What road should we take to achieve the voluntary society? I don't know myself, but this young, and might I add handsome, fellow has an idea:Revolution or Reformation?
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
I didn't know you were doing videos.
You know my answer already. I'm not with the reformists, even though many fellow anarcho-capitalists are reformists in practise. I think the reformist route has already been proven to be a failure, as evidenced by a few hundred years of attempts by classical liberals to dismantle the state from within, only for the state to keep growing anyways. It also ends up discrediting the cause in the eyes of the lay public, who then associate it with just another political movement.
I don't see revolution and reformation as being all that different. The goal, of course, is to remove the ability for some men to wield political power over others. I see three ways of accomplishing this:
1) Persuading the ones in power to give up their power,
2) Using defensive violence to incapacitate the ability of those men to wield political power,
3) A combination of 1 and 2 (I believe this has generally been what was done throughout history).
In all likelihood, some amount of defensive violence would have to be used. As politics is the means to control state violence, I don't see how it is necessarily any worse to use politics to supply that defense as it would be to do so personally and physically (via picking up guns). The counter-economy may be able to weaken the state, but it will never go down without a fight.
Also, I think the counter-economy should include legal entrepreneurial activities which can lead to more voluntary solutions for society's problems which might otherwise be attempted by governments (such as education).
I regard most government employees as simply being the result of a bad meme, and I certainly don't wish any violence or harm to come to them. For this reason, I hope the democratic process can be successfully wielded to weaken the government (although I don't think Ron Paul will be the one to do it).
Brainpolice:You know my answer already. I'm not with the reformists, even though many fellow anarcho-capitalists are reformists in practise. I think the reformist route has already been proven to be a failure, as evidenced by a few hundred years of attempts by classical liberals to dismantle the state from within, only for the state to keep growing anyways. It also ends up discrediting the cause in the eyes of the lay public, who then associate it with just another political movement.
Reformists have never been in the majority. If the majority cannot be pursuaded to become political libertarians, how could one hope to eliminate the state? When nearly all governments in history collapsed, they were replaced by others. This will always be true as long as the vast majority support the existence of governments. For reform to work, a majority is needed. For revolution to work and stick, a majority is also needed. I don't see the means the majority uses as being so important or really even worth arguing over.
Yeah, I'm doing videos now. This was my first, I was a little nervous and psyched up. The next will hopefully be more coherent.I think the reformist route is a weak route, and that if we want to succeed as a group then we need to appear strong.
I'm planning on doing another video on the ridiculousness of teenage "Anarchists" and how they give us bad names. The ones that chant in the streets about how the "street is theirs" and how "the people united will never be defeated," yeah, complete pussies, idiots, weaklings, and poor excuses for Anarchists.
The days when Anarchists were not afraid to have real fights with the police in the streets, when Anarchists were not afraid to fire bomb police stations, those were the days.
Grant: I don't see revolution and reformation as being all that different. The goal, of course, is to remove the ability for some men to wield political power over others. I see three ways of accomplishing this:1) Persuading the ones in power to give up their power,2) Using defensive violence to incapacitate the ability of those men to wield political power, 3) A combination of 1 and 2 (I believe this has generally been what was done throughout history).In all likelihood, some amount of defensive violence would have to be used. As politics is the means to control state violence, I don't see how it is necessarily any worse to use politics to supply that defense as it would be to do so personally and physically (via picking up guns). The counter-economy may be able to weaken the state, but it will never go down without a fight. No, it won't, and that's, war is imminent. So let's not dance around the issue any longer, let's not waste our time with the Ron Pauls and the Libertarian Parties, start now, fight now, win now! Grant:Also, I think the counter-economy should include legal entrepreneurial activities which can lead to more voluntary solutions for society's problems which might otherwise be attempted by governments (such as education).Then you're in good company! So did SEK3! Grant:I regard most government employees as simply being the result of a bad meme, and I certainly don't wish any violence or harm to come to them. Neither do I, but understand, I am perfectly willing to make those that would force the violent state upon me to cease that course of action... by any means necessary. Grant: For this reason, I hope the democratic process can be successfully wielded to weaken the government (although I don't think Ron Paul will be the one to do it).The democratic process can only strengthen the state. Again, you're trying to use an organization to attack the organization's constituents. It's NOT going to happen, ever. Grant: Reformists have never been in the majority. If the majority cannot be pursuaded to become political libertarians, how could one hope to eliminate the state? When nearly all governments in history collapsed, they were replaced by others. This will always be true as long as the vast majority support the existence of governments. For reform to work, a majority is needed. For revolution to work and stick, a majority is also needed. I don't see the means the majority uses as being so important or really even worth arguing over.
