mrwiizrd: liberty student: GilesStratton:the Hasnas article is a must if you ask me. Agreed. I think what is missing in most of our educational endeavours is that we try to tell people things instead of answering their questions. Just finished the Hasnas article, what a great read, extremely interesting, thanks for posting that.
liberty student: GilesStratton:the Hasnas article is a must if you ask me. Agreed. I think what is missing in most of our educational endeavours is that we try to tell people things instead of answering their questions.
GilesStratton:the Hasnas article is a must if you ask me.
Agreed.
I think what is missing in most of our educational endeavours is that we try to tell people things instead of answering their questions.
Just finished the Hasnas article, what a great read, extremely interesting, thanks for posting that.
Can someone repost the link... Could not find it...
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
GilesStratton:This.
Laughing Man: revolutionist: Honestly, I would rather have 1000 Constitutionalists working for the cause of liberty than 100 Ancaps. Both groups have to fight the exact same battle in the present day to get what they want. Actually, I think "vulgar" ancaps hurt the liberty movement by alienating outsiders to more moderate libertarian ideas that allow radical ideas to grow on them. The point of contention is how we achieve liberty and where its stopping point is. I think Constitutionalists are ridiculously dependent on a document that has been proven to hold no meaning on the very institution that both interprets its power and is suppose to be limited by it. The logical conclusion of libertarian minded ideas is anarcho-capitalism, but it's no sweat off my ass if the Libertarian Party is bothered by radicalism. It is not like the Libertarian Party is going to be winning any giant elections anytime soon nor is it suddenly going to start gradually reducing the size of government. It is a feel good party, nothing more. Just go to the Libertarian Party website where they gleefully talk about how our military could be subsidized by 100 billion dollars instead of 250, how immigrants should be forced to pay fines and back taxes, as if people are happy to pay taxes and small government will just stay stagnant.
revolutionist: Honestly, I would rather have 1000 Constitutionalists working for the cause of liberty than 100 Ancaps. Both groups have to fight the exact same battle in the present day to get what they want. Actually, I think "vulgar" ancaps hurt the liberty movement by alienating outsiders to more moderate libertarian ideas that allow radical ideas to grow on them.
Honestly, I would rather have 1000 Constitutionalists working for the cause of liberty than 100 Ancaps. Both groups have to fight the exact same battle in the present day to get what they want. Actually, I think "vulgar" ancaps hurt the liberty movement by alienating outsiders to more moderate libertarian ideas that allow radical ideas to grow on them.
The point of contention is how we achieve liberty and where its stopping point is. I think Constitutionalists are ridiculously dependent on a document that has been proven to hold no meaning on the very institution that both interprets its power and is suppose to be limited by it. The logical conclusion of libertarian minded ideas is anarcho-capitalism, but it's no sweat off my ass if the Libertarian Party is bothered by radicalism. It is not like the Libertarian Party is going to be winning any giant elections anytime soon nor is it suddenly going to start gradually reducing the size of government. It is a feel good party, nothing more. Just go to the Libertarian Party website where they gleefully talk about how our military could be subsidized by 100 billion dollars instead of 250, how immigrants should be forced to pay fines and back taxes, as if people are happy to pay taxes and small government will just stay stagnant.
I agree, but we are so far from that stopping point that it doesn't really matter at the moment.
The LP is not bothered by radicalism. It's roots are in radicalism. I think the majority of people in the LP are just bothered by radicals who scare the public. Most people are not ready for ancap ideas, but if people get the message out about more moderate libertarian ideas, ideas that people can swallow, a lot of people will be more willing to listen to more radical ideas.
I just don't understand why a lot of radical libertarians have to have every libertarian an Ancap. I agree that the only logically consistent view of libertarianism is Anarcho-Capitalism, but the state is SO huge that even constitutionalists will want to move in the EXACT SAME direction as the ancaps. Why not work with them now and worry about shrinking the government even further when there is even a chance of getting the state shrunk back to constitutional levels.
