Political Theory

Re: Tangible Goals

Nitroadict — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:06:19 GMT

I think there is one strong agreement amid the disagreements, however: the importance of spreading education & information regarding alternative political & apolitical thought. That sounds of not only a tangible goal, but a common tangible goal as well.

I think despite the disagreements taking reign of the discussion, that this would be a vital area to further common ground with, regardless of strategical differences. Especially when you consider that not only this a vital step in the process of Argoism, but it also essential to the process of possible political change within the system, advocated by political libertarians, as well.

Re: Tangible Goals

ViennaSausage — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:49:50 GMT

Thanks everyone for the responses. There were good arguments written for both sides and strangely enough neither side of the story. While we may agree on most positions of where a libertarian would stand, it appears there is strong disagreement on how to best go about garnering a libertarian world.

Re: Tangible Goals

maxpot46 — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:07:38 GMT

On second thought, nothing new to add.

Re: Tangible Goals

Stranger — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:20:39 GMT

maxpot46:

"Playing fair" IMO includes such things as an honest currency linked to gold (in a free market for money), elimination of income and other direct taxation, pardon of millions of non-violent victimless "criminals", and various other positive effects. So there is meat to sell. Now it's a marketing problem.

Even if that were done, it still wouldn't be liberty.

Re: Tangible Goals

maxpot46 — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 07:56:35 GMT

Stranger:
Let's just cut out all the politics and look at it from a raw economic perspective. Candidate A (our man) proposes that everybody play fair. Candidate B proposes that 60% of the people be able to exploit 10% of the people. How is candidate A expected to win, given what we know about human nature?

"Playing fair" IMO includes such things as an honest currency linked to gold (in a free market for money), elimination of income and other direct taxation, pardon of millions of non-violent victimless "criminals", and various other positive effects. So there is meat to sell. Now it's a marketing problem.

Re: Tangible Goals

Nitroadict — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 02:56:55 GMT

Apolitical means would consist of: Agorism (counter-economics, black & grey markets, economic secession), education & information being spread (Hoppe's anti-intellectual intellectuals, virulent memetics, culture jamming), & mass civil disobedience. I might be missing some, but those are the ones that come to mind immediately.

For what it's worth though, I second what Ego says regarding ' a little bit of everything', sicne, as we've seen before, one of the best tactics of The State, regarding oppression, is dividing a minority (libertarians vs. statists) against itself.

I can see the minarchists existing in the political climate as sort of playing a prime part for the spread of education & information, a gateway to the apolitical means, but anything more than that would be a bit of a waste of time and energy, & could interfere with the progress of apolitical means of change. In some cases, the minarchists & political libertarians could act as guides or semi-intellectuals towards the apolitical landscape & anti-intellectual intellectuals.

I see better use of the Libertarian Party being abolished & converted into The Libertarian College or The Libertarian Institute for Public Awareness, into an institute similar to the Mises Institute.

Re: Tangible Goals

Ego — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 02:31:43 GMT

Nothing we've tried so far has worked. In the end, I feel that it will be a little bit of everything.

Re: Tangible Goals

liberty student — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 02:12:38 GMT

Stranger:

Liberal democracy hasn't been subverted. It has become exactly what it should have been expected to become given the incentives it creates. As economists, we know this to be only logical and inevitable. As economists we must act rationally on this knowledge and ditch democracy forever.

You may be ready to, or already are ditching democracy, but democracy still controls you.

Thanks for the discussion. I need to do some more research, because I feel I'm lacking in knowledge.

Re: Tangible Goals

liberty student — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 02:05:30 GMT

Nitroadict:

Again, I simply do not see how this is better than apolitical means.

What apolitical means? I still have yet to hear a compelling argument for how the government can be toppled through apolitical non-violent means.

Re: Tangible Goals

Nitroadict — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:36:14 GMT

Co-opting would not work for libertarian values at all, despite myself once thinking it would help. At best, it *might* make the 2 parties more different from each other, but that would essentially hold up the 2 party system, and end up bolstering the legitimacy for Statism.

That's assuming of course the libertarians that infiltrate are able to remain true to their agenda without compromising (very unlikely, if they want to get any electoral progress), and what you would end up is something not really resembling an actual libertarian movement, in so far as opposing the state by somehow using the state as a means of political 'progress'.

And no they aren't, obviously, limited to political purposes, but while operating within the state, Statist enforced propaganda and disinfo would be used on their landscape, and it would be efficient at chipping away at the political means of libertarians, as it continually has since the establishment of the Libertarian Party and further back still when the classical liberals fell to the Statists.

