All the more reason not to participate in the charade, as you clearly have no choice to truly be free by working within such a system. You openly admit that the process is essentially futile and then wonder why I oppose participating in it. Hmm. Why would someone who opposes rulers choose from a highly restrictive package deal of rulers? It doesn't make any practical sense to me at all.
As I said above, this isn't a game. Real people are being robbed, and it's silly to oppose laws and candidates that would minimize the robbery on the grounds that it's still robbery!
Also, the "choice to truly be free" won't exist whether you vote or not; you may as well vote for the guy who is less statist, regardless of what else you do.
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have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.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.
Ego: As I said above, this isn't a game! Real people are being robbed, and it's silly to oppose laws and candidates that would minimize the robbery on the grounds that it's still robbery! Also, the "choice to truly be free" won't exist whether you vote or not; you may as well vote for the guy who is less statist, regardless of what else you do.
As I said above, this isn't a game! Real people are being robbed, and it's silly to oppose laws and candidates that would minimize the robbery on the grounds that it's still robbery!
Either the ethical principle is true or it is false. If it is true, then it should be consistantly applied. If theft is wrong, then theft is wrong, regaurdless of the degree of theft or who is doing it. It would not make sense to support "limited murder" and "limited theft" and "limited slavery". If an individual proposes a policy of reducing the thefts by half, this does not mean that this policy should be endorsed as the ideal and the remaining half of thefts are somehow legitimate or necessary. What the state gives with one hand it takes with the other.
This is part of the problem with minarchism, I.E. that it's ethically self-contradictary and inconsistant. I don't think ethics should be reduced to a pragmatic and comparative cost-benefit analysis between two evils. What one may gain through one canidate to persue one value in one applied case is only gained at the expense of another value or applied case. In politics, the greater values must be sacrificed for appeasement of lesser values in the short-term. But liberty is too important of a value to be sacrificed to any degree.
Brainpolice: How can a candidate exist within the institutional framework of the state without employing political means in order to hold such a position to begin with? Their very existance as a politician requires forced wealth redistribution to ensure or secure their position.
How can a candidate exist within the institutional framework of the state without employing political means in order to hold such a position to begin with? Their very existance as a politician requires forced wealth redistribution to ensure or secure their position.
Hence the need for a Ross Perot type, an outsider with a vast fortune and a willingness to spend it (he didn't even accept contributions in '92).
"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke
I'm not a miniarchist! Stop saying that!
It would not make sense to support "limited murder" and "limited theft" and "limited slavery".
You're right. It wouldn't make sense to support any of those things, but it would make sense to prefer "limited theft" to "mass theft", etc. when you are only given two options.
I don't think ethics should be reduced to a pragmatic and comparative cost-benefit analysis between two evils... [L]iberty is too important of a value to be sacrificed to any degree.
I absolutely agree that our situation shouldn't be that. Unfortunatly, it is. We should take every opportunity we have to shrink the state, and that includes elections. That doesn't mean we should not do other things (education, etc.), it just means we should take the opportunity.
I understand what you mean Ego, but imo you keep on encouraging a false dilemma, that is iscolated between choices A or B, that essentially involves perpetuating a system that has, time & time again, shown to be corrupt & abusive to the concept of liberty. However, I do think that moderates should do what they want to try, & radicals should do what they want to do. Although, I think the elimination of the LP party would help both moderates & radicals, as it would allow moderates to infiltrate the two major parties, and if they get any reductions done, I'd imagine it could make the radicals' job easier. That is of course, assuming that those in power who do the reductions in government & etc., as Brainpolice pointed out, would not be holden to their status of power within the system, and from here I guess the argument goes in a bit of circle, as you could argue that the cycle would continue as those who reduced government would possibly not reduce at some point to keep mainstream voters in an effort to appear more electable, and therefore a rationalization is given that they need to compromise in order to keep on serving their initial principles, which is simply not true (Rothbard said similar, concerning the eventual Utilitarianism of the Classical Liberals, in Chapter 1 of "For A New Liberty": http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty01.asp). Essentially, it would be playing into the popular double-speak of mainstream politics by "taking the opportunity". Dubiously, I'd imagine it would be congratulated by mainstream sympathizers as some sort of sign that the Libertarians "got something done", but to believe so would be essentially drinking kool-aid, at that point. I already see this occurring with libertarians concerning the beltway libertarian occurrence; I believe Brainpolice, in an entry on his blog, aptly addressed that as well. As for me, I'm essentially on the fence; If moderates & radicals could somehow go about their business without (at least immediately) getting each other's way, I don't see how both couldn't be worked at the same time.
"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
Ego: Why thank you for become the collective voice for libertarians (seeing as now I'm apparently not one)! I'm sure they appreciate it. If I may liberally use bold text: It is counter-productive and silly to oppose reforms that reduce the state's power in the name of eliminating the state's power. You view this as a game. It's not. Real people are being robbed, and it's silly to oppose laws that would minimize the robbery on the grounds that it's still robbery. While I wish that tax-evasion and black markets would truly get rid of the state, statists usually find a way to parlay those efforts into more power for themselves.
Why thank you for become the collective voice for libertarians (seeing as now I'm apparently not one)! I'm sure they appreciate it.
If I may liberally use bold text: It is counter-productive and silly to oppose reforms that reduce the state's power in the name of eliminating the state's power.
You view this as a game. It's not. Real people are being robbed, and it's silly to oppose laws that would minimize the robbery on the grounds that it's still robbery.
While I wish that tax-evasion and black markets would truly get rid of the state, statists usually find a way to parlay those efforts into more power for themselves.
