SkepticalMetal: "Heroic figure" and "more than any man of our epoch or even of our century, [Che] was the living embodiment of the principle of revolution". - Murray Rothbard ...Thoughts?
"Heroic figure" and "more than any man of our epoch or even of our century, [Che] was the living embodiment of the principle of revolution".
- Murray Rothbard
...Thoughts?
If Rothbard really wrote that , then it is a big strike against him, not a point in his favor.
He wrote this in the 60's?? So the true extent of Che's muderous "revolution" was probably not fully known at the time. But still with all the knowledge that libertarians have on the evils of socialism - and the living examples of the time of the Chinese and Russian revolutions, it would be ignorant to assume that the Cuban revolution would really be any different.
I wonder sometimes that some ancaps seem so blinded in thier hate for the state that they laud the efforts of other who also seem "anti-establishment" without really thinking or examining who those people really are, and if they are a worthy example to follow or not.
Of course this is all just my opinion - so what do I know...
I think it would not be unhealthy to suggest that just because you think someone is evil, it doesn't follow that you have to think everything about them is evil.
After all, both murderers and soldiers are skilled with a knife but it doesn't mean that admitting it makes one a supporter of murderers (except in a totally indirect sense).
I feel it is more likely that Rothbard is so revered here that people are giving him a pass...
What would the response be if some progressive from the huffington post made the same statement?
I think they'd get deservedly thrashed for speaking such nonsense...
.500NE: I feel it is more likely that Rothbard is so revered here that people are giving him a pass... What would the response be if some progressive from the huffington post made the same statement? I think they'd get deservedly thrashed for speaking such nonsense...
"we all knew that his enemy was our enemy–that great Colossus that oppresses and threatens all the peoples of the world, U. S. imperialism."
This is about the only statement in the obituary I agree with. Rothbard's obituary is mostly white-washing, I assume to get the left on board with him. It is completely disrespectful to the people who died at Che's hands. Are allies worth it if you must ignore and downplay the maiming and deaths of innocent people to get them on your side?
SkepticalMetal: I think what you just described was essentially the free-state project.
I think what you just described was essentially the free-state project.
Sure, in a sense. It's the same motive as the FSP, just a different means. One of my main motives in establishing a seastead is the propaganda victory that having a successful libertarian society, however small initially, would be for those advocating such ideals in other places around the world, such as the FSP. It's just, I have some skills and a life situation particularly suited to the goal of establishing a seastead, so I feel it's the best possible use of my time in achieving libertarian ideals. Others may go advocate for liberty as part of the FSP. Others may educate individually. Etc. No one alone is going to create change, but as a group effort from many angles.
But at the same time, some things will be more effective than others. I think establishing a seastead will be particularly effective for a whole host of reasons, especially if we can get it past the point of no return where it's permanent. I think if we can do that, then everything changes, worldwide, inevitably.
The present system relies on the propaganda that there is no other viable way. Thus, if we show the world another way is possible, then that should begin to undermine their legitimacy from within, inexorably.
So far, libertarians have stuck to trying to create change within existing societies. This is almost impossible. But a seastead is an end-run around their jurisdictions. We have this one historical epoch to get a libertarian seastead going before world-government comes about and they claim jurisdiction over the entire planet. With the oceans still politically neutral, there's time.
If we miss this historic opportunity, then the next one won't come about until space travel is normal and cheap. And the goal of the statists at that point will be to lock down our entire solar system, such that libertarians would be forced to travel to other solar systems to live their ideals.
We must get something going now. Now is a branching point in history and our choices may decide whether the world goes onward to tyranny or begins, at least, moving towards the promise of global freedom, peace, and prosperity.
I know this is all talk until I have something material in place for people to support and work with. Just know that it's coming and will be revealed in due course. Within a year from now, hopefully half a year.
.500NE: I feel it is more likely that Rothbard is so revered here that people are giving him a pass...
I think what Rothbard admired in Che was his willingness to take action in support of his ideals. Certainly not his various aggressive and evil acts.
I too, like Rothbard, think libertarians should explore all avenues for effecting change, beyond merely the education-option that so many fall back on.
Wow, that sounds really great. Do you plan on having it as a Minarchist state, or an absolute voluntaryist society?
Because I would definately support something like this.
SkepticalMetal: Wow, that sounds really great. Do you plan on having it as a Minarchist state, or an absolute voluntaryist society? Because I would definately support something like this.
