Walter Block says:
Walter Block:I distinguish between being a libertarian, and agreeing with (virtually all) libertarian principles. The former implies that you act so as to promote liberty. The latter means that you agree with these principles, and, may, perhaps, as in her case at present, act against them. I have no doubt that Wendy [McElroy] is a libertarian in the second sense. Her whole adult life gives amply testimony to that fact. She believes in the libertarian message, fervently. She defends it, brilliantly. She extends it, creatively. But, as far as acting so as to promote liberty, her trashing of Dr. Ron Paul’s candidacy gives the lie to that. Belief is necessary, but not sufficient, for being a libertarian. Wendy passes the first test, but not the second.
In another article, about Stefan Molyneux, Block refers uses scare quotes around the word ‘libertarian’, implying that Molyneux’s actions, in this case his opposition to getting involved in politics, make him not a libertarian, despite fully agreeing with libertarian principles.
Finally, in this email exchange with a high school kid, Block implies that his correspondent is a statist, regardless of his libertarian views, if he does not apply for a state subsidy, on the basis that applying for a state subsidy undermines and weakens the state.
I don't like the way Block expands the meaning of the word libertarian to include people’s actions to promote liberty in addition to just agreeing with libertarian principles. I believe it is needlessly confusing to impart this additional meaning to it, and unhelpful and divisive to start calling people like Molyneux and McElroy “not libertarians” because they do not act (entirely) in a way that Block believes “promotes liberty”. It assumes that the best way to promote liberty is already known.
Can’t two people with identical political-philosophical ideas/values/beliefs both retain the label ‘libertarian’ even though they disagree about what promotes liberty and what doesn’t?
(Note: I am Block's side in all three of these debates... I only object to his labelling his opponents as non-libertarians for disagreeing with him on these questions of strategy.)
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
Block doesn't give me the warm-fuzzies. For example, his most notable book Defending the Undefendable clearly misses the mark when it upholds people like pimps as not only good businessmen but suggesting they should be viewed as oppressed and heroic. I respect the right of pimps or other peddlers of vices to do business. But, at the same time, I recognize their existence as reflective of a corrosive or unhealthy element within society.
Throughout history, prostitution has always been officially forbidden while unofficially tolerated. I think there is a good reason for this duplicity, namely, that the casual promotion of prostituion as if it were just another brand of bubble gum would have a corrosive and unhealthy effect on the social order. I think people sense this and I think that this explains why advertising prostitution has always been difficult even where its existence is unofficially tolerated.
Nevertheless, I think that the unofficial toleration of prostitution plays a crucial role in the "balance of power" between the sexes in the marital union. The woman holds all the power in the bedroom and, as ugly as the reality of it is, the ever-present threat of defection to a lover or a prostitute is the necessary check on the abuse of that power. In the absence of that check, the woman's power in the monogamous relationship becomes overwhelming.This is why the "pro-choice" feminists become suddenly and paradoxically anti-choice when it comes to prostitution. They understand that there is a causal relationship in operation here.
But - like all central-planning measures - this one, too, fails. Instead of the desired outcome (women holding absolute sway in monogamous relationships), what you get is an explosion in the divorce rate as men flee the shackles of such emotionally and sexually unbalanced relationships and the marriage rate sharply drops. In combination with our frenetic divorce law, I think this is the root cause of the increase in the divorce rate and decline in the marriage rate. Why would any man in his right mind willingly sign up for a situation in which the woman holds all the cards: legal, economic, sexual, emotional? Women are finding that they have an extremely difficult time attracting decent men into such a relationship with them but this shouldn't be surprising.
Anyway, I got side-tracked - the issue is that while prostitution certainly plays a role in the social order, this role has always been relegated to the shadows and I think it is the height of hubris to throw out millenia of human attitudes regarding the proper place of prostitution in society (the shadows) and, instead, trumpet its peddlers as some kind of virtuous, heroic defenders of free markets and human rights. I think Block can be a bit of a one-string banjo sometimes.
Clayton -
This is just a bunch of political infighting.
Just as liberals and conservatives often eat their own on key issues (think Obama and Romney respectively) now we see libertarians trying to take away other libertarian's "libertarian card."
Serious business.
libertarians trying to take away other libertarian's libertarian card
Actually, Block holds no position of authority within any kind of political structure so he really can't take away cards or block anyone's opportunities for advancement.
And I think that - within the LvMI orbit - the libertarian movement is more about ideas than it is about organization. The politics really don't matter, what matters are the ideas and the ideas are moving forward and spreading like wildfire not only in the US but around the globe. This is Mises' revenge, his Magnum Opus.
