If I had to chose (and I hope I don't have to), I would take personal liberty over financial liberty. The "right" has changed far too much and is now a religious and fascist right. I am sickened by religion and militarism.
Excellent lecture. Very entertaining and illuminating with a small dose of humor to boot. But there seems to be a censored bit. He says: "think of it as spontaneous ..." and is blanked out to the gasps and moans and laughter of the audience, followed by a "sorry." Then the audio is briefly out of sync. What did he say?
I realize that many anarchists do not like achieving liberty through politics and they criticize Ron Paul. I think that no matter how futile Ron Paul's involvement in politics is he still rocked the establishment! So I don't view it as eliminating the mafia by joining the mafia but infiltrating the mafia as an act of defiance. Eventually though, a free society must be achieved outside politics
"Eventually though, a free society must be achieved outside politics" This is nonsensical because politics is a natural and organic spontaneous outgrowth of human community. "Politics" is what you call the means and methods of settling disputes and regularizing the sorts of extreme social sanctions that become necessary due to the innate depravity of human beings. To suppose that humanity could possibly live without "politics" is beyond Utopian, and as such it is phantasmagorical. The main obstacle to a free society is the fact that most people don't want freedom, they want more benevolent masters, and they resent and despise those who do desire an honest freedom.
> Eventually though, a free society must be achieved outside politics. Exactly. So the "anarchists" are simply enacting that aspect now. I don't mean the envious types who decry Paul's success merely because he's a politician, there are envious types of all stripes. Voluntary interaction cannot be achieved through coercion. At some point, coercion must be eschewed. That is the great sea change in thinking that Freedom depends upon and inspires.
i think a lot of Friedman's ideas were meant as transition policies and sometimes ppl took them as if he meant them as being ideal. At any rate, i think that you gotta move in steps many times. I'm just barely startin readin on their stuff but I seen vids and stuff. So far I'm fans of both. =)
"I don't mean to suggest that evil statists have deliberately conspired to corrupt our language to serve their own nefarious ends. That sometimes happens, of course, but it's not necessary. Rather, a perverse invisible-hand process is at work: the prevailing use of the terms "capitalism" and "socialism" persists because it serves to preserve the statist system of which it is a part. Think of it as spontaneous ordure. (Sorry.)"
@Floridanon407 "it sounds like you were channeling Konkin & Agorism." Or Mises, Rothbard, Ian Freeman, there are a lot of people who have realized that peaceful interaction works. If Stef is deliberately setting himself up as "leaves him as their idol", I don't see it. Could be that the sad souls who cling to his every word would have clung to someone else's every word, be they Baghwan, Preacher, Politician or Commanding Officer. Sad to say, nobody worships me.
criticizing a politician disgusts you? lol I'm a Ron Paul fan but that statement just doesn't make sense. Nobody's perfect. Most folks say at least one thing that's wrong or at least inaccurate. I think i remember Ron Paul sayin somethin I disagreed with(or slightly disagreed with) forgot what it was though. Pretty much agree with almost all of what he says. Anyways, just cus you generally agree with someone doesn't mean they're off limits to criticism.
Ron Paul burned thousnads of desperately, hopefull(somewhat foolish)people. I will never forgive him. What a dirty rotten politician. Had to keep that seat though, because it's important "to the movement." What a grade A jerk. This Long guy is sharp; I have not heard a more compelling anti-statist since reading Wolfe's "In defense of Anarchism".
![For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto [Chapter 1]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3J6LNTcJaMo/mqdefault.jpg)
![For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto [Chapter 1]](/img/tr.png)
I love you, Professor Long. Ugh. What an amazing thinker.
What a brilliant and well needed lecture for all libertarians to hear and listen.
Excellent as usual misesmedia thank you
The removed section consisted of noise from the HVAC ductwork, during which Dr. Long paused his lecture.
Mises. Awsome since 1922
You have got to be kidding. Paul is a soft-spoken warrior for liberty, peace and prosperity.
