an error:

"Our Government is supposed to be voluntary and is to an extent."

No, that is false, the false Federal Government is merely Crime made legal by Criminals and adding to that power of crime is a crime, so it may be past time to stop paying those criminals so well for being such good criminals.

Joe

I cannot understand all of your words

"Why give up on government just because the counterfeiters tell you that all government is bad, their counterfeit example, so you listen?

Now that someone told you that all government is bad, you parrot the lie, spreading it, as if no government was ever good for anything?"

I think you said those things because the OP said"That's right, even the progressives want freedom they just believe that only the Government can give/protect freedom."

I am not following you and I was working on a comment while you were writing yours. My assessment of this post was different, I think. But now I am thinking again...are progressives another word for communists?

I guess there is a counter-revolutionary force between my ears....
I think I heard that force last night as well as I listened to the link here: http://www.dailypaul.com/273545/adam-kokesh-interviews-orly-...

Seems this lady thinks a blood bath is needed.

...

The base

The base of the lie is base. It is shaky, as if on sand.

That is opposite a foundation, built on principle.

So we have to get down to the FALSE base to find the root cause.

What is the root cause of a specific problem whereby someone desiring to do good is instead sent on a path of destruction?

Ron Paul spells it out in his speech. Resort to aggressive force is the root problem.

My way of speaking intends to chop off that false root, so I say why call it "aggressive force" when any accurate measure of what is done is an accurate measure of a crime in progress.

Why call it "aggressive force" when it is a crime in progress?

Why call it government, if it is a crime in progress?

Who benefits?

What, at the root, misdirects a good meaning person away from a productive path and onto a destructive path?

Why call it government, if it is a crime in progress?

What, at the root, misdirects a good meaning person away from a productive path and onto a destructive path?

Why call it government, if it is a crime in progress?

If you can work with me here, you can answer the questions yourself.

I can offer a competitive answer.

What, at the root, misdirects a good meaning person away from a productive path and onto a destructive path?

The lie that a criminal can commit a crime such as fraud, extortion, torture, or mass murder, because the criminal has given himself, or herself, a badge, and the badge makes the crime legal.

Why call it government, if it is a crime in progress?

The reason for calling a crime a law is the root, it is the switch, it is the point in the road where a well meaning person travels on a good path and then, because of that switch, that person turns around, and goes the other way.

"Seems this lady thinks a blood bath is needed."

Case in point.

The switch does work when Counter-Revolutionary-Forces are working in your brain. If a lady thinks that a blood bath is needed, what are they going to do?

Not until the criminals are slaughtering those in front of you, while you have the switch to turn the conveyor belt off, and then you are being slaughtered, and no longer able to turn the conveyor belt off, can you claim to be defending yourself.

Seriously.

All we have to do is stop paying the criminals for being so good at what they do, and what happens?

"WE" are duped to such a degree that the number of the dupes are too many, so the conveyor belt keeps going, and going, and going.

Legal Crime.

Crime made legal.

Where?

The FED
The IRS
The Troops sent on Aggressive Wars for Profit

Turn it off.

http://mises.org/media/1356/Gold-or-Tyranny

Joe

"Why call it government, if it is a crime in progress?"

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2950411: "How can someone ever take any small look into Waco and not realize immediately that the criminals have taken over completely.

How about these 2 cases:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT5MY3C86bk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktLeb14FoUk

One look at how far those victims traveled from being victims to any semblance of justice, in any true meaning of the word, proves the case.

So why the silence, why NOT the outrage?

Why are people not doing this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHwo43xQauM

We are lulled into powerlessness by those Counter-Revolutionary-Forces in between our ears."
----------------
I think I understand now...for a while.
...

Ron Paul called you an

Ron Paul called you an anarchist? When I've seen him speak previously, he welcomed anarchists. He never singled them out for derision.

You are telling me?

You are telling me what I experienced?

Do you understand what it is you are doing?

Joe

How about you be more

How about you be more specific regarding your actual experience interacting with Ron, from beginning to end?

In so many words

Here is the event:

http://mises.org/media/1356/Gold-or-Tyranny

Note the date: Monday, February 28, 2005

That is after I worked for and earned a place on the Congressional Election in 1996 here:

http://vote96.sos.ca.gov/Vote96/html/cand/c40.htm

At the time I am working a lot of overtime at a high labor job in construction. I like to work, another long story. But the time period between Waco, my running for congress because of Waco, and this event in Nevada is almost constant work, labor, filled with reading, study, and thinking on Political Economy, plus keeping a family together, raising 2 kids, and discovering principles of political economy.

I take the weekend off, pay the fee, drive up to Las Vegas, arrive and find a basket under a sign and the sign says "Submit your questions to the Speakers" or some other wording, so I fill the basket with questions concerning the economic effects of the Internet, the Chinese economic boom, and if I remember from the time period I also asked questions having to do with the force of competition working on forcing money quality up and money cost down.

It was 2 days of speeches, and an informal day, and I wanted to hear Ron Paul, who I had heard about through newsgroups in the late 1980s.

I talked to Mr. Libertarian Walter Block in the hall, and as far as I am concerned the guy is an elitist, he didn't listen to my viewpoint, and he dismissed my questions about China with a trite reference to the price of my sneakers (tennis shoes in Pacific coast lingo).

I missed the opportunity to shake Ron Paul's hand, and tell him how his example helped inspired me to get on the ballot in 1996: no problem.

I don't know who the anarchist was in the reference to anarchists in Ron Paul's speech, but at the time I was heavily engaged in reading the works of Josiah Warren, Stephen Pearl Andrews, Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, and other so called "anarchists", and I think that was the time period when my activity on the Mises forum was occurring: before I was removed from their forum deceitfully.

I don't know who was the second anarchists either, as Ron Paul is informed of more than one anarchist in the audience during the speech by Ron Paul in Las Vegas.

I know that my questions on paper filled that basket on that first day. At the end of the day there was a question and answer period for the audience (paid to be there), and I did not raise my hand, for I had already, thoughtfully, filled the basket with written questions.

The speaker running the show read a few questions, and then said that the harder questions would be answered on the second day of speeches. None of my questions were tabled on either day.

I had one of my questions answered during the second day.

The answer is:

If you can't beat them: join them.

If you do not understand my viewpoint, that does not mean that my viewpoint is not valid.

Joe

Ron Paul is an anarchist lmao

Ron Paul is an anarchist lmao

"Come and Let Us Reason Together"

says the scriptures. I sure concur. It is those who are so sure they are right that they don't have to listen to anyone anymore that are scary wrong.

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

No.7's picture

Exactly, we should never quit learning

Someone has something to teach everyone. We can all learn from anyone if we will only listen to what they have to say and reason with their perspective.

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

No.7's picture

Thanks Granger!

You might like this song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYdzA2BMLOQ

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

((((((((OldNo.7J.D.))))))))

That song was beautiful! THANK YOU!!

Education is key

The key is education. I feel similarly about people getting involved at GOP county meetings. I want everyone to get involved. The problem with that is inviting too many "weak-freedom" folks- They might be too easily swayed by neo-con thought, overcome by fear. That is why educating folks is key. We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Freedom is not up for debate, but we can spread the message and teach those willing to listen.

I'm trying to get better at detaching emotionally from debates. Getting frustrated with an ignorant person is easy to do. It is better, though, to just state the message and if they get it, good, and if not, then oh well. You can lead a horse to water...

I've also been talking a lot about fear lately. I believe that fear is the vehicle in which all liberty is lost. If we truly and honestly believe in liberty, no fear can take it from us, because a free people will always prevail.

The founders would be ashamed at us for what we are putting up with.