Eh, the whole thing is up to definitions which change with every individual. According to the dictionary someone labeled as a "liberal" or "libertarian" can merely constitute an advocate of either thing, rather than one who actually acts upon these impulses. In practice, however, this is something that's going to change based upon who you talk to. In my book you're a libertarian if you would flip a switch and replace our world with a libertarian one, not if you go just short of terrorism for the cause.
With all this said, does it really matter?
Clayton:Block doesn't give me the warm-fuzzies. For example, his most notable book Defending the Undefendable clearly misses the mark when it upholds people like pimps as not only good businessmen but suggesting they should be viewed as oppressed and heroic. I respect the right of pimps or other peddlers of vices to do business. But, at the same time, I recognize their existence as reflective of a corrosive or unhealthy element within society. ... [T]he issue is that while prostitution certainly plays a role in the social order, this role has always been relegated to the shadows and I think it is the height of hubris to throw out millenia of human attitudes regarding the proper place of prostitution in society (the shadows) and, instead, trumpet its peddlers as some kind of virtuous, heroic defenders of free markets and human rights. I think Block can be a bit of a one-string banjo sometimes.
...
[T]he issue is that while prostitution certainly plays a role in the social order, this role has always been relegated to the shadows and I think it is the height of hubris to throw out millenia of human attitudes regarding the proper place of prostitution in society (the shadows) and, instead, trumpet its peddlers as some kind of virtuous, heroic defenders of free markets and human rights. I think Block can be a bit of a one-string banjo sometimes.
That seems like a strawman of Block. He explains it pretty clearly in the intro...
Block:How, then, can we defend the immoral activities of some market actors? This stems from the philosophy of libertarianism, which is limited to analyzing one single problem. It asks, under what conditions is violence justified? And it answers, violence is justified only for purposes of defense, or in response to prior aggression, or in retaliation against it. This means, among other things, that government is not justified in fining, punishing, incarcerating, imposing death penalties on people who act in an immoral manner—as long as they refrain from threatening or initiating physical violence on the persons or property of others. Libertarianism, then, is not a philosophy of life. It does not presume to indicate how mankind may best live. It does not set out the boundaries between the good and the bad, between the moral and the immoral, between propriety and impropriety. The defense of such as the prostitute, pornographer, etc., is thus a very limited one. It consists solely of the claim that they do not initiate physical violence against nonaggressors. Hence, according to libertarian principles, none should be visited upon them. This means only that these activities should not be punished by jail sentences or other forms of violence. It decidedly does not mean that these activities are moral, proper, or good.
The defense of such as the prostitute, pornographer, etc., is thus a very limited one. It consists solely of the claim that they do not initiate physical violence against nonaggressors. Hence, according to libertarian principles, none should be visited upon them. This means only that these activities should not be punished by jail sentences or other forms of violence. It decidedly does not mean that these activities are moral, proper, or good.
He does not defend them because they are "virtuous, heroic defenders of free markets and human rights". The book is a celebration of the market. It talks about how, even despite the state's best efforts, individual actors are finding a way round those interventions to provide goods and services desired by their fellow man. The state just can't hold down the market. Where there's a demand, the market will find a way to supply it.
If he does call pimps, prostitutes, etc, "heroic" he means it only in the sense that any market participant is heroic... they are supplying something someone else needs. And the actors in these professions do so despite the larger costs, risks, etc, they face due to their activities being illegal.
Unless you can't provide a quote to trump mine, I'm with Block on this one. I like his book.
I agree with this, and also with Block's assessment of Molyneux. Action is a necessary condition for being a libertarian in any meaningful sense.
This whole "being" a libertarian stuff doesn't appeal to me at all. I'm a libertarian because I best identify my ideal society with that which functions according to libertarian principles. The important part is, it's a comparison - a mere preference for one system over others. Furthermore, I don't think libertarinism is an end in itself. Peace, prosperity, justice - these are things I value, and I think libertarianism is the best means to achieve such things. Of course, what I mean by justice, peace, prosperity, and how I value them in comparison to other things are questions that demand elaboration, but I hope my over-arching point is made.
I think I can easily claim to be a libertarian and accept state aid. It's an acknowledgment that living my life in a way in which I cease to take any state aid is not only a practical impossibility, but does little to harm the state in any significant way. And even if I were wrong about the latter part of my statement (which I may very well be), that's a matter of strategy, and has little to do with how I identify my intellectual positions.
I value my libertarinism strongly, such that I will do my best to live my life according to libertarian principles. But, in the same way that I'd hardly harshly condemn a mother stealing from a billionare to feed her starving children, if I were in a position in which accepting state aid was the only way to feed my family, I would probably do it. Of course, this is a loaded situation, where a lot more factors are to be considered (how did I get in the position I'm in, etc.), but my point is, I do think there are times when stealing is not immoral (mostly because there are positions in which I admittedly would do it). I'd prefer no one have to steal, and I'd prefer there to be voluntary measures to help people instead of state aid (mainly because state aid most likely implies all the other, much more despicable things a state does), and I think statelessness can lead us to a society in which this is possiible. That's why I'm a libertarian.
I wrote this on the fly, so let me know if you guys have any criticisms.
Action is a necessary condition for being a libertarian in any meaningful sense.
And what would be your definition of "meaningful" in this statement?
What's required for me to label another person a libertarian.
The criteria that you have to meet for me personally to use that word to describe you is that you understand libertarianism and do something to advance it. I'm not saying that anyone who disagrees with my personal strategy for action isn't a libertarian - I'm merely saying that one must have some strategy for action. Those quietists who refuse on principle to take any action to advance the cause are not libertarians in my opinion. There's no sense in arguing about what a libertarian really is, the meaning of words is arbitrary. So essentially my claim amounts to the following: I have no respect for and do not group myself in the same category ("libertarian") with those who understand the philosophy but refuse to do anything to advance it. I hold them in contempt.
But that's just me...
I'm merely saying that one must have some strategy for action.
If you don't specify strategies you think are unnacceptable, then I think your definition of libertarianism probably doesn't exclude many people. I say this, because I doubt many will admit to having no strategy for advancing liberty if you let them define the word "strategy."
Minarchist, would you say that reaching out to non-libertarians is doing something that advances libertarianism?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
"I agree with this, and also with Block's assessment of Molyneux. Action is a necessary condition for being a libertarian in any meaningful sense."
The definition is fair for whatever it's worth, but I'd be willing to bet that Stefan Molyneux has done more to spread libertarianism than Walter Block ever has.
@NonAntiAnarchist, Malachi, and Autolykos
I do think spreading libertarian ideas is important, of course. However, when I say "action" I mean political action. I don't believe there is any way to actually create a (more) libertarian society other than through political action. I have no problem with people practicing "counter-economics," that's great, but I don't see it as a realistic strategy.
@Neodoxy
Evangelically apolitical libertarians (to coin a phrase) like Molyneux do more harm than good in a certain sense. Sure, they spread the ideas, but they also spread their disdain for political action, which I consider very harmful indeed. We have enough trouble fighting the political establishment, we don't need "resistance from behind," as the song says.
I also don't like the distinction between libertarian beliefs and action. It smacks of the Christian distinction between praxis and doxa. Yuck.
Nevertheless, the most effective action anyone can take against the status quo order is originary secession, which is a purely mental act. "I hereby resolve only to obey the government's statutes out of prudence and never out of conscience." From this simple mental act, the rest of your life becomes nothing but a weapon of anti-government action, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Everything you do is automatically set against the government because you are doing it on the basis of your interests and the interests of your family and friends, rather than out of a sense of duty to "the State." The details don't matter. Live your life however you think best and - once you have mentally seceded from the State order - your every action is automatically dead set against the State.
This whole "being" a libertarian stuff doesn't appeal to me at all. I'm a libertarian because I best identify my ideal society with that which functions according to libertarian principles. The important part is, it's a comparison - a mere preference for one system over others. Furthermore, I don't think libertarinism is an end in itself.
Right, it's a useful structure in extant society that reflects the consequences of how we view the world. "Libertarianism" is merely a convienet "tool" / rallying point to help reflect how one deals with ideas and actions in the current socio-political climate. It is not a "thing in itself".
I think the recognition of this fact would point to what are probably some of the greatest strengths of this political outlook that lead people to liberterianism in the 1st place
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
@Clayton,
"I hereby resolve only to obey the government's statutes out of prudence and never out of conscience." ...your every action is automatically dead set against the State.
How does continuing to obey the State (but secretly doing it out of prudence rather than conscience) change anything? I mean, I do this, we should all do this, obey only under duress, but it's no strategy for moving things in a libertarian direction.
obey only under duress [is] no strategy for moving things in a libertarian direction.
That's only because you overestimate how much caution is really necessary to avoid the State's punishments. ;-)
I do think spreading libertarian ideas is important, of course. However, when I say "action" I mean political action. I don't believe there is any way to actually create a (more) libertarian society other than through political action.
1.) Can you show me an instance in American History where this has worked? Can you show any significant step(s) towards liberty and away from state power in the past 150 years?
2.) This makes me question how you view the state. Is the state a good institution being run the wrong way? Do you regard politics as being a battle of ideas, or a battle public relations? What is your strategy for changing the state form within? How could this happen?
I always thought the analogy of the state to a mafia was quite accurate. So, the idea of working within the mafia to change the mafia has always sounded silly to me.
the idea of working within the mafia to change the mafia has always sounded silly to me.
+1!
Minarchist:I do think spreading libertarian ideas is important, of course. However, when I say "action" I mean political action. I don't believe there is any way to actually create a (more) libertarian society other than through political action. I have no problem with people practicing "counter-economics," that's great, but I don't see it as a realistic strategy.
Well, why is that? I'd appreciate a more in-depth explanation.
Can you show me an instance in American History where this has worked? Can you show any significant step(s) towards liberty and away from state power in the past 150 years?
There are many examples where bills that would have expanded the power of the State have been defeated. There are fewer examples where existing State powers have been abolished. But, yes, the statists have obviously been winning. However, that in no way proves that political action is futile, no more than it proves the futility of other, non-political strategies that have likewise failed to halt or reverse the growth of the State.
This makes me question how you view the state. Is the state a good institution being run the wrong way? Do you regard politics as being a battle of ideas, or a battle public relations? What is your strategy for changing the state form within? How could this happen?
It is a bad institution which should be eliminated. There are two logically possible ways of eliminating it: from within or from without. From within means through political action. From without means either violent revolution or something like civil disobedience or counter-economics. I think we all recognize that, even if it were morally acceptable, violent revolution is impossible given the resources which the State has at its disposal. Civil disobedience and counter-economics can be useful IMO, but only when joined with political action. Is politics a battle of ideas or a battle of public relations? The latter, unfortunately. You need a hardcore base that understands the ideas, but the simple fact of the matter is that the masses of voters will never understand the ideas. What is my strategy for political action, for changing the State from within? To continue growing the movement currently led (symbolically anyway) by Ron Paul. To put pro-liberty candidates in office until we have enough power to stop and then reverse the growth of the State. And our movement is growing, rapidly. Our performance this election cycle is orders of magnitude better than in 2008. If we can continue growing at the rate we are, we will have a real chance at winning the Presidency in 2016 - and to put Congressman in office between now and then. But don't get me wrong, I'm not against non-political strategies. I'm for "all of the above," what I'm strongly against is the attitude of those who explicitly reject all political action on principle.
Looking at history, I see polities changing as a result of violent conquest (from without or from within) and I see polities changing from within through the established political processes. I don't recall any instances in which polities changed as a result of non-violent and non-political activities. Sure, such activities have helped build political movements (Indian independence and the civil rights movement, e.g.) but they did not succeed on their own: they required political action as well.
Minarchist:You need a hardcore base that understands the ideas, but the simple fact of the matter is that the masses of voters will never understand the ideas.
Is this a statement of belief or an assertion of truth?
Either way, I for one am not such an elitist.
@Clayton, Looking at history, I see polities changing as a result of violent conquest (from without or from within) and I see polities changing from within through the established political processes. I don't recall any instances in which polities changed as a result of non-violent and non-political activities. Sure, such activities have helped build political movements (Indian independence and the civil rights movement, e.g.) but they did not succeed on their own: they required political action as well.
But this is a result of an overly-narrow definition of "change". Sure, the dramatic upsets have always been the result of violent/political campaigns. But bear in mind that most of the events of human history are not spectacular or dramatic and that most of the written history has been written by court historians, who generally look at the world through political goggles (top-down structure, command-economy, etc.)
On more careful examination, you will find that the character of government is determined by the society that it governs, not the other way around. This is not the result of Rousseau-esque "general will". Rather, it is simply the result of the fact that the telos of the government is economic exploitation, not the remaking of society. In order to exploit the public most effectively, the government must adapt itself to the culture (for example, learn the local language, build a network of contacts among the already socially influential, etc.)
What this indicates is that society already calls the shots and it is merely the character of society which determines how powerful a government can actually be. The Amish are a great example of this. The Amish are the only people in the US that I'm aware of who do not have to pay Social Security tax because they refused to pay it at the outset, on principle. The local governments in regions where there are Amish communities have to have a certain toleration for those communities even though they are essentially alien in their moral and legal practices.
