Von Nauthaus at procfest

[d_goddard]

It was a good example of our having a lot of common ground with progressives

I'm all for co-opting both the Left and the Right.
They both love our message once they hear it tailored for their ears.

[jaqeboy]

It was a good example of our having a lot of common ground with progressives

I'm all for co-opting both the Left and the Right.
They both love our message once they hear it tailored for their ears.

You got it - it's a communications thing. The "in-group" vocabulary of some in our movement and the ignoring of others' vocabularies is a limitation to the ability to communicate with others who come from a different place.

[PinoX7]

we would have more in common with michael moore than with the conservitaves?
I thought Conservatives were founded on de-centralized government and christain values?
I guess reagan failed miserably with that philosophy

[jaqeboy]

we would have more in common with michael moore than with the conservatives?

This was what the World's Smallest Political Quiz showed in 2 consecutive weekends (though I don't think Michael Moore himself took it). Remember, many fundamentalist Christian-based conservatives score miserably on the personal freedom axis of the quiz, but well on the economic freedom axis. Remember the progressives are anti-war like libertarians, pro-civil liberties like libs. The modern or neo-conservatives are now the anti-freedom war hawks, wire-tappers, torturers, profligate spenders, etc., need I go further (see Bush-Cheney record)?

I thought Conservatives were founded on de-centralized government and christain values?

The traditional meaning of conservative is someone wanting to "conserve" or keep the power structure the way it is, because they benefit, eg, the conservative aristocracy wanted to keep the monarchy with all its privilege for them. The liberals wanted to liberate the people from the oppression of the conservatives. The liberals were pro-gun, for property rights and pro-hard money, because the conservative aristocrats didn't want them to have guns to revolt with and wanted to keep all the property to themselves and wanted to crank the handle on the printing presses when they wanted to fight another war.

In the battle for freedom from the oppression of the one church, the liberals were the ones that were for free-thinking, etc. The Catholics, esp. the Jesuits, hated that. They wanted to keep the monopoly on the minds of the people.

Modern "conservatives" and "liberals" are a hodge-podge of beliefs. Libertarians are the true liberals, and modern liberals hold some of the old conservative beliefs, and poor conservatives don't have much to hold onto, except they're with us true liberals on RKBA and hard money.

Is that confusing enough?

[PinoX7]

No i get it, its just the history of politics that confuses me. I was never around/very interested, untill i was taken out of my comfort zone and shown how messed up everything was. I use to think politics was all about talk radio, then i discovered the internet, hehe

Thanks for the info

[d_goddard]

Libertarians are the true liberals

I prefer the term classical liberal.

Well, that is, on even-numbered days.
On odd-numbered days I consider myself an anarchocapitalist 

[jaqeboy]

Libertarians are the true liberals

I prefer the term classical liberal.

Apparently, Ludwig von Mises, the libertarian of the century (20th), called himself a liberal til the day he died. In Europe, it still means pro-freedom. A group of intellectuals here in the early part of the 20th century who were Fabian socialists, intentionally subverted the usage of "liberal", since it had such a good reputation - the increases in prosperity of the previous century were attributed to liberalism.

Well, that is, on even-numbered days.
On odd-numbered days I consider myself an anarchocapitalist 

Ugh, that's another really unfortunate, ill-conceived self-contradicting word. By their very essence, anarchists are anti-capitalist (in the proper sense, ie, rule by the people with the big money). Some conservative economists, then Ayn Rand tried to re-define capitalism to mean pro-free market, but the "capitalists" have never been for freedom and free markets, they're for cartels, monopolies, war profiteering, war-making to seize resources, etc. So now we've got people like the nice, well-intentioned folks at Bureaucrash T-shirtizing this travesty. Liberals, that is, us libertarians are for freedom, free markets and, well, sorry to say to some of you, we're against "capitalism."

Unfortunately, back in the late 60's Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess, the godfathers of the modern libertarian movement took up the designation of "anarcho-capitalist", to distinguish themselves from "anarcho-communists", and it stuck, hence keeping up the confusion that makes some liberals/libertarians fall in line in support of the excesses, even crimes of the oligarchical "capitalists", the very enemies of freedom. (Sorry - I'm ranting way off topic.)

