From another forum topic, there was talk of striving for tangible goals. I guess this is the age old question of Would it be apt to use the system to change the system, or to totally disregard the system? Baby steps, or giant leaps?
I lean towards using the system to change the system. At the infancy of the US, it leaned towards a more libertarian type of state, though not perfect. However, slowly but surely the statist took over, inching away at freedoms. Those inches, became foots, and those foots became miles.
However, I do think baby steps and giant leaps both play an important role in regaining freedom.
Libertarians tend to me more concerned with morality and principles than statists. This leads to an understandable unwillingness to practice political incrementalism (after all, why should we be forced to enter the political arena to convince others to allow us to keep our own money?). This refusal to fight allows the statists to win the political battle, which causes libertarians to further lose faith in political incrementalism, etc.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Incrementalism, within the democratic-state system, works only in one direction: more power. It takes a serious crisis to shrink government, and when it takes place it's usually done all at once. (See Pinochet, Thatcher, Shock Therapy, and so on)
It is not that we are unwilling to practice incrementalism, it is that gradual reduction of government is unrealistic. The incentives created by the democratic-state system make it substantially easier to increase government than to shrink it, and thus our opponents, if evenly matched, will win without effort. If our opponents in fact outnumber us, incrementalism is a fantasy.
In strategy, there is a concept called Schwerpunkt. It means focusing your efforts on the point of maximum vulnerability. Statists, within the system they have created, are by and large invulnerable. We are not going to beat them in a contest where they are the referee. We must challenge their point of maximum vulnerability.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger:We are not going to beat them in a contest where they are the referee. We must challenge their point of maximum vulnerability.
So what exactly can we do? If not little by little. Any specific examples?
Stranger: Incrementalism, within the democratic-state system, works only in one direction: more power. It takes a serious crisis to shrink government, and when it takes place it's usually done all at once. (See Pinochet, Thatcher, Shock Therapy, and so on) It is not that we are unwilling to practice incrementalism, it is that gradual reduction of government is unrealistic. The incentives created by the democratic-state system make it substantially easier to increase government than to shrink it, and thus our opponents, if evenly matched, will win without effort. If our opponents in fact outnumber us, incrementalism is a fantasy. In strategy, there is a concept called Schwerpunkt. It means focusing your efforts on the point of maximum vulnerability. Statists, within the system they have created, are by and large invulnerable. We are not going to beat them in a contest where they are the referee. We must challenge their point of maximum vulnerability.
What if the crisis happens and the men with guns lock things up tighter and impose order? I think one of the agorists argued for Zimbabwe in another thread, but I think we all know that Zimbabwe is no closer to abandoning the state and moving to free market liberty anytime soon, regardless of how bad the crisis becomes. Even if the Zimbabweans fight for it, some other state will move in and "establish control".
I don't see any harm in having people talking about liberty, creating (soft) liberty oriented legislation, voting against obviously bad legislation, speaking on TV, leaving a record in the halls of state etc. In fact, I'd argue that if we had enough of such people, liberty could be advanced significantly, perhaps bringing anarchy or agorism into the realm of the possible, instead of the radical extreme.
What happens if we don't play their game? We allow the statists to continuously grab more power. Abstaining from voting on principle is similar to abstaining from self-defense on principle: don't expect the result to be pretty.
Ego: What happens if we don't play their game? We allow the statists to continuously grab more power. Abstaining from voting on principle is similar to abstaining from self-defense on principle: don't expect the result to be pretty.
What happens when you play their game? Their game is a power play! The statists grab more power and you yourself start to become one of them. Because you yourself are henceforth trying to grab power, consequentially becoming a statist in action. That's what happens. Furthermore, comparing voting to self-defense is rather silly. Voting most certainly is not an efficient means of self-defense. When was the last time an individual vote actually constituted self-defense? I can't think of any scenario in which punching a hole in a piece of paper is really self-defense.
A real analogy would be that there is a gang and you claim to oppose the gang, then you join the gang and make use of their own tactics. It makes no sense at all. You henceforth become a gang member; your own enemy. Joining the state in the name of abolishing it is similar to a white nationalist joining the Black Panthers or an atheist joining the Catholic Church. It defies all logic and is blatantly counterproductive.
Ego: Libertarians tend to me more concerned with morality and principles than statists. This leads to an understandable unwillingness to practice political incrementalism (after all, why should we be forced to enter the political arena to convince others to allow us to keep our own money?). This refusal to fight allows the statists to win the political battle, which causes libertarians to further lose faith in political incrementalism, etc.
Joining the state and participating in the political process allows the statists to win the battle. The statists want you to vote. They want people to patronize them. They want people to run for office. They want people to contribute money to campaigns. That's precisely what they rely on on modern democracy. Abstainance from such things is not a "refusal to fight" or absolute inaction, it is fighting through disobedience. Engaging in those things is asquiescance, not a way to fight statism. State power largely rests on the asquiescance of the public to their own plunder and servitude (as La Boetie noted centuries ago). State power is rendered virtually obsolete by a mere mass withdrawl of obedience.
Libertarians, by definition, aren't supposed to have faith in democracy and gradualism. The purpose of the libertarian is precisely to decrease faith in it. Democracy is to be viewed as tyrannical and gradualism is perpetuity in practise. Libertarianism is a radical creed, not moderate or conservative or gradualist or reformist. Less faith in the political process is a good thing. Faith in the political process merely reinforces the idea that the state actually can be tamed and made to "work" - I.E. minarchism at best. Hence, anarcho-capitalists who have such faith are actually functioning as minarchists or classical liberals, as they apparently believe that political means work and the state can be tamed, which sort of defeats the whole point of the "anarcho" part.
Brainpolice: What happens when you play their game? Their game is a power play! The statists grab more power and you yourself start to become one of them. Because you yourself are henceforth trying to grab power, consequentially becoming a statist in action. That's what happens.
What happens when you play their game? Their game is a power play! The statists grab more power and you yourself start to become one of them. Because you yourself are henceforth trying to grab power, consequentially becoming a statist in action. That's what happens.
No, we try to grab power from them and then minimize the effect of that power over other individuals, ultimately eliminating it.
The statists want you to vote. They want people to patronize them. They want people to run for office.
I assure you, the statists do not want their opponents to vote and run for office. They want us to continue cooking up our wild-eyed theories and then sit on our hands on election day.
You're being much too collectivist; statists are individuals, too. An individual proponent of nationalized health care does not want her opponents to vote against it.
*****EDIT: I CAN'T TYPE*****
Why a special place in liberty hell for voting? Aren't people who pay tax endorsing the system? Taking in tax subsidized education? Receiving any subsidized health care? If someone makes use of any public services, aren't they enjoying the wealth confiscated by the state? And doesn't their demand send a message to government that supply is being utilized and may even require an increase?
Perfect liberty may be a standard to strive for, but I cannot see how anyone rationalizes that it can only be achieved through an absolute approach. Existence under a state involves some form of compromise. How much compromise is subjective.
Brainpolice, I apologize if you were responding while I was editing. I have a bad habit of typing nonsense the first time!
