In Reply to Walter Block on something

Reply

sam72 replied on Sun, Dec 30 2007 1:54 PM

rated by 0 users

newson:

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

It makes sense that there would be a big black market under something like the Soviet Union, with more things being illegal. There were more regulations and restriction= more rules to break. But what did the black market accomplish? It certainly didn't become any real threat to the Soviet Union. Its not like I'm against the black market, I just don't see that there is much of a reason to think the black market could one day drive the state out of business. But at any rate, it just makes sense that under a less powerful state, that would seem at least more realistic. Being able to provide private security, and private judiciary, amongst other state-competing actions, would be easier under a state that had less control, and less agreesiveness, than a socialized police state. Maybe I'm wrong? 

Reply

sam72 replied on Sun, Dec 30 2007 3:03 PM

rated by 0 users

Niccolò:

So then it's NOT the most efficient system for allocation resources for the end objective one wishes to attain?

This is rediculous.  As I explained above, the market is not God. It's not a magical genie. You can keep wishing all you like that one day the black and gray markets will out compete the state, but I doubt it will happen. I hope it does. Really, I do. But I don't see it happening. 

Niccolò:

And if I had three wheels I'd be a tricycle and you could ride me down the hill to mama bear's house. Doesn't mean it's possible.

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.

Yes, I watched the video. I like Molyneaux, and I agree with a lot of what he says. However, I also agree with one of the comments on that post, who says nothing in what Molyneaux says precludes supporting Ron Paul. Nothing. I'll get to that more below.  

Niccolò:

 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.

 This argument makes sense, but only to a degree. For one, something like a black pride group is inherently about black pride. Thats what the whole group stands for. That's what it was established to advocate. When talking about the government (specifically, the U.S. Government), we don't have that same kind of easy definition. It we want to get technical, the U.S. Constitution is actually pretty good about advocating freedom, liberty, and rights. True, its not anarchism, but its leaps and bounds above where we are now, or the USSR, or communist China. And as KDNC stated, the mindset of the people in a group like (for example) the Klu Klux Klan, is much different than the mindset of people under the government. I don't know about you, but I believe people prefer freedom to tyranny. They are also misinformed, lazy, and uncaring, in many respects. But that is where I think Ron Paul is different than anyone Molyneaux talked about! I don't think there has been a candidate like Ron Paul before. Reagan? Is there really a comparison? I don't believe you can actually believe that. Reagan was a bought and paid for politician before he even started campaigning. He was another Bush II. He said some good stuff, but I don't believe he even believed it, at least not enough to act on it. Ron Paul has been surrounded by anarchists, and Austrian economists ever since he first ran for Congress. Its obviously rubbed off. Short of being assassinated (which, scarily enough, is all too possible), I think he really could change things. At the least, he'd end the wars and pull our troops and bases home. At the most, he could work some serious change, as well as get the ideas of freedom and liberty out to more people, as he has already done. 

Niccolò:

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.

I think you are basically correct here. But, I never said I wanted to change the state into anything different. Our main difference is how we think liberty will be achieved. I don't put much faith in agorism. I don't think the black or gray markets will ever do what you think they will. I think the best hope for liberty is secession, and I think secession would be easier to pull off under a weaker state than a stronger state. If Paul could achieve weakening the state, I think its a worthy goal. Nothing you said proved that the state couldn't be weakened. The main difficulty comes from the interest groups, corporations, and banks. Politicians are weak willed, and the congress usually goes along with the President, especially if public opinion is with him. Hey, I'm not saying the chances are high, but they are there. I firmly believe that.

Niccolò:

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. 

Impressive, I must say. And I say more power too you. But what will you accomplish? People have been trying to get out of paying their taxes since the beginning of time. Your just another tax protester. I think its a great thing, but its not revolutionary. There's every reason to believe you may get caught, and you'll go to prison, and we'll end up paying for you to sit around. And for what? Not much, I'm going to wager.  

And yes, if you don't mind telling me, I'd love to know. samwonacott@gmail.com, if you want to send it via email. If you would rather send it via snail mail, I'll give you my address.

Thanks! 

EDIT: Ok, I lied. I hadn't actually finished watching Molyneaux's video. I finished it, and I think his examples of what HE thinks would happen to be quite rediculous. Well, maybe thats how it would work, but I doubt it. His argument is seemingly that no part of the state can be downsized or abolished EVER. Ever. I think that is, if anything, a lie. Look at Jackson. He got rid of the national bank. Why couldn't Ron Paul do that? Jackson paid off the national debt. Why couldn't Paul do that? Sure its larger. But there is NOTHING that says it can't be done. His belief that if you got rid of the Postal Service, all hell would break out, is stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Just read Tz's post on the comments for that video. He sums it up quite nicely. Maybe some postal service workers would chain themselves up to whatever, but I figure most would go on with life. The postal industry would explode with all that legalized competition. They could find work. Just think about the countries like Sweden that have school vouchers. I don't advocate school vouchers in any way, but my goodness, when that idea was first proposed the teachers union fought like crazy against it. All hell didn't break loose. Sure, they still get funding, but not as much. Now they have to compete with "private schools." My point is, just because some people don't want something to happen, doesn't mean every one of those people will take to the streets and riot. It woulnd't be done all at once under Ron Paul, anyways. If he could do it, those programs would be PHASED out. That means everyone wins. And again, I don't think Ron Paul is Jesus. He won't take the state away. But I'm doubtful agorism will either.

Reply

Niccolò replied on Sun, Dec 30 2007 4:49 PM

rated by 0 users

sam72:

This is rediculous.  As I explained above, the market is not God. It's not a magical genie. You can keep wishing all you like that one day the black and gray markets will out compete the state, but I doubt it will happen. I hope it does. Really, I do. But I don't see it happening.

Market being God has nothing to do with it. Market allocating resources efficiently does.

You apply the market to your strategy. You use the market as a tool, like a business and an entrepreneur, then use the ends from the market as the means for the revolution.

sam72:

Yes, I watched the video. I like Molyneaux, and I agree with a lot of what he says. However, I also agree with one of the comments on that post, who says nothing in what Molyneaux says precludes supporting Ron Paul. Nothing. I'll get to that more below.

sam72:

 This argument makes sense, but only to a degree. For one, something like a black pride group is inherently about black pride. Thats what the whole group stands for. That's what it was established to advocate. When talking about the government (specifically, the U.S. Government), we don't have that same kind of easy definition. It we want to get technical, the U.S. Constitution is actually pretty good about advocating freedom, liberty, and rights.

 I beg to differ. Black men and women only being 3/5 of a human being is not my idea of "liberty."

In any case, as black pride groups are inherently about promoting black communities, states are inherently about promoting states. That's the point, and for thel ife of me I can not find any qualitative difference between the two.

sam72:

True, its not anarchism, but its leaps and bounds above where we are now, or the USSR, or communist China. And as KDNC stated, the mindset of the people in a group like (for example) the Klu Klux Klan, is much different than the mindset of people under the government.