As far as the LP as a "feel good party," I would say that the LP has been very sucessful in a few states, like Indiana and Oregon. The LP is in a transition phase right now. After 1983, the LP was basically taken over by protesting hippies that destroyed any credibility that the LP had. At this point, a lot of younger libertarians are rebuilding the credibility of the party. Libertarians are already winning a lot of local seats. The critical thing is that the LP can and will build up its base if it plays its cards right. I see huge opportunities in the next few years, and I really don't want the liberty movement to make any more strategic screw-ups. The LP has a chance to really grow. Political movements take time, and you have to be willing to take baby steps. Take every inch of liberty that you can grab and keep fighting for more. It will probably be long after I'm dead before the liberty movement gets to the point where it is even necessary for constitutionalists/minarchists and anarchists to make a split. For now, it is perfectly acceptable for them to work together politically.
I still, of course, think that in academic circles you should be revealing about your anarcho-capitalist views, but academic and political spheres are completely different animals, and they must be handled differently.
Where I come from, the women don't glow, but the men definitely plunder.
If I may interject....
(this means tell me to shut up if you do not want to hear it)
revolutionist: I just don't understand why a lot of radical libertarians have to have every libertarian an Ancap. I agree that the only logically consistent view of libertarianism is Anarcho-Capitalism, but the state is SO huge that even constitutionalists will want to move in the EXACT SAME direction as the ancaps. Why not work with them now and worry about shrinking the government even further when there is even a chance of getting the state shrunk back to constitutional levels. As far as the LP as a "feel good party," I would say that the LP has been very sucessful in a few states, like Indiana and Oregon. The LP is in a transition phase right now. After 1983, the LP was basically taken over by protesting hippies that destroyed any credibility that the LP had. At this point, a lot of younger libertarians are rebuilding the credibility of the party. Libertarians are already winning a lot of local seats. The critical thing is that the LP can and will build up its base if it plays its cards right. I see huge opportunities in the next few years, and I really don't want the liberty movement to make any more strategic screw-ups. The LP has a chance to really grow. Political movements take time, and you have to be willing to take baby steps. Take every inch of liberty that you can grab and keep fighting for more. It will probably be long after I'm dead before the liberty movement gets to the point where it is even necessary for constitutionalists/minarchists and anarchists to make a split. For now, it is perfectly acceptable for them to work together politically.
The problem with this train of thought is who is suseptable to the message of minarchism...
Disenfranchised republicans, and republicans buying the hype the party is a dead horse....
Disenfranchised Republicans
These people will most likely conform to minarchism as opposed to democrat expansion, but once they realize that all the religious baggage that steals liberty from individuals is moot, they will be disenfranchised libertarians...
Dead Republicans
These ones are really bad, because they will be looking to conform the libertarian party to a statist conservative party, then you have the potential of an erosion from within, supporting the same game we have had for far too long....
I am haveing this issue now, most of the disenfranchised republicans are lining up with me, and when they realize their statist views are not welcome, the fighting starts...
revolutionist:The LP is not bothered by radicalism. It's roots are in radicalism. I think the majority of people in the LP are just bothered by radicals who scare the public. Most people are not ready for ancap ideas, but if people get the message out about more moderate libertarian ideas, ideas that people can swallow, a lot of people will be more willing to listen to more radical ideas.
Why placate them? And the LP is not radical.
revolutionist:but the state is SO huge that even constitutionalists will want to move in the EXACT SAME direction as the ancaps. Why not work with them now and worry about shrinking the government even further when there is even a chance of getting the state shrunk back to constitutional levels.
Again, the means by which it is done. Constitutionalists cling to a document that has long been powerless. Ancaps usually don't argue FOR the Constitution except for Thomas Woods who just uses it to show how they can't even follow their own rules. It is likely there are more who do the same but I have seen/heard few who aggrandize the document itself.
revolutionist:After 1983, the LP was basically taken over by protesting hippies that destroyed any credibility that the LP had.
And what do you mean by that?
revolutionist:I see huge opportunities in the next few years, and I really don't want the liberty movement to make any more strategic screw-ups.
Not really a liberty movement when you want to force immigrants to pay fines and back taxes.
revolutionist: I still, of course, think that in academic circles you should be revealing about your anarcho-capitalist views, but academic and political spheres are completely different animals, and they must be handled differently.
I think that is a lot of nonsense. You are purposely being deceptive in order to con people into agreeing with you. I suggest you practice what you preach to any degree you can.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
revolutionist:Honestly, I would rather have 1000 Constitutionalists working for the cause of liberty than 100 Ancaps. Both groups have to fight the exact same battle in the present day to get what they want. Actually, I think "vulgar" ancaps hurt the liberty movement by alienating outsiders to more moderate libertarian ideas that allow radical ideas to grow on them.
