Political Theory

Re: Several Questions for You All.

Stranger — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:15:00 GMT

CrazyCoot:

1) For those of who did not start off your life as libertarians please say a little bit about your evolution. Personally I was first a moderate Democrat due to family tradition, then what be best described as a somewhat hawkish 'libertarian' (P.J. O'Rourke style Republican) then I realized that the contradictions were too glaring.

I started as a liberal democrat, much like everyone else. The search for a solution to poverty led me to study economics, which eventually led me to study Mises, then Rothbard, then eventually the economics of government with Hoppe. I consider myself a political economist.

CrazyCoot:

2) Is a provisional dictatorship necessary to undo the damage?

Dictatorships are rarely provisional. What is needed is an end to the monopoly on law, which can be achieved with only a small minority of highly motivated partisans, and then an orderly bankruptcy and liquidation of the state.

CrazyCoot:

3) Would the collapse of society as we know it be necessary for libertarianism to get a full hearing?

It would make no difference whatsoever. In many places society collapsed and no one adopted libertarianism, in fact they often adopted pseudo-religions or voodoo-like cults to explain their collapse.

True reason is the province of only the elites of the elite class. They are the only ones that will give it a full hearing.

CrazyCoot:
4) Is focusing on education and changing people's minds an approach that is fast enough to keep enough with government growth?

Education will never stop government growth. It will increase the number of reasonable people, but that may only result in their exclusion from power.

Only action can stop government.

CrazyCoot:

5) Given the anti-intellectual nature of capitalism, i.e. they're not paid as much as they'd like, how do you establish a broader base of support for libertarianism among academics given the ability of the state to use tax dollars to bribe them?

You cannot. You must manoeuvre around them and attack them at their core weakness.

CrazyCoot:
6) Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future in terms of liberty?

I'm on the fence. Clearly anarchy is coming whether or not we want it, but whether or not we will enjoy more freedom or more prosperity depends on our ability to rebuild civilization.

Re: Several Questions for You All.

Gewehr98 — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:05:15 GMT

1) Apolitical most of my life. Marxist for a couple of months, quickly became disillusioned with the whole thing. "Ron Paul" Libertarian. Ancap now.

2) No. History tells us there have been very few dictators willing to give up their own power, or that of their Governments. I would not even trust the most ardent Libertarian in this role.

3) For me, the question is; in the event of a collapse, would we have a right to set up a national libertarian society? Or would we be better off finding like minded people, and those willing to accept our ideas, set up our own communities, and lead by example?

4) I guess it depends on how quickly you are expecting to see change. Rothbard knew it would not take place over night.

5) LaughingMan had a good answer to this one.

6) Optimistic, even the current Tea Party movement is a step in the right direction. The ideals are, at least. Although, it does not go far enough for me personally.

Re: Several Questions for You All.

Libertyandlife — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:47:52 GMT

^I'm okay with individualist feminists, cause I think it's ideas are things that most libertarians would agree with. But personally I feel in the present day feminism ingeneral has become unneccesary ideological baggage.

Re: Several Questions for You All.

AnonLLF — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:11:22 GMT

Marko:

Libertyandlife:

Marko:

Scott F:

Became Individualist feminist.

How does that happen?

Individualist feminism came out as a reaction against current anti-male feminism. It is very strange how the movement to stop limits against women can create hatred for men.

No, I meant how does someone named Scott becomes a feminist?

I reject Radical feminism,socialist/marxist feminism,Political lesbianism etc.

My feminism is Anti-state.I admit that gender roles are at very least part genetic though very likely are almost completely due to genetics.

I agree with much if not all of what Wendy Mcelroy says.I oppose legal privileges for men or women and currently we live under matriarchy not patriarchy.I support both men and women's rights as since as a libertarian I believe in all humans having rights so basically I automatically support feminism.

I'm not sure what you mean by , how could I become a feminist.

Could you clarify?

Re: Several Questions for You All.

Merlin — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:16:43 GMT

CrazyCoot:

2) Is a provisional dictatorship necessary to undo the damage?

To be able to institute a Libertarian dictatorship, one should be a truly incredible human being: accomplished orator, thinker, tactician-strategist, authoritarian and lucky (basicaly a Rothbard+Lenin character). Such men are the rarest thing in history, but should one come about, we need not bother ourselves too much: he will institute a libertarian dictatorship, no mater what. We can't controll this, it shall either happen or not indipendently of our will.

CrazyCoot:
3) Would the collapse of society as we know it be necessary for libertarianism to get a full hearing?