Member rate of Ku Klux Klan = 10,030,000 inbetween 1920 - 1980

Deaths caused by Ku Klux Klan = 4,735 inbetween 1882 - 1986

US Coalition Forces = 477,000 / 2003 - 2007

Deaths caused by Iraqi invasion and occuption =  1,220,580 / 2003-2007

It's not even close if you're looking at the amount of death and destruction one side is willing to do to the other. Merely taking death count alone, even WITH a date advantage of spreading deaths out, you have a highly concentrated group in areas spread quite thickly with blacks, and the number still doesn't compare to the state. 

sam72:

I don't know about you, but I believe people prefer freedom to tyranny. They are also misinformed, lazy, and uncaring, in many respects. But that is where I think Ron Paul is different than anyone Molyneaux talked about! I don't think there has been a candidate like Ron Paul before. Reagan? Is there really a comparison? I don't believe you can actually believe that. Reagan was a bought and paid for politician before he even started campaigning. He was another Bush II. He said some good stuff, but I don't believe he even believed it, at least not enough to act on it. Ron Paul has been surrounded by anarchists, and Austrian economists ever since he first ran for Congress. Its obviously rubbed off. Short of being assassinated (which, scarily enough, is all too possible), I think he really could change things. At the least, he'd end the wars and pull our troops and bases home. At the most, he could work some serious change, as well as get the ideas of freedom and liberty out to more people, as he has already done.

 You're not listening to reason, it's complete wishful thinking. Watch Molyneux's movie again. The images associated with the Ron Paul dynasty would cause significant blowback. If you wanted any other effective way to destroy this movement from ever achieving the full on goal of a voluntary society, then elect Ron Paul, because what he's proposing will deteriorate the very core of our philosophy into little pundint shots at, "Yeah... Libertarianism, we tried that and look what happened *image of guy shooting single mother*"

Also, looking at Reagan from a post hoc perspective is biased. Go back to the days he began campaigning, exactly like Ron Paul. Go back to the first Republican debates in 2007, Ron Paul - "Reagan, great man!" 

sam72:

I think you are basically correct here. But, I never said I wanted to change the state into anything different.

Then why are you here?

Changing the state's course of actions against itself and against the power it possesses is deductively illogical.

Moreover, anything that does help the state - thus anything the state voluntarily acts on as an organization to benefit itself - will directly fly in the face of our movement. No  action by the government, whether Ron Paul lead or not, will possess any positive direction towards us.

sam72:

Our main difference is how we think liberty will be achieved. I don't put much faith in agorism. I don't think the black or gray markets will ever do what you think they will. I think the best hope for liberty is secession, and I think secession would be easier to pull off under a weaker state than a stronger state. If Paul could achieve weakening the state, I think its a worthy goal. Nothing you said proved that the state couldn't be weakened. The main difficulty comes from the interest groups, corporations, and banks. Politicians are weak willed, and the congress usually goes along with the President, especially if public opinion is with him. Hey, I'm not saying the chances are high, but they are there. I firmly believe that.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_secession

sam72:

Impressive, I must say. And I say more power too you. But what will you accomplish? People have been trying to get out of paying their taxes since the beginning of time. Your just another tax protester. I think its a great thing, but its not revolutionary. There's every reason to believe you may get caught, and you'll go to prison, and we'll end up paying for you to sit around. And for what? Not much, I'm going to wager.

Reply

Brainpolice replied on Sun, Dec 30 2007 6:02 PM

rated by 0 users

kdnc:

Brainpolice:

Are your a "Szaszian" on psychology by chance?

yes

I'm pretty much in that position as well. Getting off topic though.

Reply

IrishOutlaw replied on Sun, Dec 30 2007 6:23 PM

rated by 0 users

sam72:

newson:

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

 

It makes sense that there would be a big black market under something like the Soviet Union, with more things being illegal. There were more regulations and restriction= more rules to break. But what did the black market accomplish? It certainly didn't become any real threat to the Soviet Union. Its not like I'm against the black market, I just don't see that there is much of a reason to think the black market could one day drive the state out of business. But at any rate, it just makes sense that under a less powerful state, that would seem at least more realistic. Being able to provide private security, and private judiciary, amongst other state-competing actions, would be easier under a state that had less control, and less agreesiveness, than a socialized police state. Maybe I'm wrong? 

 The underground market for Rock n Roll in the USSR could very well be what brought it down. That sounds silly, and we have been brainwashed to believe that Reagan saved the world from communism, but a good case was made for it by someone that I can't think of right this moment, LOL. When I get back to my house I will look through my stuff so I can find the references. It is a very interesting article, even if you don't agree with it. It was in the book Choices, The Best of Reason, I think. I will find it when I get home.

Reply

kdnc replied on Sun, Dec 30 2007 6:40 PM

rated by 0 users

Niccolò:

Changing the state's course of actions against itself and against the power it possesses is deductively illogical.

You and other agorists have said this in numerous ways on numerous occasions. I'll grant that you may be right. But being right is not sufficient when trying to convince others of the correctness of your position. If you believe it is illogical, then use reasoning in a step by step fashion to illustrate your point. To do this at the conceptual/macro level you must do it without too much reliance on examples or analogies since these are always rife with exceptions etc. This is an arduous task, and I have yet to come across an agorist who has done this well regarding the idea in question here, if you know of one please refer me to it. Agorists say using the state’s own tools against it is counterproductive to their strategy. I can easily agree with this as different methods are likely to work at cross-purposes to each other. But I do not think that it logically follows that because two strategies are at odds that this precludes the possibility that both may be employable to the same end.

Reply

IrishOutlaw replied on Sun, Dec 30 2007 6:43 PM

rated by 0 users

sam72:

EDIT: Ok, I lied. I hadn't actually finished watching Molyneaux's video. I finished it, and I think his examples of what HE thinks would happen to be quite rediculous. Well, maybe thats how it would work, but I doubt it. His argument is seemingly that no part of the state can be downsized or abolished EVER. Ever. I think that is, if anything, a lie. Look at Jackson. He got rid of the national bank. Why couldn't Ron Paul do that? Jackson paid off the national debt. Why couldn't Paul do that? Sure its larger. But there is NOTHING that says it can't be done. His belief that if you got rid of the Postal Service, all hell would break out, is stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Just read Tz's post on the comments for that video. He sums it up quite nicely. Maybe some postal service workers would chain themselves up to whatever, but I figure most would go on with life. The postal industry would explode with all that legalized competition. They could find work. Just think about the countries like Sweden that have school vouchers. I don't advocate school vouchers in any way, but my goodness, when that idea was first proposed the teachers union fought like crazy against it. All hell didn't break loose. Sure, they still get funding, but not as much. Now they have to compete with "private schools." My point is, just because some people don't want something to happen, doesn't mean every one of those people will take to the streets and riot. It woulnd't be done all at once under Ron Paul, anyways. If he could do it, those programs would be PHASED out. That means everyone wins. And again, I don't think Ron Paul is Jesus. He won't take the state away. But I'm doubtful agorism will either.