No, it won't, and that's, war is imminent. So let's not dance around the issue any longer, let's not waste our time with the Ron Pauls and the Libertarian Parties, start now, fight now, win now!
Grant:Also, I think the counter-economy should include legal entrepreneurial activities which can lead to more voluntary solutions for society's problems which might otherwise be attempted by governments (such as education).
Grant:I regard most government employees as simply being the result of a bad meme, and I certainly don't wish any violence or harm to come to them.
I regard most government employees as simply being the result of a bad meme, and I certainly don't wish any violence or harm to come to them.
Neither do I, but understand, I am perfectly willing to make those that would force the violent state upon me to cease that course of action... by any means necessary.
Grant: For this reason, I hope the democratic process can be successfully wielded to weaken the government (although I don't think Ron Paul will be the one to do it).
For this reason, I hope the democratic process can be successfully wielded to weaken the government (although I don't think Ron Paul will be the one to do it).
The democratic process can only strengthen the state. Again, you're trying to use an organization to attack the organization's constituents. It's NOT going to happen, ever.
Grant:
I addressed this. The "majority" (I hate when people use the cliche "vast majority") will go with whoever is strongest. So we don't need the majority, we don't need to compromise, we need to appear strong, confident, and willing to do whatever it takes.
Niccolò:The democratic process can only strengthen the state. Again, you're trying to use an organization to attack the organization's constituents. It's NOT going to happen, ever.
Most people in a democracy are stealing from and regulating others, and being stolen from and regulated themselves. There really aren't very many people who directly benefit from a democracy, in my opinion. Besides, if a democratic majority vote for liberty and never get it, then a revolution would be that much easier. If they do get some of it, then again a revolution would be that much easier. There are of course plenty of examples of those who directly benefit from power (i.e., politicians) peacefully stepping down after the democratic process has removed them (although I'd certainly not say this would always occur).
My main disagreement with you is over the means to remove the state. We all know force, power, would be required to some extent. Whether that power is political or personal, it must not be misused in order for liberty to remain. If a minority is "strong" enough, as you say, that minority must also be ethical enough not to use its power for coercive ends. The same is true of any politician elected. Either way we are trying to use power to attack power. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I can't see it working unless the majority is motivated enough to toss out those who abuse their power; the majority must accept a libertarian ethic.
Its my belief that people should help where and how they can. Maybe thats in politics, maybe its not.
Grant:Most people in a democracy are stealing from and regulating others, and being stolen from and regulated themselves. There really aren't very many people who directly benefit from a democracy, in my opinion.
Most people in a democracy are stealing from and regulating others, and being stolen from and regulated themselves. There really aren't very many people who directly benefit from a democracy, in my opinion.
Grant: Besides, if a democratic majority vote for liberty and never get it, then a revolution would be that much easier. If they do get some of it, then again a revolution would be that much easier.
Besides, if a democratic majority vote for liberty and never get it, then a revolution would be that much easier. If they do get some of it, then again a revolution would be that much easier.
Grant:There are of course plenty of examples of those who directly benefit from power (i.e., politicians) peacefully stepping down after the democratic process has removed them (although I'd certainly not say this would always occur).
There are of course plenty of examples of those who directly benefit from power (i.e., politicians) peacefully stepping down after the democratic process has removed them (although I'd certainly not say this would always occur).
I'm almost certain you're referring to Calvin Coolidge. Yes, he "stepped down" from the presidency, but he attained many new positions of power that would not have otherwise been possible as president.If you're referring to George Washington, may the man rest in hell. He was used by Hamilton as a symbol to advance any statist policy he wanted. Washington, though not technically in any party was most definitely a Federalist.
Grant:My main disagreement with you is over the means to remove the state. We all know force, power, would be required to some extent. Whether that power is political or personal, it must not be misused in order for liberty to remain. If a minority is "strong" enough, as you say, that minority must also be ethical enough not to use its power for coercive ends. The same is true of any politician elected. Either way we are trying to use power to attack power. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I can't see it working unless the majority is motivated enough to toss out those who abuse their power; the majority must accept a libertarian ethic.Its my belief that people should help where and how they can. Maybe thats in politics, maybe its not.
All I'd ment was that I don't trust any sort of "strong" revolutionary group to voluntarily give up their power after they've ousted oppressors any more than I trust a politician to do the same. If the majority follows this group because of their strength, then I'm sure you can see where that could lead.
