Clayton:the right strategy: disseminate the truth and then,
...Uh...isn't that what is happening?
Again, I'm not hearing any sort of actual proposal of how things would play out. I'm just hearing "engage people's minds. The real world is for old fogeys and useless token exhibitions. The real world is where corpses litter the ground, but in the battleground of ideas, the ground is clean, as the fire of conviction has cleansed the soil and the seeds of truth have grown strong roots...watered by the rain of wisdom from our forefathers of yore.."
Can you actually offer an idea as to how exactly government is rolled back after you "disseminate the truth" and then just sit back? Do you see this as just another form of "spreading awareness" where you just raise awareness to an acceptable, aribtrary level, you can just back off and say “Bam! did my part. Now it’s your turn. Fix it.”
Even if that's your argument, I'm still waiting to hear an actual explanation of how anything would actually change. As I said in the other thread, of course people's attitudes and minds have to be changed first. Ron Paul says that all the time. It's a given. I'm interested in (a) the most efficient and effective and fastest way to do that, and (b) what happens after that.
Simply spouting ridiculous platitudes and laughable metaphors that basically say nothing at all doesn't interest me and it doesn't offer anything to a discussion.
People simply thinking something doesn't get anything done. And until you find a way to give everyone telekinetic or magical Jeannie abilities, that's going to remain the case.
So 10% people's minds are changed. Now what.
Big changes would require taking big risks
Or lots of people taking small risks that they judge to actually be in their own interest. But I repeat myself.
Clayton -
Clayton: Look, spend a few minutes talking to the average person off the street about gun control. [...] 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.
Look, spend a few minutes talking to the average person off the street about gun control. [...]
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.
Well you go ahead and "change the culture" one "average person off the street" conversation at a time, and everyone else who cares about seeing more liberty in their own lifetime will put themselves in positions with ability to dismantle that government power directly and we'll see who gets more done.
You say people trust government more than their neighbors. Wouldn't it be much easier if their neighbors were the ones in government? Is that not a much faster way to move the process forward?
As Gary North outlines, you "take a long view of the battle" and a cadre must target the actual crucial battlefield [you know, one that actually exists in the real world]: the public schools:
"Local Ron Paul fanatics need to do the groundwork for the next 8 years: mastering the basics of winning elections, dealing with entrenched bureaucrats, cutting budgets, and running local school boards. They must gain experience in preparation for their takeover of the national Republican party when the federal government is forced to default. When Washington becomes Athens -- and it will -- this new leadership will emerge at the national level. It will have this message: Ron Paul was right."
You see Gary North doesn't disagree with the notion that the public attitude toward government needs to change. (Nor do I). As far as I can tell, he and I both consider that a given. It's obvious. What we're concerned about is (a) the best way to go about doing that, and (b) what these right-thinking people do.
Again, useless platitudes and metaphors are great when you want to sound intelligent and refined on an Internet forum, but as I said they're basically useless in actually getting things done. Which is why they don't interest me.
As an example of what does interest me (and what I would think would interest anyone else interested in rolling back government), see that article. He offers an actual proposal for things that would actually be done...a method for the change. He doesn't just say utterly useless fluff like "I don't put my faith in politicians. I prefer the battleground of ideas."
In fact he even gets farther into it and in that very article links to an actual recommended strategy for accomplishing the public school reform he brings up.
Again, if anyone has any ideas that are better than this kind of thing, and can offer 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'm all ears. But again, so far I've heard nothing but "tell people the truth and then sit back and watch what happens."
John James:"Then certainly it would be easy for you to point out exactly where you allegedly did so."
No problem. Here is where I think I shared my "profound wisdom" with "the rest of the class".
John James: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.
I think you're lying, John, and rather transparently at that. All too often (if you ask me), you point people to things that have already been said elsewhere (typically by you yourself) and do so in ways that readily appear to be condescending. The point behind condescension is to make the target feel inferior. Of course, how the target feels is actually up to him, which is why condescension doesn't always work as intended.
In other words, I have no problem being "overly sensitive" to your douchebaggery. I think it's unethical and it goes against the rules of this forum. The fact that you continue to engage in such behavior - and, at times, escalate it - belies desperation. What could be the source of this desperation? I'd say it's a desire to feel like "the audience" is still with you and not with anyone else.
John James:I made no such argument, so I really have no occasion to read the rest of your "addressing" an argument I never made.
So, after I made the post I linked to above, you replied, "Yes I already addressed this. You should see my big surprised face in reaction to you not coming up with anything new or refutative." After you pointed out (in a highly condescending way) where you already addressed it, I took it upon myself to read over that and respond to it here. Now you come back and try to deny that you made any such argument in the first place! This again seems like a transparent example of lying on your part, John.
Furthermore, what are you so afraid of that's preventing you from reading it, let alone responding to it? Do you really think that, by ignoring it, it will simply go away? I wouldn't hold your breath there, if I were you.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
John James:Well you go ahead and "change the culture" one "average person off the street" conversation at a time, and everyone else who cares about seeing more liberty in their own lifetime will put themselves in positions with ability to dismantle that government power directly and we'll see who gets more done.
Translation: "Lurkers reading this thread, don't listen to people like Clayton and Autolykos. Listen to me."
But yes, we'll see who gets more done. We'll see which group of people make proverbial deals with the devil, become entrenched bureaucrats themselves, and elect new politicians who are just as psychopathic/narcissistic/whatever as the vast majority of those currently in office.
As I said before (but which you're apparently afraid to face), this strategy has been tried for over 30 years by places like the Cato Institute. Where has it gotten them?
Autolykos:No problem. Here is where I think I shared my "profound wisdom" with "the rest of the class".
That's it? "as more people roll back the state in their own minds, the power of the state to enforce its edicts will gradually weaken." That's your profound wisdom? Are you joking?
The Cato Institute has tried for 30 years to get onto a local school board?
Afraid to face?
John James:That's it? "as more people roll back the state in their own minds, the power of the state to enforce its edicts will gradually weaken." That's your profound wisdom? Are you joking?
I never said it was profound wisdom. You said that, obviously out of mockery.
John James:The Cato Institute has tried for 30 years to get onto a local school board? Afraid to face?
I was speaking in general terms of "playing the political game", of course. Cato has certainly been working to influence the political process at the federal level, if not also the state level.
Autolykos:I never said it was profound wisdom.
You said you had an alternative approach to rolling back government that didn't involve any sort of involvment or action within government or the political process.
I asked what that might be, and instead of sharing it you dodged around it and basically said nothing you offered would suffice for me, so you won't offer your alleged alternative approach. (As if whether I thought it was a valid idea or not was even relevant.) You either place a much greater weight on my opinion than I thought (and certainly than you'd like to admit), or you're simply relying on the common Leftist tactic of focusing something that is completely irrelevant and using it as an excuse to avoid having to offer any sort of argument of your own.
I pointed this out and insinuated that you actually had no real alternative, and you again reverted to your "yeah I have one, but it won't change your mind, so I don't need to share it" nonsense. So I again asked about you actually putting something forth, and you [I'm not even kidding] claimed that you already did offer your alternative.
I asked where in the hell you have done this, and you [again, I'm not even joking] actually pointed me to a previous post in this very thread in which you literally said "I don't see the need to provide examples."
So as a recap:
1) you claim you have an alternative
2) I ask what that is
3) You say no matter what you say it won't change my mind, so you won't offer anything
4) I suggest that the real reason you won't share your alternative is because you don't actually have an alternative to offer
5) You insist you do, but again, it won't change my mind, so you won't share it.
6) I again ask what this alternative is.
7) You tell me you've already shared it.
8) I ask where
9) You point me to a post in which you say "I don't see the need to provide examples."
And I'm the one who's afraid to face something?
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed the other part of that post where you said "as more people roll back the state in their own minds, the power of the state to enforce its edicts will gradually weaken" was the "alternative approach" you were talking about. Of course, this doesn't exactly sound like an actual "alternative approach" so much as a explication of your previous nonsense platitude about remaining in "the battleground of ideas", this one being only slightly longer. So I asked if you were joking.
Evidently you weren't.
So that's your "alternative approach." I ask for an actual practical pragmatic 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, and your response is basically the same thing Clayton just said: "disseminate the truth and then [sit back and watch what happens]". Except you basically come out and state that the State will somehow actually be rolled back because people have changed their mind about it.
