Political Theory

Re: A two-stage strategy for freedom

Stranger — Fri, 15 May 2009 04:12:22 GMT

Perhaps it will make more sense after reading my other topic on militias.

Re: A two-stage strategy for freedom

MatthewF — Fri, 15 May 2009 03:10:54 GMT

Stranger:
And so a strategy for freedom would involve first, in defiance of government monopolies and in parralel to mafia operations, selling protection to those individuals who have been left victimized by the state's monopoly and neglect. These individuals would then transfer their loyalty to us, and would be likely to come to us for arbitration in case of a conflict.

So we are providing the protection...

Stranger:
Once a sufficient number of individuals are willing to protect us from the state's reprisal, we will then have the strength to challenge the monopoly on law, come out of obscurity and openly defy the state's legislation. Should the state be unable to stop us at this stage, a market for law would be established, and this having been done, the state would have no choice but to surrender the rest of its monopolies in an orderly manner.

Or is it the other way around?

I loved reading this thread. I'm trying to figure out what the first step is. Do I resist the state and hope for protection? Do I try to enlist an existing group or company to protect me? Do I have to start my own company? Thoughts?

Re: A two-stage strategy for freedom

dbooksta — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 23:28:21 GMT

Stranger:

The question we therefore face is, what kind of organization allows us to produce security against the state's will?

Thomas Hamilton has a tantalizing essay over here in which he proposes key characteristics of such an organization designed to confront the forceful end of government. Critically, he notes that such tailored "second authority" could conceivably draw the sympathy and membership of agents of the United States government -- e.g., military and police officers.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe published an extensive essay in a similar spirit a few months ago here: On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution

Re: A two-stage strategy for freedom

nhaag — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:10:29 GMT

Stranger:
Freedom does not have to be enforced, but it has to be protected, and the people do not need to understand how their freedom is protected to be free. They just need to engage in a division of labor with a protector.

I fully agree :-)

Stranger:
People are not loyal to a system, but to other people. To become loyal to an individual is an individual choice. It has nothing to do with collectivism. If we protect some people from the government, even if they do not understand a thing about political philosophy, they will come to our aid we are in need of their help.

Another agreement :-)

Stranger:
It is not freedom if someone still has the power to punish them for acting upon that knowledge.

Freedom, does not depend on it protection but is a principle. Though I agree that protecting freedom by agencies that have the power to prevent and punish unjust aggression is the only reason to establish such agencies.

We are really not far, if at all, away from each other in our thinking.

Re: A two-stage strategy for freedom

Stranger — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:49:29 GMT

nhaag:
Given you are right, that would mean, freedom would have to be enforced onto those that "just do what they are told" by those that "know". This is quite the opposite of freedom and liberty as it is understood by libertarians and the classic liberals.

Freedom does not have to be enforced, but it has to be protected, and the people do not need to understand how their freedom is protected to be free. They just need to engage in a division of labor with a protector.

nhaag:
Loyality is a requirement of the collectivist systems, not of a free society. Supposed people would be loyal to a libertarian system because they do what they are told, such a system would soon become another oligarchy and tyranny.

People are not loyal to a system, but to other people. To become loyal to an individual is an individual choice. It has nothing to do with collectivism. If we protect some people from the government, even if they do not understand a thing about political philosophy, they will come to our aid we are in need of their help.

nhaag:

And, even if I know you meant it not literal, one can not liberate a country, one can only make people aware about the fact that they are free. Everything else follows from that. It is the old means and ends thing.

It is not freedom if someone still has the power to punish them for acting upon that knowledge.

Re: A two-stage strategy for freedom

nhaag — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:59:58 GMT

Nitroadict:
Agreeing with other's towards a goal on a certain action would not be simply following the leader; see emergent organization & emergent complexity theory (http://www.anarchistnews.org/?q=node/3796). Please refer to, as a real-life & on-going example, the Anonymous protests against Scientology. Instantly crying collectivism would accomplish nothing so long as the actions are voluntary. If you're going to talk about belief systems, do not exempt those who do not believe in Religion or Statism; you can have a belief system without them.

I never made any such comment. Certainly working with others on certain common goals is not collectivism. Collectivism is to force the will of a group on others.

And I think, I need to explain the term belief system a bit more. Has nothing to do with religion at all, it is just those things you believe. Like you believe, with good reason that the sun is going to rise tomorrow morning, because it is a future event, you can not be certain, but you believe it will happen - And I sure do the same.

