Hi
Yes, I've asked the question.
How do we educate the Masses?
How do we teach people that government isn't the only way?
How do we inform them of the advantages of the free market?
How do we teach them that government is inherently corrupt?
How do we 'get rid' of the government? (90% sure it doesn't have to be done violently)
Basically, how do we get the message accross, and 'enlighten' the masses?
Panarchy
PS: I am an Anarchist, as I believe Panarchy will 'prosper'.
Perhaps by both accepting their criticisms and allowing them to criticize.
Art transcends ideology.
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/ruben
Hmm...
I don't get it.
Panarchy: Basically, how do we get the message accross, and 'enlighten' the masses? Panarchy PS: I am an Anarchist, as I believe Panarchy will 'prosper'.
Whoever is at odds with the masses for such a long time, may be failing to recognize that perhaps the masses have some hidden and valuable knowledge.
They seem to be keeping the secrets so well hidden, that I don't think even they know what they are!
Rubén:Whoever is at odds with the masses for such a long time, may be failing to recognize that perhaps the masses have some hidden and valuable knowledge.
Right because conflict has nothing to do with the competition for control of scarce resources, it's because the mob are secretly savants.
Rubén: Perhaps by both accepting their criticisms and allowing them to criticize.
Maybe you should focus on writing more letters to Obama.
Panarchy:How do we educate the Masses?
Become the media. Get'em while they're young. Make it profitable to tell the truth.
Panarchy:How do we teach people that government isn't the only way?
Create alternative institutions that provide what the government cannot. Constantly point out failures, waste and fraud of government.
Panarchy:How do we teach them that government is inherently corrupt?
Lord Obama will do this for us. He has already started to backtrack on his election promises. He's more concerned with allowing stem cell research than with closing Gitmo. We have to use every opportunity to point out that the savior has no clothes.
Panarchy:How do we 'get rid' of the government? (90% sure it doesn't have to be done violently)
Government will get rid of itself. We have to stay alive and work hard to (1) outlast it, and (2) have institutions of our own to replace it with.
Panarchy:Basically, how do we get the message accross, and 'enlighten' the masses?
Tireless energy and effective marketing. We need art, music, sloganeering. Pamphlets, booklets and speeches. We have to engage young people when their minds are open to idealism, and fill those minds with a the fundamentals of human liberty.
Also, panarchy is awesome.
liberty student: Rubén: Perhaps by both accepting their criticisms and allowing them to criticize. Maybe you should focus on writing more letters to Obama.
What for? I already wrote what I needed to and sent my message across. I am moving forward to consider other matters. Life is too short to keep entrenched in just one topic.
The masses for the most part have nothing interesting to say and nothing useful to contribute. The masses simple care about their day to day life, this means watching their TV and drinking their beer for the most part. What can you expect when every "education" (indoctrination) system in the world is aimed at preventing people from thinking?
Just look at politics, in the end all it comes down to is people accepting what the politicians say at face value, unquestioningly accepting it. At best it's an appeal to the emotions of either fear or envy. At worst it's just plain namecalling from both sides. The masses follow this avidly though, remembering a few slogans and following the party line to their best of their ability.
So no, appealing the masses is futile, the only thing we can do is reach the remnant. Lenin got it right with his whole idea of a vanguard, libertarians need to stop caring about the masses who cheer us being arrested for not paying taxes.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Concerns about the mediocrity of the masses aside, libertarianism will never succeed if it's relegated to grooming a small elite.
Brainpolice: Concerns about the mediocrity of the masses aside, libertarianism will never succeed if it's relegated to grooming a small elite.
You mean like the American Revolution didn't succeed with only a third of the population involved? It's futile to try and convert people who simply don't have intellectual capacity to realise the propaganda they've been fed for however many years was nonsense.
I understand the root of your cynicism, but generally such a sentiment seems contrary to the foundations of any sort of libertarian ethic. If there are those who do not have the rational capacity to overcome being fed propoganda? what separates them from animals, and why should they be granted liberty?
http://aestheticbend.blogspot.com/
aestheticbend: I understand the root of your cynicism, but generally such a sentiment seems contrary to the foundations of any sort of libertarian ethic. If there are those who do not have the rational capacity to overcome being fed propoganda? what separates them from animals, and why should they be granted liberty?
But they do have the capacity, they've been simply forced/ encouraged/ incentivised not to use for their entire lives. As for granting them liberty, I really don't concern myself with the liberty of the state's apologist whatsoever, I just care about mine and that of other's who desire it. Those who support the system deny me of liberty with their actions and don't deserve any themselves.
Another reason why educating the masses is not in the interest of libertarians.
And yet libertarians spend a lot more time criticizing each other than the state. Instead of attacking Obama, it's debating how compromised Ron Paul is. Instead of going after fascists and marxists, it is arguing about how intellectually bankrupt minarchists or paleocons are.
There is a discussion going on about philosophy here. The layman can't read it. It's one thing to say one should not groom an elite, but another to cater to a narrow elite in language and subject matter. Many libertarian blogs are susceptible to this.
