TheAgitator.com
More Like Him, Please
Wednesday, October 22nd, 2008I give you Republican B.J. Lawson, who is challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. David Price to represent North Carolina’s 4th District in Congress.
Looking down Lawson’s list of issue positions, I had a hard time finding one where I’d disagree with him. He’s fiscally conservative, generally anti-war, favors ending drug prohibition, and pro civil liberties. He thinks members of Congress should actually read the legislation they vote on (imagine that!), and favors limiting bills to one topic to prevent sweeteners and poison pills. He opposes the PATRIOT Act, is against a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, opposes the financial bailout, and is against the death penalty. He favors low taxes, rollbacks on federal regulation, wants to end the income tax, and wants to repeal Sarbanes-Oxley.
GOP, meet your future. Or at least what ought to be your future, if you know what’s good for you.
It’ll be a cold day in hell before a guy like this represents the Republican Party in any sort of big picture way. Maybe he’ll win against Price (poll numbers?), but the party is too invested in gay-hatred, social meddling, Christian extremism, and irresponsibility.
Gee, I hope he isn’t associated with vaguely un-PC comments from a newletter published 20 years ago!
Now, if THIS cat decided to run for President, I’d vote for him…
I gave Lawson some money. If Ron Paul says he’s alright, that’s good enough for me, even if Lou Rockwell wrote a bunch of un-PC things under his name. At least that is the story I heard anyway.
Could they send a few like him to Illinois?
Can we get him to my MN 6th district by november 4th? Please?
If the Republican party’s plan is to enamor itself of libertarians of all stripes, then they should have more guys like this. If, however, their plan is to get elected to office in a country full of people who want the government to protect them against any uncertainty from cradle to grave, then his message will probably not be effective. I think liberty has lost this round.
Lawson is running in my district, which includes Chapel Hill, the most liberal/democratic place in the South. And people around here love David Price. Too bad he’s not running in a part of North Carolina in which a Republican is more likely to get elected.
And he’s even for free money competition.
I think I’m in love.
Where’s this guy been hiding?
More, please.
The naivete on this site seldom disappoints. [Unless the above posts are very well-disguised satire.] But it always surprises, given the obviously higher-than-average intellect frequently on display in the comments section.
Are “good” intentions really the only “substance” required to work y’all into a Pavlovian lather?
There’s this thing called Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle — the observer affects the experiment, preventing certain knowledge.
How can anyone know what this joker will do when/if he is elected? If past behavior of politicians is any indicator, he is likely to renege on most, if not all, of his promises. This can be attributed largely to surviving in the pit of vipers in which he will find himself once elected.
That notwithstanding, political candidacy is prima facie evidence of immorality. A politician can never have “good” intentions, as politics is war by other means, and therefore immoral.
“Government is force.” — George Washington (possibly apocryphal)
Voting is aiding and abetting violence, and is violent in and of itself. Don’t be fooled again! Don’t vote!
Ron Paul has been pushing Lawson hard in his Campaign for Liberty. Good ’nuff for me. I love, love, love that he is supporting Downsize DC’s two major initiatives, the Read The Bills Act and the One Subject at a Time Act.
Wonder why so many legislators oppose those two bills? /feigned ignorance
#11 – don’t worry, I won’t vote. My comment was a sarcastic reminder of how fragile the support for the extremely rare politician who actually seems to believe in limited government principles is. The whole Ron Paul revival actually helped clarify and cement my decision to never participate in the immoral process of voting again. I had been a fan of his, reading his speeches, etc, for years. And when he threw his hat into the ring I let myself get excited – I was never delusional enough to think he had a chance, but maybe getting the message out would change the questions that were being asked, and bring real issues into the forefront. Fool me 12 times, shame on me I guess.
McGillican’s right – as a fellow NC-04 resident, I’m pretty sure he’s gonna get his butt kicked in November. There are a lot of people who want to give Price a wake-up call (myself included – this liberal Dem will be voting for a Republican for the first time in a while), but Price is in no danger from Lawson. If he breaks 40, he should call it a success.
I also will be voting for Lawson on November 4 (the only Republican I will be voting for) but yeah, he doesn’t have a chance in hell…
I’m actually hoping this raises his profile enough to run for Kay Hagen’s Senate seat in 6 years…
Cynical in CA:
First of all, that’s not what Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle says, that’s what Born’s collapse postulate says. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle says that there are pairs of non-commuting observables whose values cannot both be precisely defined.
