Niccolò: kdnc: I read your blog. Wow, very poor arguments throughout. Your attempts to respond to Block’s points miss his points altogether. I’ll touch on only one example to save readers the monotony of repetition. His comment regarding choosing between two masters is obviously not about whether such a choice is better or worse than choosing no master at all, as you seem to take it. His point is that in making such a choice the slave has said nothing about his hatred for slavery.I know what Block meant, and I was pointing out that it was a triviality. Though Block attempts to portray the issue as merely one of “choosing the nicest master,” naming the “nice master” (if such a thing exists) ‘goody,’ he misses the subject matter clearly. The issue has never been about the nicest master and the issue is not about the most “reasonable path to reform,” but rather the issue is about one underlying flaw within the system of any government, small, reformist, or big and radical – the people are wrong, they’ve always been wrong, and they’ll always be wrong as long as the state exists with no legitimate revolutionary movement to challenge it on the level of justice and morality without the compromise of the reformists and without the fear of prison time for righteous acts of violence against a violent hegemony. I'm going to warn you just once, boy: Don't bring a knife to a gunfight. kdnc: Further, any thinking person would have to admit that by choosing the “nicer” master the slave has increased his chance for liberty since; all other things being equal, any reasonable person would understand that the slave and any of his fellows would stand a better chance of freeing themselves from a “nice” master. To think otherwise is to fail to use reason. It then follows that the slave’s strategy for freeing himself is better than your “strategy” of refusing to make a choice for fear of contaminating yourself with the pestilence of your master. Your misguided attempt at purity defeats your own ultimate goal. Your strategy is seriously flawed. The “corrupt” slave who, according to you, does not understand the proper strategy for achieving liberty will in fact achieve it before you. Spoken like a true house ni... er.... slave. Again, the issue is not about choosing the "nicest master" (if such a thing exists) and choosing the nicest master will NOT bring about any liberty. Certainly, people have thought they were choosing the "nicest master" every time they chose. What's come of it?Thanks for playing, but this seems to have gone completely over your head.
kdnc: I read your blog. Wow, very poor arguments throughout. Your attempts to respond to Block’s points miss his points altogether. I’ll touch on only one example to save readers the monotony of repetition. His comment regarding choosing between two masters is obviously not about whether such a choice is better or worse than choosing no master at all, as you seem to take it. His point is that in making such a choice the slave has said nothing about his hatred for slavery.
I read your blog. Wow, very poor arguments throughout. Your attempts to respond to Block’s points miss his points altogether. I’ll touch on only one example to save readers the monotony of repetition. His comment regarding choosing between two masters is obviously not about whether such a choice is better or worse than choosing no master at all, as you seem to take it. His point is that in making such a choice the slave has said nothing about his hatred for slavery.
Though Block attempts to portray the issue as merely one of “choosing the nicest master,” naming the “nice master” (if such a thing exists) ‘goody,’ he misses the subject matter clearly. The issue has never been about the nicest master and the issue is not about the most “reasonable path to reform,” but rather the issue is about one underlying flaw within the system of any government, small, reformist, or big and radical – the people are wrong, they’ve always been wrong, and they’ll always be wrong as long as the state exists with no legitimate revolutionary movement to challenge it on the level of justice and morality without the compromise of the reformists and without the fear of prison time for righteous acts of violence against a violent hegemony.
I'm going to warn you just once, boy: Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.
kdnc: Further, any thinking person would have to admit that by choosing the “nicer” master the slave has increased his chance for liberty since; all other things being equal, any reasonable person would understand that the slave and any of his fellows would stand a better chance of freeing themselves from a “nice” master. To think otherwise is to fail to use reason. It then follows that the slave’s strategy for freeing himself is better than your “strategy” of refusing to make a choice for fear of contaminating yourself with the pestilence of your master. Your misguided attempt at purity defeats your own ultimate goal. Your strategy is seriously flawed. The “corrupt” slave who, according to you, does not understand the proper strategy for achieving liberty will in fact achieve it before you.
Further, any thinking person would have to admit that by choosing the “nicer” master the slave has increased his chance for liberty since; all other things being equal, any reasonable person would understand that the slave and any of his fellows would stand a better chance of freeing themselves from a “nice” master. To think otherwise is to fail to use reason. It then follows that the slave’s strategy for freeing himself is better than your “strategy” of refusing to make a choice for fear of contaminating yourself with the pestilence of your master. Your misguided attempt at purity defeats your own ultimate goal. Your strategy is seriously flawed. The “corrupt” slave who, according to you, does not understand the proper strategy for achieving liberty will in fact achieve it before you.
Spoken like a true house ni... er.... slave.
Again, the issue is not about choosing the "nicest master" (if such a thing exists) and choosing the nicest master will NOT bring about any liberty. Certainly, people have thought they were choosing the "nicest master" every time they chose. What's come of it?Thanks for playing, but this seems to have gone completely over your head.
A triviality for one with an 8-year-olds understanding of strategy. You can't beat me if I refuse to play your game; this sums up the agorist's "strategy," it is truly genious. Only a poodle walking, blouse wearing, nancy-boy could possibly come up with something so brilliant. I'll wager there is not an agorist alive who could win a game of chess against your average teenager to save their lives.
As I have always maintained, "guns for show, knives for a pro."
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Fine, then let us pretend public property doesn't exist, that it does not result in forced association (roads?), that it isn't mismanaged and that this is all thus a dream of some nutty German closet racist...
Oh, come on, kdnc. Painting agorism as the route of the "***-boy" is strange. The truth seems to me to be quite the opposite. Only the agorists are willing to engage in mass civil disobedience and openly defy the state's laws. That takes true courage. The reformists, on the other hand, shy away from it because it is too risky for them. The reformists choose the easiest route that involves the least personal risk. Agorism could thus be viewed as more enteprenuerial. An agorist bears the costs themselves, while the reformist externalizes the costs through the political process (considering that voting does effect 3rd parties of people).
Inquisitor:Fine, then let us pretend public property doesn't exist, that it does not result in forced association (roads?), that it isn't mismanaged and that this is all thus a dream of some nutty German closet racist...
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Inquisitor:It exists as legal fiction. It is, of course, unjust and should be voided, but that isn't what we're discussing.
It's what I'm discussing.
What are you discussing...?
kdnc:A triviality for one with an 8-year-olds understanding of strategy. You can't beat me if I refuse to play your game; this sums up the agorist's "strategy," it is truly genious. Only a poodle walking, blouse wearing, nancy-boy could possibly come up with something so brilliant. I'll wager there is not an agorist alive who could win a game of chess against your average teenager to save their lives. As I have always maintained, "guns for show, knives for a pro."