Voluntaryism shall be its basic tenet and thereby founding legal principle. So, that rules out minarchism. Voluntaryism is the moral wedge we will drive between people and their oppressive governments. Non-voluntary governments exist currently primarily on the propaganda that this is what must be done / no other way.
Well, there is a way, and we need to show people. The reason showing is going to be a hundred times more effective than arguing for a free society is because people can dismiss words. They cannot dismiss evidence in real life so easily.
I have thought a hundred times about books I could write, and read a hundred more books that I wish everyone else would read and surely change would come. But the masses ignore books. Ignore intellectual arguments.
They cannot so easily ignore the actuality of libertarianism, an actual practical implementation of libertarianism. They will, from an implementation, very quickly come to understand what right now they reflexively dismiss as impossible. Any of us should be familiar with the emotional rejection that people fall back on the minute you tell them about some of the libertarian prescriptions for a free society. They say ridiculous things without thinking, saying that chaos would result, or slavery, or any of a hundred other things that require deep thinking to realize how it would actually work if implemented.
But show them an implementation and that changes. When they can see it, walk on it, breathe libertarian air, and see people walking around in a libertarian haven that's not full of chaos, slavers, or anything like that. Talk to people who live there and get their answers to how things actually work.
Man, I can't imagine a more fun thing to do, a more fulfilling thing, than to live in a libertarian haven and work out the meaning of freedom for ourselves. To see ad hoc structures form to fulfill needs, organically, to explain why we didn't need politicians or taxes to erect that bridge right there, or whatever.
People are going to be very surprised if we can pull it off. And we have good reason to think we can :)
One key feature is that it allows people to maintain the political style they want within a voluntaryist context. So, within autarchy, it's possible to setup for instance a communist tuath ('tuath' meaning 'libertarian enclave,' taken from the Irish name for libertarian enclaves in the ancient Irish libertarian society [plural = tuatha]) but all the people within it would have to be voluntarily there and voluntarily submit to the rules everyone else wants. There could be no taxation by force, but there could be voluntary subscriptions to pay for basic services for the poor.
I might set up two tuatha to start, one that emulates a modern american city, to show how that exact same system could be replicated within a voluntaryist context, and one that's much more like what we libertarians would prefer, one extremely minimal, with only malum in se laws and no malum prohibitum at all. Some things would be extremely different in character, but you'd have a similar outcome, meaning similar traffic laws, noise pollution laws, barring drug shipping etc. Anyone entering that territory would agree to abide by its rules, thus maintaining that status quo. That would be the first propaganda victory. And might also protect the fledgling society by not being 'too different' so as to seem threatening.
If we ever experienced mass migration from the US, I expect many people would want to live in an emulated American city such as the picture I paint in the paragraph above. But, and here's the rub, their children would not :)
When their children reach adulthood and realize they can experiment with building their own tuatha, then things get interesting. And of course we'll be building our own libertarian tuatha.
There really shouldn't be any major disagreements between libertarians there, because the system is designed to encourage voluntary experimentation and adoption.
Anyway, I've got to do some major work on it before I talk about specifics :\ Still in a research phase, gathering materials, etc.
TL;DR: I'm creating a specific implementation of libertarian principle that is an attempt to build a working libertarian legal code or framework, founded on voluntary association and the NAP.
It's what Rothbard said we needed to do in For a New Liberty: the Libertarian Manifesto, to create a working libertarian legal code. I hope to kick off the ball by providing a place that we can implement it without opposition or dilution, a seastead, and inviting fellow libertarians to come live and work there and provide the seed for a new free society and libertarian culture.
"It is now clear that there will have to be a legal code in the libertarian society... to lay down precise guidelines for the private courts. If, for example, Court A decides that all redheads are inherently evil and must be punished, it is clear that such decisions are the reverse of libertarian, that such a law would constitute an invasion of the rights of redheads. Hence, any such decision would be illegal in terms of libertarian principle, and could not be upheld by the rest of society. It then becomes necessary to have a legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow. The legal code, simply, would insist on the libertarian principle of no aggression against person or property, define property rights in accordance with libertarian principle, set up rules of evidence (such as currently apply) in deciding who are the wrongdoers in any dispute, and set up a code of maximum punishment for any particular crime. Within the framework of such a code, the particular courts would compete on the most efficient procedures, and the market would then decide whether judges, juries, etc., are the most efficient methods of providing judicial services. Are such stable and consistent law codes possible, with only competing judges to develop and apply them, and without government or legislature? Not only are they possible, but over the years the best and most successful parts of our legal system were developed precisely in this manner. The code would have to be established on the basis of acknowledged libertarian principle, of nonaggression against the person or property of others; in short, on the basis of reason rather than on mere tradition, however sound its general outlines. Since we have a body of common law principles to draw on, however, the task of reason in correcting and amending the common law would be far easier than trying to construct a body of systematic legal principles de novo out of the thin air." Murray N. Rothbard (2012-08-16 12:47:05-07:00). For A New Liberty (Kindle Locations 4196-4270). Ludwig von Mises Institue. Kindle Edition.
