I am so sick of all the apologists for the state. I am tired of trying to placate them and playing nice guy. Not that I intend to do anything violent, mind you. But I intend to start calling them out on their cowardice. I don't give a crap if they are offended. No one's rights are being violated by not paying taxes. As such, there is no reason to punish peaceful people not paying taxes, unless you are a sicko psychopath. I am just fed up with their cowardice and apologies for harming innocent people. Screw em.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Welcome to the anarchist experience. You're constantly annoyed becasue everyone around you is a fricking idiot, wasting humanities potential. Don't worry about offending people, but don't think that screaming at them makes a difference. They just don't get it.
Remember they are all apologists when the State gives them "stuff for free" and forces other people to do as they bid. People will become rabid, and I am not joking, when you even talk about the necessity to drastically cut back the bribes they call "welfare" because otherwise we'll be forced to sell our children into a neverending slavery. "I pay my taxes, retirement benefits are my right!" they usually snarl. You have to remember most people are as scared to look at the truth as that nobleman Galileo presented one of his telescopes to. But at least the nobleman was honest and to the point "I won't look into it because otherwise my whole world will crumble down". People just don't give a damn: they don't even care about their own future or finances. All they care about is buying a new car, getting an iPhone and going on vacation and the sooner the better. Talk about time preferences... They desperately need to believe all the garbage the media feed ram down their throats because they have nowhere to run. They don't save. They know jack about investing. They have no other skills than what they use on their job. They even don't raise their children themselves anymore because... you guessed it, "I pay my taxes and hence the State should provide".
Look no further than the recent happenings in Egypt. Many people are scared by the Big Bad Islamic Boogeyman because the sycophantic media told them so but many more are downright annoyed because they'll have to cancel their vacation to Sharm-El-Sheik. Are you kidding? We should applaud and support those people on the streets standing up to tanks with nothing more than their bare hands, not feel annoyed because we cannot go on vacation on the cheap! At least they have some self respect, at least they knew when to say "enough!". But I guess they don't "need" a vacation on the cheap.
I think anger is a normal part of the process- since all the answers to so many problems that plague this world are found to be so simple, its almost insane that people don't "get it".
But you know what- getting angry about it is still pointless. My own personal advice I gave myself was that before I see any problems being fixed in the world- to fix the conflict and war in myself. If I'm getting upset because I can't control how someone feels about a certain topic- then thats my problem. The only people who listen and agree to angry people...are other angry people. No one's mind is being changed there. Those who disagree still disagree.
My own personal advice I gave myself was that before I see any problems being fixed in the world- to fix the conflict and war in myself. If I'm getting upset because I can't control how someone feels about a certain topic- then thats my problem.
And therein lies the maddening part.
Even if one manages to quell the anger inside them vis-a-vis things they cannot control, that individual is still subject to the forces that originally forged the anger to begin with. It's a never-ending cycle between being calm and "going about your business" and then realizing that you CAN'T go about your business because of the actions of others.
This feels like an adult parallel of a phenomenon I noticed as a child in grade school: the instigator almost always gets away. The teacher never sees the original aggression, only the retaliation. It's the retaliation that gets punished. Pissed me off to no end. But... that's my problem, right?
By the way, is it me, or have the forums become lame? I recall several fascinating threads when I first joined that were riveting. Now it's almost as if... I dunno, some sort of "reddit" effect has taken over.
Getting angry at someone else for not accepting your beliefs is not the right way to approach this.
Daniel Waite: By the way, is it me, or have the forums become lame? I recall several fascinating threads when I first joined that were riveting. Now it's almost as if... I dunno, some sort of "reddit" effect has taken over.
It comes and goes. You can't always have a riveting conversation.
Maybe you need new friends.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
It's over-moderated. No one really dares ask profound questions.
Ironic because I thought some of the threads lately have been some of the best we've ever had.
For Example
This
or
Besides, where has a user been moderated for simply asking a profound question? Or disagreeing? Moderation usually occurs when there is disagreement, but not because there is disagreement.
EDIT:
Can't believe I forgot this.