That's why NoState.com and NoThirdSolution.com are some of my favorite blogs, even FSK's Guide. They don't try to talk down to people, or to invest thousands upon thousands of words upon topics that the guy trying to house and clothe his family will likely never consider, and rightfully so, because it doesn't contribute to his life in any meaningful way.
People who want to touch the masses, will engage in subjects which are topical to the masses. The elitism is only promoted by catering to the writer's self interest, not the self-interest of the readers. If your self interest is self-aggrandizement, then it's great to talk above everyone. If your self interest is to spread liberty outside the choir, then adjustments are in order.
They can only grant themselves liberty. All we can do is point it out as an option, and provide a rationale for doing so. If you believe in free will, only they can set themselves free.
I just wanted to make sure that you were not implying some sort of inherent fact about particular people that they cannot recognize these facts, and thus lack a sufficient rational faculty.
I recently read a book titled Catastrophisme, administration du désastre et soumission durable. (Roughly translates to Catastrophism, disaster bureaucracy and sustainable submission.) The book mocked the ecological movement's attempt at renewing socialist revolution by educating the masses about ecological catastrophe, which continues to occur with everyone well informed about it and seemingly unable to act or unwilling to care.
The point being, the masses aren't going to do anything. Never in history have the masses done anything. Leaders and activists change things. We don't need to get the message across. We need to train the leaders who will trigger the revolution.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
aestheticbend: I just wanted to make sure that you were not implying some sort of inherent fact about particular people that they cannot recognize these facts, and thus lack a sufficient rational faculty.
I'm not implying that. I am saying it quite clearly. We have a particular member of the forum here who continues to promote statism and run from any confrontation on such a position. I've got family who refuse to listen to rational, measured, researched ideas and roll their eyes, and laugh at me as a crank and nerd. They aren't accidentally irrational. It is intentional. Conditions of prosperity have allowed stupidity to become meritorious in our societies.
I know now that you were not implying that. The point was not to let one's cynicism devolve into a belief in the inherent difference in the rational faculty of those who do think and those who do not.
It is intentional in the sense that they value the status quo and the emotional comfort that it provides over the pursuit of truth.
aestheticbend:The point was not to let one's cynicism devolve into a belief in the inherent difference in the rational faculty of those who do think and those who do not.
Why not?
I'm not sensitive to compassion for ignorant statists who revel in their ignorance and empty headedness. Know your enemy and all that good stuff. Don't doubt that when absolute tyranny comes to where you live, these ignorant neighbors, coworkers and family members will be the ones pointing you out to the Stasi as a "wrong thinker".
liberty student:I'm not sensitive to compassion for ignorant statists who revel in their ignorance and empty headedness. Know your enemy and all that good stuff. Don't doubt that when absolute tyranny comes to where you live, these ignorant neighbors, coworkers and family members will be the ones pointing you out to the Stasi as a "wrong thinker".
Why take it that far? These are the people who would cheer the police on as they arrested you for not paying taxes.
liberty student: I'm not implying that. I am saying it quite clearly. We have a particular member of the forum here who continues to promote statism and run from any confrontation on such a position. I've got family who refuse to listen to rational, measured, researched ideas and roll their eyes, and laugh at me as a crank and nerd. They aren't accidentally irrational. It is intentional. Conditions of prosperity have allowed stupidity to become meritorious in our societies.
This is funny. You confuse my assertion that a limited role of the state is necessary while the market should take care of everything else with "statism". I have replied to your queries more than anyone else'e, but somehow you automatically disregard my responses as irrational because they are not based on the assumptions you make.
Rubén:This is funny. You confuse my assertion that a limited role of the state is necessary while the market should take care of everything else with "statism".
I keep forgetting. You are the global Obama minarchist.
Care to define that minimal role of the state that is consistent with the Obama campaign and soon-to-be Presidency?
Rubén:I have replied to your queries more than anyone else'e, but somehow you automatically disregard my responses as irrational because they are not based on the assumptions you make.
I can handle disagreement, but I have a problem with dishonesty. Do you want me to list and link to all of the questions you have evaded?
liberty student: Care to define that minimal role of the state that is consistent with the Obama campaign and soon-to-be Presidency?
Elementary roles like health, education, defense and assurance that the population won't starve. Something similar to what is already in place in Canada or Scandinavia, which seems an ideal mix that guarantees the survival of its population while at the same time provides enough market freedom for anything else.
For example, the bailout to General Motors would be preferable than just letting that company die with the dead cost of closing down hundreds of plants that were very expensive to build and would not be able to be used for other endeavors.
You can try to redefine it, however you support the state, ergo you are a statist.
Rubén:For example, the bailout to General Motors would be preferable than just letting that company die with the dead cost of closing down hundreds of plants that were very expensive to build and would not be able to be used for other endeavors.
You don't know what the free market is, do you?
liberty student: Know your enemy and all that good stuff. Don't doubt that when absolute tyranny comes to where you live, these ignorant neighbors, coworkers and family members will be the ones pointing you out to the Stasi as a "wrong thinker".