In other words, a transfer of political power into the hands of different people (and from the standpoint of those different people, a power-grab). Once this power is in the hands of different/new people, how is it to be maintained? Obviously, through political means. Otherwise, it could not be maintained and the power switcheroo would have been pointless. Therefore, this approch inherently reinforces the institutional problem itself because it relies on political means. Political means must be exercised in order for the process of power transfer itself to take place. Once the power is obtained, the only way to keep it is through political means. This is not a path towards abolition, it is a power game of musical chairs. Once people gain such positions of power, they don't just willingly give it up. People don't run for office and then dissolve their own office upon arrival. It just doesn't work that way. They rely on the powers of the given position in order to even attempt to do anything, and thus by merely holding such a position they reinforce political power.
I assure you, the statists to not want their opponents to vote and run for office. They want us to continue cooking up our wild-eyed theories and then sit on our hands on election day.
Not at all. Voting is heavily encouraged. There is an institutional status quo. The existance of different parties and agendas does not mean that politicians would prefer you not to vote. There is a compromise made between the parties and respective agendas in order to keep the system going. You need to understand the state as constituting one party in and of itself, I.E. a ruling elite. Combined, despite different factions, they have a mutual interest in maintaining the status quo. They compromise with eachother and the result is more often than not the worst side of both agendas. The differences between the parties, at the end of the day, are rather miniscule. The vast majority of politicians agree on the fundamentals. The status quo relies, in part, on people voting. If voting truly was capable of making a difference, it would be illegal. In reality, it is rather widely encouraged and in places like Australia it is compulsory. In professing faith in the viability of voting, you are merely accepting the myth of democracy and thus professing faith in the government. But democracy is a myth: voting does not mean significant control by the people and it does not gaurantee representation. If we openly aknowledge that the democratic process is a sham, then I don't see why one would want to vote.
Despite disagreements among rulers, they are all institutional agents and have a common interest in maintaining their power. They agree on fundamentals and require the exact same political/coercive mechanisms in order to function as institutional agents. For the most part, there are no serious qualative differences between them. They pretty much all support taxation, monetary inflation, government courts, government police, a government military, foreign intervention, wealth redistribution, and so on. The disagreements between them are mostly pragmatic and over particulars, not over fundamentals. For them, it's a question of which interest groups should be benefited, which country to invade, which industry to nationalize - not wether or not any interest groups should be benefited at all or wether or not countries should be invaded at all or wether or not nationalization of industries is right. But from a hardcore libertarian standpoint, such disagreements are pretty much irrelevancies because the fundamental and qualative problems remain. Politics is a pragmatic game, not a principled one. But libertarianism is a matter of first principles.
liberty student:Why a special place in liberty hell for voting? Aren't people who pay tax endorsing the system? Taking in tax subsidized education? Receiving any subsidized health care? If someone makes use of any public services, aren't they enjoying the wealth confiscated by the state? And doesn't their demand send a message to government that supply is being utilized and may even require an increase?
liberty student: Why a special place in liberty hell for voting? Aren't people who pay tax endorsing the system? Taking in tax subsidized education? Receiving any subsidized health care? If someone makes use of any public services, aren't they enjoying the wealth confiscated by the state? And doesn't their demand send a message to government that supply is being utilized and may even require an increase? Perfect liberty may be a standard to strive for, but I cannot see how anyone rationalizes that it can only be achieved through an absolute approach. Existence under a state involves some form of compromise. How much compromise is subjective.
I've made this distinction before and I'll make it again. Taxation is compulsory. Public education is partially compulsory too. Voting, unless you live in Australia, is not. You must make use of the public roads if you wish to function reasonably within society. You do not need to vote to function reasonably within society. So no, the analogy does not quite hold. Those things are not quite similar to voting because you do not really have to vote to survive or function in society. Libertarians are not hypocrits for driving on public roads or having children in public schools because we have no choice but to make use of them. So in this sense, yes, compromise of this sort is fine. But the same is not true of voting. You do not have no choice but to vote. You can not vote all you like.
Another point though is that this doesn't necessarily mean that you shouldn't sometimes actively defy such things. Despite the coercive nature of the state, there still are possibilities and oppurtunities for you to employ alternatives and engage in civil disobedience. You can be a tax resister. You can open up and persue private alternatives to public/government services. You can break prohibition laws. You can protest. You can burn your draft card. You can homeschool your children. Strictly speaking, you do not have to obey - there always is a possibility for you to actively disobey despite the risk. The true apathy comes from those who do nothing at all to defy the state as members of civil society, not non-voters who persue civil disobedience and private alternatives.
On the other hand, actively patronizing and lobbying the government for special privileges and handouts or running for office is not a "compromise" forced by a lack of choice on your part but active collusion with and participation in the plunder. You do not have to ask the government for special protections and privileges. You do not have to lobby the government. You do not have to run for office. These are not things you are forced to do by merely existing under a state. They are cases of actively working with the state and trying to grab some of its power for yourself. They are cases of the corruption that inevitably springs from political power. These are not reasonable compromises for a libertarian to make in order to survive or function in society.
There is indeed a fine line that a libertarian has to walk between existing in current society and sticking to their princples, but I don't think the line of compromise is subjective at all. I see the line being between passive and active activities, and direct and indirect ones. Actively trying to grab political power for yourself and directly patronizing the state (active) is not a sound compromise, it is self-defeating in principle and downright hypocritical for a libertarian to do. And while voting might not be immoral in any strict sense, nonetheless it is to asquiesce (passive) and to participate in something that the libertarian should very well know is futile (indirect action). On the other hand, in order to survive and function in society you may have to make use of certain public services (passive). But as I pointed out above, one could also actively resist and engage in civil disobedience (direct action). One could go out of their way to patronnize alternatives so that they don't make use of such government services (direct action).
Mises had this to say in his final section of Theory and History, and I tend to agree (all emphasis is mine):
"Only a few men are endowed with the capacity to conceive new ideas. But as political ideas can work only if they are accepted by society, it rests with the crowd of those who themselves are unable to develop new ways of thinking to approve or disapprove the innovations of the pioneers. There is no guarantee that these masses of followers and routinists will make wise use of the power vested in them. They may reject the good ideas, those whose adoption would benefit them, and espouse bad ideas that will seriously hurt them. But if they choose what is worse, the fault is not theirs alone. It is no less the fault of the pioneers of the good causes in not having succeeded in bringing forward their thoughts in a more convincing form. The favorable evolution of human affairs depends ultimately on the ability of the human race to beget not only authors but also heralds and disseminators of beneficial ideas.
In the long run even the most despotic governments with all their brutality and cruelty are no match for ideas. Eventually the ideology that has won the support of the majority will prevail and cut the ground from under the tyrant's feet. Then the oppressed many will rise in rebellion and overthrow their masters. However, this may be slow to come about, and in the meantime irreparable damage may have been inflicted upon the common weal. In addition a revolution necessarily means a violent disturbance of social cooperation, produces irreconcilable rifts and hatreds among the citizens, and may engender bitterness that even centuries cannot entirely wipe out. The main excellence and worth of what is called constitutional institutions, democracy and government by the people is to be seen in the fact that they make possible peaceful change in the methods and personnel of government. Where there is representative government, no revolutions and civil wars are required to remove an unpopular ruler and his system. If the men in office and their methods of conducting public affairs no longer please the majority of the nation, they are replaced in the next election by other men and another system."
