In this current political, social, and financial environment, people are looking for answers. The current two party system gives them the illusion of choice. Each side promises change, a new course, but brings nothing but the failed policies of the previous century. The issues are narrowed down to arbitrary differences in policy, like how things should be tweaked, instead of questioning the fundamental principles of policy. While all the while our federal government continues to becomes bigger and more intrusive. Then here we are sitting on the side lines debating theories of liberty, while the state continues to grow. We get obsessed with personalities and form cult like followings. WHEN will we put these petty differences to the side and face the real enemy... the statist? How long with the CATO institute argue with the MIses institute on monetary policy while inflation wrecks our economy? How long will the Rand and Mises institutes call each other cults as an entire nation is enslaved? The world is looking for new answers, then they look at us slandering each other. They just see more of the same, people arguing not over principle, but people trying to one up each other, trying to be the more intellectual thinkers, or just defending the credibility of their dead heroes.
At the risk of sacrificing the credibility of this letter I must quote from Braveheart. After William Wallace's major victory at Stirling he is knighted. As a symbol of Scottish freedom Wallaced is asked which Scottish Noble and Clan he agreed with. Wallace just rolls his eyes and walks out of the room. When they ask where he is going he says "You're so concerned with squabbling over the scraps from Longshanks table that you've missed you're God given right to something better". It is very relevant to our current situation. It is time we unite and put our creative and financial resources together. Lets start now.... What is our current options? The only way we can advance the cause of liberty at this time is through the Libertarian Party. The two party system is restraining us and any attempts to work in it are proving futile. If the LP became a major contender in the political machine we could put a dent in the current two party system. We must unite behind Barr.... Please put behind the insignificant (at this time) differences on abortion and immigration. If it is such a hurdle for you then try to find your convection in the other two candidates. He is the only choice we have. Also to the market anarchist I sympathize with your convection but could you ever forsee state abolishment if it continues to expand? Please join with us so we can at least stop the expansion of government... maybe even reduce its size. Its time we get real with each other and make a difference. Lets show this nation and the world there is hope... and that hope comes with human liberty.
Anyone with simmilar convictions and with better grammar please correct this and please everyone who agrees with the letter post it on every libertarian forum you know of.
Libertarians of the world...unite?
I don't want to be the pessimist here, but it sounds like you're saying we should play within the rules of a rigged game. Your vote doesn't count. Steven Landsberg (a "hardcore libertarian") calculates that you have a better chance at winning the lottery 128 times over. Voting is irrational. Also, why should US libertarians rally behind Barr rather than Paul?
Irish Liberty Forum
Liberty unites us. Submission divides us.
What are you asking for?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Voting is only useless for the purpose of electing a LP.
Caley: Voting is only useless for the purpose of electing a LP.
Voting is only useful in a referendum - where people can vote directly practicing their individual rights.
Voting for a representative is submission and stupid.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Basically, voting only remotely makes sense at an extremely local level and in as direct a way as possible. National elections are essentially pointless, since it is so indirect and draconian. Meaningful change always occurs from the bottom up. Using top-down methods to abolish top-down methods is self-defeating.
In any case...
Nah... I think I'll further walk the line of schism and attempt to convert as many vulgar libertarians as possible.
Niccolò: Caley: Voting is only useless for the purpose of electing a LP. Voting is only useful in a referendum - where people can vote directly practicing their individual rights. Voting for a representative is submission and stupid.
If you truly believe this then you are truly opposed to individual rights.... Pure democracy is just the mob where 51% of people can take the rights away from the 49%.
As for everyone else... If you want to just sit around talking about how voting and campaigning is useless then I really have lost hope in the community. Maybe it is spinning your wheels but to sit by on idel spewing hatred toward government is not only annoying its pathetic. Do SOMETHING ... anything... Talking doesn't and never solves anything.... yet thats all you do as your freedoms dwindle away. Stop making this an argument about how smart you are for not voting or doing anything and do something... Look at the leaders of our cause they were involved with political action.... Rothbard was very involved... and if it wasn't for his ideals most of you here wouldn't even know what market anarchy is or maybe libertarianism. Are you better then him? DO you feel that everything he done was futile or do you think he felt convicted and was willing to do anything to spread his principles. Also do you think not voting is any better then voting symbolicly? I wonder when you are willing to wake up and to fight... at the risk of being sensationalist... the Jews hardly fought to protect their freedom in Nazi Germany... not until it was too late. Use your mouth piece until its completely gone... If you don't do that then you deserve our totalitarian future.
Mattes:Do SOMETHING ... anything... Talking doesn't and never solves anything.... yet thats all you do as your freedoms dwindle away.
You're going to piss a lot of people off if you keep on being presumptuous like that. This is a message board. It's for discussion. You have absolutely no idea what the people on this message board do with their time outside the message board so you're not qualified to say that all we do is talk.
