In this thread a discussion developed about Ron Paul running 3rd party. I made the argument that the most effective and efficient way to go about having libertarian ideas adopted and implemented is to have an "irate, tireless minority" active in rolling back the institutions of big government. And the fastest way to leverage the knowledge of that minority is to have them active in the public sphere....and finally, the way to have them most efficient and effective in the public sphere is by infiltrating and taking over one of the major parties.
And this is exactly what we see happening...
This is how you go about changing things...
-Ron Paul backers take over the NV GOP.
-Ron Paul's baby boom
Just like what was described by Gary North in his salient piece...
So I'll just throw some ideas at this.
You may achieve government, but at what cost? I understand the value of lesser-government types in government, but unless they're anarchists they're disingenuous and fraudulent and that's not really great. Instead of being successful acitivists for government, let's be successful at whatever we do and have lots of people in our lives and some kind of status in one way or another to influence people. Activists in government should play a minor role, walking a thin line as they do. Shouldn't most people who come to anarchism arrive their from the influence of just normal people in their lives?
hashem:Shouldn't most people who come to anarchism arrive their from the influence of just normal people in their lives?
"Should"?
Plus, I see no reason why that "has" to be the case, and I doubt you could provide a sufficient one.
I'm also really interested to hear a proposal for how government would be more quickly, effectively, and efficiently rolled back with little to no activity to that end taking place inside the government itself.
I don't put my faith in politicians. I prefer the battleground of ideas.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Autolykos:I don't put my faith in politicians. I prefer the battleground of ideas.
What the hell does that even mean?
John James:What the hell does that even mean?
It means that I eschew electoral politics. I thought that was clear.
I thought it was clear that I was asking what possible substance exists in "I prefer the battleground of ideas". Again, I'm really interested to hear a proposal for how government would be more quickly, effectively, and efficiently rolled back with little to no activity to that end taking place inside the government itself. So wow me any time.
That was not clear to me at all. And I don't expect you to be wowed by anything I or anyone else could tell you that isn't in line with your strategy. It's clear to me that your mind is already hermetically sealed against any alternative approach.
But just for the purposes of full disclosure, by "I prefer the battleground of ideas", I'm talking about engaging people about ideas outside of electoral politics. Basically, I think the rollback of the state must occur in people's minds first.
Autolykos:any alternative approach.
...such as?
Basically, I think the rollback of the state must occur in people's minds first.
Oh? And then what?
John James:...such as?
If I say "any alternative approach", I don't see the need to provide examples.
John James:Oh? And then what?
Well, I think that, as more people roll back the state in their own minds, the power of the state to enforce its edicts will gradually weaken. Once "enough" people have done this, then I think overt civil disobedience would be in order. (I put "enough" in quotes because I'm honestly not sure how many would be "enough". Sorry.)
Autolykos: John James:...such as?If I say "any alternative approach", I don't see the need to provide examples.
Riiiight. I'm sure it has nothing to do with you not having one.
Yes I already addressed this. You should see my big surprised face in reaction to you not coming up with anything new or refutative.
John James:Riiiight. I'm sure it has nothing to do with you not having one.
No, it doesn't. Whether I have an alternative approach (which I think I do, actually) is irrelevant to whether you've insulated yourself from any other alternative approach whatsoever.
John James:Yes I already addressed this. You should see my big surprised face in reaction to you not coming up with anything new or refutative.
Then certainly it would be easy for you to point out exactly where you allegedly addressed it.
John James: Autolykos:I don't put my faith in politicians. I prefer the battleground of ideas. What the hell does that even mean?
arent you the guy who says that the great value of Ron Paul's candidacy is in educating people? Do you have any idea how many people are going to vote in this election still do not know or care about him or the ideas he espouses? Yet, those people pay taxes, they live and preach statist rhetoric in their daily lives, and the majority of them undoubtedly interact with at least one or two libertarians in a given week.
the state is a social fiction. It defies logic that someone necessarily must operate within the fiction in order to reveal its fictional nature.