"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke
maxpot46: Mises had this to say in his final section of Theory and History, and I tend to agree (all emphasis is mine): "Only a few men are endowed with the capacity to conceive new ideas. But as political ideas can work only if they are accepted by society, it rests with the crowd of those who themselves are unable to develop new ways of thinking to approve or disapprove the innovations of the pioneers. There is no guarantee that these masses of followers and routinists will make wise use of the power vested in them. They may reject the good ideas, those whose adoption would benefit them, and espouse bad ideas that will seriously hurt them. But if they choose what is worse, the fault is not theirs alone. It is no less the fault of the pioneers of the good causes in not having succeeded in bringing forward their thoughts in a more convincing form. The favorable evolution of human affairs depends ultimately on the ability of the human race to beget not only authors but also heralds and disseminators of beneficial ideas. In the long run even the most despotic governments with all their brutality and cruelty are no match for ideas. Eventually the ideology that has won the support of the majority will prevail and cut the ground from under the tyrant's feet. Then the oppressed many will rise in rebellion and overthrow their masters. However, this may be slow to come about, and in the meantime irreparable damage may have been inflicted upon the common weal. In addition a revolution necessarily means a violent disturbance of social cooperation, produces irreconcilable rifts and hatreds among the citizens, and may engender bitterness that even centuries cannot entirely wipe out. The main excellence and worth of what is called constitutional institutions, democracy and government by the people is to be seen in the fact that they make possible peaceful change in the methods and personnel of government. Where there is representative government, no revolutions and civil wars are required to remove an unpopular ruler and his system. If the men in office and their methods of conducting public affairs no longer please the majority of the nation, they are replaced in the next election by other men and another system."
Despite his radical tendencies, Mises was a minarchist who tended to praise representative democracy. In this respect he was wrong. Constitutionalism and representative democracy are utter failures in light of libertarian goals, and both ideas have been throughly discredited by various libertarians (Lysander Spooner, for example, totally demolished constitutionalism before Mises was even born). Representative democracy may present the possibility for peaceful change in the methods and personnel of government, as Mises states, but if one's goal is to actually eliminate the institution itself then this is not a compelling argument for a libertarian anarchist. My goal is not to change the methods or personnel of government, but to ultimately eliminate them. Mises is only speaking in terms of replacing one political system within another, or a change in terms of which individuals run a political system. That might be a reasonable thing to a minarchist, but to an anarchist it's entirely beside the point. I don't think in terms of replacing one system with another, or putting different people in charge of a system. I think in terms of eliminating imposed systems and replacing them with nothing, merely allowing a spontaneous order to result in the absence of a formal system.
Mises here is also quite clearly expressing his utilitarian sentiment that thinks that the preservation of social cooperation or utility is the standard by which to measure everything. But a more objectively ethical approach to libertarianism rejects this view in favor of raw justice. Mises favors representative democracy because it is a relatively peaceful process. I reject representative democracy because it is a political system (and I reject all political systems) that fundamentally contradicts justice, and it's a total sham to boot. Mises seeks the maximization of utility. I seek justice. Mises seeks the reformation of government to fit the mold of a particular ideal political system. I reject all political systems and advocate the abolition of government. Mises is a very good person to rely on when it comes to economics. But he is not particularly reliable when it comes to overall libertarian theory or ethics. And he was very flimsy on the issue of democracy, which most other libertarian contemporaries of his has a hostile view towards.
Brainpolice: No, we try to grab power from them and then minimize the effect of that power over other individuals, ultimately eliminating it. In other words, a transfer of political power into the hands of different people (and from the standpoint of those different people, a power-grab). Once this power is in the hands of different/new people, how is it to be maintained?
In other words, a transfer of political power into the hands of different people (and from the standpoint of those different people, a power-grab). Once this power is in the hands of different/new people, how is it to be maintained?
I don't think this is the right question, which IMO should be "once this power is in the hands of different/new people, what can be accomplished to further the cause of freedom?". The answers to this question are quite intriguing. For example, via executive order, the president can re-establish a link to gold, and retain it for at least 4 years, during which time perhaps a more permanent link could be established (e.g. Constitutional amendment). With his power of pardon, the president could release all federal prisoners locked up for non-violent drug crimes and tax evasion. As Chief Executive Officer, the president can for all practical purposes shut down agencies falling under his jurisdiction, such as the Dep. of Education, Dep. of Energy, Dep. of Commerce and the USDA. The president also appoints Supreme Court justices so he could get a libertarian judge on that panel (noting that he'd need confirmation). That's a lot of good that can be accomplished by one man within the system. Throw in a few hundred like-minded congressmen and senators and who knows what the country would look like in 4-8 years?
Brainpolice:Despite disagreements among rulers, they are all institutional agents and have a common interest in maintaining their power. They agree on fundamentals and require the exact same political/coercive mechanisms in order to function as institutional agents. For the most part, there are no serious qualative differences between them. They pretty much all support taxation, monetary inflation, government courts, government police, a government military, foreign intervention, wealth redistribution, and so on.
Why the collectivist view of leaders? Leaders are individuals, and in a democracy they are drawn from a pool that includes the entire population, including you. You could run for office, and if you won then would it be true that "there are no serious qualitative differences between them"?
I don't think this is the right question, which IMO should be "once this power is in the hands of different/new people, what can be accomplished to further the cause of freedom".
My point, which mysterious is missed over and over again, is that in order to even attempt to further the cause of freedom with such a position of power, violations of freedom is required. That is, merely holding a position requires the institutional mechanisms that violate freedom to begin with. The existance of the position itself is a scar in the face of freedom.
It's not a collectivist view of rulers. It's a qualative and definitional one. It's a matter of what it means to be a ruler.
Firstly, in representative democracy for all intents and purposes the rulers are not drawn from the entire population and the government is still an oligarchal institution. All of the rulers are at least moderately rich and many of them have familial ties to past rulers. They constitute a tiny minority in comparison to the overall population. The average person does not have the means to run and organize a political campaign. Control by the people in representative democracy is only an illusion, because in reality an oligarchy directly controls the state. The only "choice" the people could be said to have is between a handful of people who already are a part of the oligarchy or wish to join it, I.E. a package deal. And of course all the same it is not they who make institutional decisions at the end of the day. A state never has and never will truly be representative of "the people". The requirement for this would be for every single citizen to literally be institutional agents/members of the state apparatus themselves, which is an absurdity.
Secondly, while they may have a wide diversity of views among them, all of the rulers accept certain fundamentals (including rare ones like Ron Paul). Even a Ron Paul supports taxation, political borders, government provided defense, government courts and wealth redistribution to some degree. No politician, to my knowledge, advocates the abolition of any of those things. Their disagreements are quantative and pragmatic: how much of them should there be, how big or small should they be, which interests should they be used to benefit, what type of taxes there should be, what the tax rate should be, how the borders should be drawn up, when or when not the military should be used, and so on. This is what the politicians quibble over in a representative democracy. The general premises of these things are not challenged. In contrast, the radical libertarian challenges the premise itself.
Furthermore, despite whatever views a ruler may have, certain institutional mechanisms are required for them to obtain and maintain their position. They cannot hold such positions without relying on such political means. So despite whatever good intentions they may have, their mere existance as rulers at least partially implicates them in the institutional and coercive means. They cannot function as institutional agents without such means. That is, the institutional mechanisms that the libertarian is supposed to be opposed to, such as taxation, is required for the maintanance of the position itself. This is why I proclaim that a libertarian running for office is self-contradictary and hypocritical. This is why I proclaim that the political process in representative democracy only reinforces the state.
maxpot46: It is no less the fault of the pioneers of the good causes in not having succeeded in bringing forward their thoughts in a more convincing form. The favorable evolution of human affairs depends ultimately on the ability of the human race to beget not only authors but also heralds and disseminators of beneficial ideas.