Unexplainable allegories are nice, but liquor is quicker.See, I can make nonsense too.
Juan:This asociation of so called ´illegal´ immigration with the welfare state sounds like pure scapegoating to me. So let me point a , uh, fact? The welfare state was created by WASPs for WASPs. But if the welfare state is a problem, then it doesn´t matter who use it. As far as I can tell, ´illegal´ immigrants are people just like WASPs ? Or is there something that makes them non-human ? It seems to me that libertarians should be really glad that so called ´illegal´ immigration would mean an earlier demise of the welfare state. But, no. They want to protect the welfare state from immigrants ? That sounds very confused.
Exactly, which is why, I myself, can not find any other correlation between it than some type of nationalism (which I consider to be a form of racism). This seems to be implied by Hoppes' lementing (SP?) over the loss of ethno-culture. When he asks this question in his paper, he merely respons, "Yes, the welfare state is gone, but the problem is that the immigrants are still there."
Yeah, Inquistor, that's not closet racism, that is racism.
The merits of Dr Hoppe's argument, given that the state exists and controls substantial amounts of property. My only point of departure from his argument is that he is wasting time and detracting from his radicalism by arguing against open borders; it will suffice to say that the state must be destroyed. He has, though, demonstrated another way in which it is destructive.
I'm also not sure how a desire to preserve certain cultural identities is 'racist'. Begin by defining what racism is.
Inquisitor:The merits of Dr Hoppe's argument, given that the state exists and controls substantial amounts of property. My only point of departure from his argument is that he is wasting time and detracting from his radicalism by arguing against open borders; it will suffice to say that the state must be destroyed. He has, though, demonstrated another way in which it is destructive. I'm also not sure how a desire to preserve certain cultural identities is 'racist'. Begin by defining what racism is.
Preserving cultural identity is not racist. Negating the rights of others in order to do it is. I believe distant relatives of his have certain experiences with this course of action.
The exclusion of other peoples as unworthy of the same negative rights that he possesses on the basis of ethnicity, age, religion, or sex.
God, how this petty aggressive stupidity bores me; I'd expect this of idiots like Tom Palmer, not serious anarchists. Look, some people value homogeneous cultures - whether or not this makes them racist (which it doesn't on its own) is besides the point. Hoppe's article is addressed to conservatives who most likely hold these values. He has nowhere advocated violating any negative rights immigrants possess. He has simply argued that the state ought to act like an owner of private property with regard to what it claims to own and be careful in who it admits. I maintain that he is wrong because the State has no property claims that are just. He would respond that this is so, but that the State is nowhere near to coming to terms with this. So if anything, one may accuse him of being overly pragmatic.
Attributions of racism (which is not merely a desire for disassociation, nor has it got anything to do with other forms of discrimination) and other ad hominem attacks are nothing but mere baseless hypothesizing. Attack his argument if you're so sure that you're correct... personal attacks are meaningless.
Inquisitor: God, how this petty aggressive stupidity bores me; I'd expect this of idiots like Tom Palmer, not serious anarchists. Look, some people value homogeneous cultures - whether or not this makes them racist (which it doesn't on its own) is besides the point. Hoppe's article is addressed to conservatives who most likely hold these values. He has nowhere advocated violating any negative rights immigrants possess. He has simply argued that the state ought to act like an owner of private property with regard to what it claims to own and be careful in who it admits. I maintain that he is wrong because the State has no property claims that are just. He would respond that this is so, but that the State is nowhere near to coming to terms with this. So if anything, one may accuse him of being overly pragmatic. Attributions of racism (which is not merely a desire for disassociation, nor has it got anything to do with other forms of discrimination) and other ad hominem attacks are nothing but mere baseless hypothesizing. Attack his argument if you're so sure that you're correct... personal attacks are meaningless.
If the state ought to act like the owner of private property, you legitimize statism in all sorts of ways. You legitimize the state's territorial monopoly as such. I find this odd coming from Hoppe, who generally has made brilliant arguements about the state being an unjust territorial monopolist. Yet on the other hand he is argueing that it should be treated as an owner of private property. There is congitive dissonance here. You're right that the state has no property claims that are just. Then why then advocate state action as if it were a just private owner? If the state should be treated as a private property owner, then, in effect, we are all slaves. We are within the territory. If the territory is the state's private property, then everything within it is fair game to be controlled.
So, as far as I can tell, the implications of treating the state as a private property owner spells out absolute totalitarianism. Of course, Hoppe is only using such an analysis in the attempt to justify immigration restriction. Of course he does not apply it in any other case. But this just shows that he is putting himself in a position of cognitive dissonance.
Inquisitor: personal attacks are meaningless
Inquisitor: God, how this petty aggressive stupidity bores me; I'd expect this of idiots like Tom Palmer, not serious anarchists
Inquisitor:Look, some people value homogeneous cultures - whether or not this makes them racist (which it doesn't on its own) is besides the point. Hoppe's article is addressed to conservatives who
Want to violate the natural rights of others to property and freedom of movement over land (unowned) on the basis of their birthplace?Yes, and Hoppe happens to be one of those kind of conservatives, i.e. a racist. How clear does it have to be for you? You're willing to rationalized irrational statements and illogical formulas from Hoppe in order to avoid the obvious that the man does indeed, conscious or subconsciously, racist/xenephobic elements.
These elements themselves would not be so bad, however, if they didn't justify the state's existence to forcefully exclude people from homesteading land and freely trading with others born in different areas. Hoppe's arguments do service this function, however, and so, we as responsible Anarchists must drag him into the street and correct his mistaken accusations.
-----------
Hoppe's argument comes down to this:Group X pays majority of taxes for City A
Thus, Group X possesses the moral legitimacy to exclude Group Y from moving from City B to City A.
What absurdities.A. Group X is not paying for City A directly. Group X is paying Administration Z not to extract or imprison them while they continually reside in City A; furthermore, Group X is not really the only one paying for City A, in many other ways Group Y, Group P and Group O may also be funding some specific, incremental portions of the public property found within City A, thus Group Y, P, and O must logically own City A once Administration Z falls too.
B. Administration Z is an illegitimate owner of City A because they have expropriated the funds from other coercively. The land they possess is not land owned through homesteading, but rather through coercion, thus Administration Z possesses nothing.
