Ego: MacFall, I don't understand the distinction you make between federal and local office.
MacFall, I don't understand the distinction you make between federal and local office.
First, a coalition of libertarian mayors, magistrates, city councilmen, etc. could use their position to make their areas of influence safer for markets to function by employing non-statist means. But once you get any higher than that, the nature of the office makes it impossible for its occupant NOT to be statist.
Second, local officials are not rulers. Higher officials are. And a libertarian ruler is a contradiction in terms.
But more than that is the fact that economic secession will work where geographical secession fails. A local politican can turn a blind eye to his or her local agora without having their conduct called into question. A governor - not so much.
Additionally, the Federal government directly controls state governments. State governments in many cases don't even directly control the local ones. Basically, there is a lot more room to work, a lot of small victories that can be easily won without wasting our influence, and a solid, local base will be pretty damn hard to stamp out.
Imagine if such a coalition were formed, where a couple hundred local governments gave asylum to tax resistors. Imagine if that constituted only 1% of the population. Do you think that the federal government could put three million people in jail when they are opposed by numerous, decentralized local governments? Not without acts of atrocity which will only resolve the people against them and hasten their defeat.
Meanwhile, a state that gives such asylum would simply have its centralized power easily taken down by the federal government and replaced by a more cooperative regime.
In addition, I don't agree with this statement: It is impossible to achieve an apolitical goal through political means. I really don't understand this. Having a Senate or House of Representatives is necessarily anti-capitalist; if they tax and regulate, it is.
In addition, I don't agree with this statement:
It is impossible to achieve an apolitical goal through political means.
I really don't understand this. Having a Senate or House of Representatives is necessarily anti-capitalist; if they tax and regulate, it is.
Political processes yield political results. Apolitical processes yeild apolitical results. You cannot start with one and achieve the other any more than you can plant potatoes and get apple trees.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
We didn't always have political systems. At some point, an apolitical system become a political one. A political one could become an apolitical one as well. It really doesn't follow that for some reason -- by definition -- elections can't lead to the downfall of the oppressive state.
That sounds like a good idea, but how can a local government become an asylum for tax resistors? How can they keep federal agents out? It would be easy for the federal government to justify using force against rebelling local governments using local police to attack federal agents. In fact, whenever local government do anything even a tad out of line, the federal government simply threatens to withhold federal funding (that money, of course, should still belong to the individuals in that area).
I think a grass-roots approach can only work if a top-down approach is taken at the same time. Look at what the Ron Paul campaign did! many, many people learned about capitalism for the first time, and he provided an example for other local politicians to emulate.
Ron Paul was much too radical to win (I wish he had adopted a more moderate platform while continuing with his radical rhetoric).
This sort of incrementalism has very well for the left, and it can work for us, too. Too many anarcho-capitalists are stuck on an all-or-nothing approach, though.
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.
As Rothbard often said, "incrementalism in principle is perpetuity in practice."
The reason incrementalism works for the left is that it is the nature of the state to increase. Since it is thier goal to increase the state, they can either push for revolution or reform, and get more of the state either way. But a moderate platform by a radical anti-statist will serve to dilute the movement and to undermine the rhetoric.
If Paul were to beome President, there would be two distinct results. The first is that he would help to spread the word about liberty. The second would serve to undo all that in the long run - he would restore the faith of the people in government.
I am all for the first, which is why I am voting for Paul in the PA primary. But the second will only postpone the inevitable. Statism will have to run its course before it ends, and a politician who makes people believe in the state will make that neccessary process much longer than it really needs to be. We cannot keep the state under control forever. It WILL devolve into tyranny at some point, and I'd rather have to deal with it myself than shrug the burden off to my descendents.
But here's why I'm not afraid of letting statism run its course. Agorism is no old trick. It comes from an understanding of economics, history and philosophy new to this age and completely foreign to our enemies. While it is true that raw tyranny will help to undermine the state, there's no reason to assume that we will see that immediately. All we mean to do is let the state's fiscal apparatus eat itself into oblivion - which it will eventually. Whether it happens sooner or later, it will still happen someday. I'd rather live to see it, and be there to help finish the beast off.
Neither of us are going to convince the other, and our positions are clearly laid out in the previous two posts.
I will make one last point, however:
I think it's dangerous (and, in some ways, cruel) to oppose a less oppressive government (in other words, prefer a more oppressive government) in hopes that it will cause people to join us.
Ego: I think it's dangerous (and, in some ways, cruel) to oppose a less oppressive government (in other words, prefer a more oppressive government) in hopes that it will cause people to join us.
And I think it's both dangerous and quite cruel to postpone the inevitable oppression to another generation. It will come someday, no matter how many Ron Pauls run for office and no matter how many votes they get.
Why should we put off facing it? That's not a rhetorical question, I really want to know why you think we should make it a long and painful proccess for our descendents when we can begin to put an end to it now? And I don't see why allowing the government to kill its own money will neccessarily require them to start acting like brutes. The whole point of agorism is to make working in the agora more profitable than working for the state. Once again, all the trillions of government dollars won't buy them an army worth anything, if the people selling the food and cars and clothes and eventually guns won't accept it. And even if that doesn't happen right away, how many people in the military are so blindly servile that they would turn their guns on people who aren't doing anything other than keeping their families healthy? I would suggest, not very many at all. I predict mass-defection long before any widespread violence even has a chance to happen.