Great quote here. Although I had libertarian tendencies, I never gave it a serious thought, nor did I actually accept it, until Ron Paul heralded and disseminated the concept during the presidential debates. Ron Paul is the type that would use the system, to try to change the system. Others may try another avenue. If we "attack" it at all angles, we are bound to get some headway.
Stranger: In strategy, there is a concept called Schwerpunkt. It means focusing your efforts on the point of maximum vulnerability. Statists, within the system they have created, are by and large invulnerable. We are not going to beat them in a contest where they are the referee. We must challenge their point of maximum vulnerability.
Very well put. Just keep in mind that it is not easy to find that "Schwerpunkt" as it is a question of the frame you set. That means, the maximum vulnerability in a battle might not be the maximum vulnerability if your frame is winning the war. Loosing a battle might open a way to the real achilles heel.
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
I have always held (well before being a libertarian) that the concept of power as something abused, almost inherently, in man whenever he attains it. Oddly enough, before I was a libertarian, I always kept rationalizing that if the right ones were in power, this wouldn't apply, but eventually I came to realize this when I began seeing the effects of the anti-war leftists & rightists swarming over to the RP campaign. In the process, they brought their laundry lists of desires & political wants, with some even largely ignoring the rest of RP's platform since the rest of it didn't seem "tailored" to their respective biases. There was a small amount, myself included, who did see it as an educational opportunity (somewhat of a political intervention), but it does not lessen my doubts concerning incrementalism within the system, nonetheless. At that point I thought RP would be different, but that these people would ruin his efforts in trying to establish & promote his original platform, without it being drudged down by the tyranny of some of his followers.At some point I realized this further, sometime around a few months ago, and realized RP couldn't get anything done, especially when the "Libertarian" Party was essentially watering down itself in an effort to become more electable (obviously not unwarranted with the likes of Bob Barr & Mike Gravel now "libertarians"). Despite my admission to the apolitical realm, as a student (obviously w/ currently developing sympathies & opinions lol...), radicalism would beat out reformism any day based on the capacity of man for the abuse of power. finally, interesting concept there Stranger; I had never heard of Schwerpunkt before. Sounds like something I should definitely look into...
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
liberty student: What if the crisis happens and the men with guns lock things up tighter and impose order? I think one of the agorists argued for Zimbabwe in another thread, but I think we all know that Zimbabwe is no closer to abandoning the state and moving to free market liberty anytime soon, regardless of how bad the crisis becomes. Even if the Zimbabweans fight for it, some other state will move in and "establish control". I don't see any harm in having people talking about liberty, creating (soft) liberty oriented legislation, voting against obviously bad legislation, speaking on TV, leaving a record in the halls of state etc. In fact, I'd argue that if we had enough of such people, liberty could be advanced significantly, perhaps bringing anarchy or agorism into the realm of the possible, instead of the radical extreme.
You're not hearing me. There is no harm in participating in elections, but there is no hope of success in it. We are up against a system designed to keep us out.
The problem with the Zimbabwe opposition is that they are committed to a unitary power. They cannot challenge the idea that there must be a state, and therefore allow the government of Mugabe free reign. Our greatest strength lies in the fact that we can be satisfied existing as a parallel center of defensive power among multiple others, while they cannot. In order to win, all that we need to do is to make ourselves invulnerable to retaliation for disobedience. This is much easier than conquering the government.
The point where the state is weakest is its claim that it exists to protect the weak. We know this to be a fantastic lie. We must be able to step in to protect the weak when the state abuses them. That means being able to disrupt the state's activities, which can be done, for example, by holding protests at a courthouse to prevent a completely unjust trial from being held. It also means being able to provide security for ourselves, and for the victims of the state.
If we can establish an organization and a leadership capable of such operations, then the existence of a "legitimate" political party, despite the fact that it has no hope of gaining a majority, is a complement to that effort. Even if only a handful of representatives manage to get elected, they are going to be the public voice for our demands, much like Sinn Fein was the spokesman for the PIRA.
Brainpolice:My point, which mysterious is missed over and over again, is that in order to even attempt to further the cause of freedom with such a position of power, violations of freedom is required. That is, merely holding a position requires the institutional mechanisms that violate freedom to begin with. The existance of the position itself is a scar in the face of freedom.
I understand but disagree with your point. It will be personally unappealing to hold such a position. However, it's a sacrifice that I think must be made because I don't see how we can transition from the current system to a minarchist/anarchist system without 1) people actively trying to dismantle the system from within and 2) a population that isn't brainwashed into thinking the government is the white knight that saves us from the dastardly market (which discounts any immediate success as this generation, lacking pro-freedom leaders, IS so brainwashed). Yes, I know of the agorist option, but as made clear in a previous thread I don't think agorism will ever catch on because it doesn't, and won't ever, appeal to large segments of the population, and their tactics are flawed in that they don't groom leaders to gain the support of those uninterested in politics.
So, I know your view, and you know mine. At this point, all I can say is "good luck".
Brainpolice:Firstly, in representative democracy for all intents and purposes the rulers are not drawn from the entire population
True, rulers are drawn from the population that is willing to run.
Brainpolice:Control by the people in representative democracy is only an illusion, because in reality an oligarchy directly controls the state.
Yes, hence the need for libertarians to take (at least temporary) control of the oligarchy, something that would require only a few hundred campaigners to do... i.e. something that is tactically feasible.
Brainpolice:Even a Ron Paul supports taxation, political borders, government provided defense, government courts and wealth redistribution to some degree. No politician, to my knowledge, advocates the abolition of any of those things.
There is nothing to stop you from running and advocating these things. Don't you see that all your "politicians don't do this that or the other thing" arguments shatter when YOU are the politician (something that is eminently possible)?
Though, for the record, I'm not necessarily against those things, as long as they're funded by voluntary contributions. If the government doesn't use coercion to acquire funds, then I think many of those things you mention are legitimate functions.
Brainpolice:The general premises of these things are not challenged. In contrast, the radical libertarian challenges the premise itself.
Just not in an election, where something can actually be accomplished, but I guess in the agora? Grr... okay, good luck.
Brainpolice:That is, the institutional mechanisms that the libertarian is supposed to be opposed to, such as taxation, is required for the maintanance of the position itself.
