9 votes

Why all the hate for The Southern Avenger?

Yeah I know he pissed some of us off but make no mistake, most of his beliefs align with ours. This is the Jack Hunter I remember and how we're allowing the media to walk all over him doesn't just hurt Hunter, it hurts all of us:



This is what we're alowing:


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Don't focus on the voice,

Don't focus on the voice, focus on the content and on the message. Ron's not a great speaker but I'm sure you've listened to a number of his speeches.

Dr. Paul isn't nails on a chalkboard style though.

This guy is.

This is not the way we need to be represented

We must win a perception war just to have people open their minds to the idea of Liberty and all the talk of the "good ole way" and "pappy's way" hurts us. As Rand said we must be an all encompassing party.

Doesn't mean we back down on our beliefs or convictions but we have to pull away from the white southern banner, even though it doesn't represent us, sheeple think it does. What people believe is their reality. We have to unhitch ourselves for the "teabagger" hashtag.

It's why the Alex Jones, Adam Kokehs, and The Southern Avengeres (CONFEDERACY ASSEMBLE!) hurt us far more than most of us want to admit. For us to win we have to reach Ma and Pa Kent and they see Alex foaming at the mouth like a mad dog, Adam smoking a dub, and the Southern Avenger (how you even think that is a good moniker to call yourself is beyond me) rolling in the antebellum south and we get shut off instantly. Not even a chance to open a conversation on Liberty now or in the near future. Is that winning?

The Alex/Adam's of the world tickle the base and make us feel good but in reality they hurt the movement. Dr. Paul understood this, even though he supports ending the War on Drugs he is not on capital hill rolling a phatty with Snoop Dog.

Well to be fair to Jack he

Well to be fair to Jack he ended the Southern Avenger moniker I believe sometime during Rand's Senatorial bid. So now we have something akin to the newsletter debacle which is sad. Hunter has always been a promoter and supporter of Ron and Rand and to see him get railroaded not only by the socialists and the neo-nuts but by our own people is sad.

Your right

but perception is reality, universal truth.

The Libertarian rally has become less woodstock and more Free State Project.

It's a good fight

I believe, in the name of being "Libertarian", there are liberals here (least we forget Noam Chomsky is a Libertarian) who bash JH.

They came to DP to whip us, and they refuse to Stand with Rand, and now MSM is attacking Rand because Rand makes sense, and that scares them because they make stories, not sense.

Silence is the killer.. so as long as it's in the news, we are winning.

Noam Chomsky

is most certainly NOT a libertarian

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Chomsky is not not a

Chomsky is not not a libertarian, but thanks for posting these links. I had no idea that Wikipedia was trying to promote a co-opted leftist version of fake libertarianism as if it were were the norm. So I guess there is no such thing as libertarianism anymore, huh? Now it's left- or right-leaning libertarianism. Nice.

The case for left libertarianism

I followed the arguments on wiki for awhile. Basically libertarian was coined in French and imported into English in the 1800s. In France it referred to an individual rights strain of democratic socialism. Classical liberals took on the label in the 1950s to distinguish themselves from new liberalism. There has been some exchange of ideas between the left and the right strains since the 1990s, leading to the appearance of a single origin. For me, considering left libertarian ideas has made me an anti-corporatist right libertarian. To the extent that a business owner or employee is responsible for damaging a third party in the course of business, that owner or employee should be held personally responsible. No limited liability contract exists between a third party and the business. However for some reason corporate capitalists believe the government can bestow a business owners and employees with personal immunity from the consequences of their actions. Where does that power come from?


It always has been. Some say Ayn Rand is not a Libertarian, some say she is. This is what she had to say

What was Ayn Rand’s view of the libertarian movement?
Ayn Rand was opposed to the libertarian movement of her time.

In 1971 she wrote:

For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs. [“Brief Summary,” The Objectivist, Vol. 10, Sep. 1971]

And in 1972 she wrote:

Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, that subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies. (For a discussion of the reasons, see “The Anatomy of Compromise” in my book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.) [“What Can One Do?” The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. 1, No. 7]

Rand was often asked about libertarians and the Libertarian Party in the question-and-answer periods following her lectures. Here, from pp.72-76 of Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A, ed. Robert Mayhew, are some of those questions and her answers. (In the excerpt below, “Q” stands for question, “AR” for Ayn Rand, “FHF” for Ford Hall Forum, a venue where Ayn Rand was often invited to speak, “OC” for Objective Communication, a course given by Leonard Peikoff in which Ayn Rand participated in some of the question-and-answer periods, and “71” for the year 1971.)