How many people are part of the parasite class? The ones that make their living by working for government programs? Will they go lightly into the night? They will use every political means they can to keep feeding off of the people. Nothing substantial will ever be abolished. Even if it was possible at one time to do it, there is nothing that would make me think we could do it now. They are all tied together. But say we do get rid of those programs, were are they going to turn? They will go back to what they know. They will go into other areas of the government, go looking for unemployment, go running to whatever they can get to prop them back up, all of it paid for by the citizens. Frankly we are outnumbered by the statists, by people who have a vested interest in keeping it going just the way it is. I am glad that some people have said enough and think Ron Paul can change it, but he is outnumbered and they are outnumbered. And when the "revolution" is over, what happens next? No one knows were to go because they are looking in the wrong place. They should be looking at what is remarkable about the Ron Paul campaing, not what is run of the mill and has been done many times before (a non-mainstream candidate making waves). The powerful thing that is happening is resources being allocated to a specific purpose, almost entirely online, and having an impact against the state. Measure the difference between what Ron Paul's people have raised and what his supporters have raised on their own, and you will see were the real magic is. The market for liberty is real, the idea that Ron Paul is going to have a long term impact against the very nature of the state is an illusion. Even the founding fathers knew, and wrote about, the fact that the nature of government is to become authoritarian. They knew that eventually the people would have to overthrow any government, they left a blueprint on how to do it. But today, people that are feeling like real patriots are not following that blueprint, but instead doing the exact same thing they have been doing for a century, but expecting different results.

Reply

sam72 replied on Sun, Dec 30 2007 7:19 PM

rated by 0 users

Niccolò:

You apply the market to your strategy. You use the market as a tool, like a business and an entrepreneur, then use the ends from the market as the means for the revolution.

Entrepreneurs attempt to satisfy consumer demand. If the demand isn't there, your working in vein. You might as well be trying to bring back the horse and buggy as an efficient way of travel. Point being, the demand is not there. Go ahead, be an entrepreneur. I'll wish you luck. But entrepreneurs don't magically get what they want, simply because they use the market. And thats what you think the market is: a magic lamp that will give you what you want if you simply wish for it.

Niccolò:

You'll forgive me if I just think you're saying that because it supports your bias. The user Jeremy, I feel, mistakes the concept by clumping in malinvestment with all investments. All "Ron Paul activities" are essentially a waste of valuable resources that could be put to different uses making it allocatively efficient. That's the entire point. Voting for Ron Paul may seem like a marginal waste of your time, but it's still a waste of your time, imagine that minor waste of your time being put to something else more helpful, like nailing a sign about the tyranny of voting. 

 I do forgive you. I used him because I think he makes a good point. See, you can't say that all of Ron Paul's activities are useless. I mean, seriously, everything Ron Paul has done is useless? Everything, Niccolo? Think of all the people that have been exposed to the tyranny of the state, Austrian economics, and anarchist thought because of Paul. That's useless? You can go on tax-protesting all you like, but I guarantee you won't be able to do what Paul has done. Did Reagan know Austrian economics? Was he familiar with Rothbard, Mises, Tucker, Spooner, Nock, and a whole host of other Austrian-Libertarians? Obviously not. 

Niccolò:

In any case, as black pride groups are inherently about promoting black communities, states are inherently about promoting states. That's the point, and for thel ife of me I can not find any qualitative difference between the two.

 States are only individual people. Don't talk about them like they are some mystical being apart from the individuals who make them up. States are made up of millions of people, thousands of politicians, thousands of corporations and interest groups. All of them want different things. This is why you can't simply say "states promote states". Of course, thats a part of it, but its a simple statement. What really counts is the majority of the population. The state, as De La Boetie explained, rests on the consent of the majority. In whatever way liberty is achieved, education is obviously an important part of it. In many ways, the state is made up of individual, normal people, like you or me. Too often, libertarians see politicians as "different" from your everyday individual. And yes, some are different and elitist and out only to enlarge the state to help themselves. But many politicians come from regular middle-class lifestyles. Opinion can be changed. People like liberty. The state is the negation of that. In a black pride group, black is the single issue that unites people. People are united around the state for a myriad of different reasons, but for most of us, its not voluntary, so much, as it is misinformation. Most people think the state simply exists...because it does. They don't think that deeply about it. In a black pride group, people voluntarily rally around this idea. Its not the same with the state in most respects. Yes, the US has more members in the army, but that doesn't prove your point. People don't join the state for the state, as people join the KKK to advance the KKK. The mindsets are different. People join the state for such lies as "freedom" and "defense", not to advance the state.

Niccolò:

You're not listening to reason, it's complete wishful thinking. Watch Molyneux's movie again. The images associated with the Ron Paul dynasty would cause significant blowback. If you wanted any other effective way to destroy this movement from ever achieving the full on goal of a voluntary society, then elect Ron Paul, because what he's proposing will deteriorate the very core of our philosophy into little pundint shots at, "Yeah... Libertarianism, we tried that and look what happened *image of guy shooting single mother*"

 You're basically quoting Molyneux here, almost word for word. I mean, it all depends on if Molyneux is correct about what will happen if Ron Paul gets into office. I think he's wrong. Sure, there might be some higher up people who will chain themselves to buildings or fences or whatever it may be, but I'm pretty sure the majority of people would enter back into the workforce. Molyneux has this crazy idea that even theoretically, no part of the state can be downsized or abolished. I think thats stupid, because government programs have been abolished constantly since the beginning of time, and most of them do NOT result in all hell breaking loose. I feel he's really stretching himself this time.

Niccolò:

Then why are you here?

Changing the state's course of actions against itself and against the power it possesses is deductively illogical.

Moreover, anything that does help the state - thus anything the state voluntarily acts on as an organization to benefit itself - will directly fly in the face of our movement. No  action by the government, whether Ron Paul lead or not, will possess any positive direction towards us.

I know what agorism is, and economic secession. I don't think its got much of a chance of working. I think the way of the future will be the breaking apart of states- literal geo-political secession. Not simply the underground market eventually out competing the state. I mean literally breaking away from the state. Breaking apart the state. I find that far more realistic than agorism. And I think secession is easiest (literal secession and economic secession) under a less powerful state than a more powerful state. If I'm right in that respect, than if Ron Paul weakens the state, it will be a positive benefit.

Niccolò:

Tax evasion is not the only thing I do. I've organized a growing Agorist cell in Northern Illinois.

 I wish you luck, my friend.

Reply

Brainpolice replied on Sun, Dec 30 2007 7:30 PM

rated by 0 users

But today, people that are feeling like real patriots are not following that blueprint, but instead doing the exact same thing they have been doing for a century, but expecting different results.

I think that's the insanity behind the enthusiasm of many Ron Paul supporters. They're trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I have no idea why many libertarians are always ending up supporting conservative Republicans, and I'm skeptical of the notion that libertarians have a natural alliance with the right in opposition to the left. It was tried with Goldwater and Reagan and it did not work. Goldwater, of course, never had a chance in hell. Reagan, while Ron Paul is certainly more anti-government then he was, ran on a platform very similar to Ron Paul's. Restore the gold standard, eliminate the department of education, massively cut taxes, and so on. Hardly any of the anti-government planks ever occured. The government grew anyways. Reagan was corrupted by the system, made massive compromises and ended up actively expanding the state. Even when people have made it into office with the express purpose of weakening the state, the very nature of the system has defied their attempts. It's as if the state has its own inertia that cannot be stopped by simply putting the right people in office.