Why would one have the incentive to maintain a position when he wants to leave after 1 or 2 terms and is forced to leave it after 2 terms anyway? That's one of Hoppe's main arguments against democracy vs. monarchy, but in this case it works to our advantage. A libertarian wouldn't get into office and work to maintain it, he'd work to dismantle it and flip it the bird on his way out.
max, I find it hard to believe that whatever political libertarian changes a hypothetical libertarian, who got into office, made would be upheld by later administrations. I will bet every time that this will not be a certainty (of which you might respond with "libertarians will need to work harder to remain electable or in the spotlight with their ideas" or that "give enough time, possibly within the same terms the libertarian serves, the changes will be obviously positive & people will want them to remain"). A prime counter-example I give you is the Civil War. Before the Civil War, our government was considerably more libertarian than it is now (way more), and on the whole citizens viewed government as something vague and not entirely there, as we had, a considerably smaller government than we do now. People thought of themselves as citizens of their states, not necessarily America itself. This changed when the Union was threatened and fought over in the Civil War (I'm not going into causes of the civil war, I'm just using it as an example). After the Civil War, an odd thing occurred: a greater concentration of power was transferred to the central government. This second revolution was completely against what our countries first revolution was all about, yet the people accepted it as if it were entirely natural & not conflicting to the basic principles of the founding of the country at all. Why was it accepted? Because it was viewed as a *necessary evil* in the face of a *larger evil*. This sounds an awful lot like "the lesser of two evils" that voting is constantly offering to people to "choose" from. This sounds an awful lot like the concept of working within the system to lessen the pain of the system's own failings. This sounds an awful lot like what mainstream/vulgar/minarchist/political libertarians are doing: limiting themselves to the lesser of evils in an effort to get true change done.On a side note, it seems interesting that ever since then, a good propoganda technique is to scare someone into accepting lesser evils vs. a greater evil ("Communists might be bad, but Fascists are worse! Support the war effort!").Of course, by the time FDR came around, history seemed to more or less seal our countries 'experiment' to the fate of it's system's own flaws. It's really hard for me to take arguments for libertarians to become actors in The State's play, in an effort to change the outcome of the story, when the libertarians who do so end up remaining nothing more than mere actors reading lines off of a script.* I've based some of this post from excerpts I've read from Thomas Harry Williams 's, "The History of the American wars from 1745 to 1918".
I'll post a longer response later, but I don't think that anyone is advovating a purely electoral strategy. It's a battle that we have to fight, however, considering the statists are fighting it.
Nitroadict:max, I find it hard to believe that whatever political libertarian changes a hypothetical libertarian, who got into office, made would be upheld by later administrations.
Grooming successors would certainly have to be part of any serious strategy. Even in the anarchist society, new villiains will be born seeking to coerce others. There will never be one battle to decide things once and for all.
This why I see working within the system as more futile than opposing emerging threats within an anarchist system. Doing so within the system , while seemingly has chances of some sort of success stacked lower than achieving an anarchist system via agora, also has immensely higher standards to fulfill, as you'll have to compromise continually to the state in order to appear a legit political power. This also why I do not like the sound of "grooming successors" either. It almost sounds as if your advocating a pseudo-monarchy via planned candidates, which of course strategy being planned by who? All libertarians via representative democracy? Nope, it wouldn't be efficient enough, so most likely some sort of group, which would have to be considerably smaller than the total amount of libertarian voters, that would probably exhibit oligarchal attributes. All the while these groomed successors would probably have advisor's eventually telling them to appear more electable to not lose the battle against The State, compromise further; maybe a few election cycles of "success" in, and we would have a brand new bunch of utilitarians on our hands, perhaps?I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound like progress to me at all; it just sounds like the same song & dance to me.
You make it seem as if everyone truly has an oppurtunity to become a member of the state apparatus if they are only willing. I find this to be silly. The vast majority of people do not even possess the means necessary to become a member of the state (I.E. the finances and connections with prestigious people) even if they wanted to. In either case, indeed, I have no desire to gain a position of political power over others. That's precisely why I'm a libertarian in the first place.
This does not logically follow. The problem is the oligarchy itself. A switch of personnel does not address the problem. It is tactically feasible, yes: for the goal of becoming a member of the oligarchy. But that is not my goal. My goal is to eliminate the oligarchy. Joining the oligarchy is not tactically feasible as a means of abolition.
In becoming the politician or government bereaucrat I would be partaking in those things by default, even if I openly espoused views opposed to them. I would become complicit in precisely what I'm allegedly opposing. As an institutional agent I would be forced to work within the rules of the system and hence my intentions are rather irrelevant to the point. I would have to compromise and partially participate in or be a recipient of the very institutional means/mechanisms that I allegedly oppose.
If they were voluntary it would cease to be a state. But we're talking about working within the framework of currently existing states, I.E. institutions that inherently rely on coercion to be maintained. If a government doesn't use coercion to aquire funds, and if it has no territorial monopoly, then it isn't a government at all in any sensible or traditional sense of the word. It already would be a market anarchist society.
I'm mystified at the reoccuring assumed premise that the election process in a representative democracy is an efficient means towards accomplishing reductions in political power. Surely the insights of libertarian philosophy would give plenty of reason for one to have a great degree of skepticism with respect to the idea that the democratic process is a genuine means of control by the people. Yes, elections can accomplish something: the transition of political power into the hands of a select few individuals who either already are a part of the oligarchy or have connections to it. The establishment of new rulers. But from an anarchist perspective, this isn't a goal worth accomplishing and it's entirely counterproductive because the entire point is to have "no rulers". Establishing a new bereaucracy of rulers in the name of abolishing rulers simply defies basic logic.
In a democracy, the incentive is for another individual to then take the position.
I can't think of anything much more pie in the sky then the idea that someone grabs hold of a position of political power and dissolves their own position upon exiting it, without any pressure from and propensity for other institutional agents to then try to take the postition for themselves. A basic understanding of how human beings tend to work and how state institutions tend to work renders this idea rather silly. A president could step down but to dissolve their own office upon exiting, with no successors? Yet at the same time you're talking about "grooming successors".
Brainpolice, I'm not forced to vote at gun-point, but you're not forced at gun-point to use the Internet for political gain, either. The Internet was created using tax dollars and is maintained by servers in tax-funded universities. In an oppressive system, it's not the responsibility of the individual to avoid any use of services paid for by his stolen capital. I don't know why you claim that I advocate "actively patronizing and lobbying the government for special privileges and handouts" when I actually advocate the opposite! I do agree with you that nearly every "compromise" in the current system is a statist expansion. It doesn't have to be that way, though. Nothing will change until we really get involved in politics (and that doesn't mean creating a useless third party). I disagree completely that statists want their political opponents to vote. It doesn't make any sense once you stop looking at them as a collective group and start looking at them individually (which is how you have to look at everything). For example, a leftist wouldn't want anyone voting against her nationalized health care proposals, and a rightist wouldn't want anyone voting against her flag burning bill. I guess this is an issue that we can't agree upon. Once you start looking at everything through an individualist lens, your perspective is forced to change. Personifying groups is an intentional mistake leftists love to make, and it follows that it's left-libertarians are using the same logic to oppose using voting as tool. For every non-electoral policy that begins to show any promise, a dozen candidates are going to run, all promising to close the loophole (to make everyone pay their fair share). . If those candidates keep winning, we keep losing. We can't expect individuals to put their fortunes on the line while simultaneously we tell them they are traitors if they vote. At some point, we have to use elections. It's silly advocating detachment from the electoral system and then pointing to the results and exclaiming, "See? The electoral system can't be used in our favor!". It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. It doesn't have to be that way. I apologize for the hundreds of typos.
Late edit: I think I fixed everything up. I also changed the wording of a sentence for added emphasis (but kept the same meaning).
Brainpolice, I'm not forced to vote at gun-point, but you're not forced at gun-point to use the Internet for political gain, either.
I'm not using the internet for "political gain". Please stop using the internet as an evasive argument. Making use of the internet does not effect who will be president or a member of congress. Voting and using the internet are not analogous.
In an oppressive system, it's not the responsibility of the individual to avoid any use of services paid for by his stolen capital.
I never argued that. I did argue, however, that it may be wise of them to persue private alternatives so that they actually can more easily avoid using government services. Doing so would make the market more competitive with respect to the government, hence making it more obsolete.
I don't know why you claim that I advocate "actively patronizing and lobbying the government for special privileges and handouts" when I actually advocate the opposite!