Again, we're not advocating insurrection. We are simply encouraging people to barter, when you get down to it.
...why you think we should make it a long and painful proccess for our descendents when we can begin to put an end to it now?
I don't have any faith that a collapse of the state will mean that there won't be a state afterwards. All throughout history, states have collapsed and formed. Look at the USSR. And I don't have faith that agorism alone could even come close to bringing about a collapse before the state (with the eager backing of statists) responds.
I do have faith, however, that individuals educated about free markets will notice the the results after taxes, regulations, and spending have all been cut, and will continue to elect politicians who will do the same.
MacFall:And I think it's both dangerous and quite cruel to postpone the inevitable oppression to another generation. It will come someday, no matter how many Ron Pauls run for office and no matter how many votes they get.
States are almost inarguably the most successful type of organization in human history. Your assertion that more tyranny today will bring about less tyranny tomorrow is clearly very debatable. Why wasn't that true for Cuba, or North Korea? I guarantee you there are people in those cultures who hate their governments more than you hate yours.
Absent futures markets, political discussions of all stripes tend to be dominated by social incentives. The people involved have little reason to pursue the truth, even if they don't realize it. Most people involved in such things are more interested in their own social clubs and whatnot (which is fine by me, but such institutions are rarely incentive-compatible with their stated goals). If your serious about finding ways to reduce and eliminate state power, I'd at least start with serious tools (not armchair prophecy) but thats just my opinion.
liberty student:I just can't get down with the good being the enemy of the perfect stuff.
You're looking at things from the political perspective, not the economic. The political approach isn't "the good", it's far from it. Even if you could successfully "shrink the government", you wouldn't be making any qualitative changes to the situation, only quantitative. You wouldn't be in any way reducing what it claims sovereign authority over; the state's assumed authority would still encompass every sphere of human life, it would only be (at best, and only temporarily) limiting its exercise of that assumed authority, or (as is more likely) making its exercise of that assumed authority more tolerable. If it robs me of a tenth of my property it is no less a crime than if it were robbing me of nine tenths of it, and if it allows me to do X it still retains the assumed authority to deny me that privilege or to regulate it. Even if it goes so far as to limit taxation to a 1% sales or income tax, and allow all activity in which one might by their rightful liberty engage, without regulation, and the only requirement being that one obtain a license for certain things which in all cases is granted unconditionally upon request, it would still not be "the good", it would just be a more tolerable evil. At the same time, you'd be making the state more efficient and effective at enforcement, actually hurting the real good, the only element of the free market which persists in spite of the state's existence: the counter-economy. You'd be making it more likely, not less, that the exploitation of the productive class would persist.
liberty student:Agorism is interesting, but it doesn't sound like something you can sell to a young working couple with two children in a state school, whose parents are beneficiaries and dependent on state pensions and health care.
When they have trouble putting food on the table to feed those children using the state-controlled market and currency, the counter-economy will sell itself quite easily. It'll probably appeal to them long before that point, as other goods and services become more difficult for them to obtain legally.
Corporations are an extension of the state.
Grant:States are almost inarguably the most successful type of organization in human history. Your assertion that more tyranny today will bring about less tyranny tomorrow is clearly very debatable.
The most tyrannical states are also the most unstable. That's also a strawman, as it is not some Marxist-style inevitable final revolution we're talking about, it's something that requires some actual effort on our part. Quite a bit more effort than goes into the wishful thinking and fantasizing done by those using the political approach, though still far less effort than that same political approach would actually require to even come close to being successful.
Grant:Why wasn't that true for Cuba, or North Korea? I guarantee you there are people in those cultures who hate their governments more than you hate yours.
Well excuse us for not providing you with yet another doomed-to-fail "get liberty quick" scheme. This stuff doesn't happen overnight, the state has persisted for thousands of years, it could take us centuries still to end it. At least we're not peddling an approach that's already a complete demonstrable failure, but rather something which has actually shown signs of being a viable strategy.
Speaking of Cuba, I found this rather interesting. Counter-economics as a means to get around the state's controls is, unlike voting, as natural as breathing. It IS the free market. We can either make use of the very thing we claim to embrace, or we can continue trying to make more tolerable the very thing we claim we wish to abolish.
Ego:I do have faith, however, that individuals educated about free markets will notice the the results after taxes, regulations, and spending have all been cut, and will continue to elect politicians who will do the same.
In other words, you have faith in the political system. Here's an example of why that faith is misplaced. As for me, I'll take reason over faith any day.
Oh, by the way, for all those here who don't think the counter-economic approach works, here's an example of it (unlike voting) working right now in the real world: Black market saving Zimbabwean economy.
Rich333: In other words, you have faith in the political system. Here's an example of why that faith is misplaced. As for me, I'll take reason over faith any day.
The fact that many people are ignorant sheep is why our fantasy candidate must have the charisma of Barack Obama. Any strategy dependent upon people become informed independent thinkers is doomed to fail. Charisma is what separates the men from the boys, in politics, but charisma is a tool that can be used for good or ill.
Rich333: Oh, by the way, for all those here who don't think the counter-economic approach works, here's an example of it (unlike voting) working right now in the real world: Black market saving Zimbabwean economy.