Of course, the two approaches are not mutually exclusive at all, but I for one don't want to have anything to do with bombing anyone as long as peaceful options are viable (and yeah, I understand that by paying taxes I am supporting bombing, but I make it a point not to pay many taxes...). There are of course areas where the state does not allow competition, so a counter-economy is difficult. Using the political process to remove these barriers would be beneficial to everyone, and its been done before (e.g., the strong recent trend towards privatization around the world in everything but health care).
Nic, my Catholic friend, why'd you say, 'F Youtube!'? What's the problem w/ Youtube?
"The best way to bail out the economy is with liberty, not with federal reserve notes." - pairunoyd
"The vision of the Austrian must be greater than the blindness of the sheeple." - pairunoyd
Good video Niccolo, and I agree. I was expecting you to sound way more Italian though.
Niccolò:The days when Anarchists were not afraid to have real fights with the police in the streets, when Anarchists were not afraid to fire bomb police stations, those were the days.
Those were also not Anarcho-Capitalists. Those were non-marxian communists who thought socialism could be achieved by destroying the state.
Niccolò:I think the reformist route is a weak route, and that if we want to succeed as a group then we need to appear strong. The days when Anarchists were not afraid to have real fights with the police in the streets, when Anarchists were not afraid to fire bomb police stations, those were the days.
I think the reformist route is a weak route, and that if we want to succeed as a group then we need to appear strong.
apart from the fact that in celebrating this sort of violent response, you lose a lot of people who might be sympathetic to your cause, i'd ask to cite any time in history where your approach has worked.
as far as reforming the state using the political process, i'd refer to the repeal of the corn law in 1846 under sir thomas peel (conservative pm of britain) as a classic example. took aristocratic power away from the whigs and enabled the formation of an extensive middle class. can't knock that.
the fact that fabianism has succeeded in shaping the public consciousness where communism failed, demonstrates the sense of promoting reform, not revolution. even the word revolution will alienate the average punter. reforms are achievable where the ideas have been promulgated and have taken root.
politics is the art of compromise, and the hard-and-pure condemn themselves to remain marginal players.
i'm not american, but from here in australia, ron paul appears to be an unbelievable stroke of good fortune. none of our politicians has any clue about monetary policy, and our conservative party is about as "small government" as your republican party!
Grant:All I'd ment was that I don't trust any sort of "strong" revolutionary group to voluntarily give up their power after they've ousted oppressors any more than I trust a politician to do the same. If the majority follows this group because of their strength, then I'm sure you can see where that could lead.
Grant:Of course, the two approaches are not mutually exclusive at all, but I for one don't want to have anything to do with bombing anyone as long as peaceful options are viable (and yeah, I understand that by paying taxes I am supporting bombing, but I make it a point not to pay many taxes...)
Of course, the two approaches are not mutually exclusive at all, but I for one don't want to have anything to do with bombing anyone as long as peaceful options are viable (and yeah, I understand that by paying taxes I am supporting bombing, but I make it a point not to pay many taxes...)
So, you don't pay "many taxes" and you (possibly?) "vote Ron Paul," I see... anything else being contributed lately?
Peace? PEACE?!? You think there can be peace?!!?!?!? Well, you're wrong. You think there can be cooperation with these people, but how can there be any peace when they take away your dignity? When they strip you of basic, human decency?
The state lives and dies on misery; they thrive on making men live like animals, only so that they can kill them like animals. I've had enough of that, I've filled myself with so much hate for members of the state, I've seen so much misery caused by their sins; I don't plan on living like an animal, and I sure as hell don't plan on dying like one either. For thousands of years these people have roamed the Earth pillaging and raping everything they could get their claws around, but now it's their turn to live like animals; I promise one day they're going to live like animals and they're going to die like animals too.
Grant:There are of course areas where the state does not allow competition, so a counter-economy is difficult.
There are of course areas where the state does not allow competition, so a counter-economy is difficult.
Grant: Using the political process to remove these barriers would be beneficial to everyone, and its been done before (e.g., the strong recent trend towards privatization around the world in everything but health care).
Using the political process to remove these barriers would be beneficial to everyone, and its been done before (e.g., the strong recent trend towards privatization around the world in everything but health care).
Privatization? You call giving the sons and daughters of congressmen the cushy, and expropriated, jobs of corporate big-wigs, dominating the entrepreneurial class, sucking out the life-blood of the market economy a trend towards legitimate private enterprise? This is a huge thing for us Market Anarchists and why we don't call ourselves "Anarcho-Capitalists," you're just conflating "capitalist" with entrepreneur and free-marketeer.
pairunoyd:Nic, my Catholic friend, why'd you say, 'F Youtube!'? What's the problem w/ Youtube?
Inquisitor:Good video Niccolo, and I agree. I was expecting you to sound way more Italian though.
