A few questions for the members of this forum; please feel free to answer all or none of them.
1) For those of who did not start off your life as libertarians please say a little bit about your evolution. Personally I was first a moderate Democrat due to family tradition, then what be best described as a somewhat hawkish 'libertarian' (P.J. O'Rourke style Republican) then I realized that the contradictions were too glaring.
2) Is a provisional dictatorship necessary to undo the damage?
3) Would the collapse of society as we know it be necessary for libertarianism to get a full hearing?
4) Is focusing on education and changing people's minds an approach that is fast enough to keep enough with government growth?
5) Given the anti-intellectual nature of capitalism, i.e. they're not paid as much as they'd like, how do you establish a broader base of support for libertarianism among academics given the ability of the state to use tax dollars to bribe them?
6) Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future in terms of liberty?
CrazyCoot: A few questions for the members of this forum; please feel free to answer all or none of them. 1) For those of who did not start off your life as libertarians please say a little bit about your evolution. Personally I was first a moderate Democrat due to family tradition, then what be best described as a somewhat hawkish 'libertarian' (P.J. O'Rourke style Republican) then I realized that the contradictions were too glaring. Here's my timeline: 9th Grade- Conservative 10th grade- Neocon 11th grade- Fascist 12th grade- Socialist Now- An-Cap 2) Is a provisional dictatorship necessary to undo the damage? No, because no one will likely be able to reserve the harm it has done in a timely fashion. 3) Would the collapse of society as we know it be necessary for libertarianism to get a full hearing? Yes, most likely. The clear majority of Americans believe that more regulation and oversight is needed. They simply just don't get it. 4) Is focusing on education and changing people's minds an approach that is fast enough to keep enough with government growth? Unless you propose putting a gun to the back of someone's head and forcing feeding them the works of Rothbard and the like, then I would say education is most certainly needed. 5) Given the anti-intellectual nature of capitalism, i.e. they're not paid as much as they'd like, how do you establish a broader base of support for libertarianism among academics given the ability of the state to use tax dollars to bribe them? Through sound arguments and promoting the Austrian school. Just bait them, draw them out, and dismantle their arguments, piece by piece. Most of the academics are so bombastic that they will easily take the bait hook, line, and sinker. Once you have them cornered, it's easy to make a mockery of them. Believe it or not, this is best done by a student inside the classroom. It's also very exciting as well. 6) Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future in terms of liberty? I am pessimistic about the future of liberty in America. But, I know there are other countries if worst comes to worst.
Here's my timeline:
9th Grade- Conservative
10th grade- Neocon
11th grade- Fascist
12th grade- Socialist
Now- An-Cap
No, because no one will likely be able to reserve the harm it has done in a timely fashion.
Yes, most likely. The clear majority of Americans believe that more regulation and oversight is needed. They simply just don't get it.
Unless you propose putting a gun to the back of someone's head and forcing feeding them the works of Rothbard and the like, then I would say education is most certainly needed.
Through sound arguments and promoting the Austrian school. Just bait them, draw them out, and dismantle their arguments, piece by piece.
Most of the academics are so bombastic that they will easily take the bait hook, line, and sinker. Once you have them cornered, it's easy to make a mockery of them. Believe it or not, this is best done by a student inside the classroom. It's also very exciting as well.
I am pessimistic about the future of liberty in America. But, I know there are other countries if worst comes to worst.
"Unless you propose putting a gun to the back of someone's head and forcing feeding them the works of Rothbard and the like, then I would say Education is most certainly needed."
I know it's needed, my question was if people think the average guy is learning fast enough to counteract the growth of government; can libertarian gradualism compete with Fabianism?
1. Non-political but went through being an anti-war democrat to old right conservatism to classic liberalism and minarchism to anarcho-capitalism to voluntarism. My political/philosophical transformation has reflected my activity online, and my offline activity as an entrepreneur.
2. I don't believe so. I hope not.
3. I don't believe so. Watch the two videos from the end of a presentation by Richard Ebeling at the Nassau Institute where he talks about the power of ideas. With the internet, and so much general distrust of the state, I think everything is lining up quite nicely for libertarian change. It just make take a generation or two.
4. Absolutely. It is the only form of change which will endure beyond the lifetime of one generation. We have to win the battle of ideas.
5. Bypass them. They are gatekeepers to institutions that are increasingly irrelevant each day.
6. Until 2 months ago, I was in a bit of a malaise as I struggled to sort some things out between my ears, but I think I have found some answers, thanks to several good people from here, and I am fantastically optimistic not just about liberty, but my own life and prosperity. No one said it would be easy. No one promised utopia. If we roll up our sleeves, what greater labour can there be to toil for than knowledge, truth and peace?
CrazyCoot:For those of who did not start off your life as libertarians please say a little bit about your evolution. Personally I was first a moderate Democrat due to family tradition, then what be best described as a somewhat hawkish 'libertarian' (P.J. O'Rourke style Republican) then I realized that the contradictions were too glaring
Marxist - NeoConservative - Conservative - Ron Paul Libertarian - An Cap
CrazyCoot:Is a provisional dictatorship necessary to undo the damage?
No.
CrazyCoot:Would the collapse of society as we know it be necessary for libertarianism to get a full hearing?
If the voices are loud enough in relation to the spreading of liberty
CrazyCoot:Is focusing on education and changing people's minds an approach that is fast enough to keep enough with government growth?
Well education is a big part but just because people are education doesn't infer that they will be libertarian.
CrazyCoot:Given the anti-intellectual nature of capitalism, i.e. they're not paid as much as they'd like, how do you establish a broader base of support for libertarianism among academics given the ability of the state to use tax dollars to bribe them?
Oh good question. I think they have to want to know an alternative. If they are happy being bribed they will continue to be bribed.
CrazyCoot:Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future in terms of liberty?
Extremely optimistic, especially considering the Ludwig von Mises institute. It is truly becoming a force of nature.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
1) In high school considered myself moderat, but always believed that people should be free to exchange in the market. Watched Zeitgeist my senior year (graduated 07) which led me to Ron Paul and the Fed, stumbled upon Alex Jones, then LewRockwell.com and Mises.org. Sometime after watching Zeitgeist I ordered some conspiracy books and The FairTax book and The Case Against The Fed before I knew who Rothbard was. Reading that book was an eye opener. (I read The FairTax book before The Case Against The Fed, but now I see the FairTax book as, well, rubbish)
2) I don't want to compromise what I believe in, so I'd say no.
