A friend of mine introduced me to Ron Paul, after looking more and more into it I liked his message. This year I dove into his book "End the Fed" and through it discovered Mises.org. Since the summer I've been reading the dailies, Austrian Economics books, youtube videos of Keynesianism vs Austrian Economics and observing how the world operates around me in light of all this new information.
I got sucked into the world of Anarcho-Capitalism. I have never been so drawn in to something as logical and persuasive as the message of freedom. I'm a young CTO of a startup and helped turn our company into a multi-million dollar business. I never accepted help from anyone other than my own drive to produce and create my own wealth. People regard Anarchy as chaos, in my mind, the inverse is true.
This world of oppressive religion, control, war, coercion and death is what is chaotic, not the idea of people living within their means and respecting one another as individuals in anarchy. Yet everywhere around me people are sucked into believing in the State and centralized religion. It's mind-numbing and I feel so alone, people usually agree with me when I explain it to them in terms presented here, yet it still feels like 95% of the world still believes in religion and the State.
It's hard to go day-by-day seeing all the control around me, I feel like I am awake and everyone is sleeping around me not knowing or caring for the truth and I want to snap them out of it. I will continue to do my best to spread the message of freedom and perhaps one day get into office somewhere to spread the word like Ron Paul. It seems like such a daunting task but I will never give into the State. What are some of the way you guys deal with it? It's nice to find a bastion of freedom in this world of control, I look forward to getting involved with the discussions here.
what you'll find is that this new world is linked closely to the "natural eating" folks.
Most people into healthy natural unprocessed eating...are also into freedom.
And sometimes....people like me...who are into freedom...are also into the UFO phenomenon.
Thanks for the response, yes that is true, I closely studied Dr. Ray Peat. Whose research into food was also an eye opener, the very foods the Government tell us that are healthy are the same ones killing us, but make it very profitable for certain special interests in the food industry. The media and the State have suppressed his message very well, he has said that even if he attempts to publish his research that the State will most likely muzzle him. I eat natural and whole foods, avoiding all (if possible) processed foods.
I also do not doubt the existence of alien life elsewhere in the universe. I sometimes ponder how aliens would think of us if they observed us, so far, my thoughts haven't produced a very good impression. But it is getting better over time, humans have progressed well over time in many regards. We still need a lot of work though.
Well, religion and the state aren't necessarily intertwined though. It's like how leftists, and anarcho socialists think mistaking corporatism for capitalism and thinking: "Oh, that capitalism and statism is so intertwined". It could be, but that doesn't necessarily means there's a inevitable connection between holding a religious belief = being a statist. Not everyone here is totally secular either. On that note, not everyone is an anarchocapitalist either, just the majority :). There is actually a diverse group of people here. Here's an article from Walter Block on religion and the state.:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block103.html
Anyway, it's nice to see you here. I hope you enjoy the discussions, and wealth of material on this website.
I mean if you are a young CTO, then you already are taking the right steps against the state. The free market is naturally anti-state, the state is naturally coercive, and free markets are voluntary ones.
Also, be positive. Things in some ways will always seem to be getting worse, but in the same way they are getting better, if you know where to look. For example, look at the standard of living 150 years ago. It's much better now.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Libertyandlife, my apologies, I didn't make my point regarding religion clear enough. I believe religion can provide great value when practiced in a humble personal level. The form of religion I am against is the kind that is centrally organized and behaves in many ways like the State does. Overly controlling and turning it's followers into brainwashed obsessed zealots who transform their life into worship and recruiting more to the slaughter. I have agreed with some of the messages of religion on a personal level but I am against amplifying it's use to control and manipulate the masses.
For example, when I was in college, I did bible studies with an evangelical minister, in the end he wanted me to devote my life to the church, become a minister to recruit others and sign a contract that 10% of my income would be transferred to the Church. That didn't sit well with me.
Edit: Thanks for the welcome BTW :)
limitgov:And sometimes....people like me...who are into freedom...are also into the UFO phenomenon.
That made me giggle. Oddly placed confession.
@freeradicals, welcome.
What are some of the way you guys deal with it?
Humor. Friendship. Self-esteem. A little humility.
@liberty student, thanks for the welcome! That's a good approach, one which I have been using. Avoiding the use of nasty comments and violence, even those who tirelessly argue against me that the stimulus package wasn't big enough and given the keynesian multiplier we should have spent a lot more. *facepalm*
I curse under my breath constantly. Am considering other strategies, such as meditation.
Making you feel alone is how the state produces, preserves and exercises its power.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
@LeeO Yes, I believe learning to meditate or self-sooth is vital to avoid slipping into insanity :)
@Stranger, nice article. I guess the State succeeded in making me feel alone, but not powerless or hopeless :) I agree "Lone Nut" suicide attacks or entrenchment won't take you far, but the Mexican drug cartels are using really excessive force, certainly there are better ways right?