C. Does the loss of Administration Z imply City A now comes into ownership by the Group X? No.
Group X, though perhaps some of their citizens have worked on the public land of City A, is merely a collection of individuals with claim to ownership of only the things they themselves have homesteaded, not the things that Administration Z extracted through coercive means, the things created by Administration Z are as illegitimate as Z itself and now return to the position of unowned land.
The question now becomes, what are we to do with this unowned land? My suggestion, homestead it.
Brainpolice, I agree - though to be fair, I think Hoppe is merely building on Rothbard's position that if the State's existence is taken as a given and isn't going anywhere, it ought to be run like a business.
Juan, did you happen to miss all the posts branding Hoppe a racist? Personally I do not care if one is racist or not... though the way the word is intended is as a slur, usually used by 'progressives'. I don't believe Hoppe is racist, yet even if he were it would not change my respect for him in any sense.
Niccolo, his point is that if the State continues to exist plus there is open immigration, that the taxpaying populace is made worse off by virtue of increased forced association and a heavier tax load due to those who go on to welfare, and thus that their rights are further violated - one needn't be a racist to point this out, and one needn't be a racist to lament the effects forced integration has on cultural groupings; open borders in this context are no more libertarian than closed ones. This is frequently what happens in Europe, if not the USA. The only thing I disagree with is his misplaced solution - like Brainpolice has said, it stands in opposition to his generally radical stance on de-socialization. So what you in fact object to is his insufficiently radical proposal.
Brainpolice: Oh, come on, kdnc. Painting agorism as the route of the "***-boy" is strange. The truth seems to me to be quite the opposite. Only the agorists are willing to engage in mass civil disobedience and openly defy the state's laws. That takes true courage. The reformists, on the other hand, shy away from it because it is too risky for them. The reformists choose the easiest route that involves the least personal risk. Agorism could thus be viewed as more enteprenuerial. An agorist bears the costs themselves, while the reformist externalizes the costs through the political process (considering that voting does effect 3rd parties of people).
I am sure there are many agorists who are courageous. You are mistaken when you think that reformists as a whole are unwilling to engage in civil disobedience. Reformists (I am using your term here though I think you are misusing it) are willing to engage in civil disobedience and they also do not rule out any other reasonable means. There is a diference between buying into the system and using the system against itself; very basic concept. You may choose not to make use of the concept, but its general applicability cannot be denied.
In any case my comments were mainly directed at a specific individual who has shown his inability to follow even the simplest allegory, although I must say he has scared me dreadfully with his talk of gunfights and such. It is diaspointing to me to see the very low level of the discussions on these forums. People cannot even stay on topic, as you have pointed out this thread has been confused with the addition of the immigration discussion. If folks cannot follow the most basic principles of logic, how can they expect to get anywhere productive with their discussions. Practically every discussion gets sidetracked immediately and never returns to the orriginal question. A person makes a point and instead of responding, the next comment addresses something else entirely and includes baseless claims and childish talk you would expect to hear on a grade school playground (i.e. Im warning you boy...don't bring a knife...bla,bla,bla). How ridiculous to see people having to ask each other what the other is talking about. The discussion is so petty and individuals constantly want to hichjack the line of reasoning because they do not have the capacity to follow the current line any further. They then often resort to lines like "I can make nonsense too." Go back to college or find an online class in logic and go through it ten times then come back here and see if you can stay on topic and follow the resoning of a simple allegory. This weakmindedness is what I was responding to with the nancy-boy comment.
I don't know how much relevence this has to this pretty intellectual conversation, but I'll give you some personal reasons why I agree with Block, and why I'll be voting for Ron Paul. The most important reason is that I think your plans of the "underground" economy, or black market, eventually ruining the state to be a little far fetched. Call me ignorent (true- I haven't done a HUGE amount of research on agorism, although I have done some) but I don't see it happening any time soon, if at all. Hey, more power to you, hope it works. Thats not to say I'm against it, just that I'm not putting a lot of stock into it. Maybe in the future my opinion will change. Who knows.
But I'm concerned with the amount of happiness and prosperity and freedom that I, and my family and friends, can get out life in the here and now, so that we can live our lives as God has called us, or whatever the reason may be. If voting for Ron Paul gives me more freedom than I have now, I'll be happy (I believe it will). I sincerely hope that your non-voting doesn't get in the way of those fighting for more freedom. You may be "ungovernable", but I fear you're going to make the rest of us quite miserable, as the state becomes more and more socialized and fascist. As it creeps around our necks until we're living in another Soviet Russia.
That is my fear. Perhaps you wouldn't rather have a "better" master, than a "bad" master, but I would, and I think the majority of people would as well. That is why I will vote for Ron Paul.
Inquisitor:Niccolo, his point is that if the State continues to exist plus there is open immigration, that the taxpaying populace is made worse off by virtue of increased forced association and a heavier tax load due to those who go on to welfare, and thus that their rights are further violated - one needn't be a racist to point this out, and one needn't be a racist to lament the effects forced integration has on cultural groupings; open borders in this context are no more libertarian than closed ones. This is frequently what happens in Europe, if not the USA. The only thing I disagree with is his misplaced solution - like Brainpolice has said, it stands in opposition to his generally radical stance on de-socialization. So what you in fact object to is his insufficiently radical proposal.
Again, Inquisitor, that is not his point,
The first error in this line of reasoning can be readily identified.Once the welfare states have collapsed under their own weight, themasses of immigrants who have brought this about are still there. Theyhave not been miraculously transformed into Swiss, Austrians, Bavariansor Lombards, but remain what they are: Zulus, Hindus, Ibos,Albanians, or Bangladeshis. Assimilation can work when the numberof immigrants is small. It is entirely impossible, however, if immigrationoccurs on a mass scale. In that case, immigrants will simplytrans-port their own ethno-culture onto the new territory.
I suppose this represents a difference in preference for long-term vs. short-term gains. I view the Ron Paul route as, at best, leading to short-term gains. By voting for Ron Paul, perhaps you can gain a tiny increment more of liberty in the present. But in the long-term, I don't think it will do anything to ultimately slow down the growth of the state, let alone reduce it. I would rather be less free now and work towards a critical mass in order to out-compete the state then reinforce the system in order to increase my liberty by a percentage point or two in the present. I'd rather be patient then persue politics in vein. Apply "what is seen and what is not seen" to the political process itself, and you'll catch my drift.
