If we want to speed up the transition to anarcho-capitalism quicker wouldn't it be a much better idea to speed up the collapse of the state? I know a lot of people on here support Dr. Paul for president but I would say all he'd be able to do is save statism from itself prolonging the initial end of the state. Wouldn't it be better to just let Obama or some neocon take office and let them spend the state into extinction?
In the meantime, we can use alternative currencies as exchange and live off our own self-reliance as the state crumbles.
Well, if someone supports Ron Paul because they think he's going to "rescue" the State, I think they're supporting him for the wrong reason and misunderstand his true purpose. As for "speeding" the collapse of the State, the best way to do that is to press always against the State, not "let it have its way." However, this can only successfully be done through fully understanding that politics per se will never end the State... that is, signing up to be a player in the Grand Ripoff and try to out rip the rippers-off is not only the wrong strategy, it is simply an attempt to become the State. Almost every political action group without exception is not interested in eliminating the State - even most of those who say they are - rather, they interested in eliminating this State and implementing their own. That's why the only credible anti-State position is the wholly anti-State position.
Clayton -
Nah, they'll chalk it up as a loss for "extremism" and then aim for "moderation."
Remember, the Soviet Union collapsed, but the ideas behind it - hardly.
Maybe for people who will be born in 20, 50 or 100 years. But I have my own life to live. I'm not a martyr to some libertarian 'cause'. For that reason, any reduction in state intervention is beneficial to me, even if in the long-term (i.e. over centuries) this prevents a collapse of centralized state power.
Freedom4Me73986: If we want to speed up the transition to anarcho-capitalism quicker wouldn't it be a much better idea to speed up the collapse of the state? I know a lot of people on here support Dr. Paul for president but I would say all he'd be able to do is save statism from itself prolonging the initial end of the state. Wouldn't it be better to just let Obama or some neocon take office and let them spend the state into extinction? In the meantime, we can use alternative currencies as exchange and live off our own self-reliance as the state crumbles.
Carry this whole thing through though. Anarchy depends on how you enter it. Entering it in panic and collapse would be a bad thing. It would result in death and fear. Thus would anarchy evermore be known. Better to get to a minarchic state or voluntarize taxes. Going to anarchy this way will not result in anarcho-capitalism but just another state.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
Going to anarchy this way will not result in anarcho-capitalism but just another state.
Won't happen. After the people are free and have a totally free market who would allow slavery to return?
If one wished to advance liberty the most then one would attempt to make sure that there was as much libertarian activism as possible with as much little libertarian action as possible and as much statist action as possible in order to eventually have a huge outburst of libertarian sentiment and action, prefferably augmented by a breakdown of the state.
Almost everyone would clamour for the revival of the state - just as they support it today. What is required to prevent this is a general spirit of liberalism across society. This certainly does not exist at the moment.
Freedom4Me73986: Going to anarchy this way will not result in anarcho-capitalism but just another state. Won't happen. After the people are free and have a totally free market who would allow slavery to return?
You seem to think that all of America thinks that anarcho-capitalism is a desirable outcome. They don't. The whole secure-property free-market society would not just emerge instantly from the ashes of catastrophe. It would take more time than the statist mob would permit.
Ludwig von Mises's motto is appropriate, here: Tu Ne Cede Malis ... do not yield to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it. To "give in" to the State is the wrong answer. We should never give in, we should be giving the State hell to the greatest extent we are able.
And I want to underline what Aristippus said that nobody is going to accomplish anything as some martyr to a "greater cause". All the gains we make for freedom are what they are. It's like a business that says it will continue to take losses because doing so will bring profits faster. This is insanity. The business ought at all times to avoid losses and seek profits. As liberals, we ought always to avoid losses of liberty and morality and always to seek their furtherance.
Aristippus: Almost everyone would clamour for the revival of the state - just as they support it today. What is required to prevent this is a general spirit of liberalism across society. This certainly does not exist at the moment.
I agree. If people don't have the right perception of the free market, they will just demand for statism again. In fact, the state would say that in order to prevent a grand failure from happening again, they should institute more regulation than before.
