24 votes

Libertarians’ Image Problem (Being an asshole is actually ineffective.)

18 July 2014 · by Jon L. Persson
Mises Christ!

The so-called marketplace of ideas might be the only market that has been left relatively untouched by governments around the world. This rings especially true in the West. People can freely exchange thoughts and ideas with each other without the State interfering. Granted, of course, some ideas are directly and indirectly subsidized by the government, but on the whole, people are free to “buy” and “sell” ideas as they please. In this sense, ideas are much like any other type of product. And much like any other type of product, ideas, no matter how good, need to be marketed. They need to be packaged neatly, in a way that appeals to as many as possible.

This, somewhat ironically, seems to be completely lost on most libertarians. I say “ironically,” because one would expect free-marketeers to understand how markets work in practice. By expressing sentiments such as the desire to “just be left alone, man,” and that accepting welfare makes you subhuman, libertarians have created an image of being selfish, greedy, and hating the poor. However valid your arguments may be, if everyone thinks you are an asshole, no one will listen. If libertarianism is to enter the mainstream anytime soon, it is imperative that its image is not stained by tactless don’t-tread-on-me rhetoric.

In a series of columns for Libertarianism.org, Cato researcher Jonathan Blanks offers some thoughtful reflections on why so few blacks are libertarians. And while his prescriptions to remedy this are somewhat alarming, albeit perhaps not surprising for someone who works at Cato, Blanks does raise an important question. The answer, though Blanks would have you believe otherwise, I believe, is in fact not to compromise on principles (if this is the answer, you are probably asking the wrong question), but to acknowledge the situation in which many blacks—and other minorities too, for that matter—find themselves. While Jim Crow might be gone in the U.S., institutional racism is still alive and well. To find an example of this, one has to look no further than the criminal justice system, which disproportionately targets blacks. African-Americans represent 14% of regular drug users, but comprise 35% of those arrested for drug offenses.1 People of color are far more likely than whites to be stopped, searched, arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned for drug offenses.2 Of course, the criminal justice system and drug war are not the only instances of institutional racism; Thomas Sowell argues that affirmative action in fact hurts blacks.

Continue reading
http://miseschrist.com/2014/07/18/libertarians-image-problem/

Comment viewing options

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

Be Polite....

while we rape your children of their future.

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
Friedrich Nietzsche

I have to be an a-hole

because the vast majority of people to whom I try to explain my position are too ignorant to understand that they are, by virtue of the way their government works, holding a gun to my head. Like

"here, pay these withholding/real estate/estate taxes, that's what adults in our society do, STFU."
"here, apply for this/that/the other business license"
"here, buy this medical insurance"
"here, put your money in this Ponzi Scheme...er, Social Security"
"here, put your kids in this school"
"here, don't smoke that weed"
"here, give your kids this injection"
"here, don't drink that raw milk"

or ELSE.

Frankly, I don't want to be an asshole but it's really difficult when I'M THE ONE UNDER DURESS.

Ever been under actual,

Ever been under actual, physical gun point?

It's actually not that hard to be nice.

Yes

But I wasn't arrested for any of the above infractions. You get my point.

I'm pretty good at keeping a civil tongue - as long as those who are asking me to bend over and grab my ankles don't expect me to smile while I'm being dicked.

Nope.

I think the writer's accusation of Libertarians stating that: "accepting welfare makes you subhuman", is untrue. I searched the 'net and didn't find anything written by anyone of any political persuasion along the lines of "accepting welfare makes you subhuman".

I think many on the internet attack Libertarians and Libertarianism from a position of lazy ignorance.

The truth is that Libertarians know full well that citizens cannot escape redistribution, also known as welfare. Sidewalks, fire and police protection are local examples. Like it or not, the NSA, EPA or Obamacare are Federal examples.

The writer's accusation seems to be based in complete ignorance that brings an emotional response in me about halfway between annoyance and disgust.

Do go back and read the really stupid part about black people and drugs. It will be apparent that writer Jon L Persson hasn't a clue.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" TJ

I disagree that libertarians are collectively being assholes...

