Nitroadict:Reality is reality, & neither denying the reality of state-society, nor the reality of the current & future market processes required to challenge & eventually out-compete it as a mode of organization, is going go get anyone anything but social points with their respective peers.
Seemingly practical behavior and ideology are often at odds. More heaven's gate cyano-pudding?
Brainpolice:I'm a bit surprised that the resident Stirnerite is for voting. I don't think you need to make a formal moral argument to reject voting.
Here's an article about how voting is essentially pointless.
Brainpolice:I mainly reject it on the grounds of prudence/pragmatism
I could understand that, and I'm not much of a voter either. But if it's like dondoolee's example, I could see why one might try it, rather than roll over for moral reasons.
Brainpolice:The evidence seems to indicate that it is nearly impossible for such a method to efficiently realize my self-interest. Not only are the options extremely limited ahead of time, but by its very nature the whole process is alienated from you actually making a decision yourself. This goes back to the basic problem of "representation". Ultimately, only you can represent yourself. I would think that "direct action" is much more consistent with your "own-ness" than indirect, representational methods.
I would completely agree. Of course, direct action is tough against the juggernaut. If representation is all I have, I will utilize it as much as I can to realize my desires.
Jackson LaRose: Nitroadict:Reality is reality, & neither denying the reality of state-society, nor the reality of the current & future market processes required to challenge & eventually out-compete it as a mode of organization, is going go get anyone anything but social points with their respective peers. Seemingly practical behavior and ideology are often at odds. More heaven's gate cyano-pudding?
Ideology: "....is a set of aims and ideas that directs one's goals, expectations, and actions....systems of abstract thought....a comprehensive vision."I do not see how thinking realistically is completely at odds with ideology. It's realistic for me to oppose the state via non-coercive & voluntary market actions that coincide with others, but it's un-realistic for me to oppose the state mano-a-mano in a physical confrontation, even if I was only doing so against physical manifestations of the state (i.e. like say, at Waco).It's realistic for me to oppose ever taking unemployment benefits, but it's not entirely realistic for me to expect myself be never unemployed, despite doing my best to stay employed. It's also realistic for me to not spend hours of time online talking about ideology in a forum or a blog post, & enacting the do-able parts offline. I only recently took that step a few months ago. Others more could step away from their comfortable philosopher keyboards & focus on goals, instead of social realities, but to expect immediate results would be idealistic.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Nitroadict:Others more could step away from their comfortable philosopher keyboards & focus on goals, instead of social realities, but to expect immediate results would be idealistic.
I like the boots on the ground mentality. (Boy, this going to sound ironic), but we should maybe start some regional boards, to try to concentrate our efforts, maybe share some info about local events, to try to form, or augment a current movement.
I think there are only two ways to eliminate the state. One is through Hans Hermann Hoppe's proposal of long-term continuous secession triggered by localized groups of libertarian radicals. I know most people here are familiar with it so I won't go deep into that. The second one is very interesting.
The internet philosophy show FreedomainRadio has a comprehensive anarchist worldview, similar to that of Ayn Rand's but is more open minded and grounded on Austrian School economics. It starts with esoteric topics like politics and economics but moves towards psychology and analysis of the power structure of the family. It argues that the start of statism is the family and concludes in the mantra of 'political liberty comes from personal liberty' or an inside-outside approach to libertarianism. I would like to call it philosophical libertarianism as opposed to political libertarianism. After nearly a thousand podcasts discussing libertarian issues the host of the show talks about more personal topics like relationships and the family and how talking about personal matters is the foundation for philosophical libertarianism. So in podcast 910 entitled 'Outgrowing the State' Stefan Molyneux(the host) finally talks about how to eliminate the state. I found it shocking even though it's so simple. Basically, libertarians just have to provide services better than government WITH EMPHASIS ON EXPOSING THE STATE AS INEFFICIENT AND PATHETIC. So libertarians have to provide free education for the poor, free healthcare, and other services the state loves to control. We do not participate in a violent circus of elections because it implies that we accept what the majority does if we the minority lose. Ask yourself the question... How can a slave be most happy while still being a slave? .... because I'd rather have 50% taxation and a happy marriage than 0% taxation and a miserable life. We only have to treat each other like dignified, independent, responsible human beings to get rid of the horizontal dictatorship and then we'll see police men quitting their jobs and masses stop voting. The funny thing is, freedomainradio preaches atheism yet it recommends the same solution as libertarian christians.