3) It could be the reverse and Marxist ideas might take root. You never know what changed the end will bring.
4) Whether or not it's fast enough it helps. This might be minor, but I try to repost links on FaceBook from LewRockwell.com and Mises.org. This seems to help since people I've worked with (and family) said they are interested in what I post. My brother was conservative till Ron Paul and now considers himself libertarian (but still leans towards some neo-cons etc - Sarah Palin). Maybe I'll get him to be an-cap one day.
5) Keep pushing the ideas till the awaken to the idea of liberty.
6) I'm always optimistic, I dislike pessimism, especially when it's small, trivial matters, but I'd prefer to be optimistic than pessimistic (in terms of how I feel), but I'm just the same towards liberty.
CrazyCoot: 4) Is focusing on education and changing people's minds an approach that is fast enough to keep enough with government growth?
A commenter named J. Cortez noted on the Mises Blog: "One of the beautiful things about technological progress is that it can usually outpace governmental interference. In the current information age, that progress is exponentially more powerful. New products, services, and industries seem to be cropping up much faster than in my parent's or their parent's era."
I believe that so long as the internet exists in its current form, as a medium of free exchange and, perhaps, the only functioning model of a free market in existence, then we will be okay. The minute the government starts getting their hands in our bandwidth (and there are already ominous signs of this happening) then this golden era of free expression is over, and our movement for liberty and freedom from statism will regress more than a century.
We can laugh about the government and their agents chasing us around like a bunch of witches, but it was a mere few generations ago that people who publicly expressed the ideas, or similar ideas, to the ones we express freely here would have been arrested for sedition and, possibly, executed, to the cheers of the masses.
CrazyCoot: 6) Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future in terms of liberty?
Very pessimistic. Having lived through the tail-end days of Apartheid only to see a "free" South Africa come out the other side resembling Apartheid more than ever before does not inspire my confidence. (I recently read that the chief of police in South Africa is running an amnesty program for people to hand in firearms to the police. He stated his goal was that, one day, only agents of law enforcement would have firearms in South Africa. I'm very glad I left.)
1) For those of who did not start off your life as libertarians please say a little bit about your evolution.
Didn't care till 9/11. Always hated the police state and public school system. Thought I was an anti-war/anti-bush liberal until I found out that I was actually an anti-war libertarian, thanks to Ron Paul. It wasn't long before I was a property rights ancap. I have recently rejected the idea of rights, after reading an essay someone posted on here about the myth of the rule of law. My subjective morality is that whatever the market produces is whatever is just and most efficient, no matter what.
I don't know if that's what it takes, but I do know that that is exactly what we WILL get when society DOES collapse. I'll be full of I-told-you-so's.
I don't think so, but it is definitely necessary. Getting the word out is what it's all about.
It already exists. You just used it to ask this question.
I'm nervous about the short-term. Economic collapse seems imminent. I just hope the crash is bad enough to take the military-industrial complex/police state with it. If it doesn't, I'm sure we can look forward to another war. I still can't decide whether I should invest in stocks or in survivalist materials. :/
Ultimately, though, I think "invisible" technology (internet, computation, IT, virtual reality, nanotechnology, encryption, etc) will drastically reduce the reach and magnitude of state power, worldwide. I actually agree with what most transhumanists have to say about our future technologically, so I'm definitely optimistic. Once it becomes clear that liberty is the only mode of society effective and efficient and sustainable enough to make these technologies a reality, most people will fall in line.
free paradigm blog ::: free paradigm on youtube
First I wasn't very political but then would have called myself a liberal....Basically because during the Bush presidency it seemed as though all republicans and conservatives were mocked as being absolute idiots. There is also great power to the word "liberal" for any who are not particularly nationalistic. Then I moved to being a modern conservative, but the good kind... You know the ones who are really like in between minarchism and conservatism. Then I moved to moderate libertarianism that resembled Friedman after reading Rand, on to Misesian Minarchism after being introduced to AE, then to Anarchism after learning more about AE and Various anarchist thinkers. I never got really radical in any direction not based toward freedom, now I finally fully understand and advocate those measures which I proposed when I first became a conservative.
I don't like the term "dictatorship" and it depends further upon the type of transition, it could go either way. I think the most likely is that if Voluntaryism is achieved then there will be difficulties with putting down statist rebellions at first, as well as some gangs that might take over initially but after a solid 3 years of PDFs I don't think there will be many problems, and even within that time I believe that there will most likely be need of any sort of actual tyranny within this time period however.
It all depends how things work out. As the shit starts to hit the fan there are two ways I can see it going. The first is the way of tyranny, the socialists and radical liberals begin to have overwhelming popularity, or possibly something resembling fascism arises, I consider this the most likely of the two. The second is a flourishing of libertarian ideals and popularity, minarchism and/or Voluntaryism becomes more popular and a major player. As these ideas spread like wild fire the government begins to collapse because people start actually thinking for themselves and begin to go on tax strikes and wide calls for decreases of government power the likes of which those living in the Reagan era could have only dreamed of. I don't know, it could go either way, because quite frankly if you look around here allot of the members here are the young and rising generation, including myself, this means a combination of two things, the first is that the internet is very appealing to younger individuals and information spreads like wildfire to them through this, and that the younger generations (for whatever reason, I honestly can't come up with any sort of decisive answer) are more inclined toward freedom. This is possibly due to the whole total loss in faith in government over the last 8 years on top of the internet playing to their inquisitive and, comparatively speaking, less brainwashed minds which tend toward the suspicion of authority.
A fair amount of intellectuals will come naturally as the ideology catches on, as for the rest of them the intellectuals have been pretty damned socialist for the last 80 years or so, and if this has only resulted in the slow degeneration of America into the state it is in now, and the Reagan era, then I'd say that it doesn't actually matter too much, what matters is widespread public opinion
I'm sort of in the middle
Apolitical, then skeptical of the state and the status quo. This began in 6th grade for me. :) Didn't get into libertarianism until a few years ago. Praise Internet.
That would defeat the whole point! :p I don't think so.
Not a complete collapse of society. That would be chaos. Something that would drastically change the lives of people and make them see the government as the enemy to their freedom and prosperity is enough.
I don't know if those are good metrics for comparison. Someone who gets money from the government or makes a livelihood through government could still be exposed to, and expose libertarianism. Just as a slave can be against slavery. I just hope that if any kind of collapse happens, that people can identify the government as the enemy and not their neighbor.