It depends entirely on if those persons are radical or not. And it makes ALL the difference.
Do You Hate the State? by Murray N. Rothbard
"I have been ruminating recently on what are the crucial questions that divide libertarians. Some that have received a lot of attention in the last few years are: anarcho-capitalism vs. limited government, abolitionism vs. gradualism, natural rights vs. utilitarianism, and war vs. peace. But I have concluded that as important as these questions are, they don’t really cut to the nub of the issue, of the crucial dividing line between us..."
... When we think of our classical liberal forbears who were genuinely radical, who hated statism and the States of their day with a beautifully integrated passion: the Levellers, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine, Joseph Priestley, the Jacksonians, Richard Cobden, and on and on, a veritable roll call of the greats of the past. Tom Paine’s radical hatred of the State and statism was and is far more important to the cause of liberty than the fact that he never crossed the divide between laissez-faire and anarchism. And closer to our own day, such early influences on me as Albert Jay Nock, H. L. Mencken, and Frank Chodorov were magnificently and superbly radical. Hatred of "Our Enemy, the State" (Nock’s title) and all of its works shone through all of their writings like a beacon star. So what if they never quite made it all the way to explicit anarchism? Far better one Albert Nock than a hundred anarcho-capitalists who are all too comfortable with the existing status quo."
Which really sums it up perfectly. I would prefer a radical Thomas Paine to a status quo cosy David Friedman.
The problem is that basically, there hardly exists a radical limited government type anymore. As Rothbard points out. Honestly, I think it is because all those radical limited government folks have in fact been shown anarcho-capitalism is the truth and real deal. All the radical limited government folks of past centuries would have been anarcho-capitalists, had Rothbard been around or someone conducted his same analysis.
Essentially my beef with the Constitutionalists and ALL other types of Libertarians - is with their NON RADICALness.
atrickpay: Conza: great ideas in your post there. Regarding Nock's book 'Our Enemy, the State', I'm just looking at it on Mises...he talks about the Consti. vs. the Articles. That sounds like great stuff. I gotta read that. That's an angle I really like pushing with RPers. ps. Haven't seen you on the DP in awhile. Feel free to stop by once in a while! I'm still spreading the message of liberty to all the archists on there! Our numbers are growing...
Conza: great ideas in your post there. Regarding Nock's book 'Our Enemy, the State', I'm just looking at it on Mises...he talks about the Consti. vs. the Articles. That sounds like great stuff. I gotta read that. That's an angle I really like pushing with RPers.
ps. Haven't seen you on the DP in awhile. Feel free to stop by once in a while! I'm still spreading the message of liberty to all the archists on there! Our numbers are growing...
Thanks. Instead of focusing on the US as much as I used too, it was were the action was during the campaign -I am instead doing my best to translate those principles down under. The beacon of Liberty & thus hope for all humanity is up for grabs.
Adding onto what I mentioned previously; Ron Paul supporters believe in Secession. Ron talks about it. Now, being logically consistent - a state secedes, why not a city? How about a town or district? Then, for the win - why can't an individual secede?
There is also the fact that, as Rothbard pointed out in TEOL - limited government supporters are yet to come up with a cognent theory of taxation.
Harry Felker: These ones are really bad, because they will be looking to conform the libertarian party to a statist conservative party, then you have the potential of an erosion from within, supporting the same game we have had for far too long....
You mean it isnt already? The LP is a party of pot smoking, social left Republicans.
revolutionist:I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but. . .
Indeed.
revolutionist:There really is no need to convert minarchists to ancaps. The state is already so huge that there is really no need to discuss the issue in a political setting until the state is reined in enough. It's, of course, excellent to advance the ideas of anarcho-capitalism in academic settings, but in political settings, it just alienates people. The state is so big right now that minarchists and ancaps are both working in essentially the same direction, so there is no need to waste time converting them.
See my post here. Once we expand our strategy beyond simple reformism to include radical strategies like secession and seasteading, then it is no longer true that anarchists and minarchists are working in the same direction. For instance, with seasteading we immediately face the question of establishing a State or a market anarchy. Minarchists will favor the former, anarchists the latter — hence, they're actually working in totally different directions.
revolutionist:Honestly, I would rather have 1000 Constitutionalists working for the cause of liberty than 100 Ancaps.