Secondly, while wars are immoral, some of them do have a right side, and participating in them may be necessary to avert greater evil. It’s easy to overjustify oneself using this particular reasoning, but that doesn’t mean it’s always wrong.
Fighting back against violence with violence isn’t wrong. As far as violence goes, lining up to make tally marks on pieces of paper is pretty damned low on the scale. It seems to be much preferable to actually committing real violence.
Your whole pose seems to be designed to get libertarians and other freedom lovers to throw away what little impact they do have at the ballot box. Now why would you do that?
If you really want to discourage voting, don’t say it’s immoral, say that it’s useless, that one vote makes almost no difference, and that it isn’t worth the time. That at least has the virtue of being true.
The Republican Party’s collapse this year naturally creates an opening for a “rebirth” of the party, but the Republican brand is so tarnished (and rightfully so) that I still think libertarians would be wise to avoid any associated with the Republican Party.
“#11 – don’t worry, I won’t vote. My comment was a sarcastic reminder of how fragile the support for the extremely rare politician who actually seems to believe in limited government principles is.”
Frank, I got the Paul allusion, and I love your construction in the sentence above “seems to believe in limited government principles.” Spot on. There’s no way to know — in fact, his membership in Congress is a dead giveaway in my opinion.
It’s important to think in sequence, as you did. Before a member of Congress can have any position on any issue, he must use force to get into Congress, which renders any “moral” position null and void. Ron Paul, far from being an exception, presently is a very cleverly disguised example of the rule. Now, if he would walk the walk and follow his arguments through to their logical conclusion of free-market anarchy, well, that would be something.
BTW, did anyone here actually watch the Stossel links? Bueller? Bueller?
[Going for -20 or worse today, please contribute.]
“First of all, that’s not what Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle says, that’s what Born’s collapse postulate says. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle says that there are pairs of non-commuting observables whose values cannot both be precisely defined.”
Thanks for the clarification, Aaron. From Wikipedia, I get corroboration:
“The uncertainty principle is related to the observer effect, with which it is often conflated.”
Guilty as charged — it’s been 15 years since my last college physics course. But according to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, Born’s work is interwoven with Heisenberg’s, so we’re really splitting hairs here. But I do appreciate being steered toward better knowledge.
Reading his bio, he’s either an early wave Gen Xer or in that no-man’s land between the Boomers an Gen X (where Obama is). We trend more libertarian in our conservatism, Gov. Palin notwithstanding. There will be more guys like this one over the next ten years, but they’re gonna have to fight tooth-and-nail to get the party out of the hands of neoconservative Boomers.
Now for the meat, Aaron:
“Secondly, while wars are immoral, some of them do have a right side, and participating in them may be necessary to avert greater evil. It’s easy to overjustify oneself using this particular reasoning, but that doesn’t mean it’s always wrong.”
Wars fought in self-defense, by a very strict limitation, can be construed by rational individuals as moral, given man’s inclination to survive. However, any use of violence, even in self-defense, leads to an increase in violence and an acceleration of the incidence of violence. The film “Unforgiven” is as close to perfect an illustration of this as I know. Gandhi also promoted this view of violence. I believe all war is immoral (wrong), and that the necessity of war even in self-defense clearly defines man’s killer nature and inherent amorality.
“Fighting back against violence with violence isn’t wrong.”
You and I should be careful not to conflate opinion with fact. The above is your opinion. There is another side.
“As far as violence goes, lining up to make tally marks on pieces of paper is pretty damned low on the scale. It seems to be much preferable to actually committing real violence.”
Don’t delude yourself, voting is violence. It is the only form of violence that the State permits, nay encourages, individuals to commit. Voting is the foundational violence of Statism, without which the true nature of the system would be clear. Voting is the manifestation of the myth of popular sovereignty, without which the oligarchic dictatorial debt-slave society in which we live would be exposed, causing the system to collapse from morale destruction among the slave population.
“Your whole pose seems to be designed to get libertarians and other freedom lovers to throw away what little impact they do have at the ballot box. Now why would you do that?”
I object to the word “pose.” My beliefs are deeper than mere “posing.” That being said, you hit the nail on the head. That is exactly my objective, or logical consequence, if I actually have one other than representing this minority point of view. But again, don’t delude yourself, you have NO impact at the ballot box other than to perpetuate the violence of the system. I’m not going into depth into this post, but there is a wealth of prose on the absolute worthlessness of the individual vote, not to mention my past proofs of its inherent immorality. The way to freedom lies not in dancing on the Statist puppeteer’s strings but in renouncing violence and cooperating voluntarily with one’s fellow humans. The Stossel links are a great first step in understanding this, though Stossel understandably cannot yet follow these ideas through to logical conclusions and retain his audience.
