Revolution or Reformation?

Niccolò:

Anonymous Coward:

My experience with the whole violence thing is that it's all or nothing. Once the bullets (or bombs) start flying then there is no half measures or incremental escalations -- you either win or lose *everything*.

If you aren't prepared for this you should rethink your total (incremental) overthrow of the State. 

 

That's not really what's envisioned... I mean... At all.  

 

I think if people were to read SEK3's New Libertarian Manifesto, they'd get it more.

 

Here, it's free.

http://agorism.info/docs/NewLibertarianManifesto.pdf

 

 Just finished reading this, and it's rather intriguing stuff.  I saw nothing of firebombing police stations or anything of that sort; it seems like a potentially viable method to spread libertarianism by practical example as well as persuasive words, something that's next to impossible to do while abiding strictly by the laws of the State.  

waywardwayfarer:

Just finished reading this, and it's rather intriguing stuff.  I saw nothing of firebombing police stations or anything of that sort; it seems like a potentially viable method to spread libertarianism by practical example as well as persuasive words, something that's next to impossible to do while abiding strictly by the laws of the State.

I was going off his earlier statement:

The days when Anarchists were not afraid to have real fights with the police in the streets, when Anarchists were not afraid to fire bomb police stations, those were the days.

But yeah, no violent revolution just civil disobedience. 

Other than the insure yourself for 'a life for a life' example I pretty much agree with the manifesto. It's something I could get behind and could/will potentially work. Just needs to get some critical mass behind it since most people are more likely to try to enact change from within the system instead of setting up a competing system beside the State.

What it needs is one shining example in the darkness of statism (not Somalia) to show the people that there is a practical alternative to the here and now. Maybe overthrow the government of Belize or something, somewhere with good beaches.

Who knows, maybe post-Castro Cuba will find the right path. The US is bound to put some serious pressure on his successor and that could be all it takes for the government to just collapse -- not that I think the US won't install a puppet government or something like that but it's nice to dream.  

Anonymous Coward:

I was going off his earlier statement:

The days when Anarchists were not afraid to have real fights with the police in the streets, when Anarchists were not afraid to fire bomb police stations, those were the days.

But yeah, no violent revolution just civil disobedience. 

 

As was I.  I found that statement rather disturbing myself, so I was pleasantly surprised to find that the manifesto advocated nothing of the sort.   

waywardwayfarer:

I find myself in agreement with Albert Jay Nock:

"(I)f it were in my power to pull down its whole structure overnight and set up another of my own devising — to abolish the State out of hand, and replace it by an organization of the economic means — I would not do it, for the minds of Americans are far from fitted to any such great change as this, and the effect would be only to lay open the way for the worse enormities of usurpation — possibly, who knows! with myself as the usurper! After the French Revolution, Napoleon!

Great and salutary social transformations, such as in the end do not cost more than they come to, are not effected by political shifts, by movements, by programs and platforms, least of all by violent revolutions, but by sound and disinterested thinking."

To put it in my own words:  As long as the prevailing attitude of the majority is that government is desirable and beneficial, or at least necessary, no revolution or reform can succeed in abolishing The State as an institution, only demolishing one incarnation of it to clear the way for another.   

 

I like what Rothbard said...

"Following the classical liberal Leonard Read, who advocated immediate and total abolition of price-and-wage controls after World War II, we might refer to this as the "button-pushing" criterion. Thus, Read declared that "If there were a button on this rostrum, the pressing of which would release all wage-and-price controls instantaneously I would put my finger on it and push!" The libertarian, then, should be a person who would push a button, if it existed, for the instantaneous abolition of all invasions of liberty — not something, by the way, that any utilitarian would ever be likely to do."