So again, if you actually have some method that is better than something like what North describes in those writings, and can offer an actual 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'm all ears.
...Unless of course you're banking on the everyone gaining telekinetic or magical Jeannie abilities thing and you want to stick with the "changed minds automatically means changed reality." But if not, it would be nice to get an explanation of the in-between part.
I've heard nothing but "tell people the truth and then sit back and watch what happens."
Speaking for myself, I'm more of an idea guy, less of an action guy. I'm taking action in my own ways that I see are in line with my own interests. For example, I'm in the process of writing my own programming language whose ultimate purpose is to enable easy access to cryptographic data stored on online servers in a way that is streamlined, yet open source. My primary purpose for the language (how it benefits me) is to act as a resume item that I hope will one day set me apart from the pack.
I'm a big believer that the individual's interests and the interests of society naturally align. If the "action items" that we devise are incongruous with the simple pursuit of self-interest, they're obviously doomed to failure from the outset. So, the key is understanding what individual interests people could be pursuing but aren't either due to lack of insight, mental blocks, lack of organization or capital support, etc. and then fill in what is missing.
In terms of direct action towards political change, I don't see how a person can do better than donating to the LvMI, popularizing Austrian economics, popularizing Ron Paul, and devising money-making ways to do these things (e.g. bitbutter's crowd-funded animations are a perfect illustration). Haven't you been watching the news for the last couple years? Haven't you seen people shaking protest signs that say "END THE FED" on them, in mass numbers, all around the country? You don't think that the LvMI is the single entity most responsible for this?
Also, I think it's important to note that just because something doesn't superficially appear to lend support to the liberty movement, that doesn't mean that it doesn't support it anyway. This is the invisible hand. And I think that there are a lot of commercial or semi-commercial activities - web programming for cash, DJing and mixing in night clubs for cash payment and tips, even Bitcoin mining - that are chipping away at the cracks in the dam.
Granted, we're not yet to critical mass but the only route to real change is through the masses changing the minds and attitudes. Politics is a hopeless game. It's been played a million different ways and always with the same result: "Send me to Washington so I can clean house!" <time passes> "Sorry, I had to compromise in order to get things done." <time passes> "We need this bill in order to protect American workers from greedy capitalists sending our jobs overseas."
So, we just need to keep building toward critical mass (changing hearts and minds). 10% is not enough. 16% is supposed to be the magic number but I don't think it would hurt to try get 20% of the American public at least aware of the problems with the Federal Reserve system and get them - after the famous Aaron Russo documentary - Mad As Hell about it. Perhaps we could use an End the Fed PAC toward this end, a group whose sole purpose is to raise money, get anti-Fed people elected and twist the arms of the remaining members of Congress to end the legal tender status of FRNs (and any other regulatory favors given to FRNs) and free gold and silver of capital gains taxes.
One of the things that might also be good is an educational outreach specifically directed toward the wealthy - I think there are more individuals who could become "libertarian angels" like Peter Thiel is - they just haven't given any thought to the matter. I know that charity organizations will sponsor programs to go to social galas and attempt to glad hand the wealthy and attempt to attract their attention to donating to various kinds of charity. Promoting liberty doesn't sound like charity but it really is the most philanthropic thing that I think a person could spend their money on, so perhaps we just need people to go out and create a message that explains liberty in terms of philanthropy.
And so on. I'm not opposed to political action, I am just firmly convinced that there's no way in hell we're going to elect ourselves out of this mess. Sooner or later, the system will have to undergo something at least as upending to the present social order as perestroika was to Soviet Russia.
Clayton:Speaking for myself, I'm more of an idea guy, less of an action guy.
I guess as long as you're willing to admit it, that's a start. But I guess a big part of my point is that everyone can't be "idea people and not action people", or nothing would ever get done. I'm still interested in proposals for how government would be rolled back. And if no one has any, then I don't see the use in simply claiming what I, North, and Holland, (and I'm sure plenty others) have said is essentially not the way to go. Again, simply criticizing without offering any actual reasoned critique, let alone an alternative, is just another Leftist tactic (this one of course being the famous "Critical Theory" method).
I'm in the process of writing my own programming language whose ultimate purpose is to enable easy access to cryptographic data stored on online servers in a way that is streamlined, yet open source.
Sounds awesome.
I'm a big believer that the individual's interests and the interests of society naturally align. If the "action items" that we devise are incongruous with the simple pursuit of self-interest, they're obviously doomed to failure from the outset.
I doubt you'll be able to find many things higher on the list of priorities for the majority of the electorate than a quality education for their children...which includes one in which the knowledge and values the parents wish to instill in their children is nurtured...as opposed to whitewashed and erased and replaced with indoctrination. In other words, I think plenty of people would consider having more control over their local education system to be "in their self interest".
Popularizing Ron Paul? Why?
And my larger point is (and has been) that there has to be a connection between these people with changed minds and actual action within government...the rubber has to meet the road at some point, so to speak. Yes it's great that people are standing around holding signs. That helps popularize the idea and show the opposition...but holding signs is not going to make the Fed go away. Again I'm interested in the application of all this knowledge. What is going to be done to roll back this government. And for probably the fifth time, I haven't heard anything other than "popularize the freedom message...change people's minds..."
In my earlier post I said it: 10% people's minds are changed. Now what. All those people should dedicate 100% of their efforts in changing more minds? Is that really the most effective, efficient and fastest way to see rollback? I don't buy it. And I'm not seeing any arguments as to why it is...let alone convincing arguments.
Clayton:Also, I think it's important to note that just because something doesn't superficially appear to lend support to the liberty movement, that doesn't mean that it doesn't support it anyway.
I never said that wasn't the case. I'm not the one saying "I don't see how a person can do better than donating to the LvMI..." You just did.
Granted, we're not yet to critical mass but the only route to real change is through the masses changing the minds and attitudes. Politics is a hopeless game.
Then why are you so concerned about Ron Paul? If it's such a useless and effectless venue, why does virtually everyone I've ever heard of who promotes liberty say something along the lines of "Paul's done more for libertarianism than all of his critics, [like Stefan Molyneux] put together." (That one was Walter Block, by the way.)
Why don't regular people know the name "Stefan Molyneux"...or "Walter Block", for that matter? I had probably been making the rounds in the libertarian sphere and even spending time on this very forum for probably a year before I even figured out who "Stefan Molyneux" was. And the only reason I did find out the douchebag was is (coincidentally) because he attacked Ron Paul and the affectiveness of political action...and the backlash was so loud that I ended up hearing it. And again, coincidentally enough, one of the loudest (i.e. most prominent) pieces of backlash was from Block.
If simply "spreading the word" and philosophizing is so much more effective, why aren't these people at the head of a revolution?
Again, a large part of my point is that one of the most effective, efficient and fastest ways of "the masses changing the minds and attitudes" is through a platform in the public sphere. And yes, politics is a big part of that. And yes, I realize that is basically anathema and sacrilege to anarchists, but it's reality. Believe me, I'm well aware of the "too cool, above the fray, non-conformist" bullshit perpetuated by a lot of supposed anti-statists. "The political game is a merry-go-round, bro. A pool of corruption. That's not real anarchism. We need a revolution in the battleground of ideas, man. Like, free people's minds from the chains of the matrix, you know? Baptize the public in the fire of real principle and truth. Then, when they're unplugged from the system, and the blackness is washed out of their eyes with the pure water of freedom (not that tainted flouride crap that comes out of the public tap), then things will change. Once we hit that critical mass bro, just sit back and watch what happens."
Fluff. Nonsense. No substance. Bullshit.
My argument is (a) being active in the arena means 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, it 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, (b) 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...and as an extention of that, (c) you have a better chance of influencing public opinion of less government in a positive way...by creating the conditions of less and less intervention and (1) proving it's possible...that is, that things will still get done and people won't be dying in the streets if government spending doesn't break records every year, and (2) showing the positive results that come from it.
If you want to see what I'm talking about, Reason.tv does a great job of highlighting a lot of these local cases (from volunteer law enforcement to privatizing "public" services). They serve not only as examples of what can be done to improve life in a very realistic way that effects the daily lives of individuals (even if in just a small local area), but also they serve as examples to everyone else outside of that area of (1) & (2)...namely that it can be done, and that it produces desirable results.