I highly recommend the book "Real Time Relationships" it is a must read!!!
And the videos <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-YMMd1xKIM> "Practical Politics" and podcast 910 in www.Freedomainradio.com
That second one is very similar to what I want to do. Is to get people not to rely on government. Business do this a lot for good will, like "Tides of hope" and Target's Education are examples I can immediately recall. Some business partner with Untied Way. Participation in a dress-down Friday by donating to United Way.
But exactly like you Bolded, EMPHASIS ON EXPOSING THE STATE. Do it by scholarships. You don't have to be in an organization to offer a scholarship. If you know people or get to know people who can't afford private education, offer to help pay for it. Doesn't have to be in cash, you offer it by check or money order and make it payable to the school.
The same with healthcare. there was someone on facebook who couldn't afford to pay for medication for son. A donor helped out with that. Providing medical assistance may be difficult due to STATE licencing restrictions.
I guess what I want to say, is that don't demonize the necessity of regulation or any other government involved rule or association, but governments involvement in it.
Kenneth: I think there are only two ways to eliminate the state. One is through Hans Hermann Hoppe's proposal of long-term continuous secession triggered by localized groups of libertarian radicals. I know most people here are familiar with it so I won't go deep into that. The second one is very interesting. The internet philosophy show FreedomainRadio has a comprehensive anarchist worldview, similar to that of Ayn Rand's but is more open minded and grounded on Austrian School economics. It starts with esoteric topics like politics and economics but moves towards psychology and analysis of the power structure of the family. It argues that the start of statism is the family and concludes in the mantra of 'political liberty comes from personal liberty' or an inside-outside approach to libertarianism. I would like to call it philosophical libertarianism as opposed to political libertarianism. After nearly a thousand podcasts discussing libertarian issues the host of the show talks about more personal topics like relationships and the family and how talking about personal matters is the foundation for philosophical libertarianism. So in podcast 910 entitled 'Outgrowing the State' Stefan Molyneux(the host) finally talks about how to eliminate the state. I found it shocking even though it's so simple. Basically, libertarians just have to provide services better than government WITH EMPHASIS ON EXPOSING THE STATE AS INEFFICIENT AND PATHETIC. So libertarians have to provide free education for the poor, free healthcare, and other services the state loves to control. We do not participate in a violent circus of elections because it implies that we accept what the majority does if we the minority lose. Ask yourself the question... How can a slave be most happy while still being a slave? .... because I'd rather have 50% taxation and a happy marriage than 0% taxation and a miserable life. We only have to treat each other like dignified, independent, responsible human beings to get rid of the horizontal dictatorship and then we'll see police men quitting their jobs and masses stop voting. The funny thing is, freedomainradio preaches atheism yet it recommends the same solution as libertarian christians. I highly recommend the book "Real Time Relationships" it is a must read!!! And the videos <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-YMMd1xKIM> "Practical Politics" and podcast 910 in www.Freedomainradio.com
Kenneth: I think there are only two ways to eliminate the state. One is through Hans Hermann Hoppe's proposal of long-term continuous secession triggered by localized groups of libertarian radicals. I know most people here are familiar with it so I won't go deep into that. The second one is very interesting. The internet philosophy show FreedomainRadio has a comprehensive anarchist worldview, similar to that of Ayn Rand's but is more open minded and grounded on Austrian School economics. It starts with esoteric topics like politics and economics but moves towards psychology and analysis of the power structure of the family. It argues that the start of statism is the family and concludes in the mantra of 'political liberty comes from personal liberty' or an inside-outside approach to libertarianism.
The internet philosophy show FreedomainRadio has a comprehensive anarchist worldview, similar to that of Ayn Rand's but is more open minded and grounded on Austrian School economics. It starts with esoteric topics like politics and economics but moves towards psychology and analysis of the power structure of the family. It argues that the start of statism is the family and concludes in the mantra of 'political liberty comes from personal liberty' or an inside-outside approach to libertarianism.
