GilesStratton: Why not run for office at home then? It's far easier.
Why not run for office at home then? It's far easier.
Far easier to run and lose, impossible to win. You can't seriously believe that the rulers will just give you their power.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger: GilesStratton: Why not run for office at home then? It's far easier. Far easier to run and lose, impossible to win. You can't seriously believe that the rulers will just give you their power.
I wasn't talking about any office of importance.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: liberty student:1. Become the warlords. Protect your territory. Why not run for office at home then? It's far easier.
liberty student:1. Become the warlords. Protect your territory.
It may be easier to run, not easier to win. Besides, I'm talking about voting with bullets, not ballots.
GilesStratton: liberty student:3. Fight the warlords. I thought coercion is what we were trying to get rid of here? In any case, you'd lose.
liberty student:3. Fight the warlords.
I thought coercion is what we were trying to get rid of here? In any case, you'd lose.
Self-defense is not coercion. And there is no way we would lose. I think Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq are testament to what a rebel guerrilla force can accomplish. Now imagine a well trained and well armed rebel force.
GilesStratton: liberty student:2. Negotiate with warlords. Make it economically advantageous for them to tolerate a liberty colony. With every single warlord? Good luck, I don't understand how this would work, you'd still need to pay them for protection fees, and it wouldn't be optional. That sounds like something else I know.
liberty student:2. Negotiate with warlords. Make it economically advantageous for them to tolerate a liberty colony.
With every single warlord? Good luck, I don't understand how this would work, you'd still need to pay them for protection fees, and it wouldn't be optional. That sounds like something else I know.
Of course you don't know how it would work. You're investing all of your energy into fighting and resisting the idea, none into trying to find solutions. Sure, we could buy off the warlords. We could also crush them economically. It's frustrating trying to discuss this with you, because your thinking is geared towards failure, and your vision is terribly narrow. To quote a phrase, "there is more than one way to skin a cat"
GilesStratton: liberty student: You're also assuming that there is no difference in scope or possibility of success in taking on a warlord vs, the US Federal government. You'll lose against both, this difference is you have to travel half way across the world to lose one of those battles.
liberty student: You're also assuming that there is no difference in scope or possibility of success in taking on a warlord vs, the US Federal government.
You'll lose against both, this difference is you have to travel half way across the world to lose one of those battles.
I'd rather fight and lose than resign myself to living on my knees. YMMV.
GilesStratton: liberty student:Your argument lacks objectivity. And yours is wishful thinking.
liberty student:Your argument lacks objectivity.
And yours is wishful thinking.
Perhaps it is wishful thinking to be free. Perhaps we are all destined to be slaves forever, with a boot stepping on our faces for eternity. I'd like to believe otherwise. If that is fantasy, then I am guilty of being a dreamer.
liberty student:Self-defense is not coercion. And there is no way we would lose. I think Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq are testament to what a rebel guerrilla force can accomplish. Now imagine a well trained and well armed rebel force.
Exactly, and you just wouldn't have the support of the locals.
liberty student:Perhaps it is wishful thinking to be free. Perhaps we are all destined to be slaves forever, with a boot stepping on our faces for eternity. I'd like to believe otherwise. If that is fantasy, then I am guilty of being a dreamer.
It's nothing to do with that, we're not faced with a choice between moving to Africa now or not ever doing anything.
GilesStratton: liberty student:Self-defense is not coercion. And there is no way we would lose. I think Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq are testament to what a rebel guerrilla force can accomplish. Now imagine a well trained and well armed rebel force. Exactly, and you just wouldn't have the support of the locals.
Why not?
GilesStratton: liberty student:Perhaps it is wishful thinking to be free. Perhaps we are all destined to be slaves forever, with a boot stepping on our faces for eternity. I'd like to believe otherwise. If that is fantasy, then I am guilty of being a dreamer. It's nothing to do with that, we're not faced with a choice between moving to Africa now or not ever doing anything.
No, there are many other choices. But moving to Africa is not necessarily the wrong choice, and staying in America is not necessarily the right choice. What seems to be the issues here are (1) max gets frustrated that people who criticize him and the LC don't have a plan of their own (at least that they will discuss publicly) and (2) it seems to be easier to attack the guy with an idea and the idea, whether it is good or bad, than to propose a different strategy.
If you don't like Africa, or you don't want to leave America, or you don't think the LC will work, that's perfectly fine. I'm not 100% sure it will work either. But if you don't like that idea, then please share your ideas for change and liberty with the group, because attacking one idea at a time without putting back in, is going to leave us as a think tank or forum bereft of interesting talking points and is discouraging for other people to come forth with their ideas.