Reply

kdnc replied on Sun, Dec 30 2007 7:55 PM

rated by 0 users

IrishOutlaw:

How many people are part of the parasite class? The ones that make their living by working for government programs? Will they go lightly into the night? They will use every political means they can to keep feeding off of the people. Nothing substantial will ever be abolished. Even if it was possible at one time to do it, there is nothing that would make me think we could do it now. They are all tied together. But say we do get rid of those programs, were are they going to turn? They will go back to what they know. They will go into other areas of the government, go looking for unemployment, go running to whatever they can get to prop them back up, all of it paid for by the citizens. Frankly we are outnumbered by the statists, by people who have a vested interest in keeping it going just the way it is. I am glad that some people have said enough and think Ron Paul can change it, but he is outnumbered and they are outnumbered. And when the "revolution" is over, what happens next? No one knows were to go because they are looking in the wrong place. They should be looking at what is remarkable about the Ron Paul campaing, not what is run of the mill and has been done many times before (a non-mainstream candidate making waves). The powerful thing that is happening is resources being allocated to a specific purpose, almost entirely online, and having an impact against the state. Measure the difference between what Ron Paul's people have raised and what his supporters have raised on their own, and you will see were the real magic is. The market for liberty is real, the idea that Ron Paul is going to have a long term impact against the very nature of the state is an illusion. Even the founding fathers knew, and wrote about, the fact that the nature of government is to become authoritarian. They knew that eventually the people would have to overthrow any government, they left a blueprint on how to do it. But today, people that are feeling like real patriots are not following that blueprint, but instead doing the exact same thing they have been doing for a century, but expecting different results.

Reply

Niccolò replied on Sun, Dec 30 2007 10:10 PM

rated by 0 users

kdnc:

You and other agorists have said this in numerous ways on numerous occasions. I'll grant that you may be right. But being right is not sufficient when trying to convince others of the correctness of your position. If you believe it is illogical, then use reasoning in a step by step fashion to illustrate your point. To do this at the conceptual/macro level you must do it without too much reliance on examples or analogies since these are always rife with exceptions etc. This is an arduous task, and I have yet to come across an agorist who has done this well regarding the idea in question here, if you know of one please refer me to it. Agorists say using the state’s own tools against it is counterproductive to their strategy. I can easily agree with this as different methods are likely to work at cross-purposes to each other.

 Deductive logical statement:

 

 

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.

kdnc:

But I do not think that it logically follows that because two strategies are at odds that this precludes the possibility that both may be employable to the same end.

kdnc:

Allow me to test your patience one more time and ask you to do something simpler than the above mentioned task; show the illogical nature at a micro level. Here is the microcosm: A thief enters my house with a gun, I consider my options for defense and find one option to be using the thief’s weapon against him (notice I have said nothing regarding possible better options such as employing my own weapon). Please illustrate using deductive reasoning why it is illogical for me to hold this as a possible option should the opportunity arise. Please keep your comments and line of reasoning restricted to the scenario described, reserve any discussions about the inadequacy of the microcosm to illustrate the macro until after you have said and described whether or not the proposed option is illogical in the instance described.

Assuming that you've been able to attain the weapon from the thief, it would imply that at this point you no longer need the weapon. The thief is now an intruder, beaten up, I can only guess he's incapacitated, and possessing of no means for self-defense. In this case you did not use the weapon against the attacker, you must have done something to gain the upper hand on the attacker and now reign force over him. I dislike analogies for this reason, they're easily picked apart and rarely ever demonstrate any correlation to the subject past the shallow representatives of state (burglar) and home owner (us). 

The analogy here dismisses a key premise.

The premise with state elections and the negative effect they have on libertarianism speaks to the nature of an election and the government itself. Any action of the government and any politician will only act in a way so to further the state's perpetual existence in the future. Whether this means temporarily lifting corn laws or locking Irish catholics away without reason or time limits is not particularly the point, the fact remains that in the long run the state has an agenda and that agenda is specifically contradictory to the libertarian agenda.

Reply

Niccolò replied on Sun, Dec 30 2007 10:57 PM

rated by 0 users

sam72:

Entrepreneurs attempt to satisfy consumer demand. If the demand isn't there, your working in vein. You might as well be trying to bring back the horse and buggy as an efficient way of travel. Point being, the demand is not there. Go ahead, be an entrepreneur. I'll wish you luck. But entrepreneurs don't magically get what they want, simply because they use the market.

 The same thing goes for your Ron Paul, the demand is at an equal "constant" there as well. You're attempting to tell us that the demand for libertarianism does not exist, yet, you plan on voting for him? With what votes? I thought the demand was not there?

 The issue of demand is not what I'm talking about. The demand does not exist for libertarianism, ok, let's assume that. But that does not affect the capability of market systems to allocate resources better than socialist systems.

Let's assume we're targetting the same audience, given your socialist mechanisms we can demonstratably see the inefficiencies in the resource allocation and the big pay off for your efforts in the Ron Paul campaign. Given the Agorist market mechanisms we can see the resources allocated more efficiently and thus ending in larger relative gains.

The problem is that the Ron Paul cult sucks away valuable capital from the Agorist revolution, thus diminishing (sp?) total revenue.

Let's say there are two methods for producing X.

John possesses a system that produces 1 X in 10 hours.

Alex possesses a system that produces 1 X in 2 hours.

This is a relationship in efficiency from .1 to .5, Alex obviously possessing the most efficient system.

For whatever reason, possibly due to the infancy of Alex's production and the familiarity with John's production, John possesses a larger store of capital and investors than Alex does. Say, a 500/200 ratio in capital to invest in.

 The revenues for John and Alex will not be revealed to the public officially until a later date, though of course we can usually tell before that if we think rationally.

 
Final revenues:

John produces one X for every ten hours, with a capital stock of  500, John produces 50 X. John is quite proud of himself. = J

Alex produces one X for every two hours, with a capital stock of merely 200, Alex still produces more X than John at 100 X. = A

Again the issue is not, nor has it ever been the aggregate demand for libertarianism as a current trend, but rather it is the way by which we allocate that demand.

Ron Paul has allocated that demand relatively well, but he has only done it well by the standards of John.

Agorists, however, have allocated that demand quite differently, with far fewer resources - less than even Alex - and so though they have the potential of Alex, a great deal of their resources have been sucked away by Paul. 

sam72:

 I do forgive you. I used him because I think he makes a good point. See, you can't say that all of Ron Paul's activities are useless. I mean, seriously, everything Ron Paul has done is useless? Everything, Niccolo? Think of all the people that have been exposed to the tyranny of the state, Austrian economics, and anarchist thought because of Paul. That's useless? You can go on tax-protesting all you like, but I guarantee you won't be able to do what Paul has done. Did Reagan know Austrian economics? Was he familiar with Rothbard, Mises, Tucker, Spooner, Nock, and a whole host of other Austrian-Libertarians? Obviously not.

sam72:

 States are only individual people. Don't talk about them like they are some mystical being apart from the individuals who make them up. States are made up of millions of people, thousands of politicians, thousands of corporations and interest groups. All of them want different things. This is why you can't simply say "states promote states". Of course, thats a part of it, but its a simple statement.