Q: What do you think of the libertarian movement?

AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists; but anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That’s worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement. [FHF 71]

Q: What do you think of the Libertarian Party?

AR: I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis—they’re not as funny as John Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers; but this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. (George Wallace is no great thinker—he’s a demagogue, though with some courage—but even he had the sense to stay home this time.) If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for president—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern. [FHF 72]

Q: What is your position on the Libertarian Party?

AR: I don’t want to waste too much time on it. It’s a cheap attempt at publicity, which libertarians won’t get. Today’s events, particularly Watergate, should teach anyone with amateur political notions that they shouldn’t rush into politics in order to get publicity. The issues are so serious today that to form a new party on some half-baked and some borrowed—I won’t say from whom—ideas, is irresponsible, and in today’s context nearly immoral. [FHF 73]

Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you do, so why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party?

AR: They’re not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now it’s a bad sign for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas. [FHF 74]

Q: Have you heard of Libertarian presidential candidate Roger MacBride? What do you think of him?

AR: My answer should be “I don’t think of him.” There’s nothing to hear. The trouble in the world today is philosophical; only the right philosophy can save us. But this party plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists, and every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and they call themselves Libertarians and run for office. I dislike Reagan and Carter; I’m not too enthusiastic about the other candidates. But the worst of them are giants compared to anybody who would attempt something as un-philosophical, low, and pragmatic as the Libertarian Party. It is the last insult to ideas and philosophical consistency. [FHF 76]

Q: Do you think Libertarians communicate the ideas of freedom and capitalism effectively?

AR: I don’t think plagiarists are effective. I’ve read nothing by Libertarians (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn’t my ideas badly mishandled—that is, the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given. I didn’t know whether to be glad that no credit was given, or disgusted. I felt both. They are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable. I’ll take Jane Fonda over them. [Earlier during this same Q&A period, AR had been asked about Jane Fonda. For the question and her answer, see below, p. 80.] [OC 80]

Q: Why don’t you approve of libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works?

AR: Because libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication when that fits their purpose. They’re lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They want an amoral political program. [FHF 81]

Q: Libertarians provide intermediate steps toward your goals. Why don’t you support them?

AR: Please don’t tell me they’re pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. That’s how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout history: by means of people who understand ideas and teach them to others. Further, it should be clear that I reject the filthy slogan “The end justifies the means.” That was originated by the Jesuits, and accepted enthusiastically by the Communists and the Nazis. The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. Finally, libertarians aren’t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism. [FHF 81]

Robert Nozick, Professor of Philosophy at Harvard University, was a well-known libertarian.

Q: Could you comment on Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia?

AR: I don’t like to read this author, because I don’t like bad eclectics—not in architecture, and certainly not in politics and philosophy—particularly when I’m one of the pieces butchered. [FHF 77]

Q: What’s your view on the idea of competing governments?

AR: It’s an irresponsible piece of nonsense. That’s the only answer the question deserves. [FHF 70]

Q: Why is the lack of government in Galt’s Gulch (in Atlas Shrugged) any different from anarchy, which you object to?

AR: Galt’s Gulch is not a society; it’s a private estate. It’s owned by one man who carefully selected the people admitted. Even then, they had a judge as an arbitrator, if anything came up; only nothing came up among them, because they shared the same philosophy. But if you had a society in which all shared in one philosophy, but without a government, that would be dreadful. Galt’s Gulch probably consisted of about, optimistically, a thousand people who represented the top geniuses of the world. They agreed on fundamentals, but they would never be in total agreement. They didn’t need a government because if they had disagreements, they could resolve them rationally.

But project a society of millions, in which there is every kind of viewpoint, every kind of brain, every kind of morality—and no government. That’s the Middle Ages, your no-government society. Man was left at the mercy of bandits, because without government, every criminally inclined individual resorts to force, and every morally inclined individual is helpless. Government is an absolute necessity if individual rights are to be protected, because you don’t leave force at the arbitrary whim of other individuals. Libertarian anarchism is pure whim worship, because what they refuse to recognize is the need of objectivity among men—particularly men of different views. And it’s good that people within a nation should have different views, provided we respect each other’s rights.

No one can guard rights, except a government under objective laws. What if McGovern had his gang of policemen, and Nixon had his, and instead of campaigning they fought in the streets? This has happened throughout history. Rational men are not afraid of government. In a proper society, a rational man doesn’t have to know the government exists, because the laws are clear and he never breaks them. [FHF 72]


Is 100% right on this one.

Remember the left/right paradigm is just an illusion.