Education is the #1 thing we can do. Today, I played "argue against marxism and for AnCap with a person" and he had nothing. I destroyed the labor theory of value and just left him alone with that. Now he'll have something to dwell on. Several people in the room were intrigued by Mises' socialist calculation problem. They always thought communism wouldn't work because of "greed" but I exemplified subjective value and brought up how an economy can't be directed properly without price signals. These people were stunned but interested. :p
I've got to agree with LS on the point of them becoming more irrelevant. I'm among them. The more time I spend with them, the more I realize they tend to lack creativity in thought. They aren't necessarily brilliant. They just tend to be people who were very good students. I'm not a fan.
Hard to say. I see the Internet being a good force for liberty, truth, and awesome.
I also see ignorance, apathy, and a regression to hedonism and animalistic tendencies among a lot of the youth today. A person who puts feelings before any thoughts tends to be a socialist, and sadly, there is a lack of thought to begin with. Libertarianism tends to be the philosophy of people who don't want to defy logic and don't use appeals to emotion for their arguments.
I think these might be two competing forces.
CrazyCoot: A few questions for the members of this forum; please feel free to answer all or none of them. 1) For those of who did not start off your life as libertarians please say a little bit about your evolution. Personally I was first a moderate Democrat due to family tradition, then what be best described as a somewhat hawkish 'libertarian' (P.J. O'Rourke style Republican) then I realized that the contradictions were too glaring.
Socialist (but as "goverment have to protect us from the evil coporation, not as a Marx reader). I voted for first time at 19 for my towns major. Voted to the left and they won. They did nothing of what they promised. I became uninterested on politics and from reading newspapers daily I just quit politics completely.
2 years ago just discover Ron Paul on YT randomly. His oposition to the war picked my interest and listening to him let me to study economics. I have become obsessed on monetary history ( I am a engineer, had absolutely no economic knoledge before). From studying austrian economics I became a libertarian. It was quite emotional process to get rid of all the socialist brainwashing. The mises youtube channel helped a lot, I kind of became addicted to the videos for a while.
No. It would not make any difference.
I want to believe that political change is posible, but something inside me tells me a collapse (that will come, who knows if in our lifetime) is the only way to get a libertarian society.
But on a brighter note, I believe that free zones with libertarian values could be implemented arround the world. Kind of like a independt city-state. That can happen in our lifetime.
I dont know what else to do. I have allways tried to talk to people about what I find unfair and inmoral.
Promote again the value of self reliance and "tough" (as in being able to deal with life) people, as oposed to whiners and bullshiters (intellectuals).
I am optimistic by nature.
CrazyCoot: A few questions for the members of this forum; please feel free to answer all or none of them. 1) For those of who did not start off your life as libertarians please say a little bit about your evolution. Personally I was first a moderate Democrat due to family tradition, then what be best described as a somewhat hawkish 'libertarian' (P.J. O'Rourke style Republican) then I realized that the contradictions were too glaring. I was totally clueless till very recently. I voted for Obama, figuring he had the answers. Somehow I found out about Hazlitt's Economice in One Lesson, and that made it very clear that the gov't is just a vampire. Peter Schiff videos, stuff on this site, LewRockwell.com podcasts and articles, and voila. 2) Is a provisional dictatorship necessary to undo the damage? Curing loss of blood from one vampire by inviting in another? 3) Would the collapse of society as we know it be necessary for libertarianism to get a full hearing? Who says that would help? How would it make people smarter as to what happened? Even if they realize it's the fault of say, Obama, for instituting a healthcare thing that bankrupts the country, the answer might be more regulation to most people, or jailing the crooked doctors, or voting Republican, or who knows what. 4) Is focusing on education and changing people's minds an approach that is fast enough to keep enough with government growth? It's the only game in town. 5) Given the anti-intellectual nature of capitalism, i.e. they're not paid as much as they'd like, how do you establish a broader base of support for libertarianism among academics given the ability of the state to use tax dollars to bribe them? If/when they get screwed along with everyone else. 6) Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future in terms of liberty? Russia took 70 whole years to collapse, and it's not exactly Paradise now. So I'm very pessimistic, to be honest.
I was totally clueless till very recently. I voted for Obama, figuring he had the answers. Somehow I found out about Hazlitt's Economice in One Lesson, and that made it very clear that the gov't is just a vampire. Peter Schiff videos, stuff on this site, LewRockwell.com podcasts and articles, and voila.
Curing loss of blood from one vampire by inviting in another?
Who says that would help? How would it make people smarter as to what happened? Even if they realize it's the fault of say, Obama, for instituting a healthcare thing that bankrupts the country, the answer might be more regulation to most people, or jailing the crooked doctors, or voting Republican, or who knows what.
It's the only game in town.
If/when they get screwed along with everyone else.
Russia took 70 whole years to collapse, and it's not exactly Paradise now. So I'm very pessimistic, to be honest.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
CrazyCoot:1) For those of who did not start off your life as libertarians please say a little bit about your evolution. Personally I was first a moderate Democrat due to family tradition, then what be best described as a somewhat hawkish 'libertarian' (P.J. O'Rourke style Republican) then I realized that the contradictions were too glaring.
Pre Year 7: Social Democrat
Year 7: Marxist
Year 8: Neoliberal
Year 9: Mix of neoliberal and neoconservative
Year 10: Neofascist
Year 11: Minarchist with Objectivist elements
Year 12-Present: Unaffiliated with paleolibertarian leanings.
CrazyCoot:2) Is a provisional dictatorship necessary to undo the damage?
Please elaborate.
CrazyCoot:3) Would the collapse of society as we know it be necessary for libertarianism to get a full hearing?
I think we'll definitely see a major shift in opinion in a few years, as the globalist MSM starts heaving it's last breaths and the academic-Keynesian establishment starts losing it's credibility at a rate rivalling Comical Ali's.
CrazyCoot:4) Is focusing on education and changing people's minds an approach that is fast enough to keep enough with government growth?
Where? Japan, Ghana, Somalia, the United States, China, France, Britain, Italy, Spain, Russia?
CrazyCoot:5) Given the anti-intellectual nature of capitalism, i.e. they're not paid as much as they'd like, how do you establish a broader base of support for libertarianism among academics given the ability of the state to use tax dollars to bribe them?