Again, I'm still waiting to hear of any sort of method that would be more effective, more efficient, or faster, that does not include action in the public/government sphere.
Everyone here seems so eager to discount it, but I'm not hearing any other ideas...let alone better ones.
So, we just need to keep building toward critical mass (changing hearts and minds). 10% is not enough. 16% is supposed to be the magic number but I don't think it would hurt to try get 20% of the American public at least aware of the problems with the Federal Reserve system and get them - after the famous Aaron Russo documentary - Mad As Hell about it.
Okie dokie. Take away Ron Paul and any influence he was able to achieve through being involved in politics and government, make sure no one else interested in liberty gets involved in politics or government, and tell me how you're going to get anywhere near that 20% in your lifetime.
Clayton:Perhaps we could use an End the Fed PAC toward this end, a group whose sole purpose is to raise money, get anti-Fed people elected and twist the arms of the remaining members of Congress to end the legal tender status of FRNs (and any other regulatory favors given to FRNs) and free gold and silver of capital gains taxes.
Hmm. An "End the Fed" Politcial Action Committee? That sounds like political action to me.
You mean educating rich people on liberty so that they will donate to organizations that educate people on liberty?
And so on. I'm not opposed to political action, I am just firmly convinced that there's no way in hell we're going to elect ourselves out of this mess.
In the same way that I don't think we can "think" ourselves or "change our minds" out of this mess, I never said anything about "electing ourselves" out of this mess.
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.
lol, good ananlogy - but I was actually using squeaky wheel as a synonym and way to sum up your concept with "Irate, tireless, minority".
Ex: I think (?) the radical Republicans in the reconstruction era may not have held the majority of the Party's interest - but due to being an irate, tireless , minority they were effective...I happen to use squeaky wheel in this manor.
Anyway, unless you want me to expound on anything I think I've said my piece in this thread.
"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
Well as I've said a number of times, I'm definitely interested in hearing any theories or proposals as to how exactly government would be rolled back. Again the only thing I've heard so far is "change the minds of people". That doesn't even oppose my argument, let alone provide any sort of alternative concrete framework or explanation as to how government would be rolled back.
It sounded like you were opposing the general argument I made (or at least attempting to offer a counter argument), but I'm really still not quite sure what that is.
Is that what you were doing or were you just:
Clearing up your thoughts on something
Making a declaritive statement for some reason
asking a question
or something else?
@JJ
Well, I think the main idea behind changing the minds of people is to expect civil disobedience. Now, I understand that there is no necessary reason why it should lead to should lead to civil disobedience, but I can say that it tends to lead towards it. And civil disobedience is a very important factor in reducing/eliminating the state. I pointed this out in a discussion with Minarchist, but I'll just touch on it a little here: alcohol prohibition. So many people just ignored the prohibition. Eventually, it was just too much for the state and the law was repealed. This particular scenario would seem to suggest that not only civil disobedience was involved, but also there was some politicking involved too. Maybe the state was just trying to save face, maybe not. But civil disobedience was undoubtedly the main reason why the law was repealed. This happened primarily due to people's attitudes, and not to politics.
Re Ron Paul: His importance primarily, in my opinion, has to do with the fact that he spreads the idea of liberty more than engaging in politics.
@JJ:
If you're impatient for progress towards liberty in your own life, I think your best bet is to follow Doug Casey and move to Argentina - work to get multiple residency, spread your bank accounts, open up holding corporations in Panama or whatever, etc. But that's a game for the upper-middle class and above, a status I haven't yet attained but I can't speak for others.
I don't think we can "think" ourselves or "change our minds" out of this mess,
Well, of course not, the change is in the doing. But human action resides entirely within the mind. The physical consequences of human action are just the unfolding of what has already happened in the mind. So, the entrepreneur who invests in Widget X and builds a fortune already acted the moment he committed in his mind to follow this course of action.
This fact has immense consequences to social action. Political reality is determined by what people do, that is, by the culture. If you want to bring about political change, you have to change what people do, and to change what people do, you have to first change their minds because the human mind is where human action occurs.
Changing how people think is changing how they act. It is the only way to change how they act. The point is that you cannot change the status quo by simply adopting a different political strategy. The political structure is already "finely tuned" to what the people will bear. We have income taxes because the people are not strongly opposed to them. We have a social security tax because people are not strongly opposed to it. We have a central bank because people are not strongly opposed to it (though, hopefully this one is beginning to change).
As far as your ranking of most important political problems, I do not believe that education is the most important political problem. That's a long-run strategy anyway, you're talking a full generation until changes in the education system can begin to matter. And even your preferred strategy (putting people on school boards) is wrong-headed. Better to advocate for parental choice, including home-schooling. I was home-schooled. It's a big part of the reason that I was able to make the journey to liberty. I can see that most of my public-schooled friends will never make it out of the Matrix, so to speak.
The biggest problem is the central bank and it is also a political jugular. It is extremely difficult to paint a central bank in populist colors. They constantly handle trillions of dollars of transactions with fat-cat capitalists and they are just a banking cartel/monopoly. Opening up currency competition anywhere in the world spells disaster for the entire global central banking complex. So, we don't even need to succeed in the US per se, any country that is reasonably independent and can keep from being bullied over by the world powers and who chooses to go the Utah route and allow gold and silver to be legal tender could potentially ignite a global domino collapse of the central banking system. How's that for action?
The only political action strategy that I support:
(He gets into specific recommendations starting around 54:45)
gotlucky:alcohol prohibition. So many people just ignored the prohibition. Eventually, it was just too much for the state and the law was repealed.
I suppose that just happened through the sheer will power in that idea battleground, eh?
This particular scenario would seem to suggest that not only civil disobedience was involved, but also there was some politicking involved too.
Ya don't say?
But civil disobedience was undoubtedly the main reason why the law was repealed. This happened primarily due to people's attitudes, and not to politics.
That's like saying "the plane crashed primarily due to the pilot's wreckless manuvering, and not gravity."
And now tell me why exactly he would have been just as effective in spreading the idea of liberty if he hadn't engaged in politics, and you'll have the start of a refutation of anything I've argued here.
here is no necessary reason why it should lead to should lead to civil disobedience
Actually, that's exactly the point - civil disobedience, black markets, agitation for secession, tax evasion, production and use of illicit substances, will necessarily increase as a result of a change in people's minds regarding the legitimacy of the State order. The criminal and poor underclass in the inner city - apart from whatever vices they may exhibit and virtues they may lack - at least understand the simple truth that the State is our enemy, the cops are not our friends. Philosophical anarchism comes very easy to these people because many of them have had the State's boot on the back of their neck on more than one occasion.
The middle class, on the other hand, is easily distracted from this ugly reality and finds it easy to pretend that such things can never happen to them because they're wrapped up cheering their favorite college football team. Nor do I think that this is necessarily a vice - human culture is freest when it is blithe. But in order to secure this carefree existence, someone must "guard the cultural borders" so to speak. In older cultures, the elders played this role. They told the old stories, sang the old songs, observed the traditions, festivals and holidays and passed on religious and metaphysical beliefs. For a variety of reasons (one of the most important being Social Security, yes you heard me right), we don't have this anymore.
So, here's an action item: start respecting and caring for your elders, that is, your parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents, mentors, and so on. "Caring for" means monetary obligation. Keep them at home, don't send them off to rot in nursing homes. Have them teach your children and teach you. You'll have the hassle of having more people in the house and the extra rent and grocery money but so what? What you get in return is priceless.
We should target the poor for education in the philosophy of liberty, perhaps by combining it with charity as religious institutions do. Can you imagine opening a brick and mortar Mises library in an area accessible to inner-city people, donation-funded, where people can come to read and hear lectures? I consider this a dream scenario. I can't imagine how to bring it about but if you want to stir me to action, John James, you find me a plan to do that. I will gladly donate copious amounts of time to such a venture. The impact would be immense. Now you have a city with poor people who understand in 1080p HD resolution precisely how their rights are being trampled by the police, the prosecutors, the judges and the whole system. All of a sudden, that welfare check starts to look like hush money, and a paltry sum at that. How's that for force-multiplied action?
Clayton:If you're impatient for progress towards liberty in your own life, I think your best bet is to follow Doug Casey and move to Argentina - work to get multiple residency, spread your bank accounts, open up holding corporations in Panama or whatever, etc. But that's a game for the upper-middle class and above, a status I haven't yet attained but I can't speak for others.