Clayton: Ludwig von Mises's motto is appropriate, here: Tu Ne Cede Malis ... do not yield to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it. To "give in" to the State is the wrong answer. We should never give in, we should be giving the State hell to the greatest extent we are able. And I want to underline what Aristippus said that nobody is going to accomplish anything as some martyr to a "greater cause". All the gains we make for freedom are what they are. It's like a business that says it will continue to take losses because doing so will bring profits faster. This is insanity. The business ought at all times to avoid losses and seek profits. As liberals, we ought always to avoid losses of liberty and morality and always to seek their furtherance. Clayton -
The establishment of a free society depends on education. That education would be harmed by a collapse. The turmoil would be blamed on anarchy. People would then think that anarchy should never again happen. Immediate abolition of the state is not good for anarchy. Clayton you probably know best of all how the hegelian dialectic works with social engineering. Think of what would happen should anarchy occur. If the state were re-established, which it would be, the people would clutch desperately to it forever.
What makes you think so? Who would chose violent monopoly over peaceful voluntary markets?
Freedom4Me73986: Almost everyone would clamour for the revival of the state - just as they support it today. What is required to prevent this is a general spirit of liberalism across society. This certainly does not exist at the moment. What makes you think so? Who would chose violent monopoly over peaceful voluntary markets?
EVERYONE. PROOF: ASK ANYONE RIGHT NOW.
Have you read Etienne de la Boetie, Discourse on Voluntary Servitude? You'll find the answer there.
I'm talking about after the state collapses. After statism is over and we're living in a voluntary free market society WHO would want to go back to statism?
I don't have time to read books by socialist anarchists.
What makes you say that he's socialist? If you really are that lazy, at least download the mises.org edition and read pp. 34-38 of Rothbard's introduction to the work. Or is Rothbard a socialist anarchist too?
Boetie socialist, lol. There wasn't even such a thing as "socialism" when Boetie wrote. They really couldn't have comprehended the idea in the 16th century!
Still I don't care what the man said. We need to look at this realistically. If Ron Paul is elected he'll just strip the state down to its bare constitutional form not abolish it. If his small gov. plans succeed then more people will be less willing to go along w/ anarcho-capitalism since they'll have such a rosy view of the state so as long as its small. This is a problem. I'd rather see the state spend its way to hell and watch the public demand anarcho-capitalism.
You are an anti-social personality, that much is clear.
This all seems to be a religious movement to the OP. On the side of good is anarcho-capitalism, individualism, and primitivism, and on the side of evil is statism, collectivism (which to him is any kind of social interaction), and civilization (oddly enough). We must launch a crusade to rid the world of evil, sacrificing all for this lofty goal!
Have a read of Max Stirner, and banish the spooks.
+1 Aristippus
Enough with Star Wars morality. The world is a vibrant place full of lush and amazing lifeforms, diverse peoples and more sights, sounds and other sensations than any one could absorb in 100 lifetimes. The whole world spins in almost complete harmony with itself, including the vast, vast majority of human interactions. The anti-social pessimists focus their entire minds on the unharmonious aspects of human life and, for whatever ends they have, blow these into gargantuan proportion so as to make it seem that humanity is destructive, parasitic, and inherently vicious towards each other and their own environment.
Read Bastiat's Economic Harmonies. Almost everything humans do is in harmony with one another. Comic book morality is caveman morality. It needs to go away.
The OP makes concessions to Statism. A true Anarcho-Capitalist always wants to decrease the State, and would never argue for an increase thereof. There is a Good vs. Evil battle, and the OP appears to be advocating the latter!
you are naive, my friend, and do not understand the true nature of the state and its cause. No offence. Statism is in peoples' minds. After the so called "collapse" new states arises, not free market. Free market is the idea, which must be taught to people. You can't have free market after collapse of any coercive system. When slaves were freed in US, did it turn into free market, or just the government changed its form subtly and made people believe, that they are free, when in fact, we ALL became "equal slaves" of the State?
Just like Wheylous rightly said, after Soviet Union nothing really changed much... Yeah, less death and famine, but the problem wasn't solved at all. State even increased.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Clayton: As liberals anarcho-libertarians, we ought always to avoid losses of liberty and morality and always to seek their furtherance. Clayton -
As liberals anarcho-libertarians, we ought always to avoid losses of liberty and morality and always to seek their furtherance.
Nice said, Clayton, but I slightly edited it. :)
Well, if someone supports Ron Paul because they think he's going to "rescue" the State, I think they're supporting him for the wrong reason and misunderstand his true purpose. As for "speeding" the collapse of the State, the best way to do that is to press always against the State, not "let it have its way."