John James: Autolykos:I don't put my faith in politicians. I prefer the battleground of ideas. What the hell does that even mean? So I'm just wondering if you were overtly trolling Autolykos because its the weekend and youre bored, or is it actually the case that you cannot fathom the concept of a battleground of ideas? Its praxeologically self-evident, in that people act in order to alleviate felt uneasiness, they must have an idea of what acts would bring about that end. Some ideas are correct and some are incorrect or useless or counterproductive and those ideas can only be removed from circulation by bringing about their replacement with superior ideas.
Malachi:is it actually the case that you cannot fathom the concept of a battleground of ideas? [...]
You're about 7 posts too late. See here.
Aristophanes: [a gif I just posted in another thread that evidently got under his skin]
Again? Once could be chalked up to accident...but again? I think you've removed any question about your own lack of creativity.
Next thing you know you'll be changing your display name to "John James" and putting Akon in your avatar.
Maybe we should get you a tie like mine and I'll let you have a photo standing next to me. No vest though. You'll get yours when you're ready.
What is the theme of this thread?
Are you:
Giving a manifesto
Affiriming your previous points
Clearing up your thoughts on something
Making a declaritive statement for some reason
Giving people practicle advice on a method you find useful (and using those assumptions as the start point for the topic)
looking for counterpoints
asking a question
or something else?
EDIT
"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
and
Autolykos:Whether I have an alternative approach (which I think I do, actually)
But of course, you're not going to share your profound wisdom with the rest of the class...are you?
Yep!
vive la insurrection:What is the theme of this thread? [...]
I wouldn't say I'm "affirming" the previous points, but I would say offering evidence to support them, as well as simply relaying the news about what's going on in the United States political world.
As for my previous points, I suppose you could say I'm always looking for counterpoints (which I suppose is why it's so disappointing to have someone so vehemently oppose the post and yet not offer any. *sadface* ) But hey, such is the nature of the Internet, no? C'est la vie.
First thing to consider:
We are looking at this from the sidelines: that is to say, we aren't really managing and using the hard resources to calculate what needs to be done. i.e: we aren't the "entrepreurs" in the RP campaign. We can only say and think so much .
The pro's of what you are saying:
- Thus far the better aspects of the tea party, the RP campagin, and anything that is remotely libertarian when dealing with the current political apparatus has worked within or at least semi in tandem with the Republican party. I don't think this can be disputed. The biggest major exception may very well be the Mises Institute itself.
- The Republcan Party as we know it is in disorder, and is probably on it's last few gasps befoe it has to reconfigure.
- If one can work within the Republican Party to achieve success, why not? The system is more set up for the 2 main parties, who have way more resources at their disposal than any other option. If the situation is doable to run Republican one should take the path of least resistince and make their campaign, exposure, and electability that much easier.
It really is asking what would one rather own a $100 bill or a $1 bill
Counter points
a) If Ron Paul doesn't get the RP nomination: I'm holding off on this response because I don't know your position as the links are temporarily down
b) When there is political dissention within political parties, third parties have been effective "squeaky wheels": look at the Populists, Progressives, etc. If there is a strong enough force to create a temprorary fraction when the shit has hit the fan within a party, temporary division seems to be a natural thing in certain circumstances.
Sometimes splits may be inevitable if an idea / goal wants to survive. This may be the best and most feasible time to do it.
c) Ron Paul is probably the greatest thing to happen publicly to the liberterian message. With the political system in turmoil, there is no reason not to treat him and out current circumstances as a unique phenomena without precedence. If the situation allows for him to run a third party with the name "liberterian" on it - that may be the biggest boon liberterians can ask for to create a an unprecedented voice in US politics.
vive la insurrection:We are looking at this from the sidelines: that is to say, we aren't really managing and using the hard resources to calculate what needs to be done. i.e: we aren't the "entrepreurs" in the RP campaign. We can only say and think so much .
Be that as it may, I don't see what the RP campaign has to do with the point of the OP.
Bingo.
If Ron Paul doesn't get the RP nomination: I'm holding off on this response because I don't know your position as the links are temporarily down
They seem to be working now, but again, I'm not sure what the RP campaign has to do with the point of the OP of this thread.
vive la insurrection:When there is political dissention within political parties, third parties have been effective "squeaky wheels"
Define "effective", and if you can, provide some specific examples of these times when this has occured.