That's not counter-economics, is it? Waiting for the statist system to fail and taking credit for the black market that must inevitably result?
"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke
Rich333:Well excuse us for not providing you with yet another doomed-to-fail "get liberty quick" scheme. This stuff doesn't happen overnight, the state has persisted for thousands of years, it could take us centuries still to end it. At least we're not peddling an approach that's already a complete demonstrable failure, but rather something which has actually shown signs of being a viable strategy.
I didn't mean to criticize the ideas of agorism, only the certainty that some people seem to express about it. Elements of it might work, sure, but they might not. I don't think anyone here is qualified to say one way or the other, let alone justified in supporting more coercion now in hopes of it leading to less later.
maxpot46:The fact that many people are ignorant sheep is why our fantasy candidate must have the charisma of Barack Obama. Any strategy dependent upon people become informed independent thinkers is doomed to fail. Charisma is what separates the men from the boys, in politics, but charisma is a tool that can be used for good or ill.
So basically you're betting on some messianic figure on a white horse to appear and, maybe, lead you to the promised land of liberty? And this makes more sense to you than directing your energy towards cutting the legs out from under the state using methods and tactics which have already proved effective at doing so? We each have limited time and energy; wasting any of it on pipe dream messiahs is foolish.
maxpot46:That's not counter-economics, is it? Waiting for the statist system to fail and taking credit for the black market that must inevitably result?
That is counter-economics, in an advanced stage, but lacking the necessary consciously libertarian component present in the agorist approach. All states inflate, regulate, prohibit, and tax, so there is always a counter-economy. The larger the counter-economy grows, the more fragile the state's hold on society becomes. There is a feedback loop at work with the counter-economy; as more of the wealth of society is made unavailable to the state, as it is denied revenue and forced to expend ever greater resources on enforcement, the state must inflate more, regulate more, prohibit more, and tax more to maintain its wealth and power. As this occurs, the counter-economy grows and even more of the wealth of society is made unavailable to the state. The more the state tries to hold onto its position, the more quickly it is brought to collapse as people are driven out of state-controlled markets and into the counter-economy. Zimbabwe is an advanced example of this phenomenon.
Agorists seek to bring about an acceleration of this process, and to ensure that it is libertarian, so that the resulting collapse results in a libertarian society; the first phase, in which we currently find ourselves, requires promotion of the anti-political counter-economic approach to existing libertarians as well as the promotion of libertarianism to existing counter-economic entrepreneurs (those who are already involved in black and grey markets). In this phase we must expand both the counter-economy and libertarianism, one individual at a time (the only way conversion actually works).
The next phase begins when the libertarian counter-economy has grown to the point that all of society has been "tainted" by it to some extent, and we have grown strong enough and numerous enough to establish whole counter-economic communities, whether underground or aboveground, wherein the counter-economy has outgrown the state-controlled market, and where we have garnered sufficient sympathy with "the masses" that any violent response by the state towards our "alternative lifestyle" would not have popular support. It's not going to be easy. The state may indeed conduct mass arrests in attempts to suppress our movement, but this has been the case with every successful civil disobedience movement of the past and there is no reason to expect that we'll get a free pass. We must remember however that the state's enforcers are people too, with families and friends, and by the time any crackdowns occur in the next phase our movement we'll have grown to the point that it's doubtful if any would not have friends or family who are a part of it to at least some limited extent. While we will offer no compliance with the dictates of the state, our movement must remain non-violent in means to achieve non-violent ends, and this peaceful disobedience to the state will win us sympathy with those not themselves a part of our movement. As we show people a better way to live, a more peaceful and economically-prosperous way, in contrast to the violent oppression of the state, more will join us. To borrow a phrase from the communists, our way is "propaganda of the deed".
In the phase which follows, the third phase, the agora will grow from dispersed agoric communities to the point that it, and not the state-controlled market, encompasses the majority of economic activity within our society. It will end with the last violent response of the state, the last desperate attempt of the political class to hold onto their power, before becoming so marginalized and unappealing that there's nothing left of it but a few pockets of statism which are quickly evaporating. At this point, the transition from the third to the fourth phase, agoric security has reached a point of superiority to the state's forces, and suppresses this last desperate violent reaction; this is the point of revolution. With no state threatening the agora, agoric security and arbitration entrepreneurs compete with each other for customers, economic prosperity grows in the absence of the state's parasitism, and we (or at least our descendants) get to live in the world's first truly free society. All that would remain for us, or our descendants, then is to remain vigilant against renewed exploitation while living our lives in peace.
Grant:I didn't mean to criticize the ideas of agorism, only the certainty that some people seem to express about it. Elements of it might work, sure, but they might not.
There are no guarantees, for any approach.
Grant:I don't think anyone here is qualified to say one way or the other
We are most certainly qualified to point out the complete failure of the political approach in even coming close to anything resembling success, while pointing out the demonstrable successes of the counter-economic approach.
Grant:let alone justified in supporting more coercion now in hopes of it leading to less later.
We aren't supporting more coercion, nor are those peddling the political approach supporting less coercion. To say that there is "less coercion" requires a qualitative change, not merely a quantitative one as political libertarians support. A lower tax rate is not "less coercion", as the threat of death or imprisonment for refusal of payment is completely unchanged by the actual amount demanded by the state. We are quite justified in supporting the actual denial of our lives, wealth, and liberty to the state and opposing attempts to divert our limited time and energy towards making the demands on our lives, wealth, and liberty merely more tolerable.