And therein lies the maddening part. Even if one manages to quell the anger inside them vis-a-vis things they cannot control, that individual is still subject to the forces that originally forged the anger to begin with. It's a never-ending cycle between being calm and "going about your business" and then realizing that you CAN'T go about your business because of the actions of others. This feels like an adult parallel of a phenomenon I noticed as a child in grade school: the instigator almost always gets away. The teacher never sees the original aggression, only the retaliation. It's the retaliation that gets punished. Pissed me off to no end. But... that's my problem, right?
Well that's the whole thing- there's going to be things that an individual cannot control no matter what happens in this world. Why get angry at the inevitable and inescapable? Mental stress and anger is the maddening part of it. Just accept how things come and go, some things where your action gives you the ends you seek, some things where it doesn't- don't get caught up in the stories in life(This person treated me this way, that person treated me that way, and endless mental conversation to oneself about it long after the fact). You can be calm and go about your business and still be calm when other people put obstacles in the way. You just take the action you need with a still mind without useless anger.
“I am so sick of all the apologists for the state.”
You are not the only one.
“I am tired of trying to placate them and playing nice guy.”
If you are trying to convert them, then a pleasant demeanor helps. If they are trying to convert you, then you can express your anger without losing a convert.
“Not that I intend to do anything violent, mind you.”
Point out the violence of statists. Ray Haynes: To evaluate whether violating that law ought to be a crime, we need to ask: "Are you really willing to shoot someone over that?" Before you say, "We're not going to be shooting anyone for smoking in public/not wearing a seatbelt/not wearing a helmet/not hiring the proper demographic in his office; we're only talking about a $50/$100/$250 fine!" think: "What if they won't pay their fine?" The response, "Then they'll have to appear in court, and the court will make them pay." The reply, "But what if they still refuse to comply with the court order?" "Then they'll be thrown in jail." Even further, what if they refuse to allow the police in their home, or refuse to pull over their car when the officers try to arrest them? What if they are so tired of being nitpicked to death by nanny-statism that they just snap and refuse to be taken alive? Oops. At some point, somewhere along the way, if something is made a crime, someone may have to shoot somebody to enforce the law.
“But I intend to start calling them out on their cowardice.”
How are they cowardly?
“As such, there is no reason to punish peaceful people not paying taxes, unless you are a sicko psychopath.”
Or a bully/robber.
“I recall several fascinating threads when I first joined that were riveting. Now it's almost as if... I dunno, some sort of "reddit" effect has taken over.”
Different people have different opinions on what threat is stimulating.
A piece of advice from the most wise Marcus Aurelius:
"When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: The people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous, and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own—not of the same blood or birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine."
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Chances are if you're the sort of guy who holds a grudge against others on account of their political beliefs, or walks around thinking everybody else is a coward, nobody really likes you anyway.
But by all means, go ahead, it'd give us a great story when we could turn around and say to somebody "hey, guess what, the guy who says raping children is fine called me a coward!"
Yeah, I think every minarchist or anarchist can relate to OP. I can finally live with the fact that people
don't see the state as I do. I'm from the Netherlands and we've always learnt that the welfare state was
something good and to be proud of. State propaganda is very effective here, we have a course in secondary
school called 'civics' in which you are told that 'people from the left like to share, people from the right want
to keep everything even though it is good to share'. Even though I was a leftist at that time, it bothered me.
But lately I've been a lot more pissed of. I'm currently studying philsophy and for politcal philsophy it's even
worse. I have to read a book about political philosophy from Plato to Amin. They just inform about every philosopher
witout being too critical, except for the only two advocates of liberalism: Locke and Nozick. Instantly after
informing about their philosophy they say what's wrong with free-markets and write about it in a tenditious
style. They didn't even do that with philosophers like Hobbes! I'm very curious about this, that why academics
favour totalitarianism over liberalism. Their arrogance pisses me off. But luckily I had to write an essay. I wrote
about the great Bastiat, just to piss off my teacher. Worked really well hehe
I keep trying to remember what the one thing was that threw me into the idea of being a libertarian. Everything seems so much clearer to me once I came onto these forums and was recommended certain writings and videos. I feel the same way you do nearly every day. It sickens me, in a way, how people think about the government and wealth distribution. But I always have to tell myself to be patient because I learned so much in so little time, and I was lucky to have seen that certain Ron Paul video or Milton Friedman debate or anything else that got me interested becausse it's the only reason I understand everything I do now.