There are better ways than Mexican-style violence, I was simply pointing out that isolation against the state is not a hopeless fact.
Mexican drug lords in many ways live exactly like medieval lords - travelling from fortress to fortress to defend their turf, while always facing the risk of capture. They even decorate their arms the medieval way.
Welcome to the site.
Yes, it saddens me to find out how we are indeed living 26 years after 1984.
How do I deal with it? Try to ignore it every once in a while and lighten up.
Bertarnd Russell said that reason is the weakest of human faculties, but it triumphs in the end. We have reason on our side.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
freeradicals:I'm a young CTO of a startup and helped turn our company into a multi-million dollar business. I never accepted help from anyone other than my own drive to produce and create my own wealth.
Welcome, and please contribute often. Look forward to reading your posts and questions.
How to deal with it? Self control. Never lose your cool when talking to people about the intervention that destroyed economy. Understand the workings of the unhampered market. Become well read in the subjects that interest you. Use the forum like a classroom, a place to learn and ask questions.
Spend time in the Literature section, and read.
"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner. "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.
freeradicals wrote: People regard Anarchy as chaos, in my mind, the inverse is true.
People regard Anarchy as chaos, in my mind, the inverse is true.
I will continue to do my best to spread the message of freedom and perhaps one day get into office somewhere to spread the word like Ron Paul. It seems like such a daunting task but I will never give into the State.
???
What do you think of this?:
@Stranger, that's interesting, and to think, prohibition is in large part supporting all of this.
@Smiling Dave, thanks for the welcome! Yea we have to hold on to reason as much as possible, it has certainly helped me win lots of debates. During one, through reason I got someone to realize they believe handicapped people are first-class citizens and to admit they believe it's okay for the government to invade private property and that the rich "owe" others part of their wealth. It sure shed some light on how "humanitarian" present-day liberals really are.
Hooray, we have another newcomer! Don't forget to comment a lot and often! Look at my posts, too!
What kind of business are you in?
Hello.
The form of religion I am against is the kind that is centrally organized and behaves in many ways like the State does. Overly controlling and turning it's followers into brainwashed obsessed zealots who transform their life into worship and recruiting more to the slaughter.
Actually, in my observation it is the less centrally organised churches (eg Pentacostals) that can boast more zealous and active believers, while the members of the more highly organised churches (eg Catholic, Orthodox, mainstream Lutheran) come of quite laid back.
@Nielsio, I will respectfully disagree with that idea. I agree that politicians, public policemen etc lay claim to ownership over you and in a perfect world we should make do without them. However, until we transition into that ideal we have to deal with the current system. If it wasn't for Ron Paul who spread the message of freedom and my friend heard it, I would never have heard it and I might have not ended up here today. Maybe eventually, however, the contributions Ron Paul has made towards spreading the message of Freedom to me far outweigh the negative of having another person to lay claim to ownership of us. In the current system, if Ron Paul followed that idea, it's possible that some other Statist would have occupied that seat anyways and further suppressed the message of freedom. I don't see the problem with gaining "power" into public office if your ultimate goal is to ultimately disassemble the power of the State from within (even your own). If enough Anarcho-Capitalists made it into power why couldn't they collectively disassemble their own power (State power) once they control it?
@rosstaylor, thanks I will try! We built a .COM business, and no, not the same kind during the .COM bubble, we actually make revenue and don't rely on debt or public money to survive :)
@Marko, well that may be true, the main one I had in my mind was Islam. I spent a few years living in Egypt, and the centralized Islamic religion there has absolute control. Religion and State have made nearly a full merge and become a totalitarian State. While not as bad, the Roman Catholic church and its Pope/Vatican appears too State-like to me to be comfortable with.
@freeradicals
Will your .com business survive the upcoming turbulence in the US market and around the world? Since you're here in this forum, I'm sure you know what lies ahead of us.
I have a discussion regarding the 21st century, perhaps a CTO might be interested : P
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/20201/370855.aspx#370855
That is very interesting. Somewhat off topic, but since you have this unique experience could you tell us anything about the Christians in Egypt? Eg, what is their position institutionally and their social standing? I am always interested in such things.
re: freeradicals,
How often have you heard Ron Paul say that a state is inherently immoral? Did you know that he is actually an anarchist like yourself? Do you see the problem? He calls himself a champion of the constitution, and thereby undercutting his own message. You say you heard about liberty through Ron Paul, but what we need to get any real change is people believing in true freedom, not some messed up ideal where a rulingclass is somehow a positive force.
What would happen if most libertarians came out completely against the state? That is what you have to weigh.