I never specificially accused you of that, I was using it as an example or constituent part of an argument.
I do agree with you that nearly every "compromise" in the current system is a statist expansion. It doesn't have to be that way, though. Nothing will chang until we really get involved in politics (and that doesn't mean creating a useless third party).
Why do you assume that the political process is the only sensible means towards change? Why cannot change take place within civil society itself? Why cannot the market itself be our engine for change?
I disagree completely that statists want their political opponents to vote.
Firstly, they want as many people as possible to vote for them specifically. And I was talking in the context of voting for politicians. But beyond this, the general mantra is to "vote or die!". It is very common for people to be encouraged simply to vote in general. It is a considerably popular social convention or taboo to consider voting to be one's duty and responsibility as a citiezen and that those who purposefully choose not to vote are either apathetic or misanthropists. This social convention is erroneous.
It doesn't make any sense once you stop looking at them as a collective group and start looking at them individually, which is how you have to look at everything.
I'm not taking a collectivist view of them. I'm simply pointing out that there are group dynamics within the institution. It's called institutional analysis. I'm pointing out that institutional agents have certain incentives to cooperate on a fundamental level. Politics must be viewed against a background of collusion between the institutional agents (as well as collusion between the institutional agents and certain specific "private" individuals), despite conflicts of interest among the members. If the institutional agents were in constant conflict on all matters, the institution would pretty much grind to a hault. It would be non-functional. In order for the institution to be functional, the agents must work together to some degree. I merely observe what the function of the institution of the state is. It's not collectivist at all.
For example, a leftist wouldn't want anyone voting against her nationalized health care proposals, and a rightist wouldn't want anyone voting against her flag burning bill.
Yes, but as I have already argued, the disagreements between the two are not really matters of fundamental principle and meaningful quality. They disagree on individual issues, yes, but this must be read against a background of a general and implicit support for the same basic principles and mechanisms (I.E. the necessity of the institution itself, their own positions of power within it, their power to decide on such matters in the first place, the formal precedents about how the institution is internally run, etc.). Most people, including politicians, do not really quibble over fundamentals and political philosophy. They quibble over pragmatics, over how political power should be applied. Politics is not about first principles.
Once you start looking at everything through the lens of the individual, your perspective is forced to change. Personifying groups is an intentional mistake leftists love to make, and it follows that it's left-libertarians are using the same logic to oppose using voting as tool.
I'm not engaging in a holistic or anthropromorphic fallacy. I'm a methodological individualist. What's being used to oppose voting is an institutional analysis of the political process, which reveals quite clearly that the process is largely a sham, that it doesn't equate to any meaningful control by the people and empirically it doesn't really significantly change the fundamental way in which states work. Furthermore, I'm making multiple arguments at once here. I have arguments against voting, but I'm also engaging in separate yet related arguments against running for office and the high unlikelyhood of a politician to be able to be a means towards a stateless society by functioning as a statist institutional agent.
For every non-electoral policy that begins to show promise, a candidate is going to run and "close the loophole".
For every electoral policy that begins to show promise, another canidate is going to run and "close the loophole". The state tends to have its own intertia by which it continues to function and grow, despite isolated attempts at and periods of liberalization. The removal of a restraint in one area often only provides the oppurtunity for them to simply increase tyranny in another area.
It's silly advocating detachment from the electoral system and then pointing to the results and exclaiming, "See? The electoral system can't be used in our favor!". It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. It doesn't have to be that way.
That's inaccurate. I'm pointing to the results of involvement in the political system, showing how it demonstrates that it simply doesn't work. The state continues to function, the state continues to grow, it goes through another regime change and the existance of a regime remains. The process itself is largely futile.
Brainpolice:You make it seem as if everyone truly has an oppurtunity to become a member of the state apparatus if they are only willing. I find this to be silly.
Well, of course you also have to do the work (craft strategy, gather resources, modify your skillset, maximize your physical vitality, etc.).
Brainpolice: Though, for the record, I'm not necessarily against those things, as long as they're funded by voluntary contributions. If the government doesn't use coercion to acquire funds, then I think many of those things you mention are legitimate functions. If they were voluntary it would cease to be a state. But we're talking about working within the framework of currently existing states, I.E. institutions that inherently rely on coercion to be maintained. If a government doesn't use coercion to aquire funds, and if it has no territorial monopoly, then it isn't a government at all in any sensible or traditional sense of the word. It already would be a market anarchist society.
Yes, see how sneaky it is? I sell it as "voluntary taxes" for a libertarian "government", and since it's not too different from what they've always known the population is happy and willing to try it. Yet it's really market anarchist society! Yay! Please don't spill the beans... and in fact, it would be helpful if you played along.
Brainpolice:I can't think of anything much more pie in the sky then the idea that someone grabs hold of a position of political power and dissolves their own position upon exiting it, without any pressure from and propensity for other institutional agents to then try to take the postition for themselves. A basic understanding of how human beings tend to work and how state institutions tend to work renders this idea rather silly. A president could step down but to dissolve their own office upon exiting, with no successors? Yet at the same time you're talking about "grooming successors".
To clarify, I don't mean to dissolve the office, I mean to declaw the office. Successors must then occupy the office to prevent it from being re-occupied by statists attempting to rebuild the coercive machine.
Maxpot, I think I've already stated my agreement with you on this subject, but it may have been with a different user.
I think it's vital that we make it clear that we are in favor of having government. It's annoying to be constantly corrected by various other users when it's clear what's meant by "non-coercive government".
Nobody is going to support anarcho-capitalism, but people will gladly support a non-coercive government!
Nitroadict:This also why I do not like the sound of "grooming successors" either. It almost sounds as if your advocating a pseudo-monarchy via planned candidates, which of course strategy being planned by who? All libertarians via representative democracy?
Planned by those who self-select, craft the strategy, do the work, and get themselves elected. Someone capable of that will be unlikely to overlook the question of succession. So that's 2 generations. As for the 3rd, they'll have to generate their own champions of liberty (though perhaps inspired by those who came before). There's only so much a man can do.
In any case, anarchists need to groom successors as well, or else their anarchy will fall to statists. It's a given that every generation will birth statists seeking to coerce others. The question is who will oppose them? Or do you imagine that once the anarchy is in place your work is done?
Nitroadict:Oddly enough, before I was a libertarian, I always kept rationalizing that if the right ones were in power, this wouldn't apply, but eventually I came to realize this when I began seeing the effects of the anti-war leftists & rightists swarming over to the RP campaign. In the process, they brought their laundry lists of desires & political wants, with some even largely ignoring the rest of RP's platform since the rest of it didn't seem "tailored" to their respective biases. There was a small amount, myself included, who did see it as an educational opportunity (somewhat of a political intervention), but it does not lessen my doubts concerning incrementalism within the system, nonetheless. At that point I thought RP would be different, but that these people would ruin his efforts in trying to establish & promote his original platform, without it being drudged down by the tyranny of some of his followers.At some point I realized this further, sometime around a few months ago, and realized RP couldn't get anything done, especially when the "Libertarian" Party was essentially watering down itself in an effort to become more electable (obviously not unwarranted with the likes of Bob Barr & Mike Gravel now "libertarians"). Despite my admission to the apolitical realm, as a student (obviously w/ currently developing sympathies & opinions lol...), radicalism would beat out reformism any day based on the capacity of man for the abuse of power.