Rich333: So basically you're betting on some messianic figure on a white horse to appear and, maybe, lead you to the promised land of liberty? And this makes more sense to you than directing your energy towards cutting the legs out from under the state using methods and tactics which have already proved effective at doing so? We each have limited time and energy; wasting any of it on pipe dream messiahs is foolish.
"Pipe dream messiah"? What I'm looking for is a leader. And no, I'm not waiting for one to show up (although that would be nice), I'm crafting myself into one. A tack I think other Austrians should also take, but perhaps it doesn't occur to them. "WE are the change we seek!" Ha ha... ok, Barack said that, but it still applies in this case, eh?
Rich333: The more the state tries to hold onto its position, the more quickly it is brought to collapse as people are driven out of state-controlled markets and into the counter-economy. Zimbabwe is an advanced example of this phenomenon.
The more the state tries to hold onto its position, the more quickly it is brought to collapse as people are driven out of state-controlled markets and into the counter-economy. Zimbabwe is an advanced example of this phenomenon.
I still don't see what activities that organized counter-economists performed that contributed to the collapse of the Mugabe regime. I thought counter-economics was about forcing the issue, as opposed to just waiting for the enemy to screw it up entirely. You might be waiting a long time on this side of the Atlantic, as our economists are a bit more sophisticated and our currency is a lot stronger (strategically, e.g. being the world's reserve currency).
maxpot46: "Pipe dream messiah"? What I'm looking for is a leader.
"Pipe dream messiah"? What I'm looking for is a leader.
A dangerous thing for a libertarian to look for. Leaders associated with politics are rulers, which are repugnant to libertarianism. We need intellectual leaders and entrepreneurs, not political power-shares.
Rich333: The more the state tries to hold onto its position, the more quickly it is brought to collapse as people are driven out of state-controlled markets and into the counter-economy. Zimbabwe is an advanced example of this phenomenon. I still don't see what activities that organized counter-economists performed that contributed to the collapse of the Mugabe regime.
I still don't see what activities that organized counter-economists performed that contributed to the collapse of the Mugabe regime.
If they existed, they probably don't want to be seen. If they did not exist, if the movement was without direction, it only shows how an organized counter-economy can potentially be vastly more effective than you seem to think.
I thought counter-economics was about forcing the issue, as opposed to just waiting for the enemy to screw it up entirely.
Every time you profit from a peaceful transaction that is prohibited by the state, you are "forcing the issue" a little bit. Agorism is about carefully growing that little bit into a counter-economic force.
You might be waiting a long time on this side of the Atlantic, as our economists are a bit more sophisticated and our currency is a lot stronger (strategically, e.g. being the world's reserve currency).
You haven't taken a good look at the dollar's vital stats recently, have you? I wouldn't be surprised to see hyperinflation in the next two decades even without a counter-economic movement "forcing the issue".
MacFall: You haven't taken a good look at the dollar's vital stats recently, have you? I wouldn't be surprised to see hyperinflation in the next two decades even without a counter-economic movement "forcing the issue".
Sure, I'm on it. The thing is, even if the dollar does collapse, it's going to be built right back up again by statist leaders. Why? Because there are no Austrian leaders poised to capitalize on the dollars collapse. The new statists will just blame the old statists and promise that their new and improved program will do better. And the people will have to choose between two versions of the same because there will be no Austrian in the race.
If you run, I'll vote for ya!
maxpot46: Sure, I'm on it. The thing is, even if the dollar does collapse, it's going to be built right back up again by statist leaders. Why? Because there are no Austrian leaders poised to capitalize on the dollars collapse. The new statists will just blame the old statists and promise that their new and improved program will do better. And the people will have to choose between two versions of the same because there will be no Austrian in the race.
You pose a false dichotomy here. There will in fact be a third choice - the Agora.
maxpot46: MacFall: You haven't taken a good look at the dollar's vital stats recently, have you? I wouldn't be surprised to see hyperinflation in the next two decades even without a counter-economic movement "forcing the issue". Sure, I'm on it. The thing is, even if the dollar does collapse, it's going to be built right back up again by statist leaders. Why? Because there are no Austrian leaders poised to capitalize on the dollars collapse. The new statists will just blame the old statists and promise that their new and improved program will do better. And the people will have to choose between two versions of the same because there will be no Austrian in the race.
What does Austrian have to do with anything now...?
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
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". It takes more than intentions to prevail, and even more than strategy... it also takes tactics.
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.
Great... Another junior wanna be economist that thinks he knows it all because he read "What Has Government Done to Our Money?"
First, the "magic checkbook" is not particularly armed through the government. Sure, the government will spend wildly, but can they spend forever? Wouldn't the purpose be to enduce the "magic checkbook" into overdrive.Second, the strategy comment was just too ironic. Thanks for the laugh!
Ego: Do I advocate a state that can't initiate the use of force? Yes. What do you find objectionable in that belief?
Do I advocate a state that can't initiate the use of force? Yes. What do you find objectionable in that belief?
It involves a state.
Ego: 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?
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?
You're conflating actively participating in systematic governance with living under a government's heavy hand. Blame the victim.There's a difference between actively promoting your brand of statism in a parliament and being forced to use state resources in some form while organizing direct action.