“If you really want to discourage voting, don’t say it’s immoral, say that it’s useless, that one vote makes almost no difference, and that it isn’t worth the time. That at least has the virtue of being true.”
My opinion that voting is immoral, which I believe I have demonstrated to be logically valid and sound, is at least equal in status to your opinion that voting is moral, though I have yet to see your defense of your opinion. That you call my opinion untrue says much about your premises. It’s OK. I have posted before that I believe man is a killer and that “morality” such as it exists is merely window-dressing meant to mitigate and temper the killer instinct in each of us. You’re just a little more open to your violent side.
The more individuals that are willing to confront the violent nature that inheres in each of us, the better the future looks. Don’t vote — for every conceivable reason, practical or moral.
He is a republican why exactly? I mean he is about 80% against his supposed party.
The thing is, once he gets in (if he gets in), how long would it take for him to be a member of the club and do a 180 on the stuff you like so much about him? Sorry to burst your bubble.
If voting is violence, and we shouldn’t practice violence, then exactly how is any group anywhere at any level to make any kind of decision about anything?
But he’ll still vote for Republican House leadership. And they’ll set the agenda.
When voting for the House, party affiliation matters a lot more than a particular Rep’s favorite policies.
He doesn’t sound like he fits in with the new GOP
“If voting is violence, and we shouldn’t practice violence, then exactly how is any group anywhere at any level to make any kind of decision about anything?”
Group size would be limited to the number of people who voluntarily agree on a specific subject.
Anyone who disagrees would be free to live in peace.
This will foster small groups of free, peaceful individuals who act without force.
It is important to understand that freedom and peace are digital concepts, i.e. it is either 0 or 1, on or off. One is either free and peaceful or one is a slave and violent. There are no gradations.
One’s premise determines one’s worldview. If one views voting as a legitimate use of force, then one is a proponent of violence. It is that simple. Everything flows from that — EVERYTHING. Out-of-control SWAT teams, forced redistribution of wealth, invasions of privacy, unreasonable laws, the corruption of power, etc., etc., etc. — every single complaint posted on this blog stems from violence which begins at the root level, that it is legitimate to empower the State to force one’s fellow human to bend to one’s will.
It is impossible to reduce violence by being violent. This is axiomatic. The problem is never the solution.
Wonderful news. I accidentally voted for Lawson, using the simple criterion that he isn’t David Price, my incumbent representative.
“Group size would be limited to the number of people who voluntarily agree on a specific subject.
Anyone who disagrees would be free to live in peace.”
It’s that second part I’m not getting. How exactly is that ensured? If the group agree on the specific subject of limiting my rights, then my recourse is what exactly? Is it based entirely on goodwill or some kind of check and balance?
How is this guy doing in the polls? Are Americans ready for liberty or are they just gonna stick with socialism?
Cynical:
Your little black-and-white anarchist wonderland might work in a Heinlein novel, but not in the real world. In our world, like it or not, small groups breed small minds. Neither do they bring us the internet, or college educations, or quantum physics, or most any other conveniences that have contributed to allow you the leisure time to produce the fantastical little philosophy you’ve got going. The vast majority of us actually like running water, and near-instantaneous communication, and antibiotics – things that simply would not be if it wasn’t for the “violence” of the voting booth. Violence is a part of life; but in the gilded society you have imagined, it will be even less ’subtle’ than what we live with today (think Gombe, Tanzania after all the researchers have gone home).
If you want to go back to the sod hut and take up flint-knapping, I’m sure many here wouldn’t be terribly wounded to see you go. But with the fantasy world you’re pushing, that’s the life you’re aiming for, at least once the petroleum runs out and the surface coal disappears.
I’m all for broader, more localized power structures as our federal government becomes top-heavy; but like it or not, it is living amongst those we disagree with that civilizes us.
And as for the rating up/down: I myself rate up what makes sense to me, and rate down what doesn’t. You’ve offered little on just how your non-violent Utopia would work once the Evil Representative Government has been abolished. Once you start making rational points about practical goals, I think you’ll see those little thumbs start reaching for the sky.
“The vast majority of us actually like running water, and near-instantaneous communication, and antibiotics – things that simply would not be if it wasn’t for the “violence” of the voting booth.”