We have more in common with Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich than John McCain and Lindsay Graham.

anyone can call themselves whatever they want

But we have to agree on the meaning or certain words. The most commonly accepted meaning of the word libertarian is the acceptance of the non-agression axiom. Alternatively, as wikipedia says, libertarianism holds liberty as the highest political end (though this is not a very well defined statement). Libertarian socialism and left-libertarianism are just nonsense, as you need a state apparatus to prevent people from accumulating homesteaded property. Since Chomsky is opposed to private property, he is not a libertarian.

Now, it could be that the word "libertarian" is hijacked by these confused souls just like the word "liberal" has been corrupted from its original meaning. There is nothing to be done about that. Language evolves. But we are not there yet, so I will insist that Chomsky is no libertarian.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Politicians campaigning are not "anyones"s

You can say it's hi-jacked, but let's see you edit wiki and how far you get.

As far as I'm concerned, when you build on sand, like building a party that has for decades been infiltraited, re-defined, taken by the left and the right.. you are not building a party that will get anywhere politically in winning elections.

Maybe this is why what you are participating in what is called a, "Liberty Movement".

Where me.. I joined a rEVOLution and that rEVOLution was designed to take the GOP, and that is what we are doing.

You are debating terms.. while we are debating issues and redefining the terms, by-laws, and political landscape.

To be very honest, it is the most exciting political happening in my life. And I hope that with it, we will avoid an Arab Sping, or Coupe, or civil war.. while there are many in your party that will take any of them. Anything to destroy America, land that they HATE.


I am not interested in winning elections

That is not my path, because I am morally opposed to it. I leave it to people like you. You have good intentions and you may open people's eyes along the way, which is good. You may even win some offices, though I fear that it will not lead to smaller government. Can we agree that there are multiple paths people can pursue to improve the world? You work on the GOP and I will work on showing people that the State is a firing squad and that a voluntary society is the way to go.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

A voluntary state?

Are you a volunteer?

I began volunteering in 1973.. sooner if you count being a volunteer with organizations like Girl Scouts.

I think it is very important to volunteer. I spent most of today volunteering.

Before I get into my decades of volunteering, how about you tell me what you think a volunteer society is? How does it work? What do you do in a volunteer society when you witness a crime? How is that handled? Do you believe ALL volunteers are equal? If I volunteer 8 hours of hard labor and you volunteer 15 minutes of sitting in a chair watching a TV screen, is that equal?

Good Questions

Anarchism suffers from a lack of good articulation. It seems to take the form of hatred of the state, and doesn't offer a good actual alternative.

We have the non-aggression principle on one hand. But, the state exists because without a 'gang' going around enforcing 'rules' people initiate violence against each other. The state generally emerges because the productive non-violent people see it as a way to prevent the wholesale initiation of violence in society.

People from Bastiat to Rand have asked why the productive continue to work when the state that robs from them would be broke without their support? The answer is a tangible fear of being robbed worse in the alternative. Sometimes the state creates the illusion of this menace, but at times - particularly when states are first formed - the menace is quite real. Feudal lords protecting against marauders and gothic tribes is a perfect example. Of course, they end up fighting each other.

The issue is that even under ancap, there is still a sort of common law - it might be decentralized - but people as a whole acknowledge a process of justice and due process and generally the principle of non-aggression. People like Stefan Molyneaux I think seem to believe that we just need to embrace non-violence religiously, and this will solve the problem. Others like Walter Block, antithetically, seem to think that in ancap punishments will be so severe that it will uphold the social order. Steal or trespass, and an individual will shoot you. Well, no need for a state to enforce property law now. Gary North seems to think that a sort of common law theocracy will do the trick, a sort of religious order that doesn't rely on government, but is based on very strict behavioral codes that the society enforces in a decentralized manner. Think Salem witches.

I think the issue is that society does require law and justice. This requires organization. You have a set of rules, a due process, a concept of judgment and punishment. It can be done in a decentralized non-monopolistic way. However, the alternative to people initiating violence by whim with one another is a common organization - a common consensus however achieved on law and justice.

This is an intellectual thing, this set of laws requires wisdom, experience, careful thought and consideration. The ideas, in other words, are concrete, fixed, in a given context.

Either everyone naturally concedes to the common law - which again, is possible - or one group agrees to it, to the natural law, to the non-aggression principle - and everyone else just takes what they can get.

If your village is surrounded by three nomadic tribes, and your village has law - non-aggression principle - and they just decide to come rob you because they think they're tough - you have a right to apply your law to them in the form of a just declaration of a state of war.

