Political Theory

Re: Doesn't No Government Lead to Government?

Jackson LaRose — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:47:31 GMT

True, but if you don't break their rules, it is much harder to be killed. The mafia is much more dynamic, and as such, has a much easier time resorting to damage control.

Re: Doesn't No Government Lead to Government?

Merlin — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:44:11 GMT

Jackson LaRose:
because the state is more powerful than the mafia,

So, since the State Is more powerful, trying to disassemble the Mafia would be…more difficult?!

The point of “going local” is precisely to begin with small steps. Than here we have it, the smallest step possible: get the Mafia first, than get local…if you (not you man, I mean in general) have the guts (or are crazy enough)

Jackson LaRose:

and the penalty for attempting to disassemble the mafia from within would result in a quick death.

Does anyone think that trying to get the State would result in anything else? Do you thing they’ll put you in jail? Publicly shame you? No, my friend, should you truly het close to even exposing their machinations to the wider public, they’ll butcher every last member of you family, make no mistake about it.

Re: Doesn't No Government Lead to Government?

Jackson LaRose — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:18:05 GMT

because the state is more powerful than the mafia, and the penalty for attempting to disassemble the mafia from within would result in a quick death.

Re: Doesn't No Government Lead to Government?

Merlin — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:56:34 GMT

Jackson LaRose:

Interesting thread, abstract theory is interesting and all, but it is nice to talk about some practical applications as well.

Just my 2 cents:

I think the distinction of obeying the state out of fear, and obeying out of perceived sense of duty is an important one. It's hard to reason with faith, because by definition, faith is an unreasonable entity. There isn't much precedence of success either. People abandon the church to become humanists, an example of an exchange of faith, not an extinguishing.

When confronted with the impregnable walls of Troy, the Greeks had to devise a way to be voluntarily accepted in. Fortunately, parliamentary democracy has an entry built into it - elections.

Now, I'm not advocating runs for presidency, but city council or mayor would be a good start. People are generally uninterested in politics that locally, which gives a small, yet dedicated group much more pull than a larger election, and it is easier to enact reform. This would allow attempts to repeal laws back to the ones required by the county or state level. It will also directly impact citizens in acute ways, as their day to day experience would be affected directly.

I also advocate personal secession and intentional communities, like the free state project.

I remember Hoppe advocated something like this: libertarian candidates in local election. Although it is an interesting idea, I take a leaf from Molineux and propose an even easier one: enter the Mafia. Why don’t libertarians infiltrate the ranks of the Mafia, which is after all a quasi-market entity which server many purposes, unlike the State which serves none, and which has a strong built-in honor code, while the State has none. Mafia groups are often much nearer to the people, while the State is distant. Finally, in many urban areas the Mafia deals with justice, not the State.

Thus, why try to infiltrate the State when an easier variant exists?

Whatever one’s position on this issue, I think we must all agree that dismissing infiltrating the Mafia as an eccentric plan would automatically mena that infiltrating the State would be even more unrealizable.

Re: Doesn't No Government Lead to Government?

Jackson LaRose — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:02:31 GMT

Interesting thread, abstract theory is interesting and all, but it is nice to talk about some practical applications as well.

Just my 2 cents:

I think the distinction of obeying the state out of fear, and obeying out of perceived sense of duty is an important one. It's hard to reason with faith, because by definition, faith is an unreasonable entity. There isn't much precedence of success either. People abandon the church to become humanists, an example of an exchange of faith, not an extinguishing.

When confronted with the impregnable walls of Troy, the Greeks had to devise a way to be voluntarily accepted in. Fortunately, parliamentary democracy has an entry built into it - elections.

Now, I'm not advocating runs for presidency, but city council or mayor would be a good start. People are generally uninterested in politics that locally, which gives a small, yet dedicated group much more pull than a larger election, and it is easier to enact reform. This would allow attempts to repeal laws back to the ones required by the county or state level. It will also directly impact citizens in acute ways, as their day to day experience would be affected directly.

I also advocate personal secession and intentional communities, like the free state project.

Re: Doesn't No Government Lead to Government?

Merlin — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:28:59 GMT

Håkan Kindström Arnoldson:

Merlin:

That is precisely what an average laymen fells about AE. He is just rationally acting when not attacking the State: we could be right, but his mind tells him not to choose something he doesn’t know above something that he does, no matter how authorable Mises looks. After all, would you give this man your arm?

Except the benefit of getting rid of the state is much more diffuse then eternal life. More wealth? ... yeah soo I am already comfortable. Liberty? ... yeah soo what does that matter, no one is hurting me.