My understanding of agorism tells me that the market process itself is an indispensible tool towards making the state unecessary and pointless. I think of it in terms of out-competing the state, and while agorism concentrates on black markets, the point is to make these black markets eventually free markets, to make them essentially out-compete the state. If the state is a monopoly, then introduce competition. A state monopoly is not broken up by creating separate branches and sub-states within it, since they are still within it. A monopoly is broken up by external competition.
In terms of education, I think the Ron Paul campaign presents an illusion of liberation and ends up giving people more faith in the idea that we can make the government work, "by the people for the people" (that "if only the right person were in power" everything would be swell), while also blurring the distinction between libertarianism and paleoconservatism due to his positions on several issues and some of the people tagging along his campaign. So while Ron Paul is spreading the message of libertarianism to some extent, he is also simultaneously spreading the message of social democracy and nationalism - and associating libertarianism with them.
This can also be thought of in terms of resource allocation. In allocating resources towards the Ron Paul campaign, you are implictly reinforcing the institutional framework of social democracy, wether you intend to be doing so or not. Resources that could have otherwise been used in the economy itself, black or not, are redirected towards political ends. And while I won't argue against the Spooner style voting as self-defense arguement, I will gladly argue that voting is not an efficient means of self-defense, that it has never worked and will never work as a reliable means for reducing political power in the long run. I will also argue that voting effects 3rd parties of people, so even if you attempt to vote in self-defense, you are still implictly forcing your will on others.
When the smoke clears after this election, the libertarian movement will be left with less resources, a lost election and in a state of frustration. Just like Goldwater and just like Reagan, even if he did get elected (of course, I don't mean to imply that Reagan was a libertarian, since he was arguably the president who really brought neoconservates into the government big time, and expanded the state while touting libertarianish rhetoric). And even if by some miracle he did get elected, it is doubtful he would be able to do much in the face of a hostile congress. He would certainly be forced to compromise.
sam72: I don't know how much relevence this has to this pretty intellectual conversation, but I'll give you some personal reasons why I agree with Block, and why I'll be voting for Ron Paul. The most important reason is that I think your plans of the "underground" economy, or black market, eventually ruining the state to be a little far fetched. Call me ignorent (true- I haven't done a HUGE amount of research on agorism, although I have done some) but I don't see it happening any time soon, if at all. Hey, more power to you, hope it works. Thats not to say I'm against it, just that I'm not putting a lot of stock into it. Maybe in the future my opinion will change. Who knows.
So, let me get this straight. You're a libertarian. You believe the market process is the most efficient process for allocating resources to meet ends. Yet, it's not the most efficient process when it comes to meeting the ends you want? Explain.
sam72:But I'm concerned with the amount of happiness and prosperity and freedom that I, and my family and friends, can get out life in the here and now, so that we can live our lives as God has called us, or whatever the reason may be. If voting for Ron Paul gives me more freedom than I have now, I'll be happy (I believe it will).
But I'm concerned with the amount of happiness and prosperity and freedom that I, and my family and friends, can get out life in the here and now, so that we can live our lives as God has called us, or whatever the reason may be. If voting for Ron Paul gives me more freedom than I have now, I'll be happy (I believe it will).
So did Barry Goldwater supporters. Guess what. It doesn't, it won't, it never has, and in the long run you'll end up worse off than you were before. You're destroying this movement! Don't you see! Can't you see what's so plain and clear in front of you?!? Your ridiculouc cult of personality reflects on me as a libertarian! You're extinguishing the flames that burn within Anarchist spirit and the potential Anarchists have! You're malinvesting, misinterpreting, and sh-i-tting on any chance we might have had to overthrow the state.
If you don't think so, then please watch this with an open mind.
sam72: I sincerely hope that your non-voting doesn't get in the way of those fighting for more freedom. You may be "ungovernable", but I fear you're going to make the rest of us quite miserable, as the state becomes more and more socialized and fascist. As it creeps around our necks until we're living in another Soviet Russia.
I sincerely hope that your non-voting doesn't get in the way of those fighting for more freedom. You may be "ungovernable", but I fear you're going to make the rest of us quite miserable, as the state becomes more and more socialized and fascist. As it creeps around our necks until we're living in another Soviet Russia.
You're what's causing the increases in civilization's degredation! You're what's lullabying people into this mistaken myth that the system is only being misused and can be reformed, you're a greedy, self-righteous, power-hungry slave trying to convince everyone of your own da/mned virtue and justice if only you were in office.
"Don't worry! I'll lead you to freedom! Just put ME in the white house. Put me at the head of the most powerful military in the world! I'll lead us all to the land of milk and honey!" Vaffanculu!
sam72: That is my fear. Perhaps you wouldn't rather have a "better" master, than a "bad" master, but I would, and I think the majority of people would as well. That is why I will vote for Ron Paul.
And that's why you'll lose, prideless and nameless. Your life will be extinguished with the life of your children, and you will be nameless for eternity as though you never existed. Your life is a pitiful one, pathetic and unworthy of living. I am ashamed of you. I am disgusted by you. I am sorry for you.
Niccolo, I know what his point is - his position is that open borders coupled with a welfare state lead to a heavier tax burden, more socialism and forced integration, meaning those who'd prefer disassociation have very little choice in the matter (whereas in a private property regime the situation would be the reverse.) One could even argue that this is a classical case of the State thriving on the discontent it sows - it exploits the fact that certain individuals do not desire more immigration and further that assimiliation does not take place smoothly, paints this as 'discrimination' and presto, it has a new 'issue' to 'solve'!
Although you're right on one thing - if immigration causes individuals to grow more dissatisfied with the State and hastens the welfare state's implosion, it should be welcomed. Anyway, I am done for now on the matter, as this is detracting from the OP; if a new separate thread comes up on it I'll debate it further.
Sigh... I can't do this anymore. If you want to accept Hoppe's Anarcho-Nationalism as pure Anarchism and a real solid theory with logical tendencies as opposed to an indication of his xenephobic racism - whether through his unconscious conscience or not - then fine, but I'm going to call him on it every chance I get.
Brainpolice:But in the long-term, I don't think it will do anything to ultimately slow down the growth of the state, let alone reduce it. I would rather be less free now and work towards a critical mass in order to out-compete the state then reinforce the system in order to increase my liberty by a percentage point or two in the present. I'd rather be patient then persue politics in vein. Apply "what is seen and what is not seen" to the political process itself, and you'll catch my drift.