"It is now clear that there will have to be a legal code in the libertarian society... to lay down precise guidelines for the private courts. If, for example, Court A decides that all redheads are inherently evil and must be punished, it is clear that such decisions are the reverse of libertarian, that such a law would constitute an invasion of the rights of redheads. Hence, any such decision would be illegal in terms of libertarian principle, and could not be upheld by the rest of society. It then becomes necessary to have a legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow. The legal code, simply, would insist on the libertarian principle of no aggression against person or property, define property rights in accordance with libertarian principle, set up rules of evidence (such as currently apply) in deciding who are the wrongdoers in any dispute, and set up a code of maximum punishment for any particular crime. Within the framework of such a code, the particular courts would compete on the most efficient procedures, and the market would then decide whether judges, juries, etc., are the most efficient methods of providing judicial services. Are such stable and consistent law codes possible, with only competing judges to develop and apply them, and without government or legislature? Not only are they possible, but over the years the best and most successful parts of our legal system were developed precisely in this manner.
The code would have to be established on the basis of acknowledged libertarian principle, of nonaggression against the person or property of others; in short, on the basis of reason rather than on mere tradition, however sound its general outlines. Since we have a body of common law principles to draw on, however, the task of reason in correcting and amending the common law would be far easier than trying to construct a body of systematic legal principles de novo out of the thin air." Murray N. Rothbard (2012-08-16 12:47:05-07:00). For A New Liberty (Kindle Locations 4196-4270). Ludwig von Mises Institue. Kindle Edition.
So, if there's one thing we can do, right this moment, it's begin working on a libertarian legal code. That's something everyone here could participate in. Because I plan to soon have a sovereign place where it can go to work in actuality.
There have been a few scattered attempts at building such a code; I'm studying them. Trying to reduce them to the absolute minimum and leaving emergent law to do the rest.
I have to say that with every word of your post I became more and more excited. :)
How can we organize this to where it's a formal project?
SkepticalMetal: I have to say that with every word of your post I became more and more excited. :) How can we organize this to where it's a formal project?
I'm going to setup a non-profit organization in due course. I've already got a website name reserved for it.
Once setup, the goal of the non-profit will be to finance and build the first floating house(s) and permanent dock as a proof of concept, as well as serve as a point of contact for those interested in a libertarian seastead. From there, it begins.
Anenome: I think what Rothbard admired in Che was his willingness to take action in support of his ideals. Certainly not his various aggressive and evil acts.
Then why stop at Che, if that was the criteria, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were far more effective in thier "willingness to take action in support of his(thier) ideals."
IMHO He's getting a pass and excuses being made on his behalf for a bout of idiocy...
.500NE: Anenome: I think what Rothbard admired in Che was his willingness to take action in support of his ideals. Certainly not his various aggressive and evil acts. Then why stop at Che, if that was the criteria, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were far more effective in thier "willingness to take action in support of his(thier) ideals." IMHO He's getting a pass and excuses being made on his behalf for a bout of idiocy...
Probably because people (foolishly) admire Che, whereas they don't have any admiration for those other names. I don't know the full context of his statement about Che, but that's the only reason I can possibly come up with. And that's the only possible context in which Che is at all admirable :P If he had devoted himself to advancing freedom philosophy in actuality rather than a murderous socialist philosophy, he'd of done well.
And some folks do love the guy. There's a huge monument to him where he died in Bolivia.
Good luck.
But I'm wondering what kind of defense mechanisms this seastead could have. Perhaps this is a hasty generalization but I think that all small movements are in danger of being subverted by government agents (FBI, Czarist police, Weimar military intelligence to name historical examples). What type of security organizations will protect the seastead, and who is to stop an organized group from taking it over?