What does that have to do with rolling back government in the U.S. in the most effective, efficient, and fastest manner?
I don't think we can "think" ourselves or "change our minds" out of this mess, Well, of course not, the change is in the doing.
Well, of course not, the change is in the doing.
Then I guess it's a good thing we're not all "more idea guys, and less of action guys", eh?
But human action resides entirely within the mind. The physical consequences of human action are just the unfolding of what has already happened in the mind. So, the entrepreneur who invests in Widget X and builds a fortune already acted the moment he committed in his mind to follow this course of action.
I already stated it starts with the attitude and ideas toward government. But if everyone is admittedly "more of an idea guy, and less of an action guy", such that everything they "do" actually takes place in this invisible "battleground of ideas", then nothing will ever actually get done. You can have all the greatest ideas in the world, but until action takes place, what's in your head is completely useless, irrelevant, and inconsequential.
This fact has immense consequences to social action. Political reality is determined by what people do
Bingo.
to change what people do, you have to first change their minds because the human mind is where human action occurs.
I said that already. In the other thread. That I linked to. In the second sentence of the OP. (and in this thread as well). For probably the fifth time, I'm not arguing that. I never argued that. I don't know why there is such a hang up on it. It's like people are so holed up in this "battleground of ideas" that they can't get outside of it and talk about anything that would happens outside the walls of their head.
Again, you're just still saying the same thing.
As far as your ranking of most important political problems, I do not believe that education is the most important political problem.
Depends on your definition of "important" and "political problem". You made the argument that people will act on their self interest. I didn't argue that. All I suggested was that having more control over their local education system is "in the self interest" of a hell of a lot of people, and it is something that they would be motivated to do something about. Even people whom you probably wouldn't think that would be the case. If you'd like examples of this, see the film The Lottery, or this clip from Stossel. Usually people don't get that upset about something they don't care a pretty decent amount about. But maybe these people don't really have an interest in their children's education and are just all on drugs, and that's why they're spending all their time waiting in lines and sitting in crowded auditoriums and crying, I don't know.
That's a long-run strategy anyway, you're talking a full generation until changes in the education system can begin to matter. And even your preferred strategy (putting people on school boards) is wrong-headed. Better to advocate for parental choice, including home-schooling. I was home-schooled. It's a big part of the reason that I was able to make the journey to liberty. I can see that most of my public-schooled friends will never make it out of the Matrix, so to speak.
Very few parents have the option of home-schooling their children. And like it or not, there are government laws in place that prevent choice and competition in education. So again, I'm sorry to say, there will have to be political action of some kind.
And here again, you're telling me it will take "a full generation until changes matter". Do you have some faster alternative? Because I'm pretty sure I've been asking for one since about the third post of this thread. Could you provide it please?
I've been dying to hear this faster, more effective, more efficient method of rolling back government that involves virtually no activity to that end taking place inside the government itself, again, since about that third post.
Could you name some such "reasonably independent" country that "can keep from being bullied over by the world powers"? And could you please explain how exactly this country would "allow gold and silver to be legal tender" through some non-political means?
My question to Hoppe is: who are the footsoldiers and who do they fight?
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
the state was just trying to save face
Exactly. Voluntary abdication of de jure power often follows the involuntary loss of de facto power in order to save face. "Oh yeah, we were planning to stop enforcing and repeal those laws all along, they're outdated anyway." The only thing worse for the State than looking impotent is looking clownish and attempting to impose authority on a point where the society has already rejected the State's authority risks both. The REAL ID fiasco is an example of this, where the Feds passed the law, the States said "no f---ing way" (mainly due to funding, only slightly due to any principles) and then the Feds said "Oh, just kidding, we didn't even mean that." Now they're holding PASS ID in the wings for some future date and they'll pull one of their usual tricks to pass that and they'll probably succeed but it's nice to see power retract when confronted with opposition. I can't find a link but back at the end of the Bush reign, the Feds suspended medical marijuana raids in California after having vowed up and down that they would enforce Federal law over California law. They largely had to back down and they've resorted to other tactics such as getting local municipalities to ban MM dispensaries and raiding college campuses and busting unsuspecting college kids and slapping them with felony convictions.
This is the Nullification strategy. The formal aspect is just window dressing and the politicians will handle that automatically, we don't even need to do anything.
Action item: lobbying for increased marijuana liberalization in CA (ultimate goal: completely de-criminalization and de-regulation). I'm sure there are already PACs for this in CA, so just call one of them or email them and ask them what you can do to help. The same goes for the 10th amendment resolutions regarding gun control and Virginia's heroic law nullifying NDAA arrests within VA borders. We probably only need to get 10 States to pass Virginia-style nullification bills in order to get the Feds to go back on it. That's the power of "Hell No!"
John James: I suppose that just happened through the sheer will power in that idea battleground, eh?
I don't mean to be dense, but I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. I mean, I don't think people ran around saying "Omg alcohol prohibition is tyranny!" But for the most part people just ignored the law and actively broke it in every which way possible (e.g. making alcohol, selling it, making gangs around it). I think that the law was just formally repealed instead of just disappearing into history. This article here by the BBC cites a lot of laws (although British) that are still technically on the books but no longer enforced. Alcohol prohibition could have gone this way, but it is my opinion that the state wanted to save face.
John James: Ya don't say?
I don't think that politics and civil disobedience need to be mutually exclusive, but I do believe that civil disobedience is far more effective - at least in the mean time until a law is formally repealed (or unoffically).
John James: That's like saying "the plane crashed primarily due to the pilot's wreckless manuvering, and not gravity."
Well, gravity would be a factor, but if it hadn't been for some other cause, the plane would not have crashed. Likewise, politics alone is not necessarily enough to repeal law. There has to be some causing factor, and changing people's minds is certainly it, and that typically leads to civil disobedience, which, if it doesn't get the law repealed by itself, certainly speeds the process up.
John James: And now tell me why exactly he would have been just as effective in spreading the idea of liberty if he hadn't engaged in politics, and you'll have the start of a refutation of anything I've argued here.
How is Rush Limbaugh so effective in spreading his ideas? What about John Stossel or Thomas Sowell? Milton Friedman? None of these people were politicians, but they are effective at spreading their ideas. Their mediums are print, radio, and television. Ron Paul did have a newsletter. I see no reason why he could not have spread his ideas without government, seeing as other people have done it too. I see nothing wrong with how he went about it though. There is no real way to know one way or the other if he would have been just as effective, but using print, radio, or television are highly effective means of communication.
@JJ: OK, I think I see where we're talking past each other.
You're concerned about what are we (upholders of liberty) going to do rather than just what are we going to say. I'm not very concerned about that because it doesn't really matter. If you took everyone who is even remotely connected and assenting to one or more aspects of the LvMI, you couldn't even fill a football stadium. Needless to say, we are a drop in the ocean of the other 350 million Americans.
So, I have two words for you: force multiplication.
I am more interested in getting 100 million Americans to do a tiny thing in opposition to the State than I am in a heroic effort of our football stadium of dedicated upholders of the ideals of liberty. The only way to get them to do something is to change their minds. I am much more interested in changing the minds of 100 million Americans in such a way that they will do a tiny thing in opposition to the State than I am in making a heroic effort in opposition to the State or even getting the football stadium of upholders of liberty to take on an organized, heroic effort in opposition to the State. What I'd rather see is some kind of meta-organization of that football stadium that extends what LvMI is already doing and turns us into a kind of populist megaphone for the LvMI which, in turn, will spread the message more widely. Look at the number of views of George Ought to Help. How many of those people do you think have ever heard of Mises? 1%? Half a percent? I bet not even that.
Please check out the last section of that Hoppe lecture I posted above (the whole lecture is totally awesome but the strategy stuff is at the end, beginning around 54:45) - these ideas aren't mine, I'm pretty much just parroting Dr. Hoppe. You should listen to Hoppe himself since he explains it all much more precisely.
@Jargon: I believe Hoppe has in mind the students who attend the Mises seminars and Summer university, for example. I think the LvMI would do well to leverage their online presence more effectively. What we on these forums lack in formal certifications, we more than make up in raw enthusiasm and willingness to invest time and talent.