My family came here before I was really in any type of language development. I think by the age of 8, you really start to develop your accent. While speaking Italian, however, I blend right in with my father.
DBratton:Those were also not Anarcho-Capitalists.
Those were also not Anarcho-Capitalists.
DBratton:Those were non-marxian communists who thought socialism could be achieved by destroying the state.
Those were non-marxian communists who thought socialism could be achieved by destroying the state.
Do you know what they meant by "Socialism?" You're speaking on two different levels with these people. You neither acknowledge, nor respect, fellow Market Anarchists that are completely willing to live by non-aggression axioms and within the absolute freest of economies, only under a different mode of production than the classic, Anglo-Saxon concept of business as usual.
newson:apart from the fact that in celebrating this sort of violent response, you lose a lot of people who might be sympathetic to your cause
apart from the fact that in celebrating this sort of violent response, you lose a lot of people who might be sympathetic to your cause
Good. I don't want, nor do I need, paper-tigers and straw men, reformists. I need soldiers, I don't need anyone else, but soldiers.
newson:, i'd ask to cite any time in history where your approach has worked.
, i'd ask to cite any time in history where your approach has worked.
1776 is kind of a good example. We came close in the Ukraine against the State-Socialists, also close in Hungary, and before that with Wang Xianzhi and Huang Chao. There are other revolutions that were successful, just not leading to this direct application of the free market, obviously.
newson: forming the state using the political process, i'd refer to the repeal of the corn law in 1846 under sir thomas peel (conservative pm of britain) as a classic example. took aristocratic power away from the whigs and enabled the formation of an extensive middle class. can't knock that.
forming the state using the political process, i'd refer to the repeal of the corn law in 1846 under sir thomas peel (conservative pm of britain) as a classic example. took aristocratic power away from the whigs and enabled the formation of an extensive middle class. can't knock that.
Wait one second. It took power from the whigs, yes, to do what? Give power to the Peelites? Even so, look at the results over the years. How much freer are the British people now? What government continued to exist? Was there exponential growth or decay in social welfare afterwards?Sure, you'll mask the intents of the state behind some one liners and a few policy reversals in a year or two, but when it comes to substance, count on the reformists to be your proverbial minutemen in the bed of change.
newson: the fact that fabianism has succeeded in shaping the public consciousness
the fact that fabianism has succeeded in shaping the public consciousness
newson: where communism failed, demonstrates the sense of promoting reform, not revolution. even the word revolution will alienate the average punter. reforms are achievable where the ideas have been promulgated and have taken root.politics is the art of compromise, and the hard-and-pure condemn themselves to remain marginal players.
where communism failed, demonstrates the sense of promoting reform, not revolution. even the word revolution will alienate the average punter. reforms are achievable where the ideas have been promulgated and have taken root.
Marginal in the eyes of the weak for the time of their relative peace, sure. When our time comes, however, we will not hide behind the trivialities of political society.
newson: i'm not american, but from here in australia, ron paul appears to be an unbelievable stroke of good fortune. none of our politicians has any clue about monetary policy, and our conservative party is about as "small government" as your republican party!
Niccolò: newson:apart from the fact that in celebrating this sort of violent response, you lose a lot of people who might be sympathetic to your cause Good. I don't want, nor do I need, paper-tigers and straw men, reformists. I need soldiers, I don't need anyone else, but soldiers. newson:, i'd ask to cite any time in history where your approach has worked.1776 is kind of a good example. We came close in the Ukraine against the State-Socialists, also close in Hungary, and before that with Wang Xianzhi and Huang Chao. There are other revolutions that were successful, just not leading to this direct application of the free market, obviously. newson: forming the state using the political process, i'd refer to the repeal of the corn law in 1846 under sir thomas peel (conservative pm of britain) as a classic example. took aristocratic power away from the whigs and enabled the formation of an extensive middle class. can't knock that. Wait one second. It took power from the whigs, yes, to do what? Give power to the Peelites? Even so, look at the results over the years. How much freer are the British people now? What government continued to exist? Was there exponential growth or decay in social welfare afterwards?Sure, you'll mask the intents of the state behind some one liners and a few policy reversals in a year or two, but when it comes to substance, count on the reformists to be your proverbial minutemen in the bed of change. newson: the fact that fabianism has succeeded in shaping the public consciousnessWhose consciousness? newson: where communism failed, demonstrates the sense of promoting reform, not revolution. even the word revolution will alienate the average punter. reforms are achievable where the ideas have been promulgated and have taken root.politics is the art of compromise, and the hard-and-pure condemn themselves to remain marginal players. Marginal in the eyes of the weak for the time of their relative peace, sure. When our time comes, however, we will not hide behind the trivialities of political society. newson: i'm not american, but from here in australia, ron paul appears to be an unbelievable stroke of good fortune. none of our politicians has any clue about monetary policy, and our conservative party is about as "small government" as your republican party! Oh boy, Ron Paul knows that you can't get price stabilization through fed manipulation! He'll surely save the cheerleader, and then the world!