Personally, I think this is an opportunity to establish a strict vanguard or cult-like system to rigidly guard the common good of the seastead. But now I'm sounding like an agent-provocateur, however I just wanted to bring this to your attention.
"Well, there is a way, and we need to show people. The reason showing is going to be a hundred times more effective than arguing for a free society is because people can dismiss words. They cannot dismiss evidence in real life so easily."
I agree that evidence in real life might sway more people.
However, a real life liberterian society would not be a total panacea for converting people. Keep in mind evidence in real life society can easily be re-interpreted, filtered, or biased, based on people's values. People may choose to simply ignore things, that don't conform with their world view, and overexaggerate things that don't. The media might over-inflate one particular crime in the area that they feel was resolved unjustly, speculating that police could do better by saying what would be done ideally, with the police. While meanwhile ignoring the relatively rampant crime where they are. Relatively bad conditions in the liberterian society can also mislead, keep in mind that a liberterian society may improve the state of affairs compared to a society with a state, but the society with a state might have advantages, such as people having more wealth.
A state might try to manipulate, or even force people into fighting, then claim that the fighting is the result of no government, while ignoring that they are the ones responsible.
I would agree though, that if liberterian societies became more commonplace, that there would be a push for governments to de-regulate or even dissolve, as people would emmigrate from oppressive governments find more economic opportunity in those places and emigrate to these societies. It would occur because people see the immense opportunities in these places, and not because they have explored why certain political and economic systems are better. People will certainly adapt to the new legal system and such if they believe they will game. Similar things have happened in the past, look at east germany vs. west germany, the mass exodus to america in the 1900s, etc.
"I have thought a hundred times about books I could write, and read a hundred more books that I wish everyone else would read and surely change would come. But the masses ignore books. Ignore intellectual arguments."
Masses don't always ignore books and intellectual arguments, although they may ignore some of them (were you saying that in the context of liberterian books and intellectual arguments?). Remember that today's popular ideologies were spawned through books and intellectual arguments (although it might appear "less" intellectual when its read to the masses).
Schools are labour camps.
SkepticalMetal: And some folks do love the guy. There's a huge monument to him where he died in Bolivia.
edited to add: something I saw on the wiki page
His commanding officer Fidel Castro has described Guevara as intelligent, daring, and an exemplary leader who "had great moral authority over his troops".[74] Castro further remarked that Guevara took too many risks, even having a "tendency toward foolhardiness".[75] Guevara's teenage lieutenant, Joel Iglesias, recounts such actions in his diary, noting that Guevara's behavior in combat even brought admiration from the enemy. On one occasion Iglesias recounts the time he had been wounded in battle, stating "Che ran out to me, defying the bullets, threw me over his shoulder, and got me out of there. The guards didn't dare fire at him ... later they told me he made a great impression on them when they saw him run out with his pistol stuck in his belt, ignoring the danger, they didn't dare shoot."[76]
Yep. There's a reason we don't see a monument to Hitler in Germany, and I guess the Bolivians didn't get the memo about how it's crap to salute a guy who killed lots of people.
eliotn: "Well, there is a way, and we need to show people. The reason showing is going to be a hundred times more effective than arguing for a free society is because people can dismiss words. They cannot dismiss evidence in real life so easily." I agree that evidence in real life might sway more people. However, a real life liberterian society would not be a total panacea for converting people. Keep in mind evidence in real life society can easily be re-interpreted, filtered, or biased, based on people's values. People may choose to simply ignore things, that don't conform with their world view, and overexaggerate things that don't. The media might over-inflate one particular crime in the area that they feel was resolved unjustly, speculating that police could do better by saying what would be done ideally, with the police. While meanwhile ignoring the relatively rampant crime where they are. Relatively bad conditions in the liberterian society can also mislead, keep in mind that a liberterian society may improve the state of affairs compared to a society with a state, but the society with a state might have advantages, such as people having more wealth.
Sure, sure. Good points. Early on, a seastead attempt is fairly risky for the people on-board. It will be up to those with a bent towards trailblazing and frontiersmanship, like myself, who do the early settling.
At some point, what I'm calling the critical mass point, a seastead can become advanced enough to attract ordinary peoople whom might consider it equal or lesser risk to the average land-based city. It requires a track-record for that, and the accumulation of certain amenities that can be found in any average size city.
eliotn:A state might try to manipulate, or even force people into fighting, then claim that the fighting is the result of no government, while ignoring that they are the ones responsible.
