Comment: so...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Yeah, but... (see in situ)


basically you're telling me that you can't spot a subtle media propaganda operation, when you see one?

Do you even know who Gary North is?

Are you familiar with the history of Rothbard vs. Koch Bros. divide?

Are you familiar with WHY some here call CATO/Reason-KochBros-set as "Faketarians, Beltarians, etc?"

While it's past history, so it's not as if it's some prerequisite, as all political movements have internal subdivision infighting. But there's a reason why the 'George Mason U'-set/CATO/Reason denizens avoid mentioning Rothbard and Mises, if at all possible. If you actually tracked their rhetoric over the years, you'd notice a quite visible absence of certain libertarian luminaries, then a sharp spike post-Ron Paul R3VOLution in mentioning ye who shall never be mentioned: it's not an accident that they only mention Rand, Hayek, and Friedman as paragon of libertarianism, but rarely Mises or Rothbard, et al:

You do know that Ron's not a theocrat, nor is North, right?

With a few select intellectuals, what they teach, preach, discuss, and want to practice individually vs. what they 'seek to impose' are wholly separate. Actually, to most libertarians, the entire notion of 'imposing' is a living oxymoron in their world.

So yes, in fact, most smart people can and do discern pure info vs. imposition, regularly.

It's funny how many atheists have problem listening to Christian Anarchists, but most Christian Anarchists have no problem listening to atheist AnCaps.

Hm... wonder why that is...

Always bemusing to watch those who imply or allude that their opponents are bigots, ALWAYS turn out to be simply projecting their own, real bigotry.

PS. Just checked your website, dig it.

As for:

So, all your bluster aside, I conclude that, if you were in charge of a libertarian project like this, you'd be perfectly comfortable hiring someone who yearns to change the USA to a Christian theocracy that "denies religious liberty to the enemies of God."

1. You cannot conclude what you don't know, a-priori
2. I wouldn't want to be in charge of a "libertarian project like that"
3. as such, your conclusion that I'd be perfectly comfortable hiring..." has no bearing.

RP hired Benton. Tell me, does RP share Benton's statist views?

On a side note, I've known many Hindus who sent their kids to Catholic Schools because they simply appreciated the discipline of the curriculum structure. Plus, their kids were smart enough to discern secular historical info vs. theistic under and overtones.

If you've actually read North's writings, on econ and secular historical matters, you may reach the same objective understanding those Hindu children at Catholic schools did. But, since I wouldn't presume, keyword being "may."


"so, unless you think libertarianism should help replace our current system with an intolerant Christian theocracy."

do you see me promoting North or point by point agreeing or disagreeing with North? but at the same time, do you really see these people are on the same par as say...Frothy??

Uh, no.

Here's what I'd expect of anyone, both parents and students, enrolling into Ron Paul's program:

1. find out who Ron Paul is.
2. find out who curriculum teachers are.
3. find out if you agree with Tom Woods, Gary North, or Ron Paul's view.
4. don't like it? stop the program.

why do you assume that the type of people who would actively seek our Ron Paul's program would be so stupid as to not even bother finding out who these people are, before enrolling??

also, why do you assume that what Ron Paul and Gary North would be promoting "intolerant Christian theocracy" when you had to be told by who Gary North is?

Why don't you read some more of his stuff, then come to a conclusion?

Predictions in due Time...

"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