First, you were the one to begin claiming a collective voice for libertarians. Second, I do not speak for all "libertarians," I speak for all revolutionaries.Second, I do not view this as a game; I view this as a strategy. If you are not accustomed to tactical thinking, then join your pals in the Ron Paul cult.
Third, you mischaracterize Agorism and then exepct the debate to be respectful? Bollix! Parlay those efforts? What efforts? Agorist efforts? Agorism as a broad movement has yet to be tried, however, in every "reform" governments only bow to the will of the people if the people actively oppose opression. The peel acts, for example.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Ego: If you have a choice between the lesser of two evils, why wouldn't you choose the lesser evil? In the course of ending the state, not matter which path you chose, there will be several steps taken, all of which result in smaller government, none of which result in no government. That doesn't mean those steps shouldn't be taken, it simply means that you have to keep taking more steps!
If you have a choice between the lesser of two evils, why wouldn't you choose the lesser evil? In the course of ending the state, not matter which path you chose, there will be several steps taken, all of which result in smaller government, none of which result in no government. That doesn't mean those steps shouldn't be taken, it simply means that you have to keep taking more steps!
Oh yes, it's worked so well so far.
I quite frankly don't care about the moral arguments on either side. Voting, in anything other than referendums, is immoral because it supports the state, period. However, that's not the angle I'm coming from. If immoral actions must be taken to ensure that the United States government will fall, then so be it - just an example of chickens coming home to roost. My angle directly attacks the reformist nonsense as inefficient and a waste of time.
Ego: Regardless of whether you choose the candidate, they are going to be ruling over you. The choice isn't Candidate A, Candidate B, and No Candidate!
Regardless of whether you choose the candidate, they are going to be ruling over you. The choice isn't Candidate A, Candidate B, and No Candidate!
Ego: I'm not a miniarchist! Stop saying that! It would not make sense to support "limited murder" and "limited theft" and "limited slavery". You're right. It wouldn't make sense to support any of those things, but it would make sense to prefer "limited theft" to "mass theft", etc. when you are only given two options!I don't think ethics should be reduced to a pragmatic and comparative cost-benefit analysis between two evils... [L]iberty is too important of a value to be sacrificed to any degree. I absolutely agree that our situation shouldn't be that. Unfortunatly, it is. We should take every opportunity we have to shrink the state, and that includes elections. That doesn't mean we should not do other things (education, etc.), it just means we should take the opportunity.
You're right. It wouldn't make sense to support any of those things, but it would make sense to prefer "limited theft" to "mass theft", etc. when you are only given two options!
You certainly are a statist (mini or otherwise)! You advocate a state; you advocate using a state; you support the state. How are you not a statist?Your problem comes when referring to the choice as if it really had anything to do with more or less. Regardless of how you vote, regardless of who you vote for, the government will only expand by definition. In either case, you vote to give the government power to do X and eventhough it claims that X will roll back government power, the initial promise is that government will possess more power - also extra government regulations to come with deregulation as a middle of the road policy is inherently unstable no matter what. WIth a government deregulating, deregulations can't work. This is what Mises proposed as the problem with state-socialism. No matter what, the end result will be, inevitably, tyranny. The only way to reverse this is to purge the system. The result of gradual deregulation of government vis-a-vis government, is that the deregulations will fail, the "market test" will be declared a failure, and you will further muddy the name of an already pitiful philosophy - libertarianism.
It's funny that such a "conservative libertarian" would advocate state socialist means to end a state socialist system.
Nitroadict: I understand what you mean Ego, but imo you keep on encouraging a false dilemma, that is iscolated between choices A or B, that essentially involves perpetuating a system that has, time & time again, shown to be corrupt & abusive to the concept of liberty. However, I do think that moderates should do what they want to try, & radicals should do what they want to do. Although, I think the elimination of the LP party would help both moderates & radicals, as it would allow moderates to infiltrate the two major parties, and if they get any reductions done, I'd imagine it could make the radicals' job easier. That is of course, assuming that those in power who do the reductions in government & etc., as Brainpolice pointed out, would not be holden to their status of power within the system, and from here I guess the argument goes in a bit of circle, as you could argue that the cycle would continue as those who reduced government would possibly not reduce at some point to keep mainstream voters in an effort to appear more electable, and therefore a rationalization is given that they need to compromise in order to keep on serving their initial principles, which is simply not true (Rothbard said similar, concerning the eventual Utilitarianism of the Classical Liberals, in Chapter 1 of "For A New Liberty": http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty01.asp). Essentially, it would be playing into the popular double-speak of mainstream politics by "taking the opportunity". Dubiously, I'd imagine it would be congratulated by mainstream sympathizers as some sort of sign that the Libertarians "got something done", but to believe so would be essentially drinking kool-aid, at that point. I already see this occurring with libertarians concerning the beltway libertarian occurrence; I believe Brainpolice, in an entry on his blog, aptly addressed that as well. As for me, I'm essentially on the fence; If moderates & radicals could somehow go about their business without (at least immediately) getting each other's way, I don't see how both couldn't be worked at the same time.
The problem is that the "moderates" - I prefer to term them as counter-revolutionaries - are also enemies of the revolutionaries. The counter-revolutionaries surrender themselves dragging the libertarian crest in the dirt along their trails of defeat; all of their work merely serves to reverse the progress of the revolution; even more, they'd sooner fight for the state than they'd fight for the revolution - Ego, for example. They are slime, snakes, traders, and whores for political opportunism. No, the moderates are not our allies, they are not our brothers. Whereas the revolutionary is a son of liberty, the counter-revolutionaries are just the bastards of it.