Who are we fighting? Well, all the mouthpieces of the Establishment who are saying 180 degrees precisely the opposite of everything that the LvMI stands for - political aggregation, central banking, centrally-planned economy, and so on. The Establishment's myths need to be answered so confused people can relieve themselves of the nagging doubts that these myths cause and the technical economic truths need to be distilled into language accessible and appealing to the masses.
I'm not an atheist, but otherwise, Penn Jillette states my views on this matter eloquently and precisely:
gotlucky:I don't mean to be dense, but I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here.
I'm saying that when you say a law was repealed, that by definition means political/governmental action took place.
I think that the law was just formally repealed instead of just disappearing into history. This article here by the BBC cites a lot of laws (although British) that are still technically on the books but no longer enforced. Alcohol prohibition could have gone this way, but it is my opinion that the state wanted to save face.
The law was not "ignored". People just broke it. There is a huge difference. Speakeasys, bootlegging, passwords, and gangsters...these are not the result of an "ignorance" of the law.
Cannabis coffeeshops in the Netherlands are an example of "ignorance" of the law.
And yes, that is a way to go. But do you really want to try to argue the US would have gotten to that point before the 21st Amendment was ratified? If that's the case, then why didn't it?
Again, you're not refuting or even really opposing anything I've argued.
That's like saying "the plane crashed primarily due to the pilot's wreckless manuvering, and not gravity." Well, gravity would be a factor, but if it hadn't been for some other cause, the plane would not have crashed.
Well, gravity would be a factor, but if it hadn't been for some other cause, the plane would not have crashed.
You used the word "primarily". What is the primary reason the plane went down? If it weren't for gravity, the pilot's actions would have no consequence, now would they.
gotlucky:Likewise, politics alone is not necessarily enough to repeal law.
It's not?
There has to be some causing factor
You mean like, people in government declaring it so? Because I was pretty sure that's how government edicts worked. They pass a law, and it gets enforced. They repeal a law, and it goes away.
(Sure there are laws you can point to that don't get enforced, and while that's nice, I still have a problem with that power being there. For every law you can point to that is "not enforced" I can point you to times when it has been selectively enforced to target people the State doesn't like. I believe it was Stossel who had an attorney on one of his episodes/specials that said "if I followed you around for a day I guarantee I could charge you with at least three federal offenses."
I don't care how "ignored" or "not enforced" a law is...all it takes is for you to piss off the wrong guy, and your life is over. And it will all be perfectly legal. On the other hand, the opposite does not happen. You don't see a law getting repealed and then people getting put in prison for abiding by it. That doesn't even make sense. Ergo, repeal > "ignorance")
and changing people's minds is certainly it, and that typically leads to civil disobedience, which, if it doesn't get the law repealed by itself, certainly speeds the process up.
Again, no opposing anything I've said. This is all made to sound like it's offering a counter-argument, but in the end you keep going back to my conclusion.
gotlucky:How is Rush Limbaugh so effective in spreading his ideas? What about John Stossel or Thomas Sowell? Milton Friedman? None of these people were politicians, but they are effective at spreading their ideas.
Rush Limbaugh and John Stossel are in entertainment. And the last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh was losing sponsors left and right, and more of a political Howard Stern than anyone who is actually taken seriously or preaching anything that the general Republican electorate doesn't already agree with. And Stossel, as great as he is, hosts a show on an extended cable network where he's lucky if he gets 750k viewers per week (including reruns). Again, I don't exactly see him at the front of any revolution.
Ask 100 random people if they've ever heard of Thomas Sowell and you might get 1 "yes". Ask if they've ever read anything he's written and you'll get less. And Milton Friedman spent a great deal of his career in the government sphere, even if in unofficial positions. Again, his success does more to support my point than refute it.
His economic policy positions are largely known due to his work as economic adviser to Ronald Reagan. The abolishment of the draft had a lot to do with his voice in government proceedings.
One might argue that the Nobel award in economics helped with his popularity as well...and while this is not exactly a political engagement, it is a rare award that few people receive or are even in a position to receive. Again, I'm speaking in practical matters. Again, all someone has to do win a local election for US Representative and they stand to get virtually as much of a microphone as a Nobel Laureate.
Ron Paul did have a newsletter.
...which he started after being elected to the US House of Representatives. I don't think that's just a coincidence, and that there was just as much demand for a "Ron Paul, the obstetrician" newsletter. Again, I'm sorry that it's so unfortunate, but like it or not, having a position in politics gives you more respect, a bigger microphone, and more power to affect change. I don't see how you're going to argue against that because it's the truth.
I see no reason why he could not have spread his ideas without government, seeing as other people have done it too.
And yet no one else has been anywhere near as effective...and the ones who are closer have all been involved in with politics in some way.
There is no real way to know one way or the other if he would have been just as effective, but using print, radio, or television are highly effective means of communication.
And my point is, you have much easier access to print, radio, and television when you have a position in the public sphere. A Rush Limbaugh Show is just as rare (if not more so) than a Nobel Prize.
@Clayton
To be honest, I think that Penn Jillette's little wrapup shtick at the end their does miles of harm for the libertarian cause, namely the conviction that libertarians have a deep-seated faith in the goodness of men. On the contrary, market proponents must have only a deep-seated faith in the greed of men for the market to function well. Personally, despite being such a proponent I do not hold that trait aloft. Penn there kind of smacks of Lord Keynes in this gem: "Capitalism is “the astonishing belief that the nastiest motives of the nastiest men somehow or other work for the best results in the best of all possible worlds.” What it implies is that Capitalism depends on generosity.
The opposite is true. The capitalist is hamstrung in ways that the ruler is not. Government requires generosity. A capitalist, both hated and incompetent, is not a capitalist. The same cannot be said for any politician, bureaucrat, or tyrant.
@Jargon: Well, what is clear is that humans beings have an in-built capacity for peaceful cooperation, without threats from a big bully in the sky wandering around hitting people over the head and taking their stuff. I don't think we should exaggerate this into something more than it is - people have the capacity and act on that capacity to do awful things to each other. Yet, on the other hand, the Hobbesian myth is the founding myth of the modern total State. Hobbes denies that men are capable of peaceful cooperation in the absence of a big bully in the sky whacking people over the head. And that's what I hear Penn rebutting in that clip.
Clayton: You're concerned about what are we (upholders of liberty) going to do rather than just what are we going to say. I'm not very concerned about that because it doesn't really matter. If you took everyone who is even remotely connected and assenting to one or more aspects of the LvMI, you couldn't even fill a football stadium. Needless to say, we are a drop in the ocean of the other 350 million Americans. So, I have two words for you: force multiplication. I am more interested in getting 100 million Americans to do a tiny thing in opposition to the State than I am in a heroic effort of our football stadium of dedicated upholders of the ideals of liberty. The only way to get them to do something is to change their minds. I am much more interested in changing the minds of 100 million Americans in such a way that they will do a tiny thing in opposition to the State than I am in making a heroic effort in opposition to the State or even getting the football stadium of upholders of liberty to take on an organized, heroic effort in opposition to the State.
I am more interested in getting 100 million Americans to do a tiny thing in opposition to the State than I am in a heroic effort of our football stadium of dedicated upholders of the ideals of liberty. The only way to get them to do something is to change their minds. I am much more interested in changing the minds of 100 million Americans in such a way that they will do a tiny thing in opposition to the State than I am in making a heroic effort in opposition to the State or even getting the football stadium of upholders of liberty to take on an organized, heroic effort in opposition to the State.
And holy crap for probably the fifth time (I think this is 3 different things, expressed 5 separate times each now),
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." [...] 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 [this small faction of upholders of liberty you're talking about] 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.
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." [...]
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 [this small faction of upholders of liberty you're talking about] 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.
You know why that's in a quote box? But it was already written. In the other thread. That I linked to. In the second sentence of the OP. (And was even reproduced, word for word, in this thread...already...by another poster.)
And as I told him, in the post before that, I wish you would read that thread where this has already been hashed out quite a bit, it would save time.
Look at the number of views of George Ought to Help. How many of those people do you think have ever heard of Mises? 1%? Half a percent? I bet not even that.
As much as I love that video, 92k views over 18 months is not entirely impressive. I probably have accounted for close to at least 20 of those views myself. And I doubt I'm the only one. I would be very surprised if anywhere close to a majority of those views were from people who weren't already basically part of the choir. To answer your question, I'd feel a lot more comfortable with guessing 20% or more of those views have heard of Mises.
Please check out the last section of that Hoppe lecture I posted above (the whole lecture is totally awesome but the strategy stuff is at the end, beginning around 54:45)
I did. A couple things:
46:16 - "...a small army of intellectual officers, footsoldiers, and part time volunteers who help spread the ideological message; who simplify it, indeed sometimes even compromise it, and make it understandable by, and palatable to, the so-called "common man" so as to change public opinion.
What was that all you people were bitching about Ron Paul preaching the Constitution and not coming out full blown anarchist?
57:48 - "...Just look for instance at such "revolutionaries" as Gingrich or Limbaugh. They want to pacify us by reducing the rate of increased socialism, and thus give the idea of a revolution a bad name."
@gotlucky: Doesn't sound like Limbaugh is changing many minds as much as he is just reinforcing the status quo. Could it be that that has a lot to do with his popularity? Indeed, people like to be told they're right. They don't like to hear ideas that are foreign to them and essentially tell them they're wrong.
That being said, I have no fricking clue what the hell you're talking about with that video, Clay. I listened to that entire lecture, and nowhere...not even starting at the 54 minute mark that you mention did I hear any sort of "specific recommendations" or "strategy stuff". Indeed, that entire final part of the lecture beginning at that point is almost nothing more than what an enemy might call, if you'll excuse the vulgarity, a bj for Mises, Rothbard and the Institute. Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against that. Promote the shit out of those guys all you want. Talk about how the LvMI is the greatest thing since sex. And have fun doing it. But don't try to sell it to me as some kind of "strategy" or "specific recommendation" along the lines of what I'm asking.
Essentially all he spends 54:00-60:00 talking about how you need to be uncompromising in theory and ultimate goal, or else you'll be a dud like Gingrich, and then from then on, he basically just says that Mises and Rothbard have left a great intellectual foundation and the Mises Institute needs to be the center hothouse for the revolution. At the end he suggests maybe we could take over a university.
I didn't hear anything in any of that that could remotely be considered a "strategy" or "specific recommendation" along the lines of what I'm asking. What are these "ideas" you're talking about? What exactly is it you're parroting? That the Mises Institute needs to be the think tank of the revolution? I really have no idea what any of this has to do with what I've been talking about or what I'm asking.
Clayton:I'm not an atheist, but otherwise, Penn Jillette states my views on this matter eloquently and precisely:
I've seen this clip a number of times now. He basically spends the first few minutes talking about how he just wants to tell his truth and have other people tell him theirs. Because they could be right, and he could be wrong. He says that he doesn't "spend any time thinking about what we're trying to accomplish". He literally said that. He said that if he is thinking to himself "how do I get this person to become a libertarian?", he believes at that moment he is a pig.
This sounds directly contradictory to what Hoppe was describing and what you and others have been saying. You and others in this thread seem to have been quite adamant about fighting in this "battleground of ideas" and essentially working to get more people to become libertarian.
And now you say the guy who says "I don't spend any time thinking about what we're trying to accomplish", "states [your] views on this matter eloquently and precisely."
This makes absolutely no sense to me.
John James:You said you had an alternative approach to rolling back government that didn't involve any sort of involvment or action within government or the political process.
That's correct, and I described it. If it didn't satisfy you, well, that's your problem, not mine.
John James:I asked what that might be, and instead of sharing it you dodged around it and basically said nothing you offered would suffice for me, so you won't offer your alleged alternative approach. (As if whether I thought it was a valid idea or not was even relevant.) You either place a much greater weight on my opinion than I thought (and certainly than you'd like to admit), or you're simply relying on the common Leftist tactic of focusing something that is completely irrelevant and using it as an excuse to avoid having to offer any sort of argument of your own.
As far as I'm concerned, I did not dodge around it. I didn't take your question seriously, because of your ample past history of sarcasm, condescension, and bullying. So I figured you weren't really interested in an alternative(s) I might have, and your question was a rhetorical one, designed to tell "the audience" that I don't have any alternative(s). If you want people to keep taking you seriously around here, I suggest you stop that behavior - otherwise, I think you're doing yourself a disservice.
John James:I pointed this out and insinuated that you actually had no real alternative,
For whatever it's worth, thanks for actually being a bit forthcoming here. I think the insinuation began earlier though.
John James:and you again reverted to your "yeah I have one, but it won't change your mind, so I don't need to share it" nonsense. So I again asked about you actually putting something forth, and you [I'm not even kidding] claimed that you already did offer your alternative.
By that point, I had already explained my alternative. Whether you consider it to be valid is irrelevant.
John James:I asked where in the hell you have done this, and you [again, I'm not even joking] actually pointed me to a previous post in this very thread in which you literally said "I don't see the need to provide examples."
John, either you don't understand logic, or you're behaving in an extremely dishonest manner here. At this point, I'm honestly not sure which one is more likely. In that same post, I actually did outline my alternative, as you're most certainly already aware. So maybe it is more likely that you're just being extremely dishonest.
John James:I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed the other part of that post where you said "as more people roll back the state in their own minds, the power of the state to enforce its edicts will gradually weaken" was the "alternative approach" you were talking about. Of course, this doesn't exactly sound like an actual "alternative approach" so much as a explication of your previous nonsense platitude about remaining in "the battleground of ideas", this one being only slightly longer. So I asked if you were joking. Evidently you weren't.
This shifting of gears contradicts what you claim earlier in your post. Did I present an alternative or not, John? Yes or no? Which is it? Surely you can make up your mind, can't you?
John James:So that's your "alternative approach." I ask for an actual practical pragmatic 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, and your response is basically the same thing Clayton just said: "disseminate the truth and then [sit back and watch what happens]". Except you basically come out and state that the State will somehow actually be rolled back because people have changed their mind about it.
You didn't use the word "pragmatic" in your initial post on the matter. But to be honest, I think the "disseminate the truth and then [sit back and watch what happens]" approach could be more quick, effective, and efficient in rolling back the state than your Cato-esque approach. I say "could be" because I don't know for sure, and unlike you, I don't claim otherwise.
John James:So again, if you actually have some method that is better than something like what North describes in those writings, and can offer an actual 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'm all ears. ...Unless of course you're banking on the everyone gaining telekinetic or magical Jeannie abilities thing and you want to stick with the "changed minds automatically means changed reality." But if not, it would be nice to get an explanation of the in-between part.
I don't know if I've ever seen someone engage in such blatant doublethink around here. First you say that I didn't provide an alternative, then you say that I did, but then you say that I actually didn't, because what I proposed isn't an "actual alternative". This is probably too much to ask at this point, but could you even try to be consistent with your terms?
You're proving the point I made in my first post in this thread. I predicted that you wouldn't consider anything other than what you propose to be an "actual alternative" because you're already convinced that what you propose is the best possible approach. Thus your point with this thread wasn't to engage in any sort of discussion or debate of different approaches, but to impose your approach on as many other people as possible by (among other things) pushing the other approaches as far away as you can. Let me borrow one of your catchphrases and say that you should see my big, surprised face.
As he says, it's a very fine distinction. Perhaps it's only something that matters to people who grew up in a devoutly religious household - there's a certain arrogance or hubris to the evangelistic mindset. It's a prejudicial belief that the other person cannot possibly have any valid input to the discussion. Speaking in this attitude is merely preaching, not sharing the truth as far as you think you've managed to discover it. It's a fine distinction but a big difference in what is really going on when sharing the truth of liberty with others.
Clayton:As he says, it's a very fine distinction. Perhaps it's only something that matters to people who grew up in a devoutly religious household - there's a certain arrogance or hubris to the evangelistic mindset. It's a prejudicial belief that the other person cannot possibly have any valid input to the discussion. Speaking in this attitude is merely preaching, not sharing the truth as far as you think you've managed to discover it. It's a fine distinction but a big difference in what is really going on when sharing the truth of liberty with others.
I realize he says it's a fine distinction, but I didn't really see much of one in what you or Hoppe were saying. It sounds to me like you and he are very aware of what you're trying to accomplish. And it even seems like you're actively interested in getting more people to become libertarian.
That being said, maybe I'm wrong, and you aren't. You can tell me. But I'm still interested in hearing some kind of explanation as to how government will be rolled back without any sort of political action whatsoever. Is it just that you think mandates will be ignored, like cannibus laws in Amsterdam? And if so, what is the reasoning as to why this would be faster, more efficient, or more effective than if there was an effort from within to do the same thing. Why do you think all the people mentioned in the OP are wasting their time, and the move to a free-er society would be better served if all these people spending their time in a public sphere would be better served working overtime so they'd have more money to donate the Mises Institute?
And also, if this rollback you see is simply a matter of mandates being no longer enforced, what do you plan to do (okay, I realize you might not have any plans because you said Jillette states your views precisely and he says he "never thinks about what we're trying to accomplish"), but what is your response to the targeting/arbitrary enforcement of relic laws?
I'm interested in the truth and justice - if that's not libertarianism, then so be it. But as far as I can see, the philosophy of liberty is the only philosophy that is consistent with the ultimate end that all human beings have: satisfaction of wants.
That being said, maybe I'm wrong, and you aren't. You can tell me. But I'm still interested in hearing some kind of explanation as to how government will be rolled back without any sort of political action whatsoever. Is it just that you think mandates will be ignored, like cannibus laws in Amsterdam? And if so, what is the reasoning as to why this would be faster, more efficient, or more effective than if there was an effort from within to do the same thing.
The reforms from within must follow the reforms from without. When you get ahead of yourself, your movement will just be infiltrated, hijacked and turned to the ends of the State itself, one way or another.
Why do you think all the people mentioned in the OP are wasting their time, and the move to a free-er society would be better served if all these people spending their time in a public sphere would be better served working overtime so they'd have more money to donate the Mises Institute?
Note that I'm a big believer in TIMTOWTDI - I don't think I have all the answers, I only have my opinion. I would never presume to tell anyone to stop what they're doing (unless they're actually fighting on behalf of the Establishment). But I would ask them to consider my point-of-view regarding what is the most effective use of their time and energy. If they still see it differently, then so be it.
Well, I think about what I would like to see - a world of freedom and prosperity brought about by an eclipse of the absolute State. I think about how to bring that about and what are effective ways to change people's minds. But this really isn't what Penn was talking about.
I think what Penn is talking about is thinking about what you want the outcome of a conversation to be while you're having it. If you're sitting there thinking "This guy needs to see the light and become a libertarian", then you've got the completely wrong attitude. You're no better than a televangelist preacher... you have some preconceived notion that you're trying to "sell" for whatever reason. The attitude of the truth-seeker and virtue-worshipper is marked by humility: "Here's my point-of-view based on my life's experience and what I've studied and read but I'm sure you've had different experiences and studies that are outside of my own and there's almost certainly something I can learn from you - assuming you're someone who is also a truth-seeker."
As a rule of thumb, I think that the more local the political action, the more worthwhile. This is the opposite of the received wisdom which says "go national!" to get the most coverage. If you want to change things, start local. I would rather see bad Federal laws being nullified at the State level than national action being taken to stop the laws. Participating in the Federal process only lends it more legitimacy. I mean, we need a bit of both but I think we need a strategic shift in emphasis to the State level and below. This is part of the power of the LvMI strategy... they're not just limiting themselves to the US, they're doing this globally. We need to light brush fires around the world at the national and sub-national levels in order to give impetus to anti-globalization sentiment.
This is a consequence of what I said above: change from within follows change from without. When the ability of the Feds to impose their will simply fizzles out, then they'll repeal their own damn laws to save face. And yes, there is the potential for outright showdown (e.g. the Civil War) and we shouldn't be afraid of this but we have to choose the issues strategically. We need to put our foot down on issues where they're going to lose the public opinion battle if they were to try pushing it to use of force. That's why pot is such a powerful issue. Despite the fact that the baby boomers are fully indoctrinated into the anti-pot hysteria, social attitudes regarding pot have already shifted considerably and it's widely understood by a significant minority (perhaps even a small majority) that pot Prohibition is a bigger failure than alcohol Prohibition was and that pot-consumption is not the kind of thing that we should be using violent force to stop.
The nullification of the interstate-commerce clause to Federal gun regs is another great example. We're not arguing for completely gun deregulation, just local regulation. These issues are all models which could be rolled out to other issues. But beware that the Establishment is already tring to hijack this strategy - that's why they're infiltrating the Tea Party with agents provocateur. They want to have a showdown over something like border/immigration policy because then they can make the nullificationists out to be "racists" and the Feds can come off as "enlightened beacons of morality."
Clayton:I'm interested in the truth and justice - if that's not libertarianism, then so be it. But as far as I can see, the philosophy of liberty is the only philosophy that is consistent with the ultimate end that all human beings have: satisfaction of wants.
I don't understand what that has to do with what I was talking about. He says that he "never thinks about what we're trying to accomplish." You said he captures your views precisely. I mentioned that it seemed to me that that doesn't seem to line up with your views...that you are very aware of what you're trying to accomplish.
I didn't say anything about what is "real libertarianism." I don't even know what that means.
So do you think about converting people to libertarianism or not? Because my point with the statement above was, it sounds like you do, and that that is something that is important to you. And more people becoming libertarian doesn't seem to be of interest to Penn. So it doesn't sound like he captures your views "precisely."
Am I wrong here?
That being said, maybe I'm wrong, and you aren't. You can tell me. But I'm still interested in hearing some kind of explanation as to how government will be rolled back without any sort of political action whatsoever. Is it just that you think mandates will be ignored, like cannibus laws in Amsterdam? And if so, what is the reasoning as to why this would be faster, more efficient, or more effective than if there was an effort from within to do the same thing. The reforms from within must follow the reforms from without. When you get ahead of yourself, your movement will just be infiltrated, hijacked and turned to the ends of the State itself, one way or another.
I don't disagree with that. I never said anything that contradicted that. I don't see what that has to do with what I asked. Can you answer the question please?
Why do you think all the people mentioned in the OP are wasting their time, and the move to a free-er society would be better served if all these people spending their time in a public sphere would be better served working overtime so they'd have more money to donate the Mises Institute?Note that I'm a big believer in TIMTOWTDI - I don't think I have all the answers, I only have my opinion. I would never presume to tell anyone to stop what they're doing (unless they're actually fighting on behalf of the Establishment). But I would ask them to consider my point-of-view regarding what is the most effective use of their time and energy. If they still see it differently, then so be it.
Is that your way of saying you don't have a reasoning for your opinion? That's what I'm asking for. I'm asking why do you think all the people mentioned in the OP are wasting their time, and the move to a free-er society would be better served if all these people spending their time in a public sphere would be better served working overtime so they'd have more money to donate the Mises Institute?
I never suggested you had all the answers. I'm asking for the reasoning behind your opinion. Can you communicate that please?
And also, if this rollback you see is simply a matter of mandates being no longer enforced, what do you plan to do (okay, I realize you might not have any plans because you said Jillette states your views precisely and he says he "never thinks about what we're trying to accomplish"), but what is your response to the targeting/arbitrary enforcement of relic laws?Well, I think about what I would like to see - a world of freedom and prosperity brought about by an eclipse of the absolute State. I think about how to bring that about and what are effective ways to change people's minds. But this really isn't what Penn was talking about.
I feel like you're jerking me around. It's like you're responding to a completely different post. I asked you a very specific question. "What is your response to the targeting/arbitrary enforcement of relic laws?"
I don't know what "an eclipse of the absolute State" means and I don't know how that answers the question.
The attitude of the truth-seeker and virtue-worshipper is marked by humility: "Here's my point-of-view based on my life's experience and what I've studied and read but I'm sure you've had different experiences and studies that are outside of my own and there's almost certainly something I can learn from you - assuming you're someone who is also a truth-seeker."
That's a really big assumption. I think that's part of the reason most people (including actual truth seekers) find it difficult to do what Jillette's talking about...most people aren't truth seekers.
As a rule of thumb, I think that the more local the political action, the more worthwhile. This is the opposite of the received wisdom which says "go national!" to get the most coverage. If you want to change things, start local.
Is this not what I've been talking about since...the OP?
This is a consequence of what I said above: change from within follows change from without. When the ability of the Feds to impose their will simply fizzles out, then they'll repeal their own damn laws to save face.
And again, if that's what you think will happen, what is the reasoning as to why you think that would happen sooner and more efficiently than people who want to repeal it actually making it happen? Can you please answer this? I've asked this question probably 3 or 4 times now. I don't know why it continues to be dodged.
I think you're misunderstanding what Penn was saying.
I'm asking for the reasoning behind your opinion. Can you communicate that please?