Half of the time, though, I want to punch everything because it all relates back to politics. If someone comments on how expensive our food is when we go out to eat, I want to start talking about agricultural subsidies, etc. Writing is the only thing that keeps my head on straight.
I certainly wouldn't say that. If you don't agree with someone's political ideology, and you turn around and walk away without talking to them about libertarianism because you're mad at their beliefs, then, yes, you're just as at fault as they are. But, if you explain to them certain things that are true and they simply ignore you on account of arrogance, that has to do with personality. I have very few friends who are libertarians, and I'm around my other friends most of the time. I don't hold a grudge because they don't know/understand the same things we might, but you can't completely separate political beliefs and personality. I mean, if I were to meet a communist in real life who believed that he didn't have to respect my private property and would steal from me if given the chance, even if he or she is a nice person on the outside, that's a big deal and something you have to consider when making friends. But it's never good to ignore someone based on first-impression beliefs.
Ha, more anarchist whining. It's quite pathetic.
Spideynw: I am so sick of all the apologists for the state. I am tired of trying to placate them and playing nice guy. Not that I intend to do anything violent, mind you. But I intend to start calling them out on their cowardice. I don't give a crap if they are offended. No one's rights are being violated by not paying taxes. As such, there is no reason to punish peaceful people not paying taxes, unless you are a sicko psychopath. I am just fed up with their cowardice and apologies for harming innocent people. Screw em.
Here and here.
Maybe you should try reading more Mises?
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Being an ancap in a statist world is like being an atheist in a world full of religious crusaders.
It's sickening, it's barbaric, and for most people it's hopeless after decades of illogicism.
The good news is that you can change society without convincing anyone by changing incentives. Incentives you can change with technology. I like thinking about those topics as it puts the day to day interactions with the political believers in perspective.
BramElias, if you wonder about why intellectuals favor statism over freedom, look into Dr. Sowell's Intellectuals and Society.
EconomistInTraining: Chances are if you're the sort of guy who holds a grudge against others on account of their political beliefs, or walks around thinking everybody else is a coward, nobody really likes you anyway. But by all means, go ahead, it'd give us a great story when we could turn around and say to somebody "hey, guess what, the guy who says raping children is fine called me a coward!"
Saying something is not a crime is not the same as saying it is fine. Were you born stupid?
I. Ryan: Here and here. Maybe you should try reading more Mises?
Why?
Gero: “I am tired of trying to placate them and playing nice guy.” If you are trying to convert them, then a pleasant demeanor helps.
If you are trying to convert them, then a pleasant demeanor helps.
Not from my experience.
Gero:“But I intend to start calling them out on their cowardice.” How are they cowardly?
Not standing up for the oppressed. Not standing for that which is morally right.
Are you willing to shoot someone over stealing your watch?
filc: Getting angry at someone else for not accepting your beliefs is not the right way to approach this.
I am not going to get angry. I just intend to call them out on their cowardice. I think libertarians need to become MORE passionate about our beliefs.
scineram: Are you willing to shoot someone over stealing your watch?
What does that matter? It is not about whether or not I would shoot a robber. Way to throw in a red herring. It is about whether or not I would support someone getting robbed!
Do you think robberty is okay? Not just okay, but do you encourage it? For fear of what would happen if peaceful people were not threatened? If so, you are the biggest coward I can think of.
laminustacitus:A piece of advice from the most wise Marcus Aurelius: "When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: The people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous, and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own—not of the same blood or birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine." Wow I love this quote and I remember it specifically. Meditations is one of my favorite books. You can just open to a random page and find something incredibly insightful and relevant to your life. The ultimate self-help book. | Post Points: 5
Passion is all that is necessary to bring the stereotype of "left-wing bleeding heart liberals" to the libertarian side, since the only reason they got to that point was believing they had a moral high ground.
But do consider how you can really help anyone if you are unable to first accept them. Do that first and everything else flows nicely.
Passion is all that is necessary to bring the stereotype of "left-wing bleeding heart liberals" to the libertarian side, since the only reason they got to that point was believing they had a moral high ground. But do consider how you can really help anyone if you are unable to first accept them. Do that first and everything else flows nicely.