But if you don't like that idea, then please share your ideas for change and liberty with the group, because attacking one idea at a time without putting back in, is going to leave us as a think tank or forum bereft of interesting talking points and is discouraging for other people to come forth with their ideas.
God forbid we criticise bad ideas.
GilesStratton:God forbid we criticise bad ideas.
The world is full of critics. Is it so much to ask that people add some value by putting back in, instead of only taking out?
liberty student: GilesStratton:God forbid we criticise bad ideas. The world is full of critics. Is it so much to ask that people add some value by putting back in, instead of only taking out?
Removing bad ideas is "putting something in" by itself.
Do you have a different plan than the LC approach Giles? If so, what is it?
LibertyStudent:No, I think Max is making the point that people trade liberty for security. But they won't own up to it.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
liberty student: Do you have a different plan than the LC approach Giles? If so, what is it?
Yes: http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/4050/54721.aspx#54721
I asked about your plan. Not Nitro's opinion on networks.
liberty student: I asked about your plan. Not Nitro's opinion on networks.
In the OP I outline one possible idea for a strategy towards liberty.
This "liberty student" is a troll. Some people are not interested finding the truth or learning what is right or wrong, they are only interested in winning the argument, and ending the discussion ASAP. Such individuals usually have low self-esteem, as their esteem is linked to the result of winning rather than the discovery new things. Apparently learning something new to them means admitting they don't know everything... they prefer to look ridiculous, like having an discussion with a hard-core socialist, than admitting their logic is plain nonsense.
Daniel Morin: This "liberty student" is a troll. Some people are not interested finding the truth or learning what is right or wrong, they are only interested in winning the argument, and ending the discussion ASAP. Such individuals usually have low self-esteem, as their esteem is linked to the result of winning rather than the discovery new things. Apparently learning something new to them means admitting they don't know everything... they prefer to look ridiculous, like having an discussion with a hard-core socialist, than admitting their logic is plain nonsense.
Don't be silly, as much as I disagree with LS frequently to call him a troll is somewhat of a stretch.
Cheers Giles, although he does have a point. I do sometimes argue with hardcore socialists.
when we wake up. when we breath. when eat and drink and drive and work and talk and play. it is always there as a question mark. i'm not saying its the biggest question mark such as "what do i want to do with the rest of my life?", "how do i love the other people in my life?", no i am not saying it is all that. no, no.
but sure, sometimes it sleeps and sometimes its stirs. at times it is strong, and at times it is even overwhelming. it has been in here since we found out, when ever it was that that happened. when we wondered, and when we looked into it, and when we researched it to find out for ourselves if it was really all true - i mean, could it really be?
how ever it happened that we found out, we found out. it doesn't matter whether it happened twenty five years ago or twenty five days ago or twenty five hours ago.
ok, so now its up here. but it is also down in here. up here i am aware of it mentally/intellectually as a fret, as a dilemma, as an unsettled insecurity. thats how it is up here in the brain, the mental construct, the thought pattern.
but after it got up here, it also came down here. in here it is a tenseness, a constriction, a nervousness. oh well, so thats cool, thats fine; it is as it is. and its as if it seams to be saying that even your physical body knows THIS IS WRONG ! so yes, your body is smart. it is very smart indeed. and yes your mind is smart, and of course it is also a part of that body.
the question is in the form: AM I CONSENTING? IS THIS VULUNTARY? MUST I LEAVE? CAN I SAY? AM I RESPONSIBLE? TO WHAT DEGREE? AM I CONDONING THIS?
well there you have it. the english version, that is, of the thought form. there is of course a japanese version and a swedish version, etc. etc.
so what is the answer? is there an answer? how would i even know if i was right? these are very distressing thoughts indeed.
how does my body interpret all this? the mind and body are indivisable - it is one you. so just how does it feel? if you want to find out, find out. if you don't, don't. either way is fine. but if you do inquire you will sense it as an uneasiness, a tenseness, an unsettling distress. but hey, we can use that to wake up, we can observe it, we can notice it.
so here we are. you, me, all of us. and there are probably over a million of us in just america alone. probably three million of us, or more, over the entire planet. and who knows, maybe many more. we are actually everywhere now. in small numbers yes, sure, very small statistically. but we are everywhere. and every day thousands more join us. soon maybe tens of thousands daily - who knows we'll just have to wait and see.
let us agree to use any internal physical distress we ever feel to make us conscious. let it percolate up into our minds, not the questions our masters have us asking, but the THE question ...
how i am to be? not later, but right now! how am to be? not do, not make, not read, not say, but just to be. it's kind of funny in a sense that what the whole human-domestication machinery has attempted to suppress may just be what drives it out into the daylight. FREEDOM !
jim miller
liberty study group p.s. if you see fit, kindly take a moment to rate this post for others. peace.
liberty student:Besides, I'm talking about voting with bullets, not ballots... And there is no way we would lose. I think Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq are testament to what a rebel guerrilla force can accomplish. Now imagine a well trained and well armed rebel force.