Best thing Ron Paul can do is not the winning, and this is the important lesson which too few people understand. As Ron Paul's popularity rises his ideas are spreading. It's completely irrelevant how much Ron could do in offce, because people are statists and hate free markets. Too many people would want to get their big government back if he cuts some parts of it. I think most anarcho-capitalist/libertarians are too impatient. We are not going to get the Libertopia in 5 or 20 or even in 50 years in the mainland(Seasteading lol).
I think we should follow Ron Paul even more - let's go to the GOP. Even though their leadership loves big government like the liberals, past years have proved that there is people who like free markets and hate war. I know that most an-caps won't do it because they can't handle of not being able to talk about privatizing the police, leaving the Hitler alone or legalizing heroin 24/7. But if people in GOP start to like Hayek, Mises and even Rothbard, first through their economic arguments, then their ideas will win. Yes, most radical libertarians think that you should always act like a 100% an-cap, but I think that is a stupid strategy. Socialists went to the democrats in early 1900's and liberals to the GOP in the late 1900's as neocons and those were majos successes. We must get the average GOP-grassroots to love Mises.
After the people are free and have a totally free market who would allow slavery to return?
Enter 19th century America :P
Best thing Ron Paul can do is not the winning, and this is the important lesson which too few people understand. As Ron Paul's popularity rises his ideas are spreading
RP himself repeatedly says this as well. +1
I do believe that the GOP (especially young GOP) is ripe for the picking (maybe 10% of young GOP, which is still an amazing number).
Yes indeed. But libertarians must learn to tolerate utilitiarists, neo-cons and even - - - minarchists, if they want to get connect with people. We say that we know the economics but it doesn't reflect to the real life. GOP people like free market-ideas and have demand for them, and we are supplying them with prostitution and drugs. Isn't it suprise that they hate libertarians?
Your not getting me. Free markets have never existed in history after civilization and the state were established.
But libertarians must learn to tolerate utilitiarists, neo-cons and even - - - minarchists
Do you mean utilitarians? Because many libertarians are utilitarians.
Neo cons? Incomplatible with libertarian principles.
Minarchists I can definitely deal with, because of the greatly reduced state and the high probability of converting them. I mean, look at Anenome, the self-described minarchist who is essentially an AnCap (doesn't support involuntary taxation).
F4M: It's the closest we've ever gotten.
I am guessing that the easiest way to get the GOP to switch over is to create a few reductios that show that if the government is fine regulating one thing, they might as well regulate another and another. If Social Security is fine, then so is welfare, unemployment, socialized health care, etc. If the government can control education, then it can preach against God and creationism and the family. If the government can start wars then it's OK for them to tax you to do much more stuff.
"I don't have time to read books by socialist anarchists."
"Still I don't care what the man said."
You just lost my respect entirely. You are not an educated person, you are a dogmatist, it's people like you who give libertarianism a bad name.
To play devil's advocate here (I'm honestly unsure personally), why the GOP? Why not attract disillusioned Democrats on war (both drug, Iraq and Afghanistan), civil liberties and Kevin Carson/Roderick Long's ideas? I'll bet some of the Old Left could even be swayed by Keith Preston. Is it because the Republicans are out of Presidential (not House nor Senatorial) power?
The desire to get back into power is a good way to activate Republicans. The problem with getting Democrats is that they are generally not as pro free market as the GOP (and I realize that neither is actually for the free market, but the GOP leans more). Plus, taxes strike closer to home. It's tough to shape your political ideas around foreign policy and then translate them to domestic policy. Yet deriving the NAP for domestic policy makes it easy to apply it to foreign policy.
I feel like Democrats, and this is a huge generalization that probably applies to the younger part, have a stronger sense of injustice in the world than Republicans. Republicans think America is hunky-dory and that we don't need change and getcher hands out of my pocket. Democrats are trying to build an extraordinary future. It is this idealism that I think makes liberals just as good candidates for conversion as Republicans. Republicans get free markets, but just barely. Democrats get civil liberties, peace, equality. Republicans not so much. It is more that Democrats are just miseducated about economics and history but their hearts seem to be in a better place. Republicans largely take a similar historical understanding and yet still arrive at a corporate-war state ideology. These are all blanket generalizations but I feel there is a grain of truth to it.
@Jargon: I see it a bit more cynically.