I don't see what you're getting at here.
1) The libertarian message hasn't been a part of the Republican platform since...well, ever. I don't understand where you're getting the idea that they are the same, and thus requiring a "split".
1.1) An obvious case in this point being the constant effort to marginalize Ron Paul (and his supporters) and paint him and them as "not really Republicans". See here, and here. If you'd like other examples of this, I'm sure I could find them.
2) The idea / goal doesn't seem to be having any trouble "surviving" in its current state. To the contrary, I think it could easily be argued it is thriving. Again, as can be seen by the literal double and tripling of Ron Paul's numbers from just four years ago.
With the political system in turmoil, there is no reason not to treat him and out current circumstances as a unique phenomena without precedence. If the situation allows for him to run a third party with the name "liberterian" on it - that may be the biggest boon liberterians can ask for to create a an unprecedented voice in US politics.
Again, this is basically what was discussed (at length) in that other thread. Starting at about here you'll find a pretty lengthy discussion (as well as some pretty salient articles) pointing out what I see as the fallacy behind that conclusion.
If you want we could turn this into a topic / research project on it's own.
The quickest overly simplified examples I'll give:
the deep South's relation with the post "Reconstruction" Dems - where they would break off from time to time and form a States Rights party - until they were picked up by the Republican Party
The Populist Party - was eventually picked up by the William Jennings Brian branch of the Democratic Party (with a Populist even running as VP in the 1896 election). This in turn, was the first step that led to the more modern version of the Democratic Party we know today
The extreme case of the Republican splitting from and replacing the Whigs - in a radically changing US political landscape
I'll get to the other stuff a little later
John James = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY39fkmqKBM&feature=relmfu
Get it?
Also while reading part of the thread you linked
About Perot:
When he ran as a third party (in his second run, where he didn't enter debates) - he still managed to pick up over 5% of the vote, which meant major funding for Th Reform Party. The Reform Party managed to get a governor elected. I don't want to focus on the actual Reform Party itself, because I do think it was an ultimate nonentity without much to say - but when Perot ran as a de facto third party, something came out of it.
once again I'll adress the rest later.
vive la insurrection: The quickest overly simplified examples I'll give: the deep South's relation with the post "Reconstruction" Dems - where they would break off from time to time and form a States Rights party - until they were picked up by the Republican Party The Populist Party - was eventually picked up by the William Jennings Brian branch of the Democratic Party (with a Populist even running as VP in the 1896 election). This in turn, was the first step that led to the more modern version of the Democratic Party we know today The extreme case of the Republican splitting from and replacing the Whigs - in a radically changing US political landscape
So I'm still not clear how you are defining "effective" here. I'm also not sure how these situations relate to the libertarian movement we are seeing today. It's by and large not (and never really was) considered part of the Republican Party. In fact, it was largely created out of a disgust for the two major parties (especially if you include the Tea Party movement). This is essentially the focus of Welch and Gillespie's book The Declaration of Independents which talks about how roughly 40% of the electorate don't affiliate with either major party (or something the that effect). And getting back to the libertarian aspect, everyone from rank and file Republicans to Democrats in the media take every opportunity to remind everyone that these "libertarians" are not really Republicans. They even try to take advantage of a leery feeling most people have in association with the term "libertarian" by bringing it up every chance they get. Again, look at Ron Paul's listed "occupation" in his recent Time Magazine 100 Most Influential People section.
So again, I'm not seeing where this needed "split" is supposed to come in. At best one might argue it's already largely occured, but I would argue the two were never really joined.
And what's more, (again, as mentioned in the other thread and other discussions about 3rd party), I'm not sure if the system would allow for such a thing as a 3rd party legitimacy. Again, if you won't read the thread and the arguments made there (which I wish you would, it would save time), at least check out Holland's article.
vive la insurrection:About Perot: When he ran as a third party (in his second run, where he didn't enter debates) - he still managed to pick up over 5% of the vote, which meant major funding for Th Reform Party. The Reform Party managed to get a governor elected. I don't want to focus on the actual Reform Party itself, because I do think it was an ultimate nonentity without much to say - but when Perot ran as a de facto third party, something came out of it.
"Something" largely inconsequential. I honestly wasn't even aware Ventura won on the Reform Party ticket. And if you really want to try and compare all the resources that were dedicated to Perot's Reform Party and try to claim it was "effective" because Jesse Ventura served one term as Governor of Minnesota, you're welcome to try that, but I don't really see that being a successful argument.
I don't see how pointing to a billionaire getting 19% of the vote (and 0% of the electoral college), even when getting in the debates, and then everything going back to business as usual until he came back and got a quarter of the support he did before, and someone happened to use his party for a gubernatorial run and won, and then again, business as usual — helps your argument that a 3rd party route is "effective" and is the best way to go in rolling back government.
Okie dokie.
Before I go any further:
Is it safe to say I can just go off this:
Again, "the truth of that assumption is not obvious to me." I suppose if you want to play semantics and dwell on what "spread of ideas" means, you could argue that. But if you want to honestly talk about what matters, it is the adoption, and more specifically, the implementation of those ideas. I honestly could not give a shit whether people identified as libertarian, or even knew or understood the ideas of liberty...so long as those principles were abided by. That is what is important.
And if you ask me, the most effective and efficient (aka fastest) way to have these ideas adopted and implemented is to have an "irate, tireless minority" active in rolling back the institutions of big government...as "knowledge without action is empty and useless." Simply "spreading ideas" is not going to do much to affect change. The change comes when people take that knowledge and do something about it. And the fastest way to leverage the knowledge of that minority is to have them active in the public sphere.
For one thing, you're more visible. You've got a bigger microphone. And you've got more respect. People will listen to a Congressman over some Joe. Like it or not, that's how it is. Even lowly House Representatives get on television. Therefore, being active in the arena makes it more likely that people will not only listen to what you have to say, but consider it. More people will hear what you say, and they are more likely to take it with greater and more serious weight...and therefore you have a greater ability to reach people with those ideas.
That's number one. You're in a better position to spread the ideas in the first place. Number two is, you are actually in a position to actively change something with those ideas in mind. If you're a local county clerk, or a mayor, or a legislator...your actions can directly influence the growth of government. Gary Johnson vetoed over 750 pieces of statewide legislation. All by himself. That is "making a difference."
Sure, you could just say "ah politics is no good, that institution shouldn't even be there in the first place" and go around trying to get people to agree with you, without ever actually trying to do something about it yourself. And yes, it's theoretically possible, that over time, if you get enough people to agree more and more that government interference is unnecessary, that people would become less and less interested in government doing things and eventually it would just "die out" because no one would vote and no one would run for any office, and everyone would just be largely libertarian and not be insistent that the government do this and do that.
But in my opinion that is lazy and incredibly naive. There is no possible way you would be able to convince enough people of even minarchism (let alone anarchism) to where the state would just shrink through basically indifference and attrition. There is just far too much power to be had, and far too much to be gained from political entrepreneurship. If you limit the movement of liberty to just "spreading ideas", it will go nowhere.
Obviously the ideas are the core piece. You need the ideas if you're going to have anything else. And those ideas have to be communicated. But just look at where this movement came from. A lowly House Representative, speaking about it and voting it and introducing it in legislation. Yes the education is important. But my point is the change is going to come from what these educated people do with that knowledge. And currently they seem to be doing the wise thing...that is, moving into positions of influence.
You can affect change much faster and more efficiently if the people with the knowledge are active and effective at utilizing the system to their advantage. Again, do you really believe Ron Paul could have had anywhere near the influence he's had, and would be where he is now, at the helm of a revolution, if he had just stayed an obstetrician? The ideas have spread the way they have in large part because of the position Paul held. Sure organizations like the LvMI have been there to offer intellectual support and a refuge of resources and camaraderie for people of the persuasion...but where did all these people get the idea to start searching for this information in the first place?
Where did these libertarians who are taking over local townships and county seats and the like get the motivation and the inspiration and the belief that they could make a difference (and the confidence that they were right and the established powers were wrong)?
I think you can unequivocally say that largely comes from Ron Paul. And I can pretty much guarantee Ron Paul would have been at most only a little more influential had he stayed in the Libertarian Party than if he stayed out of politics all together.
So my point is, you're concerned about just "spreading the ideas". I'm more worried about how to get those ideas adopted and implemented. And as the article articulates quite well, the 3rd party route is a losing strategy for doing this. Almost as ineffective and meaningless as simply trying to convince people that government is illegitimate so they shouldn't be voting, shouldn't run for office, shouldn't pay their taxes, and should defend themselves if agents of the state start coming to collect.
Also:
Define "effective",
For the purposes of this thread: concrete results from a non mainstream political position, groups, or aspirations adopted and / or accepted by the mainstream, particularly in relation to the two major parties
- Concrete Results: Verifiable results gained by the goals of the political platform of the political ideology in question. A secondary desirable trait would be the results would be associated with said political ideology.
Wether or not that is true isn't my point at all. My point is Ron Paul is in the Republican Party and there are growing liberterian sentiments and sympathies in America in general - prehaps due to Paul's location (as a major GOP canidate), and some other cultural factors there is now a (relative to the past) a strong (stronger) liberterian influence in the GOP.
I don't know (meaning I have no clue) if that will hold or not - nor do I know if it will or will not split, or if a split is desirable. This is because, as I have already stated I am in no position to asess that situation. I am saying a split would not be surprising - and if it happened, I would imagine those involved would have enough sense to do it because it is their most obvious choice as the best and most practicle thing to do.
I do not see a split as "inevitable", good, or bad - it is just to be a tool that can and has been used in the past by political outsiders. It isn't inherently wrong, counter productive, or stupid. That's it - I can't defend it - just as I can't defend "Hijack the Republican Party here and now" as the best option - as I have no qualification to do so (this was my first point). If the Republican Party is ripe for taking, it will probably be done in a way closer to what you are saying.
However, I can say as an interesting historical note: many of the more radical inner transformations of the two main political parties coincide after a start up third party gains some steam. I don't see how this can not be ruled out as a complete non option.
John James:But of course, you're not going to share your profound wisdom with the rest of the class...are you?
I believe I already did share my "profound wisdom" with "the rest of the class".
John James:Yep!
Unfortunately for you, I do not in any way feel stupid as a result of your antagonistic behavior. So if you were trying to insult my intelligence, you failed spectacularly.
The problem is is that it's quite likely that a large fraction of Americans won't be around to enjoy 2017 and after. The worst is yet to come and I doubt I'm smart enough to survive until 2017 if Dr. Paul isn't elected this year. Besides, there is no one else like him in elected office. Reforming the Party of Lincoln is not a realistic option.
Now then, John, I'm going to address the argument you made in the other thread about the alleged uselessness of engaging people directly on the "battleground of ideas".
John James:Sure, you could just say "ah politics is no good, that institution shouldn't even be there in the first place" and go around trying to get people to agree with you, without ever actually trying to do something about it yourself.
Isn't going around trying to get people to agree with me trying to do something about it? I'd certainly say it is, and I don't know why you would imply it isn't, unless you want people to think that it isn't. But if so, why not back up that assertion?
John James:And yes, it's theoretically possible, that over time, if you get enough people to agree more and more that government interference is unnecessary, that people would become less and less interested in government doing things and eventually it would just "die out" because no one would vote and no one would run for any office, and everyone would just be largely libertarian and not be insistent that the government do this and do that.
With words like "theoretically", you reveal your bias. In other words, saying "theoretically" means you don't think it's actually possible to begin with. Again, why don't you back up this assertion?
It's about more than no one voting and no one running for any office. It's about de-legitimizing the state. As long as "enough" people think the state is legitimate, the state will continue to exist due to "popular demand". As far as I'm concerned, none of what you're advocating presents this fundamental challenge to the state's legitimacy.
John James:But in my opinion that is lazy and incredibly naive. There is no possible way you would be able to convince enough people of even minarchism (let alone anarchism) to where the state would just shrink through basically indifference and attrition. There is just far too much power to be had, and far too much to be gained from political entrepreneurship. If you limit the movement of liberty to just "spreading ideas", it will go nowhere.