That is actually the opposite argument to Hoppe's, who claims that the state grows to destroy sources of natural authority (such as the family) and make the individual more isolated and more dependent on the state for protection.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger: Kenneth: I think there are only two ways to eliminate the state. One is through Hans Hermann Hoppe's proposal of long-term continuous secession triggered by localized groups of libertarian radicals. I know most people here are familiar with it so I won't go deep into that. The second one is very interesting. The internet philosophy show FreedomainRadio has a comprehensive anarchist worldview, similar to that of Ayn Rand's but is more open minded and grounded on Austrian School economics. It starts with esoteric topics like politics and economics but moves towards psychology and analysis of the power structure of the family. It argues that the start of statism is the family and concludes in the mantra of 'political liberty comes from personal liberty' or an inside-outside approach to libertarianism. That is actually the opposite argument to Hoppe's, who claims that the state grows to destroy sources of natural authority (such as the family) and make the individual more isolated and more dependent on the state for protection.
It's also a hopeless, biologically impossible idea. At least Hoppe doesn't deny the requirements for an individual to be uh, born.
I don't see how it necessarily goes against Hoppe's argument. Just because government undermines the family doesn't mean family is libertarian or opposes government. Family is of course a more natural authority and less dictatorial than government but the argument can still be made that it is the source of hierarchy, violence and therefore of statism.
Hey, I never said we should abolish family. The recommendation of Freedomainradio is that aside from talking about politics and other esoteric topics, we have to eventually talk about more personal topics like family and the 'statism' within it so that we can relate more to people. Concrete action can be made by reforming parenting habits not by abolishing family or running away from it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCAT4oob9hs
This is very helpful in understanding Molyneux's views on the family
Kenneth: I don't see how it necessarily goes against Hoppe's argument. Just because government undermines the family doesn't mean family is libertarian or opposes government. Family is of course a more natural authority and less dictatorial than government but the argument can still be made that it is the source of hierarchy, violence and therefore of statism.
I think Rothbard even states that one has no legal responsibility to care for a child.
Wibee: I think Rothbard even states that one has no legal responsibility to care for a child.
No positive obligation on anyone else. He does however, talk about guardianship / trustee rights.
just wanted to say to the person that says libertarians can start providing "free" education and so on - uh...yeah, i don't see that happening, and I don't think it should either. However, in a free market, they would be far less expensive, especially with today's technology. Think of how easy it would be to educate kids by using the internet or by ordering textbooks, or simply how inexpensive knowledge in general would be without copyright. More generally, counter-economics is something that has been proposed, and i do see some merits in it, but i don't know if it would be the only way to go. I actually think black markets are prone to becoming red markets (violent black markets) because one would face the violence of the state but could also have to defend from violence being used by the mafia or other groups that happen to specialize in illegal market activities.
It is really hard to do but doing that works much better than voting. And it's actually the way slavery ended in most countries, people just lost interest in owning slaves and started respecting the sovereignty of other people. Likewise, people are just going to not care about the state and with that realize that it's useless anyway. Voting is playing by the rules of your enemy. It is undignified for a principled anarchist. Read FreedomainRadio book 'Real Time Relationships' for more on this. FreedomainRadio solutions have brought more freedom to libertarians by teaching them to work to achieve anarchy in their personal lives than politics ever has. Political liberty comes from personal liberty
Kenneth:Voting is playing by the rules of your enemy. It is undignified for a principled anarchist. Read FreedomainRadio book 'Real Time Relationships' for more on this.
Stefan Molyneux is wrong on this. Going through life nullifying options based on what most people think is the purpose of an activity is not liberty in your personal life. Making your own reasons for doing things is.
Kenneth:It is undignified for a principled anarchist.
LOL!!!! Ever used a road before? UNPRINCIPLED!!! Ever go to public school? UNPRINCIPLED!!! Ever go to a park? UNPRINCIPLED!!! You can keep you fixed ideas about "proper" methods to attain anarchy. I'll be at the polls, gaining freedoms from the masters.
Jackson LaRose: Kenneth:It is undignified for a principled anarchist. LOL!!!! Ever used a road before? UNPRINCIPLED!!! Ever go to public school? UNPRINCIPLED!!! Ever go to a park? UNPRINCIPLED!!! You can keep you fixed ideas about "proper" methods to attain anarchy. I'll be at the polls, gaining freedoms from the masters.
Agreed, that's just nonsense. First of all, from a pragmatic standpoint, it's not like the market where boycotting hurts the producer. In state programs, not using the programs just means their costs are lowered. Furthermore, if you don't take that money or service, it won't stop them from providing it. It just means someone else will get it (problem of the commons, where a marginal cost to each consumer is effectively zero because they can't perceive the costs as individuals, but they gain benefits). That's why I take financial aid for school. If I don't take it, someone else will get it. It's better for that money to be in my hands that in the state's hands.
Also, even from a principled view, the way I see it, the state has NO legitimate ownership of anything, unless it was something that was donated to it(though if you take into account its vast array of violations of people's property rights, I'm sure the case could easily be made that it owes people far more than anything that may have been donated to it in the past). It's like the "love it or leave it" argument. This applies to private property, but not to the government. It can't homestead anythign and therefore has no legitimate ownership (ruling out donations here) of anything. WE have legitimate ownership, so why should WE be the ones that have to change OUR lives and leave OUR property? Doing so wouldn't just leave us with fewer resources with which to live freely and possibly undermine the state, but would also - from my view - be unprincipled because we'd be letting the state expropriate all the property it wants.
There's a difference between voting and using the roads or public school. Roads, public school and public health have nothing directly to do with social change or ending the state. But voting has everything to do with ending(or not ending) the state. Stefan Molyneux has a video entitled "Freeing yourself from politics" and "The Truth about Voting" for more info on this.
Kenneth:There's a difference between voting and using the roads or public school.
Why?
Kenneth:Roads, public school and public health have nothing directly to do with social change or ending the state.
If no one used them, the state would run out of reasons to legitimize itself.
Kenneth:But voting has everything to do with ending(or not ending) the state.
I don't see the difference.
Kenneth:Stefan Molyneux
Haven't seen the specific videos you are referring to, but Molyneaux has not impressed me so far.
You use the public schools not because you are supporting the state but because you want education. Same goes with roads. You do not vote for any other reason other than political reasons of social change. This is the main difference.
You vote only to bring social change, so it implies that you as a libertarian support using violence to to eliminate violence. Which is a logical contradiction.
Again, I recommend watching Molyneux's videos about politics and voting
Kenneth:You use the public schools not because you are supporting the state but because you want education. Same goes with roads. You do not vote for any other reason other than political reasons of social change. This is the main difference.
I vote because I want to minimize government policies which affect my life. If the government allowed me total freedom, yet was brutally repressive of others with which I have no connection, I really wouldn't care too much.
Kenneth:You vote only to bring social change, so it implies that you as a libertarian support using violence to to eliminate violence. Which is a logical contradiction.
You presume I have a moral problem with utilizing violence to attain my ends. Hate to break it to you pal, but the only thing that stops me from being violent is my belief that cooperation is easier, and more efficient.
I wonder how effective voting has been in improving your life. It hasn't improved mine.
I actually do not make the presumption of morality. You wanting to use violence to eliminate violence for reasons of either convenience or morality still makes it a logical contradiction.
Besides, if all you care about is convenience, FDR philosophy of starting with freeing yourself in your personal life is much more effective than politics. Can you imagine how much money would have to be donated to Ron Paul and how many libertarian worker-hours would have to be dedicated to debating in the chat rooms and reading books just to have the chance to remove 3 regulations and lower taxes by five percent? And even if we say taxes are lowered a lot, they will just print the money to increase the spending. And if you work hard politically to stop the spending, then a lot of government recipients will complain and that could lead to civil unrest. We'd see Molotov cocktails being thrown in the streets. Teachers' unions will be enraged. We libertarians will literally have to shoot teachers to achieve our end of small or zero government. Anyway, that's just to show how absurd voting is.