Now, belief systems are parts of mans mind, that hold what he/she is certain about to be true. It is that stuff people base their lives upon.

I for example belief in a scientific approach to life (a=a) that does not mean I am wrong or right, it only means that this is what i am certain about. Now, religion usually has another access to beliefs, something you can not prove out of your own experience - if you are not an enlightened mystic- you have to trust others that tell you.

Basically all of us have to categories of belief systems. Those we took by experiencing patterns, like "on my next step the earth under my feet will still be solid," and those we took over from others we trust without any personal experience, like "Jesus was resurected" or "Capitalism destroys the earth", or, if you are German :-)), "We all have to obey the superiors any time".

Those systems differ on the grade of personal experience for sure, they, however, do not differ in the way they mold our goals. The effects in terms of their cabability to form our personal goals are quite the same.

Bottomline, a belief system is a set of thing we are certain to be true, whether we learned it out of experience or by faith (that is trusting the accounts of others) doesn't change its power to form our goals.

Nitroadict:
At first, people are generally not going to want to hear the spiel on the NAP, anarchism etc. I agree with Stranger here on the fact that those who were to agree to said anarchists and/or libertarians in mass disobediance to the smoking ban would not necessarily need to know why anarchist and/or libertarians would initate such a thing.

Absolutly right. It does not matter who is the messenger, the message matters.

Have a great day

Re: A two-stage strategy for freedom

Nitroadict — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:51:41 GMT

nhaag:

Stranger:

nhaag:
Because on the next issue, say global warming, the public, holding believes contrary to our principle of freedom and personal property, will not join in unless they realize that their whole belive system is contaminated with collectivistic ideas.

Most people do not have a belief system. They simply do what they are told. If we start with the obviously unfair issues and progressively work our way to the more revolutionary issues, people will transfer their loyalty to us and be ready to accept more unconventional ideas. It is not necessary for them to understand the entire philosophy in its full complexity.

I have to disagree on your remarks regarding the belief system. Every indivudual has one or even more. It is those things people are certain about to be right, we call a belief system. Often there is more than one belief system that opposes each other, in one person, which is called incongruence and leads to unpleasant states. Belief systems are actually what people use to define their goals, which in turn define the means and as a last step defines their actions.

Given you are right, that would mean, freedom would have to be enforced onto those that "just do what they are told" by those that "know". This is quite the opposite of freedom and liberty as it is understood by libertarians and the classic liberals. Loyality is a requirement of the collectivist systems, not of a free society. Supposed people would be loyal to a libertarian system because they do what they are told, such a system would soon become another oligarchy and tyranny.

The whole libertarian creed is about individual freedom and liberty and requires that each individual understands that he/she is free and does not have to do what he/she is told. Told by whom? On what rights? To whos benefit?

The basic principle of freedom is not hard to grasp. Like one and one equals 2 is not real infinitesimal calculus. This principles are only 2. First I own myself and everything i have rightfully aquired. Second it is imoral and therefor a crime to start aggressing against someone others property. The rest of the philosophy follows out of this.

And, even if I know you meant it not literal, one can not liberate a country, one can only make people aware about the fact that they are free. Everything else follows from that. It is the old means and ends thing.

Agreeing with other's towards a goal on a certain action would not be simply following the leader; see emergent organization & emergent complexity theory (http://www.anarchistnews.org/?q=node/3796). Please refer to, as a real-life & on-going example, the Anonymous protests against Scientology. Instantly crying collectivism would accomplish nothing so long as the actions are voluntary. If you're going to talk about belief systems, do not exempt those who do not believe in Religion or Statism; you can have a belief system without them.

At first, people are generally not going to want to hear the spiel on the NAP, anarchism etc. I agree with Stranger here on the fact that those who were to agree to said anarchists and/or libertarians in mass disobediance to the smoking ban would not necessarily need to know why anarchist and/or libertarians would initate such a thing.

The positive results from such mass disobediance would speak volumes more than simply being preachy with rhetoric. Believe it or not, some would view the preachiness as being intrusive, and would err away as it would be a blunt sign of something "extreme & subversive", rather than something "brave & justified". Some may decide to learn more about other's motivations & underlying philosphy for such, other's will be not care, other's will move on after having participated in that one act, other's will half-a$$ it & cease eventually due to lack of patience, etc. etc.

Re: A two-stage strategy for freedom

nhaag — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:21:11 GMT

Stranger:

nhaag:
Because on the next issue, say global warming, the public, holding believes contrary to our principle of freedom and personal property, will not join in unless they realize that their whole belive system is contaminated with collectivistic ideas.