I would rather have the opposite. Anarchists are attacking the root of the state, viz. its territorial monopoly on ultimate jurisdiction. Constitutionalists are hacking at branches; because of this, any success they have will be short lived. As Hulsmann put it in his chapter in The Myth of National Defense,
"The fact is that neither in Europe nor in the United States of America has classical liberalism managed to establish a public order that effectively safeguarded private property and individual liberty for more than a couple of decades. ... With hindsight, the real question is not—as most twentieth-century libertarians have assumed—why the happy days of classical liberalism faded away and ushered in a new era of unprecedented government control. The real question is how classical liberalism could flourish even the few decades that it did flourish. (emphasis added) ... Clearly, secession avoids all these fatal long-run consequences of “imposing liberty.” It might take a long time before the conditions for successful local secession are given, and secession might then leave many dark (politically unenlightened) spots on the political map. However, at least these reforms would be genuine accomplishments that do not already contain the seeds of their own destruction."
revolutionist:I know that politically, I can get a lot more people sold on libertarian ideas by taking a more moderate stance than going all out anarchist on them. I've been much more successful with this method than with shouting for the abolition of the state. If progress is to be made, I think this approach has to be taken.
I think Rothbard made it clear that radicalism is the only way to go. "For as the radicals go, so do the moderates grudgingly follow in small steps."
Sure, it'll be difficult at first to promote market anarchism. But if we persevere and keep working at it, the mainstream will shift toward our position. This is how genuine progress will be made.
revolutionist:I'm a firm believer in the fact that you can keep your purist libertarian principles, but you can also sell them in a more easily swallowable package.
This is a copout. "Never compromise the truth for the sake of persuasion. Instead, be persuasive about the uncompromised truth." - Peter Boettke
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
sicsempertyrannis: Harry Felker: These ones are really bad, because they will be looking to conform the libertarian party to a statist conservative party, then you have the potential of an erosion from within, supporting the same game we have had for far too long.... You mean it isnt already? The LP is a party of pot smoking, social left Republicans.
I am talking about the you have the right to follow the rules of my religion republicans....
The United States should be a theocracy republicans
Harry Felker: sicsempertyrannis: Harry Felker: These ones are really bad, because they will be looking to conform the libertarian party to a statist conservative party, then you have the potential of an erosion from within, supporting the same game we have had for far too long.... You mean it isnt already? The LP is a party of pot smoking, social left Republicans. I am talking about the you have the right to follow the rules of my religion republicans.... The United States should be a theocracy republicans
More like 'exploit the genuinely religious'. I don't know how many neo-con Catholics I've seen try to twist Catholic Just War Theory to match Republican policies.
sicsempertyrannis:More like 'exploit the genuinely religious'. I don't know how many neo-con Catholics I've seen try to twist Catholic Just War Theory to match Republican policies.
These are the same difference to me.....
It is not only Catholicism, it is also the Pro Israel Evangelicals....
Harry Felker: sicsempertyrannis:More like 'exploit the genuinely religious'. I don't know how many neo-con Catholics I've seen try to twist Catholic Just War Theory to match Republican policies. These are the same difference to me..... It is not only Catholicism, it is also the Pro Israel Evangelicals....
Watch it, I made note of that because I am Catholic.
And yes, the Israel-firsters are a problem.
sicsempertyrannis:Watch it, I made note of that because I am Catholic.
I would not know if you did not tell me and that is how it should be...
I'm not going to flame you, I wrote and did not post a couple times early this morning.
But are you really an ancap if you encourage political solutions?
We're trying to get people to stop voting, stop encouraging and supporting the state. You are trying to get people voting and control the state.
These ends are not common.
It's like a pacifist going for firearms training.
revolutionist:The LP is not bothered by radicalism. It's roots are in radicalism.
Bob Barr.
liberty student: We're trying to get people to stop voting, stop encouraging and supporting the state. You are trying to get people voting and control the state.
Speak for yourself LS. I agree with Rothbard on voting.
sicsempertyrannis:Speak for yourself LS. I agree with Rothbard on voting.
Voting and politics is one area where I do not agree with Rothbard. I think he was wrong, and I think the LP and the Reagan revolution are part of that misguided approach.