Students of collusion have a rule of thumb: when in any give market there are less than 4-5 players, collusion becomes possible. Today there are but two or three powers, hence we already live under a a World Government. There’s nowhere else to go from here, thus such a societal collapse will come about, I have not a doubt on that. Again, since we can’t influence it, we need not worry about its effects on our cause.

CrazyCoot:
Is focusing on education and changing people's minds an approach that is fast enough to keep enough with government growth?

Let us not even try, you can’t beat the State at that. More than 80% of people never get reason. Assuming that those in this forum are a cross-section of society would be a grave mistake. Those that can comprehend reason and abstraction, and are lucky enough to run into well-articulate libertarian ideas, shall become libertarians, but forget about anyone else.

CrazyCoot:
Given the anti-intellectual nature of capitalism, i.e. they're not paid as much as they'd like, how do you establish a broader base of support for libertarianism among academics given the ability of the state to use tax dollars to bribe them?

An even worse idea. Among the last few libertarian fables, I must say.

CrazyCoot:
6) Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future in terms of liberty?

“Brave King! Tarry awhile, because your days of travail will soon pass. Already the sun has risen behind the clouds of your misfortune, and soon it will shine forth!” The youngest of us shall have the satisfaction of shouting: “Can you see now? We’ve been telling you all along!”

Re: Several Questions for You All.

Marko — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:23:40 GMT

Libertyandlife:

Marko:

Scott F:

Became Individualist feminist.

How does that happen?

Individualist feminism came out as a reaction against current anti-male feminism. It is very strange how the movement to stop limits against women can create hatred for men.

No, I meant how does someone named Scott becomes a feminist?

Re: Several Questions for You All.

Jon Irenicus — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:53:22 GMT

To 1), a dose of Hoppe and Rand disabused me of any idiotic views on the world. Hallowed be their names.

5) Given the anti-intellectual nature of capitalism, i.e. they're not paid as much as they'd like, how do you establish a broader base of support for libertarianism among academics given the ability of the state to use tax dollars to bribe them?

Anti-parasitic/-things-that-no-one-wants you mean. There will be intellectual produce, just not suited to some disconnected elite.

And yes, anarcho-capitalism/-propertarianism/voluntaryism requires a revolution in how we conceptualise society, because it is revolutionary to be 100% consistent in our beliefs. ;)

Re: Several Questions for You All.

Capital Pumper — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:49:57 GMT

CrazyCoot:

6) Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future in terms of liberty?

At the moment, I feel as if the circus is in town. I can't help shake it when I analyze current events or the world. I also am perplexed that people are driving drunk down the foggy road to serfdom. My only question is, "how long can they keep this up, with impunity, before driving off the cliff?"

Re: Several Questions for You All.

Libertyandlife — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:56:56 GMT

1) My father is libertarian though we didn't talk about it till I grew up more, all my immediate family members are basically libertarians through the influence of my father and I. I grew up watching Stossel, and I have always disliked and found authority disturbing, so I would say at the core I have always been libertarian even if I didn't identify as it. Before 2001 I was sort of nationalistic. After that, I turned towards libertarianism, though more of the socialist brand of it. Since then I have always been anti war, and pro human rights. I have always seen law as more restrictive. I saw myself as between limited government and none at all. Later I turned against socialism, and sought a place between capitalism and socialism. At some point I read Malcolm X's autobiography and Thoreau's Walden and Civil Disobedience. I would say those two books are the biggest influence on me politically and philosophically, they taught me simplicity, independence, peace between people is possible, free will, change is always possible whether personal or as a collective, being positive, and not to give in to evil. Slowly I opened up towards the free market, and found anarchocapitalism interesting, though not looking into it too far. I still cared about issues, but other things were keeping my mind busy (I always like researching something). More recently, the Ron Paul based movement got me more interested into free market libertarian ideas, I liked him purely based on his libertarian beliefs. I only read into Rothbard and Mises within the last year though. I'd describe myself as something between an anarchocapitalist or minarchist, but I prefer the libertarian label.

2) Seems like a bad idea. How can you undo the damage of unjust authority with more of it? That's socialism.

3) Hell no. Revolution is necessary, but society does not need to collapse, neither need it be violent. I oppose violent revolution, it seems to create a power vacuum for more government to seep through.

4) I would say it is the most effective general way to do it, people tend to go with the times, and popular opinion. This is the only way to strike at the root. I do think other action can help though.

5) Simple, take government control away from the government. Continuing what I was saying in the last post, I do believe that we can become part of the media, and part of the government. I believe the only way to find a solution is from inside the government and media itself.