What you advocate, then, is taking the power that's to be had. But then that means that the power won't go away, doesn't it? The power will just be captured by people who call themselves "libertarians". How is this any different from the stategy pursued by the Cato Institute for the past 30+ years?
Your remark that "[t]here is just far too much power to be had, and far too much to be gained from political entrepreneurship" dances around the issue, which is exactly that there is so much power to be had and so much to be gained from political entrepreneurship. That's the problem for libertarians. If you don't think it can ever be eliminated, then what's your point with all of this? It sounds like just advocating for "our kind of people" to occupy existing positions of power.
John James:Obviously the ideas are the core piece. You need the ideas if you're going to have anything else. And those ideas have to be communicated. But just look at where this movement came from. A lowly House Representative, speaking about it and voting it and introducing it in legislation. Yes the education is important. But my point is the change is going to come from what these educated people do with that knowledge. And currently they seem to be doing the wise thing...that is, moving into positions of influence.
No, the libertarian movement did not come from Ron Paul. To say otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest. Why the singular focus on Ron Paul and not the scores of other libertarians? You act as if they hardly even exist.
John James:You can affect change much faster and more efficiently if the people with the knowledge are active and effective at utilizing the system to their advantage.
Yes, this is your thesis, but so far I haven't seen you provide any real evidence to support it.
John James:Again, do you really believe Ron Paul could have had anywhere near the influence he's had, and would be where he is now, at the helm of a revolution, if he had just stayed an obstetrician?
That begs the question - is Ron Paul actually "at the helm of a revolution"?
But yes, I do believe that Ron Paul could have had anywhere near the influence he's had if he had not run for office (better IMO than your "if he had just stayed an obstetrician"). Two other historical leaders, Martin Luther King and Mohandas Gandhi, never ran for office, IIRC. So yes, I certainly think it's possible to build movements without electoral politics.
John James:The ideas have spread the way they have in large part because of the position Paul held. Sure organizations like the LvMI have been there to offer intellectual support and a refuge of resources and camaraderie for people of the persuasion...but where did all these people get the idea to start searching for this information in the first place? Where did these libertarians who are taking over local townships and county seats and the like get the motivation and the inspiration and the belief that they could make a difference (and the confidence that they were right and the established powers were wrong)? I think you can unequivocally say that largely comes from Ron Paul. And I can pretty much guarantee Ron Paul would have been at most only a little more influential had he stayed in the Libertarian Party than if he stayed out of politics all together.
These are just bare assertions, John. Furthermore, how many people who support Ron Paul are what I'd call "actual libertarians"? I really don't know, but I do feel confident in saying that it's nowhere near all of them.
John James:So my point is, you're concerned about just "spreading the ideas". I'm more worried about how to get those ideas adopted and implemented. And as the article articulates quite well, the 3rd party route is a losing strategy for doing this. Almost as ineffective and meaningless as simply trying to convince people that government is illegitimate so they shouldn't be voting, shouldn't run for office, shouldn't pay their taxes, and should defend themselves if agents of the state start coming to collect.
How can ideas really be adopted and implemented without "enough" people believing in them? Keep in mind that I'm not advocating a 3rd-party route, because I'm not advocating electoral politics at all.
Otherwise, you basically end where you begin - right back to the assertion that anything that isn't in line with what you advocate is useless. How comforting that must be for you. Unfortunately, I don't see how you laid out any sort of persuasive case for what you advocate. It's just your typical routine of directly or indirectly trying to bully opposing positions out of the way.
Direct political action is, at best, useless. Ron Paul has - on the basis of his extraordinary character and long experience - done what few others have ever been able to effectively do: use the political process as a media force multiplier.
What really matters is getting the message out. What matters is a crowd of 7,000 people at UCLA booing the TSA, booing the NDAA, booing Ben Bernanke, booing Keynesian economics, booing the DHS, and booing the 40,000 new laws passed just between January and April of this year, while cheering peace, liberty, self-determination and even the pursuit of virtuous living on the basis of voluntary choice.
Organization does matter - the LvMI is easily the single most underestimated political force within the country today. Gary North has sung the praises of ACORN's ability to effect changes (an organization with which Obama was connected) using a non-linear approach. But I think the effectiveness of such organizations lies precisely in their complete independence of the Establishment. Look at Cato, it's a complete mess. Murray Rothbard was one of the founding members but it has been little more than a relay of Republican talking-points during most of its history. Look at the Mont Pelerin Society, look at the John Birch Society. These organizations attempted to "get cozy" with the political establishment only to find themselves infiltrated and either extremized to oblivion or diluted to milquetoast. Anyone who thinks that the Establishment does not employ active measures to head off dissent before it goes out of control is simply naive.
So far, I'm impressed with LvMI's integrity and I hope that the Institute can continue to fend off the threat of infiltration. I applaud enthusiasts, such as the Ron Paul backers in the NV GOP, who are willing to expend time and energy to "score victories" in the sense of challenging the political establishment within. Nevertheless, I think it is unwise to pursue this as a primary strategy for the furtherance of liberty. The history of American politics is littered with the corpses of organizations that have attempted this path and failed. The LvMI has the right strategy: disseminate the truth and then,
Clayton -
as more people roll back the state in their own minds, the power of the state to enforce its edicts will gradually weaken. Once "enough" people have done this, then I think overt civil disobedience would be in order. (I put "enough" in quotes because I'm honestly not sure how many would be "enough". Sorry.)
Could your strategy 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's even easier for a person running for office to dishonestly promise to (try to) repeal the income tax. As I said before, I don't put my faith in politicians qua politicians - including Ron Paul.
Ok...and?
Could your strategy 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.
The granite foundation of the income tax is snitching. As people become more incensed by the outrages of the Establishment, the less willing they are to "turn State's evidence", that is, report cash transactions, and so on. Standing in front of the tank column is suicide and is not what we mean when we talk about civil disobedience and non-violent resistance to the State. That is a sacrifice that a few very heroic people are willing to make for reasons known only to themselves. Rather, we are talking about lots of people successfully getting away with breaking the State's "laws". That only happens when people do not feel loyalty to their government and do not snitch on their peers who also feel no loyalty to the government.
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.
But the latter is useless and the former is not necessary.
Look, spend a few minutes talking to the average person off the street about gun control. In any urban except perhaps in the South, most people are at least weakly in favor of gun control. Why? One way or another, it always boils down to this simple fact: they trust the government more than they trust their neighbors.
But that's the whole problem! Until people begin to trust each other more than the government, the government will inexorably keep expanding. This is why healthy community (culture, social order) is the foundation of resistance to the power of the government. Without this foundation, people will keep snitching on each other because they have no solidarity with each other.
@Clayton
we are talking about lots of people successfully getting away with breaking the State's "laws".
Yes, I understand, we are talking about people risking prison, fines, other punishments. My point is that it's hard to convince people to take that risk, harder than it is to convince them to vote in a particular way. You really disagree with that claim? Seems pretty self-evidently true that it's easier to convince someone to do something easy than to do something hard.
vive la insurrection:Is it safe to say I can just go off this: [...]
Yeah basically. Obviously there was a lot more conversation, but I guess that hits the main points.
Define "effective", For the purposes of this thread: concrete results from a non mainstream political position, groups, or aspirations adopted and / or accepted by the mainstream, particularly in relation to the two major parties - Concrete Results: Verifiable results gained by the goals of the political platform of the political ideology in question. A secondary desirable trait would be the results would be associated with said political ideology.
...So basically you're saying that as long as you get some "verifiable results" that are in line with the stated goals of the platform, it's considered "effective". I guess that's a pretty straight-laced way of defining it, but I still wouldn't consider being "effective" in the sense you describe here as necessarily being "effective" in a more meaningful sense...as in, the sense of actual consequence that we are discussing here...the sense of being effective at rolling back government. You're just trying to argue effectiveness at being a "squeaky wheel". Even if I grant you that, I don't see why it even matters. I don't consider a "squeaky wheel" very good at affecting change so much as just being a small nuisance that doesn't even really need to be dealt with, and can easily be ignored, or silenced with just a little grease.
(That actually turned out to be a really good metaphor didn't it?)