The key to abolition of government is changing hearts and minds - simply exposing the true nature of government and helping people to see that it is an unmitigated evil. The will to political aggregation must eventually reach a terminus and I am highly skeptical that that terminus lies in a single, world government. At some point, this will must break and when it does (whether before or after we've tried a world government "experiment"), the will to secession can begin to assert itself once again. This will be when we will begin to see real political progress towards liberty. But the key to reversing the aggregating tendency in modern politics is to debunk the myth of the State as a wise counselor, moral beacon and nannying governess (cf Sunstein's Nudge) by exposing its true nature as a lawless, misanthropic Mafia, armed to the teeth and with a voracious will to enslave.
Autolykos: Is this a statement of belief or an assertion of truth? Either way, I for one am not such an elitist.
Just look at the track record of populist movements vs. elitist movements.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
Education in itself changes nothing. Change only occurs when there is action. Action can be violent or peaceful. Peaceful action can be political or non-political. Assuming we agree that violent action is unacceptable, our options are political or non-political peaceful action. The State is not an abstraction, it is a group of individuals. Those individuals can choose to change policies or they can be forced to change policies. They are almost all shills for the ruling class, as you know, and they are not going to choose to change policies unless they are threatened with removal from office - and even then, most of them won't change their ways and will have to be actually removed. To remove or credibly threaten to remove politicians from office requires political action. No amount or kind of non-political action will ever remove any politician from office. What about forcing them to change policies? This would be the purpose of civil disobedience, such as refusing to pay taxes. However, I would argue that this is much more difficult than simply voting the politician out of office.*** Thus, political action is our best available option for afffecting political change.
***As I just stated in "Changing the GOP from Within:"
Could your strategy [civil disobedience] succeed? Of course, at some point, if enough people refuse to pay income tax (e.g.) the government would be physically unable to actually enforce collection of the income tax, and that would be the end of it. But there are two issues here: 1) how many people would it take to do that? I don't have any data either, but it seems to me that far more people are required for successful civil disobedience than for successful political action. Just consider how few people actually vote relative the number of potentially eligible voters. It wouldn't take that large a proportion of the adult citizen population to win elections. and, 2) how much harder is it to convince a given number of people to risk federal prison (in the case of refusal to pay income tax) than it is to convince them to take five minutes and vote for a politician who promises to repeal the income tax? Obviously the latter is much easier. Even assuming for the sake of argument that it takes only half as many folks to stage successful civil disobedience as it does to stage successful political action, I'll bet you I can find 20,000 people willing to vote for Ron Paul faster than you can find 10,000 folks willing to risk federal prison by refusing to pay income tax. For that matter, I bet I can find 100,000 of mine before you can find 1,000 of yours.
Could your strategy [civil disobedience] succeed? Of course, at some point, if enough people refuse to pay income tax (e.g.) the government would be physically unable to actually enforce collection of the income tax, and that would be the end of it. But there are two issues here:
1) how many people would it take to do that? I don't have any data either, but it seems to me that far more people are required for successful civil disobedience than for successful political action. Just consider how few people actually vote relative the number of potentially eligible voters. It wouldn't take that large a proportion of the adult citizen population to win elections.
and, 2) how much harder is it to convince a given number of people to risk federal prison (in the case of refusal to pay income tax) than it is to convince them to take five minutes and vote for a politician who promises to repeal the income tax? Obviously the latter is much easier.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that it takes only half as many folks to stage successful civil disobedience as it does to stage successful political action, I'll bet you I can find 20,000 people willing to vote for Ron Paul faster than you can find 10,000 folks willing to risk federal prison by refusing to pay income tax. For that matter, I bet I can find 100,000 of mine before you can find 1,000 of yours.
It is an empirical observation.
Ok, I am.
@Minarchist
I plan to make this very difficult for you!
Education in itself changes nothing.
False. It educates, which is very important.
Change only occurs when there is action. Action can be violent or peaceful. Peaceful action can be political or non-political.
Agreed.
Assuming we agree that violent action is unacceptable, our options are political or non-political peaceful action.
A small quibble - I don't think most people here would say that violent action is unacceptable. I think it's far more likely that they would say that violent action would not necessarily lead to a desirable outcome, whereas it is far more likely that peaceful action would yield a desirable outcome.
The State is not an abstraction, it is a group of individuals. Those individuals can choose to change policies or they can be forced to change policies. They are almost all shills for the ruling class, as you know, and they are not going to choose to change policies unless they are threatened with removal from office - and even then, most of them won't change their ways and will have to be actually removed.
Why would these people be voted out? Wouldn't people have to be educated in order to see that these people need to be gone?
To remove or credibly threaten to remove politicians from office requires political action. No amount or kind of non-political action will ever remove any politician from office.
Clayton has provided a counterexample with the Amish and social security tax. They just simply refuse to pay it. No political action required.