Think about it. If you say that violence is justified if it will help downsize the state, then by that same argument the state can say that we have to retain the teacher's unions in order to prevent violence in the streets from happening. You are falling into the trap of your enemy by using a statist argument.
FDR has gained popularity fast because it offers a way for libertarians to achieve freedom easier and with greater return. Law of incentives is working perfectly fine here.
Kenneth:I wonder how effective voting has been in improving your life. It hasn't improved mine.
Haven't been in the majority yet.
Kenneth:I actually do not make the presumption of morality. You wanting to use violence to eliminate violence for reasons of either convenience or morality still makes it a logical contradiction.
Yeah, but you still presume that I should be logical. Normative statements are morality-based IMO.
Kenneth:Besides, if all you care about is convenience, FDR philosophy of starting with freeing yourself in your personal life is much more effective than politics. Can you imagine how much money would have to be donated to Ron Paul and how many libertarian worker-hours would have to be dedicated to debating in the chat rooms and reading books just to have the chance to remove 3 regulations and lower taxes by five percent?
?
Kenneth:And even if we say taxes are lowered a lot, they will just print the money to increase the spending.
OK, well let's vote in some reps who will vote yes on the FRB sunshine act.
Kenneth:And if you work hard politically to stop the spending, then a lot of government recipients will complain and that could lead to civil unrest.
Got to break some eggs to make an omlette.
Kenneth:We'd see Molotov cocktails being thrown in the streets. Teachers' unions will be enraged.
Well, do you expect the state to just roll over?
Kenneth:We libertarians will literally have to shoot teachers to achieve our end of small or zero government. Anyway, that's just to show how absurd voting is.
I think that's a bit of hyperbole.
Kenneth:If you say that violence is justified if it will help downsize the state
I'm saying a justification isn't necessary.
Kenneth:then by that same argument the state can say that we have to retain the teacher's unions in order to prevent violence in the streets from happening.
Well, I would say that argument sucks, because as it stands, a lot of states can't afford to pay teachers anyways. Teachers don't care about the state, they care about paychecks.
Kenneth:FDR has gained popularity fast because it offers a way for libertarians to achieve freedom easier and with greater return. Law of incentives is working perfectly fine here.
If I am still restrained by the arbitrary restrictions the state places on me, how am I free? Free from attempting to regain more liberty for myself, I guess.
I don't post on this site much because it's primary focus is academics and theories. While there is a need for great thinkers and philosophers of freedom that does not mean academics are the best tacticians.
People who subscribe to liberty are economically disadvantaged. This is reality not some fantasy assertion I am pulling out of a hat. People who subscribe to liberty are not going to be going out and purchasing 25% of the media like was done previously in history.
Sound strategy could be:
1) geographically organize at a county (or possibly state) level. I would cite the free state project as a good idea, bad implementation based on the goal and number of people involved. There is no good reason geographical organization should take more than one or two election cycles. If it does the target region was poorly selected.
2) dismantle government to the greatest extent possible saving the biggest battles or confrontations likely to gain the attention of the fed or neighbors for last (ie privatizing an interstate highway through a county). at a county level you can eliminate property taxes, public schools, local public roads, occupational licensing, permitting, zoning, law enforcement, etc. If you think about it at a county level you can pretty much dismantle all of the offensive government intrusion and enforcement that people have to deal with on a day to day basis. If you can't envision that all state law is enforced at a local level or the benefits of not having to pay local government or local agencies of state government in federal reserve notes i can spell it out.
3) use the market advantage to allow capitalism to flourish again and become wealthy. use this wealth to prepare for the larger battles and continue to spread the philosophy. instead of just talking about the philosophy of liberty people in this geographical free zone are able to brag about how much more wealth per capita they have due to lack of local government.
Geographical organization is:
1. Legal
2. Requires no civil disobedience
3. Is leading by example
I can respect the principles and logic behind not voting but I question the strategy and consider it illogical. Make me a believer and cite some examples in history to support a non-voting or lack of geographical organization strategy.