 Sigh... You're falling into the conservative redux of some federalism hogwash about "separation of powers" and "different interests." Look, you speak of the "thousands of politicians" working for "themselves" fine, everything from a methodological individualist approach, I got that, but everyone of those politicians work on the same frequency promoting the strength of the state. If you don't believe the state is not an organization, and that organizations do not have real external desires, then I think you need to listen to some podcasts when LvMI promoted reason over emotional hyperbole for Ron Paul.

http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/asc2006/asc06-Rozeff.mp3

sam72:

What really counts is the majority of the population. The state, as De La Boetie explained, rests on the consent of the majority.

sam72:

In whatever way liberty is achieved, education is obviously an important part of it. In many ways, the state is made up of individual, normal people, like you or me. Too often, libertarians see politicians as "different" from your everyday individual.

 They are, and no, not by economic standards, not by background, by association with the state. A certain element of the human psyche changes when one enters the government, they become... less human, almost sub-human. My quote is directed towards that as I firmly believe a member of the government can not only not be accepted into the Kingdom of God, but they will be thrown into the deepest depths of hell, where neither light, nor heat exists and all of God's love has abandoned their souls.

Politicians sell their souls to Satan; Satan is the government.

sam72:

And yes, some are different and elitist and out only to enlarge the state to help themselves. But many politicians come from regular middle-class lifestyles. Opinion can be changed. People like liberty. The state is the negation of that. In a black pride group, black is the single issue that unites people. People are united around the state for a myriad of different reasons, but for most of us, its not voluntary, so much, as it is misinformation. Most people think the state simply exists...because it does. They don't think that deeply about it. In a black pride group, people voluntarily rally around this idea. Its not the same with the state in most respects. Yes, the US has more members in the army, but that doesn't prove your point. People don't join the state for the state, as people join the KKK to advance the KKK. The mindsets are different. People join the state for such lies as "freedom" and "defense", not to advance the state.

Again, I disagree. People do participate in the state to advance the state, certainly, they want to advance themselves first, but advancing themselves means doing things to advance the government body.

sam72:

 You're basically quoting Molyneux here, almost word for word. I mean, it all depends on if Molyneux is correct about what will happen if Ron Paul gets into office. I think he's wrong.

Really? I thought the demand didn't exist for libertarian action to take affect? Would that imply that everyone is apathetic?

sam72:

Sure, there might be some higher up people who will chain themselves to buildings or fences or whatever it may be, but I'm pretty sure the majority of people would enter back into the workforce. Molyneux has this crazy idea that even theoretically, no part of the state can be downsized or abolished. I think thats stupid, because government programs have been abolished constantly since the beginning of time, and most of them do NOT result in all hell breaking loose. I feel he's really stretching himself this time.

I think you're just willfully ignoring the facts. I'm not going to carry this any further, when one appears unreasonable to me, I end the conversation on that particular issue; no matter what I say, you will not want to agree that states act on their own behalf.

sam72:

I know what agorism is, and economic secession. I don't think its got much of a chance of working.

 What logical reason do you have to object to Agorism?

sam72:

I think the way of the future will be the breaking apart of states- literal geo-political secession. Not simply the underground market eventually out competing the state. I mean literally breaking away from the state. Breaking apart the state. I find that far more realistic than agorism. And I think secession is easiest (literal secession and economic secession) under a less powerful state than a more powerful state. If I'm right in that respect, than if Ron Paul weakens the state, it will be a positive benefit.

A. Why do you find it more reasonable?
B. Why do you find Agorism unreasonable?
C. Does Agorism not include geographic secessions? (Be careful with this one)
D. How does one achieve "literal secession" without also achieving economic secession?
E. Do you find another civil war to be the most "reasonable" chance for liberty to be realized?
F. If Ron Paul does what he most often barks about (stabilize the economy, stop America from collapsing under the welfare-warfare state) would that not mean a strengthening in the state's organization?
G. Would it be easier to secede from a country in a failing war with a falling currency, and an economy teetering on recession or a country economically capable and militarily healthy?  (Is it easier to kill a bleeding dog or a sleeping giant?)
H. If America is "rallied around Paul" do you believe it reasonable to suggest that secession could possibly occur?
I. Does secession usually occur under favorable political outcomes (Paul's election) or unfavorable ones? (Taxation without representation)
J. Do people usually look favorably on separatist groups across countries?
K. How many geo-political secessions do you know of that have been successful out of the many attempted?
L. How would the secession begin? What catalyst?
M. Would the secession be taken through other states or freely by individuals?
N. Have you read the New Libertarian Manifesto?

Reply

newson replied on Mon, Dec 31 2007 2:39 AM

rated by 0 users

sam72:

 But what did the black market accomplish? It certainly didn't become any real threat to the Soviet Union. Its not like I'm against the black market, I just don't see that there is much of a reason to think the black market could one day drive the state out of business.

me neither, that was entirely my point.  

Reply

IrishOutlaw replied on Mon, Dec 31 2007 9:26 AM

rated by 0 users

IrishOutlaw:

sam72:

newson:

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

 

It makes sense that there would be a big black market under something like the Soviet Union, with more things being illegal. There were more regulations and restriction= more rules to break. But what did the black market accomplish? It certainly didn't become any real threat to the Soviet Union. Its not like I'm against the black market, I just don't see that there is much of a reason to think the black market could one day drive the state out of business. But at any rate, it just makes sense that under a less powerful state, that would seem at least more realistic. Being able to provide private security, and private judiciary, amongst other state-competing actions, would be easier under a state that had less control, and less agreesiveness, than a socialized police state. Maybe I'm wrong? 

 The underground market for Rock n Roll in the USSR could very well be what brought it down. That sounds silly, and we have been brainwashed to believe that Reagan saved the world from communism, but a good case was made for it by someone that I can't think of right this moment, LOL. When I get back to my house I will look through my stuff so I can find the references. It is a very interesting article, even if you don't agree with it. It was in the book Choices, The Best of Reason, I think. I will find it when I get home.

The article is "In Praise of Vulgarity" by Charles Paul Freund. The whole thing is at http://www.reason.com/news/show/28344.html but the part I was talking about starts with this...

"In the USSR, it was low, disruptive culture that generated a "consumerist" demand for the artifacts that embodied its values as well as a popular demand for the freedom to engage in its activities. Because neither consumerism nor democratic freedoms existed in the country, shadow versions of both eventually developed. The entire process, from beginning to end, was founded on vulgarity. Here's what happened."

It is definately worth reading. 

Reply

Niccolò replied on Mon, Dec 31 2007 1:59 PM

rated by 0 users

newson:

sam72:

 But what did the black market accomplish? It certainly didn't become any real threat to the Soviet Union. Its not like I'm against the black market, I just don't see that there is much of a reason to think the black market could one day drive the state out of business.

me neither, that was entirely my point.  

There's a difference between the black market and the counter-economy. 

Reply

sam72 replied on Mon, Dec 31 2007 4:06 PM

rated by 0 users

Niccolò:

The same thing goes for your Ron Paul, the demand is at an equal "constant" there as well. You're attempting to tell us that the demand for libertarianism does not exist, yet, you plan on voting for him? With what votes? I thought the demand was not there?

Oh I think the demand is there, but the to the consumers, what you are "selling", and what Ron Paul is "selling" are two different goods (even though, its still essentially libertarianism). 

Niccolò:

Let's assume we're targetting the same audience, given your socialist mechanisms we can demonstratably see the inefficiencies in the resource allocation and the big pay off for your efforts in the Ron Paul campaign. Given the Agorist market mechanisms we can see the resources allocated more efficiently and thus ending in larger relative gains.