It’s unfortunate, sad, and likely a consequence of our modern educational system, that you think technological advances can only occur when a gun is pointed at someone’s head.
But let’s assume you are right, and that computers and networks would not exist without government (war) research (which, by the way, has nothing to do with the voting booth) – it is also true that if the government today rounded up the best and brightest and put them into education camps, forcing them to study and research medicine, we would see quicker advancement in that field. Do you believe the good chance of you living longer justifies slavery?
Besides, as Bastiat showed, there is the seen and the unseen – the inefficient and forced reallocation of resources that led to ARPANET in the 1960s might have led to other things whose progress has been retarded because it doesn’t fit into the government’s plan. An example can be made with the FDA – every time they “save lives” by making sure drugs are safe, they kill people by not letting them have access to life-saving medication in time, and they raise the cost to develop and distribute, making everyone worse off.
But hey, at least you can check your stocks online….
“It’s unfortunate, sad, and likely a consequence of our modern educational system, that you think technological advances can only occur when a gun is pointed at someone’s head.”
Riiiigghhht, ’cause if we disagree, I must have been brainwashed. I see you as the slave… as oppressive as you seem to find the System, you seem here like an eager enough participant.
The FDA is a flawed organization – but how many more would die without some system of testing? (Elemental mercury was a popular ‘treatment’ of the past, for instance.)
Still no positive argument, though nice “might have” there. How would all this come about without the collective will? Again – lots of hand-waving, but not much of an argument. Jacques Derrida would be proud!
Brooks,
I apologize for not having laid out full plans for the decentralized organization of millions of individuals in the comment section here. I understand your worry – if the government didn’t deliver mail, who would, right? Well, not to get all deconstructionist on you, but I think it may be feasible that those who want something can pool their resources and rely on certain arcane ideas like labor specialization, to obtain what they want without needing to steal from others (sorry, voting for those who will steal from others). Yes, that may mean you don’t get to have other people’s resources appropriated to develop internet 3.0, or maybe you will have to rely on private safety boards (think Consumers Reports for medicine), instead of approval from enlightened and benevolent bureaucrats, before putting pills in your mouth…but as we grow up living among other people most of us realize we only have justified control over ourselves and the things we rightfully own.
“I apologize for not having laid out full plans for the decentralized organization of millions of individuals in the comment section here.”
Apology accepted.
Frank:
Can’t help but notice, however, that you’re still using the internet, a product of violence perpetrated on millions.
I, as a mindless drone, am fine with that. You?
Brooks,
I don’t think you are a mindless drone, just shamefully pessimistic when it comes to believing that people can live together without a centralized monopoly of force dictating how 40+% of their resources should be reallocated against their will.
As for using the products of that government…well you aren’t born with the political structure you want, you are born with the political structure you have. Given that, here’s a simple scenario for you – one day the slaveowner provides ice cream to the slaves on his plantation. The ice cream was purchased by the slaveowner, who had the money to afford it thanks to the slaves working in his plantation, giving him bountiful cotton harvests which he sold in the market.
Questions:
1. Was providing the slaves with ice cream an act of violence?
2. Would it be wrong for the slaves to eat the ice cream?
3. Does the scenario change if the slaveowner lets the slaves vote on what flavor of ice cream he should buy for them?
P.S. For concrete-bound mindless drones, please don’t mistake the example above as trying to equate actual slavery that existed in the US and the current US government. It’s just an example, meant to illuminate some of the complex issues at play when you have a monopoly agency of force taking away, and providing, certain goods/services.
I simply don’t see smaller as necessarily better. Tribalism is tribalism. More often, the smaller the group, the less subtle the harms that are committed to the individuals involved, and the fewer checks there are on the harms committed.
And no snark intended, but it’s bizarre that you would see me as the pessimist here.
“And no snark intended, but it’s bizarre that you would see me as the pessimist here.”
This will be my last reply, since I think we are the only ones reading this thread any more. I suppose it’s a matter of perspective. I think it’s quite possible to live your life surrounded by folk who don’t see a problem with a monopoly agency of force taking an arbitrary amount of your labor value from you. If you avoid pissing off the state, keep your head down, and pretend the Leviathan doesn’t exist, you can be fruitful and happy. Odds are they won’t shoot your dog for no reason, and hopefully their fiscal policies will not have devalued the common currency to the point of worthlessness (and even then you can make investments to protect yourself from complete harm). That being said, the ability to get by does not negate the essense of what government is, nor does it make participating in the process ok, just because we aren’t yet at the point where we are voting people into camps.