Oh boy, Ron Paul knows that you can't get price stabilization through fed manipulation! He'll surely save the cheerleader, and then the world!
what? are you garibaldi marching on rome with the thousand volunteers? best of luck! 1776 is a bit of a stretch.
a brief, british history recap:
peel, in repealing the corn laws which had allowed the landed aristocrats (whigs) to gauge the poor through high food prices, was reviled by his very own conservative party colleagues. bottom line: the poor enjoyed rising disposible income, and britain started its march towards becoming a middle-class nation. or as socialists used to sneeringly say "a nation of shopkeepers". what's bad about this? the welfare state in britain followed a similar time-line to america, ie only exploded after the great depression.
as for fabianism, look at the penetration of public schooling, public housing, public medicine, public pensions, and the list goes on. sadly, it's hard to recognise the america of yore.
regarding history's near-misses (hungary, ukraine, etc) - well, historians will agonise over what might have been, but those only those who actually succeed shape the world. know nothing about huang chao or wang xianzhi, so can't comment.
perhaps your video will change the world where ron paul doesn't.
as a postscript: this is in wikipedia's entry for huang chao -
"Although Huang Chao invited many Tang officials to his new court, it was established by criminal, anarchist organization and thus had no real agenda about how to govern the nation effectively."
not a very impressive report card, perhaps you should bring them up to speed.
newson:what? are you garibaldi marching on rome with the thousand volunteers? best of luck! 1776 is a bit of a stretch. a brief, british history recap: peel, in repealing the corn laws which had allowed the landed aristocrats (whigs) to gauge the poor through high food prices, was reviled by his very own conservative party colleagues. bottom line: the poor enjoyed rising disposible income, and britain started its march towards becoming a middle-class nation. or as socialists used to sneeringly say "a nation of shopkeepers". what's bad about this? the welfare state in britain followed a similar time-line to america, ie only exploded after the great depression.
The great depression of the late 19th century or of the early 20th?
Also, I really couldn't care less about British history. You know the results. Did the state die off? Did your precious Peel repeal the government? No, so it was a failure, like all reformist, roundabout endeavours.
newson: as for fabianism, look at the penetration of public schooling, public housing, public medicine, public pensions, and the list goes on. sadly, it's hard to recognise the america of yore.
newson: regarding history's near-misses (hungary, ukraine, etc) - well, historians will agonise over what might have been, but those only those who actually succeed shape the world. know nothing about huang chao or wang xianzhi, so can't comment.
That hasn't stopped you in the past.
newson: perhaps your video will change the world where ron paul doesn't.
There's a far better chance that this conversation will change the world more than Saint R. Paul will.
newson: as a postscript: this is in wikipedia's entry for huang chao -"Although Huang Chao invited many Tang officials to his new court, it was established by criminal, anarchist organization and thus had no real agenda about how to govern the nation effectively." not a very impressive report card, perhaps you should bring them up to speed.
Wiki = Infallible.
You do realize, however, that I was pointing to the collapse of the Tang leading to the strategic rise of Wen - who was shortly after assassinated.
Again, open a textbook.
Niccolò:There's a far better chance that this conversation will change the world more than Saint R. Paul will.
gotta love dreamers.
I call myself both an anarcho-capitalist and a market anarchist, mainly because by capitalism I mean no more than an economy based on the exchange of private property and a degree of division of capital and labour. Regarding agorism, I haven't read Konkin's text yet, but I will given the time.
The policy analysist, John Lott (author of Freedomnomics, etc), identified the cause of the sudden growth in government in the 20th Century in the US (and elsewhere) by, amoungst other things, doing an analysis of the progress of government in all 50 states of the union (in order to eliminate extraneous factors). The result of the analysis is irrrefutable. The cause of the massive growth of government was: Giving women the vote.
Young women vote well to the left of men. When they marry they become more conservative and make up about half the distance to men. When they have children they move about half that distance again. But if they divorce they become more leftist than they were when young. Men's voting pattern pretty much stays constant through their lives. (That's me!).
So we know the answer. Hop to it, lads!
You first.