Perhaps. But it simply doesn't apply to the Ron Paul campaign now. He's not president, he's not really even connected to the government as he campaigns. It's done largely spontaneously, without him even having to do very much. So, as it stands right now, I'd say the Ron Paul campaign is doing this more effeciently then you, and with more capital. Not that you don't play an important role. And when/if he's in government? Well, we'll just have to wait and see. 

Niccolò:

I think the problem is that you're looking at things from a nominal perspective and not from a real perspective. Think of all the resources that could have been devoted towards Agorism during this time period, a demonstrably more efficient system for allocating resources, think of the output that would have brought! Instead, we have to wait until 2008, like Alex, to see investments as our reward for efficiency, and I do believe Agorism will boom after the Ron Paul cult dies off, I wrote a paper long ago about that - but by then I fear that great amount of capital will all have been wasted. I do not believe Ron Paul will even see the nominal revenue of John!

C'mon Niccolo, be realistic. You are arguing that if Ron Paul wasn't around, agorism would have more of a following? I sincerely doubt that. I doubt it would have any more going for it, Ron Paul or not. I think we are seeing "revenue" right now! Even you admitted it. You said Ron Paul has allocated the demand relatively well. I mean, thats something right? We're seeing more people looking into Austrian econ, Rothbard, anarchist thought...maybe even SEKIII, right? Gives you more of a chance to talk to people about this kind of stuff. 

Niccolò:

Sigh... You're falling into the conservative redux of some federalism hogwash about "separation of powers" and "different interests." Look, you speak of the "thousands of politicians" working for "themselves" fine, everything from a methodological individualist approach, I got that, but everyone of those politicians work on the same frequency promoting the strength of the state. If you don't believe the state is not an organization, and that organizations do not have real external desires, then I think you need to listen to some podcasts when LvMI promoted reason over emotional hyperbole for Ron Paul.

 No, I don't think I was. I was merely explaining that saying people in a black pride group for for black pride groups like states work for states isn't an accurate analogy. Yes, I realize how states work. I don't believe in them. But I think the differences between the two are large enough to be important, especially for strategy. Not every group or person, working for, or through, the government promotes the state, and they especially don't promote it to the same degree. This is important. 

KDNC said
"If individuals within a system act purposively in ways that are diametrically opposed to those that increase the power of the system, it follows that their actions will decrease the power of the system. If the power of the system is decreased, it follows that it will be easier to destroy said system (notice I have said nothing about whether different methods than those used to reduce the power of the system will have to be employed to destroy the system)."

I think that makes sense. Maybe it can't work with the state, but theoretically, its certainly possible. I think the power of the state could be decreased. Look at Soviet Russia as they let 15 countries go. Despite what some people believe, the USSR didn't simply collapse. It wasn't because of Reagan. Yes, Russia had problems, but they could have kept going. The USSR voluntarily let 15 countries (or republics, at the time) go. This flies in the face of your view that states cannot ever be decentralized, or ever decrease in power through politics.

Niccolò:

My quote is directed towards that as I firmly believe a member of the government can not only not be accepted into the Kingdom of God, but they will be thrown into the deepest depths of hell, where neither light, nor heat exists and all of God's love has abandoned their souls.

I'd really like to see the Scriptural backing for that belief. David? Solomon? Simon (Peter)? Yes, I think anarchy is perfectly compatible with the Bible, and even morally superior to the government. But lets not deny that God ultimately established civil government, even if he never sanctioned it. And he uses people to work through the government, good people and bad. 

Niccolò:

I think you're just willfully ignoring the facts. I'm not going to carry this any further, when one appears unreasonable to me, I end the conversation on that particular issue; no matter what I say, you will not want to agree that states act on their own behalf.

 Fair enough. But again, I wasn't denying that, and you know it.

Niccolò:

 What logical reason do you have to object to Agorism?

 I hadn't read the NLM until last night, although I was familiar with just about everything it said. I like it. I like the idea. But it didn't answer some of my questions, so I'll ask you. We've seen black markets pop up in every country around the world. We saw a HUGE black market in Soviet Russia. We've seen all these black markets fail, or if not fail, they don't come close to doing what you want them too do, which is, out compete the state. Ok, you say there is a difference between the black market and counter economy. Fair enough. Is the difference really so big that we can say, outright, that the black market of Soviet Russia (or any black market) was so different from the counter-economy, that it cannot be used as historical evidence against or for agorism?

I've enjoyed this discussion. I really have. It's made me rethink my support for Ron Paul. I realize now, I'm ashamed to say, that just a few days ago, I was viewing Ron Paul like a savior, as if shrinking the state was all that mattered. I see where I had strutted a little far down the wrong path. I still think good can come from Paul, and especially his movement. I'm more skeptical of any way to get to liberty then you are. As Molyneaux said, we won't see liberty in our lifetime. I'm skeptical if anyone will ever see it, agorism or not. But you've definitely made me look into it more, even if you do come off as slightly...erm, eccentric (the "you poor pitiful house slave!" part was particularly humorous). : )

Don't forget to send me your tax dodging strategies, if you don't mind.  

Reply

newson replied on Mon, Dec 31 2007 8:41 PM

rated by 0 users

Niccolò:

There's a difference between the black market and the counter-economy. 

semantics.  

Reply

Niccolò replied on Mon, Dec 31 2007 9:01 PM

rated by 0 users

sam72:

Oh I think the demand is there, but the to the consumers, what you are "selling", and what Ron Paul is "selling" are two different goods (even though, its still essentially libertarianism).

sam72:

 

the demand is not there.

sam72:

Perhaps. But it simply doesn't apply to the Ron Paul campaign now.

Ummm... It actually does. It's comparative outcomes given logical data applied to different scenarios.

sam72:

C'mon Niccolo, be realistic. You are arguing that if Ron Paul wasn't around, agorism would have more of a following? I sincerely doubt that. I doubt it would have any more going for it, Ron Paul or not. I think we are seeing "revenue" right now! Even you admitted it. You said Ron Paul has allocated the demand relatively well. I mean, thats something right? We're seeing more people looking into Austrian econ, Rothbard, anarchist thought...maybe even SEKIII, right? Gives you more of a chance to talk to people about this kind of stuff.

It doesn't matter what revenues come from Ron Paul now. They're allocatively inefficient. You don't get a definition of bad without a definition of well. Taking the efficiency of the Agora as well one can see that the efficiency of Ron Paul is not well.

sam72:

 No

Then there's no reason to continue this. It's like pounding one's head against the wall.

EDIT: Let me rephrase that, after answering this last question that I neglected to view, I will say all that really can be said. If I have not succeeded in persuading you, then at least I have given you another insight into the proper strategy. If you feel that voting for Ron Paul is a well rested investment, then by all means continue. The capital I feel that has been wasted on Ron Paul isn't so much the voting day election standing in line for three hours, but rather it is a combination of time, effort, and money donated to his cause. When I say, investment for the same ends, I mean, Ron Paul supporters want a libertarian society, as do Agorists - assuming Agorism is the more efficient system you could achieve a greater change using that as opposed to the political process. 

sam72:

We saw a HUGE black market in Soviet Russia. We've seen all these black markets fail, or if not fail, they don't come close to doing what you want them too do, which is, out compete the state. Ok, you say there is a difference between the black market and counter economy. Fair enough. Is the difference really so big that we can say, outright, that the black market of Soviet Russia (or any black market) was so different from the counter-economy, that it cannot be used as historical evidence against or for agorism?