Ego: 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)!
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)!
Yes, if only WE could wear the ring! Muwahaha!
Educate people? Vote? Get in office? You brand it as if you live in a democracy. HAH!
Ego: 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.
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.
I would just as soon load the bullet.
Ego: 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.
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.
Except the point of Agorism is to not only ignore the election, but the taxes, regulations, spending, etc. or better actively fight against them through direct action.
Ego: 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!
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!
Coming from the Ron Paul supporter.
lol.
Ego: 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.
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.
Again, you are not "we" and "we" are not you. We want none of the same things that you want. We aim for none of the same targets that you aim for.
You wish to encourage politicians, inherently evil hegemonic creatures - yes, your precious Ron Paul is an evil entity, not quite a human being - to actively deceive people into spending small fortunes on their campaigns in hopes that their dollars will lead to a fulfilled Reagan.No politician anywhere is an anti-statist.
If Ron Paul were one, then he would reject the blood money he receives for his job in congress, among other things.
Ego: minorgrey: Ego: 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. A tyrant? He's not the one advocating voting and using the system. He's not even trying to use force. How exactly is he a tyrant? Or are you just trying to be dramatic? He is correct in stating that the worst things get the more distrust in government occurs. To deny this is lunacy. By creating more trust you are holding back the governments demise. If you're ok with a smaller government instead of no government that's fine, but please stop calling yourself an anarchist. He wants others' lives to be as miserable as possible in hopes they'll change their mind. He doesn't have faith in other individuals to become capitalist if their taxes are cut. That's why I made that statement.
minorgrey: Ego: 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. A tyrant? He's not the one advocating voting and using the system. He's not even trying to use force. How exactly is he a tyrant? Or are you just trying to be dramatic? He is correct in stating that the worst things get the more distrust in government occurs. To deny this is lunacy. By creating more trust you are holding back the governments demise. If you're ok with a smaller government instead of no government that's fine, but please stop calling yourself an anarchist.
Ego: 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.
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.
A tyrant? He's not the one advocating voting and using the system. He's not even trying to use force. How exactly is he a tyrant? Or are you just trying to be dramatic?
He is correct in stating that the worst things get the more distrust in government occurs. To deny this is lunacy.
By creating more trust you are holding back the governments demise. If you're ok with a smaller government instead of no government that's fine, but please stop calling yourself an anarchist.
I'm really getting quite annoyed with calling people "capitalists."Really? Everyone is a capitalist? Libertarianism advocates capitalism? The embodiment of such "free-market" enterprises as the East India Company and the Muscovy Company?Like your vulgar "libertarianism" the idea that capitalism is the libertarian creed is just as much a lie and a fraud.
MacFall: maxpot46: Sure, I'm on it. The thing is, even if the dollar does collapse, it's going to be built right back up again by statist leaders. Why? Because there are no Austrian leaders poised to capitalize on the dollars collapse. The new statists will just blame the old statists and promise that their new and improved program will do better. And the people will have to choose between two versions of the same because there will be no Austrian in the race. You pose a false dichotomy here. There will in fact be a third choice - the Agora.
Okay, let's watch Zimbabwe and see if they even seriously consider that one
maxpot46:Okay, let's watch Zimbabwe and see if they even seriously consider that one
Are the people of Zimbabwe even trying to move toward anarchy or are they just trying to survive while the government works itself out?
Niccolò: Second, the strategy comment was just too ironic. Thanks for the laugh!
Second, the strategy comment was just too ironic. Thanks for the laugh!
Okay, you got my attention. Thusly, I investigated your blog. And I see that you've posted a film clip where you lay out your position, which I took the time to view (my apologies if that isn't you, as I assume). I don't agree with your argument, on grounds which I will expound on in a moment. First, let me say that I admire your passion, which really came through at the end of your film clip. We live in a world of sheep, as I'm sure you're aware, so I always like to see a fellow with a bit of fire in the belly. Also, I should preface my comments by saying that I'm only addressing your strategic "counter objection".
Now, as I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), your counter objection is on two grounds, 1) that "reformists" have historically failed to halt the advance of the state, even on the rare occasions that they promised to do so (e.g. Reagan), and 2) that the government's home court advantage is too strong for libertarians to overcome.
On point one, let me point out that it wasn't long ago that the sun never set on the British Empire, but in the end she gave it all up. Also, Britain had a highly socialist government from 1945-1951 that was defeated through political means (http://www.unionhistory.info/timeline/1945_1960.php). India was a socialist country from 1947-1991, at which point they embraced republicanism and laissez faire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Republic_of_India). So it seems to me that defenders of freedom can win battles within the system.
Also on point one, let me point out that humans are teleological and not deterministic. Therefore, any conclusions drawn from a dataset (such as human history) are invalid. Put another way, history is full of firsts. For a fellow consumed with being a winner and castigating losers, I'm surprised this isn't self-evident. You don't seem the type to let anyone, even history, tell you something can't be done. I'm certainly not.
