It should be noted that I don't see much difference between Rand and the other candidates running for president. I continue to challenge Rand Paul fanboys to point me to any position where Rand is clearly libertarian, other than net neutrality and past wars.
All the candidates should be hated and that hate hopefully will be transferred, by many, to the state.
Here's my object lesson.
Judge Andrew Napolitano is much sounder on Hillary than Rand. He sees Hillary as a criminal:
The Deceptions of Hillary Clinton
This is the kind of articles I want to see written about the next person occupying the 8-year throne.
Not these kinds of articles:
Judge Andrew Napolitano: “Rand Paul Is Every Bit As Libertarian As His Father”
Remember: Hillary means hate for the state. Rand means confusion about libertariansim.
Go Hillary, You Criminal!
-RW
Yes Rand is bad. An intellectual should not be so emotional about the state. It blinds you to thinking objectively about the institution, which Mises called a most necessary institution. This anarchism is killing us! Follow Mises and Ron Paul. Not Rothbard!
ReplyDeleteI've got to ask: How old are you?
DeleteGetting rid of "the state" does not mean getting rid of governance. It means getting rid of an unnecessary grant of an arbitrary wild trump card of power to one group of people over others. Voluntary agreements for governance are non-chaotic but are not "the state".
DeletePeople who believe the state is a "most necessary institution" are akin to those who believe in God. It is blind faith and as such highly emotional. Simple logical reasoning will expose just how unnecessary the state really is, but most people have an invisible umbilical cord attached to the concept of the state. They simply can't let it go, and as a result they keep promoting some kind of non-existing "state" that they deem necessary, yet which they cannot argue for logically nor morally, nor empirically (see how the constitutional republic has turned out).
DeleteIt is basically no different than not being able to handle life without the security of the parent. It is an attachment out of fear of the unknown.
"Follow Mises and Ron Paul. Not Rothbard!"
DeleteDon't follow ANY MAN. Follow ideas that make logical and moral sense. Limited government does not make any logical nor moral sense. It is contradictory in the moral sense, and unrealistic in the practical sense (see how much the constitution has limited the state in the last 200 years). The ideas of Rothbard are what made him right on this particular issue, and Mises wrong. It is debatable whether Ron Paul believes in the state, or whether it was one of the few ways in which he tried to be moderate for the sake of broadening his appeal somewhat.
The state was invented for reasons of war and conquest. The state was conceived out of war and conquest. It was the result of annexation after annexation. The only way in which it was ever "necessary" was for reasons of war and conquest. Afghanistan is a much less organized "state" than western nations, and look at how difficult if not impossible it is to win a war against it, despite it being virtually poverty stricken and primitive in its weaponry.
The "state" is not even necessary for defense. How will you conquer millions of individual, armed people who are in control and possession of their own wealth, rather than a centralized government with a few politically and militarily important locations, who are in control of virtually everything important?
The state is nothing more than an excuse for power grab and control. It has never been anything other than that. The state in not only the aggressor, the state is also always the target in conflict.
After listening to the Scott Horton/Walter Block debate, I've decided that I'm even more against Rand than I was before. Every single one of our basic libertarian/Austrian positions is distorted by our opponents, every day, all of the time. They are liars. They know they cannot directly engage our positions. The Democrat rabble has no clue that socialism was refuted 95 years ago. The Republican (and Democrat) rabble has no clue that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, that Obama installed Nazis in Ukraine, that the drug war causes most of our crime etc.....
ReplyDeleteWhen Rand denies and evades (and mostly denies) these simple and obvious truths about the nature of reality, he becomes just another liar. He's dishonest and dishonorable. The essence of our position is that we will be respectful and honorable in our dealings with other people, especially those of differing lifestyles. Indeed, we demand honesty in economic dealings so that peoples' property is in fact protected so that, for example, large polluters are actually held to strict liability. Rand's dishonesty destroys that potential trust which is about all we have. Talk about mucking up the message.
I'm bought. We should start a Facebook group "Libertarians for Hitlery the Sea Hag"!
ReplyDeleteGreat, now i have to stop trusting Judge Napolitano's judgment (or credentials). Another one bites the dust.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea whether Napolitano believes his own words, or wants people to vote for the "least bad" but voting for the lesser of two evils is stupid anyway because it just prolongs the inevitable. Libertarian "liberation" will NEVER come through politics, and the more you prolong this system, the less reason people have to jump the system for stateless society anyway. If by voting you make sure things are not so bad as they could have been, have can you simultaneously point to the state and tell statists: "See how bad it is? You need to abandon it."