...I think it's the ideological opposition that are the assholes.

Just go to Huffpost, or Foxnews.com, or any mainstream site, and the comments sections are all full of nothing but ad hominem insulting each other, and very rarely a rational, intelligent argument is made.

The "libtards" (accurate label) are the most ruthless, followed shortly behind by the foxnews brainwashed neo-cons, most of which I don't think understand they are not conservatives.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

I disagree

I understand the sentiment, and it all sounds well and good. But when you hold a position based ON PRINCIPLES MORALITY AND ETHICS, then principles morality and ethics ARE THE HOLY GRAIL of what you follow.

UNDERMINING principles and ethics IN ORDER TO CONVINCE THE UNPRINCIPLED is no way to "teach principles."

If the mainstream cannot step onto the runway of principles and ethics, it is tragic, and not our fault. Stepping onto the road of principles IS A MINDSET. You cannot skip this step on your road to being principled.

Can you give an example from

Can you give an example from the article in which the author undermines principles and ethics in order to convince others? Or how does the author suggest undermining such?

Yes, but teaching principles

Yes, but teaching principles is also a mindset and a very important one at that. Teaching requires a whole lot of patience. Sometimes it requires a person being taught in a round about way, where you take the risk of going along with that person. Because people are intractible by nature, they only tend to be willing to learn if you approach them with humility and are willing to entertain their reasoning. I believe this is the true correct path. Because the path you describe is a path of self absorption, a path where one already believes to be right. It's also the path that least understands education. To educate, you must have compassion for the other person. When you easily reject another, you will be easily rejected in return. Because there is no compassion. And thus there will be no learning. From both sides.

I'm not exactly a believer, but the bible really nailed it when it said that pride was the deadliest of all sins. One must first and foremost start with humility. It begins with humility and it ends with it.

Biggest problem for Libertarians is the attitude:

"FINE. I'm right. You're wrong. And I don't care what you think. I'll do it my way and let you jerks do it your way!"

The same personality that embraces individualism regarding rights, doesn't quite get it that some degree of collectivism is required to win a democratic election.

The little kid who says "Play football by MY rules or I am taking my ball and going home!" doesn't get to win many games when every other kid has a ball too. He has to compromise.

I wouldn't call it

I wouldn't call it collectivism, more like having some respect and humility towards other opinions. If that's called collectivism, then by all means.

We tend to understand the importance of individualism. But somehow we manage to defend this individualism in the most primitive ways. They can't imagine that it's possible to believe in your own thing, while accepting that others believe differently. Probably, because people's notions of strength are totally twisted. Unless they spit on others, they don't feel that their individualism is of any worth. Accepting that other opinions exist, does not mean that you endorse them.

Thanks for the post! People

Thanks for the post!

People need to think about WHY they are posting. So many comments to posts on this site are plain old ego-stroking and do absolutely nothing else but irritate people, make enemies, exclude others, and generally turn people off from even reading the site. Those comments are no better than what the brainwashed masses offer.

This site can have any environment that the members turn it into, and right now it's extremely unwelcoming to anyone who isn't a die-hard RP supporter who has never had other political views. Insulting their current heroes does not "wake them up". The only way to convert people is to ADD to their views, by getting them to think about things they hadn't before, and in time they will discard the views they no longer need.

If it were me from several years ago coming by this site and I saw threads trashing Ralph Nader, I wouldn't read another word. If I were a Glenn Beck listener and wanted to learn more about liberty, after reading the same type of thing here on Beck I probably would dismiss this site (and any associated philosophy) just the same.

These principles of basic communication are common sense. I don't believe anyone actually thinks they can win people over by coming up with more and more insults and trashing everyone they disagree with. It's only ego stroking, and they enjoy it, or they have a need to feel a part of an exclusive club who is "right", and they need to solidify the borders of that club.

The problem I think is by comparison trying to communicate effectively is not comfortable, is a little confusing, frustrating, and just isn't fun. And it's certainly not effective to do so in an environment where you have other people insulting the person you're trying to get through to.