If you truly believe this then you are truly opposed to individual rights
Abstaining from voting opposes individual rights?
Pure democracy is just the mob where 51% of people can take the rights away from the 49%.
And yet this is coming from the same person who is telling us to vote, to participate in the democratic process.
Stop making this an argument about how smart you are for not voting or doing anything and do something
It's not about how smart anyone is, it's about practicality in light of one's goals.
Look at the leaders of our cause they were involved with political action....
Yea, and the outcome has been a miserable failure.
I wonder when you are willing to wake up and to fight
I really don't understand how voting can be "fighting". It's just punching a hole in a piece of paper.
nje5019: Mattes:Do SOMETHING ... anything... Talking doesn't and never solves anything.... yet thats all you do as your freedoms dwindle away. You're going to piss a lot of people off if you keep on being presumptuous like that. This is a message board. It's for discussion. You have absolutely no idea what the people on this message board do with their time outside the message board so you're not qualified to say that all we do is talk.
lol to be honest I really don't care if I piss you off. If you read it and feel convicted then that message is for you.... If it doesn't bother you then maybe you have no reason to feel guilty about being stagnant.
No I said pure democracy opposes individual rights
Yeah but I was talking about direct democracy... even so if the majority steam rolls us because you refuse to vote what have you acheived?
We share a common goal to shrink the size of the federal government. If you aren't voting what are you doing to do this?
How much of that failure was contributed by an-caps and escapist who refused to vote? or get involved?
I really don't understand how not voting can be such a admirred thing... If its so easy why not vote to extend liberty? Even if its useless or no exactly in line with what you want.
Niccolò: In any case... Nah... I think I'll further walk the line of schism and attempt to convert as many vulgar libertarians as possible.
Huzzah. I'd rather lose and be right than win at the cost of my principles.
Thankfully, that's a false dichotomy. We can win and keep our principles at the same time.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
MacFall:Huzzah. I'd rather lose and be right than win at the cost of my principles. Thankfully, that's a false dichotomy. We can win and keep our principles at the same time.
Would you be willing to put someone else's life on the line rather than compromise your principles? Just a hypothetical. Let's say a sibling. Would you abandon them if it meant compromising your principles?
I can't think of anyone I love who wouldn't despise me for compromising my principles for any reason, so that's an easy one for me. I don't believe in such a thing as an on/off switch for right and wrong.
MacFall: I can't think of anyone I love who wouldn't despise me for compromising my principles for any reason, so that's an easy one for me.
I can't think of anyone I love who wouldn't despise me for compromising my principles for any reason, so that's an easy one for me.
That wasn't the question, but you tried, so fair enough.
MacFall: I don't believe in such a thing as an on/off switch for right and wrong.
I don't believe in such a thing as an on/off switch for right and wrong.
Believing that is admirable. Living it is another story.
liberty student: Believing that is admirable. Living it is another story.
It's a different story for everyone, so it's not unreasonable to see that some do not simply flip moralities in a given situation. It would be a bit condenscending assuming otherwise, methinks :\ .
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Mattes: If you truly believe this then you are truly opposed to individual rights.... Pure democracy is just the mob where 51% of people can take the rights away from the 49%.
Where did you get the idea I was advocating for this?
Sometimes I feel like Daniel Plainview. I hate most people, there are times when I look at people and I see nothing worth liking. I want to earn enough money that I can get away from everyone.
Mattes: As for everyone else... If you want to just sit around talking about how voting and campaigning is useless then I really have lost hope in the community. Maybe it is spinning your wheels but to sit by on idel spewing hatred toward government is not only annoying its pathetic. Do SOMETHING ... anything... Talking doesn't and never solves anything.... yet thats all you do as your freedoms dwindle away. Stop making this an argument about how smart you are for not voting or doing anything and do something... Look at the leaders of our cause they were involved with political action.... Rothbard was very involved... and if it wasn't for his ideals most of you here wouldn't even know what market anarchy is or maybe libertarianism. Are you better then him? DO you feel that everything he done was futile or do you think he felt convicted and was willing to do anything to spread his principles. Also do you think not voting is any better then voting symbolicly? I wonder when you are willing to wake up and to fight... at the risk of being sensationalist... the Jews hardly fought to protect their freedom in Nazi Germany... not until it was too late. Use your mouth piece until its completely gone... If you don't do that then you deserve our totalitarian future.
Empiricism shows that your "mouth piece" doesn't matter; theory proves it.
As for Rothbard, and your appeal to authority. Yes, we are, as SEK3 is quoted, more Rothbardian than Rothbard.
MacFall: Huzzah. I'd rather lose and be right than win at the cost of my principles. Thankfully, that's a false dichotomy. We can win and keep our principles at the same time.