Very dramatic rhetoric, but I'm still waiting to hear how agorists expect to economically out-compete a state armed with a "magic checkbook". It takes more than intentions to prevail, and even more than strategy... it also takes tactics.
Niccolò: You certainly are a statist (mini or otherwise)! You advocate a state; you advocate using a state; you support the state. How are you not a statist?
You certainly are a statist (mini or otherwise)! You advocate a state; you advocate using a state; you support the state. How are you not a statist?
Do I advocate a state that can't initiate the use of force? Yes. What do you find objectionable in that belief? And yes, I advocate using the state in order to shrink it; so do you! To go to your agorist meetings, you will probably drive on state-roads, using a car that is created using state-regulations, etc. It's simply the system we live in, and we have to work in it! Are you going to bash the people in North Korea who eat at the government bread-lines, too?
Your problem comes when referring to the choice as if it really had anything to do with more or less. Regardless of how you vote, regardless of who you vote for, the government will only expand by definition. In either case, you vote to give the government power to do X and eventhough it claims that X will roll back government power, the initial promise is that government will possess more power - also extra government regulations to come with deregulation as a middle of the road policy is inherently unstable no matter what. WIth a government deregulating, deregulations can't work. This is what Mises proposed as the problem with state-socialism. No matter what, the end result will be, inevitably, tyranny. The only way to reverse this is to purge the system. The result of gradual deregulation of government vis-a-vis government, is that the deregulations will fail, the "market test" will be declared a failure, and you will further muddy the name of an already pitiful philosophy - libertarianism.
I agree somewhat with that statement; statist scum will use the always use the "failure of the (non-)market" to justify more taxes and more regulations. It's why we need to educate people! It's why we need to try to get in office ourselves (and not under the banner of useless, unwinnable parties)!
You could argue that being a politician is the same as being a slave-master or mafia-boss. I would agree... until I think about the alternative. Imagine if one of us were in office; working to cut regulations, cut taxes, cut the spending, versus a statist doing the opposite. Wouldn't you rather a capitalist instead? Just because you don't think we should have politicians (I agree with you) doesn't mean they won't exist if you cover your eyes and ears and abstain from voting or running for office. Is it fair we live in a system where we have to try to get the masses to agree to allow us to keep our own money? No, that alone justifies any violent revolution. But if you do cover your eyes and your ears every election-cycle, you'll wake up the next day disappointed with more taxes, more regulations, more spending, etc.
Again, you could try to alienate me and everyone else that doesn't believe in your exact path to the same goal. Good luck recruiting members of your revolution with that attitude!
Do I advocate a state that can't initiate the use of force? Yes.
As we have touched on in some earlier posts on this thread, it would henceforth cease to be a "state", properly understood.
What do you find objectionable in that belief?
The continued usage of the term "state" as a descriptor of what really is an anarchic organization.
And yes, I advocate using the state in order to shrink it; so do you!
No, agorists do not. Agorists advocate functioning as far outside of the control of the state as possible.
To go to your agorist meetings, you will probably drive on state-roads, using a car that is created using state-regulations, etc. It's simply the system we live in, and we have to work in it! Are you going to bash the people in North Korea who eat at the government bread-lines, too?
I find this line of argument disingenous because it blames the victim and avoids the fact that we have no choice not to use those things. On the other hand, unless you live somewhere like Australia, voting is not compulsory so you do not have to vote in the same way that you have no choice but to drive on public roads. A distinction should be made between that which is truly unavoidable and that which isn't. Voting is avoidable. You do not have to vote in order to survive and get by in this world. You do probably have to obtain food and use transportation. Libertarians are not hypocritical for functioning in current society. However, I think that anarchists are hypocritical if they vote because that is not necessary to function in current society and it is very counter-intuitive to or inconsistant with the principles.
But if you do cover your eyes and your ears every election-cycle, you'll wake up the next day disappointed with more taxes, more regulations, more spending, etc.
The same tends to occur if you vote, no matter who you vote for. The state continues to grow and hold power. So why are you advocating voting as if it really makes a differance? You still seem to be partially clinging to the illusion that the democratic process truly is representative or participatory and can truly significantly change the status quo. The truth of the matter is that for the most part the institution ultimately does what it does regaurdless of your vote, which makes voting little more than a futile charade.
Brainpolice: Do I advocate a state that can't initiate the use of force? Yes. As we have touched on in some earlier posts on this thread, it would henceforth cease to be a "state", properly understood.
What do you find objectionable in that belief? The continued usage of the term "state" as a descriptor of what really is an anarchic organization.
Same as above, I'll use that word when someone accuses me of being a statist or miniarchist to make my point.
And yes, I advocate using the state in order to shrink it; so do you! No, agorists do not. Agorists advocate functioning as far outside of the control of the state as possible. To go to your agorist meetings, you will probably drive on state-roads, using a car that is created using state-regulations, etc. It's simply the system we live in, and we have to work in it! Are you going to bash the people in North Korea who eat at the government bread-lines, too? I find this line of argument disingenous because it blames the victim and avoids the fact that we have no choice not to use those things. On the other hand, unless you live somewhere like Australia, voting is not compulsory so you do not have to vote in the same way that you have no choice but to drive on public roads. A distinction should be made between that which is truly unavoidable and that which isn't. Voting is avoidable. You do not have to vote in order to survive and get by in this world. You do probably have to obtain food and use transportation. Libertarians are not hypocritical for functioning in current society. However, I think that anarchists are hypocritical if they vote because that is not necessary to function in current society and it is very counter-intuitive to or inconsistant with the principles.
I don't understand how it's counter-intuitive? If you have the chance to shrink (or slow the growth of) government by voting, why not? I'm not saying to abstain from doing other things!