6) Purely optimistic, I feel condemned to optimism, because pessimism only condemns the possibility of liberty.

Marko:

Scott F:

Became Individualist feminist.

How does that happen?

Individualist feminism came out as a reaction against current anti-male feminism. It is very strange how the movement to stop limits against women can create hatred for men.

Re: Several Questions for You All.

Clayton — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:20:53 GMT

CrazyCoot:

A few questions for the members of this forum; please feel free to answer all or none of them.

1) For those of who did not start off your life as libertarians please say a little bit about your evolution. Personally I was first a moderate Democrat due to family tradition, then what be best described as a somewhat hawkish 'libertarian' (P.J. O'Rourke style Republican) then I realized that the contradictions were too glaring.

2) Is a provisional dictatorship necessary to undo the damage?

Of course not. It's like saying we need to bulldoze New Orleans in totality after Katrina so we can rebuild it.

3) Would the collapse of society as we know it be necessary for libertarianism to get a full hearing?

I think history shows that people become more anti-libertarian during social crises. The best route to liberty is evolutionary not revolutionary. Unfortunately, that means that a lot of obvious improvements to freedom will come very, very slowly.

4) Is focusing on education and changing people's minds an approach that is fast enough to keep enough with government growth?

I think now that we've entered the digital age, the government is pretty much screwed in its attempts to control information. The nature of widely-available, strong cryptography means that it's pretty much always possible, one way or another, to transmit prohibited speech no matter what measures the authorities take. For example, Canada really rattled the cage recently when they started forcing people to reveal their passwords in customs on penalty of blacklisting. People, of course, complied. But there are so many ways around it that it is a futile effort. To keep your data safe, just upload it as an encrypted file and remove it from your computer, travel to Canada, then access the file once inside Canada. Reverse the process before you leave. There's no measure Canada could possibly take to prevent this from happening.

5) Given the anti-intellectual nature of capitalism, i.e. they're not paid as much as they'd like, how do you establish a broader base of support for libertarianism among academics given the ability of the state to use tax dollars to bribe them?

This question doesn't make any sense. If you mean, "how do you defeat the arguments of bribed intellectuals", the answer is that you defeat them in the same way you defeat anyone who is wrong... with reasons and evidence.

6) Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future in terms of liberty?

Pessimistic short-term (especially in the US), optimistic long-term, especially everywhere except the US. Liberty really is inevitable. Even blood-pacts cannot prevent the inexorable grind of competition for opportunities for voluntary exchange. Sooner or later, the state - as we know it - will be ground to pieces by the machinery of freedom.

Clayton -

Re: Several Questions for You All.

Marko — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:53:07 GMT

Scott F:

Became Individualist feminist.

How does that happen?

Re: Several Questions for You All.

AnonLLF — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:18:14 GMT

CrazyCoot:

A few questions for the members of this forum; please feel free to answer all or none of them.

1) For those of who did not start off your life as libertarians please say a little bit about your evolution. Personally I was first a moderate Democrat due to family tradition, then what be best described as a somewhat hawkish 'libertarian' (P.J. O'Rourke style Republican) then I realized that the contradictions were too glaring.

2) Is a provisional dictatorship necessary to undo the damage?

3) Would the collapse of society as we know it be necessary for libertarianism to get a full hearing?

4) Is focusing on education and changing people's minds an approach that is fast enough to keep enough with government growth?

5) Given the anti-intellectual nature of capitalism, i.e. they're not paid as much as they'd like, how do you establish a broader base of support for libertarianism among academics given the ability of the state to use tax dollars to bribe them?

6) Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future in terms of liberty?

Sorry this is going to be a long post.

(1)