I'll give you a hint, the only reason those insurgencies were even a little viable is because 'total war' went out of fashion. The goal was to win hearts and minds and not to squash all resistance to the central governments.
The rebel forces weren't very successful in occupied Europe for what reason exactly? Could be because the Nazis would roll into a town and kill a large percentage of the population in order to quell the uprising.
Which model do you think a warlord will follow, total war or Geneva Convention lawful warfare?
liberty student:Of course you don't know how it would work. You're investing all of your energy into fighting and resisting the idea, none into trying to find solutions. Sure, we could buy off the warlords. We could also crush them economically. It's frustrating trying to discuss this with you, because your thinking is geared towards failure, and your vision is terribly narrow. To quote a phrase, "there is more than one way to skin a cat"
The other 'solution' floating around can't even be mentioned without attracting venom from it's opponents.
Options for the LC aren't discussed openly here while agorist ideas can't be discussed due to certain people wanting to prove above all else that it isn't a viable strategy for taking down the Leviathan. Not that they have a flawed plan, mind you, but that the whole idea is bunk to begin with.
That and the lefties claim agorism as their crown jewel and there is a whole lot of left-right secular infighting going on other than opposition to agorism proper.
Anonymous Coward:I'll give you a hint, the only reason those insurgencies were even a little viable is because 'total war' went out of fashion. The goal was to win hearts and minds and not to squash all resistance to the central governments.
That's a good point, I don't mean to bash the LC I've moved on from that, but in order to be taken seriously the LC would have be adhere to the NAP, whereas the warlords simply wouldn't.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Maxliberty:Answer the question, Are you a slave because you might be robbed in the street? We're slaves because we're taxed to support others.
Maxliberty:Answer the question, Are you a slave because you might be robbed in the street?
We're slaves because we're taxed to support others.
Stop paying taxes then.
Knight_of_BAAWA:We're slaves because we're taxed to support others.
Maxliberty:Stop paying taxes then.
A bit difficult.
But then, we all know that ONLY MaxLiberty ever does anything at all.
Maxliberty: Knight_of_BAAWA: Maxliberty:Answer the question, Are you a slave because you might be robbed in the street? We're slaves because we're taxed to support others. Stop paying taxes then.
Fine idea.
The only real problem I can find with that is you would then be robbed by the tax collectors.
You can either pay a portion of your productive output to them 'voluntarily' or they will take it by force. It's almost like they claim ownership of your labor which is starting to sound a lot like the definition of slavery to me.
From the wikipedia;
As a social-economic system, slavery is a legal institution under which a person (called "a slave") is compelled to work for another (sometimes called "the master" or "slave owner"), under rules typically referred to as slave codes.
You know, I'm not seeing too much difference between the two.
Anonymous Coward: Maxliberty: Knight_of_BAAWA: Maxliberty:Answer the question, Are you a slave because you might be robbed in the street? We're slaves because we're taxed to support others. Stop paying taxes then. Fine idea. The only real problem I can find with that is you would then be robbed by the tax collectors. You can either pay a portion of your productive output to them 'voluntarily' or they will take it by force. It's almost like they claim ownership of your labor which is starting to sound a lot like the definition of slavery to me. From the wikipedia; As a social-economic system, slavery is a legal institution under which a person (called "a slave") is compelled to work for another (sometimes called "the master" or "slave owner"), under rules typically referred to as slave codes. You know, I'm not seeing too much difference between the two.
Since I heard Hoppe's argument that argumentation implies the other person if a self owner I always found the states need to convince us that taxation is good rather amusing.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Maxliberty:Answer the question, Are you a slave because you might be robbed in the street? Knight_of_BAAWA:We're slaves because we're taxed to support others. Maxliberty:Stop paying taxes then. A bit difficult. But then, we all know that ONLY MaxLiberty ever does anything at all.
It is difficult under the constraints that you have created for yourself, yes. See you have chosen to continue paying taxes where you are rather than go somewhere else and not pay taxes. Is that fair, no but the criminals never treat you fairly. Basically you are choosing slavery as a matter of principle. You say it is not fair you should have to move to be free so you will remain a slave until the masters changes his mind.
Basically you are choosing slavery as a matter of principle.