I've pretty much given up here. I guess I'm only replying for the off chance that one person out there might consider that they are acting from a position of ego only and are being counter-effective at spreading the philosophy.

Amen.

Amen.

10-15 million more voters need to believe in non-interventionism (liberty) at home and abroad to change America. Minds changed on Syria. Minds changing on privacy. "Printing money" is part of the dialogue. Win minds through focus, strategy.

You sacrifice your dignity by kissing ass and brown nosing too.

this approach also gets you nowhere.

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Every political party has assholes...

and to call out one group is hypocritical. It takes an asshole to know one.

It's easy to know when someone has been put in their place because they resort to name-calling. Just ask Dr. Demento. He'll tell you all about the name-calling.

Libertarians don't have an image-problem, we're just waiting for others to wake-up.

Don't think Christopher Cantwell quite 'got' the message! ,oD

Especially, when he's someone who revels in the moniker; hell, it's his damn motto:

Christopher Cantwell: Anarchist, Atheist, Asshole!

xD

Chris Cantwell: Politically Correct Libertarianism Must Die! Libertarianism Definition Hijack Rebuke 2.0!

Politically Correct Libertarianism Must Die!!

http://youtu.be/JX2qG7jS0GE
Christopher Cantwell
Published on Jul 16, 2014

The Libertarian Brutalism Facebook group was deleted today, because politically correct libertarians can't mind their own business. Well, I've got a few things to say to these people.

Indeed, I motherfrakkin' concur with this motherfrakkin' message!

.D

*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************

ADDENDUM: For reference, for those who may not be familiar, where all Chris Cantwell's angst on this issue stems from:

Misesian/Rothbardian Rebuke vs Fabian Socialists' "Brutalism/Thick/Thin"-BS Definition-Hijack of libertarianism!
Submitted by AnCapMercenary on Thu, 05/15/2014 - 09:41

The Future of Libertarianism
By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
May 1, 2014

Marxists were notorious for infighting over the most trivial differences. One group would secede from another, reverse the word order of the group it had seceded from, and declare itself the new and pure group. The first group, the new group would declare to the world, was part of the fascist conspiracy to suppress the coming workers’ triumph, even though the differences between the two groups were completely undetectable even to an expert.

An informal debate taking place among libertarians these days, regarding whether people ought to be “thick” or “thin” libertarians, is of a different character. It strikes at the very heart of what libertarianism is.

The “thin” libertarian believes in the nonaggression principle, that one may not initiate physical force against anyone else. The thin libertarian thinks of himself simply as a libertarian, without labels. Most “thick” libertarians likewise believe in the nonaggression principle, but they believe that for the struggle for liberty to be coherent, libertarians must be committed to a slate of other views as well.

Both left and right are guilty
Walter E. Block
8:42 pm on May 13, 2014

This is my attempt to help temper the rancor I currently see in the liberty community. I am a staunch thin or pure libertarian. For me, the correct (Rothbardian) libertarianism is firmly predicated on the non aggression principle (NAP): the law should prohibit the initiation of violence against innocent people and their property. That is it. That is entirely it. There is no more to thin libertarianism, other than implications of this basic axiom; well, that’s quite a lot.

Of late however, many leftists have been attempting to hijack the good ship libertarian in their own direction, adding to the NAP their own pet projects: opposition to bossism, racism, sexism, homophobia, prejudice, bigotry, brutalism, etc. Some call this humanitarian libertarianism, many call it thick libertarianism, and others characterize this as “New Libertarianism” (http://www.johnmccaskey.com/joomla/index.php/blog/71-new-lib...). Whatever it is called, it is an unwarranted and unjustified attack on pure or thin or Rothbardian libertarianism.