If complete anarchy and the end of of all government, local, state and federal is the only measure of "getting it done", and any sort of incrementalism or gradualism taints the goal, then we're all going to fail. I simply cannot see how the leading edge of anarchy ever hopes to collapse the system when it refuses to acknowledge that while it's objective is pure, getting there isn't a switch you can flick on the state, or the people dependent/immersed in it.
I have yet to read or hear an explanation of how radicalism is achievable, that doesn't rely on the same assumptions that are criticized in reformism.
I wouldn't be here, reading Rothbard, Block, Chodorov if it wasn't for Ron Paul. If you can convince me that my expanded horizons are not worthwhile, I'll buy your notion that he "couldn't get anything done".
Stranger: You're not hearing me. There is no harm in participating in elections, but there is no hope of success in it. We are up against a system designed to keep us out.
That all depends upon how you define success. Success in my lifetime would be turning 20 or 30 more people onto the ideas of liberty. When the definition of success is perfection, I think one has to be honest when evaluating how possible it is, to achieve perfection.
Stranger: The problem with the Zimbabwe opposition is that they are committed to a unitary power. They cannot challenge the idea that there must be a state, and therefore allow the government of Mugabe free reign. Our greatest strength lies in the fact that we can be satisfied existing as a parallel center of defensive power among multiple others, while they cannot. In order to win, all that we need to do is to make ourselves invulnerable to retaliation for disobedience. This is much easier than conquering the government. The point where the state is weakest is its claim that it exists to protect the weak. We know this to be a fantastic lie. We must be able to step in to protect the weak when the state abuses them. That means being able to disrupt the state's activities, which can be done, for example, by holding protests at a courthouse to prevent a completely unjust trial from being held. It also means being able to provide security for ourselves, and for the victims of the state. If we can establish an organization and a leadership capable of such operations, then the existence of a "legitimate" political party, despite the fact that it has no hope of gaining a majority, is a complement to that effort. Even if only a handful of representatives manage to get elected, they are going to be the public voice for our demands, much like Sinn Fein was the spokesman for the PIRA.
And the state is just going to stand by, let you organize, without infiltrating, drafting legislation, cracking down so you can supplant it?
The state doesn't allow you to disrupt their activities and turn a blind eye to it. And even if you could throw of the shackles of federal government, would the UN and other powers recognize the right to individual sovereignty? Or would we have 1 million foreign troops imposing order?
Liberty student, you touched on a great point regarding foreign governments.
As I mentioned earlier, for every non-electoral policy that begins to show any promise, a dozen candidates are going to run, all promising to close the loophole (to make everyone pay their fair share). If libertarians refuse to vote, those candidates will keep winning, and the state will continue to grow.
Our government has plenty of money; the theory that the government would run out before it can properly react is too optimistic. Think about how many businesses already exploit tax loopholes. Think about how many of those businesses "deprive" the government each year of hundreds of millions of dollars of tax revenue each. Think about how many agorists it would take to equal the effect of even one of those businesses.
Even if the government ran out of money before it could react, it would just ask other governments or international entities for help. If libertarians were in policy-making positions in government, that wouldn't happen.
Edit: I need to learn how to write...
liberty student: That all depends upon how you define success. Success in my lifetime would be turning 20 or 30 more people onto the ideas of liberty. When the definition of success is perfection, I think one has to be honest when evaluating how possible it is, to achieve perfection.
I define success as more liberty, not more libertarians. The latter enables the former, but we must not kid ourselves. There is a limit to how many people we can convince to become radicals, and that limit is nowhere near enough to beat the ruling parties at elections.
liberty student: And the state is just going to stand by, let you organize, without infiltrating, drafting legislation, cracking down so you can supplant it? The state doesn't allow you to disrupt their activities and turn a blind eye to it. And even if you could throw of the shackles of federal government, would the UN and other powers recognize the right to individual sovereignty? Or would we have 1 million foreign troops imposing order?
They are going to attempt that no matter what strategy we opt for. Do you believe that foreign powers would stand by as a miraculously-elected Libertarian president dismantled the state, just because he was elected?
The purely defensive strategy is one where incrementalism does work. If we begin by challenging only obviously unjust laws and powers, we will earn popular support to make bigger and bigger challenges. The state will have to incrementally allow us more and more liberty because we are eating away the foundations of their power and they have no choice, and this will be true no matter who is elected to office.
If we build up resistance progressively, keep it non-violent, earn the sympathies of the people, and never attempt a coup against the established state, we will wear them down over time to nothing, and there will never be cause for foreigners to intervene, since such an intervention would have to be in support of the state, and the state's power would be collapsing from its foundations and not from the top.
Of course they will retaliate. A lot of us will probably be thrown into jail. But that is how the strategy works. We have to keep the moral ground. Gandhi was arrested again and again, and that's why he won.
My personal view is that what is required to achieve is educating as much people as possible. The question if baby steps or big leaps are needed seem obsolete to me as ther is no way to make a big leap anyway. Libertariansm has a huge appeal to people once they can be brought to set aside their dearly hold beliefs for a moment and start thinking by themselfs from the bottom up - see the Ron Paul example-.
The folks at the Mises Institute do a great job to educate and inform.
That does not mean i believe that the current statist system can be somehow driven back in little steps. I agree with most libertarians that this is not possible. What is possible is to get people to realize that they are at the whim of an oligarchic system used to drain their very property and achievements from them to feed a parasitic bureaucracy and those that lobby to them.
I think one of the most important things to do is to wrap up the misuses of terms. The collectivists have achieved the task to redefine a lot of basic terminology without any real repulsion from those that should have known better. For example, even in the libertarian community the term capitalism is often used in a pretty fuzzy way, sometimes incorporating such things as mercantilism etc. It is here where we should focus to develop easy to grasp but also proper definitions that can not be tinkered with. Once we have them, or have them found again, it will be much easier to have a discussion where everybody is on the same track.