Try to look at this way: you are voting in self-defense. In a normal, free-market situation, voting for a candidate that advocates 20% flat taxes would be the same as you putting your support behind institutionalized robbery, I agree! On the other hand, if the current situation is one with steep progressive taxes, and the other candidate wants to steepen them, you'd be nuts not to vote (among other things you can do)!
But if you do cover your eyes and your ears every election-cycle, you'll wake up the next day disappointed with more taxes, more regulations, more spending, etc. The same tends to occur if you vote, no matter who you vote for. The state continues to grow and hold power. So why are you advocating voting as if it really makes a differance? You still seem to be partially clinging to the illusion that the democratic process truly is representative or participatory and can truly significantly change the status quo. The truth of the matter is that for the most part the institution ultimately does what it does regaurdless of your vote, which makes voting little more than a futile charade.
So far, nothing has worked. Not agorism, not voting, and, in modern times, not violent revolution.
Brainpolice wrote:
...no matter who you vote for. The state continues to grow and hold power. So why are you advocating voting as if it really makes a differance? You still seem to be partially clinging to the illusion that the democratic process truly is representative or participatory and can truly significantly change the status quo. The truth of the matter is that for the most part the institution ultimately does what it does regaurdless of your vote, which makes voting little more than a futile charade.
I don't agree that voting is necessarily useless. The "state" is comprised of individuals. Yes, most of them are "the worst" (to use Hayek's parlance), but IMO that is a FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP. The "heroes" of our society yield political matters to the "worst". Agorism is (as far as I can tell) an extreme version of this, advocating complete withdrawal from the political system. I've been thinking of the problem more incrementally, and currently believe that much of the government can be "defanged" by incremental political means, e.g. my aforementioned idea of getting an Austrian into the presidency in order to destroy the Fed, ending overtly harmful policies such as the War on Drugs or imperial foreign policy, etc.
I guess I agree with you, to a degree, but whereas you look at "the state" as a given (and apparantly an aggregate, I might add), I view it as something that we can change and have an impact on by our decision to 1) participate at all, and 2) to what degree. I can see agorists being apathetic about the current political process given the current political candidates, but seriously, can you fantasize about a situation where a big, handsome, articulate and charismatic leader enters the race, using his own funds and eschewing contributions, with a platform dedicated to manuevers that would absolutely increase freedom (again, think Ron Paul combined with Barack Obama and Ross Perot)? And on the tails of this platform, also with their own money and eschewing contributions, an army of 300 similar leaders running for Congress, the Senate, and the governorships of multiple states (ala a more ambitious Contract with America)? Would you agorists be so willing to sit on the sidelines watching others vote then?
Ego:if you do cover your eyes and your ears every election-cycle, you'll wake up the next day disappointed with more taxes, more regulations, more spending, etc.
I wouldn't find any of those things disappointing. The more the state taxes and regulates, the more incentive there is for people to engage in counter-economic activity. The profit potential of the counter-economy increases while the risks remain essentially the same or even decrease, meanwhile the state's enforcement costs rise while its revenue decreases. The state grows weaker while the market grows stronger, and the peaceful institutions which will take its place, in the provision of security and arbitration and everything else that has a legitimate place in a free market but which the state has monopolized, will be buit before the collapse of the state and will ensure its collapse through competition with it. Even if the political approach were not morally objectionable, and had not been a complete failure these past few centuries, it still wouldn't provide any way of peacefully transitioning to a voluntary society as none of the necessary institutions would be in place. The political approach not only doesn't work, it's completely irresponsible; to abolish the state without having already established some means of arbitrating disputes and protecting persons and property in its absence is a recipe for chaos.
Corporations are an extension of the state.
Rich333: Ego:if you do cover your eyes and your ears every election-cycle, you'll wake up the next day disappointed with more taxes, more regulations, more spending, etc. I wouldn't find any of those things disappointing. The more the state taxes and regulates, the more incentive there is for people to engage in counter-economic activity.
I wouldn't find any of those things disappointing. The more the state taxes and regulates, the more incentive there is for people to engage in counter-economic activity.
I've been politely waiting for someone to say this! That's awful! You want to raise the taxes, the regulations, the control exercised over other individuals in the hopes that it will convince them to join your revolution!? You are no better than they are! Is this an ego thing for you? I know this sounds incredibly rude, and I was hoping a certain other someone would express that sentiment, but I think the point stands.
Aside from the self-righteousness of that attitude, it doesn't work. It's incredibly dangerous to grow government in order to shrink it; there are governments much more controlling that the United State's and they are still in power? How much worse would you make it for everyone?
maxpot46:I've been thinking of the problem more incrementally, and currently believe that much of the government can be "defanged" by incremental political means, e.g. my aforementioned idea of getting an Austrian into the presidency in order to destroy the Fed, ending overtly harmful policies such as the War on Drugs or imperial foreign policy, etc.
Making slavery more tolerable is not a way to abolish slavery, it can only make it that much more difficult for those few slaves who resist regardless to find support amongst the rest.
maxpot46:I guess I agree with you, to a degree, but whereas you look at "the state" as a given (and apparantly an aggregate, I might add), I view it as something that we can change and have an impact on by our decision to 1) participate at all, and 2) to what degree.