But this isn’t simply an issue of leftism trying to envelop libertarianism. The push towards the right has been going on just as long and just as forcefully; for example, some right wing thickists urge acceptance of conservatism. This article of mine was an attempt to make the case that not one but both sides are guilty of this misunderstanding of libertarianism, and to point out errors on not one but both sides:

Block, Walter E. 2010. “Libertarianism is unique; it belongs neither to the right nor the left: a critique of the views of Long, Holcombe, and Baden on the left, Hoppe, Feser and Paul on the right.” Journal of Libertarian Studies; Vol. 22: 127–70; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_8.pdf; http://141.164.133.3/exchange/walterblock/Inbox/JLS%20articl...
http://mises.org/journals/scholar/block15.pdf; http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/block15.pdf

I am not sure whether or not it will temper the rancor now racing through the libertarian community to point out that not only leftists, but rightists too are guilty of thickism. I am being even handed, criticizing attacks on pure libertarianism from whichever direction they emanate, one, in an attempt to reduce hostility, name-calling, flaming, etc., but more important, because it is the truth. Both sides are guilty of making this elementary mistake, not just the lefties.

For voices of sanity on this issue other than (hopefully) my own, see anything written on the subject by Bob Wenzel, and also this magnificent essay by Lew Rockwell: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/lew-rockwell/the-future-.... Wait, here’s one more excellent essay on this topic, by Laurence Vance: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/laurence-m-vance/i-am-a-...

I Am a Libertarian
By Laurence M. Vance
May 6, 2014

I am a libertarian. I am not Democrat or Republican. I am not liberal or conservative. I am not left or right. I am not moderate or progressive. I am not a Libertarian. I am not a fusionist. I am not a constitutionalist.

I am a libertarian. I am not thin or thick. I am not brutalist or humanitarian. I am not holist or solipsist. I am not moralist or consequentialist. I am not open or closed. I am not a modal, cosmopolitan, cultural, regime, sophisticated, or Beltway libertarian. I do not have a bleeding heart. I am not a neo, second wave, or millennial libertarian. I am a plain old libertarian, one who needs no labels, issues no caveats, and makes no apologies.

I am a libertarian. Libertarianism is a political philosophy concerned with the permissible use of force or violence. It is not a political philosophy that says limited government is the best kind of government. It is not a political philosophy that is socially liberal and economically conservative. It is not a political philosophy that says government is less efficient than the private sector. It is not a political philosophy that says freedom can be achieved by promoting some government policies over others. It is not a political philosophy that is low-tax liberalism. Libertarianism is not the absence of racism, sexism, homophobism, xenophobism, nationalism, nativism, classism, authoritarianism, patriarchy, inequality, or hierarchy. Libertarianism is not diversity or activism. Libertarianism is not egalitarianism. Libertarianism is not toleration or respect. Libertarianism is not a social attitude, lifestyle, or aesthetic sensibility.

******************************************************************

There has been a disturbing rift in the Force...as of late within AnCap/libertarian circles.

Mainly two culprit: Jeff Tucker (noooooooooooooo! another one bites the dust?? .o( & Cathy 'Who?' Reisenwitz, a KOCHtopus beltarian/faketarian/Cosmotarian Fabian Socialist infiltrator who first 'made her name' personally attacking/name-calling sweet ol Julie Boroswki completely uninitiated:

Sex, Butts & Orgasms: A Response to Julie Borowski

http://youtu.be/a49r8iGdOJ0
thelibertarienne
Published on Jan 6, 2013

Libertarian vlogger Julie Borowski, aka Token Libertarian Girl, recently posted a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nASPjB...) where she gave her opinion on why there aren't more libertarian women. In doing so, she definitely helped answer the question, but probably not in the way she intended.

In this video I address some of my problems with her approach and offer my own solutions to libertarianism's girl problem.

If you want to read more about me, check out my blog: http://anarcho-capitalism-blog.com.

The Libertarienne Show is hosted by Cathy Reisenwitz and produced by Sean W. Malone of CitizenA Media, LLC

...in response to this video by Julie:

Addressing the Lack of Female Libertarians

http://youtu.be/nASPjBVQkQk
Julie Borowski
Published on Jan 2, 2013

Why are there so few female libertarians? It has nothing to do with our philosophy. It is because libertarianism is not yet mainstream and part of popular culture. Women are more likely to care about being socially accepted and fitting in with their peers. There is more societal pressure for them to fit in and be "normal" by popular culture standards. They are less likely to have political views that are considered outside the mainstream.