What about forcing them to change policies? This would be the purpose of civil disobedience, such as refusing to pay taxes. However, I would argue that this is much more difficult than simply voting the politician out of office.
The bold contradicts your previous statements, just as Clayton's counterexample does too. Furthermore, how would you argue that it is much more difficult to get results from civil disobedience versus "simply" voting a politician out of office? As the Amish demonstrate, civil disobedience worked quite well for them. They are in the minority. If they had resorted to "simply" voting a politician out of office in regards to social security, they would still be paying it.
Thus, political action is our best available option for afffecting political change.
Too many problems with your premises to be able to state with certainty that this is a true conclusion.
Yes, voters need to be given a reason to vote out the politicians (whether through education or propaganda), but that in itself does nothing - i.e. they have to not only know that the politicians should be voted out, but also actually vote them out: i.e. take political action.
Fair enough, but how reproducible is that result? To get SS tax eliminated nationwide, is it easier to get enough people to refuse to pay or to get enough people to vote accordingly?
Where did I contradict myself exactly? Anyway, political action is simpler because it is easier to convince people to cast a ballot than to risk prison. And anyway, the Amish are a special case, they're tolerated because they're a religious group. Somehow I suspect the feds would be considerably less obliging if an equivalent number of libertarians refused to pay the tax: I think we'd find ourselves in prison in short order.
As I said already, which is easier, convincing folks to vote a certain way or convincing them to risk prison, fines, etc?
If the former is easier, then it should be easier to gather a given number of folks for political action that to gather that same number of folks for civil disobedience, would you agree?
If so, then, suppposing it takes the same number of folks to succeed in either endeavor (which is a generous concession on my part), political action is easier.
Minarchist: Yes, voters need to be given a reason to vote out the politicians (whether through education or propaganda), but that in itself does nothing - i.e. they have to not only know that the politicians should be voted out, but also actually vote them out: i.e. take political action.
Political action is not the only option. Education can lead to political action or civil disobedience. Other than that, I don't disagree with this part.
Minarchist: Fair enough, but how reproducible is that result? To get SS tax eliminated nationwide, is it easier to get enough people to refuse to pay or to get enough people to vote accordingly?
I don't know. Lot's of laws are barely enforced or not enforced at all anymore. In regards to taxes, people already cheat on their taxes (quite a number of people) or don't pay them at all (fewer in this category). Don't forget all the people who pay each other under the table. Whether or not you consider that civil disobedience is up to you, but if people are willing to take these risks without being libertarians, I can only imagine how much more of this would go on if more people were libertarians.
Minarchist: Where did I contradict myself exactly?
Where did I contradict myself exactly?
You said "No amount or kind of non-political action will ever remove any politician from office" and followed it immediately with "What about forcing them to change policies? This would be the purpose of civil disobedience, such as refusing to pay taxes." While it might seem that you have not contradicted yourself as you are talking about removal versus change of policy, civil disobedience has in fact led to the removal of certain politicians, such as when Gandhi had the British removed from India.
Anyway, political action is simpler because it is easier to convince people to cast a ballot than to risk prison.
I disagree. Most people break the law all the time without voting on any particular issue.
And anyway, the Amish are a special case, they're tolerated because they're a religious group.
Begging the question. All sorts of religious groups pay SS tax. The Amish are tolerated because they made it clear they were not going to pay.
Somehow I suspect the feds would be considerably less obliging if an equivalent number of libertarians refused to pay the tax: I think we'd find ourselves in prison in short order.
What about an equivalent percentage? Suppose 100% of libertarians refused? Would America arrest all of them? But it is beside the point. Most people take certain "liberties" when reporting and paying their taxes. Civil disobedience could end up being people just being less subtle about the whole thing. It doesn't have to be an outright refusal to pay all taxes.
Minarchist: As I said already, which is easier, convincing folks to vote a certain way or convincing them to risk prison, fines, etc?
Well, most people already risk getting caught with reporting income accurately and reporting write-offs accurately. And by definition, if you have ever been part of an "under the table" transaction, then you have lied about your taxes and "risk[ed] prisons, fines, etc."
Minarchist: If the former is easier, then it should be easier to gather a given number of folks for political action that to gather that same number of folks for civil disobedience, would you agree?
I think it is probably harder to get people to vote a certain way than to have them disobey laws themselves. Many people are okay with a double standard when it comes to law and taxes. "Oh, taxes should be so high, but I really need the money for such and such, so I won't report this and that."
Minarchist: If so, then, suppposing it takes the same number of folks to succeed in either endeavor (which is a generous concession on my part), political action is easier.
Well, I don't agree, so I don't believe political action is necessarily easier.