Ad finally people are completely ignorant of stuff like how much taxes they pay and so forth. If one asks the average Swede how much they pay in tax they will say 30% (cause that is what it says on there wage-specification). Then you go sales tax, employer fees, inflation and so forth and add it up to like 80% and they go "Ohhhh!" and they immediately forget it again...

Precisely so, my friend. What I must add, is only that most people would just forget about the real tax rate they pay because their unconscious mind tells them to: “do not bother yourself with something you can’t change”.

For, let us ask the question: why is that most people in the former socialistic bloc had such a craving for freedom, although they where bombarded with statist propaganda every minute, while our own citizens, harassed by a much less efficient propagandas but living in regimes scantly more free that the most liberal socialistic countries, crave for slavery? Simple, because back in the cold war they could easily see with their own eyes how much more preferable a western society was. Albanians watched Italian television, East Germans could literally see how advanced west Germany was. So, as long as you show them, they’ll fight with all their powers for freedom and anarchy. Just don’t except to achieve the same result with words, only the most intelligent will get those. Someone will have to build a functioning anarchistic society for others to follow.

Re: Doesn't No Government Lead to Government?

hkarnoldson — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 01:42:30 GMT

Merlin:

That is precisely what an average laymen fells about AE. He is just rationally acting when not attacking the State: we could be right, but his mind tells him not to choose something he doesn’t know above something that he does, no matter how authorable Mises looks. After all, would you give this man your arm?

Except the benefit of getting rid of the state is much more diffuse then eternal life. More wealth? ... yeah soo I am already comfortable. Liberty? ... yeah soo what does that matter, no one is hurting me.

Ad finally people are completely ignorant of stuff like how much taxes they pay and so forth. If one asks the average Swede how much they pay in tax they will say 30% (cause that is what it says on there wage-specification). Then you go sales tax, employer fees, inflation and so forth and add it up to like 80% and they go "Ohhhh!" and they immediately forget it again...

Re: Doesn't No Government Lead to Government?

Merlin — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 01:14:42 GMT

AJ:
I don't quite agree here. They "know no alternative" precisely because these ideas are not given weight in the academic community. There is in essence a sort of monopoly on debate, in that the dimensions and boundaries of debate are limited. Even the tribes in Albania probably resisted for so long because of certain opinion leaders, elders, etc.

Well, let’s imagine that some physician comes to us tomorrow with such words “My friend, you have been led to believe the illusion that life is finite, and death must come for us all. But not so! Not at all. Allow me to explain.” Add he goes on talking for hours about cells, pineal glands, electromagnetic waves, sunlight, radiation, neurons, and the like. He also provides literally tons of raw data and medical statistics, quotes some obscure experiments carried out in the mediaeval age of with roughly 30 %, he agrees, where successful. There are a few more like him, who have aragned a nice website and a cool blog. Than he goes like “My friends, this evidence in unobfusscable, apodicticaly true. A logical mind such as your MUST get my point. There’s really no need at all to be physicians as myself, even e janitor could get this”. And here everyone start feeling uneasy. He concludes “thus, if you want to live forever, and chose your time of death, if you’ll eve want one, yourself, than all you have to do is for 80% of the people on this earth to give me their left arms. Not one at a time, but all at the same time. If you do, you’ll grow and other, and shall never age! So, what’s that look on you faces?”

That is precisely what an average laymen fells about AE. He is just rationally acting when not attacking the State: we could be right, but his mind tells him not to choose something he doesn’t know above something that he does, no matter how authorable Mises looks. After all, would you give this man your arm?

Re: Doesn't No Government Lead to Government?

AJ — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:36:23 GMT

Merlin:
Granted. With them arguments will work, and “conversion” is indeed I viable strategy. Just don’t’; except to convert 1) everyone, 2) those with a capable mind but beyond a certain age and 3) those with a capable mind and of a productive age but dependent for some time on the government for their livelihood (i.e. academics). Neither of these guys shall ever get it.

Well I don't really disagree, but I try to get as many people as I can.

Merlin:
My point is such: people do not buy the lies of the government because they buy what “opinion molders” tell them. I submit that that the very 80% of people that can’t get abstract ideas, cannot understand statist propaganda either, and see no point, deep down, in voting (again, they will difficulty admit this). They vote only because they know of no alternative, not because they believe statist fables. Deep down, theirs is a very rational behavior: if you can’t see an alternative, take what you have, no matter how wrong it seems. Education has nothing to do with it.

I don't quite agree here. They "know no alternative" precisely because these ideas are not given weight in the academic community. There is in essence a sort of monopoly on debate, in that the dimensions and boundaries of debate are limited. Even the tribes in Albania probably resisted for so long because of certain opinion leaders, elders, etc.