It's become clear to me that the way to establish a seastead initially is as a private corporation operating in international waters. We won't claim initially legal title to space, but within the corporation, such will be recognized and those whom join the corp will recognize the same amongst themselves. Essentially any cruise-ship runs like a city of its own in exactly the same fashion, complete with private courts, punishment, water and energy production, food, waste, etc. Some hold over 5,000 people.
eliotn:I would agree though, that if liberterian societies became more commonplace, that there would be a push for governments to de-regulate or even dissolve, as people would emmigrate from oppressive governments find more economic opportunity in those places and emigrate to these societies.
And because libertarians would have no need to erect barriers to entry, such as are demanded by huge, expensive welfare states. Only without a welfare state, without public largesse, can we erase international boundary lines called 'nations'.
eliotn: It would occur because people see the immense opportunities in these places, and not because they have explored why certain political and economic systems are better.
Exactly! You understand me, my friend, and my honey-strategy of spreading libertarianism. The average person is never going to understand the ABCT or even the rudiments of Austrian Economics, and doesn't want to know very much about political theory. What they do understand is that a place exists where there are no taxes, no invasion of privacy, no inflation, no idiotic red tape.
They won't understand it until they've lived it deep into their bones, subsumed themselves in it, breathing libertarian air, and then, in a moment of reflection, smoking a cigar one day, libertarian slogans will escape their lips, as if it had been their own conclusion about life, naturally drawn, based on their life's experiences in such a place.
That is how we win. By beating statists are the game of governing, and showing them that their monopoly is both fruitless and needless.
That will be our Berlin Wall moment. When the US dissolves its jurisdiction and returns it to the people.
eliotn: People will certainly adapt to the new legal system and such if they believe they will [gain]. Similar things have happened in the past, look at east germany vs. west germany, the mass exodus to america in the 1900s, etc.
Exactly. Beyond that, through autarchy I hope to make that transition very easy for people. Creating tuatha that are similar to a modern American city, in order to lessen culture shock. It would be a libertarian version of modern America, for those comfortable with the status quo. As I've said before, it's their children whom will be true libertarians and dispense with the needless laws.
This I think is a necessary bridge to the libertarian victory worldwide, and I'm dedicated to seeing it within my lifetime.
eliotn:"I have thought a hundred times about books I could write, and read a hundred more books that I wish everyone else would read and surely change would come. But the masses ignore books. Ignore intellectual arguments." Masses don't always ignore books and intellectual arguments, although they may ignore some of them (were you saying that in the context of liberterian books and intellectual arguments?). Remember that today's popular ideologies were spawned through books and intellectual arguments (although it might appear "less" intellectual when its read to the masses).
Yes, but what's more important is the dissemination of those ideas. The left holds nearly all the organs of idea dissemination in the US today. Only the internet has broken that up lately, but still there's armies of teachers and professors churning the idea mill and turning out indoctrinated students left and right. Manufacturing consent indeed.
An idea can be ignored just as surely as Mises was, Mises of all people! When Keynesianism became in fashion, literally, even former Austrians ditched the school to join the new movement. Explain how that's possible, apart from the alliance of intellectuals with the state, for whom Keynesian was a million times more attractive.
No, it's hitting the intellectuals upside the head with reality that cannot be ignored. They cannot ignore out of control deficits and people leaving for a seastead of their own free will.
Personally, I think you should model it after a Japanese city. Japanese cities are like something out of Blade Runner.
SkepticalMetal: Personally, I think you should model it after a Japanese city. Japanese cities are like something out of Blade Runner.
You mean in the sense of being a cultural melange? Or?
I've been to Tokyo and studied Japanese, so curious what you mean here.
Tokyo, btw, has one of the worst floor-plans for a city ever. It was laid out in a feudal era with purposefuly confusion streets so as to confuse an invading army >_> Even people who live there get lost regularly; a map is an absolute necessity. I'll bet some of them cried tears of joy when GPS was invented and ported to phones :P
Oh, I haven't been to Tokyo. I have however been to Osaka, Takamatsu, Kyoto and Kotohira (a town, not a city).
What I was referencing to though was the dazzling Japanese architecture and cityscape, both traditional and modern.
Ah, well, I think a new libertarian era should have an architectual flavor all its own and wholly new :) We'll see what results.
Malachi:Howard Roark can come out of retirement for that one.
:) He's always been my favorite Randian character. Him or perhaps D'Anconia.