^When the man has Walter Block as his advisor, it can't be a bad cause. He's an anarchist, and willing to do the campaign. He doesn't find it unethical.
Sometimes I feel voluntaryists are way too focused on theory and total consistency, instead of acting. Some are looking for problems that don't exist, a reason to partition. This "more libertarian then thou" attitude weakens the movement. And to further aggrevate anyone too stuck up on "consistency":
To paraphrase Lenin: "We will abolish the state with the instruments it gave us". I don't think that would be unethical. To say that it is unethical to forcefully take away force is ridiculous. We are giving freedom back, the only force is against the forcefull state. As long as we don't start shooting people, I'm okay with it, that would just be retarded.
I would vote for Ron Paul. I'm not the only voluntaryist who would. Who else would?
@Free radicals: Islamism is not Islam. I mean there's no hiearchy within Islamic mosques, why should there be "political" Islam. It's a ridiculous idea. You can't teach self discipline, or theology through the barrel of gun. Middle eastern governments are disgusting, if you think the U.S is facist, go to Iran. Then again, at least Iran doesn't start wars.
Islamism is not Islam, check out this article : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703959704575453211943767790.html
@rosstaylor, we are planning on selling our business within a year so I don't think there is an issue there. For those who buy it they can easily launch the business in other countries. .COM companies are in great shape to mold and fit within any community with the right settings. Regarding my opinion of the coming years I guess I will reply in that thread.
@Marko, the Christians in Egypt are getting suffocated out of the country. While there is a young liberal generation of Muslims in the country the trend over the last several decades has been a decline in all non-Muslim populations. There are no more jews left in that country, only empty Temples. When I was younger and wore a cross I almost got in a fight with some kids their because they saw me wearing it. They immediately hate the sign of any infidel. Again, It's not like that uniformly across the country, there are many moderate Muslims there and are in disagreement with the extremists.
@Nielsio I agree more with that Libertyandlife said below your post. And about your libertarian question I don't think much would change as there still aren't enough libertarians to make a huge mark (yet).
@Libertyandlife I agree with you Middle eastern governments are discusting and I never implied the U.S. is facist. I was merely describing my observations regarding what is going on there in the name of Islam.
Agreed, they piss me off. I was just saying with all the statism the U.S has, the middle east is much worse. Sorry if I seemed to be getting to defensive. Everyone's pissed off at Muslims, so it's become almost a natural reaction.
No worries, I know lots of kind-hearted and great Muslims, it's a shame what many of the extremists have done under its name (as with all religions).
Libertyandlife:Sometimes I feel voluntaryists are way too focused on theory and total consistency, instead of acting.
Libertyandlife:I would vote for Ron Paul. I'm not the only voluntaryist who would. Who else would?
When the only meaningful action one can take is voting, the cause is already lost IMO. Some of us voluntaryists are acting in the market. Politics is not a market.
@liberty student, I don't believe we are claiming that voting is the only meaningful action we can take. It is another tool in our toolbox that we can use to advance our cause. Ron Paul uses his public position to amplify his message, would you say what he has done wasn't worth it?
"Ron Paul uses his public position to amplify his message, would you say what he has done wasn't worth it?"
Ron Paul can bring some people like you to their senses. People who see the political system as a legitimate and effective means to achieve their goals must be initially "tricked" into opening their mind. I'm not saying Ron Paul does this intentionally as part of some master plan. He may be a true Constitutionalist after all and just likes to hang out with people like Lew Rockwell. It's just that he happens to serve that function very well. Look at yourself. But I think once you come to your senses, you must move on. You must realize the State is illegitimate and you must withdraw your consent. Otherwise, you continue to feed the same beast you want to destroy. It is counterproductive.
@DD5, I'm still not entirely convinced we should abandon the political process completely. I understand the problems of government and would much rather make do without it. However, my thoughts regarding it is not to get into a public seat as a way of consenting with the process, but instead, as a means to disrupting the process entirely. As I asked before, if we got enough Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists into public seats couldn't we then deal a heavy blow to the State?
freeradicals:As I asked before, if we got enough Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists into public seats couldn't we then deal a heavy blow to the State?
This makes no sense. If you could get that many libertarians into office, then this is obviously begging the question. Can you guess what the question is?
After reading that article I see more clearly now the futility of attempting to change the system by participating in it. My thoughts about how to bring about change are as follows:
1) Education: Start aggressively educating people about the corruption of government and special interests. You slowly build up a group of like-minded libertarians who will scold any politician who appeals to special interests.
2) Actively build up competing alternatives to Government WHILE continually harassing it with campaign that reveal its true nature. The alternatives I considered fell in line with those proposed in the article.