I'm going to second LibertyStudent on this one. Demagogues and shills like Krugman are in the same quandary as Soviet propagandists in the 1980's.
CrazyCoot:6) Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future in terms of liberty?
I doubt Barack will be reelected, instead he will be revealed as an empty suit during 2011. After David Cameron proves little better than Gordon Brown, either the UKIP or BNP are elected, radically changing British society. Either a colossal war (and a spending cut ala WWII afterwards) or the election of a charismatic classical liberal leader will lead to economic recovery in 2019-2020, if current porkulus spending continues.
Society cannot be molded like clay to anyone's wishes, even a libertarian's.
Times of crisis tend to breed totalitarianism, not liberalism.
Education is not a winning strategy, it can attract disciples, but it will not result in any political victory.
Capitalism is neither anti-intellectual, nor are academics simply bribed by tax-dollars. I find academic discussion to be fresh air compared to non-academic discussion on topics like economics and politics.
Pessimistic about the absolute ideal, but I have more liberty than the vast majority of humanthat have ever walked upon Earth, so in that sense I am optimistic about the future.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
CrazyCoot: 1) For those of who did not start off your life as libertarians please say a little bit about your evolution. Personally I was first a moderate Democrat due to family tradition, then what be best described as a somewhat hawkish 'libertarian' (P.J. O'Rourke style Republican) then I realized that the contradictions were too glaring.
I was a radical against the status quo, but I didn't like any of the options offered.
CrazyCoot: 5) Given the anti-intellectual nature of capitalism, i.e. they're not paid as much as they'd like, how do you establish a broader base of support for libertarianism among academics given the ability of the state to use tax dollars to bribe them?
You don't. You pick your battles.
I think we will get our shot to put our foot where our mouth is. That is enough for me to look forward to.
#1 As I've said before, I went from platonic fascist to paleocon to free marketer.
#2 Dictatorships have much to commend but you'll never find me arguing for another state, so I would say that no a provisional dictatorship cannot provide a long-term healing of liberty.
#3 Probably but libertarianism doesn't need to be heard by all to win.
#4 Education is eternally important but even if it doesn't keep pace with state growth (which I'm counting on) I'm pretty sure government power will be enough to wreck society to the point where the state will be irrelevant.
#5 Like others said, pick your battles.
#6 I am realistically optimistic in that I don't think freedom will exist in my lifetime but I do think that at some point, it will happen.
@CC, wanted to point out that Lam replied, but he is not a libertarian or an anarchist. He's pro-state. Why he responded, when the questions were clearly towards libertarians, is beyond me.
liberty student: @CC, wanted to point out that Lam replied, but he is not a libertarian or an anarchist. He's pro-state. Why he responded, when the questions were clearly towards libertarians, is beyond me.
Shun the non-believers.
"
CrazyCoot: 2) Is a provisional dictatorship necessary to undo the damage?
Please elaborate."
Sean Gabb interviewed Paul Gottfried, it's on Google Video, who said that a 'provisional dictatorship' was necessary, at least in the case of Sweden, to correct the accumulation of socialism. Gottfried is a conservative, if I'm not mistaken, but I was wondering if his words ring true for classical liberalism/ancap as well.
Re capitalism and anti-intellectualism; by anti-intellectualism I don't mean populist or "anti-pointyhead" but compare what a teacher at a private school makes with what a teacher at a public school makes.
CrazyCoot: Sean Gabb interviewed Paul Gottfried, it's on Google Video, who said that a 'provisional dictatorship' was necessary, at least in the case of Sweden, to correct the accumulation of socialism. Gottfried is a conservative, if I'm not mistaken, but I was wondering if his words ring true for classical liberalism/ancap as well.
Gottfried is not even a consistent conservative on this. I remember he spoke up for Atatürk at Taki Mag and when I pointed out in the comments section that Atatürk was a farthest thing from a conservative - a progressive Jacobin that waged war on tradition and religion and had the state prescribe everything from attire people should wear to names that can be given to newborn - he responded that it basically does not matter because he succeeded in establishing Turkey as a strong, modern nation. So like the Maoists and the like he at the end of the day cares more about the final result than the means.
CrazyCoot: A few questions for the members of this forum; please feel free to answer all or none of them. 1) For those of who did not start off your life as libertarians please say a little bit about your evolution. Personally I was first a moderate Democrat due to family tradition, then what be best described as a somewhat hawkish 'libertarian' (P.J. O'Rourke style Republican) then I realized that the contradictions were too glaring. 2) Is a provisional dictatorship necessary to undo the damage? 3) Would the collapse of society as we know it be necessary for libertarianism to get a full hearing? 4) Is focusing on education and changing people's minds an approach that is fast enough to keep enough with government growth? 5) Given the anti-intellectual nature of capitalism, i.e. they're not paid as much as they'd like, how do you establish a broader base of support for libertarianism among academics given the ability of the state to use tax dollars to bribe them? 6) Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future in terms of liberty?
1) My parents are of the 'New Left' before it took over the country and became Maoist. I grew up reading books by authors such as Ranold Radosh, John Gatto and Proudhon. As an ethical egalitarian-cosmopolitan and social pluralist I have never had much good to say about the state or war. I came under the sway of free-market economics when I encountered the works of Harold Demsetz, which eventually led me to Mises.org through some google searching.
2) No.
3) The collapse of the heirarchy power structure as we know it would indeed be required, but that does not mean it would require the collapse of the civilization. Rather, people must be presented with a credible alternative and real options; which (in my opinion) the libertarian movement is not doing very well.
4) Education must be supplemented by action.
5) This is why I do not support capitalism.
6) I haven't decided yet.
“Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of the government.” - Proudhon
laminustacitus:Shun the non-believers.
That's not the case. I don't have a problem with you being a statist.
If you had been honest about being pro-state by answering question #1, then I wouldn't have said a thing.
I just think it's right to point out that one of these answers is not like the other because it is made by someone who doesn't think aggression is immoral.
CrazyCoot:1) ...about your evolution.
Apolitical --> Ron Paul --> AnCap in May 2009, and then over the summer I clarified my position as pure anti-monopolism or perhaps panarchism, which I regard as "internally consistent AnCap."
I tend to think technology will make society more libertarian before any significant opinion change can come. Although its a synergistic process, because it was technology that led us to be discussing here in the first place.