I definitely see your point, but I guess I don't understand why both can't work. I mean, if a Ron Paul presidency led us closer to "libertarian" ideals- less laws, more freedom, less taxes- how couldn't that not work to the benefits of the agorists? Heck, maybe a Ron Paul presidency would lead to seccesion, maybe a complete breakdown of the U.S. as we know it. He's certainly ok with secession, or at least, he wouldn't use force like Lincoln to stop it. I guess I just don't understand why more freedom couldn't help. Short term benefits can definitely lead to long term benefits-the two aren't exclusive. Say we get a Guliani, and more of a police state, more restriction, less personal privacy. It obviously becomes even more difficult, and more dangerous, for an underground economy to work and function. That is to say, an underground economy works better now, where we have some remenents of rights, then it would under a Soviet Russia, where, even if it did work, the consequences of getting caught (even if its not something technically illegal like a grey market) could be your life, and possibly your families life.
Brainpolice:I will gladly argue that voting is not an efficient means of self-defense, that it has never worked and will never work as a reliable means for reducing political power in the long run. I will also argue that voting effects 3rd parties of people, so even if you attempt to vote in self-defense, you are still implictly forcing your will on others.
The same can be said about non-voting as well. Like I said, you may be "ungovernable", but you may make things worse for everyone else in the short AND long run. I mean, you can't simply sit back, as things go to hell in a hand basket (or at least get worse), stick your nose in the air and say "I didn't vote, and therefore I have no responsibility in this." It comes back to my view that the dichotomy between now and long term are not mutually exlusive. If you have the chance to improve things NOW, then there is no excuse for not doing it. I mean, you don't have to act on it, but its irresponsible in my opinion.
In the end I guess it comes down to this: can long term effects come from short term successes? I believe they can. You, apparently, don't think so.
Just as a side note, I do sympathize with the frustration many libertarians have with the Ron Paul movement. He's not the savior, he's not the end all be all of our time here on earth. Theres a very good possibility he won't be elected, and if he was, perhaps he wouldn't be able to do much, as you say. Still, I do believe good can come from it, both now and in the future.
Niccolò: sam72: I don't know how much relevence this has to this pretty intellectual conversation, but I'll give you some personal reasons why I agree with Block, and why I'll be voting for Ron Paul. The most important reason is that I think your plans of the "underground" economy, or black market, eventually ruining the state to be a little far fetched. Call me ignorent (true- I haven't done a HUGE amount of research on agorism, although I have done some) but I don't see it happening any time soon, if at all. Hey, more power to you, hope it works. Thats not to say I'm against it, just that I'm not putting a lot of stock into it. Maybe in the future my opinion will change. Who knows. So, let me get this straight. You're a libertarian. You believe the market process is the most efficient process for allocating resources to meet ends. Yet, it's not the most efficient process when it comes to meeting the ends you want? Explain. sam72: But I'm concerned with the amount of happiness and prosperity and freedom that I, and my family and friends, can get out life in the here and now, so that we can live our lives as God has called us, or whatever the reason may be. If voting for Ron Paul gives me more freedom than I have now, I'll be happy (I believe it will). So did Barry Goldwater supporters. Guess what. It doesn't, it won't, it never has, and in the long run you'll end up worse off than you were before. You're destroying this movement! Don't you see! Can't you see what's so plain and clear in front of you?!? Your ridiculouc cult of personality reflects on me as a libertarian! You're extinguishing the flames that burn within Anarchist spirit and the potential Anarchists have! You're malinvesting, misinterpreting, and sh-i-tting on any chance we might have had to overthrow the state. If you don't think so, then please watch this with an open mind. sam72: I sincerely hope that your non-voting doesn't get in the way of those fighting for more freedom. You may be "ungovernable", but I fear you're going to make the rest of us quite miserable, as the state becomes more and more socialized and fascist. As it creeps around our necks until we're living in another Soviet Russia. Oh, you naive, house slave! You still don't get it, do you? You're a weak minded fool if you think that you're going to be any freer by waiting another several months and voting for Ron Paul. You're a worthless, weak-hearted soothsayer if this is what you seriously believe. Even if it could bring any change - which it wouldn't - your change of substance is not going to come unless you begin living the life, that means not paying taxes, that means not obeying the government, that means throwing the chains from your back like a man as opposed to crying in the corner, begging with no pride and no dignity for just a little bit of freedom from the state that you'll NEVER-EVER GET! You're what's causing the increases in civilization's degredation! You're what's lullabying people into this mistaken myth that the system is only being misused and can be reformed, you're a greedy, self-righteous, power-hungry slave trying to convince everyone of your own da/mned virtue and justice if only you were in office. "Don't worry! I'll lead you to freedom! Just put ME in the white house. Put me at the head of the most powerful military in the world! I'll lead us all to the land of milk and honey!" Vaffanculu! sam72: That is my fear. Perhaps you wouldn't rather have a "better" master, than a "bad" master, but I would, and I think the majority of people would as well. That is why I will vote for Ron Paul. And that's why you'll lose, prideless and nameless. Your life will be extinguished with the life of your children, and you will be nameless for eternity as though you never existed. Your life is a pitiful one, pathetic and unworthy of living. I am ashamed of you. I am disgusted by you. I am sorry for you.
sam72: But I'm concerned with the amount of happiness and prosperity and freedom that I, and my family and friends, can get out life in the here and now, so that we can live our lives as God has called us, or whatever the reason may be. If voting for Ron Paul gives me more freedom than I have now, I'll be happy (I believe it will).
Niccolò:So, let me get this straight. You're a libertarian. You believe the market process is the most efficient process for allocating resources to meet ends. Yet, it's not the most efficient process when it comes to meeting the ends you want? Explain.
Yes, I believe it is the most efficient process for allocating resources, but its not God, my friend. I can't simply wish for something, and have the market deliver it. It can't do anything and everything. Bringing down the ENTIRE political and corporate structure is an entirely different thing then delivering us bread to eat, and cars to drive. But, hey, like I said, I wish you the best of luck mate
Niccolò:So did Barry Goldwater supporters. Guess what. It doesn't, it won't, it never has, and in the long run you'll end up worse off than you were before. You're destroying this movement! Don't you see! Can't you see what's so plain and clear in front of you?!? Your ridiculouc cult of personality reflects on me as a libertarian! You're extinguishing the flames that burn within Anarchist spirit and the potential Anarchists have! You're malinvesting, misinterpreting, and sh-i-tting on any chance we might have had to overthrow the state.