How does not compromising mean losing?
I see you are also a Christian. Let me ask, did Christ compromise?
liberty student: Would you be willing to put someone else's life on the line rather than compromise your principles? Just a hypothetical. Let's say a sibling. Would you abandon them if it meant compromising your principles?
Yes.
If my brother joined the military not only would I disown him, but I would openly fight him.
Niccolò:Sometimes I feel like Daniel Plainview. I hate most people, there are times when I look at people and I see nothing worth liking. I want to earn enough money that I can get away from everyone.
Maybe you can ask for an increase in your allowance.
Niccolò: Mattes: If you truly believe this then you are truly opposed to individual rights.... Pure democracy is just the mob where 51% of people can take the rights away from the 49%. Where did you get the idea I was advocating for this? Sometimes I feel like Daniel Plainview. I hate most people, there are times when I look at people and I see nothing worth liking. I want to earn enough money that I can get away from everyone..
Sometimes I feel like Daniel Plainview. I hate most people, there are times when I look at people and I see nothing worth liking. I want to earn enough money that I can get away from everyone..
Maybe its your lack of description of what you are advocating.
You said
Voting is only useful in a referendum - where people can vote directly practicing their individual rights. Voting for a representative is submission and stupid. .
Voting for a representative is submission and stupid. .
This is a description of direct democracy how else could you have meant it?
liberty student: Niccolò:Sometimes I feel like Daniel Plainview. I hate most people, there are times when I look at people and I see nothing worth liking. I want to earn enough money that I can get away from everyone. Maybe you can ask for an increase in your allowance.
Referring to my higher status in the socio-economic rankings? I know that pisses people like you off.
I hate most people, there are times when I look at people and I see nothing worth liking.
Ditto.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Niccolò:Referring to my higher status in the socio-economic rankings? I know that pisses people like you off.
Yes, I am referring to your socio-economic ranking successes! Why do you think I keep asking to purchase your leather jacket?
Mattes: This is a description of direct democracy how else could you have meant it?
It's a description of how voting can be an exercise of rights in only one situation, direct democracy. It is not one showing that it always is.
It definitely gets worse as you get older.
Niccolò: MacFall: Huzzah. I'd rather lose and be right than win at the cost of my principles. Thankfully, that's a false dichotomy. We can win and keep our principles at the same time. How does not compromising mean losing?
It doesn't. Read what I wrote again. ;)
Certainly not. One of the reasons why I'm both a Christian and an anarchist. If the model of my morality had compromised, I'd be a minarchist.
Mattes:Also to the market anarchist I sympathize with your convection but could you ever forsee state abolishment if it continues to expand?
Back to the original subject, I consider agorism to be the only strategy worth pursuing by a serious libertarian. Voting is pointless. I predict that there will be a very successful agorist movement in the next few years.
Perversely, the more the State expands in power, the closer it comes to collapse! As the State imposes more taxes and regulations, there's more to gain by doding them.
When the rules of the game are biased against you, your only option is to ignore the rules and say "I'm not playing this stupid game anymore!"
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
Mattes:Yeah but I was talking about direct democracy... even so if the majority steam rolls us because you refuse to vote what have you acheived?
Wouldn't the majority steam roll you even if he does vote, since the majority, by definition, would have the most votes?
Mattes:We share a common goal to shrink the size of the federal government. If you aren't voting what are you doing to do this?
Some don't share that goal actually. They seek to eliminate the federal government, not to shrink it, which is hardly a semantic difference. If you seek to eliminate something you can't aknowledge it's authority or you will give it more power. Also, regardless of what you think, bigger government will win the creeping war everytime, it's the very nature of government to do so.
fsk: Mattes:Also to the market anarchist I sympathize with your convection but could you ever forsee state abolishment if it continues to expand? Back to the original subject, I consider agorism to be the only strategy worth pursuing by a serious libertarian. Voting is pointless. I predict that there will be a very successful agorist movement in the next few years. Perversely, the more the State expands in power, the closer it comes to collapse! As the State imposes more taxes and regulations, there's more to gain by doding them. When the rules of the game are biased against you, your only option is to ignore the rules and say "I'm not playing this stupid game anymore!"
Agorism as the only strategy....that is hysterical. Liberty Student and I have been dismantling every agorist in this forum on another thread and it is quite apparent that not only is agorism not viable but that the people who advocate it can't even coherently articulate or defend it in discussion.
Mattes:What is our current options? The only way we can advance the cause of liberty at this time is through the Libertarian Party.
There are other options. The real question for you is when your attempt to rally people to the Libertarian Party fails and the Libertarian Party does not accomplish anything what are you going to do then?
Your core strategy is flawed on the surface. Most of the people in America don't believe in freedom anymore. The Libertarian Party and Ron Paul combined only have about 2% national support. That leaves you 48% short and the other 98% possible are pretty well spoken for by the main parties or affiliated independents.