Extremely optimistic about the long term, but fairly pessimistic about the short term. In the medium-term there are huge technology changes coming that will turn the world upside down - probably in a good way.
Why anarchy fails
Before 9th grade I was largely apolitical, although when it came to election time I would side with whoever I thought was the better candidate (usually Democrat) by what I heard the talking heads on TV say. They were baseless decisions and didn't really matter.
Once High School rolled around, I was pretty much a moderate. On most "political compass" tests I took I always came out to be moderate (using the left-right scale), but even at this time I was still apolitical. Then 10th grade rolled around and in January 2008 I started getting into the Ron Paul movement. I slowly but surely made my way toward a Ron Paul Republican (but never called myself that. I pretty much started using the term libertarian after a while). Of course I only had the issues down at that point and not the economics or philosophy of them. A friend of mine introduced me to Lewrockwell.com, and I read that website daily at school during Sophomore/Junior year. That pretty much turned me into a government-hating minarchist.
Then late Junior year I began visiting mises.org (consistently. I had visited here before but thought it was too much information to handle all at once lol) and shifted from being a minarchist to anarchist/anarcho-capitalist/voluntarist.
Yeah, no.
Yes and no. On the one hand, you'd have the bleeding heart liberals blaming private business and capitalism for the collapse of society, and on the other you'd have the libertarians or similar-minded individuals.
Well it's not like everyone would need to know the exact ins-and-outs of libertarianism before enacting change. Even if people are given the spark they can roll with that and get the ball rolling on reducing/eliminating the government.
Well if they'd rather have money that stick to principles, why do they matter? No need to preach to the close-minded. Just have more libertarians become involved in academia instead of worrying about converting the nonconvertible.
Optimistic. Despite what seems to be the majority of people saying we need to increase government, there are a lot coming out of the woodwork and saying we need to decrease it. They might not necessarily be libertarians, but it's the idea that counts at this point
1 - evolution - I was born naked and free; enkoyed reading Huck Finn but then got ticked at my fifth grade teacher for punishing the entire class for an individual's actions; got ticked at the public school system in sixth grade after being placed in classes below my level; got ticked at the criminal justice system in seventh grade when a good friend was sent to juvie for several years for a small qty of mary jane, dreamt of nuclear war in ninth grade; introduced to existentialism, nihilism, and libertarianism in college, pursued studies in art, philosophy, and economics. Philosophy professor introduced me to FEE; became active in the LP soon realizing it was a waste of time concluding that liberty was inevitable eventually and perhaps misbelieving that my actions were inconsequential. Read Rothbard and reluctantly realized I was an 'anarchist', still don't like that word though due to the negative connotations associated with it.
2 - healing dictator needed - no, the market is self healing
3 - collapse necessary - wouldn't be necessary since we'll eventually evolve to it but it might hasten the evolution
4 - education vs government - while the spread of Austrian economic knowledge might not be as fast as we'd like, it is a sustainable long term strategy to topple the leviathan from the ground up without compromising principles.
5 -garnering academic/intellectual support - through education of economics, many will eventually realize the emperor and her bribed henchmen wear no clothes and thus they'll lose respect and support. You can bribe a persons voice but it is much harder to bribe their pride.
6- optimistic or pessimistic - this pendulum swings both ways for me over time, after discovering Mises.org, I am much more optimistic about the future of liberty. In the end the world will have a choice, annihilation or liberty, I'm confident we'll choose liberty.
We are the soldiers for righteousnessAnd we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip
Mixed bag - Objectivist - Voluntaryist
Only if I'm the dictator.
There isn't any other approach.
Argue with my professors, they'll come around.
First the latter then the former.
Well, in high school I was a nationalist, then socialist with marxist tendencies, and now I don't like to label myself with general ideologies. I like some libertarian ideas, but I also like some marxist ideas to.
Probably, but libertarian dictatorship is totally contradictory. So, no, I wouldn't recommend it.
I don't think so. The collapse would produce some kind of socialism, or national-socialism with extreme protectionism.
No, it never was. There is no real change without revolution..
Pessimistic.
liberty student: laminustacitus:Shun the non-believers. That's not the case. I don't have a problem with you being a statist. If you had been honest about being pro-state by answering question #1, then I wouldn't have said a thing.
I don't answer personal questions, I will answer questions about my beliefs if it is in the right circumstances, but I will never answer personal questions. If that's not being "honest", so be it.
liberty student:I just think it's right to point out that one of these answers is not like the other because it is made by someone who doesn't think aggression is immoral.
So speaks Chief Inquisitor Liberty Student.
laminustacitus:I don't answer personal questions, I will answer questions about my beliefs if it is in the right circumstances, but I will never answer personal questions. If that's not being "honest", so be it.
None of us are impartial, but we can be transparent about our biases. Those who criticize without being transparent are not very credible.
laminustacitus:So speaks Chief Inquisitor Liberty Student.
Ah yes, ad hominem.
liberty student: laminustacitus:I don't answer personal questions, I will answer questions about my beliefs if it is in the right circumstances, but I will never answer personal questions. If that's not being "honest", so be it. None of us are impartial, but we can be transparent about our biases. Those who criticize without being transparent are not very credible.
No one is transparent, especially over the internet, there is no use pretending we are. Answering personal questions only makes it a question of personality not ideas, and I will only speak of my ideas. Nor does answering personal questions even reveal our biases.
liberty student: laminustacitus:So speaks Chief Inquisitor Liberty Student. Ah yes, ad hominem.
Honestly, after stating this about me unprovoked:
you loose your right to cry "ad hominem attack". Honestly if you are going to state that I am not of the right ideas to properly give my input in this survey, I am going to state that you are nothing but an inquisitor demanding everyone stay true to the party line.
laminustacitus:Honestly if you are going to state that I am not of the right ideas to properly give my input in this survey, I am going to state that you are nothing but an inquisitor demanding everyone stay true to the party line.
But the first part is a strawman, and the second is an ad hom.
I never said you were not of right ideas, but that you answered the survey obviously for libertarians, when you know you are not a libertarian, and you didn't disclose that.
What next, you answer a survey about child rearing as a parentless adult? You answer a survey about Islam when you're a Catholic? And you don't disclose you are parentless or a Catholic when you answer the surveys, and that is somehow something that should not be revealed to the people looking at the results of the survey?
Gimme a break. If you don't want people to talk about how you're pro-state, then stop being pro-state, or stop participating in discussions. But to expect that you get exceptional treatment you do not afford to others on their views is hypocritical at best.
