Curt Doolittle and his Capitalism V3 website espouses some kind of 'Machiavellian libertarianism' that gives importance to violence in the achievement and maybe even preservation of a free society. What do you guys think? I've never encountered some of the things he talks about. What is it with these right-wingers and their incorporation of sociology into libertarianism? He's probably in the same camp as Liberte.
Non-defensive violence is the very antithesis of free society.
There may be times when defensive violence becomes necessary, and the case could be made that defensive violence will be necessary to end the coercive state (though of course I hope not), but one cannot consistently justify both initiating violent force, and free society.
I
you gotta break some eggs to make an omlette
I don't know what would make you think that violence will not be necessary to help defeat the state and to prevent it from arising/attacking the free society. Or why force will not be necessary to employ against certian individuals who prove dangerous to others.
There will always be a need for defence and security, whether under a state, or in a free society.
But if we're talking about ending the coercive state, the real change will have to be ideological, or we'll just end up replacing one state with another.
You're right that violence will almost certainly be unavoidable, but violence is not what acomplishes lasting change.
There's the link. Please view it and let me know what you think
http://www.capitalismv3.com/index.php/history/
I see where these people (e.g. Mr. Doolittle, Liberte) are coming from. A state ideologically committed to protecting markets is an interesting idea, but it honestly seems like these types of minarchists/conservatives are incapable of making the final leap into anarchism.
Political Atheists Blog
To be clear, by a change in ideology, I meant that to end the state people have to stop believing in the state, not that I want some ideologically different state.
If we were to overthrow the current state, but most people still believed we needed one, than a new state would quickly form.
Conversly, as physically powerful as it is, the state can only continue with the (at least implicit) sanction of the majority. It is protected as much by its propaganda as by its guns.
Those who are not yet anarchists need to discover that belief in the validity of the state is only the belief that some people are justified in initiating violence against others, in other words, that some people are the property of others.