So again, what are you prepared to do when your current strategy fails?
As far as most people on this forum not doing anything, your right as long as you don't count me and a very few others among them.
Maxliberty: fsk: Mattes:Also to the market anarchist I sympathize with your convection but could you ever forsee state abolishment if it continues to expand? Back to the original subject, I consider agorism to be the only strategy worth pursuing by a serious libertarian. Voting is pointless. I predict that there will be a very successful agorist movement in the next few years. Perversely, the more the State expands in power, the closer it comes to collapse! As the State imposes more taxes and regulations, there's more to gain by doding them. When the rules of the game are biased against you, your only option is to ignore the rules and say "I'm not playing this stupid game anymore!" Agorism as the only strategy....that is hysterical. Liberty Student and I have been dismantling every agorist in this forum on another thread and it is quite apparent that not only is agorism not viable but that the people who advocate it can't even coherently articulate or defend it in discussion.
Agorism is not *the* only strategy, but it is a relativley new approach (historically speaking). That would be like saying the Liberty Colony is the only strategy via method of sucession (which is more or less what I see being the core method behind the LC; I apologize if I'm wrong), therefore it's doomed to fail; in both cases, neither failure nor success is guarenteed. Agorism is just as capable of being "unviable" as your Liberty Colony, or the reformism of the RP supporters, or the LP, or any other strategy for that matter etc. etc. Isn't such debate evidence of such?In any case, the whole argument / various threads the argument (whatever it is now, I lost track amid the ad-hom's) seems to be going in circles.
JimJones: Agorism as the only strategy....that is hysterical. Liberty Student and I have been dismantling every agorist in this forum on another thread and it is quite apparent that not only is agorism not viable but that the people who advocate it can't even coherently articulate or defend it in discussion.
In what way, Jimmy?
Niccolò: JimJones: Agorism as the only strategy....that is hysterical. Liberty Student and I have been dismantling every agorist in this forum on another thread and it is quite apparent that not only is agorism not viable but that the people who advocate it can't even coherently articulate or defend it in discussion. In what way, Jimmy?
In what way? You and your fellow agorists can't even answer the most basic questions about agorism without resorting to attacking the Liberty Colony. It is understandable because the Liberty Colony and ideas like it are threats to the Library Libertarians or should we say the Do Nothing Philosopher Kings.
Nitroadict: Maxliberty: fsk: Mattes:Also to the market anarchist I sympathize with your convection but could you ever forsee state abolishment if it continues to expand? Back to the original subject, I consider agorism to be the only strategy worth pursuing by a serious libertarian. Voting is pointless. I predict that there will be a very successful agorist movement in the next few years. Perversely, the more the State expands in power, the closer it comes to collapse! As the State imposes more taxes and regulations, there's more to gain by doding them. When the rules of the game are biased against you, your only option is to ignore the rules and say "I'm not playing this stupid game anymore!" Agorism as the only strategy....that is hysterical. Liberty Student and I have been dismantling every agorist in this forum on another thread and it is quite apparent that not only is agorism not viable but that the people who advocate it can't even coherently articulate or defend it in discussion. Agorism is not *the* only strategy, but it is a relativley new approach (historically speaking). That would be like saying the Liberty Colony is the only strategy via method of sucession (which is more or less what I see being the core method behind the LC; I apologize if I'm wrong), therefore it's doomed to fail; in both cases, neither failure nor success is guarenteed. Agorism is just as capable of being "unviable" as your Liberty Colony, or the reformism of the RP supporters, or the LP, or any other strategy for that matter etc. etc. Isn't such debate evidence of such?In any case, the whole argument / various threads the argument (whatever it is now, I lost track amid the ad-hom's) seems to be going in circles.
The practical application of a particular strategy is relevant. There are lots of examples of small groups of people creating new societies, not always successful but it has been done. There are no examples of doing what the agorists are attempting and a simple basic discussion of the strategy with people who are well versed in the theory demonstrates that they do not even have any idea how it is supposed to work in practical form. Those are relevant issues when it comes to taking action in the real world.
I have come to the conclusion that the Liberty Colony and ideas like it are the only viable route to creating a free society. It requires the least amount of people to participate and immediately establishes the free society we in general are all looking for and deserve.
JimJones: In what way? You and your fellow agorists can't even answer the most basic questions about agorism without resorting to attacking the Liberty Colony. It is understandable because the Liberty Colony and ideas like it are threats to the Library Libertarians or should we say the Do Nothing Philosopher Kings.
What questions, Jimmy?
How does a giant, mass suicide spread liberty, Jimmy? Well, I guess it is your freedom to drink the koolaid. How much luck have you had with that anyways, Jimmy?