@gotlucky
Most people take certain "liberties" when reporting and paying their taxes. Civil disobedience could end up being people just being less subtle about the whole thing. It doesn't have to be an outright refusal to pay all taxes.
This is an important point. If your goal is for more people to not pay tax, or pay less tax, then widespread tax evasion will achieve that to some extent: of course, you still have to convince people to do this and take the risk (which I say is harder than convincing people to vote). However, my goal re taxes is not just for folks to get away with tax evasion, but to eliminate the taxes: I don't want to just not go to prison because I didn't get caught, I want to not go to prison because what I'm doing is not considered a crime. And if you want to eliminate the tax, you need political action. If lots of people evade taxes, the government is not going to just give up on taxation. Look at Greece and Italy, their tax collection is incredibly ineffective because of a widespread culture of evasion - but that doesn't stop the government from trying! And people do still go to prison for evasion. That will never change unless enough Greeks and Italians elect politicians who will repeal the taxes in question.
To get SS tax eliminated nationwide
You're focusing on inconsequential details and missing the big picture.
Let's go back to what the State is. It is a Mafia which aims to enslave its victim population. This is not a poetic description, it is not metaphor, it is a literal and accurate description of what the State is. Bickering about what is the best political strategy to privatize the garbage collection or eliminate one (of three) Federal payroll taxes is like Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto arguing over how to convince the guards to beat them less often, perhaps by befriending them or seeking to become honorary members of the Nazi party. Such discussion utterly misses the point.
The point is that the government is a Mafia which encloses and enslaves us, yet most of us still trust the government more than we trust each other. We have lost solidarity with each other and this is the wedge by which they divide and conquer us. Brother against brother, husband against wife, child against parent, business partner against business partner, neighbor against neighbor, Republican against Democrat. We squabble with each other while they rape us one and all.
We need to go back to the old-fashioned wisdom of strong communities built on healthy families and neighborly virtues, including simple respect for property rights. Such heady issues as "the Rich and the Poor" have little if anything to do with the workaday problems of the bourgeoise middle class which is the backbone of capitalism and peaceful, cooperative social order.
Eliminating the SS tax is politically impossible but even if it were miraculously achieved, it would be a Quixotic victory. Stemming the tide of sewage that is modern culture and administering some old-fashioned cures to help people find their way out of the sewers and back into the daylight of simple, common sense communities is the only way to effect meaningful, lasting change.
What do I mean by old-fashioned? Well, let's get really specific - religion, family values (i.e. parents' are not provisional on the approval of the Child Services Division), art and humanities (instead of the porno-trash being pumped at us by the Establishment media complex 24x7), old-fashioned scientific research (privately sponsored, abolish public subsidies), old-fashioned doctoring (abolish State-administered licenses, go back to private professional associations instead), and so on. The motivation is not nostalgia... everything wasn't better in the past and many things were worse. But some things were better.
By revitalizing our communities and resurrecting our lost culture, we will be prepared to break the State's back once and for all. Anything less than this is just slaves quibbling over how close they can get to the exterior fence without being shot by the guards.
you still have to convince people to do this
LOL - ask the IRS how true this is. People need no "convincing" to avoid taxes. The problem is not the risk, the problem is that people obey beyond the levels dictated by prudence. For example, consider the do-good citizen who reports cash transactions on Craigslist as "income" or has his son file a tax return on cash earned mowing neighborhood lawns. That is what we aim to change. Such people believe in government. They do not see the government as a Mafia that enslaves them. They see it as a heroic defender of truth and justice which it is their duty to support. This mentality is fundamentally religious in nature, that is, it is not a rational view, it is felt in the heart like religious faith is felt. Some of these people will be changed when confronted with the reality of the State:
Unmasking the State is what I believe is the most effective use of our energies.
That analogy is absurd. We do in fact have the power to change the government by electing politicians. The Ghetto residents have no such option. We don't have to "convince the guards" to stop beating us. We can vote the guards out. Sure, they can ignore the results of elections and reveal themselves as utter tyrants, but then they will have an outright revolution on their hands, which they certainly don't want.
The point is that the government is a Mafia which encloses and enslaves us, yet most of us still trust the government more than we trust each other. We have lost solidarity with each other and this is the wedge by which they divide and conquer us. Brother against brother, husband against wife, child against parent, business partner against business partner, neighbor against neighbor, Republican against Democrat. We squabble with each other while they rape us one and all. We need to go back to the old-fashioned wisdom of strong communities built on healthy families and neighborly virtues, including simple respect for property rights. Such heady issues as "the Rich and the Poor" have little if anything to do with the workaday problems of the bourgeoise middle class which is the backbone of capitalism and peaceful, cooperative social order.