[jaqeboy]

No i get it, its just the history of politics that confuses me.

Just to over-kill this, here's the Wikipedia on the origin of the left right designation:

The terms Left and Right have been used to refer to political affiliation since the early part of the French Revolutionary era. They originally referred to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France, specifically in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791, when the moderate royalist Feuillants sat on the right side of the chamber, while the radical Montagnards sat on the left.[8] This traditional seating arrangement continues to be observed by the Senate and National Assembly of the French Fifth Republic.

Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum was attitudes towards the ancien régime ("old order"). "The Right" thus implied support for aristocratic, royal, or clerical interests, while "The Left" implied opposition to the same. At that time, support for laissez-faire capitalism and free markets were regarded as being on the left whereas today in most Western countries these views would be characterized as being on the Right. But even during the French Revolution an extreme left wing called for government intervention in the economy on behalf of the poor.

In Great Britain at that time, Edmund Burke (now generally described as a conservative)[9] held similar economic views to this first French Left. Nonetheless, he strongly criticized their anti-clericalism and their willingness to turn to mob violence for support and to overturn institutions of long standing. Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France criticized the Left as excessively rationalistic and disrespecting of the wisdom of tradition.[10]

[jaqeboy]

...and here's the Alliance of the Libertarian Left:

http://all-left.net/

[error]

I prefer the term classical liberal.

Well, that is, on even-numbered days.
On odd-numbered days I consider myself an anarchocapitalist 

I thought you were a classical liberal during the day, and an anarchocapitalist at night and weekends.

[mappchik]

I prefer the term classical liberal.

Well, that is, on even-numbered days.
On odd-numbered days I consider myself an anarchocapitalist 

I thought you were a classical liberal during the day, and an anarchocapitalist at night and weekends.

I'm working on the rational anarchist mindset. Is tough, as I really don't want to live with all the rules other people seem to need to feel free.

[LordBaltimore]

SAK (Shaun) who posts here and maintains the Ed Brown website, was arrested on Sunday for using Liberty Dollars.  His court date was today. Has anyone heard from him?

[error]

SAK (Shaun) who posts here and maintains the Ed Brown website, was arrested on Sunday for using Liberty Dollars.  His court date was today. Has anyone heard from him?

Not a word. But since there's nothing illegal about using Liberty Dollars, I'm sure he'll be back shortly.

[MaineShark]

Remember, he's not a politician, or one of their enforcers.  He is a cheerleader for gov't force, not much different than the cheerleaders we are surrounded by on a daily basis.

I don't hear our side calling for massive violent attacks upon civilians.  He does.

??  I've not heard this before.

How do you think he plans to disarm America?  By asking nicely?  He wants thugs with guns to go door to door, doing violence upon civilians, on a massive scale.

Remember the progressives are ... pro-civil liberties like libs.

Since when?  I can't think of any civil liberties that they support...

Joe

[PinoX7]

Remember, he's not a politician, or one of their enforcers.  He is a cheerleader for gov't force, not much different than the cheerleaders we are surrounded by on a daily basis.

I don't hear our side calling for massive violent attacks upon civilians.  He does.

??  I've not heard this before.

How do you think he plans to disarm America?  By asking nicely?  He wants thugs with guns to go door to door, doing violence upon civilians, on a massive scale.

Remember the progressives are ... pro-civil liberties like libs.

Since when?  I can't think of any civil liberties that they support...

Joe

The way I think they will disarm america is a process called a Totalitarian Tiptoe, Its when they take your civil liberties peice by peice so that you will never have the willpower at anypoint to stand up

They will start taking away the large 100rounds mags, and people will give them up rather than die or go to prison
Then they will work on making some assult weapons illegal to buy, and eventually own.
Then they will take some types of pistols illegal, such as the small special compact weps.
Eventually you will be left with a BB gun, and they will want to take that to, but now when you decide to stand up thats when they use their thugs to disarm you