Brett_McS: The policy analysist, John Lott (author of Freedomnomics, etc), identified the cause of the sudden growth in government in the 20th Century in the US (and elsewhere) by, amoungst other things, doing an analysis of the progress of government in all 50 states of the union (in order to eliminate extraneous factors). The result of the analysis is irrrefutable. The cause of the massive growth of government was: Giving women the vote. Young women vote well to the left of men. When they marry they become more conservative and make up about half the distance to men. When they have children they move about half that distance again. But if they divorce they become more leftist than they were when young. Men's voting pattern pretty much stays constant through their lives. (That's me!). So we know the answer. Hop to it, lads! You first.
Are you still working with a pre-Rothbardian political spectrum where "far right" = less government and anarchism and the further left you go the more state control you favor? Are contemporary "conservatives" really in favor of less government then the left? In many cases, I beg to differ. I'm anti-government primarily. Anti-leftism is only one possible facet of that.
No, I'm using the meaning used throughout the US (and much of the west) in general discourse. "Leftist": wanting more government control, and "Conservative": wanting more responsibility retained by the individual. (One case where I do not bow to the pattern of common (in the US) useage is that I refuse to use the word "liberal" to describe Democrats etc.)
However, if I am using a word in some local tribal sense I'll let you know.
Niccolò:So, you don't pay "many taxes" and you (possibly?) "vote Ron Paul," I see... anything else being contributed lately?
I do plan to vote for Paul, because voting is easy and he's certainly the lesser of the available evils. I do also hope to contribute more, yes, in form of a business venture I am currenty writing code for.
Niccolò:Peace? PEACE?!? You think there can be peace?!!?!?!? Well, you're wrong. You think there can be cooperation with these people, but how can there be any peace when they take away your dignity? When they strip you of basic, human decency?
I understand what you are saying, and I cannot criticize your position. But I hate the meme of the state, the legitimization of violence, not most of the individuals involved in it. I do think cooperation is possible. Most probably don't really understand things as simplistic as comparative advantage. If they can be shown that cooperation more beneficial than domination, they will likely cooperate. Would it be nice if people hated the state on purely ethical grounds? Sure. But I don't think ethics are why most people tend to have libertarian ethics in their voluntary associations; I think its because of the enormous and obvious benefits of cooperation.
Niccolò:Privatization? You call giving the sons and daughters of congressmen the cushy, and expropriated, jobs of corporate big-wigs, dominating the entrepreneurial class, sucking out the life-blood of the market economy a trend towards legitimate private enterprise?
Yes, a lot of "privatization" has been corporatism, but markets are being more widely allowed in many parts of the world (I view the shift from communism to corporatism in other parts as basically being coercion-neutral). If you hope to get rid of the state, first you need to have institutions which will replace the many critical functions it provides, right? I'd see the following sorts of business aiding in that greatly: Prediction markets, peer-to-peer lending markets (which are on the rise!), private currencies, truly competitive schools, private roads, and others.
I don't see how political action which results in the legalization of the market provision of critical servies is at all a waste of time. Sure you can skirt around legality in a lot of cases, but other times it is much, much harder to do, and certain laws may render parts of the counter-economy nigh-impossible to implement. As long as the state has a monopoly on many critical services, I think peole will always point to it and say "See, we need the government to supply X". I guess what I'm saying is that I cannot see a counter-economy developing without some political reform as well.
To the Revolutionaries:
So the sins of the State are so egregious that you're willing to risk your own life and the lives of others to rectifiy it? Also, you believe this 'movement' has enough power to seriously challenge the United States?
Revolution might be warranted in years to come, but at this particular time I don't see the CLEAR moral grounds to do so and I especially don't see the logistical plausability
I think it's very interesting trying to formulate the point at which revolution is called for, considering the nearly imponderable costs and benefits, and especially as it relates to the valuation of ethics and morality. I think the only way to recruit the necessary masses is by venturing outside your comfort zone and meeting your target audience where they are. I like the idea of an inspired, alternative media campaign that uses as it's mouthpiece a disarmingly charming caricature that iconically encapsulates your ideals. It must be simple, dogmatic and to the point. Get enough talent in one place and things can happen.
Grant:I do plan to vote for Paul, because voting is easy and he's certainly the lesser of the available evils. I do also hope to contribute more, yes, in form of a business venture I am currenty writing code for.
Grant:I understand what you are saying, and I cannot criticize your position. But I hate the meme of the state, the legitimization of violence, not most of the individuals involved in it. I do think cooperation is possible. Most probably don't really understand things as simplistic as comparative advantage. If they can be shown that cooperation more beneficial than domination, they will likely cooperate. Would it be nice if people hated the state on purely ethical grounds? Sure. But I don't think ethics are why most people tend to have libertarian ethics in their voluntary associations; I think its because of the enormous and obvious benefits of cooperation.