Brooks, I wanted to address your opening line before I continued reading the rest of your post.
“Your little black-and-white anarchist wonderland might work in a Heinlein novel, but not in the real world.”
Look, I’m not being contrarian for the sake of contrarianism. I’ve been around the block, thought this shit over for a while, posted elsewhere about it. I’m not posting to convince people that anarchism will work. I’m posting to demonstrate how it is the only alternative to the current completely immoral, fucked-up slave system in place, and how every individual who cooperates with it is complicit in his/her own slavery.
Anyone who argues the validity of Statism, to whatever degree — minarchism all the way to totalitarianism — is making a distinction without a difference that leads to the same exact end, total subjugation of the individual, total lack of freedom. Anarchism is the only alternative.
That it would never work, allegedly but realistically probable, demonstrates core characteristics of human behavior that cannot be reconciled with freedom, trust and peace. If it is true that anarchism cannot work in human society, it means that humans are immoral killers.
I firmly believe this to be true. Every bit of evidence points to this conclusion. Morality is not just “the thin veneer of civilization” and it doesn’t just come after food. Morality is the lie we tell ourselves to forget about our horrid innate nature. All of “morality” is the suppression of natural human behavior of survival at all costs, environmental control above all else. It is imposed from above. It is the State the supresses human nature by defending a monopoly of ultimate exercise OF human nature.
If every human were honest and confronted his/her killer nature, and every human recognized this in every other human individual, then anarchy could work.
“This will be my last reply, since I think we are the only ones reading this thread any more.”
Sorry to read that, as it was a lively exchange. Albeit, one that’s been played out between statist and anarchist ad infinitum. But still good to see in fresh print.
Brooks, I have to say that Frank summed up the anarchist position admirably. And you played the role of statist to perfection. Neither one of you missed a point.
I appreciate that you recognize the violence of the statist system, Brooks. That’s more honest than most statists. It is also courageous of you to confront anarchists. Most statists just put us on “ignore.” I for one always appreciate the challenge.
World wars can only be created by states. That’s a lot of violence. I wonder if modern “progress,” such as you have outlined it, is worth world wars, especially to the individuals who die in them. I wonder if those individuals would rather have lived what you contend would be a more primitive lifestyle (no proof of that of course, see Bastiat as Frank mentioned) than be killed by the State in world wars (or Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Serbia, Panama, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Vietnam, Korea, etc., etc., etc.).
Funny, but we agree in the end, I think. Owing to humans’ violent natures, there will always be the same amount of violence in the world. The equation must balance.
In statism (a condition of maximum centralized control), the most powerful states warp the map so that the most overt violence (i.e. war) occurs furthest, maintaining the warfare state by subtly enslaving the home population. Let’s call the amount of violence in this system “X.”
In anarchy (a condition of reduction of control to the most local level), with no states, the total amount of violence in the world remains the same — “X”. However, there is no mechanism for concentration of violence on the scale of statism. There is no slave population at home to bilk to fund the war enterprise. Each individual is still just as violent as before, but he finds himself confronted at every turn by a similarly violent individual. This force keeps everyone mostly in check. There will be flare-ups of violence (shootouts, ambushes, frauds, etc.) but though thousands may be guaranteed to die, the chances of millions dying in a large war are nil.
Each individual responsible for self-defense, or contracting for self-defense. A system of trust based on understanding the killer nature inherent in each of us. This is morality. This is a foundation.
Brooks, the system you are at peace with is paid for with the blood of millions in distant lands and the slavery of millions at home. It may be convenient and conducive to long and physically healthy lives (debatable, and only for the slave nations), but it is built on quicksand of lies and will continue to consume all but the ruling class for whose benefit the State is perpetuated.
“If, however, their plan is to get elected to office in a country full of people who want the government to protect them against any uncertainty from cradle to grave, then his message will probably not be effective.”
That’s the amazing part about it. This is one of the most Democratic districts in the country, probably, with Chapel Hill, UNC-Chapel Hill, Carrboro (”The People’s Republic of Carrboro”), and Durham, some of the most liberal bastions you’ll find. And Lawson is 8 points behind a 20-year incumbent!!!
How does he do it? He’s like Ron Paul, but articulate. He states his positions and the reasons why he supports them very succinctly. He gives great speeches and has won a lot of Democratic converts.
If he doesn’t get it tonight, he’ll get it in two years.