I like this proposal a lot. I was thinking along those same lines, starting at the town level (government organization a little different in New England), abolishing all laws/programs besides state and federal, and working up from there, spreading throughout a state, than repealing all state laws/regulations. etc.
I can accept that strategy as well. Right now I am divided in choosing the FDR strategy, Hoppean secession or your solution which is also related to Hoppean secession. Regarding your question, Molyneux(in his book 'How Not to Achieve Freedom') said that libertarians have been trying to reduce the size of the state politically for hundreds of years and the state has grown exponentially. This clearly shows that political libertarianism doesn't work, yet libertarians just don't look at the facts. Now, this new strategy of inside-outside philosophical libertarianism has never been tried before but removing the state this way would be like how slavery was eliminated in the past. It is explained thouroughly in the podcast "Outgrowing the State".
Kenneth: You use the public schools not because you are supporting the state but because you want education. Same goes with roads. You do not vote for any other reason other than political reasons of social change. This is the main difference. You vote only to bring social change, so it implies that you as a libertarian support using violence to to eliminate violence. Which is a logical contradiction. Again, I recommend watching Molyneux's videos about politics and voting
Voting to minimize the state (voting AGAINST stuff like regulations and spending) are not using violence. You are voting for the state NOT to use violence. No contradiction there.
If the government is a violent monopoly then it doesn't make sense to participate in the system of violence to reduce violence. You do not infiltrate the mafia in order to eliminate the mafia. You do not join the church to convert priests into atheists. Libertarians will always be a minority because there are too many people dependent on the state. The mismatch of incentives here is enormous. As one commenter posted, voting and then losing means you implicitly accept the decision of the majority. People in this forum really need to read or listen to the free book "How Not to Achieve Freedom" by Stefan Molyneux
What you are proposing is telling the mafia to stop stealing from people. It just doesn't work
Kenneth: If the government is a violent monopoly then it doesn't make sense to participate in the system of violence to reduce violence. You do not infiltrate the mafia in order to eliminate the mafia. You do not join the church to convert priests into atheists. Libertarians will always be a minority because there are too many people dependent on the state. The mismatch of incentives here is enormous. As one commenter posted, voting and then losing means you implicitly accept the decision of the majority. People in this forum really need to read or listen to the free book "How Not to Achieve Freedom" by Stefan Molyneux
How is voting an act of infiltration? You're right when you say that you cannot infiltrate something in order to destroy it, but you can definitely infiltrate something in order to change it. The Marxists have proven that this is an extremely effective method (Ron Paul is doing the same). Who would have believed that Marxian propaganda could successfully confuse the entire world into believing that property and cooperative exchange is theft/exploitation? Marxism, and all of its cleverly disguised forms, has convinced, in may occasions sober-minded individuals, to act against their own self interests. Why can't liberalism (or libertarianism) convince people to act in their own self-interests?
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Voting in Ron Paul
Kenneth:If the government is a violent monopoly then it doesn't make sense to participate in the system of violence to reduce violence.
If my enemy has a weapon, and I wrest control of it, them smash it to bits, I don't understand how that is illogical.
Kenneth:You do not infiltrate the mafia in order to eliminate the mafia.
Why not? And the mafia comparison to a democracy is BS, because the mafia doesn't have to pretend to serve the interests of its constituents. This fact allows government more leeway for exploitation, but also leaves it vulnerable if the herd wises up.
Kenneth:You do not join the church to convert priests into atheists.
Again, not quite an accurate comparison.
Kenneth:Libertarians will always be a minority because there are too many people dependent on the state.
We all are dependent on the state, we just realize that there are other options. If you talk to enough people you begin to realize that the goals we are trying to achieve are the same. You just have to educate people about the systematic exploitation the state offers, and they will not want it around anymore.
Kenneth:The mismatch of incentives here is enormous. As one commenter posted, voting and then losing means you implicitly accept the decision of the majority.
Kenneth:People in this forum really need to read or listen to the free book "How Not to Achieve Freedom" by Stefan Molyneux
Again, so far Molyneaux does not impress me at all. He is more concerned about achieving a perfect concept of freedom, rather than gaining any in reality.