Don't you see this is the same old argument of, "Well we need more people," though?
We may need more people to be more successful, but how do we get more people? We appear strong. It's the psychology of human beings looking for a father figure to turn to. Now, they look towards the state. Let's make them look to us.
The belief that there can be cooperation, to me, is a very naive one - when you watch men drag your father off to prison maybe you'll understand that.
Grant:Yes, a lot of "privatization" has been corporatism
Yes, a lot of "privatization" has been corporatism
I can only guess from a Freudian perspective why that is.
Grant:but markets are being more widely allowed in many parts of the world
but markets are being more widely allowed in many parts of the world
A market is nto a market unless it is a free market. Illusions being more pervasive does not mean that substance continues to thrive. Communism and Fascism are no different in their results or motives, merely in the flare they choose to emit.
Grant:(I view the shift from communism to corporatism in other parts as basically being coercion-neutral). If you hope to get rid of the state, first you need to have institutions which will replace the many critical functions it provides, right? I'd see the following sorts of business aiding in that greatly: Prediction markets, peer-to-peer lending markets (which are on the rise!), private currencies, truly competitive schools, private roads, and others.I don't see how political action which results in the legalization of the market provision of critical servies is at all a waste of time.
(I view the shift from communism to corporatism in other parts as basically being coercion-neutral). If you hope to get rid of the state, first you need to have institutions which will replace the many critical functions it provides, right? I'd see the following sorts of business aiding in that greatly: Prediction markets, peer-to-peer lending markets (which are on the rise!), private currencies, truly competitive schools, private roads, and others.
I don't see how political action which results in the legalization of the market provision of critical servies is at all a waste of time.
Because it is a malinvestment of the precious capital. It's an issue of allocative inefficiency; moreover, the simple fact that it doesn't exist in the light of virtue and ethics that you think it does.
Grant:Sure you can skirt around legality in a lot of cases, but other times it is much, much harder to do, and certain laws may render parts of the counter-economy nigh-impossible to implement. As long as the state has a monopoly on many critical services, I think peole will always point to it and say "See, we need the government to supply X". I guess what I'm saying is that I cannot see a counter-economy developing without some political reform as well.
Sure you can skirt around legality in a lot of cases, but other times it is much, much harder to do, and certain laws may render parts of the counter-economy nigh-impossible to implement. As long as the state has a monopoly on many critical services, I think peole will always point to it and say "See, we need the government to supply X". I guess what I'm saying is that I cannot see a counter-economy developing without some political reform as well.
Then it is because you reject your perceptions, you reject the knowledge you possess, the principles you tell yourself you uphold, but only fall short of acting on.
pairunoyd:To the Revolutionaries: So the sins of the State are so egregious that you're willing to risk your own life and the lives of others to rectifiy it?
So the sins of the State are so egregious that you're willing to risk your own life and the lives of others to rectifiy it?
Frankly, yes.
Grant:Also, you believe this 'movement' has enough power to seriously challenge the United States?
Also, you believe this 'movement' has enough power to seriously challenge the United States?
Grant:Revolution might be warranted in years to come, but at this particular time I don't see the CLEAR moral grounds to do so and I especially don't see the logistical plausability
Due to your moral inconsitencies and personal inadequacies.
Grant:I think it's very interesting trying to formulate the point at which revolution is called for, considering the nearly imponderable costs and benefits, and especially as it relates to the valuation of ethics and morality. I think the only way to recruit the necessary masses is by venturing outside your comfort zone and meeting your target audience where they are. I like the idea of an inspired, alternative media campaign that uses as it's mouthpiece a disarmingly charming caricature that iconically encapsulates your ideals. It must be simple, dogmatic and to the point. Get enough talent in one place and things can happen.
You see! This is a principled and knowledgable statement, and it's one perfectly encompassed by the strategy of Agorism! So shines a good deed in a weary world.
Also, it's not just a question of whether revolutionary means can succeed, but can they actually make success harder to achieve? Premature revolution can actually strengthen the opposition. What if the net effect of these revolutionary tactics is to postpone liberation? How culpable are the incompetent tacticians?
pairunoyd:Also, it's not just a question of whether revolutionary means can succeed, but can they actually make success harder to achieve? Premature revolution can actually strengthen the opposition. What if the net effect of these revolutionary tactics is to postpone liberation? How culpable are the incompetent tacticians?
Corporations are an extension of the state.
I can not see how they could through the Agorist system, which is sort of a hybrid between incrementalism and radicalism.