If I had to chose (and I hope I don't have to), I would take personal liberty over financial liberty. The "right" has changed far too much and is now a religious and fascist right. I am sickened by religion and militarism.
Music intro?
man rothbasrd was a genius
I'm glad that Bastiat sat on the left. Didn't Mises also begin on the left?
Excellent lecture. Very entertaining and illuminating with a small dose of humor to boot. But there seems to be a censored bit. He says: "think of it as spontaneous ..." and is blanked out to the gasps and moans and laughter of the audience, followed by a "sorry." Then the audio is briefly out of sync.
What did he say?
the n word
Rothbard explains the reasoning behind opinions i grew years ago.
He says "think of it as spontaneous ordure".
I realize that many anarchists do not like achieving liberty through politics and they criticize Ron Paul. I think that no matter how futile Ron Paul's involvement in politics is he still rocked the establishment! So I don't view it as eliminating the mafia by joining the mafia but infiltrating the mafia as an act of defiance. Eventually though, a free society must be achieved outside politics
"Eventually though, a free society must be achieved outside politics" This is nonsensical because politics is a natural and organic spontaneous outgrowth of human community. "Politics" is what you call the means and methods of settling disputes and regularizing the sorts of extreme social sanctions that become necessary due to the innate depravity of human beings. To suppose that humanity could possibly live without "politics" is beyond Utopian, and as such it is phantasmagorical.
The main obstacle to a free society is the fact that most people don't want freedom, they want more benevolent masters, and they resent and despise those who do desire an honest freedom.
No progress will be made trying to reform the system from the inside. Outside pressure from change in public opinion and secession are our best hope.
> Eventually though, a free society must be achieved outside politics.
Exactly. So the "anarchists" are simply enacting that aspect now.
I don't mean the envious types who decry Paul's success merely because he's a politician, there are envious types of all stripes.
Voluntary interaction cannot be achieved through coercion. At some point, coercion must be eschewed. That is the great sea change in thinking that Freedom depends upon and inspires.
Agreed. Independence from a failed and tyrannical system is essential.
i think a lot of Friedman's ideas were meant as transition policies and sometimes ppl took them as if he meant them as being ideal. At any rate, i think that you gotta move in steps many times.
I'm just barely startin readin on their stuff but I seen vids and stuff. So far I'm fans of both.
=)
Now u sound like a commie/socialist lol
"I don't mean to suggest that evil statists have deliberately conspired to corrupt our language to serve their own nefarious ends. That sometimes happens, of course, but it's not necessary. Rather, a perverse invisible-hand process is at work: the prevailing use of the terms "capitalism" and "socialism" persists because it serves to preserve the statist system of which it is a part. Think of it as spontaneous ordure. (Sorry.)"
@Floridanon407 "it sounds like you were channeling Konkin & Agorism."
Or Mises, Rothbard, Ian Freeman, there are a lot of people who have realized that peaceful interaction works.
If Stef is deliberately setting himself up as "leaves him as their idol", I don't see it. Could be that the sad souls who cling to his every word would have clung to someone else's every word, be they Baghwan, Preacher, Politician or Commanding Officer.
Sad to say, nobody worships me.
criticizing a politician disgusts you? lol I'm a Ron Paul fan but that statement just doesn't make sense. Nobody's perfect. Most folks say at least one thing that's wrong or at least inaccurate. I think i remember Ron Paul sayin somethin I disagreed with(or slightly disagreed with) forgot what it was though. Pretty much agree with almost all of what he says.
Anyways, just cus you generally agree with someone doesn't mean they're off limits to criticism.
@CurtHowland You're not a Freedomain anarchist I suppose
I've listened to some of Stephen's stuff, if that's what you mean, but I find at times he's insufferably egotistical.
Ron Paul burned thousnads of desperately, hopefull(somewhat foolish)people. I will never forgive him. What a dirty rotten politician. Had to keep that seat though, because it's important "to the movement." What a grade A jerk. This Long guy is sharp; I have not heard a more compelling anti-statist since reading Wolfe's "In defense of Anarchism".
Grow up.