Apolitical
blindly pro war after 9/11
individualist (2002.aged 12)
aged 13/14 (2003-2004) Anti-authoritarian pro death penalty Left liberal ,almost socialist but largely Apolitical.I had opinions but didn't want them enforced .Also wavered between pro and anti war(while holding a belief in classical liberal principles especially freedom and idea of rights .weird I know.the muddle was caused by a book I read)
(late 2004 aged 14)Searching about individualism led me to an Objectivist site(I never knew it was Objectivist I more loved the individualism since It was mostly focused on individualism)
(2005-2007 )Eventually looked up Ayn rand and Objectivist and absorded all of it's philosophy and elements of it's politics(including being pro -war).It was at this point I became anti -socialism,learned what capitalism was and adopted vaguely libertarian positions.Remained Anti-anarchism due to the straw man set up by objectivists.Had heard of libertarianism but believed the lies about it.
(2007-2008)Discovered Ron Paul on wikipedia and did some research into him.Became a radical Minarchist constitutionalist libertarian(became anti-war while retaining some objectivist ideas).Briefly flirted with the libertarian party of the UK(LPUK) and planned a career as POLITICIAN!(I must be crazy!).Read mises.org and lewrockwell.com.Had heard of anarcho-capitalism but wasn't convinced.Became Individualist feminist.
(2009-present)Let my membership in LPUK lapse. Read more on anarcho-capitalism. Considered it possible but unnecessary .felt scared about believing in anarchism so still clung to minarchism. Gave up Objectivism completely.Saw rothbardian/austrian philosophical ideas as far superior.Gave up minarchism and became anarchist and started learning about it and austrian economics in depth .Became a voluntaryist . Read rothbard's piece describing organised objectivism as a cult.Changed positions on a variety of things .Completely gave up egalitarianism.Saw more clearly why minarchism was a dead end.Saw the necessity for hierarchy and authority in society in contrast to my past anti-authoritarianism.Found agreement with some 'paleo-libertarian' ideas while not being culturally conservative.

(2) No.It wouldn't work and even if it could I wouldn't want it.

(3) I'm not sure.It could be that it just brings out more statism and socialism in people.we might end up with full on hitler style fascism before long.

(4) Education is vital.More people need to know these ideas.One of the problems we face is that the mainstream ignores us to cut us out of the debate.We need to raise our problem and show we offer an alternative to both the left ,the centre and the right ( I think the internet is a great help with this,it's just we need to draw people in on all the information available and see it we can persuade them.it's true people will see the material and might reject it).We need to continually repeat the key principles an arguments. We need to debate people everywhere and anywhere as much as is possible,We need to continue to build and develop all areas of libertarian political philosophy and economics.We need to look at setting up voluntary alternative's to state institutions e.g. welfare state..We also need to try to spread libertarianism worldwide especially in Europe where currently sadly it isn't very strong.I really want to play a part in this.Possible sister Mises institutes should be set up following the eastern europe one as an example of how this could work. non violent Civil disobedience will be necessary at some point.Secession is definately a viable option.

(5) Capitalism isn't anti-intellectual really.Bribes don't mean they'll follow the party line though most do.One strategy I plan to be involved in is to infiltrate the opinion moulding class e.g. media,academics etc and present our ideas to the masses-If we can have lots of libertarians writing news articles, presenting the news,on tv,on the radio etc this would be great.We need to break the hold on minds that begins with government schooling.

(6) A bit of both at times. I'm optimistic when I learn that someone has opposed some government law or program or that non libertarians are rejecting it too.Reading libertarian literature inspires me alot.I don't think we will achieve liberty in my life time(though I hope so) but I think it will occur eventually(socialists probably felt the same way once so I guess that's a sign of hope for us.) I get pessimistic when I think of just how statist the world is, for example that families spent their weekend at locally owned/financed leisure centres and no one thinks that's strange or when I try to debate someone about libertarianism and they won't listen to me because their just loudly shouting(metaphorically) "YOUR WRONG!".I'm troubled that people are so apathetic that they don't care about electoral politics(which is good as far as I'm concerned) but they also don't care about political philosophy or freedom.They just live life in a bubble of ignorace.

In the end freedom outlives control.

Re: Several Questions for You All.

Cabal — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:03:22 GMT

1) I was raised in a southern, Christian family. All of my family is republican. I never paid much heed to politics or economics until my early 20s and didn't even really know what libertarianism was. I got into learning about libertarianism and economics largely in part because of the controversial RP in the last presidential election and a general disconnect with Republicrats. Stumbled upon mises.org, started reading, listening and watching... turns out I've always been something of a closet-libertarian. Still learning.

2) I don't think so. The idea that one man, be it a president with unprecedented power or a dictator, has enough knowledge, wisdom and foresight to manage all aspects of a nation, from economic and monetary policy to foreign relations and domestic policy, is ridiculous to me. Aside from that, a dictatorship would presumably go against some of the core fundamentals of libertarianism in terms of morality and natural rights, as I understand it.

3) Necessary? Perhaps, perhaps not. I suppose it all depends on your definition of a collapse of society in this instance. Would the Great Depression qualify as a collapse of society? Because as a result of the Great Depression, we were drawn further away from libertarianism. I'm fairly certain we'd need some kind of social shift of some sort, though I honestly don't know how that might come about efficiently. I suppose we may be witnessing the beginnings of one now, perhaps... libertarianism and libertarian ideals seem to be spreading like wild fire these days, what with the speed and accessibility of information, especially as more and more people become irrevocably dissatisfied with the current state of partisan politics and the status quo.