I've tried answering it every way I know how:
1) political infiltration will slow down and ultimately thwart any other approach than the approach Hoppe outlined above, to which I subscribe 2) change begins outside the political system and moves in - attempting to "shortcut" the process by "changing things from within" only leads to (1) 3) secession and nullification are the only political strategies that are not a waste of time - they're not even really "politics" so much as anti-politics (tearing the system down en toto) 4) As Hoppe notes, we might understand that we will not achieve our full strategic ends (such as abolition of the income tax) but we will not achieve anything at all if our strategic ends are compromised to anything less than completely abolition of the State, its taxes and monopolies, and so on. "Changing the system from within" is a compromised goal, it is setting as your end goal a "changed system" rather than complete abolition of the system. 5) both secession and nullification are bottom-up strategies, not top-down strategies (no use petitioning Congress to dissolve its own Union) 6) failure of all prior attempts to "change the system from within" 7) what needs to be changed is the beliefs and attitudes of the masses - a free society is a society of non-snitches, of people who respect property rights, and so on; no political system could impose tyranny on such a society; so why are you focusing on changing the political system when it's irrelevant?
I can't think of any more ways to respond to your question.
It sounded like you were opposing the general argument I made (or at least attempting to offer a counter argument), but I'm really still not quite sure what that is
Yes it was a counter point as demonstrated by headline "counter points". and ar state in points b and c ( I never really went into much other territory once the links started working)
the points were qualified and put in context: the main thrust of the argument is about the potential benefits of third parties and in general and the uniquness of the situation in particualr in relation to this statement of yours:
the way to have them most efficient and effective in the public sphere is by infiltrating and taking over one of the major parties
hopefully that clears things up, that's probably it for me now.
Clayton:political infiltration will slow down and ultimately thwart any other approach than the approach Hoppe outlined above, to which I subscribe
Why would it thwart it? Because there are less people donating time and money to the Institute? Part of my argument was that it could very well enhance the education aspect Hoppe talks about through giving an automatic platform and microphone and even more impactful, immediate credability (in the eyes of the uninformed populace) to what someone is saying. (Again, I don't think nearly as many people would have started listening to Paul if he remained simply an obstetrician from Texas.)
Do you disagree with this? Do you not think that more attention, respect, and consideration is given to what someone in a political position says versus someone who is not? Or do you just not think that moreattention, respect, and consideration for what is being said would make a difference in changing people's minds?
change begins outside the political system and moves in - attempting to "shortcut" the process by "changing things from within" only leads to (1)
Again, is that not that what is happening as described in the OP? Or are you saying something different? Is the "change in the electorate beginning to reflect itself in the party apporatus itself" not the kind of "change from outside moving in" you're talking about?
As Hoppe notes, we might understand that we will not achieve our full strategic ends (such as abolition of the income tax) but we will not achieve anything at all if our strategic ends are compromised to anything less than completely abolition of the State, its taxes and monopolies, and so on. "Changing the system from within" is a compromised goal, it is setting as your end goal a "changed system" rather than complete abolition of the system.
You're misunderstanding my point. "Changing the GOP from the inside" doesn't mean that is the end goal. It is a means to an end. It is exactly what Hoppe is talking about in the sense that you can compromise on temporary results, so long as you are uncompromising in theory and ultimate goal. Hell, he even said you can compromise the message itself to make it understandable by, and palatable to, the so-called "common man" so as to change public opinion.
1) I don't see how this contradicts my original argument
2) It sounds like Hoppe is actually supporting Ron Paul's strategy of talking about the Constitution and the like, that so many in places like this forum are so adamant about berating him for.
Do you disagree?
both secession and nullification are bottom-up strategies, not top-down strategies (no use petitioning Congress to dissolve its own Union)
I never disagreed with that.
failure of all prior attempts to "change the system from within"
Again I think you're misunderstanding the argument.
what needs to be changed is the beliefs and attitudes of the masses - a free society is a society of non-snitches, of people who respect property rights, and so on; no political system could impose tyranny on such a society; so why are you focusing on changing the political system when it's irrelevant?
I'm simply saying that:
a) Ceterus peribus you have increased ability to change beliefs and attitudes of the masses as someone visible in the public sphere
b) Government growth can be curbed by political action. Again, look at someone like Gary Johnson.
c) Government influence can be rolled back faster through political action. Again, see the Sandy Springs example.
It seems like you're hung up on the terms "change" and "system". I never suggested that "changing the system" was the end goal.
So what is your response to the targeting/arbitrary enforcement of relic laws? Are you just saying that through nullification and succession there won't be such a thing? That it wouldn't be a simple "ignorance" of the law by individuals of the citizenry like gotlucky suggests, but rather actual factions of state and/or local governments refusing to acknowledge federal mandates...and then local townships refusing to acknowledge state mandates? And then coming to the aid and support and protection of individuals who might be targeted?
...as in, say, local California police and state troopers standing in the way of federal agents moving in to shut down a marijuana distributor?
vive la insurrection:hopefully that clears things up, that's probably it for me now.
Thanks for your time, vive
@Clayton,
Something else I'm thinking is, if your only concern is the minds and attitudes of the people, why are you so unconcerned with the education system? You poo-pooed the Gary North's prescription of targeting the public school system, claiming that it would take "a full generation until changes in the education system can begin to matter."[1] (Something to which I asked if you had a faster alternative, and never got an answer. Unless of course you believe that your notion of reaching people one by one through the Mises Institute like Hoppe describes will be faster than "a generation", which, if that’s what you think, then feel free to say so.)
But again, if your target is people’s minds, and your goal is to educate them and ultimately have them come to adopt behavior in line with your own philosophy, why do you not have any interest in making your job easier by getting them when they are younger and more impressionable? Or at the very least, preventing your enemy from doing so. I seriously doubt you would disagree that it’s much more difficult to reverse years of indoctrination than it is to simply raise a child with the truth to begin with. Indeed, you yourself alleged that your being homeschooled was a large part of the reason you were able to make the journey to liberty…and what’s more, that you can see that most of your public-schooled friends “will never make it out of the Matrix, so to speak.”
So my question is, what makes you think it is faster, more effective, and more efficient to target people when they’re at least in high school, if not college or beyond?
Why is it not a useful strategy for people to move to take control of their local education system and at the very least remove the barriers that prevent parents from having the freedom to choose what school their child goes to...let alone more say about the curriculum and the instructors?
That is a very reasonable, attainable goal. (And no, before you put words in my mouth and go off on a lecture about compromising on the end goal like Hoppe warns against, blah blah blah, I’m not saying it is the end goal. I’m saying it is small, relatively easy battle to be won.) Again, even you admitted small things like this are the way to go. And yet, North says basically the same thing: "That is a practical goal. [...] A political movement needs small victories."
I don't think you would disagree (and again, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), the more local the tyranny is, the easier it is to oppose and defuse it. And there are few things average people care more about than their kids having a decent life, preferrably better than their own...and in most people's view, that starts with a decent education. (Again, I'm not denying there are plenty of useless people out there who have happened to have kids they didn't want and don't really care about, but there are a lot more who do. Again, even people whom you probably wouldn't think that would be the case. If you'd like examples of this, see the film The Lottery, or this clip from Stossel.) So it's one of the easier battles to be won, and it's one people care a great deal about...and it's one that will probably make the most difference, especially in a "pound for pound" sort of way...that is, the return on investment is incredibly high.
So I'm gonna ask my question again, why exactly do you think that it is more effective, and more efficient, and concrete results will be seen faster, if you ignore the schooling of young children and simply try to get people to engage with the Mises Institute in high school and college at the earliest? Or if you prefer, why is targeting the school system on a local level a less efficient, less effective way of going about rolling back the State?
[1] —which, on its face I would argue is not necessarily true. Again, if you see North's actual strategy, it could change things in one semester. This is not to say that I agree with all of North's plan or that I think it's the most feasible, but for one thing, it would take a huge bite of one of the most powerful and parasitic and damaging unions in the country…thus making it easier to reach people...and for another, it's an actual point by point strategy...as opposed to "I'll fight a revolution in the battleground of ideas, man. And once me and the crew of the Nebuchadnezzar unplug enough people from the Matrix, I'll just sit back and watch the fireworks."
Speaking of Gary North....http://www.garynorth.com/public/9403.cfm