Kenneth: What you are proposing is telling the mafia to stop stealing from people. It just doesn't work
No this is not what I am proposing at all. I think the notion of stealing needs to be put in its proper context. If the Federal Reserve owns all of the money and federal reserve notes and you use those notes to facilitate trade then you are not using your property to trade you are using someone elses property. So how can something be stolen you do not own? Now I agree with a characterization of theft but for entirely different reasons. Don't convert a natural right to a privilege and then bitch about the privilege being regulated because it is a voluntary act. This is why I characterize it as theft but it is not the reason most people use the word.
If I trade an apple for an orange or fix something for a meal I traded property for property. I did not use Federal Reserve property but government still tries to value that transaction and extract a slice based on who gained in their sole opinion analyzing a mutually beneficial trade. If I do not pay them then they do in fact come and steal my property to get what they want. But most people refer to the IRS as theft and you got paid in Federal Reserve notes and are not facilitating trade with your own property.
My grievance is that government has grown to a point where it no longer respects natural rights and it doesn't have to because the jury pool does not understand natural rights which allows government to successfully persecute just about anyone who does not convert their natural rights to privileges. I understand government does not like me to use my own labor and trade property because they assert occupational licensing. You can take your resume listing your skills around town to solicit employment (trade facilitated in FRN's) and this activity does not require a license but if I knock on your door and solicit my skills to repair something government wrongfully asserts I am subject to occupational licensure to perform the same exact activity. Because I understand how natural rights are derived and that constitutional government does not inherently have the power to regulate natural rights only expressly delegated ones I have been driven to adopt more principled philosophical Misean views. And where government fails to assert a priviledged activity is being performed it levies a direct tax on property. All payments to government require payment in Federal Reserve notes so I am forced to be economically disadvantaged trading with someone elses property.
With geographical organization I see a huge opportunity to correct the economic disadvantage and eliminate all payment to government at the local level which will allow people to locally trade using their own property again so a slice is not taken out of the trade for using someone elses property.
"Yeah, but you still presume that I should be logical. Normative statements are morality-based IMO."
If you do not want to be logical then arguing with you is useless.
Your weapon analogy is the same as that used by Noam Chomsky. This is false. As I told you the incentives in place mean that the weapon you are trying to grab a hold of is Wolverines claws. Clearly, doing this is impossible as evidence by the abject failure of political libertarianism throughout history and the failure of the Ron Paul campaign.
Democracy makes the masses identify themselves with the state so your argument is a total fail. If the herd ever wises up to critical mass then there would be no need to participate in politics because we'll just dismantle the state from the outside.
I have no problem talking to people about the exploitation of the state. I just have feeling that telling single moms to give up on welfare, farmers to give up their subsidies, the police to resign, soldiers that the lives of fellow soldiers were in vain is not going to work.
The record of history is very clear that political(i.e. voting) libertarianism has never worked. Molyneux demolishes the idea of voting in "How Not to Achieve Freedom"
Kenneth:If you do not want to be logical then arguing with you is useless.
Arguing usually is
Kenneth:Clearly, doing this is impossible as evidence by the abject failure of political libertarianism throughout history and the failure of the Ron Paul campaign.
So instead, you propose that we close our eyes and hope the state will go away. If your goal is to gain control of the weapon to destroy it, rather than point it at your enemies, that is unprecedented historically, so it would be hard to derive that it's "illogical", or "false". It just exposes a bias on your part.
Kenneth:Democracy makes the masses identify themselves with the state so your argument is a total fail.
As I said, it's a genius move by the state to deceive the public in that way, but it is also a gamble, because the state now must maintain the illusion of obeying the mob. If that illusion is broken, the state is regarded as illegitimate (which seems to be beginning already in the states).
Kenneth:If the herd ever wises up to critical mass then there would be no need to participate in politics because we'll just dismantle the state from the outside.
How? Violent revolution? I don't have time for that bull-crap.
Kenneth:I have no problem talking to people about the exploitation of the state. I just have feeling that telling single moms to give up on welfare, farmers to give up their subsidies, the police to resign, soldiers that the lives of fellow soldiers were in vain is not going to work.