On point two, let me simply point out that this is loser-talk. There is nothing better than throwing down the gauntlet on an opponent's home floor and then beating the tar out of him. But you know that, I'm sure. So let me point out that Nixon took the dollar off of gold via executive order (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blumert/blumert35.html). A future president could re-establish that link via executive order. That's a pretty mighty blow for freedom, and all from one man. Now imagine if that president has the support of several hundred similar minded congressmen, senators and governors? Not only providing Austrian policies, but providing inspiring leadership? Do you think this impossible? I can't help but look at what Newt Gingrish accomplished in 1994 and think that it's not.
Finally, let me offer an additional objection to agorism. The world is full of women and sheep. They don't like to think too much and they trust their leaders, which is what got us into this mess. You will find it impossible to educate them, and you will find they care not for your agora because it's too much of a hassle and involves listening to boring people talking about boring things. There are way more of these people than libertarians, yet you expect the agora to grow in size to the point where it can realistically challenge the government? This seems to me FAR less feasible than making changes from within via powerful charismatic leaders that the sheep trust, but who happen to be Austrians and not statists.
The observation that people would find agora boring is skewed; obviously it would sound next to pointless if the economy seems to be doing fine. It will be doing far from fine in a year or so, and it will be a good opportunity for agorists to help ease economic pains of the mainstream by offering different ideas. Yes, obviously spouting highly dense agora theory would probably not get you willing ears (just like spouting typical rhetoric concerning free markets may not resonate with certain people due to the popular misconceptions involving the phrase free markets), but if you show it in action (bartering, for example; almost everyone knows what that looks like, and knows how valuable it can be), and boil down a simple intro to agora with simple & key concepts utilizing real world examples, I'd be willing to bet some individuals are going to listen to you. Especially if you offer to ease their troubles by taking some of their useless stuff in exchange for more useful things like food, alcohol, bullets, etc. if the economy were to get so bad in certain areas. I think others could further elaborate better than I, but I think your assertion that agora won't work because it is "boring" is simply false & naive.Statism has been around for a long time; historically, if any huge leaps of progress were made and agorism suddenly won in our lifetime, historically that would also be a first in terms how short that is compared to statism' reign. It would be nothing short of a miracle, and I doubt many agorists have such dellusions that 'victory' could be accomplished in a single election cycle. They're in it for the long haul, I'd imagine they would say.
The point I think some keep missing is that fighting for liberty inside the system of statism is tantamount to easing the pain, and in the long term, may or may not help drive the concept that the State is an older model that is proving to be less & less efficient as time goes on. There is a huge difference between doing what's easy, and doing what's right. I would attribute that fact that because our state is based upon positive rights, individuals (mostly in the mainstream) are inclined to constantly searching for what is the easiest thing to do, and what is convenient, which can be & is easily reinforced by our consumption based society. Based upon negative rights, statism absolutely does not make sense & violates an indivduals freeom, and I think if more people knew the implications between positive & negative rights, you could easily work with them & start building common ground with them. Another way of doing that would be a lot less elitist concerning that this nation is "full of sheep", as if it's their fault that they are all "sheep". I would've thought the whole RP 2008 mess online would've taught people some common sense in not insulting people you are trying to teach libertarian concepts to, with some incredulously yelling at a wall, asking why the "sheep" don't bother listening, while not getting the simply fact that individuals do not like being belittled & insulted. The view that people are not able to be educated is simply backwards and largely ignores the fact that many of us were previously stuck in the mainstream, and were part of the "sheeple that cannot be taught". Yet, somehow, individuals manage to rise above whatever the mainstream entails, and educate themselves. Frankly, I found that comment to be insulting, and borderline social-darwinian; as if certain people will never evolve beyond the level of sheep. "You don't seem the type to let anyone, even history, tell you something can't be done. I'm certainly not."Does that not apply towards the objection and/or assumption that agorism cannot be done? Seems to be a bit of a double-standard there... Also, when you say: "...defenders of freedom can win battles within the system." The 'liberty' you speak of is based upon positive rights, and it would still be a lesser of the evils (the least of all evils, if minarchism were somehow attained). Yet, it would still be evil, still be Statism, and historically, little would change, leaving the ancient problems of Statism largely untouched, and able to grow all over again. Reading up on agora, recently, the arguments are pretty solid, and I'd much rather be involved in something that tries to improve my situation, instead of swallowing sour medicine & hoping for the best. Whether or not Statism falls is not as important as *when* it will fall, as it just isn't a system that clearly works anymore with the immense problems involved with it (positive vs. negative rights, the welfare/nanny state, increasingly relying on wars to keep the economy going, geopolitical conflicts over resources, etc...). It would be foolish to think that humans evolve, but the way in which humans govern themselves doesn't. People may or may not realize that anytime soon, or they may even realize this, but under different terms and theory that haven't been written or considered yet. I may not know for certain, and neither do you, but what I'm most certain I know is what you speak of is not really a solution, it's buying wiggle room. Just my 2 cents; even if I'm a bit fuzzy in areas, I'm sure others, again, could suceed where I might've fell short.
"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
maxpot46: Now, as I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), your counter objection is on two grounds, 1) that "reformists" have historically failed to halt the advance of the state, even on the rare occasions that they promised to do so (e.g. Reagan), and 2) that the government's home court advantage is too strong for libertarians to overcome.
That is not entirely the argument. Indeed, that is a large piece of it, however, the bigger piece is that reformists have always failed historically in the ideology they represented, that is, no political movement has ever existed that did not begin first in direct action. As the pleas and anger build, however, the state finds a way to simply pass off the radicalism with a few appeasements to the flare here and there.