There is an age-old conflict between the Prince and the nobility. The nobility are "overhead" from the Prince's point-of-view... they retain a great deal of the wealth they steal from the masses in the Prince's name. Yet, without them, the Prince could never achieve such extraorindary levels of expropriation. They are his enablers. The nobility, in turn, deeply resent the Prince's constant violation of their "property rights", that is, his arbitrary and capricious demands of them, his new and often secret laws, his arbitrary justice, his "windfall" taxes, and so on. Yet, without the Prince, they would have no one in whose name they may rightfully seize the property of the masses by Divine Right. So, they need the Prince and no one noble can stand up to the Prince because each noble needs the Prince far more than the Prince needs him.
The Republicans are the party of the nobility, that is, the monied class, the business class. The Democrats are the party of the central power, the party of the Prince himself. The Democrats would rather have the State "insource" all its activities... the Republicans want the opposite. This is a reflection of the respective interests of the members of the parties. Democrats on Main Street are generally people who "believe in" government in a very whole-hearted sense. This is a microcosmic reflection of the core belief of the Democratic party leadership: the Divine Right of the State to Collect Taxes and Spend on Whatever it Pleases.
The monied class are those pesky people the State must tolerate in order to collect taxes and enforce its will. Without them, the State would collapse, unable to expropriate the public at the grandiose levels it achieves today. Similarly, the monied class hates the constant violations of their property rights by the State but they know, deep down, that they are inseparable from the State and wholly dependent upon it. They could not have perpetually favorable terms of employment, restricted competition, sweetheart contracts and legal advantages of every variety without the activity of the State, its central bank, its enforcement arms and its courts.
That said, the nobility have always been less vicious than royalty because their titles have always depended on an extent to their own entrepreneurial involvement in the capital value of their estates. Unlike royalty, plunder is only part of what the nobility do, the other part represents a modicum of genuine productivity, entrepreneurial investment and speculation, capital preservation and insurance, and so on. The royals are parasites par excellance. It is all they do, it is their exclusive source of wealth. Hence, on a scale of evil, the nobility are clearly less evil than the royals.
While the distinction is less strong, the same thing can be said of the Republicans versus the Democrats (party leadership, sitting politicians and their surrounding lobbyist ecosystems). The Republicans represent the monied class which - while they definitely drink from the same tax fountain as the Democrats - still at least engages in some real productivity, entrepreneurial investment, etc. Their property is not exclusively the proceeds of theft and parasitism. They have at least a modicum of legitimate interest in their property.
Finally, as a closing caveat, I want to note that I'm using the terms "Republican" and "Democrat" not to refer to the simple label of a voter or politician but, rather, to refer to what people perceive to be Republican and Democrat kinds of things. I believe there is a rhyme and reason to why "Republican" is that which is generally associated with private-sector while Democrat is that which is generally associated with public-sector.
Yes, it was a spelling mistake.
Neo cons? Incomplatible with libertarian principles. Minarchists I can definitely deal with, because of the greatly reduced state and the high probability of converting them.
Minarchists I can definitely deal with, because of the greatly reduced state and the high probability of converting them.
I meant that we must learn to tolerate them. When I'm reading some conservative forums many Ron Paul-fans are attacking free market-leaning neo-cons/conservatives and the neo-cons start to call them commies. Not a very wise strategy, isn't it? I think it depends a little bit about individual, but I personally would approach GOP-people first with just economics and not about war. War is really expensive and horrible, but we should first brand ourselves as a free market-people. If enough many libertarians would do this, GOP-supporters would start to grow a trust to the names of Hayek and Mises and everything would get much easier after that. Ron Paul movement is doing it already, but I think we should really start to push Mises to the other conservatives too. I mean, who Republican/Tea partier would not love the economic calculation problem?
I feel like Democrats, and this is a huge generalization that probably applies to the younger part, have a stronger sense of injustice in the world than Republicans. [...] Democrats get civil liberties, peace, equality.
I thought that myself when I wrote that libertarians don't know how to answer to the demand. To the Republicans many libertarians talk about prostitution and to the Democrats about ending state welfare. It should be the opposite. But with the Democrats I see many problems that GOP don't have - Global warming, green movement, hate against free markters etc. Maybe focusing to the Democrats may be good for one who likes to talk more about drug legalization than the minimum wage, but these are the personal choises. Main idea is still, spread the message.
I think us libertarians, capitalist and socialist, should unite in the realization that collapse often results in despotism.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin