@Malachi
Yeah, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I can't remember if I started reading that before or after Rothbard, but either way, I was reading Rothbard and TMISAHM in the same general time frame. Professor de la Paz and Professor Rothbard make quite the tag team. Rothbard had the general theory down, but Heinlein has some great one liners. He got right to the point in that book.
EDIT: And before Heinlein, I read Ayn Rand. So, her fiction was about individualism and liberty, and then Heinlein topped it off with the logical conclusion. I read a lot of her essays/speeches at the time as well, but reading TMISAHM after all that helped finish the job. That and Rothbard.
EDIT 2: It also probably helped that Heinlein's characters actually felt like real people instead of avatars of individualism and objectivity.
Michael Lagoy:For the sake of brevity and ending a completely ridiculous argument over a non-existent problem: Yes, I will concede to the fact that a state, usually bound territorially, is an entity monopolizing the initiatory use of force. Further, I see no functional distinction between the terms "state" and "government." Following my own reasoning, I do not support the existence of such a state. Problem solved, scrap my first post, and let's start over.
Definitions per se aren't facts. You're free to define the word "state" however you like. I only ask that you use that definition consistently.
Michael Lagoy:Hello, I am Michael, and I am an anarchist.
Hi Michael. Welcome to the Mises Forum.
Michael Lagoy:I could do without the condescension, though. Let's see if we can procede respectfully and peacefully.
Where do you think I was being condescending to you? In any case, I'm sorry if I came across that way at all. It wasn't my intention.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
I appreciate that. :)
No problem, but I'd still like to know where you think I was condescending - if only so I can hopefully not come across that way in the future.
No where specific. Just the general tone. I often think that of nitpickers/argumentative types (of which I am admittedly one).
People often think I am too sensitive to tone, though. They're probably right.
... you big idiot.
I'm just kidding :) welcome!
^^^ This coming from the author of:
Haha. Look at all the intellectual children validating themselves and acting as though they're important. Building yourselves up and pretending to have valid points when all of your points were addressed in my first two posts is ridiculous and childish, but expected.
Please be more respectful to other members.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Little late in that reply, but okay. Are we passed that now, I hope? Okay, good.
Again, as a study in the nature of liberty and free action, I love this discussion and how it's gone.
It's funny how we can all self-regulate, without needing a mommy or daddy figure to curb our behavior.
This type of self-regulated maturity in our fellow man is, I believe, one of the many healthy emergent phenomena that appears in societies that embrace and protect freedom.
In contrast, the suppression of liberty and freedom would seem to me to produce the exact opposite behaviors in individuals immaturity due to an inabiliy to regulate the self and an inability to think critically. "Trolling", "Partisan politics", "Character assassination"... etc.
Thanks guys!
Meh, we all do it from time to time. Due to it's own nature, an internet forum can feed into it and snowball out of control pretty quick. The important and impressive thing is to recognize when you/we fall into the trap and just dust it off of your shoulders
"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
heh, you went through much the same path as I did. Have you read We The Living? its got more character and less avatar as compared to her other three novels.
vive la insurrection: lol, my edit pre-empted this statement. I think this makes us even now
lol, my edit pre-empted this statement. I think this makes us even now
Well played. Keeping score now, eh? Bring it on!
Michael Lagoy:No where specific. Just the general tone. I often think that of nitpickers/argumentative types (of which I am admittedly one). People often think I am too sensitive to tone, though. They're probably right.
So in other words, the simple fact that I asked you for your definition of "government" made me sound condescending? I'm just asking to make sure. And if that's indeed the case, then all I can say is that I didn't see myself as nitpicking at all. The definitions that one uses in his arguments - in other words, his semantics - are of paramount importance IMHO. I was actually trying to not sound condescending, which is why I used phrases like "with all due respect" and "I'm sorry but".
It just seemed like unnecessary contention, whether you'd call it 'nitpicking' or not. I clarified what I stood for, in a minarchist sense, in my first post. I failed to see how any further definitions of government were necessary, given the clarity of that first post. Regardless, I apologize for reacting in the way that I did. For those who are wondering: at no point was I angry. I simply speak my mind, and it isn't always pleasant.
I generally see statements like "with all due respect" and "I'm sorry but" as contributing to a condescending tone, mostly because I use them in that way at times and they were often used in that way in my house when I was growing up.
Namaste.
Michael Lagoy:It just seemed like unnecessary contention, whether you'd call it 'nitpicking' or not. I clarified what I stood for, in a minarchist sense, in my first post. I failed to see how any further definitions of government were necessary, given the clarity of that first post. Regardless, I apologize for reacting in the way that I did. For those who are wondering: at no point was I angry. I simply speak my mind, and it isn't always pleasant.
Defining things like "ideal government" and "voluntary government" isn't the same as defining "government" IMHO. I hadn't seen anywhere where you had defined the unqualified term "government", which is why I asked you to provide your definition of it.
Michael Lagoy:I generally see statements like "with all due respect" and "I'm sorry but" as contributing to a condescending tone, mostly because I use them in that way at times and they were often used in that way in my house when I was growing up.
Woops, didn't know that. Now I do, so I'll keep that in mind from now on.
Michael Lagoy: Hello everyone. I've been a daily reader of these forums for a few days, and I decided to join today. Joining new forums is never easy for me. What to say, what to contribute to, who to talk to, etc. always stump me, but I'm glad to be here. I've been a libertarian for four years, but I spent much of that time sort of politically inactive and I haven't read much Mises or anyone else. I am unsure what to call myself, though. As I think about it more, I find myself advocating something like this: 1) Government is completely eliminated through revolution, whether violent or peaceful. (Preferably peaceful, obviously) 2) Government is re-established through the ratification of a truly minarchist constitution granting government the power to set laws for the protection of individual liberty, and to enforce those laws. However, this government is not entitled a monopoly on courts or police, and is denied any power of national defense. Taxes levied to fund police or courts are opt-out, and as such, police and courts exist in the private sector and can compete with the services offered through the public sector. 3) The citizenry is armed and trained in and by the private sector, in all skills and techniques currently offered to civilians as well as those restricted to LEOs and military servicemen. Without the existence of a standing army at the disposal of the state, the government has no means by which it can coerce the citizens to do anything. All government action and interaction is rooted in the self-governance of each individual, and as such, each individual has the right to secede from the state. 4) In time, the citizens can see for themselves whether or not the public sector is necessary. They can see and test the services offered through both the private and public sectors, and choose to a) allow them both to remain, b) scrap the government-offered services altogether, c) scrap the private-sector services altogether, or d) scrap all services altogether and establish something altogether different. I tend to prefer to call myself a minarchist, as such. I don't like using the word "anarchy", as it carries very negative connotations in every-day use. People imagine anarchists to be violent, irresponsible, anti-authoritarian nuts. However, as I read these forums more, I think most people here would consider me an anarcho-capitalist since I refuse any monopoly of force to the state. Anyway, I'm glad to be here and I look forward to interacting with you. Namaste.
Hello everyone. I've been a daily reader of these forums for a few days, and I decided to join today. Joining new forums is never easy for me. What to say, what to contribute to, who to talk to, etc. always stump me, but I'm glad to be here.
I've been a libertarian for four years, but I spent much of that time sort of politically inactive and I haven't read much Mises or anyone else. I am unsure what to call myself, though. As I think about it more, I find myself advocating something like this:
1) Government is completely eliminated through revolution, whether violent or peaceful. (Preferably peaceful, obviously)
2) Government is re-established through the ratification of a truly minarchist constitution granting government the power to set laws for the protection of individual liberty, and to enforce those laws. However, this government is not entitled a monopoly on courts or police, and is denied any power of national defense. Taxes levied to fund police or courts are opt-out, and as such, police and courts exist in the private sector and can compete with the services offered through the public sector.
3) The citizenry is armed and trained in and by the private sector, in all skills and techniques currently offered to civilians as well as those restricted to LEOs and military servicemen. Without the existence of a standing army at the disposal of the state, the government has no means by which it can coerce the citizens to do anything. All government action and interaction is rooted in the self-governance of each individual, and as such, each individual has the right to secede from the state.
4) In time, the citizens can see for themselves whether or not the public sector is necessary. They can see and test the services offered through both the private and public sectors, and choose to a) allow them both to remain, b) scrap the government-offered services altogether, c) scrap the private-sector services altogether, or d) scrap all services altogether and establish something altogether different.
I tend to prefer to call myself a minarchist, as such. I don't like using the word "anarchy", as it carries very negative connotations in every-day use. People imagine anarchists to be violent, irresponsible, anti-authoritarian nuts. However, as I read these forums more, I think most people here would consider me an anarcho-capitalist since I refuse any monopoly of force to the state.
Anyway, I'm glad to be here and I look forward to interacting with you.
Attention readers:
I have, for pragmatic reasons and my own personal convictions, abandoned my classical liberalism in favor of the more rational, more realistic, and more humanitarian social liberalism and democratic socialism. To repeat that, I am no longer a right-libertarian or a fiscal conservative of any kind. I am a moderate democratic socialist. I withdraw all previous statements in this thread, and I request that all aforementioned ideas be disregarded as ideological nonsense, flutterings of what would otherwise be a stable and rational mind.
My classical liberalism (libertarianism), my acceptance of anarchism and my disregard for the essential and moral establishment of the state, and other such ideas were, despite being inspired by the theories of otherwise intelligent individuals, utterly wrong and, without question, I renounce them completely.