4) I think focusing on education and continued discussion/debat/discourse is always healthy, regardless. I don't think there's enough right now to keep up with growth of government, however.

5) I'm not really sure, but I'm inclined to agree with other posters that they're largely irrelevant.

6) I try to stay as optimistic as possible, but I won't lie, sometimes it is difficult with each passing day that things seem to be getting worse and worse... then again, perhaps things have to get worse before they can get better. If that is true, then perhaps the observation that things are getting worse may end up being evidence to the fact that things are on the way to the better. I don't really let myself get discouraged, regardless of how many times I find myself arguing the same points over and over with statists and socialists... it just makes me want to learn more, if only to more thoroughly obliterate their arguments and perhaps give them pause to think about liberty as I do. I'm not sure if I've ever personally "converted" anyone, per se, but I know I've made people question their adopted philosophies and reevaluate their perspectives, which is a hopeful sign. Although, I will admit these cases are generally few and far between as far as I know.

Re: Several Questions for You All.

Michelangelo — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:35:27 GMT

1) For those of who did not start off your life as libertarians please say a little bit about your evolution. Personally I was first a moderate Democrat due to family tradition, then what be best described as a somewhat hawkish 'libertarian' (P.J. O'Rourke style Republican) then I realized that the contradictions were too glaring.

Apolitical -> Fascist -> Limited State Fascist -> Voluntary Fascist -> AnCap (with a tendency to use Fascist concepts outside of economic issues, old habits die hard)

2) Is a provisional dictatorship necessary to undo the damage?

The problem won't give us the solution.

3) Would the collapse of society as we know it be necessary for libertarianism to get a full hearing?

Would it be necessary? I rather doubt it, if anything it'd be counterproductive. Society is the abstract concept of individuals cooperating with one another. To see it collapse would as thus mean the disruption of this cooperation and the rise of the mentality that its "all against all". Libertarianism and affiliated ideologies require the opposite, they require that individuals recognize the usefulness of cooperation if we wish to maintain our current sanitation systems.

4) Is focusing on education and changing people's minds an approach that is fast enough to keep enough with government growth?

One hopes so.

5) Given the anti-intellectual nature of capitalism, i.e. they're not paid as much as they'd like, how do you establish a broader base of support for libertarianism among academics given the ability of the state to use tax dollars to bribe them?

Capitalism is anti-intellectual? When did this happen? How is that possible?

Really though, it depends on the individual person. I can see some people within the 'intellectual camp' who would do just fine without the state. They're popular enough that they can continue to maintain their quality of life unchanged. Now its the leeches that do little more than join hands with the state that in for a rude awakening. The best thing I can conceive to do with the latter group is either ignore them, or ignore them. They are, for the most part, too stubborn to change their thinking or simply not worth the effort needed. I do have my time preference you know.

6) Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future in terms of liberty?

Optimistic. I would of stayed in the Fascist camp otherwise.

Re: Several Questions for You All.

liberty student — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:14:03 GMT

laminustacitus:
I'm a member of this forum, like it or no.

I don't mind that you're a member of this forum. I've petitioned for my share of people to be tossed, but iirc, I have defended your presence more than once.

laminustacitus:
Ergo, I can answer this survey without the grand inquisitor ensuring that everybody knows that the party-line here is that everybody must be anarchist, and if they are not they, then it will always be noted that they do not conform to the ideal.

Another strawman. If you're pro-state, I cannot understand why you resist (and evade) making that clear and obvious. But I will point it out where you do not. Again, answering a survey that is clearly not directed at you, and then avoiding the portion where you identify your political position, is sloppy at best.

And the grand-inquisitor bit doesn't bother me. Name calling doesn't make me look bad.

laminustacitus:
No, Liberty Student, I do not care about what you think about my views

Then stop protesting so much.

laminustacitus:
are not only unnecessarily hostile, but also in bad taste. I will always challenge the authors of such posts for they do not create a community of dialogue and intellectual discovery, which is what I thought this forum is supposed to be; instead, they work against such a community.

I don't think it was hostile Lam. I think it was honest and inconvenient for you. As far as bad taste, I think being a statist is bad taste, and care about your concerns on that front, as much as you care about how I feel about statists.

laminustacitus:
Do you have any evidence to back up this attack against me?

What was the attack exactly?