Re: Doesn't No Government Lead to Government?

AnonLLF — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:12:24 GMT

I think it's unlikely once anarchism was achieved people would try to recreate the state.

However, if they did I think most people would resist them and fight against them. Since government is inherently criminal the moment the group started taxing and pushing people around I think they would be punished I.e. acting as a government would be a crime.

Re: Doesn't No Government Lead to Government?

Jorge A. Medina — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:40:58 GMT

Merlin:
The reason I simple: it is a fact of life that there a clear demarcation line among humans, separating those that can get abstract ideas, and those who can’t.

That's a poor choice of words. Although there is still debate on the subject, there is evidence that even Neanderthal man was capable of grasping abstract ideas.

http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=16434

Re: Doesn't No Government Lead to Government?

Jon Irenicus — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:01:25 GMT

No. State building requires concerted effort.

Re: Doesn't No Government Lead to Government?

hkarnoldson — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 18:19:14 GMT

To broaden the question.

Evil is inevitable. So should we stop fighting evil and just give in? Hardly.

Means are more important then ends.

Re: Doesn't No Government Lead to Government?

Merlin — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 18:06:52 GMT

AJ:
There are a whole lot of very intelligent believers in Statism, even among people who study politics for a living.

Granted. With them arguments will work, and “conversion” is indeed I viable strategy. Just don’t’; except to convert 1) everyone, 2) those with a capable mind but beyond a certain age and 3) those with a capable mind and of a productive age but dependent for some time on the government for their livelihood (i.e. academics). Neither of these guys shall ever get it.

AJ:

Think about why people believe what they believe: their parents, their teachers, their pastors, their smart friends, and their trusted news anchors told them so. Why do these trusted sources of information tell them that? Because they listen to "the experts." How do the experts come to the positions they hold? The experts actually can understand abstract ideas.

--

Besides, the idea of "opting out" isn't any more abstract than the idea of voting itself.

Suppose we’re in anarchic Ireland, Iceland or even in 1920’s northern Albania. The State is a foreign concept to your community. Now you, having spent ten years of study in, say, Constantinople or Germany, you armed with your invincible believe in Statism, seek to convert them. Many professors like you also start converting people. Do you think they’ll follow you? Let me furnish an example in recent history.

The region of Mirdite is a small aggregation of tribes in northern Albania, and during the Ottoman occupation of the country they never agreed to either pay taxes or submit to outside justice, preferring their own (incredibly complex) customary law. After 1920, when Albania had an independent, centralized government, (headed by a genius, I might say) and the inhabitants of Mirdite where asked to pay taxes as “now that Albanian is independent, not paying taxes would amount to treason”, they plainly refused. Notwithstanding all the “expert opinion” and massive propaganda that was thrown at them, notwithstanding the fact that many sons where actually working for the government back in the capital, they refused to take the bait. It took a communist regime and its unheard of repressive measures to beat them into submission.

My point is such: people do not buy the lies of the government because they buy what “opinion molders” tell them. I submit that that the very 80% of people that can’t get abstract ideas, cannot understand statist propaganda either, and see no point, deep down, in voting (again, they will difficulty admit this). They vote only because they know of no alternative, not because they believe statist fables. Deep down, theirs is a very rational behavior: if you can’t see an alternative, take what you have, no matter how wrong it seems. Education has nothing to do with it.

Re: Doesn't No Government Lead to Government?

Merlin — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:50:56 GMT

nhaag:

What about the health analogy? Health is never perfect, that is, there is always some virus, bakteria or internal malfunction threatening the function of our bodies. Unless we are not hampered by them we consider ourself healthy, no?

Now the government is made up of people that choose to be on the parasitic side of life, i.e. they do not produce but take away the production of others to survive. In health terms society is always infected with parasits. I agree that those parasites do bad things to society, as viruses and bakteria do to an individuals health. If it gets to much you need to see a doc, that is someone who knows how to cope with your illness. But you wouldn't say, because those viruses that make me ill will eventually make me ill in the future again, I do not think treating illnesses make sense.

Such a thought would come close to Keynes's " In the long run we are all dead".

An almost perfect analogy. I might only add that even if some kind of disease is inevitable right now, it doesn’t mean that evolution won’t give us someone that is immune. In analogy, only because the government could have been inevitable up to now, in our days with such a great mobility of people, mixing of different gene pools, communication and cheap defensive technologies, perhaps somewhere a society that is immune to government is already evolving. Let us not forget, societies evolve much faster than people.