Using political means to bring about an end to the use of political means is not only hypocritical, it's also just plain absurd.
maxpot46:I can see agorists being apathetic about the current political process given the current political candidates,
I'm not apathetic, I hope Hillary gets in. I'm not voting because to do so would be unethical, but I have been following the situation and I think Hillary is the most likely to lead to a continued erosion of confidence in the state. Obama's got a cult following; he could start throwing people into gas chambers and millions of people would probably still think he was the second coming. McCain's not likely to be a popular president, but he's a Republican and that's all the "if only we get the right people in office" types amongst the Democrats will see. Hillary's just like Bush, but with a D next to her name, and she's already hated by a great many people.
maxpot46:but seriously, can you fantasize about a situation where a big, handsome, articulate and charismatic leader enters the race, using his own funds and eschewing contributions, with a platform dedicated to manuevers that would absolutely increase freedom (again, think Ron Paul combined with Barack Obama and Ross Perot)? And on the tails of this platform, also with their own money and eschewing contributions, an army of 300 similar leaders running for Congress, the Senate, and the governorships of multiple states (ala a more ambitious Contract with America)?
Sounds like a nightmare. If such a thing did happen, it would lead to a state with nearly unlimited resources that would probably become a worldstate before too long, and would leave us with statism for at least a few more centuries, so our descendants would be facing an even worse situation than we are right now.
maxpot46:Would you agorists be so willing to sit on the sidelines watching others vote then?
Actually, I'd probably be too busy thinking up ways to kill all your candidates.
Rich333, you would advocate killing candidates who are working to shrink government? Just what are you doing to srhink government, aside from making threats to other capitalists?
Ego:I've been politely waiting for someone to say this! That's awful!
If you don't like reality, there are plenty of bridges off which you can certainly jump.
Ego:You want to raise the taxes, the regulations, the control exercised over other individuals in the hopes that it will convince them to join your revolution!?
Please quote precisely where I said I wanted to do any of that.
Ego:You are no better than they are!
I'm not the one advocating the use of political means here.
Ego:Is this an ego thing for you?
Is what an ego thing for me?
Ego:I know this sounds incredibly rude, and I was hoping a certain other someone would express that sentiment, but I think the point stands.
What point? That you can employ strawmen?
Ego:Aside from the self-righteousness of that attitude, it doesn't work.
I have every right and reason to be self-righteous; I'm not the one acting hypocritically here. I'd also like to see even the slightest shred of evidence that it doesn't work any better than your approach. It bears repeating that your approach has in fact failed miserably for centuries. Mine, however, seems to be working fantastically in Zimbabwe right now; the only thing missing from it there is a consciously libertarian component to their counter-economy.
Ego:It's incredibly dangerous to grow government in order to shrink it
Governments grow all on their own, they don't need my help, nor will they receive it. Unfortunately you seem to be quite eager to lend them a hand in expanding their power and influence; that is what happens when governments are made small initially, or made to shrink temporarily (because it's never permanent, and never to the point of complete dissolution of the state). Less intrusive governments provide an environment wherein more domestic wealth is produced. More domestic wealth to plunder means more funding for invasion of foreign lands, providing the state with even more sources of revenue and fewer competing states to worry about. As wealth and power become consolidated in the hands of ever fewer states, the need for expansion to reduce external competition diminishes along with the potential for profit from such military adventures. The political class shifts its focus to the elimination of domestic competitors. The size of the domestic political class shrinks as they fight over the limited pool of plunderable resources, and so the state grows ever larger to make that consolidation of wealth and power a reality. Why do you think the British built an empire? If you want an answer, look to the Magna Carta, to common law, to all those elements of British tradition which kept their state smaller and less intrusive than neighboring states. The same is true of the United States; the experiment to create the world's smallest government has resulted in the largest government in human history.
Ego:there are governments much more controlling that the United State's and they are still in power?
I can't even begin to comprehend how you could think that's a valid argument against my position. Maybe if I said states magically and instantaneously collapse if they get really big, you'd have a point. I'm pretty sure I didn't say that though.
Ego:How much worse would you make it for everyone?
lol
You expressed safisfaction at the thought of taxes being raised, spending being increased, etc. because it would cause people to have more reason to join your revolution. That's nuts.
Every step we take should be slow the growth of government and ultimately start shrinking it! You seem to think that by voting for less statist candidates (or even non-statist candidates who want to shrink government), you are contributing towards its growth.
Now sure, you can sit here at an internet forum, call for assasinations of politicians working to shrink government, tell people who don't believe in your revolution to kill themselves, etc., but all you'll end up doing is turning everyone against you. Instead of thinking up ways to kill capitalist politicians, how about taking a few minutes to vote for them? If you don't want anything to do with the state, at the very least get off the Internet!
Enough with the straw men and non-sequiters. You're started to tread into "love it or leave it" territory.
I make a point of using neither, Rich333 really did say those things! And I'll repeat, if you think that voting for capitalist candidates is immoral, using the Internet is immoral, too.
Ego:Rich333, you would advocate killing candidates
Yep. Those who use the political means are the political class; they are enemies of the productive class, they exist only by the exploitation of the productive. I have no problem advocating defensive violence when peaceful measures prove inadequate.
Ego:who are working to shrink government?
Yes. Those trying to reform slavery so it's more tolerable are NOT the allies of those seeking to abolish it. The reformer is in fact the worst enemy of the abolitionist, as reform is the last line of defense for those seeking to preserve the institution but, rather than openly displaying hostile intent, the reformer pretends to be the ally of the abolitionist. At least those who openly call for slavery's preservation are honest about their intentions, or at least smart enough to understand what it is they're actually doing.
Ego:Just what are you doing to srhink government
Absolutely nothing. I have no intention of shrinking the government. "Reform" does not appeal to me in the slightest. I seek only abolition.
Ego:aside from making threats
Ego:to other capitalists?
You use the term "capitalist" in the statist sense, as clearly your intent is mere reform, not abolition. I'm an anarchist, not a "capitalist".
Ego: I make a point of using neither, Rich333 really did say those things! And I'll repeat, if you think that voting for capitalist candidates is immoral, using the Internet is immoral, too.
I already touched on this faulty line of argumentation a few posts back. We have no choice but to use public roads and the like if we want to function. But these things are coercive in the first place. It is disingenous to blame the victim and tell them that they must aschew all social cooperation and their very existance in modern society. "Love it or leave it" merely begs the question of legitimacy. I deny legitimacy.
Brainpolice: Ego: I make a point of using neither, Rich333 really did say those things! And I'll repeat, if you think that voting for capitalist candidates is immoral, using the Internet is immoral, too. I already touched on this faulty line of argumentation a few posts back. We have no choice but to use public roads and the like if we want to function. But these things are coercive in the first place. It is disingenous to blame the victim and tell them that they must aschew all social cooperation and their very existance in modern society. "Love it or leave it" merely begs the question of legitimacy. I deny legitimacy.
Ego: Brainpolice: Ego: I make a point of using neither, Rich333 really did say those things! And I'll repeat, if you think that voting for capitalist candidates is immoral, using the Internet is immoral, too. I already touched on this faulty line of argumentation a few posts back. We have no choice but to use public roads and the like if we want to function. But these things are coercive in the first place. It is disingenous to blame the victim and tell them that they must aschew all social cooperation and their very existance in modern society. "Love it or leave it" merely begs the question of legitimacy. I deny legitimacy. You don't have to use the Internet!
"And you don't have to be in this country. If you don't like it, why don't you move to Cuba, commie!?!?!".
The internet is actually the closet thing to a free press and free market that we have right now. It also contains counter-economic elements such as "illegal" filesharing. In making use of the internet or driving on public roads that I have no choice but to pay for and drive on, it hardly is the case that I'm supporting political power. On the other hand, in running for office or directly patronizing the state, I inherently would be supporting political power and trying to grab it for myself. The former scenario is passive and indirect while the latter is active and direct. In the former scenario I'm a victim. In the later scenario I'm trying to get a piece of the pie of plunder and I would constitute an active participant in the process of plunder.
Rich333: Ego:Rich333, you would advocate killing candidates Yep. Those who use the political means are the political class; they are enemies of the productive class, they exist only by the exploitation of the productive. I have no problem advocating defensive violence when peaceful measures prove inadequate. Ego:who are working to shrink government? Yes. Those trying to reform slavery so it's more tolerable are NOT the allies of those seeking to abolish it. The reformer is in fact the worst enemy of the abolitionist, as reform is the last line of defense for those seeking to preserve the institution but, rather than openly displaying hostile intent, the reformer pretends to be the ally of the abolitionist. At least those who openly call for slavery's preservation are honest about their intentions, or at least smart enough to understand what it is they're actually doing. Ego:Just what are you doing to srhink government Absolutely nothing. I have no intention of shrinking the government. "Reform" does not appeal to me in the slightest. I seek only abolition. Ego:aside from making threats lol Ego:to other capitalists? You use the term "capitalist" in the statist sense, as clearly your intent is mere reform, not abolition. I'm an anarchist, not a "capitalist".
How on earth are you going to abolish government without at some point shrinking it first? This isn't a videogame. We aren't going to win a revolution... and even if we would, that would be decades away. There's nothing wrong with shrinking government.
And let's look at your first point: you say that it's self-defense to kill politicians working to decrease the control the scum in government exercise over you? What the hell? Nothing you are doing will shrink or abolish government, so why don't you apply the same rules to yourself?
You also assume that because I want to cut taxes, I must want taxes. Brainpolice, are you looking? That is a strawman.
Brainpolice: Ego: Brainpolice: Ego: I make a point of using neither, Rich333 really did say those things! And I'll repeat, if you think that voting for capitalist candidates is immoral, using the Internet is immoral, too. I already touched on this faulty line of argumentation a few posts back. We have no choice but to use public roads and the like if we want to function. But these things are coercive in the first place. It is disingenous to blame the victim and tell them that they must aschew all social cooperation and their very existance in modern society. "Love it or leave it" merely begs the question of legitimacy. I deny legitimacy. You don't have to use the Internet! "And you don't have to be in this country. If you don't like it, why don't you move to Cuba, commie!?!?!". The internet is actually the closet thing to a free press and free market that we have right now. It also contains counter-economic elements such as "illegal" filesharing.
The internet is actually the closet thing to a free press and free market that we have right now. It also contains counter-economic elements such as "illegal" filesharing.
You're the one using strawmen!
You have repeatedly expressed that we should dealing with or using the state unless it's necessary for survival, and that's why it's immoral to vote for candidates who want to shrink government. You don't need to use the Internet for survival. If you admit that using the Internet is ok, than using elections to try to shrink government can't be immoral, either! You can't pick and choose.
Ego: Brainpolice: Ego: Brainpolice: Ego: I make a point of using neither, Rich333 really did say those things! And I'll repeat, if you think that voting for capitalist candidates is immoral, using the Internet is immoral, too. I already touched on this faulty line of argumentation a few posts back. We have no choice but to use public roads and the like if we want to function. But these things are coercive in the first place. It is disingenous to blame the victim and tell them that they must aschew all social cooperation and their very existance in modern society. "Love it or leave it" merely begs the question of legitimacy. I deny legitimacy. You don't have to use the Internet! "And you don't have to be in this country. If you don't like it, why don't you move to Cuba, commie!?!?!". The internet is actually the closet thing to a free press and free market that we have right now. It also contains counter-economic elements such as "illegal" filesharing. You're the one using strawmen! You have repeatedly expressed that we should dealing with or using the state unless it's necessary for survival, and that's why it's immoral to vote for candidates who want to shrink government. You don't need to use the Internet for survival. If you admit that using the Internet is ok, than using elections to try to shrink government can't be immoral, either!