Not necesarrily. Lets say Ron Paul got elected. Over the time of his presidency, lets say he removed the IRS and income tax, got rid of a lot of the welfare state, ended the war on drugs, ended our constant warring overseas, saving perhaps hundreds of thousands of foreign and American lives, and overall decreased the power of the federal government. How could we be worse off, even long term? Wouldn't that give you and the agorists even more of an oppertunity to fight the state? Maybe secession would even happen. Paul certainly wouldn't stop it. A weaker state is easier to fight then a stronger one, right? And then, maybe that wouldn't happen. But I think theres a better chance of it happening than the underground economy collapsing the entire political establishment, rather tomorrow, or a hundred years down the road. But like I said, keep at it my friend. I'm for you 100%
Niccolò:Oh, you naive, house slave! You still don't get it, do you? You're a weak minded fool if you think that you're going to be any freer by waiting another several months and voting for Ron Paul. You're a worthless, weak-hearted soothsayer if this is what you seriously believe. Even if it could bring any change - which it wouldn't - your change of substance is not going to come unless you begin living the life, that means not paying taxes, that means not obeying the government, that means throwing the chains from your back like a man as opposed to crying in the corner, begging with no pride and no dignity for just a little bit of freedom from the state that you'll NEVER-EVER GET!
You have entirely missed my argument (or ignored it). See what I said above, but I really don't think you've established that change can't come from the political process. True, not the radical change your looking for. I don't believe it can either. But I don't think there is any reason to think Paul (or someone like him) couldn't change things some, or even quite a bit. And why a weaker state wouldn't be easier to fight then a strong state. I believe secession is probably the best way to establish freedom, and I think it would be a heckuva lot easier under Paul. Oh, and do you pay your taxes? Answer honestly, because I would really like to know. And if you don't, explain how you are not in prison please. And if you do pay your taxes, when exactly do you plan on stopping?
Niccolò:And that's why you'll lose, prideless and nameless. Your life will be extinguished with the life of your children, and you will be nameless for eternity as though you never existed. Your life is a pitiful one, pathetic and unworthy of living. I am ashamed of you. I am disgusted by you. I am sorry for you.
You ARE radical, aren't you? Heh. But thats ok. I do wish you the best of luck, Niccolo!
sam72: Yes, I believe it is the most efficient process for allocating resources, but its not God, my friend. I can't simply wish for something, and have the market deliver it. It can't do anything and everything...
Yes, I believe it is the most efficient process for allocating resources, but its not God, my friend. I can't simply wish for something, and have the market deliver it. It can't do anything and everything...
sam72: Not necesarrily. Lets say Ron Paul got elected. Over the time of his presidency, lets say he removed the IRS and income tax, got rid of a lot of the welfare state, ended the war on drugs, ended our constant warring overseas, saving perhaps hundreds of thousands of foreign and American lives, and overall decreased the power of the federal government. How could we be worse off, even long term? Wouldn't that give you and the agorists even more of an oppertunity to fight the state? Maybe secession would even happen. Paul certainly wouldn't stop it. A weaker state is easier to fight then a stronger one, right? And then, maybe that wouldn't happen. But I think theres a better chance of it happening than the underground economy collapsing the entire political establishment, rather tomorrow, or a hundred years down the road. But like I said, keep at it my friend. I'm for you 100%
Did you watch the video? That's why it wouldn't work. For the next five centuries you'd have images of beaten single-mothers and welfare children.
sam72: You have entirely missed my argument (or ignored it). See what I said above, but I really don't think you've established that change can't come from the political process. True, not the radical change your looking for. I don't believe it can either.
You have entirely missed my argument (or ignored it). See what I said above, but I really don't think you've established that change can't come from the political process. True, not the radical change your looking for. I don't believe it can either.
Then it's worthless and unsustainable.I haven't established change can't come from political process?Alright, here's an example that you should try, join a black pride group, if you're black, if you're something else then join something else, but join a black pride group and try to get elected on a platform of anti-black agendas. Turn the whole black pride group around from advocating black empowerment to another Ku Klux Klan.Seems ridiculous doesn't it? Why? It should be millions of times easier than joining the largest political power in the world and turning its agenda completely around against its own constituents.The reason it doesn't happen is because it contradicts HUMAN ACTION. Human's act for benefits. Attempting to make human's act contradicting those perceived benefits is an impossibility. The existence of any organization, better, of any individual is based on the advancement of that individual's pleasure. What makes an individual tick is what makes him happy, what makes him stronger, what satisfies his will to power. Anything else is pissing in the breeze, only worse, you're pissing on all of us too.
Do I need to put it in formal terms for you? Christ! I DO!
Axiom i: Humans act according to their desired ends.
Axiom ii: What is desirable is what progresses or directly causes the a man to prosper in some way.
Axiom iii: Humans will not contradict their desired ends unless there is some benefit to it.
Axiom iv: Given two innate enemies correlating completely different end goals, the substance prosperity of one will cause substance decay to the other for the long run objective.
X attempts to change organization like A into an organization like B.
If the state of B ⇒⇐ A
Then X can not successfully act to change organization A into an organization like B.
sam72:But I don't think there is any reason to think Paul (or someone like him) couldn't change things some, or even quite a bit. And why a weaker state wouldn't be easier to fight then a strong state. I believe secession is probably the best way to establish freedom, and I think it would be a heckuva lot easier under Paul. Oh, and do you pay your taxes? Answer honestly, because I would really like to know. And if you don't, explain how you are not in prison please. And if you do pay your taxes, when exactly do you plan on stopping?
But I don't think there is any reason to think Paul (or someone like him) couldn't change things some, or even quite a bit. And why a weaker state wouldn't be easier to fight then a strong state. I believe secession is probably the best way to establish freedom, and I think it would be a heckuva lot easier under Paul. Oh, and do you pay your taxes? Answer honestly, because I would really like to know. And if you don't, explain how you are not in prison please. And if you do pay your taxes, when exactly do you plan on stopping?
I honestly don't. If you want a letter on my methods for avoiding taxes, then I'll be happy to send you one, but I'm not going to reveal it over the internet. Suffice to say, the only tax I've ever paid are sales taxes, and I've done quite nicely at avoiding those as well.
kdnc:Perfect example of the vacuous responses common on these boards. Here is a perfect opportunity to respond in a constructive way to someone who appears to be relatively open to new information and instead of answering with sound reasoning as to why his thinking might be off base, you fire back with plenty vitriol and no substance. No doubt you have made a new friend. You sure are an ace when it comes to the best strategy for spreading your philosophy, so you must be equally competent in all things related to strategy in general.By the way, regarding your blog on Block and the above response; when one is capable, by way of overwhelming intellectual power, of figuratively dragging another into the street and disabusing them of erroneous ideas, they typically simply do it and rarely feel the need to announce it. As they do it all will see it after all. If they are not capable of such feats, they may shout it from the hilltops but no amount of vituperation will change the fact that they have not accomplished their goal and this too will be plain for all to see.