1) I started out a conservative Democrat. Found out about libertarianism, and a few years later considered myself a libertarian. I found out about mises.org about that time, and a year or two later, I had lost my faith in the state.
2) Is a provisional dictatorship necessary to undo the damage? No.
3) Would the collapse of society as we know it be necessary for libertarianism to get a full hearing? No. In fact, I think that is irrelevant. People need to stop obeying, in the open, and challenge the state (civil disobedience). Once the state fails, then everything else will just be a domino effect.
4) Is focusing on education and changing people's minds an approach that is fast enough to keep enough with government growth? Not by itself. There also needs to be civil disobedience.
6) Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future in terms of liberty? Very optimistic. The cat is out of the bag. It is just a matter of time.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
CrazyCoot: A few questions for the members of this forum; please feel free to answer all or none of them. 1) For those of who did not start off your life as libertarians please say a little bit about your evolution. Personally I was first a moderate Democrat due to family tradition, then what be best described as a somewhat hawkish 'libertarian' (P.J. O'Rourke style Republican) then I realized that the contradictions were too glaring. "Republican"*, turned Nihilist**, turned philosophical anarchist (a la Max Stirner)***, turned anarcho-capitalist****. *I considered myself a Republican/Conservative because I thought they meant free markets, which I knew I liked the premise of, even though I had no real grasp on it. I was influenced by Orwell's 1984 and Rand's The Fountainhead. **It happens. I decided democracy and freedom was a sham (only the former actually turned out to be such) and that free will/individuality was a mirage. I sort of saw philosophy in a historical materialistic view and the rise of socialism over "free markets" in a sort of shallow Schumpeterian manner (unknowingly). The idea of not having any real individuality, or meaning to be such, was insanely depressing for me. Crushing, really. ***I became acquainted with Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Max Stirner's The Ego and its Own. These works were influential in tapping into my natural individualism (I threw out my nihilism rightfully as immature, I was more than happy to be back in contact with my ego, my unique self). Anarchism came easy to me, which seems rare for many (and I can understand why, especially since (due to my youth) I never went through a strongly political or patriotic phase. I never drank the kool-aid). I had no concern for strategy, no concern with attacking the state. I would build myself regardless of the tyrant, regardless of the commoner, regardless of anyone threatening my growth, my ego, my quest for enlightenment and understanding the "ubermensch". I held tightly to the Voltaire quote: "Man is free the very moment he wants to be" (paraphrasing, but its the idea that counts). I was addicted to the power I realized in and over myself, and the total and irrevocable responsibility I had for it all. I was more contemptuous of force than ever before. ****One could say this was my "destiny". I always enjoyed the market premise, but I had no grasp on how it worked. I was consumed but somewhat skeptical of the ideology, though I had already accepted anarchism in general. It wasn't until Spooner's No Treason that I was finally aware of it. Now I've very much meshed my Nietzsche/Stirner/existentialist phases with the anarcho-capitalist canon. I've become a lot more loving and a lot more peaceful "spiritually" as a result. I am still supreme over myself, I am still sovereign over my body, but I have come to value the uniqueness of others with much more ease. 2) Is a provisional dictatorship necessary to undo the damage? Never. If there is any damage, it will be because the government drew the sword on those who were peacefully exchanging separate from its monstrous depravity. Society will make out fine in the end, we don't need monopoly-- never have, never will. 3) Would the collapse of society as we know it be necessary for libertarianism to get a full hearing? It is the only way. Attempts to achieve liberty have been attacked in history and in the modern time by obfuscation and sophistry; brainwashing and democratic avariciousness. Only when the State has run its unnatural course can liberty hope to regain clarity and value. 4) Is focusing on education and changing people's minds an approach that is fast enough to keep enough with government growth? Education is the best, if not sole, strategy. Even putting aside morality; we cannot overcome despotism by aping its malicious practice. We cannot become the antithesis of what we fight for. We do not need to become the Nazis to defeat them. 5) Given the anti-intellectual nature of capitalism, i.e. they're not paid as much as they'd like, how do you establish a broader base of support for libertarianism among academics given the ability of the state to use tax dollars to bribe them? Most intellectuals are not necessarily corrupt and disgusting pigs, most are just mistaken. In college more than ever, I believe people are willing to give up what they've long established themselves under, if it means retaining their personal integrity. Hopefully, with proper education and with a rise in popularity, those who lie and seek to pillage the masses will be called out on their bullshit. 6) Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future in terms of liberty? If anything can be called omnipotent in this world, it is liberty. It is an absolute, it is a constant. How can I be pessimistic of something that is an inescapable part of our very beings? I don't know what the world will look like by the time I die, but I know this much: liberty will exist, will live, and will thrive.
"Republican"*, turned Nihilist**, turned philosophical anarchist (a la Max Stirner)***, turned anarcho-capitalist****.
*I considered myself a Republican/Conservative because I thought they meant free markets, which I knew I liked the premise of, even though I had no real grasp on it. I was influenced by Orwell's 1984 and Rand's The Fountainhead.
**It happens. I decided democracy and freedom was a sham (only the former actually turned out to be such) and that free will/individuality was a mirage. I sort of saw philosophy in a historical materialistic view and the rise of socialism over "free markets" in a sort of shallow Schumpeterian manner (unknowingly). The idea of not having any real individuality, or meaning to be such, was insanely depressing for me. Crushing, really.
***I became acquainted with Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Max Stirner's The Ego and its Own. These works were influential in tapping into my natural individualism (I threw out my nihilism rightfully as immature, I was more than happy to be back in contact with my ego, my unique self). Anarchism came easy to me, which seems rare for many (and I can understand why, especially since (due to my youth) I never went through a strongly political or patriotic phase. I never drank the kool-aid). I had no concern for strategy, no concern with attacking the state. I would build myself regardless of the tyrant, regardless of the commoner, regardless of anyone threatening my growth, my ego, my quest for enlightenment and understanding the "ubermensch". I held tightly to the Voltaire quote: "Man is free the very moment he wants to be" (paraphrasing, but its the idea that counts). I was addicted to the power I realized in and over myself, and the total and irrevocable responsibility I had for it all. I was more contemptuous of force than ever before.