It's fortunate that these groups don't constitute a majority where I come from, and the one's that are around have become so apathetic towards the state, they aren't politically active. Look at the gay marriage bill in CA. Most residents didn't really care who got married, but a concentrated effort by a driven minority resulted in their victory, because the majority was essentially indifferent. Just don't alert them to the fact that things will change, they probably won't try to discover it for themselves.
So you believe in geographical organization. Voting anarchists into local office so the county can secede
from the state and then begin dismantling the new state or secede and not form a state at all?
Has anything like this been tried in the past? And do you know any anarchist right now willing to run for
local office. I'm sympathetic to involvement in local politics for the purpose of secession but at the federal
level voting is just hopeless. Even you can agree to that. Mises even said the democratic process
is less effective the larger a political entity is.
Kenneth: So you believe in geographical organization. Voting anarchists into local office so the county can secede from the state and then begin dismantling the new state or secede and not form a state at all?
Not really secede (that would be crushed in a day), just repeal all local laws, and not enforcing any state/federals (there would be no local police), allowing the locals a taste of some freedom (local ordinances are usually the ones that affect people day to day, and the state police/ FBI can't be everywhere all the time).
Kenneth:Has anything like this been tried in the past?
Not that I know of, although the Nazi's are a good example of a relatively small and driven political organization starting at the bottom and working their way up to complete control of the government. There's an economic collapse right around the corner for us, so maybe this could be considered a precedent.
Kenneth: And do you know any anarchist right now willing to run for local office.
And do you know any anarchist right now willing to run for
local office.
Shit, I'd do it. I could care less who it is, a classic liberal or a libertarian minarchist is OK with me too. Can't expect anarchy overnight.
Kenneth: I'm sympathetic to involvement in local politics for the purpose of secession but at the federal level voting is just hopeless
I'm sympathetic to involvement in local politics for the purpose of secession but at the federal
level voting is just hopeless
Without gains in local politics, and congress first, I would agree with that. That doesn't mean it will always be pointless, just have to have the right support base going in
Kenneth: Mises even said the democratic process is less effective the larger a political entity is.
Mises even said the democratic process
That's a good point, but if you've got grassroots movements sprouting and coalescing into larger blobs of support, you can expect larger gains to be won, especially after people begin to see what liberty really look like, the state won't have a chance.
Kenneth: So you believe in geographical organization. Voting anarchists into local office so the county can secede from the state and then begin dismantling the new state or secede and not form a state at all? Has anything like this been tried in the past? And do you know any anarchist right now willing to run for local office. I'm sympathetic to involvement in local politics for the purpose of secession but at the federal level voting is just hopeless. Even you can agree to that. Mises even said the democratic process is less effective the larger a political entity is.
Let's be strategically realistic. It should be more covert than overt. Everyone involved is taking a financial risk in each other relocating. Basically were talking about blood contract "we mutually pledge to each other our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" and the terms need to be specific and clearly spelled out so there is no confusion.
1. Organize regular communication
2. Solicit potential like minded people
3. Assess strength
4. Select region
5. Analyze legal structure of target, state constitution, and state law.
6. Draft plan of action
7. Implement
You don't secede from the state because that is picking a fight you haven't won yet. You leverage state law with your newly created majority to gut and dismantle local government to gain economic advantage and maximize individual freedom. I doubt there would be enough numbers to impact a state in one or two election cycles. A county is probably the best starting point.
"Not really secede (that would be crushed in a day), just repeal all local laws, and not enforcing any state/federals (there would be no local police), allowing the locals a taste of some freedom (local ordinances are usually the ones that affect people day to day, and the state police/ FBI can't be everywhere all the time)."
I've read many secession articles in LRC and Strike the Root. The idea is that if the federal government will attack a seceded state then people in other states will wake up to the brutality of the federal government and secede also. It's based on the theory that government survives more on public opinion than brute force. I think eventually there will have to be secession from the federal government. Maybe not a sudden declaration of it but repealling laws and taxes is technically the same.