 
 Konkin addresses this in NLM,

Besides a few enlightened New Libertarians tolerated in the more liberal statist areas
on the globe ("toleration" exists to the degree of libertarian contamination of statism),
we now perceive something else: large numbers of people who are acting in an
agorist manner with little understanding of any theory but who are induced by
material gain to evade, avoid, or defy the State. Surely they are a hopeful potential?
In the Soviet Union, a bastion of arch-statism and a nearly totally collapsed "official"
economy, a giant black market provides the Russians, Armenian, Ukrainian and
others with everything from food to television repair to official papers and favors
from the ruling class. As the Guardian Weekly reports, Burma is almost a total black
market with the government reduced to an army, police, and a few strutting
politicians. In varying degrees, this is true of nearly all the Second and Third Worlds.

 

P. 19-20

 The reason there was no organized, Agorist revolution is because there was no revolution to begin with. For revolutions to occur within organizations an organization needs to begin with the intent of overthrowing the state. This was not the Mafiya's intent.

The solution here is simple, appeal to the unidentified Agorists - your local pusher, his friends smoking weed every saturday, the prostitutes, the gang members, the hustlers, the pimps, the back-alley abortionists, the illegal gun dealers, the agents helping people to cross the border, illegal migrants, business man that don't report their earnings for sales tax, etc. Appeal to these people based on the concept that they can do what they're doing within an organization that will not allow them to be caught, or at least will work so that they can not be physically apprehended. 

 

Now we can see clearly what is needed to create a libertarian society. On the one
hand we need the education of the libertarian activists and the consciousness-raising
of counter-economists to libertarian understanding and mutual supportiveness. "We
are right, we are better, we are surviving in a moral, consistent way and we are
building a better society - of benefit to ourselves and others," our counter-economic
"encounter groups" might affirm.
Note well that libertarian activists who are not themselves full practicing countereconomists
are unlikely to be convincing. "Libertarian" political candidates undercut
everything they say (of value) by what they are doing; some candidates have even
held jobs in taxing bureaus and defense departments!
On the other hand, we must defend ourselves against the vested interests or at the
very least lower their oppression as much as possible. If we eschew reformist activity
as counter-productive, how will we achieve that?
One way is to bring more and more people into the counter-economy and lower the
plunder available to the State. But evasion isn't enough; how do we protect ourselves
and even counter-attack?
Slowly but steadily we will move to the free society turning more counter-economists
onto libertarianism and more libertarians onto counter-economics, finally integrating
theory and practice. The counter-economy will grow and spread to the next step we
saw in our trip backward, with an ever-larger agorist sub-society embedded in the
statist society. Some agorists may even condense into discernible districts and
ghettos and predominate in islands or space colonies. At this point, the question of
protection and defense will become important

P. 22

Reply

Niccolò replied on Mon, Dec 31 2007 9:04 PM

rated by 0 users

newson:

semantics

 No. Semantics is applying two terms to the same concept.

The black market and the counter-economy are not the same context, though the latter requires the former, the former exists without the latter.

Black market - Illegal trade.

Counter-economy - Illegal trade with the purpose of promoting the Agorist revolution.

What do you think "counter" means? 

Reply

pazlenchantinrocks replied on Tue, Jan 1 2008 1:52 AM

rated by 0 users

Niccolò:

The black market and the counter-economy are not the same context, though the latter requires the former, the former exists without the latter.

 

Black market - Illegal trade.

Counter-economy - Illegal trade with the purpose of promoting the Agorist revolution.

 

What do you think "counter" means? 

 And what is the "Agorist Revolution" but free markets?  After all, I think those who desire performing the services of which we speak are interested in seeing this sort of thing take place.  However you have to actually have demand for what you want to provide.  This usually requires demonstration on some level.  Advertisement, conferences, etc are necessary in demonstrating that there are viable alternatives to issues that surround  one's daily life.  Once individuals have begun to value these alternatives a demand might actually be illicited.  Only then can our service providers even attempt to develop businesses with any hope of succeeding.   It's a little difficult to pull that off when you're sitting in prison.

Reply

Niccolò replied on Tue, Jan 1 2008 2:17 AM

rated by 0 users

pazlenchantinrocks:

 And what is the "Agorist Revolution" but free markets?

pazlenchantinrocks:

After all, I think those who desire performing the services of which we speak are interested in seeing this sort of thing take place.

pazlenchantinrocks:

 It's a little difficult to pull that off when you're sitting in prison.

I'm not. 

Reply

newson replied on Tue, Jan 1 2008 5:00 AM

rated by 0 users

Niccolò:

newson:

semantics

 

 No. Semantics is applying two terms to the same concept.

The black market and the counter-economy are not the same context, though the latter requires the former, the former exists without the latter.

 

Black market - Illegal trade.

Counter-economy - Illegal trade with the purpose of promoting the Agorist revolution.

 

a crime isn't differentiated by the intention of the criminal.  i robbed the store in order to perform charitable works = i robbed the store for my own selfish ends.  you probably could get a lesser sentence on mitigating factors, but the charge stays the same.

illegal trade (with the "noble" intention of furthering the agorist-new-order) = illegal trade (self interest, lowering of tax levied, etc.).   

like i said, semantics. 

Reply

Grant replied on Tue, Jan 1 2008 5:01 AM

rated by 0 users

Niccolò,

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the American educational system, but the Constitution is is used as a major source of legitimacy of the government (and I am sure you are familiar with the resources governments spend to legitimize their actions). The founding fathers are revered, in some ways, by the history books used in our schools. I view Paul's campaign as a major step which wakes people up to the fact that the Lockean experiment has failed. Paul admits we have strayed from the constitution, and he cannot win the election. The very document used to legitimize government is being shown to be discarded by that very government; the hypocrisy inherent in the system is becoming more obvious. The only support Paul gets is from anarchy itself: the internet. The logical conclusion is that limited government has failed to preserve liberty, and so something else must be tried.

Although this isn't apparent to many Paul-supporters at the moment, I believe it will be in time.

Reply

IrishOutlaw replied on Tue, Jan 1 2008 11:39 AM

rated by 0 users

Grant:

Niccolò,

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the American educational system, but the Constitution is is used as a major source of legitimacy of the government (and I am sure you are familiar with the resources governments spend to legitimize their actions). The founding fathers are revered, in some ways, by the history books used in our schools. I view Paul's campaign as a major step which wakes people up to the fact that the Lockean experiment has failed. Paul admits we have strayed from the constitution, and he cannot win the election. The very document used to legitimize government is being shown to be discarded by that very government; the hypocrisy inherent in the system is becoming more obvious. The only support Paul gets is from anarchy itself: the internet. The logical conclusion is that limited government has failed to preserve liberty, and so something else must be tried.

Although this isn't apparent to many Paul-supporters at the moment, I believe it will be in time.