At no time in the past did I, nor do I now, harbor any hostility of any kind toward the Federal Government of the United States, the individual Governments of the 50 States, the governments of any US territories or US allies, the United Nations, or toward any governmental body typically opposed by libertarians and libertarian rhetoric. Previous posters in this thread misinterpreted a hypothetical theoretical statement, which was based on information provided by Austrian economists and libertarian political theorists, and which was relevant to what would be for me an intellectual revolution only, a rise in conscious political responsibility among the American people, as a suggestion or endorsement of violent revolution. Though violent revolution was mentioned in that statement as a hypothetical, at no time in the past did I, nor do I now, support violent revolution of any kind. Revolution should only come through peaceful, non-violent means utilizing the legal democratic process.
I support the 2012 re-election campaign of our great President, Barack Obama, and I thank him for the positive change he has brought to America. As an LGBT American, I feel that change personally. I do not now, and will never, support any fiscally conservative or Republican candidate. I welcome economic interventionism and strict capital oversight; I advocate progressive taxation; I support expanded welfare services and social justice programs; I advocate the nationalization of essential industries; I promote international cooperation, diplomacy, and humanism; and I stand for the civil liberties, equality under the law, and as much freedom as possible while preserving a functional state that puts human need first. Further, I hold no hostilities toward the Austrian School of Economics, the Ludgwig von Mises Institute, or any members of this forum. I will not be posting any further beyond this point. If further details are needed, I can be contacted at:
Facebook: www.facebook.com/lagoy.michael
or
Email: michael.lagoy@outlook.com.
Awfully strange that he wrote:
At no time in the past did I, nor do I now, harbor any hostility of any kind toward the Federal Government of the United States, the individual Governments of the 50 States, the governments of any US territories or US allies, the United Nations, or toward any governmental body typically opposed by libertarians and libertarian rhetoric.
And:
Though violent revolution was mentioned in that statement as a hypothetical, at no time in the past did I, nor do I now, support violent revolution of any kind.
It's almost as if by stating these things, he is trying to implicate members of this forum in some sort of violent revolution. This Michael Lagoy seems awfully unstable. It's probably best if a mod deleted this thread.
Looks like a bait and switch, and intentionally so, like creating a conversion thread. Except there's no actual conversion story, other than a sudden change in rhetoric. It might also be an attempt to undo some personal or professional damage he caused to himself.
Not sure I care enough to try to find out.
Can't tell if it's a constructed persona or not, but it looks like he's created a conversion story on the internet. Odd timing and sequencing. If you search his name however, the top link on google is to his profile here on the mises forums instead of his other presences (tumblr, twitter, facebook).
If it's a true conversion, it looks to be connected to a rejection of theism and conservative politics in conjunction with an acceptance of his sexual orientation.
Sadly, I wish he realized that none of the three have anything to do with praxeology, austrian economics or libertarian views as held by most of the community here.
I imagine he doesn't want someone (employer, Feds, etc.) thinking he's an anarchist.
Never seen that happen before.
I'm not ashamed of my views, but I don't make them obvious to my employer. I got out of government contracts/jobs back in my youth after I left the military, for ideological reasons, that weren't even fully formed political views at the time.
Michael Lagoy: Ideal government would be a voluntary organization of citizens, funded through voluntary taxation, unto whom the ordinary self-governance of the citizenry proper is delegated within limitations defined by those citizens, from which any citizen or group of citizens can completely secede, and which is prohibited the use of initiatory force. As this would never happen, I am keeping an open mind toward completely stateless society and I hope these forums can help solidify my convictions one way or another.
Ideal government would be a voluntary organization of citizens, funded through voluntary taxation, unto whom the ordinary self-governance of the citizenry proper is delegated within limitations defined by those citizens, from which any citizen or group of citizens can completely secede, and which is prohibited the use of initiatory force.
As this would never happen, I am keeping an open mind toward completely stateless society and I hope these forums can help solidify my convictions one way or another.
Sounds like you and I have come to very similar conclusions and should talk :)
Couple points. You said revolution or peaceful means--I think you should restrict yourself to peaceful means. Revolution simply breeds more statism. Revolution without a broad-based libertarian segment of society would be disastrous today, akin to the French Revolution.
Secondly, I suggest you read For a New Liberty and Ethics of Liberty by Rothbard, he's a genius. This should shore you up on the few remaining holes I see in your ideal conception. Namely the idea of public + private courts and police. In practice you don't need public courts and police at all, and instituting them would only give statism a foothold.
It was especially hard for me to accept only private courts, but I've had all my hard questions answered now and suggest the same journey for you via the previously mentioned two books.
Also, listen to Autolykos :P
Lastly, I suggest looking into Seasteading. I've been building a plan to create a libertarian haven as a seastead off the coast of California within a decade. I see this as a way to move libertarianism forward from theory into implementation, and have been building out a libertarian legal code that such a society would need. I strongly agree with you on unlimited secession and a focus on volunatryism and the non-agression principle.
Welcome to the baords.
You might want to read his last post in this thread, Anemone.