I find myself in agreement with Albert Jay Nock:
"(I)f it were in my power to pull down its whole structure overnight and set up another of my own devising — to abolish the State out of hand, and replace it by an organization of the economic means — I would not do it, for the minds of Americans are far from fitted to any such great change as this, and the effect would be only to lay open the way for the worse enormities of usurpation — possibly, who knows! with myself as the usurper! After the French Revolution, Napoleon!
Great and salutary social transformations, such as in the end do not cost more than they come to, are not effected by political shifts, by movements, by programs and platforms, least of all by violent revolutions, but by sound and disinterested thinking."
To put it in my own words: As long as the prevailing attitude of the majority is that government is desirable and beneficial, or at least necessary, no revolution or reform can succeed in abolishing The State as an institution, only demolishing one incarnation of it to clear the way for another.
Where do you get the idea that revolution can not be incremental? Where do you get the idea that "demolishing" one head of the hydra will not merely mean seven others will grow in its place?I think it's rather foolish to assume you have the power to take on one head of the beast while seven hundred other heads continually snap at you as you do it. Quit trying to take leviathan down with one quick swoop of the knife, it won't work and your get liberty quick schemes are only further shattering the factions of the Libertarian movement farther and farther apart. If you want real, substantial change, then you need to be in this for the long hall - not just until December 2008.
Niccolò: Where do you get the idea that revolution can not be incremental?
My experience with the whole violence thing is that it's all or nothing. Once the bullets (or bombs) start flying then there is no half measures or incremental escalations -- you either win or lose *everything*.
If you aren't prepared for this you should rethink your total (incremental) overthrow of the State.
Anonymous Coward:My experience with the whole violence thing is that it's all or nothing. Once the bullets (or bombs) start flying then there is no half measures or incremental escalations -- you either win or lose *everything*.If you aren't prepared for this you should rethink your total (incremental) overthrow of the State.
That's not really what's envisioned... I mean... At all.
I think if people were to read SEK3's New Libertarian Manifesto, they'd get it more.
Here, it's free.
Niccolò: Where do you get the idea that revolution can not be incremental? Where do you get the idea that "demolishing" one head of the hydra will not merely mean seven others will grow in its place?I think it's rather foolish to assume you have the power to take on one head of the beast while seven hundred other heads continually snap at you as you do it. Quit trying to take leviathan down with one quick swoop of the knife, it won't work and your get liberty quick schemes are only further shattering the factions of the Libertarian movement farther and farther apart. If you want real, substantial change, then you need to be in this for the long hall - not just until December 2008.
Granted, I haven't viewed the video due to the slowness of my internet connection, but in reading the posts in this thread, it seems that you advocate violent revolution to overthrow the State. Is that impression correct? If not, feel free to correct my error.
If so, I would submit that that strategy itself is merely attacking heads of the beast. The body of the beast, the reason the State is able to exist and perpetuate itself, is the prevailing belief among the population that it is necessary for the survival of peaceful, just, and orderly society. False though it is, that belief is not going to be shaken by physically attacking the structures or people of the governing power. If anything, violent mayhem is going to strengthen the convictions of the masses that they need the State to protect them from violent elements. Since they do not view the State as an aggressor, those who attack it, no matter how justified, will bear that guilt in the eyes of the majority. Violence does not change minds, and changing minds is precisely what is necessary for a libertarian society to become established and to endure. It may seem a hopeless proposition, and frustration and outrage may make violence seem an attractive alternative, but I can't envision a scenario in which violent revolution of a small minority can bring about a lasting stateless society.
The body of the beast, the reason the State is able to exist and perpetuate itself, is the prevailing belief among the population that it is necessary for the survival of peaceful, just, and orderly society. False though it is, that belief is not going to be shaken by physically attacking the structures or people of the governing power.
After hanging around his message board for a while and listening to many his podcasts, I can tell you that this is precisely Molyneux's view. It's very similiar to La Boetie. Molyneux's position is basically that the state is a consequence of the ideological enabling of abuse within the family and personal relationships. Therefore, in order to eventually bring down the state, we have to work on our personal lives and reject unchosen positive obligations. People have to stop believing in the state, and as a pretext they have to stop attacking eachother and enabling behavior in their personal lives that leads to and allows the state to exist on a macro scale. So, in his view, the best way to get freedom now has nothing to do with the state really at all. It's a matter of creating our own little stateless society in our personal lives. And convincing slaves (all of us) to stop enabling and rationalizing their own slavery.
Note: sorry, I got the threads mixed up, thinking that this was the thread where Niccolo linked to a Stefan Molyneux video.