I think that is a possibility. I think we should start a campaing to "Google Lysander Spooner", LOL 

Reply

sam72 replied on Tue, Jan 1 2008 11:44 AM

rated by 0 users

Niccolò:

EDIT: Let me rephrase that, after answering this last question that I neglected to view, I will say all that really can be said. If I have not succeeded in persuading you, then at least I have given you another insight into the proper strategy. If you feel that voting for Ron Paul is a well rested investment, then by all means continue. The capital I feel that has been wasted on Ron Paul isn't so much the voting day election standing in line for three hours, but rather it is a combination of time, effort, and money donated to his cause. When I say, investment for the same ends, I mean, Ron Paul supporters want a libertarian society, as do Agorists - assuming Agorism is the more efficient system you could achieve a greater change using that as opposed to the political process. 

Not all supporters of Ron Paul want a libertarian society, sadly, and as I said, I realized during the course of this debate that I had lost sight of the REAL goal, the truly MORAL goal, and was working myself into a frenzy about simply getting the man elected, as if that was it- no more; mission accomplished. In that respect, I thank you. I realized where I had gone astray. I also thank you for forcing me to look into agorism deeper than I previously had. Believe me, its not an interest that will go away any time soon. In the future, I may decide that politics is the wrong path. Who knows? I'm not convinced now, but I'm far less sure of it than I was. I feel good can come from the RP "revolution". At any rate, its here, so we might as well capitalize on the new interest of being critical of the state, Austrian economics, and freedom. Libertarians, agorists or not, have to be ready to use these movements in one way or the other. We can't simply ignore them. 

 Cheers!

Reply

Niccolò replied on Tue, Jan 1 2008 8:06 PM

rated by 0 users

newson:

like i said, semantics. 

Like I said, grasping at straws.  

Reply

Niccolò replied on Tue, Jan 1 2008 8:07 PM

rated by 0 users

Grant:

Niccolò,

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the American educational system, but the Constitution is is used as a major source of legitimacy of the government (and I am sure you are familiar with the resources governments spend to legitimize their actions). The founding fathers are revered, in some ways, by the history books used in our schools. I view Paul's campaign as a major step which wakes people up to the fact that the Lockean experiment has failed. Paul admits we have strayed from the constitution, and he cannot win the election. The very document used to legitimize government is being shown to be discarded by that very government; the hypocrisy inherent in the system is becoming more obvious. The only support Paul gets is from anarchy itself: the internet. The logical conclusion is that limited government has failed to preserve liberty, and so something else must be tried.

Although this isn't apparent to many Paul-supporters at the moment, I believe it will be in time.

Don't really give a *** about old dead men from the 18th century of a different religion, ethnicity, and mindset.

Sorry. 

Reply

Niccolò replied on Tue, Jan 1 2008 8:09 PM

rated by 0 users

sam72:

Not all supporters of Ron Paul want a libertarian society, sadly

Then they don't apply the capital I'm speaking of anyways. 

Reply

Grant replied on Tue, Jan 1 2008 8:12 PM

rated by 0 users

Niccolò:

Don't really give a *** about old dead men from the 18th century of a different religion, ethnicity, and mindset.

Me either. The point was that for many people (at least, many I know), Paul's candidacy is de-legitimizing the federal government of the United States.

Reply

Niccolò replied on Tue, Jan 1 2008 8:16 PM

rated by 0 users

How many people?

I think his campaign is just delegitimizing today's federal government in the lsot hopes that a better one can be established. Entirely defeating and in the end, disastrous.  

Reply

sam72 replied on Tue, Jan 1 2008 8:24 PM

rated by 0 users

Niccolò:

Don't really give a *** about old dead men from the 18th century of a different religion, ethnicity, and mindset.

Wow. You sound so educated with your self-censored swear words. Good job.

You come off as quite pompous, you realize? I'm telling you this for your own benefit. Not that I think you'll listen. Is this your view of all of history? What naive ignorance. I'm pretty sure your hero SEKIII would be ashamed of you for saying such things.

*tsk* *tsk* 

Reply

Grant replied on Tue, Jan 1 2008 8:38 PM

rated by 0 users

Niccolò:

How many people?

Two people I know are now anarchists, although I know very few who are at all interested in politics. I'd never heard Rothbard's name mentioned in conversation before Paul's candidacy.

Niccolò:

I think his campaign is just delegitimizing today's federal government in the lost hopes that a better one can be established. Entirely defeating and in the end, disastrous.

I don't deny that is going on as well, but it won't take long for Paul's supporters to realize that is just impossible.

Reply

IrishOutlaw replied on Tue, Jan 1 2008 9:07 PM

rated by 0 users

sam72:

I'm pretty sure your hero SEKIII would be ashamed of you for saying such things.

*tsk* *tsk* 

 I doubt Konkin or Rothbard would be ashamed. There is no such thing as too radical in the name of liberty.

Reply

Niccolò replied on Tue, Jan 1 2008 9:18 PM

rated by 0 users

sam72:

 

Wow. You sound so educated with your self-censored swear words. Good job.

You come off as quite pompous, you realize? I'm telling you this for your own benefit. Not that I think you'll listen. Is this your view of all of history? What naive ignorance. I'm pretty sure your hero SEKIII would be ashamed of you for saying such things.

*tsk* *tsk* 

No. I don't censor myself. Mises.com censors me. I may put in a - between certain things so that they don't, I should have said, I really don't give a sh/it about Jorge Washington and Alejandro Hamerton.

As for SEK3 and Rothbard, I don't see why. Maybe Rothbard because he was a weak strategist, but I don't see what I do to make SEK3 ashamed. I'm venomous, my writing style is venomous, and I pull no punches. Why should I care about the "founders"? What did they find? Nothing that I care about! 

Reply

Niccolò replied on Tue, Jan 1 2008 9:20 PM

rated by 0 users

Grant:

Two people I know are now anarchists, although I know very few who are at all interested in politics. I'd never heard Rothbard's name mentioned in conversation before Paul's candidacy.

 I have. Then again, I live by a few more Anarchists than most people here who are divided along the lines of the internet geographically.

Grant:

I don't deny that is going on as well, but it won't take long for Paul's supporters to realize that is just impossible.

Then they wouldn't be Ron Paul supporters anymore. As long as LewRockwell.com continues to post the epistles of Paul every day, I doubt it.  

Reply

Niccolò replied on Wed, Jan 2 2008 5:17 AM

rated by 0 users

Wow, on a side note, that was really bad writing in terms of structure. I just cleaned it up A LOT, it's almost a different article. I'd suggest reading it again if you couldn't understand before.

I need to stop drinking and start going back to A.A.  

Reply

sam72 replied on Fri, Jan 4 2008 9:05 PM

rated by 0 users

IrishOutlaw:

 I doubt Konkin or Rothbard would be ashamed. There is no such thing as too radical in the name of liberty.

No, its not about Niccolo being too radical. Certainly not.

 It's his apparant naive disdain for history.

Rothbard wrote four large books about the American colonies and revolution, and from interviews I have read with SEKIII, he knew history pretty darn well, and it sounds like both appreciated its lessons relevance.

 I just have a hard time seeing either of those two saying "I don't give a **** about old men from different times blahblahblah" 

Thats what I would expect from a 6th grader who doesn't want to do his history homework.

Cheers!