Even though this long of a post is more suited for a blog, I'll post it anyway since it's relevant at displaying my objection to the political means of change via minarhchist libertarians. From my point of view, this is how I would think minarchism would "work". Huh? Yes, I said, "would work", despite my objections to it. This is how I see the political means of libertarianism (as opposed to the apolitical means of libertarianism) playing out (taking a lot of liberties regarding real life events regarding wars, conflicts, natural disasters, etc.), so if you don't feel like reading, skimming would be advisable. Skip to the bolded line of text to skip the short-story. Let's assume that the Libertarian Party were to somehow manage increasingly relevant political victories within the state. Let's also assume, that at some point, regarding your agenda, Libertarian even manage to get more than 10% of a national election. Furthering the hypothetical, let's say that in 2016, the Libertarian' Party's nominee snatches 30% of the national vote. Let us assume that in the next national election, in 2020, Libertarian eek out a majority, possibly due to an Independent candidate siphoning votes from "major" parties. The Republicans are still fractioned, and the GOP mostly spends it's time trying to subdue the steadily growing demographic of Ron Paul (and possible successor in the 2012 election) Republicans, and the GOP in almost every other state has regonized the Ronpublicans as the only way to rebuild conservative unity, despite Neo-Con remnants. Back to the victorious LP: They begin setting their agenda, but remind their party that we cannot back down when it comes to the next election of 2022; the assorted blogs agree (more or less). Piling up the assumptions in this story, let's say the Libertarians eliminate the FED, sending Bernake packing with his helicopter to Greenspans grave, asking where did he do wrong. The gold standard is restored, all soldiers are pulled out of Iraq, and should be fully out by the time the 2022 election rolls around, the military complex of the United States is declawd as bases are shutdown across the world. The Libertarian Cabinet begins to work on revoking the legal status of companies as legal persons. Not surprisingly, the beltway, vulgar, & paleo libertarians in the party do not necessarily agree so much on some details of such,with some outright disagreeing. Eventually, by 2022, the 1st Libertarian cabinet in a while accepts that they are so far a success, albeit with various compromises. They realize though that everything theyve done thus far can & most likely will be reversed if their parties popularity among the people is etched away by the other political parties. As the next election approaches, the Neo-Conservatives rear their heads again, seizing up the opportunity to call out the current administration over the various changes they've made to the economy. "This is urgent", they say, as various big name businesses across the country, have been shutting down due to actual, more free market competition. Ex-CEO's begin their career in politics, and begin the usual neo-con sing and dance. Feeling the pressure, the Libertarians decide to compromise a bit in order to not lose sight of winning elections. The compromises are minor things across their agenda, but the major one is their current bill of revoking companies legal status as persons. They opt for, considering that their own party was not unanimous on it anyway, to de-clawing the bill; it remains deadlocked due to bi-paritsan "unity". Come 2024, and the Libertarians may or may not win that election. Considering the previous events above, with most likley positive results resulting from abolishing the FED, we can assume the Libertarians are voted into office again, but the results are closer than last time. Political pressures (external & internal) continues to mount; many beltway/vulgar/paleo libertarians are considering branching off due to the inability of the rest of the Libertarian Party's minarchists to compromise. One or two Libertarian congressmen actually begin trying to inject pork into bills, in tandem with the Republicans. Compromise is offered, but neither sides budge, and eventually some do fallout and begin their own libertarian counter-part party (something along the lines of "Real Libertarians for America" Caucus, etc.). Democrats have eased their political platform, wisley, to resemble more Libertarian values, but they are essentially soft-parentalists, and frequently invoke the name of Barack Obama to send a message of hope to the masses. They put on the air of humble acceptance. The Neo-Cons mimick this strategy of giving the Libertarians some creedence & respect, but put on the air of concern for businesses being shut down across the country, blowing the entire thing of proportion, and utilize the greatest double-speak since the Patriot Act, to essentially co-opt the Ronpublicans platform. "The free market is a great thing, and the American people want it; that's why the Libertarians are in office now", they admit, "but we're worried by the sudden change of the economic landscape as harmful to some older business, and we think this should be addresses more seriously by the current Administration." The Democrats, while playing friendly with the Libertarian Party, regarding social issues, also show concern for the economy, and some within the democrat circles call for "The Better Deal": this would involve de-clawing the legal status of companies, but retaining the minimum wage, labor unions, etc. The Democrats, however, pull a few new tricks: they advocate an inflation adjusted minimum wage, instead of a static one, as "we're in the new economy of freer markets, greatly advocated by the Libertarians". Meanwhile, the 2nd Libertarian party makes inroads in members, and begins to publicly attack the current Libertarian Administration for abuses of the Supreme Court, accelerating the economic platform too quickly, and they also make tenuous political stances with the older Statist parties. The eve of the next national election is nasty. The Libertarian Party then, eventually are voted out of office, and the Democrats actually win with coordinated help of the 2nd Libertarian Party; the blogosphere writes of various election frauds across the country, and possibly the Democrats making a deal of a much lighter de-clawment of companies as legal persons, in exchange for the 2nd Libertarian Party's members switching parties for the elections. You can see where this leads; I would predict that more Libertarians in the above, would compromise more & more, eventually mirroring the slide to Utilitarianism (or to soft-paternalism, or to more beltway/vulgar/paleo views, or going to other parties and/or philosophies), just with different cards in the same game. I would doubt that Libertarians would eventually come up on top, because their hypothetical success in the above would used & abused by the Statist parties, particularly the Neo-Cons, which would probably view The Democrat win, in the above, as a sign to the revival of "politics as usual between 2 Statist Parties." So, referring back to my statement before this short-story; yes, minarchism would work, but it also fails, as by the time Libertarians achieve political power, such as in the above, they actually cease being Libertarians by regarding the state as a relevant system that should continue to exist, especially since once Libertarians are in power, it is not guaranteed, not in the least bit, that they'll stay in power. Politics, being as it is, would *still* allow other people with other political agendas to capitalize & contort even a political Libertarian victory to their needs, and there would be a possibility that people would believe them, and vote accordingly. I sometimes sympathize with the argument that a more minimal state would be easier to dismantle for anarchism. Of course, this is assuming that the Minarchists do not give up their political power, which I would be willing to bet, many would not, saying that "look, we won, our strategy worked, there's no need to dismantle the state further, especially if the people who voted us in, would not want it so.", or whatever else rationalization they would come up with. History has proven this already, and there's no reason to think that similar circumstances would occur to let this happen again, as it did with the classical liberals sliding into Utilitarianism (with the last cry of classical liberals being the abolitionists), when the Statist parties continued to grow in power & influence. I think that the political means also seem "easier", and therefore, " more valid", compared to radical, apolitical means, since it involves a system that already exists. However, there is a difference (imo) between doing what's right, and what is easy; in my view, abandoning a system called Statism, that has overshadowed mankind for hundreds of years, which has proven too troublesome to maintain, is the right thing to do, similar (albeit simplified) towards simply rewriting a programs rules because it's easier to increase soup-code within the broken system of rules (like say, originally our smaller government being corrupted by the states' growth over the years), versus doing the right thing of re-writing the entire program from scratch to make it work better with a different system of rules (demoslihing the state in favor of market anarchism, for instance). Despite being fictionalized, I still view this as an example where Minarchists using political means within the System will eventually lose in the very long run out on their own goals of increasing liberty, decreasing government, and actually changing something. While the efforts, in the short or mid term, may not be in vain, historically it wouldn't change much, and Statism would add another few decades, or maybe another few centuries, under it's belt, as a system utilized by humans for governance. Change within the system, via political means, has been tried time & time again, and essentially resembles historical insanity: doing the same thing, over & over again, expecting different results. I also realize the obvious of not being able to influence everyone around me, especially in ways of changing other's views. In fact, it would be hypocritical for me to try and force people to change their minds, even if I think their agenda is flawed, and doomed to failure. But I'm also saying that it's really not out of the realm of logic, nor possibility, that minarchism could fail under similar, more real life conditions, to my above scenario, because it has failed before. Ultimately, I think the only thing I can solidly agree with, as nhaag mentioned, is education as a means of furthering either or agendas of both political & apolitical means, despite my doubts on the success of political means. Regarding RP, I would be able to admit that insofar as education, he succeeded at such, but I do not think past that he was very successful at anything else other than fund-raising & the internet-grassroots campaign (not exactly pioneered by him, either; the pioneers were his followers & supporters). ***Edited for relevance & order of events.
Stranger, do you honestly think that foreign governments would intervene if government officials decided to cut taxes, regulations, and spending? That doesn't make any sense to me. As long as government officials are the ones changing policy, no one is going to intervene (and, of course, no one is going to ask for help).
I don't quite understand why an electoral strategy wouldn't help your plan. It would both speed up the process and cut back on the asset seizure, jailings, etc., which all discourage anyone to join you.
edit: can't type AT ALL