1) The libertarian message hasn't been a part of the Republican platform since...well, ever. I don't understand where you're getting the idea that they are the same, and thus requiring a "split". Wether or not that is true isn't my point at all. My point is Ron Paul is in the Republican Party and there are growing liberterian sentiments and sympathies in America in general - prehaps due to Paul's location (as a major GOP canidate), and some other cultural factors there is now a (relative to the past) a strong (stronger) liberterian influence in the GOP. I don't know (meaning I have no clue) if that will hold or not - nor do I know if it will or will not split, or if a split is desirable. This is because, as I have already stated I am in no position to asess that situation. I am saying a split would not be surprising - and if it happened, I would imagine those involved would have enough sense to do it because it is their most obvious choice as the best and most practicle thing to do.
I see what you're saying, but even so, I still just don't see it happening that way and being as effective as if the GOP is taken over. The reason there is such backlash against Ron Paul from the establishment is because he threatens their power seats...and he does that because people who have been influenced by him in some way are threatening to take over all over the country and at every level. Again, check out the articles in the OP. If this were all occuring in a Libertarian Party or Reform Party, no one would give a shit because they know it wouldn't amount to anything. (Again, check out Holland's chart). They would easily be able to shut them out enough to make virtually all their efforts be for naught and essentially ineffective (in the sense of actually affecting change and derailing the power regime). The party structure is obviously geared to make that quite easy. But if it's one of the two major parties that gets taken over...not only do these establishment people begin to lose their seats (and therefore their power), but there's nothing they can really do to stop it. That's why you see all this. They really are scared.
Again, I hear what you're saying, and I don't completely disagree...obviously we can't know the future. I'm just saying based on what I know and what I see, 3rd party just doesn't seem viable any time soon...let alone a better, more efficient method than continuing the path to taking over the GOP. Again, just look at the OP articles.
Again, obviously you can't "rule out" anything, but I'm just not at all persuaded by any of the 3rd party arguments. And I'd hate to say it, but this may actually be one instance where "this time it's different". There actually are a lot more barriers in place to having something like that happen again (the two major parties have basically made sure of it.) But at the same time, technology like the Internet has also enhanced the abilities of the opposing side...so it may be tough to tell. But as we saw with Ron Paul in the last election and this one, that Internet communication can only take you so far. As unfortunate as it may be, the old news media and televised debates still dominate the discourse...and again, if you're not in the debates, you're basically dead in the water...and I can almost guarantee you there is no way in hell a 3rd party candidate is getting in those televised debates. Ron Paul would be the only person who even has a shot...and even for him it would be a longshot. If I were a betting man, I'd say he would be kept out of at least a majority of them. They might let him in one. And then it would be done.
You really disagree with that claim?
No, I disagree with your premise, that we're asking people to take risks. Quite the opposite, I'm asking people to stop not taking opportunities that they can easily get away with taking. Every stop sign you run - on the basis of prudent judgment and the absence of any police in sight - that hurries you on your way saves you time, which is money. Why are you imposing monetary penalties on yourself beyond what is required to avoid jail, fees and fines? People fear the State too much, attribute to the State more omniscience than it really has and ascribe to the State's dictates moral legitimacy, of which they have none.
The question of which dictates are prudent to disobey and which are not is merely a technical one. The real issue is removing the psychological block to disobedience to the State whenever it suits one's purposes and the risks are judged to be worth it.
Autolykos:I believe I already did share my "profound wisdom" with "the rest of the class".
"Then certainly it would be easy for you to point out exactly where you allegedly did so."
Insult your intelligence? I wasn't trying to do that, so as Ron Paul would say "I think you're overly sensitive." Or maybe you just have low self esteem and assume everyone's out to insult you. Or intimidate you.
Autolykos:Now then, John, I'm going to address the argument you made in the other thread about the alleged uselessness of engaging people directly on the "battleground of ideas".
I made no such argument, so I really have no occasion to read the rest of your "addressing" an argument I never made.
The kind of non-compliance which doesn't involve taking much of a risk (e.g. running stoplights - is that a serious example?) is exactly the kind that doesn't change anything in any important way. Big changes would require taking big risks: like not paying income tax tax all, instead of just evading tax on minor cash transactions.