Know your enemy and all that good stuff. Don't doubt that when absolute tyranny comes to where you live, these ignorant neighbors, coworkers and family members will be the ones pointing you out to the Stasi as a "wrong thinker".
This post is about getting a message across, that includes those who you consider enemies and ignorant neighbors, coworkers and family members. All those people will not be sympathetic to getting any message across if they perceive that the messenger looks down upon them as enemies.
You must be joking. You take the most socialist countries in the world as an example of what you advocate? You're a statist, plain and simple. Even minarchists, who only advocate the socialization of defence, are statists. Why do you object to this label? You advocate (although it is unclear, maybe you mean Obama does?) economic insanity with regard to particular sectors of the economy. I'd embrace the label. FYI, Scandinavia is moving head-on to stagnation, and is surrounded by myths of the success of its model, not much factual reality. Bailouts have nothing to do with the free market. They have to do with socialism for the rich.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Nowhere in your post did you define a limit which could be considered minimal.
Rubén:Elementary roles like health, education, defense and assurance that the population won't starve.
At what cost? The issue is, you measure government size by what it provides, not by what it costs. Even by that test, you fail, but still, you haven't learned the most basic economic lesson, that of Bastiat's "What is seen, and what is unseen".
Rubén:Something similar to what is already in place in Canada or Scandinavia, which seems an ideal mix that guarantees the survival of its population while at the same time provides enough market freedom for anything else.
So your argument is that government came before survival?
At what cost? GM is not a viable business. It is a loser, generating losses after losses. Is it a good idea to flush good money made in the productive economy down the toilet of failed businesses? Why not just burn the money in a barrel?
Where do you develop the economic rationale (forget moral or ethical) to take from winners and give to losers? How does this make economic sense? Where is the incentive to turn a profit if you can be subsidized for losses?
GilesStratton: Rubén:For example, the bailout to General Motors would be preferable than just letting that company die with the dead cost of closing down hundreds of plants that were very expensive to build and would not be able to be used for other endeavors. You don't know what the free market is, do you?
A free market is where producers and consumers conduct a transaction through the price mechanism. It is a good system, but as anything invented by humans, it is not perfect.
liberty student: Nowhere in your post did you define a limit which could be considered minimal.
That limit varies case by case.
Rubén:This post is about getting a message across, that includes those who you consider enemies and ignorant neighbors, coworkers and family members. All those people will not be sympathetic to getting any message across if they perceive that the messenger looks down upon them as enemies.
You and people who think like you, unfortunately, are my enemies. I don't condone violence against you, but you wholeheartedly endorse violence against me.
When I look down on someone who endorses violence and oppression as an enemy, I am merely seeing things for what they are. Just as you and those like you, look at someone who is productive like me as a threat, and a candidate for looting. You've been challenged on this numerous times. You have no authority to validate ruling, stealing, killing etc. Certainly not a democratic majority. But still, you carry on as though a democratic majority does give you the right to steal and kill. That is why you are my enemy. You threaten my liberty. You want to enslave me.
Rubén:That limit varies case by case.
More evasion. Convenient how you never have a solid answer for anything.
Jon Irenicus: FYI, Scandinavia is moving head-on to stagnation, and is surrounded by myths of the success of its model, not much factual reality.
And funnily enough the only reason Scandanavia is slightly more prosperous than other areas in Europe is due a relatively unregulated market.
Rubén: It is a good system, but as anything invented by humans, it is not perfect.
Since when was the market "invented" by anyway, that argument is far more easily applied to the state than the market. You're attacking a straw man in any case.
GilesStratton:Why take it that far? These are the people who would cheer the police on as they arrested you for not paying taxes.
It's true. If I hear one more ignorant Canadian tell me that we have to pay our fair share, particularly when I know they are a total parasite on the system, ....
liberty student: So your argument is that government came before survival? Rubén:For example, the bailout to General Motors would be preferable than just letting that company die with the dead cost of closing down hundreds of plants that were very expensive to build and would not be able to be used for other endeavors. At what cost? GM is not a viable business. It is a loser, generating losses after losses. Is it a good idea to flush good money made in the productive economy down the toilet of failed businesses? Why not just burn the money in a barrel? Where do you develop the economic rationale (forget moral or ethical) to take from winners and give to losers? How does this make economic sense? Where is the incentive to turn a profit if you can be subsidized for losses?
In the stone ages, survival came before government. But evolution has taken place and there is no need to go back in time. Therefore today government can come before survival.
Rubén:In the stone ages, survival came before government. But evolution has taken place and there is no need to go back in time. Therefore today government can come before survival.
Are you saying that government comes before food and shelter?
And what I mean by that is specifically two things.
1) Should all resources go to government demands before meeting basic human needs?
2) Is government more necessary than food or shelter?
liberty student: You and people who think like you, unfortunately, are my enemies. I don't condone violence against you, but you wholeheartedly endorse violence against me.
It is unfortunate that you also treat your own family members as enemies, according to a recent post. According to that post, your family members seem to be happy with the many benefits they receive from an advanced society such as the one you are blessed to live in, and do not understand why are you being so harsh to them. They might look upon you strangely, but their love to you prevents them to consider you as an enemy.