However, with the origin of the radicalism, the direct action, being such that only complete and total abolition of the government could be considered a success, of course the Torries in drag, the reformists, will fail. This is their job.
maxpot46: On point one, let me point out that it wasn't long ago that the sun never set on the British Empire, but in the end she gave it all up. Also, Britain had a highly socialist government from 1945-1951 that was defeated through political means (http://www.unionhistory.info/timeline/1945_1960.php). India was a socialist country from 1947-1991, at which point they embraced republicanism and laissez faire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Republic_of_India). So it seems to me that defenders of freedom can win battles within the system.
Britain still has a highly socialist government. You're confusing the situations as if one or the other was better. They aren't. One may be more efficient for the state, and so the state will do it. However, what benefits the state, and the "national economy," only puts a poison in the ale of the common man.
No, freedom cannot win within the political system. First, any reform requires direct action to scare the government into bending just a little bit. Second, that reform is meant to appease the revolutionaries, if considering ourselves revolutionaries, then the reformists are our enemies - they exist to counter-revolt. Third, no progress, no victory, no happiness can ever be won until leviathan is dead. To accept anything less is to play directly into the hands of the government, as the reformists would have us do.
maxpot46: Also on point one, let me point out that humans are teleological and not deterministic. Therefore, any conclusions drawn from a dataset (such as human history) are invalid. Put another way, history is full of firsts. For a fellow consumed with being a winner and castigating losers, I'm surprised this isn't self-evident. You don't seem the type to let anyone, even history, tell you something can't be done. I'm certainly not.
maxpot46: On point two, let me simply point out that this is loser-talk. There is nothing better than throwing down the gauntlet on an opponent's home floor and then beating the tar out of him. But you know that, I'm sure. So let me point out that Nixon took the dollar off of gold via executive order (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blumert/blumert35.html). A future president could re-establish that link via executive order. That's a pretty mighty blow for freedom, and all from one man. Now imagine if that president has the support of several hundred similar minded congressmen, senators and governors? Not only providing Austrian policies, but providing inspiring leadership? Do you think this impossible? I can't help but look at what Newt Gingrish accomplished in 1994 and think that it's not.
IT'S THEIR PURPOSE!
maxpot46: Finally, let me offer an additional objection to agorism. The world is full of women
Finally, let me offer an additional objection to agorism. The world is full of women
Wow...
I'm done with this.
Well, good luck with that. We have the same ends in mind. We'll let history show who's naive, eh?
Nitroadict: maxpot46:"You don't seem the type to let anyone, even history, tell you something can't be done. I'm certainly not."Does that not apply towards the objection and/or assumption that agorism cannot be done? Seems to be a bit of a double-standard there...
maxpot46:"You don't seem the type to let anyone, even history, tell you something can't be done. I'm certainly not."
I don't think agorism is impossible, but I do think it's highly unlikely, especially given that it seems like agorists think that grooming leaders is an unnecessary step. What I said is that I find it much less feasible than a single man organizing a successful run for president alongside a few hundred like-minded colleagues running for lesser office. Both seem kind of pie in the sky, but for me the latter is actually acheivable while agorism is not (for me, at least, I don't discount the possibility that some one superior to me might actually pull it off -- that is, I can imagine an agorist society, even if I can't imagine how they'll get there).
But hey, as I said, good luck with that.
Niccolò: maxpot46: Finally, let me offer an additional objection to agorism. The world is full of women Wow... I'm done with this.
Ha ha... too politically incorrect and don't want to go there, eh? Fair enough... it's a fact you'll have to deal with one day. Or perhaps you didn't notice that all your revolutionary friends and 99.9% of the people on libertarian forums are men? Ayn Rand is the exception that proves the rule. I love women as much as anyone, but IMO it's undeniable that their biology (e.g. menstruation, pregnancy) makes them learn to live with the fact that (at least at times) they must be cared for by a big strong man/tribe/state, and in my experience this translates strongly into their political views.
But hey, good luck with getting the ladies into your agora... wouldn't be much fun without them, eh?
Niccolo, you can pretend that Ron Paul is "sub-human" despite the fact that he has done more to further the cause of liberty in the past year than anyone else. You can pretend that any libertarian who wants to use the political process -- as one of many tools -- is a "counter-revolutionary", despite the key fact that they don't want to stop your agorism. You'll just alienate the few supporters libertarianism has. Please stop calling me a statist, though. We both know that I'm not statist, and it's unnecessary and dishonest to intentionally lie and claim that I want to have a state simply because I want to use the political process. In fact, you're no different that I am! Niccolo, why do you post poorly lit videos of yourself behind a pool table onto the Internet? The Internet was created using millions of tax dollars. The Internet is maintained by giant servers, sitting happily in tax-funded universities. Perhaps it's because you think the Internet is a valid tool to combat the state? Just like I think that voting is a valid tool to combat the state? It's not fair for you to blame the victims when they vote. It's not their fault they live in a statist system, and it's not their fault when they use every tool at their disposal to combat the government. Still, if you do choose to blame the victim, at least apply your irrational rules to yourself.