Perfect example of the vacuous responses common on these boards. Here is a perfect opportunity to respond in a constructive way to someone who appears to be relatively open to new information and instead of answering with sound reasoning as to why his thinking might be off base, you fire back with plenty vitriol and no substance. No doubt you have made a new friend. You sure are an ace when it comes to the best strategy for spreading your philosophy, so you must be equally competent in all things related to strategy in general.By the way, regarding your blog on Block and the above response; when one is capable, by way of overwhelming intellectual power, of figuratively dragging another into the street and disabusing them of erroneous ideas, they typically simply do it and rarely feel the need to announce it. As they do it all will see it after all. If they are not capable of such feats, they may shout it from the hilltops but no amount of vituperation will change the fact that they have not accomplished their goal and this too will be plain for all to see.
If I was not already familiar with your level of intelligence, I would have been impressed by the word, "vituperation," but now I just assume it was the word of the day.
I haven't established change can't come from political process?Alright, here's an example that you should try, join a black pride group, if you're black, if you're something else then join something else, but join a black pride group and try to get elected on a platform of anti-black agendas. Turn the whole black pride group around from advocating black empowerment to another Ku Klux Klan.Seems ridiculous doesn't it? Why? It should be millions of times easier than joining the largest political power in the world and turning its agenda completely around against its own constituents.
I've seen Stefan Molyneux make this allegory. I have to say that it's pretty strong. The state is much more powerful then your local black panther group or the ku klux clan. Yet one couldn't even realistically manage to muster such a feat in a local, small organization. Turning the state, of all institutions, against its own interests seems rather ridiculous.
Brainpolice: I haven't established change can't come from political process?Alright, here's an example that you should try, join a black pride group, if you're black, if you're something else then join something else, but join a black pride group and try to get elected on a platform of anti-black agendas. Turn the whole black pride group around from advocating black empowerment to another Ku Klux Klan.Seems ridiculous doesn't it? Why? It should be millions of times easier than joining the largest political power in the world and turning its agenda completely around against its own constituents. I've seen Stefan Molyneux make this allegory. I have to say that it's pretty strong. The state is much more powerful then your local black panther group or the ku klux clan. Yet one couldn't even realistically manage to muster such a feat in a local, small organization. Turning the state, of all institutions, against its own interests seems rather ridiculous.
The allegory is useful and I agree with you, it makes a pretty strong argument for his position. However, it is not entirely accurate. The state is not much more powerful than your local Black Panther or kkk group. The state's territory is much broader but its power in controlling the minds of people is not much greater. Practically every member of a hate group is very close to or already willing to kill or be killed for their cause. While this can certainly be said of many under the state's control, the number of people in the general population willing to do the same is dramatically less, relatively speaking. You would be hard-pressed to show a high, much less nearly 100%, percentage of average Americans who you could approach and talk to with your most passionate and inspirational message and convince them to go take the life of a foreigner so that America can grow. This has, does, and will continue to happen amongst hate group members. The power these groups hold over their members is qualitatively different than that which the state holds over citizens. I agree the difference is not large in some respects, but it certainly is there.
kdnc: Brainpolice: I haven't established change can't come from political process?Alright, here's an example that you should try, join a black pride group, if you're black, if you're something else then join something else, but join a black pride group and try to get elected on a platform of anti-black agendas. Turn the whole black pride group around from advocating black empowerment to another Ku Klux Klan.Seems ridiculous doesn't it? Why? It should be millions of times easier than joining the largest political power in the world and turning its agenda completely around against its own constituents. I've seen Stefan Molyneux make this allegory. I have to say that it's pretty strong. The state is much more powerful then your local black panther group or the ku klux clan. Yet one couldn't even realistically manage to muster such a feat in a local, small organization. Turning the state, of all institutions, against its own interests seems rather ridiculous. The allegory is useful and I agree with you, it makes a pretty strong argument for his position. However, it is not entirely accurate. The state is not much more powerful than your local Black Panther or kkk group. The state's territory is much broader but its power in controlling the minds of people is not much greater. Practically every member of a hate group is very close to or already willing to kill or be killed for their cause. While this can certainly be said of many under the state's control, the number of people in the general population willing to do the same is dramatically less, relatively speaking. You would be hard-pressed to show a high, much less nearly 100%, percentage of average Americans who you could approach and talk to with your most passionate and inspirational message and convince them to go take the life of a foreigner so that America can grow. This has, does, and will continue to happen amongst hate group members. The power these groups hold over their members is qualitatively different than that which the state holds over citizens. I agree the difference is not large in some respects, but it certainly is there.
I'm actually quite surprised how many people, in a nationalistic fervor, would be willing to murder for the state. Technically that is my ethical view of non-drafted soldiers: murderers for the state, rather then the notion that they sacrifice themselves for my sake. In either case, never underestimate the madness of mobs. And in the spirit of La Boetie, the state's very existance would not be possible without the compliance of people who are willing to do the dirty work of the people at the top of the chain: policemen, soldiers, bereaucrats, and so on. These people's very livelyhoods are dependant on the state. Granted, the group of people who actually constitute members of the state is a relatively tiny portion of the population. Yet this relatively small group of people manage to control everyone within a given territory. They have their own interests. How can one possibly join the institution of the state without, even without meaning to, being corrupted by it? How can we possibly get people within the state to stop persueing their interests?
I agree with most of what you are saying. I just don't think it is justifiable to equate the mentality of the average individual within the state with that of the average hate group member's. I don't have numbers here so this is just my opinion, but I would bet there have been more individuals from within the state have adopt liberty as a goal, however misguided there strategies may be, than there have been hate group members who have begun to love everybody, percentage wise. If this is true, it demonstrates the qualitative difference in the mentality of the two groups. It is defenitely a good argument though because regardless of the difference I am suggesting, it illustrates the enormity of the task.
kdnc:I agree with most of what you are saying. I just don't think it is justifiable to equate the mentality of the average individual within the state with that of the average hate group member's. I don't have numbers here so this is just my opinion, but I would bet there have been more individuals from within the state have adopt liberty as a goal, however misguided there strategies may be, than there have been hate group members who have begun to love everybody, percentage wise. If this is true, it demonstrates the qualitative difference in the mentality of the two groups. It is defenitely a good argument though because regardless of the difference I am suggesting, it illustrates the enormity of the task.