But you are right. I only speak for myself and should avoid using "we". There is not much of a libertarian or anarchist consensus on any topic, and I certainly have no desire to lead or represent any one or group.
liberty student: sicsempertyrannis:Speak for yourself LS. I agree with Rothbard on voting. Voting and politics is one area where I do not agree with Rothbard. I think he was wrong, and I think the LP and the Reagan revolution are part of that misguided approach. But you are right. I only speak for myself and should avoid using "we". There is not much of a libertarian or anarchist consensus on any topic, and I certainly have no desire to lead or represent any one or group.
Well in my case it isnt so much encouraging people to vote per se. Basically I consider the most important thing to protect is gun rights. You might call me a single issue voter.
I do agree that the LP is an utter waste of time, as are just about every other election.
sicsempertyrannis: Basically I consider the most important thing to protect is gun rights. You might call me a single issue voter.
Basically I consider the most important thing to protect is gun rights. You might call me a single issue voter.
Interesting, we concur there.I'm not too vocal about this around my real-life acquaintances since it would make me look like a gun kook and impede communication. But as far as liberty and self-determination go, gun rights truly are the cornerstone. It's the canary in the coal mine which indicates when a society is moving away from "mind your own business" to goodie-goodie tyranny.It also separates fashion libertarians from true rugged individualists. It's amazing how many self-proclaimed friends of liberty will falter when it comes to preserving the unalienated right to keep and bear arms.
Firearm ownership is just a subset of property rights.
liberty student: Firearm ownership is just a subset of property rights.
In the most general terms, yes. But ownership of effective means of self-defense does so much more to ensure these rights than a flat-screen TV or a lawnmower.Likewise, political encroachments on matters of personal defense further monopolize state protection services. They create dependent and fearful subjects, just as or even more so than welfare addiction.I'd hate to sound nutty, but modern firearms, usable by anyone with three functioning fingers, are a perfect expression of the idea that no man should be ruled by another. They are the epitome of personal responsibility, self-determination and self-reliance.It's a shame that this image has been replaced by the Hollywoodesque notion of "firearm = either police or criminal".
Sphairon:I'd hate to sound nutty, but modern firearms, usable by anyone with three functioning fingers, are a perfect expression of the idea that no man should be ruled by another. They are the epitome of personal responsibility, self-determination and self-reliance.
Well you won't be alone, I will be nutty and second that...
Harry Felker:It is not only Catholicism, it is also the Pro Israel Evangelicals....
My guess is that you just have a problem with religion and want a way to rationalize it. So you do what most people here do when the topics comes to religion and you point to the relationship between the Christianity and the state and tell people how evil those damn Christians are because of it. Here's the thing: if you want a stateless society you're going to need institutions with enough power to step between individuals and the state, of which religion is one. On the other hand, if you want some kind of "individualism" as the Randians and the modal libertarians do, you're best off appealing to the state to remove such institutions as the church and the family in order to get it. Don't be pissed off when you get the totalitarian state that follows if you do that though. See Robert Nisbet on this point, he makes an excellent case for it.
As I've said before, if you want to bash religion, tradition and culture in the name of individualism/ libertarianism, that's fine. I just don't think that the Mises Institute is the best place to do it, since its populated by religious, traditionalist scholars. Cato, on the other hand...
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
The cognitive dissonance of the lefties when it comes to these issues is astonishing. It's as if they forget that business, money, their own PC agenda and just about everything else has also been corrupted by the state and focus entirely on the church. Perhaps it's not cognitive dissonance though, just dishonesty.
Giles,
With all due respect, the religion practiced in the mega churches is more similar to theocratic government than a benevolent organization, the difference in the two is that while the government is in place, there is no way to make religion compulsory. Do I think the lessons of Christianity are bad, no, in regard to treating the other people, it is what people do in regard to religious dogma, that is, take it upon themselves to judge those that break dogma, that I disagree with. The heart of the matter is, if I am going to break ties with the government because of the unjust power over my life, why am I going to hand the power to another group of individuals? This also supposes that you misunderstood that I (in transition of ideas) was a Minarchist, and if I was going to support a limited government, I find it hypocritical to support such with the notion of giving the government the power to enforce dogma on the individual populace. The other portion of your flaky argument for religion never appreciates that fact that there is competition in religion, I am sure you are under the supposition that Christianity will fit the ends of a stateless society, but what do you do if it does not, do you accept totalitarianism in the name of religion? I am more in agreement with Pastor Chuck Baldwin's article about Civil Liberties and mega religious entities (ones that would have the power to challenge the government):
Why does the Religious Right ignore Civil Liberties issues?