Am I correct in assuming that in the past, you chose to be a leftist? This last part is to any other "revolutionary" who is opposed to any anarcho-capitalist who want to take steps to shrink the government: isn't it silly to oppose weakening the organization that you're fighting? If you're worried that a less-oppressed citizenry is less likely to join your revolution, what does that say about your respect for other citizens (both their suffering and their intelligence)?
edit: 1000 typos
maxpot46:Finally, let me offer an additional objection to agorism. The world is full of women and sheep. They don't like to think too much and they trust their leaders, which is what got us into this mess.
Excuse me? Did you just blame this mess on women? As a woman I find this comment absolutely retarded and totally mind bending. We weren't even able to VOTE until the 1920's... yet we are part of the blame for the expansision of government? Exactly how many women are in power vs. men?
maxpot46:Ha ha... too politically incorrect and don't want to go there, eh?
Fair enough... it's a fact you'll have to deal with one day. Or perhaps you didn't notice that all your revolutionary friends and 99.9% of the people on libertarian forums are men? Ayn Rand is the exception that proves the rule. I love women as much as anyone, but IMO it's undeniable that their biology (e.g. menstruation, pregnancy) makes them learn to live with the fact that (at least at times) they must be cared for by a big strong man/tribe/state, and in my experience this translates strongly into their political views.
But hey, good luck with getting the ladies into your agora... wouldn't be much fun without them, eh? Wink
minorgrey: maxpot46:Finally, let me offer an additional objection to agorism. The world is full of women and sheep. They don't like to think too much and they trust their leaders, which is what got us into this mess. Excuse me? Did you just blame this mess on women? As a woman I find this comment absolutely retarded and totally mind bending. We weren't even able to VOTE until the 1920's... yet we are part of the blame for the expansision of government? Exactly how many women are in power vs. men?
How many women are in this forum besides you? How many women attend Mises University (I did in 2005 and there were only a handful of women there)? How many prominent female economists are there? How many women are strong and independent while 8 months pregnant? If one looks at a timeline of the growth of quasi-socialism in the U.S., does it flatline or shoot up since the 1920's (in congruance with a fact you note in your post above)? Is one unreasonable if he draws certain inferences from these facts? Is a strategy which discounts these facts likely to succeed?
maxpot46:How many women are in this forum besides you? How many women attend Mises University (I did in 2005 and there were only a handful of women there)? How many prominent female economists are there? How many women are strong and independent while 8 months pregnant? If one looks at a timeline of the growth of quasi-socialism in the U.S., does it flatline or shoot up since the 1920's (in congruance with a fact you note in your post above)? Is one unreasonable if he draws certain inferences from these facts? Is a strategy which discounts these facts likely to succeed?
Even if your assumptions were true, they'd all be entirely irrelevant for an anti-political approach. Woman tend to have more highly developed empathy, and to learn more by doing than by being taught in the abstract. Showing people, men and women alike, a free market actually working in the form of the libertarian counter-economy will serve as all the proof they need to understand that it works. You can get up on your soapbox and prattle on all day and night about abstract economic concepts, and it won't mean a damn thing to most people, regardless of gender. They frankly aren't going to give a *** about you, what you have to say, or your campaign. As for me, I'll continue to deal with people on an individual level, showing them by example that there's a better way to live, and using that to relate the abstract to the concrete so that anyone could understand it. And because I'm dealing with them as equals who are quite capable of thinking and learning, not as my inferiors, nothing but mindless and incorrigibly stupid sheep, they might actually listen, and give a damn about what I have to say.
It's also pretty funny that you fancy yourself becoming an electable "leader" with that kind of attitude towards half the voters. You should run on the lolcow ticket; at least then you might get the /b/tard vote, for lulz. Good luck with that.
Ego:This last part is to any other "revolutionary" who is opposed to any anarcho-capitalist who want to take steps to shrink the government: isn't it silly to oppose weakening the organization that you're fighting?
Weakening? You think the British Empire was weak? You think the American Empire is weak? Are you joking, or just blind?
Ego:If you're worried that a less-oppressed citizenry is less likely to join your revolution, what does that say about your respect for other citizens (both their suffering and their intelligence)?
Less oppressed? So if someone puts a gun to my head and demands a quarter of my money, it's less oppressive than if he demands half? Are you just missing the whole gun to my head aspect? There's nothing less oppressive about what you propose.
Niccolo, you can pretend that Ron Paul is "sub-human" despite the fact that he has done more to further the cause of liberty in the past year than anyone else.
I don't mean to burst your bubble here but Ron Paul has done virtually nothing for the cause of liberty. Yes, he's been a reoccuring no vote against a nearly unanimous consensus, but none of those no votes really amounted to anything at the end of the day. A sober analysis must diagnos him as a complete failure in light of his own stated goals. Most of his peers in government see him as a nutbag and there is endless institutional inertia against him. If anything, Ron Paul is a pristine example of the futility of trying to get the state to shrink from within. Yes, he's spread aspects of minarchist philosophy to certain segments of the population, but in the process he has restored people's faith in the democratic process and leads them to accept the principle of government itself. He has not engaged in any direct action whatsoever that furthers the cause of liberty. Your average tax resister or prohibition law breaker does more for the cause of liberty than Ron Paul is capable of as an institutional agent of the state.
Ron Paul exposed a legion of people to miniarchism (and managed to convert a few leftists, of all people!) while, at the same time, proving the futility of running a radical candidate. I'd say he accomplished a lot.