Mentality is not something you can really measure, however, the amount of vying groups for sole state power compared to vying groups for say, sole black pride group power aren't even close.
It isn't qualitative, it's quantitative, and given the highest percents I've seen from a respectable "straw poll" 10% compared to 90% +/- isn't going to cut through. Moreover, you have extra externalities at a national level, intrecacies and other indirect competitions that make it almost impossible for Ron Paul to do what you people want him to do. The biggest problem with libertarianism as a philosophy is the apparent unwillingness to deal with human psychology. Outside of Molyneux, I've yet to encounter one real libertarian dabbling in the psychological methods of the master-slave morality in the modern internet age. This is probably why there are so many misconceptions about plausible outcomes.
The one place where I'm not a radical is the fact that I believe stages must be incremental, as SEK3 established in the New Libertarian Manifesto: Stage 0, Stage 1, Stage 2, Stage 3, and finally the Libertarian society.
Niccolò: kdnc: I agree with most of what you are saying. I just don't think it is justifiable to equate the mentality of the average individual within the state with that of the average hate group member's. I don't have numbers here so this is just my opinion, but I would bet there have been more individuals from within the state have adopt liberty as a goal, however misguided there strategies may be, than there have been hate group members who have begun to love everybody, percentage wise. If this is true, it demonstrates the qualitative difference in the mentality of the two groups. It is defenitely a good argument though because regardless of the difference I am suggesting, it illustrates the enormity of the task. Mentality is not something you can really measure, however, the amount of vying groups for sole state power compared to vying groups for say, sole black pride group power aren't even close. It isn't qualitative, it's quantitative, and given the highest percents I've seen from a respectable "straw poll" 10% compared to 90% +/- isn't going to cut through. Moreover, you have extra externalities at a national level, intrecacies and other indirect competitions that make it almost impossible for Ron Paul to do what you people want him to do. The biggest problem with libertarianism as a philosophy is the apparent unwillingness to deal with human psychology. Outside of Molyneux, I've yet to encounter one real libertarian dabbling in the psychological methods of the master-slave morality in the modern internet age. This is probably why there are so many misconceptions about plausible outcomes. The one place where I'm not a radical is the fact that I believe stages must be incremental, as SEK3 established in the New Libertarian Manifesto: Stage 0, Stage 1, Stage 2, Stage 3, and finally the Libertarian society.
kdnc: I agree with most of what you are saying. I just don't think it is justifiable to equate the mentality of the average individual within the state with that of the average hate group member's. I don't have numbers here so this is just my opinion, but I would bet there have been more individuals from within the state have adopt liberty as a goal, however misguided there strategies may be, than there have been hate group members who have begun to love everybody, percentage wise. If this is true, it demonstrates the qualitative difference in the mentality of the two groups. It is defenitely a good argument though because regardless of the difference I am suggesting, it illustrates the enormity of the task.
Are your a "Szaszian" on psychology by chance?
kdnc:You may not be able to measure mentality, but you can certainly understand certain aspects of it. I agree with you (did I just say that?) that it is quantitative, but I think it is also qualitative for the following reason. A person who is willing to kill for religious reasons has a mentality that is qualitatively different than someone who is willing to kill because they are greedy. The first usually believes they are doing something good; the second usually has no such delusions but does it nonetheless. This is not just a quantitative difference; there is a different quality to the mind of each. But I agree that in the case we are talking about it is probably both qualitative and quantitative. Your comments regarding psychology are interesting; I will have to look more at Molyneux's work. I am a practicing psychologist who was attracted to the Mises Institute because I felt a need for more liberty in my field and in the way I work with people. Most psychologists treat patients in a way that very much mirrors how the state treats its subjects, namely violently. This does no good for the patient and certainly does nothing to advance the field. I definitely think libertarianism could benefit from sound psychological principles as much as I think psychology could benefit from sound libertarian principles.
You may not be able to measure mentality, but you can certainly understand certain aspects of it. I agree with you (did I just say that?) that it is quantitative, but I think it is also qualitative for the following reason. A person who is willing to kill for religious reasons has a mentality that is qualitatively different than someone who is willing to kill because they are greedy. The first usually believes they are doing something good; the second usually has no such delusions but does it nonetheless. This is not just a quantitative difference; there is a different quality to the mind of each. But I agree that in the case we are talking about it is probably both qualitative and quantitative. Your comments regarding psychology are interesting; I will have to look more at Molyneux's work. I am a practicing psychologist who was attracted to the Mises Institute because I felt a need for more liberty in my field and in the way I work with people. Most psychologists treat patients in a way that very much mirrors how the state treats its subjects, namely violently. This does no good for the patient and certainly does nothing to advance the field. I definitely think libertarianism could benefit from sound psychological principles as much as I think psychology could benefit from sound libertarian principles.
The state is an interesting topic, on one hand, yes the state exists for the purposes of greed. On the other hand, speaking from that master-slave hierarchy humans beings have with the state, the actual protection the state possesses is merely protection through the morality it waivers over people. How many times are you actually confronted violently by the state? How many times when you come to the Mises forum and say, the state is bad and needs to be significantly downsized or eliminated do you receive an officer on your door step the next morning? The reason this doesn't happen is due to the fact that the state doesn't need to do it; the state doesn't need to lift one finger.
Your fellow slaves are much more in tune with protecting the state than the state itself is. Without addressing the psychology of that, you're not going to get anywhere, and once you address that psychology, I highly doubt you'll even need the "Ron Paul" messiah.
sam72:Say we get a Guliani, and more of a police state, more restriction, less personal privacy. It obviously becomes even more difficult, and more dangerous, for an underground economy to work and function. That is to say, an underground economy works better now, where we have some remenents of rights, then it would under a Soviet Russia, where, even if it did work, the consequences of getting caught (even if its not something technically illegal like a grey market) could be your life, and possibly your families life.
Say we get a Guliani, and more of a police state, more restriction, less personal privacy. It obviously becomes even more difficult, and more dangerous, for an underground economy to work and function. That is to say, an underground economy works better now, where we have some remenents of rights, then it would under a Soviet Russia, where, even if it did work, the consequences of getting caught (even if its not something technically illegal like a grey market) could be your life, and possibly your families life.
the idea that the black market was somehow constrained under communism is fanciful, at best. the "mafiya" that have now entered the hollywood-bad-guy-cliche didn't just spring from glasnost. here's just a brief primer:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0493e.asp
Brainpolice: Are your a "Szaszian" on psychology by chance?
yes