Anonymous Coward: Fine idea. The only real problem I can find with that is you would then be robbed by the tax collectors. You can either pay a portion of your productive output to them 'voluntarily' or they will take it by force. It's almost like they claim ownership of your labor which is starting to sound a lot like the definition of slavery to me.
Or you have to find ways to resist. You are resigned to your slavery. You are not a free man who has been enslaved, you are a slave who would like someone to free them. A free man who is enslaved is always seeking a way out and believes there is one, a slave who seeks to be free is always at the will of others.
Your mindset and the that of most others in this thread is that you have no option but to submit and are powerless to resist. At this point you are not capable of being free because you have made your freedom dependent on someone else. In order to be free you have to take responsibility for it yourself.
Maxliberty:Or you have to find ways to resist.
This is one thing, not paying taxes is something else.
Juan:Basically you are choosing slavery as a matter of principle. Basically, you are not clever enough to understand the meaning of the word coercion.
I know what coercion is and I know what excuses are as well. You are committed to the principle that the criminals are in control of your life and you are powerless to eliminate or reduce their control. As long as you are convinced of that then you are a slave. When you realize you are in control of your life then you will be free, not without enemies, but free.
GilesStratton: Maxliberty:Or you have to find ways to resist. This is one thing, not paying taxes is something else.
There are lots of people who don't pay taxes. How are they able to do this while you are not?
Maxliberty:It is difficult under the constraints that you have created for yourself
I didn't vote for the tax laws. Therefore, I didn't create the constraints.
Your holier-than-thou attitude is old.
I wonder if ML believes the people of North Korea can be said to be "free" as long as aren't "resigned" to the state?
If so, what's the point of fighting the state? You can be free by merely imagining it.
Maxliberty:I know what coercion is and I know what excuses are as well. You are committed to the principle that the criminals are in control of your life and you are powerless to eliminate or reduce their control. As long as you are convinced of that then you are a slave. When you realize you are in control of your life then you will be free, not without enemies, but free.
So if one were to attempt to eliminate of reduce their control they are either free or in the process of becoming free? In other words this makes them no longer slaves?
Like the agorists maybe?
By your reasoning the agorists' desire to live where they are, not pay taxes and attempt to elimimate the coercive power of the State is a perfectly valid form of seeking freedom.
*Smack Down, Bitch*
MaxLiberty:You are committed to the principle that the criminals are in control of your life
When you realize you are in control of your life then you will be free, not without enemies, but free.
for liberty is, to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists: (for who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him?) but a liberty to dispose, and order as he lists, his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property, within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own.
Anonymous Coward: So if one were to attempt to eliminate of reduce their control they are either free or in the process of becoming free? In other words this makes them no longer slaves? Like the agorists maybe? By your reasoning the agorists' desire to live where they are, not pay taxes and attempt to elimimate the coercive power of the State is a perfectly valid form of seeking freedom.
If you had taken the time to read my posts on agorism, I have consistently said that the idea of agorism for greater personal freedom is fine and no "agorist" ideology is required to practice it. Agorism as a strategy to undermine and replace the state with particualar reference to growing the counter-economy is not well founded.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Maxliberty:It is difficult under the constraints that you have created for yourself I didn't vote for the tax laws. Therefore, I didn't create the constraints. Your holier-than-thou attitude is old.
You are slave because you require someone else to free you. You continue to be constrained because you are unwilling to go where there are no restraints. Your statements continually indicate you are a permanent victim. It is always someone else's fault you are not free. At what point in your life will you be willing to accept responsibility for where you are and what you are doing?
Juan: MaxLiberty:You are committed to the principle that the criminals are in control of your life No I'm not. I'd be quite happy to fight back (instead of fleeing to the middle of nowhere...) if there was at least a small group of people to work with. When you realize you are in control of your life then you will be free, not without enemies, but free. Sorry, but you and I are using different definitions of 'free'. for liberty is, to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists: (for who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him?) but a liberty to dispose, and order as he lists, his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property, within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own.
Yes, your idea of freedom is that no person anywhere in the world is trying to restrict you. If one person in the world is trying to violate your rights then you are a slave. I am a free man with enemies. I don't have the impossible expectation that everyone will be in perfect agreement.
Maxliberty:You are slave because you require someone else to free you.
*yawn*
Peddle your holier-than-thou attitude elsewhere.
Maxliberty: It is always someone else's fault you are not free.
By definition, yes.
Answer my question, can a man in the DPRK be free provided he doesn't not "accept" his position as a slave?
GilesStratton: Maxliberty: It is always someone else's fault you are not free. By definition, yes. Answer my question, can a man in the DPRK be free provided he doesn't not "accept" his position as a slave?
Yes.
Can you be free if there is someone in the world who might rob you or harm you?