I think that there really does need to be reform, but the reform is in the people, not the state. There is an increase in technology that the state can't compete with and I think the answer to Revolution or Reform lies in that. Lots of things go seemingly unnoticed by a lot of people. The governments attempts at regulating the internet for example. How CAN they do it? The internet is anarchy. It is changing our political enviroment and the Ron Paul movement should be making that clear. What Bill Gates is doing with schools should be paid attention too. Paying for laptops is cheaper than books. Putting the classes online, etc. The kids are excelling in an environment without books and teachers as we traditionally have viewed them. There is a lot of potential in that area. And what the hell is MIT up to at this site... http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm

The more we focus on how to reform the state, the more validity we lend to the state. That is no way to change peoples attitude about the power of the state. What are the real alternatives, that is what we should be looking at. Instead of arguing about what the government should or shouldn't be doing about things like Global Warming, we should be focusing on and advancing ways that the free market can and does deal with enviromental problems. Every issue should be looked at from the viewpoint of how the market can deal with it, not how we can reform the government to deal with those things more efficently. The state can't deal with anything efficently. Force and waste are their only way of dealing with things. They probably (for the most part) have good intentions on every front. They are groups of people that want to use the government to make peoples lives better. But, as libertarians, it is our duty to point out that the government is incapable of doing that, that there is always a loss involved. To say, "Well, if the government does it our way, everyone will be better off.", we are in the same boat as the rest of them. 

The heart of the monster - the IRS.

I agree essentially with Irish Outlaw.

Anonymous Coward:

But yeah, no violent revolution just civil disobedience.

Er... My point was more of one when people had the nerve to stand up to the state and not merely do as their told. At current demonstrations you basically get the same crowd riled up about this or that, the police come in and call everyone out to break it up, and then we go home. That's about as good as it gets, folks.

Though, when I was writing most of this, I was rather pissed off at the state and pretty agravated with personal afflicitions by the state against myself. I.E. being slammed into a wall and thrown into a jail cell by a local cop for a suspended license.

Niccolò:

My point was more of one when people had the nerve to stand up to the state and not merely do as their told. At current demonstrations you basically get the same crowd riled up about this or that, the police come in and call everyone out to break it up, and then we go home. That's about as good as it gets, folks.

Most people want to change the system not totally replace it.

I don't see how violence at a demonstration would help in any way either, the people you're trying to convince that yours is a better way are just going to think of the violent acts committed by your group and the State would have a lot more incentive to track down the troublemakers.

If you look at the civil rights movement in the US it was always the State that resorted to violence and the general public realized this and sympathized with the bloodied-up hippies. It was the State (ok, agents of the State) that shot down four nonviolent protesters in Ohio.

Now look at the right to life movement where certain individuals resort to bombing abortion clinics, how much public support do they get -- even from people sympathetic to their cause?

Niccolò:

Though, when I was writing most of this, I was rather pissed off at the state and pretty agravated with personal afflicitions by the state against myself. I.E. being slammed into a wall and thrown into a jail cell by a local cop for a suspended license.

 

I f%&king hate pigs. ...well, most of them, a rare few do stop legitimate crime.

I essentially agree with IrishOutlaw as well, except on one basic point: The market can sometimes take over state services in a more effective manner, such as the internet eventually displacing more conventional forms of education. However, sometimes state prohibitions are so strong that the market cannot function at all. In such areas, I don't see political action as being a waste of time. Fortunately, the internet may render state prohibitions useless in many cases.

In my case its not a big deal, beyond a (relatively) small amount in legal fees.

Niccolò:

The second, I am glad to hear that. Please, keep us updated on your ventures.

While the idea is most certainly not rocket-science (nor terribly revolutionary), I'm going to refrain from posting any details at least until developement is in full-swing.

 

Anonymous Coward:

Most people want to change the system not totally replace it.

Most people only think they want the system to change. Most people are libertarians at heart, libertarianism is the true humanism! It's just that they've been brainwashed by the state. Humans try to break free once in a while, cheating on taxes, demonstrations, protests against wars, etc. but without a comprehensive reason for why they're doing this, they don't follow through.

Anonymous Coward:

I don't see how violence at a demonstration would help in any way either, the people you're trying to convince that yours is a better way are just going to think of the violent acts committed by your group and the State would have a lot more incentive to track down the troublemakers.

If you look at the civil rights movement in the US it was always the State that resorted to violence and the general public realized this and sympathized with the bloodied-up hippies. It was the State (ok, agents of the State) that shot down four nonviolent protesters in Ohio.

Now look at the right to life movement where certain individuals resort to bombing abortion clinics, how much public support do they get -- even from people sympathetic to their cause?

 

It doesn't have to be violence, but what I'm getting at is the complete lack of assertiveness. MLKJ was not a pacifist in the way that many think of him, though he didn't believe in aggression, he believed in being assertive. That's something that Anarchists lack today.