Very true. Do you know of any good arguments (similar to pointing out the gun in the room) in regard to passion/heart-strings? Seems like they refuse to believe the ultilitarianism of capitalism.
You can't hurry up good times by waiting for them.
Well any arguments I use are very personal depending on who I'm talking to. But to me the best way in dealing with that is to show real evidence of suffering.
Like for people who rail against sweatshops the following breaks their emotional appeals into shambles
Taken from wikipedia:"A 2005 article in the Christian Science Monitor states, "For example, in Honduras, the site of the infamous Kathy Lee Gifford sweatshop scandal, the average apparel worker earns $13.10 per day, yet 44 percent of the country's population lives on less than $2 per day... In Cambodia, Haiti,Nicaragua, and Honduras, the average wage paid by a firm accused of being a sweatshop is more than double the average income in that country's economy.
On three documented occasions during the 1990s, anti-sweatshop activists in rich countries have apparently caused increases in childhood prostitution in poor countries. In Bangladesh, there was a closure of several sweatshops which had been run by a German company, and as a result, thousands of Bangladeshi children who had been working in those sweatshops ended up working as prostitutes, turning to crime, or starving to death. In Pakistan, several sweatshops, including ones run by Nike, Reebok, and other corporations, were closed, which caused those Pakistani children to turn to prostitution. In Nepal, a carpet manufacturing company closed several sweatshops, resulting in thousands of Nepalese girls turning to prostitution."
Making it personal is very important- because what a "bleeding-heart liberal" is against is suffering. Which is of course a righteous cause to fight against. But the understanding that personal effort is whats necessary to bring the change they want should be the goal. Let say the subject comes up about welfare- ask them why they don't part with more of their own money to help the needy? So many people champion welfare here in New York- but I see nobody helping out the homeless which are on the streets plain as day.
The problem with the "pointing out the gun in the room" argument is that it can be a turn off since you're asking them why don't they do something negative(Ex: Would you use a gun to rob Peter to pay Paul?). I mean I understand the argument it makes perfect sense, but pointing out the lazy person in the room has been much more positive for me.
actionguy10,
Much obliged, I have never heard those sweat shop statistics before.
I'd assume the common response to turning the cheek to the homeless on the street would be "I have paid my welfare taxes so it doesn't make me a hypocrite." They see the state as a necessary middle man in the wealth transfer. Obviously this is a poor position to hold if they are saddened by and compassionate for the homeless they walk by. Just not so obvious for them.
I just watched the hoover institue interview with Sowell on his book. I think he's spot on.
Here's the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERj3QeGw9Ok
I really like one of his last sentences:
"We are becoming a nation of people who are propagandized from elementary school right on through to the graduate school in a certain vision of the world, and only the ones who, for one reason or another, either experience, or insight, or whatever, leads them to say, "Wait a minute!" - only those are the ones we have to depend on." --
Mahall:I'd assume the common response to turning the cheek to the homeless on the street would be "I have paid my welfare taxes so it doesn't make me a hypocrite." They see the state as a necessary middle man in the wealth transfer. Obviously this is a poor position to hold if they are saddened by and compassionate for the homeless they walk by. Just not so obvious for them.
Which is why I don't like general argument suggestions, I don't know anyone who's been convinced to throw their mind inside out from just one line or two- there's always going to be some type of response that'll ignore the logic you're trying to argue from and it'll drive ya nuts.
Change will come from within, once someone's willing to accept that other positions outside of their own might have some merit, then debatable arguments truly shine and ideas can really sink in. You can spark that change without challenging their ideas directly(ideas which they'd probably feel uncomfortable disassociating with) by being very open and present with them. So accepting them as they are(not condoning their beliefs), will get you away from an aggressive line of thinking where you try to change a person- so that they aren't feeling threatened.
Haha, most people don't do that in day-to-day life with anybody- but when its done people will listen to what you have to say. When you really want nothing from somebody, there's no more pressure and a go-nowhere debate turns into a fruitful discussion. Works better in person I'd say.
In my experience that's the big obstacle, its not the positions we hold that need work, they do just fine.