Now imagine your tribe lives mostly at peace with other tribes, mixed together, along a river bend. If your tribe abides non-aggression, and the others are lawless, you would still apply the outcomes of your justice system upon them.

Thus, you are imposing your law, like a monopoly, upon them. This is the state.

The only alternative is that they possess a different system of justice, and you build a compromise on how, where and when different systems apply. One way that's easy is territory. Well, 'we' don't like the way they do law on the other side of the river, but by going over there we accept their way of doing things and will abide the outcomes of their courts rather than our own.

It is deep psychology, and in fact essentially logical, that human behavior is predicated on expected outcomes. Interpersonal relations especially. Commerce and trade imply expected outcomes. Different cultures have vastly different understandings of what trade means. If outcomes vary too wildly, there is no peace. This is part of what causes barbaric behavior. People initiate force because they don't have any hope that they can predict the outcome of an interaction, or that the rules governing that interaction will be arbitrary or even malicious.

Thus, it's even sort of 'justifiable' that one set of law would emerge over a given territory and people. Until everyone has equal expectations, then there's one standard for what initiation of force actually is, then everybody is represented equally by the system of justice. Thus the concern over form of government, and constitution.

You already agree, Granger, I'm sure, but you know, what the heck.

TY Tman2000

//Anarchism suffers from a lack of good articulation. It seems to take the form of hatred of the state, and doesn't offer a good actual alternative.//

It's not just the state that anarchism takes the "form" of hatred. It spills over to people, it's blames, which I'll elaborate below, which is why to ma, anarchism is "angry defeatism".

//We have the non-aggression principle on one hand. But, the state exists because without a 'gang' going around enforcing 'rules' people initiate violence against each other. The state generally emerges because the productive non-violent people see it as a way to prevent the wholesale initiation of violence in society.//

The non-agression principle is like a goal, one never achieved, because it's inhuman, in that it deny's the fact agression is human. Rather than deny a human condition like aggression, I find it is better to acccept the condition and witness it as a fuel, and energy, that when harnessed constructively can take one places. For example, petrol, when stored, a spark can ignite it and it's blows. Where if it is put in a car engine, you can spend it going someplace. So agreesion, spent as a fuel, writing contracts, what legislation is, is a non-agressive principle, and when backed by a defensive force (police) in theory, there would be a peaceful society. It is when contractds fail and the state becomes offensive in the name of defense, we have the problems and confusion we wirness today.

//People from Bastiat to Rand have asked why the productive continue to work when the state that robs from them would be broke without their support? The answer is a tangible fear of being robbed worse in the alternative. Sometimes the state creates the illusion of this menace, but at times - particularly when states are first formed - the menace is quite real. Feudal lords protecting against marauders and gothic tribes is a perfect example. Of course, they end up fighting each other.//

I don't think so. I think it's because people have children and children change everything. There is a need to provide for them, and people will do what they have to. The state has controlled people with this for a long time.

//People like Stefan Molyneaux I think seem to believe that we just need to embrace non-violence religiously, and this will solve the problem.//

While SM may be physically non-violent, I find his ranting very violent, blaming, accusing, threatening, hostile and bitter.

//This is an intellectual thing, this set of laws requires wisdom, experience, careful thought and consideration. The ideas, in other words, are concrete, fixed, in a given context.//

I think the one word very lacking is RESPECT, without it, the rest is like a ship without a rudder.

I am always amazed by what I don't know, as it seems the more I know, is actually knowing that I have a lot more to learn.

Agreed. Anarchy and liberty

Agreed. Anarchy and liberty are two very different things, the two are in direct conflict.

scawarren's picture

How are they in direct

How are they in direct conflict?

It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. – Mark Twain

Because anarchy directly

The whole point of liberty is to protect people from having violence initiated upon them, whereas the endgame of anarchy is to expressly allow exactly that.


Anarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy has built in problems beginning with defining what it is, political or meaning NON political.

Liberty is a value, so it can be used in many ways.

When applying liberty to anarchy, it will mean something different to depending on what kind of anarchy one is talking about.

The "danger" is that two people can talk about anarchy and liberty and believe they are talking about the same thing to only find out that they had completely different ideas or philosophies.

It would be good if people began asking for definitions.. What kind of anarchist? What kind of Libertarian.

We take too much for granted and in wanting to find common ground, many times the deceivers among us.. are the best speakers, but their actions or results are not what we thought they would be.

There is also this idea that anarchy and libery are great and good because people don't need "walls" to lomit them. But experiences teaches us that walls are good, margins are good.. small government is better than big civil wars.