3) Some government-competing alternatives I thought of were:
3a) Gather enough wealth to buy out land from an existing weak State and start our own country with all the free-market principals in place from the start. Hopefully enough people will join the country and build up the capital to afford enough private security forces to protect us from the the original or other States, optimally at this point we would still be seen as a "nobody" and be ignored until we are big enough to reach the tipping point and not be stopped. 3b) This would be much harder but ultimately colonizing another planet far enough out of reach of Earth to prevent existing States from interfering. This to me is more fantasy than fiction but perhaps one day become a reality. The seafaring city-states idea is much more plausible.
I thought if you had a nice blend of all the steps we could achieve our goals. Political activism would be only a cog in the overall machine. However, it seems that the consensus here is that it's futile and we should focus only on building up alternatives. Isn't that right DD5, Sieben?
I am not advocating that the political process as a means to an end. I'm simply saying that if it came down to it, if he launched a campaign, I would support him and vote for him. If we could force the state to fall without violence, why not?
Do you think Walter Block is being inconsistent with his support? Has he addressed this?
freeradicals: After reading that article I see more clearly now the futility of attempting to change the system by participating in it. My thoughts about how to bring about change are as follows: 1) Education: Start aggressively educating people about the corruption of government and special interests. You slowly build up a group of like-minded libertarians who will scold any politician who appeals to special interests. 2) Actively build up competing alternatives to Government WHILE continually harassing it with campaign that reveal its true nature. The alternatives I considered fell in line with those proposed in the article. 3) Some government-competing alternatives I thought of were: 3a) Gather enough wealth to buy out land from an existing weak State and start our own country with all the free-market principals in place from the start. Hopefully enough people will join the country and build up the capital to afford enough private security forces to protect us from the the original or other States, optimally at this point we would still be seen as a "nobody" and be ignored until we are big enough to reach the tipping point and not be stopped. 3b) This would be much harder but ultimately colonizing another planet far enough out of reach of Earth to prevent existing States from interfering. This to me is more fantasy than fiction but perhaps one day become a reality. The seafaring city-states idea is much more plausible. I thought if you had a nice blend of all the steps we could achieve our goals. Political activism would be only a cog in the overall machine. However, it seems that the consensus here is that it's futile and we should focus only on building up alternatives. Isn't that right DD5, Sieben?
Have you checked out freestateproject.org? I am convinced this is our best hope for liberty.
BTW, a big welcome.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
freeradicals:@liberty student, I don't believe we are claiming that voting is the only meaningful action we can take. It is another tool in our toolbox that we can use to advance our cause. Ron Paul uses his public position to amplify his message, would you say what he has done wasn't worth it?
What he has done is never pass any meaningful legislation and never won higher office than the Congress, where he tries to have as little impact as possible. Because American culture is obsessed with media and politics, this gives him a platform, but let's not pretend it was intentional that Ron Paul harnessed the internet, because I was involved in the summer of 2007, and they were not running any sort of campaign to accomplish anything except the usual educational thing, and even that they couldn't comprehend the scale of. In fact, there was a good chance RP was going to drop out after NH.
What drove his campaign was activism, not political power or a great strategy from the top. It was driven by grassroots enthusiasm and the internet.
If Ron Paul is a reason to vote, then people miss the point that a great many people who pushed Ron Paul as far as he went, never cast a ballot in his name. There was no need to. The results were secondary to the message.
The Ron Paul thing already has a full head of steam. Pick a new strategy, a new way to make progress because a movement dependent on Paul, dies with Paul.
I have said it before. Voting is a waste of time. The chance of your vote meaning anything is tiny. If you want to politic, run for office or support a campaign. I do not however think that voluntaryism is compatible with politics, so voluntaryists who politic will have a tough time defending their principles.
@freeradicals,
I see a peaceful secessionist movement as the only hope to ever achieve liberty. This is introduced here in this wonderful piece by Hoppe:
http://mises.org/daily/2874
freeradicals: You slowly build up a group of like-minded libertarians who will scold any politician who appeals to special interests.
you see, I have a problem with this position. It implies that it is theoretically possible for politicians not to appeal to special interests. That is not the case.
All government activity amounts to a zero-sum game. One always gains only at the expense of another. It is therefore not possible to have a government that does not appeal to special interests. When someone says he doesn't approve of special interests, he is basically saying that he doesn't approve of this group or that group, but there are other special interest groups that he does approve off.
DD5, well put. The issue becomes a battle over which special interest is more powerful, instead of recognizing that the institution of the state is fundamentally immoral. If libertarians want to position themselves as special interests to contest who holds the reins of power, then it will be impossible to achieve statelessness.
Though I would prefer whatever works or happens earlier, do you guys expect us to succeed from a state such as the one we have now, or do you expect for us to abolish a smaller more limited government?
It just depends on if there are enough people willing to disobey bad laws, including taxations.