This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at

Your Ad Here

Monday, January 21, 2008

The Debate Ceiling Scam

I read a very interesting post on the Ron Paul forum. Essentially, there is an implied debate ceiling.

The people formally acknowledged by the mainstream media as "radicals" effectively set the boundaries of the debate. Disinformation agents like Noam Chomsky and Naomi Wolf effectively set the limit of what is permissible discourse. They ridicule any positions that are more radical than their own, effectively excluding them from their debate.

For example, people acknowledged by the mainstream media as radicals won't acknowledge agorism as a viable political theory. Even the "radicals" say that agorists are nuts. This effectively removes ideas such as "Who needs a monopolistic government?" from debate.

You never hear a "radical" saying "Who needs a government at all?" If you take a belief in a free market to its logical conclusion, the idea emerges that "There should not be an unaccountable monopolistic government.".

Agorism is simultaneously the most radical and the most sensible philosophy. If you take Libertarian philosophy to its natural conclusion, you arrive at agorism. All services currently provided by the government via forced taxation could be more efficiently provided through the free market.

Ron Paul has opened the door to discussing extreme Libertarianism, such as the immorality or unconstitutionality of the Federal Reserve of the income tax. Ron Paul hasn't opened up the door to the next level of debate: "Who needs a government at all?" In fact, Ron Paul helps facilitate keeping this topic suppressed; many people who are nearly thoroughly disgusted with the current economic and political system wind up attracted to Ron Paul.

The people officially acknowledged as "radicals" set a debate ceiling; ideas more radical than theirs are insane and impermissible. This is one of many tricks the red market uses to silence debate.

Of course, the most radical idea of all is that 2+2=3. Everyone besides me is reciting random gibberish that 2+2=4. Are you sure that 2+2=4? Are you capable of checking the answer yourself?


Anonymous said...

I still do not understand how private security firms (hired guns), landlords, warlords could not emerge and seize power without resistance in a anarchist society.
the guy who can hire the most men and weapons would be the most powerful authority?

Anonymous said...

I got that gem from majorityrights

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at