I find apolitical means more logical since it bypasses trying to teach the state "new tricks", by effectively using the "old tricks", to somehow effect change in a landscape dominated and in fact, reinforced by Statist intentions, from public schooling to "the best jobs are at the government or with a company", to the mainstream media's complacency to mouth propaganda in exchange for access to power, the intellectuals who are also given certain power & advantage over other's when they become apologists ("The State taking care of it's own", so to speak).

It's all a reinforced system that frankly is not going to give away by using the same levers built into it, run by different people; even if they manage to get into power, how long will they stay? How many will stay true to their cause and not be swayed by Statist interests? How many will compromise & compromise until again they resemble Utilitarian apologists for the Statists, as was the fate of some of the earlier classical liberals?

How many will The State let wield power that is counter-intuitive to The State's interest? How long will it take for the 2 major parties to start co-opting the Libertarian platform, with the politicans from the Democrats & Republican parties each individual degree in double-talk, eventually putting on yet another show for the people to achieve their own agendas, as if they have changed?

How long will it take for the very same people who voted said Libertarians into power, at any level, to be swayed by another other party, whom, wisely, have stuck their thumbs out in the wind, and caught on to this "Libertarian Product", start selling themselves accordingly, and oops, next election rolls around, and the Libertarians are no longer at the top, let alone any other gained positions throughout the local, state & national levels?

The State would wage a counter-attack with a vast home field advantage.

Again, I simply do not see how this is better than apolitical means.

Re: Tangible Goals

Stranger — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:26:44 GMT

liberty student:
There is an irony to an anarchist arguing that liberal democracy doesn't work, when they choose not to participate in it. Kinda hard to be represented if you will not include yourself.

Liberal democracy hasn't failed overnight. It's been subverted over time. I have to believe that if it can be subverted, it can be reverted.

We did participate in it. For two hundred years we participated in it, and lost again and again, because the incentives created by democracy are aligned against freedom. You are asking us to fight against natural human incentives. You are asking this from economists.

Liberal democracy hasn't been subverted. It has become exactly what it should have been expected to become given the incentives it creates. As economists, we know this to be only logical and inevitable. As economists we must act rationally on this knowledge and ditch democracy forever.

Re: Tangible Goals

Stranger — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:23:22 GMT

Ego:

That's as much an argument against you as it is an argument against me, and it's why there are so many people clamoring for more government intervention into the economy (look at those Obama rallies!). No matter what, we have to educate people about markets.

No, it's not an argument against me, it's an argument against liberal democracy. Democracy creates the incentive to exploit minorities in favor of majorities. That's undeniably true, no matter how educated people are. Hell, it may be that the more educated people are, the more they realize that they benefit from the exploitation of minorities!

The only way to protect minorities is rebellion.

Re: Tangible Goals

liberty student — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:49:03 GMT

Nitroadict:

As much as education would solve problems of exposure, and attempt to battle disinformation, I can easily see the 2 parties manipulating Libertarian victories to their advantage if they had to resort to doing so.

Just co-opt their parties.

Nitroadict:

I just don't see a political victory for Libertarians being viable when you consider the propoganda machine, both offline & online,the devious Statist counter-measures concerning abusing labels, spreading disinformation, and the compromise involved in gettting electorial progress to the point where libertarian is a name only. History has shown it hasn't worked before, despite my own ocassional hopes that the political battle for victory for libertarians wouldn't harm the apolitical battle for victory.

I don't understand how people can expect any victory under any circumstances with those forces arrayed against them. Propaganda and disinfo aren't just used strictly for political purposes.

Re: Tangible Goals

liberty student — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:35:50 GMT

Brainpolice:

Not that the legion of rightists who want to rob the poor, set up a national surveillance system, turn the country into a gigantic prison in the name of national sovereignty, use the government to invade Iran and Venezeula, etc. are any better.

Those are uber statists, not rightists or leftists.

Re: Tangible Goals

Brainpolice — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:34:38 GMT

There is an irony to an anarchist arguing that liberal democracy doesn't work, when they choose not to participate in it. Kinda hard to be represented if you will not include yourself.

It's not ironic or hypocritical at all, as I choose not to participate precisely because it is futile and illusory. The point is that the results of people participating in the political process in a representative democracy has rather consistantly been a matter of moderate changes in who holds the positions within an oligarchy while the institution itself remains and possibly grows. Even if every single person voted, the process would still be a sham because they would not directly control the state in any real sense. At best, a numerical majority of the people (which could be as little as a few percent in theory) would indirectly determine who among a handful of prepicked rulers gains or keeps a certain position in the institution, and then those few rulers go on to directly be in control of the institution, entirely isolated from those who voted for them and those who did not alike and entirely unliable to any promises or oaths they made on the way into the position. It doesn't work by the very nature of the institution and process. The empirical record of democratic processes over the past few hundred years has not been pretty from a libertarian perspective.