I agree with you that education is necessary, people need to see the State for what it is. The question is, what do we actually do?
Stemming the tide of sewage that is modern culture and administering some old-fashioned cures to help people find their way out of the sewers and back into the daylight of simple, common sense communities is the only way to effect meaningful, lasting change. What do I mean by old-fashioned? Well, let's get really specific - religion, family values (i.e. parents' are not provisional on the approval of the Child Services Division), art and humanities (instead of the porno-trash being pumped at us by the Establishment media complex 24x7), old-fashioned scientific research (privately sponsored, abolish public subsidies), old-fashioned doctoring (abolish State-administered licenses, go back to private professional associations instead), and so on. The motivation is not nostalgia... everything wasn't better in the past and many things were worse. But some things were better. By revitalizing our communities and resurrecting our lost culture, we will be prepared to break the State's back once and for all. Anything less than this is just slaves quibbling over how close they can get to the exterior fence without being shot by the guards.
Stemming the tide of sewage that is modern culture and administering some old-fashioned cures to help people find their way out of the sewers and back into the daylight of simple, common sense communities is the only way to effect meaningful, lasting change.
Again, all true. Education is necessary. Then what? If you can educate enough people along the lines you're describing, you can convince enough people to vote for a Congress full of Ron Paul's - problem solved. Likewise, with enough people educated, you can undermine the State through civil disobedience. The question is which is easier, and I say the former.
Eliminating the SS tax is politically impossible but even if it were miraculously achieved, it would be a Quixotic victory
Every reduction in the power of the State is good in itself, "Quixotic" or not. And you keep talking about education, as if this is a counter-argument to what I'm saying...but I'm for maximum education in all cases. The more education, the more likely political action or nonpolitical action is to succeed.
@Clayton
Breaking the law involves risk in proportion to the seriousness of the violation. People can stop reporting Craiglist transactions pretty easily without much risk. And there are lots of other trivial examples where people could easily get away with breaking the law and thereby minimally undermine the power of the State. But who cares about any of that? Is that what you aim for as a libertarian? I'm looking for somewhat larger changes. And to achieve such changes through non-compliance involves taking serious risks. Any successful effort to eliminate the income tax through refusal to pay is going to result in lots of people going to prison before it's over. The same with any effort to eliminate property tax, or to eliminate draft registration, or to eliminate zoning laws, or legal tender laws, or anything else of any consequence.
With all due respect, pretending that you can flout the laws in any major way without taking serious risk is absurd and dishonest.
Then what?
Then, sit back and watch the system collapse upon itself. Have you not read The Politics of Obedience?
From all these indignities, such as the very beasts of the field would not endure, you can deliver yourselves if you try, not by taking action, but merely by willing to be free. Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces? Etienne de la Boetie - The Politics of Obedience
Etienne de la Boetie - The Politics of Obedience
The State's existence is anterior to the social order and it exists - even a tyranny exists - by the implicit assent of the majority, even though it is not always obvious how. Therefore, it follows that the State immediately and summarily collapses with the withdrawal of this assent.
What you want is to bring about this state of affairs through a movement. But movements are two-edged swords, just look at the French Revolution or the Arab Spring. After the movement has wrought a revolution, there is no guarantee that the tyrant who replaces the sitting tyrant will be any less liberal with the guillotine. The problem is that what needed to be changed - people's attitudes - was never changed. So everything really remains the same after the revolution as before. Only the window dressing has been changed.
The deepest reason that the State keeps succeeding in its will to enslave is that our communities are vulnerable to State predation. The Amish, the Quakers, the Gypsies - even Jews and Mormons - are great examples of communities that maintain solidarity with each other and thereby escape many of the burdens of the State. I'm not saying we need to become cloistered cultists, I'm just saying that we need to look to these models of small, tightly knit communities that strongly preserve their culture, tradition and heritage as models of anti-State communities. They maintain solidarity because they are fringe minorities but this is not the only motivation for maintaining solidarity. A culture of reason and liberal art could easily maintain the same solidarity if accompanied with the understanding that the State is insidious and always a dangerous enemy to be avoided and defended against (primarily by not snitching!) in solidarity with the rest of the community.
pretending that you can flout the laws in any major way without taking serious risk is absurd and dishonest.
*sigh - 100 million people flouting the State's dictates in minor ways is flouting the State's dictates in a major way!
Sure, I agree - my point is that I can get a minority to succeed in voting libertarians into office sooner and easier than you can get the majority to withdraw their consent.