There is more societal pressure on women to fit in and conform to what is considered "normal" by popular culture standards. This does not apply to every woman (obviously.) All women are individuals.

Some libertarian blogosphere discussion about the two:

Women, Libertarianism, Paleos, Cosmos, and Cosmo
By Lucy Steigerwald On January 8, 2013


Does This Miniskirt Make My Butt Look Libertarian Enough?

by Shaunna on January 15, 2013

...and check this: Cathy had the nerve to call bitcoin "bigoted" while invoking the current ongoing latest trend of Left social engineers: "Check Your [White] Privilege!"-BS, and much, much, much more forever recorded socially engineered imbecility. Time to call out, those who need calling out; perhaps, this is why Jeff Tucker has 'amicably' left as Pres. of Mises Inst.

If Cathy is 'libertarian,' then so is Rachel Maddow, Obama, and Glenn Beck. LOL!

No seriously, Reisenwitz actually said the following, with ZERO PROOF!

'Bitcoin is bigoted!'

Cathy Reisenwitz Accuses Bitcoin of Bigotry, Loses 2 Klout Points
Cathy Reisenwitz Klout Score Drops Two Points After Accusing Bitcoin of Bigotry
by Christopher Cantwell • March 3, 2014

With left “libertarians” like Cathy Reisenwitz, it’s all about privilege. There’s basically no issue that cannot be boiled down to racism, sexism, or homophobia. Not even Bitcoin. In a hysterical twitter fit, Cathy makes the case that there is some diabolical plot causing Bitcoin to be primarily used by white males.

'Libertarians are Racist!' Actually, no, not just, but apparently: "SUPER racist"!!!

"Maybe it's American libertarians who are super racist"

Cathy Reisenwitz Says American Libertarians are “Super Racist”
by Christopher Cantwell • May 11, 2014 • 9 Comments

From Bob Wenzel at Econ Policy Journal: Justin Raimondo (Misesian) at AntiWar.com SMOKES Cathy 'Fabian Socialist' Reisenwitz PsyOp peddler OUT!

Justin Raimondo Smokes Out Absurd Racism Charges Made By Cathy Reisenwitz
Friday, May 9, 2014
Posted by Robert Wenzel at 7:04 PM

It started with these tweets by Reisenwitz:

Raimondo responded with a barrage of tweets, including these:

A sickening lie: https://t.co/wbqToCdMBC This liar needs to be called out but good.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MrMcAdooForYou https://t.co/wbqToCdMBC Names, links please. u can't make this kind of accusation and just run away.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MrMcAdooForYou So you throw out a blanket smear & refuse to be specific. Nice.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MrMcAdooForYou U said libertarian publications regularly "bash blacks." I ask u who & where. Simple question.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@mvmustafin She said there are libertarian _publications_ that "regularly bash blacks." Asked which ones & when, she had a fit & said "bye."
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MarcusHbert @MrMcAdooForYou This latest comment is confirmation that no one should take @CathyReisenweitz seriously.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MarcusHbert @MrMcAdooForYou A message board is like a comments section: anyone can post anything. LvMi has no control over
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MarcusHbert @MrMcAdooForYou Cathy sez libertarians racist: asked 4 evidence she points to a ... public message board.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

And so Reisenwitz makes charges of racism against Hoppe, Block, Ron Paul, Rockwell and the late Murray Rothbard. Her proof: She directs Raimondo to the Ludwig von Mises message boards, which weren't up when Rothbard was alive. And I have never seen Hoppe, Block, Ron Paul or Rockwell ever post on the LvMi message boards. Reisenwitz logic. She has done it before:

A "Humanitarian" Libertarian Considers the Hyper-Inflations of the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe "Experiments"

Cathy Reisenwitz Takes On Money Laundering Theory

Fake Apologies, or Race Pimping – Which is Worse?
by Christopher Cantwell • May 12, 2014

One thing you almost never see me do is apologize. That’s because I’m almost never sorry about what I say or do, and I tend to reserve apologies for when I’m actually sorry. This is sort of a rare feature in humanity, as you may have noticed in life. Most people will throw out an apology whenever it suits their purposes, and this makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit every time.

Yesterday I published a screenshot of tweets from Cathy Reisenwitz accusing “American libertarians” of being “super racist”. If that seems a little bit too collectivist for your taste, don’t worry, she later specifically named Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, Walter Block, and Hoppe as being racists. This isn’t actually all that unusual, except for the fact that she named names that people actually care about. Cathy has been calling libertarians and libertarianism itself racist for a long time, with her implication that not caring about race, is racist. You know, like bitcoin.

and...the very libertarian act of voluntary disassociation & shunning followed, as consequence of her exposing herself to be utterly unprincipled and definitionally clueless...and nerd hilarity ensued! lol: her "Klout" points went from 77

...to 75!

What is Klout? In Cantwell's words:

Klout is a system that aggregates a user’s social networking activity over various social networks, Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, Google+, etc… and returns an “influence” score of 1-100. It’s basically a measure of your ability to get a message out over social media. If people become less interested in what you have to say, your Klout score drops. My own Klout score has dropped by 5 points over the last 20 days, but that’s because I’m on a 30 day ban from posting to Facebook, where 70% of my audience is.

I certainly had no idea what Klout was/is, until this whole back & forth between Catwell & Reisenwitz.

Chris Cantwell was interviewed on this on going 'issue' on the Tom Woods Show, on the Peter Schiff network:

Libertarianism Hijacked - May 14, 2014

Christopher Cantwell joins Tom to discuss recent efforts to make libertarianism "complete" by making it into something different.

Download

Tom Woods Reacts to the Reisenwitz Apology
Monday, May 12, 2014

Following my post on the Cathy Reisenwitz apology (SEE: BREAKING Reisenwitz Issues Apology for Making Racist Charges), Tom Woods added this in the comment section of the post:

Tom Woods May 11, 2014 at 9:30 PM

To continue in that vein, she would have had to break with Tucker, and that gig is evidently too lucrative to give up.

Meanwhile, Tucker, who from his recent writing appears to be a delicate flower who feels pain at every unkind word or thought entertained by anyone at any time, couldn't spare three seconds to stand up in defense of Ron Paul, who has done so much for him, or for Walter or the others. Let's hope this phase passes soon.

Posted by Robert Wenzel at 2:07 AM

*******************************************************************

Personally I ABHOR seeing needless infighting, but when it's obviously intentional, INorganic and viciously orchestrated, one would be remiss to not call them out.

*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************

UPDATE 1: Relevant video to the fauxnarchist "libertarian brutalism"-neologism BS 'discussion'

There seems to be an ongoing trend among those who may have recently 'shunned' progressivism in favor of what they want to understand libertarianism to be, without really understanding what even the word means, or as a political philosophy what ideas and concepts it embodies.

Such as this one man, Will Moyer and his 'critique' of something that he obviously has never understood. He apparently wants libertarianism to solve world hunger, and human psychosis, and create unicorns; Stefan Molyneux provides timely p0wnage, to his former 'pupil:'

The Limits of Libertarianism - Rebutted!

http://youtu.be/EeqaRyrdcCY
Stefan Molyneux
Published on Jul 9, 2014

Stefan Molyneux responds to the article "Why I left libertarianism: An ethical critique of a limited ideology" by Will Moyer which recently appeared on Salon.
http://willmoyer.com/limits-of-libertarianism-responses/

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

.

Best rant of 2014 so far..

why do so few blacks what again?

my perception is "the blacks" in terms of % and inclination are slighly ahead of "us whites". And Asians and Persians and Arabs.

The one thing is I haven't seen too many trans-gendered libertarians.

Why is that?

There is nothing strange about having a bar of soap in your right pocket, it's just what's happening.

Who's the Asshole?

The person that embraces a political philosophy that liberty should be allowed as long as you don't physically hurt or kill someone or damage or take someone's property or the person who wants liberty filtered through THEIR religious beliefs or those that believe government should be the arbiter of wealth distribution?

And were suppose to be nice toward those that limit our liberty and/or take our property?

I'm glad our Founding Fathers weren't nice toward King George.

It's hard to be nice toward those that refuse to "leave you alone" especially when they want to dictate their version of limited liberty.

Please accept my apology for wanting liberty. What will that get me?

More mamby pansy political BS

"Instead of seeking to offend, humiliate, and antagonize people in debates, libertarians ought to do the opposite; be nice, and genuinely consider the ideas of our political opponents"

The only thing to be considered is justice for the criminals who commit extortion, fraud and racketeering. When there is proper justice for the criminals who injure us with their tyranny then we will be left alone. When people are repeatedly injured by criminals operating under color of law and proper lawful justice is denied by other criminals who obstruct justice then people get pissed off. It's natural law.

If we have to be nice to people to get remedy and justice for on-going criminal acts against us then we are truly a lawless society and 'politics' is irrelevant. We're not mean, selfish of greedy. We're pissed at on-going rampant criminal tyranny. Why do we anyone else's political support do bring justice to criminals?

Sick of the mamby pansy BS. These are the idiots who think we need political support to uphold the law. They have failed at every turn.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

mamby pansy! love it!

"Instead of seeking to offend, humiliate, and antagonize people in debates, libertarians ought to do the opposite; be nice, and genuinely consider the ideas of our political opponents"

Interpretation: Quit mixing common sense with your intelligence and honesty! It freaks out the lying, political puppets.

When did common sense become a super power?

My own interpretation: I'm

My own interpretation: I'm right, you're wrong.

Fellas, I know you hate even the appearance of weakness. Strength is certainly a laudable goal. But showing who has the biggest d**k is not my idea of strength. It's ego tripping.

Yes, their ego trip can't understand that war is wrong.

That the monetary ponzi scheme is destroying our country. That taking away our constitutional rights is tyrannical. Peace is right. War is wrong. Honesty is right. Lying is wrong. Dr. Ron Paul was the most polite in all of the debates. Saying we're "assholes" is like calling Dr. Paul crazy. We're assholes because we refused to be lied to by the lying liars in DC. We're assholes because we don't want to give our money to countries that hate us. We're assholes because we love our Constitutional Republic, and everyone else loves this Fascist Oligarchy.

Truth is assholish in a kingdom of lying wind bags.

When did common sense become a super power?

I won't argue that there

I won't argue that there aren't real criminals out there that don't deserve consideration, but you have to acknowledge that there exists a class of people out there that aren't criminals and believe what they do, because they think it's right. As do you. These people don't deserve consideration?

Criminal vs Civil

"...but you have to acknowledge that there exists a class of people out there that aren't criminals and believe what they do, because they think it's right."

If they claim to be under the Constitutional capacity but stand in breach without mens rea then yes they are not criminals but they are subject to civil breach of duty for violations even if those violations were born of negligence and not criminal intent.

It's just civil action jurisdiction vs criminal action jurisdiction for those true believers who are still violators of the law.

If we had equal justice under the law with quick and speedy trials then remedy could be swift and things could be resolved before they escalate, i.e. if someone never was not a principal accuser or had lawful agency and valid cause to interfere with your life and they did not leave you alone when demanded then breach of peace charges could be settled in a quick and speedy trial immediately. This proper level of lawful justice would make others think twice about disturbing or breaching the peace of another. If we could bring justice to those who breach the duty of their claimed Constitutional capacity in the same quick and speedy manner then even the true believers would learn that their contractual obligations are not what is trained or opined but what actually is in the clear definitions of the bound constitutional law and they would learn that they stand personally liable for these obligations through their own consent to oblige themselves to those duties.

Remedy for Breach of Peace or Breach of Duty is all we need. But everyone wants to play politics and say we need the permission of millions of mindless zombies to maintain our rights. Such a notion is absurd and intellectually bankrupted to the point of not being worthy of an intelligent law abiding man's time.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Who said anything about

Who said anything about needing permission from the zombies? That was not my intent. What I'm saying is that immediately writing off people and having no care for them speaks of a certain self absorption. If you really care about law, it should be about the spirit of it and not the letter. When you reject a person, because he does not uphold the letter of the law and have no care to cultivate the spirit of it to the person itself, does that not speak of a certain negligence?

'Spirit' vs letter of law

If you deal in the 'sprirt' instead of the actual facts then we get the loosey goosey mess we have right now where almost everyone believes that code is applicable law to the People. This is true insanity.

The people do not understand the difference between what's real and what is fiction. Not understanding the clear delineation between code for fictional capacities and law for natural real beings and the reasons for its delineation of regulatory code vs Common Law means that almost everyone is completely confused and has no clue what the hell they are doing. Are we going to follow others who are clearly insane all while the political avenue is not even necessary in the light of proper justice?

Clearly I care because I have been seeking justice and collecting the detailed evidence necessary to bring the crats to justice. My cases are expanding and I am working to build templates for the people to conduct the criminal investigations and seek the lawful justice. I have no desire to play the political game, I simply want the criminals thrown in prison and/or removed from 'government'. Screw being nice. The facts are the facts and when the juries are finally accessed whole swaths of people will be going down for their criminality. If even 1% of the people did this the system would be toast if they obstructed justice. We can't get 1% of the people at this time to bring justice because most are so ignorant they don't even know that crimes are being committed against them. Most currently believe the crime being committed against them is lawful behavior.

Should I wait for these idiots who demand their own slavery to criminals or just plow ahead with the evidence collection and case building to bring them down through the juries hearing all the facts or simply through their own loss of the protections of divine law from the revealing of their criminality? If I know its crime because I have the criminal evidence then if I did not bring justice then I would be committing a crime; misprision. Knowing that it is my required duty to bring justice and pursuing lawful justice means I am the furthest thing from negligent possible.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

If you actually managed to

If you actually managed to accomplish such a feat, I would certainly not stop you. As a matter of fact, I would cheer you on. I would certainly not consider you negligent, seeing that you have a task that demands all your time.

But nonetheless, for me, politics is secondary. It's not unimportant, but like RP I found education of the people to be of greater importance. This is why I reject the bigger d**k language. But your language seems to eschew education. If I look at your wording, apparently these people are worms and not worth your time.

Anyways, I support you in bringing the criminals to justice. But I suggest you try to inject a little bit more humanity in your philosophy. A philosophy without heart, which disdains the people, cannot hope to win the day. If they reject you, it won't be because of any failure of law. I would guess that it would have more to do with such an attitude.

I already went through the education and activism

I have organized over 10,000 people into a local political force to be reckoned with but it was basically useless in the end because I learned that I was playing a corrupt man's game. The pentagon and bankster operatives made that process like treading through a tar pit. Spies and deception at every turn. The greatest obstacle of all is penetrating the ego.

I already wasted too much time in trying to educate. Once I turned to law everything started to make tangible progress. I have seen the difference. And no, justice doesn't require all of my time it only requires equal time of my own that they steal from me. The difference is that I know exactly what I am doing at every step of the way so things are very efficient. When one knows the law it is easy to get the crats to blatantly define their own actions as felony criminal acts; their confusion makes this easy to obtain directly from their own admission.

They are not worms, they are confused and/or corrupted people who are demanding to be slaves to criminals (or be criminals) all because they don't want to accept liability for their own actions. How can I respect that? Every man is responsible for their own actions regardless of whether they want to be or not.

If I spend an hour detailing criminal evidence or an hour 'educating' a confused argumentative slave which hour was better spent? The hour can only be spent on one or the other. What would happen if everyone stopped arguing and spent an hour on detailing criminal evidence to bring justice? The answer is obvious. People are simply operating in a state of error all while the criminals are laughing their asses off at the rampant confusion of the masses.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

And for that, you're an asshole?

No, Phreedom. You're awesome. Keep up the good work.

When did common sense become a super power?