Comment: yes,

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Is everyone aware Stefan (see in situ)


I am:

Is everyone aware Stefan speaks poorly of Ron Paul, calls him a hypocrite over earmarks???

In fact, I'm no "fan" of Moly. It's all info to me. Nothing more, nothing less.

That said, I do recognize his great ability to simplify with somewhat palatable dramatic verbal theatrics, in articulating freedom philosophy. And, among those who are publicly known who promote these ideas, he's very good at what he does. Plus, personally I'm kinda fascinated by this whole strange world, the whole post-YouTube era-thingy, where someone can actually, factually, even claim, 'I make a living talking "philosophy" to millions worldwide!' lol.

Stefan Molyneux: Ron Paul is NOT a ____!

Submitted by AnCapMercenary on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 16:47

Because to me, if Molyneux were truly serious, and purely, purely-principled about being an anarchist, he'd have given up his Canadian passport, his driver's license, his property tax, hell LEFT the utterly socialist degenerate assbackwards-English 'Queen' geographical protectorate ruled by her ancient system of Viceroys where the Governor General IS the REAL head of state for ANY and ALL English Commonwealths, known as Canada, long ago.

But he hasn't!

So, OF COURSE, he himself is technically a hypocrite!

But then again, if that and his 'logic' were so, that would also make any and all persons who want to move away from the current system, also hypocrites, by definition, including myself and you and everyone else.

Behold, the undeniable reality that is the libertarian off-the-grid-paradox: in order to be free of the system, however short or long the interim, you have to work within the system, even at the risk of upholding, and worse: 'legitimizing the system,' by the mere virtue of this one unmistakable, un-rewritable, unchangeable reality: NONE of us had a choice in where, when, or into what system that we were born into, one that existed long before we were even zygotes.

To wit:

But I personally recognize that we all have to work initially within a system, to varying degrees, that we had zero choice in being born into, before we even attempt to move out of it:

To me personally, I only 'judge' general trajectory.

Suppose, IF 'we should all agree' on anything, or at least by among those who have professed respect for the freedom philosophy so espoused by Dr. Paul and others in the Liberty/Freedom/Patriot movement, R3VOLution-spheres from paleoconservatives, to O.G. militia, to Constitutional minarchist libertarians to ancaps/voluntaryists/agorists? I'd submit that 'it should be' that all should agree that anything more voluntary than coercive is better, across the board, and believes in or at least abide by as best one can by the Golden Rule: 'Do unto others...'/NAP (the Non Aggression Principle/Axiom: the non- of force).

Beyond that, I'm not sure if any other 'agreement' is really necessary or even can be achieved.

As you may have guessed from my avatar, I don't believe in the legitimacy of ANY state whatsoever.

That said, I'm not someone who does not recognize or appreciate the fact that human liberty and freedoms, is a constant, generational fight.

And, even the noble goal of individually being able to voluntarily associate with each other and to have human souls evolved to an epoch in which most if not all truly understand the fundamental concept of self-ownership, all these things take a long time to bear fruit, and in fact, may not even be feasible in my lifetime.

Thus, I've ALWAYS valued multiple paths and multi-pronged approach to get there; as NONE of us had a choice as to where we were born, or into what existent system that was present long before any of us would be born into, without our choice: by default and factually, we're already born into a system in which we all must face the paradox that even if you really wanted to leave the 'system,' you must first have to participate in it (ie. you're not gonna move into BitCoins or Gold without using Fed.Res.Notes, 1st, unless by barter, even then, you may want to consider how many State-mechanisms were involved that intervened into your life, from your home to where you traveled to meet that person TO barter), risking even if temporarily help 'upholding' and often even by 'consent,' 'legitimizing it,' however brief or prolonged.

Plus, as someone who values individual volition and initiative, people are ONLY gonna do what they like and what they love, or are driven to do, whether it's fixing their motorcycle engines, to painting canvas, or getting politically involved, or in what exact capacity they choose to get politically involved.

So, I see nothing wrong with people using current, existent mechanisms, including political ones, to change, despite the fact that I personally believe that given that paradigm, the best one can do or hope to accomplish is to slow down the PACE of tyranny, and not the tyranny itself, when the very mechanism you're fighting in, is at its core tyrannical.

The most optimum goal WITHIN the existent political paradigm and mechanism? Is at best to nudge-rudder it in a more human freedom-oriented trajectory, IMHO.

So, personally, even those low-level personal spats and cheap principally impure asinine BS-'I'm more libertarian than you, so meh!' nonsense so prevalent among 'libertarians,' I generally just ignore all that as an acceptable level of childish-ego-play native to all humans, regardless of what philosophy one chooses to pursue or lives by.

lol. that's my 'libertarian'-c'est la vie .D

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