****One could say this was my "destiny". I always enjoyed the market premise, but I had no grasp on how it worked. I was consumed but somewhat skeptical of the ideology, though I had already accepted anarchism in general. It wasn't until Spooner's No Treason that I was finally aware of it. Now I've very much meshed my Nietzsche/Stirner/existentialist phases with the anarcho-capitalist canon. I've become a lot more loving and a lot more peaceful "spiritually" as a result. I am still supreme over myself, I am still sovereign over my body, but I have come to value the uniqueness of others with much more ease.
Never. If there is any damage, it will be because the government drew the sword on those who were peacefully exchanging separate from its monstrous depravity. Society will make out fine in the end, we don't need monopoly-- never have, never will.
It is the only way. Attempts to achieve liberty have been attacked in history and in the modern time by obfuscation and sophistry; brainwashing and democratic avariciousness. Only when the State has run its unnatural course can liberty hope to regain clarity and value.
Education is the best, if not sole, strategy. Even putting aside morality; we cannot overcome despotism by aping its malicious practice. We cannot become the antithesis of what we fight for. We do not need to become the Nazis to defeat them.
Most intellectuals are not necessarily corrupt and disgusting pigs, most are just mistaken. In college more than ever, I believe people are willing to give up what they've long established themselves under, if it means retaining their personal integrity. Hopefully, with proper education and with a rise in popularity, those who lie and seek to pillage the masses will be called out on their bullshit.
If anything can be called omnipotent in this world, it is liberty. It is an absolute, it is a constant. How can I be pessimistic of something that is an inescapable part of our very beings? I don't know what the world will look like by the time I die, but I know this much: liberty will exist, will live, and will thrive.
My personal Anarcho-Capitalist flag. The symbol in the center stands for "harmony" and "protection"-- I'm hoping to illustrate the bond between order/justice and anarchy.
1) Well first I was kind of ambiguous. I didn't like spending for the sake of spending because hey it's our money, but I was kind of selective with government spending. If I liked it, then I wanted it. Then I became more socialist in my persepctive I guess from my religion class my junior year of high school. What I got from that class kind of still sticks with me, but on a personal level. I can in no way defend taxation for those goals. I guess I was at a state where I saw some limited social spending as necessary. From the 2008 election though, things changed. I couldn't support Obama, and I couldn't support McCain. This was also around the time that I became active in political discussions on a message board that I was a part of. There were two anarcho-capitalists that really shifted me toward the libertarian position. I've been at this position ever since then, but I'm becoming more and more libertarian. I still can't quite accept anarchism, but I'd say that I'm an extreme minarchist.
2) No way. I've always been limited government because of my dad's history (he was born in Cuba and had to flee the country due to Castro). I can never accept a dictatorship. Never.
3) No, I don't think so. I think we need to hammer points and not give up. Challenge people on their beliefs enough and they'll have to question why they believe certain things.
4) This is the only way. We can't coerce people into thinking that coercion is wrong.
5) You need popular support to end the education subsidy. That would be the turning point.
6) I see libertarianism growing tremendously among the youth. Of course, American liberalism is by far dominant among young people, but the tide is turning our way.
Yes, I am a huge Dodgers fan.
Anti-state since I learned about the Cuban Revolution and why my dad had to flee the country.
Beer, Guns and Baseball My blog
(Teenage years) → authoritarian anti leftist →(led logically to) → Totalitarian rightist → (standard economics course and The Road to Serfdom) → quasi Burkian liberal conservative → (University, Law Legislation and Liberty & Mises Institute) → Hayekian Classical Liberal with strong Libertarian leanings
Only in quite desperate circumstances. A dictatorship can do so much damage to the political culture and stability that political system has to be broken already to warrant it.
That is the last thing we need. Societal collapse would just bring out the collectivist beast in everyone. In chaos people seek security not freedom. We are more likely to end up with 1984 then any kind of voluntarily utopia.
Fast enough to stop it? Not for the masses. You will be waiting forever. Unless by some freak set of events group think aims its dubious benefits in a Libertarian direction.
Privatise the University system & end public funding. Apart from that simply continue the work missionary work Hayek started in the 40s.
I am optimistic about the growth of Liberal and Libertarian movements and the spread of ideas. The real world however will not see any major shifts in policy in our direction any time soon.
liberty student: laminustacitus:Honestly if you are going to state that I am not of the right ideas to properly give my input in this survey, I am going to state that you are nothing but an inquisitor demanding everyone stay true to the party line. But the first part is a strawman, and the second is an ad hom.
They are true, that is undeniable.
liberty student:I never said you were not of right ideas, but that you answered the survey obviously for libertarians, when you know you are not a libertarian, and you didn't disclose that.
What is the basis for you concluding it is only for "libertarians" (whatever narrow definition you subscribe to)? After all, is not the survey for "All"? Its even in the title!
Please say, where in:
CrazyCoot:A few questions for the members of this forum; please feel free to answer all or none of them.
does it say that these questions are meant for "libertarians" only? Or are you imposing your own interpretation.
liberty student:What next, you answer a survey about child rearing as a parentless adult? You answer a survey about Islam when you're a Catholic? And you don't disclose you are parentless or a Catholic when you answer the surveys, and that is somehow something that should not be revealed to the people looking at the results of the survey?
I'm a member of this forum, like it or no. Ergo, I can answer this survey without the grand inquisitor ensuring that everybody knows that the party-line here is that everybody must be anarchist, and if they are not they, then it will always be noted that they do not conform to the ideal.
liberty student:Gimme a break. If you don't want people to talk about how you're pro-state, then stop being pro-state, or stop participating in discussions.
No, Liberty Student, I do not care about what you think about my views but such comments like:
are not only unnecessarily hostile, but also in bad taste. I will always challenge the authors of such posts for they do not create a community of dialogue and intellectual discovery, which is what I thought this forum is supposed to be; instead, they work against such a community.
liberty student: But to expect that you get exceptional treatment you do not afford to others on their views is hypocritical at best.
Do you have any evidence to back up this attack against me?
laminustacitus:I'm a member of this forum, like it or no.
I don't mind that you're a member of this forum. I've petitioned for my share of people to be tossed, but iirc, I have defended your presence more than once.
laminustacitus: Ergo, I can answer this survey without the grand inquisitor ensuring that everybody knows that the party-line here is that everybody must be anarchist, and if they are not they, then it will always be noted that they do not conform to the ideal.
Another strawman. If you're pro-state, I cannot understand why you resist (and evade) making that clear and obvious. But I will point it out where you do not. Again, answering a survey that is clearly not directed at you, and then avoiding the portion where you identify your political position, is sloppy at best.