Government Cannot do a Churches Job.
GilesStratton:As I've said before, if you want to bash religion, tradition and culture in the name of individualism/ libertarianism, that's fine. I just don't think that the Mises Institute is the best place to do it, since its populated by religious, traditionalist scholars. Cato, on the other hand...
This is a blatant attempt to scare those who do not agree with dogmatic ties to go away, and you should be ashamed, it shows intellectual dishonesty in the best case...
GilesStratton: sicsempertyrannis:More like 'exploit the genuinely religious'. I don't know how many neo-con Catholics I've seen try to twist Catholic Just War Theory to match Republican policies. The cognitive dissonance of the lefties when it comes to these issues is astonishing. It's as if they forget that business, money, their own PC agenda and just about everything else has also been corrupted by the state and focus entirely on the church. Perhaps it's not cognitive dissonance though, just dishonesty.
I love that you go to straw when it comes to defense of dogma, I love that it is apparently leftist to decide that moral choices are of the individual, and not of some megalithic organization that would in historical example replace government to no better an end...
GilesStratton and libertystudent:
What did you like about Hasnas' "The Myth of the Rule of Law"?
I originally read it after I became an anarchist, and I didn't find it too striking. I just reread it and I think he makes some good points about how the law is inherently political, and that the conception of law as "neutral rules that are objectively applied by judges" is a chimera. His comments on blueprinting are also valuable (although a little strong IMO). But he takes a long time to get his message across and the article needs to be more structured.
Your thoughts?
Laughing Man: revolutionist: I still, of course, think that in academic circles you should be revealing about your anarcho-capitalist views, but academic and political spheres are completely different animals, and they must be handled differently. I think that is a lot of nonsense. You are purposely being deceptive in order to con people into agreeing with you. I suggest you practice what you preach to any degree you can.
First of all, I have NEVER lied about being an Ancap if anyone asked me, but I have sold the message in a way showing how government is unjust and inefficient. I tell people how, in specific cases, the government fails. This tends to rattle people's foundations and become a part of the liberty movement. All I do is that I sell the message in a way that people wouldn't know I'm an anarcho-capitalist, but I still use the same arguments of any anarcho-capitalist.
For example, look at Rothbard's For a New Liberty. In that book the anarcho-capitalism is very subtle, and at a casual glance, many people wouldn't think Rothbard is writing as an anarchist. Is Rothbard being deceptive? I don't think so.
It's all about marketing. Politics is just like sales.
revolutionist:All I do is that I sell the message in a way that people wouldn't know I'm an anarcho-capitalist, but I still use the same arguments of any anarcho-capitalist
Purposely deceptive, anyways I thought you were a Constitutionalist in politics but an Ancap in 'academia'? Now you are saying you use AnCap arguments without calling it such.
revolutionist:For example, look at Rothbard's For a New Liberty. In that book the anarcho-capitalism is very subtle, and at a casual glance, many people wouldn't think Rothbard is writing as an anarchist. Is Rothbard being deceptive? I don't think so.
Back in the 70's a radical libertarian was an anarchist. It has only been since the conception of the Libertarian Party that the word libertarian has been warped.
revolutionist, I responded to your post here. Do you have any comments on that?
Laughing Man: Back in the 70's a radical libertarian was an anarchist. It has only been since the conception of the Libertarian Party that the word libertarian has been warped.
If by warped you mean more dialogue to find out what the other person means, then sure.
Sage: See my post here. Once we expand our strategy beyond simple reformism to include radical strategies like secession and seasteading, then it is no longer true that anarchists and minarchists are working in the same direction. For instance, with seasteading we immediately face the question of establishing a State or a market anarchy. Minarchists will favor the former, anarchists the latter — hence, they're actually working in totally different directions.
I have not seen anyone seriously try doing that. David Friedman has said he is going to, but I'm skeptical. In any case, why can't there be market-anarchist societies as well as minarchist "micro-states"? They'll be scattered all over the place, so I'm sure they'll be some options available. It's not like there's only going to be one seastead colony if your scenario happens. If they want to go off and try to form a micro state, so be it. Right now, I'm not willing to give up on reformism. Reformism is a horribly slow and stupid process that involves all kinds of temporary compromise and well-crafted selling points, but it is the only tool that I have right now. I don't know anyone who has the resources to create some kind of microsecession revolution.