You have repeatedly expressed that we should dealing with or using the state unless it's necessary for survival, and that's why it's immoral to vote for candidates who want to shrink government. You don't need to use the Internet for survival. If you admit that using the Internet is ok, than using elections to try to shrink government can't be immoral, either!
Firstly, voting is not necessary for survival and to be functional in society. Transportation and food and communication is. In using the internet or driving to work, I am not directly patronizing the state in any sense. Such actions are passive with respect to the state. In voting or running for office or lobbying the government, however, I would be much more directly interacting with the state. I could not be said to be a mere passive subject in such a scenario.
Secondly, I never argued that voting is immoral for the reasons you state. In my view, the immorality is ultimately constituted by membership of and direct patronage with the institution itself. What I consider to be immoral is to be an institutional agent of the state. Most of my argument against voting is practical, not moral. Using the internet is an example far removed from what's really at question here. What's at question is direct involvement in the state and the practicality of voting.
You brought up usage of the internet and I consider it to be a highly evasive point from the question at hand. We're talking about running for office and voting, not the passive everyday activities of the common citezen. It does not logically follow from my statements that the libertarian should go live as a hermit in the woods in order to be consistant. It merely posits that they should avoid active participation in the political process itself and engage in civil disobedience instead.
The Internet isn't necessary for survival, either, and you know it!
You aren't patronizing the state by voting any more than you are by using the Internet. Seriously, what does that mean? By not voting, you simply allow the statists to gain more power.
While at first glance, it might seem like you are patronizing the state by running for office (again, I'm not sure what that means in this context), if you consider that a statist will be holding the office if you don't win, there's nothing wrong with running. The only case in which it would be immoral to run would be if the office didn't exist.
You aren't violating any rights by voting -- in self defense -- for candidates who work to shrink the state.
Ego:You expressed safisfaction
No, I expressed a lack of disappointment.
Ego:at the thought of taxes being raised, spending being increased, etc. because it would cause people to have more reason to join your revolution. That's nuts.
How is it nuts? Their condition, and mine, as slaves is not in any way changed by an increase or decrease in the total amount of our own produce we are permitted to keep by our masters. What does change, however, are the reactions to the enslavement. It doesn't matter if the tax collectors are threatening my life for a penny or for a pound of gold, my life is still being threatened.
Ego:Every step we take should be slow the growth of government and ultimately start shrinking it!
No, every step we take should be to abolish the government and establish new, voluntary, institutions in its place.
Ego:You seem to think that by voting for less statist candidates (or even non-statist candidates who want to shrink government), you are contributing towards its growth!
You are contributing to its growth in the long-term, but that's not the real issue; the real issue is that you're contributing to its long-term viability. By seeking to make it more tolerable, you're working to ensure that it persists. I do not want a more tolerable state, I want no state. There's also no such thing as "less statist"; there's only statist and non-statist, and the latter does not include anyone who is a candidate for political office, no matter their rhetoric.
Ego:Now sure, you can sit here at an internet forum
I could spend all my time doing nothing but playing World of Warcraft and I'd still be doing more to end the state than you with your political approach, because at least I wouldn't be working to improve its chances of survival.
Ego:call for assasinations of politicians
Ego:working to make slavery more tolerable
fixed
Ego:tell people who don't believe in your revolution to kill themselves
Ego:but all you'll end up doing is turning everyone against you
Only those who insist on using the political means to achieve their own preferred ends.
Ego:Instead of thinking up ways to kill capitalist politicians, how about taking a few minutes to vote for them?
Capitalist, socialist, it doesn't matter what they call themselves, the political class must be destroyed. If that can be acheived by non-violent means, great. If not, if the tree of liberty requires fresh manure, so be it.
Ego:If you don't want anything to do with the state, at the very least get off the Internet!
What's next? A suggestion that I shouldn't use roads? I suppose if I lived under the rule of a socialist state which managed all food production and distribution, you'd advise me to starve too. Your statism's showing.
It is disingenous to imply that by using the internet one is supporting political power. Your initial argument is nonsensical.
You aren't patronizing the state by voting any more than you are by using the Internet.
Yes you are. I am not directly interacting with the state by typing on this message board. In voting, I am more directly interacting with the state and making demands of its agents. In voting, you are clearly implying that you want the state to do something for you. Even if what you ask is more leniency, you are still essentially begging your masters.
By not voting, you simply allow the statists to gain more power.
By voting, you merely participate in a sham process and the statists gain more power anyways. What don't you understand about this? The institutional problem itself is not address by a game of musical chairs.
While at first glance, it might seem like you are patronizing the state by running for office (again, I'm not sure what that means in this context), if you consider that a statist will be holding the office if you don't win, there's nothing wrong with running.
In running for office or holding office, by definition, one would be a statist. An institutional agent of the state. In running for office, one is trying to gain a position of political power. By merely holding such a position, political means are required. All politicians are statists by definition, in the most direct and obvious sense of the term considering that they are literally a part of the state apparatus itself.
maxpot46: Very dramatic rhetoric, but I'm still waiting to hear how agorists expect to economically out-compete a state armed with a "magic checkbook".
Very dramatic rhetoric, but I'm still waiting to hear how agorists expect to economically out-compete a state armed with a "magic checkbook".
But that is our advantage. The state's inflationary policy is exactly what makes the countereconomy worth having, and it's why the countereconomy will win eventually, whether it is connected with a philosophical movement or not.
That It takes more than intentions to prevail, and even more than strategy... it also takes tactics.