And the grand-inquisitor bit doesn't bother me. Name calling doesn't make me look bad.
laminustacitus:No, Liberty Student, I do not care about what you think about my views
Then stop protesting so much.
laminustacitus:are not only unnecessarily hostile, but also in bad taste. I will always challenge the authors of such posts for they do not create a community of dialogue and intellectual discovery, which is what I thought this forum is supposed to be; instead, they work against such a community.
I don't think it was hostile Lam. I think it was honest and inconvenient for you. As far as bad taste, I think being a statist is bad taste, and care about your concerns on that front, as much as you care about how I feel about statists.
laminustacitus:Do you have any evidence to back up this attack against me?
What was the attack exactly?
Apolitical -> Fascist -> Limited State Fascist -> Voluntary Fascist -> AnCap (with a tendency to use Fascist concepts outside of economic issues, old habits die hard)
The problem won't give us the solution.
Would it be necessary? I rather doubt it, if anything it'd be counterproductive. Society is the abstract concept of individuals cooperating with one another. To see it collapse would as thus mean the disruption of this cooperation and the rise of the mentality that its "all against all". Libertarianism and affiliated ideologies require the opposite, they require that individuals recognize the usefulness of cooperation if we wish to maintain our current sanitation systems.
One hopes so.
Capitalism is anti-intellectual? When did this happen? How is that possible?
Really though, it depends on the individual person. I can see some people within the 'intellectual camp' who would do just fine without the state. They're popular enough that they can continue to maintain their quality of life unchanged. Now its the leeches that do little more than join hands with the state that in for a rude awakening. The best thing I can conceive to do with the latter group is either ignore them, or ignore them. They are, for the most part, too stubborn to change their thinking or simply not worth the effort needed. I do have my time preference you know.
Optimistic. I would of stayed in the Fascist camp otherwise.
1) I was raised in a southern, Christian family. All of my family is republican. I never paid much heed to politics or economics until my early 20s and didn't even really know what libertarianism was. I got into learning about libertarianism and economics largely in part because of the controversial RP in the last presidential election and a general disconnect with Republicrats. Stumbled upon mises.org, started reading, listening and watching... turns out I've always been something of a closet-libertarian. Still learning.
2) I don't think so. The idea that one man, be it a president with unprecedented power or a dictator, has enough knowledge, wisdom and foresight to manage all aspects of a nation, from economic and monetary policy to foreign relations and domestic policy, is ridiculous to me. Aside from that, a dictatorship would presumably go against some of the core fundamentals of libertarianism in terms of morality and natural rights, as I understand it.
3) Necessary? Perhaps, perhaps not. I suppose it all depends on your definition of a collapse of society in this instance. Would the Great Depression qualify as a collapse of society? Because as a result of the Great Depression, we were drawn further away from libertarianism. I'm fairly certain we'd need some kind of social shift of some sort, though I honestly don't know how that might come about efficiently. I suppose we may be witnessing the beginnings of one now, perhaps... libertarianism and libertarian ideals seem to be spreading like wild fire these days, what with the speed and accessibility of information, especially as more and more people become irrevocably dissatisfied with the current state of partisan politics and the status quo.
4) I think focusing on education and continued discussion/debat/discourse is always healthy, regardless. I don't think there's enough right now to keep up with growth of government, however.
5) I'm not really sure, but I'm inclined to agree with other posters that they're largely irrelevant.
6) I try to stay as optimistic as possible, but I won't lie, sometimes it is difficult with each passing day that things seem to be getting worse and worse... then again, perhaps things have to get worse before they can get better. If that is true, then perhaps the observation that things are getting worse may end up being evidence to the fact that things are on the way to the better. I don't really let myself get discouraged, regardless of how many times I find myself arguing the same points over and over with statists and socialists... it just makes me want to learn more, if only to more thoroughly obliterate their arguments and perhaps give them pause to think about liberty as I do. I'm not sure if I've ever personally "converted" anyone, per se, but I know I've made people question their adopted philosophies and reevaluate their perspectives, which is a hopeful sign. Although, I will admit these cases are generally few and far between as far as I know.
Sorry this is going to be a long post.
(1)
(2) No.It wouldn't work and even if it could I wouldn't want it.
(3) I'm not sure.It could be that it just brings out more statism and socialism in people.we might end up with full on hitler style fascism before long.
(4) Education is vital.More people need to know these ideas.One of the problems we face is that the mainstream ignores us to cut us out of the debate.We need to raise our problem and show we offer an alternative to both the left ,the centre and the right ( I think the internet is a great help with this,it's just we need to draw people in on all the information available and see it we can persuade them.it's true people will see the material and might reject it).We need to continually repeat the key principles an arguments. We need to debate people everywhere and anywhere as much as is possible,We need to continue to build and develop all areas of libertarian political philosophy and economics.We need to look at setting up voluntary alternative's to state institutions e.g. welfare state..We also need to try to spread libertarianism worldwide especially in Europe where currently sadly it isn't very strong.I really want to play a part in this.Possible sister Mises institutes should be set up following the eastern europe one as an example of how this could work. non violent Civil disobedience will be necessary at some point.Secession is definately a viable option.
(5) Capitalism isn't anti-intellectual really.Bribes don't mean they'll follow the party line though most do.One strategy I plan to be involved in is to infiltrate the opinion moulding class e.g. media,academics etc and present our ideas to the masses-If we can have lots of libertarians writing news articles, presenting the news,on tv,on the radio etc this would be great.We need to break the hold on minds that begins with government schooling.
(6) A bit of both at times. I'm optimistic when I learn that someone has opposed some government law or program or that non libertarians are rejecting it too.Reading libertarian literature inspires me alot.I don't think we will achieve liberty in my life time(though I hope so) but I think it will occur eventually(socialists probably felt the same way once so I guess that's a sign of hope for us.) I get pessimistic when I think of just how statist the world is, for example that families spent their weekend at locally owned/financed leisure centres and no one thinks that's strange or when I try to debate someone about libertarianism and they won't listen to me because their just loudly shouting(metaphorically) "YOUR WRONG!".I'm troubled that people are so apathetic that they don't care about electoral politics(which is good as far as I'm concerned) but they also don't care about political philosophy or freedom.They just live life in a bubble of ignorace.
In the end freedom outlives control.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.