Sage: I would rather have the opposite. Anarchists are attacking the root of the state, viz. its territorial monopoly on ultimate jurisdiction. Constitutionalists are hacking at branches; because of this, any success they have will be short lived. As Hulsmann put it in his chapter in The Myth of National Defense, "The fact is that neither in Europe nor in the United States of America has classical liberalism managed to establish a public order that effectively safeguarded private property and individual liberty for more than a couple of decades. ... With hindsight, the real question is not—as most twentieth-century libertarians have assumed—why the happy days of classical liberalism faded away and ushered in a new era of unprecedented government control. The real question is how classical liberalism could flourish even the few decades that it did flourish. (emphasis added) ... Clearly, secession avoids all these fatal long-run consequences of “imposing liberty.” It might take a long time before the conditions for successful local secession are given, and secession might then leave many dark (politically unenlightened) spots on the political map. However, at least these reforms would be genuine accomplishments that do not already contain the seeds of their own destruction." revolutionist:I know that politically, I can get a lot more people sold on libertarian ideas by taking a more moderate stance than going all out anarchist on them. I've been much more successful with this method than with shouting for the abolition of the state. If progress is to be made, I think this approach has to be taken. I think Rothbard made it clear that radicalism is the only way to go. "For as the radicals go, so do the moderates grudgingly follow in small steps." Sure, it'll be difficult at first to promote market anarchism. But if we persevere and keep working at it, the mainstream will shift toward our position. This is how genuine progress will be made.
Uh huh. Let me tell you what happens when I see vulgar ancaps speak. I've seen this many, many times. A man walks up to a crowd and talks about how we should secede and start a new society with market anarchy. I agree, but everyone else just walks away, giving him strange glances. Meanwhile the term "libertarian" is associated with people the public find nuts. I know he's right, but people are too damn scared to accept that message. Believe me, it doesn't make the "moderates grudgingly follow in small steps" it makes them run in the opposite direction with giant leaps.
The state isn't a tree that you can cut the roots out and everything crumbles.
Consider the analogy.
The state is a cancer that you have to shrink the matastisis before you operate on the mother tumor. Constitutionalists/minarchists are the chemotherapy, anarchists are the surgeons, but if the surgeons operate before the tumor is shrunk by the chemotherapy, the patient dies. However, the anarchists are fully qualified to administer the chemotherapy because it's just a simple IV drip, but in adminsitering the chemo, the surgeon does not give up his ability to do surgery.
revolutionist:In any case, why can't there be market-anarchist societies as well as minarchist "micro-states"?
Minarchy is still statism.
revolutionist:The state is a cancer that you have to shrink the matastisis before you operate on the mother tumor. Constitutionalists/minarchists are the chemotherapy, anarchists are the surgeons, but if the surgeons operate before the tumor is shrunk by the chemotherapy, the patient dies. However, the anarchists are fully qualified to administer the chemotherapy because it's just a simple IV drip, but in adminsitering the chemo, the surgeon does not give up his ability to do surgery.
Wow. Wow.
Who is the patient? This either is a bad analogy (patient dies) or it is paternalism.
wilderness: If by warped you mean more dialogue to find out what the other person means, then sure.
The other person? Who is this 'other'?
revolutionist:I have not seen anyone seriously try doing that. David Friedman has said he is going to, but I'm skeptical. ... I don't know anyone who has the resources to create some kind of microsecession revolution.
It's Patri Friedman and the Seasteading Institute. They actually received a $500K grant from Paypal co-founder Peter Thiel. The project looks promising.
revolutionist:In any case, why can't there be market-anarchist societies as well as minarchist "micro-states"? They'll be scattered all over the place, so I'm sure they'll be some options available. It's not like there's only going to be one seastead colony if your scenario happens. If they want to go off and try to form a micro state, so be it.