Most people do not have a belief system. They simply do what they are told. If we start with the obviously unfair issues and progressively work our way to the more revolutionary issues, people will transfer their loyalty to us and be ready to accept more unconventional ideas. It is not necessary for them to understand the entire philosophy in its full complexity.

I have to disagree on your remarks regarding the belief system. Every indivudual has one or even more. It is those things people are certain about to be right, we call a belief system. Often there is more than one belief system that opposes each other, in one person, which is called incongruence and leads to unpleasant states. Belief systems are actually what people use to define their goals, which in turn define the means and as a last step defines their actions.

Given you are right, that would mean, freedom would have to be enforced onto those that "just do what they are told" by those that "know". This is quite the opposite of freedom and liberty as it is understood by libertarians and the classic liberals. Loyality is a requirement of the collectivist systems, not of a free society. Supposed people would be loyal to a libertarian system because they do what they are told, such a system would soon become another oligarchy and tyranny.

The whole libertarian creed is about individual freedom and liberty and requires that each individual understands that he/she is free and does not have to do what he/she is told. Told by whom? On what rights? To whos benefit?

The basic principle of freedom is not hard to grasp. Like one and one equals 2 is not real infinitesimal calculus. This principles are only 2. First I own myself and everything i have rightfully aquired. Second it is imoral and therefor a crime to start aggressing against someone others property. The rest of the philosophy follows out of this.

And, even if I know you meant it not literal, one can not liberate a country, one can only make people aware about the fact that they are free. Everything else follows from that. It is the old means and ends thing.

Re: A two-stage strategy for freedom

nhaag — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:04:15 GMT

Well, I have to agree I have been using the term wrong. Lobbying is arguing to get privileges, which is not what you proposed. So I take that one back.

Re: A two-stage strategy for freedom

Stranger — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:25:46 GMT

nhaag:
Because on the next issue, say global warming, the public, holding believes contrary to our principle of freedom and personal property, will not join in unless they realize that their whole belive system is contaminated with collectivistic ideas.

Most people do not have a belief system. They simply do what they are told. If we start with the obviously unfair issues and progressively work our way to the more revolutionary issues, people will transfer their loyalty to us and be ready to accept more unconventional ideas. It is not necessary for them to understand the entire philosophy in its full complexity.

For example, overthrowing the smoking ban could be followed by attempting an overthrow of the prescription drug ban, then the medical licensing monopoly, then compulsory insurance programs, and so on. As people see that we have the power to bring them freedom, more and more of them will come to us to appeal for justice in their conflict with the state. Once we get that ball rolling, we have become a de facto competing government and it is only a matter of time before we completely liberate the country.

Re: A two-stage strategy for freedom

Stranger — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:30:23 GMT

nhaag:
Yet, I do not think we can get very far by lobbying for specific issues, like the smoking ban, without conveying our basic principles.

Who said anything about lobbying? It is action that is necessary, not words.

Re: A two-stage strategy for freedom

nhaag — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:24:08 GMT

I agree that we need to know, at least in terms of a magnitude, what public support we have. Yet, I do not think we can get very far by lobbying for specific issues, like the smoking ban, without conveying our basic principles. Because on the next issue, say global warming, the public, holding believes contrary to our principle of freedom and personal property, will not join in unless they realize that their whole belive system is contaminated with collectivistic ideas.

This is why I believe that education and convincing others is more important than any specific action, though these actions are not useless, if they achieve at least a state that leans closer toward our own philosophy.

Re: A two-stage strategy for freedom

Stranger — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 06:53:05 GMT

If enough people violate the smoking ban together, and enough people ignore the fines and penalties they have received, then the ban is effectively null and void.

The problem then is having an organization that can coordinate such a thing. That is what our political party ought to do.

Re: A two-stage strategy for freedom

majevska — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 03:46:12 GMT

I actually kinda like this idea. How would you go about doing it, (the smoking thing).

Re: A two-stage strategy for freedom

Stranger — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:08:49 GMT

Nitroadict:

Agreed & agreed with Stranger above; an un-intended consequence for physically fighting the enemy is breeding possible sympathy for the enemy, even though they (the state) are clearly the oppressors.

The reason the early anarchists failed is that they did not have the right targets. The enemy is not any man but an institution, and institutions are physically immune. The moment they killed a president, another man was immediately instituted as president, and therefore their action had no positive effect whatsoever except make it easier for crazy men to become presidents.