Yep. The general strategy is interwoven with the theory - the state will inflate its money, and the currency that the countereconomy uses will be stronger. The idea is in general - to form alternative markets carefully and quietly until the state currency crisis happens - which it will someday soon, whether there's an organized countereconomy or not. Among these markets will be non-state-affiliated defense and adjudication firms, whose activities will be limited until the time comes for them to quickly rise up and be tested against the state.
The details of the tactics are in not attracting too much attention until the private firms are clearly the better side to bet on, which will happen as a result of the countereconomic markets being more reliable than the state-controlled markets. It doesn't matter if the government can pay a National Guardsman in billion-dollar bills if he can't buy a loaf of bread for his family with those bills. The broad support for the countereconomists will not come because of sympathy with principle. No revolution ever has that. It will come because the countereconomy, and the defense firms assocated with it, will fill people's stomachs and gas tanks, and the state will be unable to do so. We don't plan to seize and abolish the political apparatus. We plan to starve it out of existence, without getting our hands dirty through handling it.
Therefore it is to our advantage for the state to have bad money - and that explains why many agorists dislike Ron Paul. We don't want the government to be a strong competitor with the agora.
Naturally, the tactical details deserve more discussion. But it's not as if the movement has no tactics.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Ego:How on earth are you going to abolish government without at some point shrinking it first? This isn't a videogame. We aren't going to win a revolution... and even if we would, that would be decades away. There's nothing wrong with shrinking government.
It's not that difficult to figure out. You stop giving the government money via taxes and it will stop growing. Start buying products that are sold independently without being taxed. Stop paying your income tax. If you do side jobs accept only cash or goods. Need to fix your car? Find a mechanic that will work for cash instead of going to jiffy lube. Need a plumber? Find someone that works off the books. Need a couch? Go to an auction or find one through craigslist. Want some food? Go to a farmers market instead of Jewel. The more people do this the less the government gets. The less the government gets the less it grows. The less it grows the faster people turn to private institutions instead of state backed ones. Damn half this stuff people do already… they just need to consistently do it instead of it being once and a while.
Rich333, this is my last response. You've already stated in another thread that you troll instead of debating, and you're keeping your word.
My remarks stand on their own merit. I ask readers to read the entire thread to understand that I'm not mischaracterizing Rich333's remarks. I would like to respond to this, however:
A suggestion that I shouldn't use roads? I suppose if I lived under the rule of a socialist state which managed all food production and distribution, you'd advise me to starve too. Your statism's showing.
No, in fact, I've always said the exact opposite. You can't blame people for using the state. It's the system under which they live. You expressed a different belief, however. That's why I pointed out that you, by using the Internet, are being hypocritical.
Go ahead and continue to pretend you're at the helm of a great revolution. Go ahead and wish for a brutal state in hopes that people will be driven to join you.
You said you are opposed to a smaller, more tolerable state because people will be less likely to join you. You're a tyrant -- a tyrant who views people as expendable pawns in your game.
minorgrey: Ego:How on earth are you going to abolish government without at some point shrinking it first? This isn't a videogame. We aren't going to win a revolution... and even if we would, that would be decades away. There's nothing wrong with shrinking government. It's not that difficult to figure out. You stop giving the government money via taxes and it will stop growing. Start buying products that are sold independently without being taxed. Stop paying your income tax. If you do side jobs accept only cash or goods. Need to fix your car? Find a mechanic that will work for cash instead of going to jiffy lube. Need a plumber? Find someone that works off the books. Need a couch? Go to an auction or find one through craigslist. Want some food? Go to a farmers market instead of Jewel. The more people do this the less the government gets. The less the government gets the less it grows. The less it grows the faster people turn to private institutions instead of state backed ones. Damn half this stuff people do already… they just need to consistently do it instead of it being once and a while.
I respect this opinioin. As I said in an earlier response on a previous page, I fear that individuals in government will use tax-evasion and black markets as an excuse to increase their own powers (as they already do all over the world).
I'm not opposed to any of what you said; I just think we should use elections any chance we can.
Ego:How on earth are you going to abolish government without at some point shrinking it first?
By denying it revenue and increasing its enforcement costs. What exactly about this is so difficult to understand?
Ego:This isn't a videogame.
I was thinking of suggesting the same to you. "Just punch some holes in this card here, or flip these switches and pull the lever, or hit those buttons, and you'll be free!" It's comical.
Ego:We aren't going to win a revolution
Not with reformers like you ruining our chances, no.
Ego:... and even if we would, that would be decades away.
Statism has existed for thousands of years. If you want instant gratification, go watch TV or something.
Ego:There's nothing wrong with shrinking government.
Yeah there is. To make slavery more tolerable is to support slavery.
Ego:And let's look at your first point: you say that it's self-defense to kill politicians
Yep.
Ego:working to decrease the about control the scum in government exercise over you? What the hell?
No, the control is not decreased, only the degree to which I might be burdened by it. The control is still absolute and arbitary. Maybe if you were working to abolish taxation, rather than just lower it, you might have some semblance of a point, but you're not even advocating that.
Ego:Nothing you are doing will shrink or abolish government
Nothing I'll tell you about.
Ego:so why don't you apply the same rules to yourself?
I do, actually. I'm not stupid; I'm not going to post on an internet forum what I do, if anything, beyond education and activism. If you and your statist pals really want to know, you'll have to fund an investigation. Have fun watching those enforcement costs go up as the number of people like me grows ever larger.
Ego:You also assume that because I want to cut taxes, I must want taxes. Brainpolice, are you looking? That is a strawman.
Yes, by only cutting them you are reinforcing their existence. Whether this is intentional or not is irrelevant; the effect is the same.