Of course there can be lots of different societies; that's the whole point of decentralization. But this just proves my point: anarchists and minarchists are not necessarily travelling in the same direction. The anarchy/minarchy debate cannot be postponed to a distant future where government has been stringently limited. Because we face the choice of anarchy or minarchy right now, we must address the question right now.
revolutionist:Let me tell you what happens when I see vulgar ancaps speak. I've seen this many, many times. A man walks up to a crowd and talks about how we should secede and start a new society with market anarchy. I agree, but everyone else just walks away, giving him strange glances.
They're doing it wrong. To quote Boettke again: "Never compromise the truth for the sake of persuasion. Instead, be persuasive about the uncompromised truth." The vulgar ancaps, being brash and thoughtless, are being truthful but not persuasive. At the other end is the right-opportunists who sacrifice principle to gain influence. Boettke's quote captures the middle ground: Instead of taking the easy way out and watering down the truth to be persuasive, put in the effort and do the work required to be persuasive about the truth.
revolutionist:The state isn't a tree that you can cut the roots out and everything crumbles.
Actually, that's exactly the analogy I use. I even made up a "Tree of Statism":
I think the tree analogy is helpful because without the root of monopoly courts and police, the government cannot pursue any of the branch policies. Hence, the best strategy is to strike the root.
Your cancer analogy applies somewhat to reformism. But it doesn't hold at all for secession or seasteading. You don't need to progressively limit government to secede or build an ocean platform. You do need to gradually build a critical mass of anarchists to control public opinion, but then it's just one big leap: cutting the root.
Laughing Man: wilderness: If by warped you mean more dialogue to find out what the other person means, then sure. The other person? Who is this 'other'?
Anybody
I meant if, as you say, what a libertarian means is warped, then serious dialogue would overcome such a barrier to explain ones own position on what it means to be a libertarian (or what it means not to be a libertarian).
wilderness:I meant if, as you say, what a libertarian means is warped, then serious dialogue would overcome such a barrier to explain ones own position on what it means to be a libertarian (or what it means not to be a libertarian).
What I meant by warped is thus:
Libertarianism essentially meant an order of no authority (ie. Liberty) however it was taken over by small government utopianism. It tried to establish that we can have liberty and little government.
Laughing Man: wilderness:I meant if, as you say, what a libertarian means is warped, then serious dialogue would overcome such a barrier to explain ones own position on what it means to be a libertarian (or what it means not to be a libertarian). What I meant by warped is thus: Libertarianism essentially meant an order of no authority (ie. Liberty) however it was taken over by small government utopianism. It tried to establish that we can have liberty and little government.
The Libertarian Party did this, but I believe it went this way: Rothbard was part of establishing it and recognized it left its roots and so he left the L. Party. He went back to "The American Heartland" as he put it and left behind trying to go through government to achieve what he saw as his goal. He went back to the people to mingle in his ideas, spread, and potentially have them grow that way instead. At least that's the way Hoppe discussed it in the 'introduction' to, I think it was, "Ethics of Liberty".
Now how much Rothbard left trying to go through the government, I don't know. I've seen posts here say he voted, but I don't know if gave up voting latter in his life for what I described above was latter in his life (ca. late 80's, early 90's). Or maybe he voted until he died. I don't know.
Anyways, that's the Libertarian Party and to strive of liberty only to give up on the originally stated efforts and to fall back into statist, miniarchist wheel-spinning is not a new occurrence within the 'Liberty Tradition' as noted in this article on the First Leftists.
Sage: Actually, that's exactly the analogy I use. I even made up a "Tree of Statism":
That is a good illustration.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
wilderness: The Libertarian Party did this, but I believe it went this way: Rothbard was part of establishing it and recognized it left its roots and so he left the L. Party. He went back to "The American Heartland" as he put it and left behind trying to go through government to achieve what he saw as his goal. He went back to the people to mingle in his ideas, spread, and potentially have them grow that way instead. At least that's the way Hoppe discussed it in the 'introduction' to, I think it was, "Ethics of Liberty". Now how much Rothbard left trying to go through the government, I don't know. I've seen posts here say he voted, but I don't know if gave up voting latter in his life for what I described above was latter in his life (ca. late 80's, early 90's). Or maybe he voted until he died. I don't know. Anyways, that's the Libertarian Party and to strive of liberty only to give up on the originally stated efforts and to fall back into statist, miniarchist wheel-spinning is not a new occurrence within the 'Liberty Tradition' as noted in this article on the First Leftists.
So was that a long paragraph basically saying 'Yes I agree with you'?