As Jill Pyeatt wrote the last time we did one of these
At Independent Political Report, our mission is to post articles about independents or alternate parties. From time to time, however, an interesting article comes around regarding the philosophy of libertarianism or anarchy, both of which are topics which many of our readers have interest in. This thread is dedicated to those articles.
Feel free to add something you may find that fall into the categories of small “l” libertarianism, or anarchy.
Another way this thread could possibly prove useful is to direct tangents that spin off into arguing over anarchy that arise from arguments in the comment threads of articles not directly related to this topic and direct them here once they go past a few rounds of back and forth.
And now, some videos, which may or may not be related to this topic depending on the reader’s perspective:
According to a FB post:
A 17 Year old boy Made a Song Called C.O.P (Criminals of Permission) And It Went Viral All Over Social Media The Same Day. Later That Week The Boy Went Missing After School And Was Found Dead The Next Morning On The Side Walk Miles From Were He Lived. At The Very Last Seconds Of His Song He Says “You’ll Probably Find Me And Kill Me With Permission.” The Police Still Have Not Released Any Additional Info At This Time.
Darn. I keep forgetting about putting up that new thread. Will try to do it today.
Here’s a great example of what one person can accomplish:
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/meet-brazils-new-libertarian-star/
Coming soon
open thread
For discussions of small ‘l” libertarianism and anarchy
“Robert Capozzi
April 5, 2015 at 2:09 pm
mp, yes, I see your point. Andyland would be a TM, but one where the Andylandians would have voluntarily entered into explicit contract without coercion.”
BINGO for Robert Capozzi.
There would be a monopoly contract, but not monopoly enforcement. I’m presuming there would be some monopoly adjudication method.
mp, yes, I see your point. Andyland would be a TM, but one where the Andylandians would have voluntarily entered into explicit contract without coercion.
Andy’s LZ is a territorial monopoly. Or would be if it existed.
pf: I doubt a territorial monopoly could be optimal, especially if it is forced.
me: Yes, we are still waiting on Andy’s LZ to be established. Could be less sub-optimal than the territorial monopoly model.
L, not much. Electing in rotation a relatively small number of people to keep the peace with restricted power is the idea.
What does giving a small group of people almost unlimited power over the rest of society have to do with checks and balances?
I doubt a territorial monopoly could be optimal, especially if it is forced.
I’ll work on a new thread later today if time allows. V for Vendetta theme for Open Thread V …
pf, it’s not actually circular logic. Checks and balances make a lot of sense in general when dealing with dysfunctional behavior, which is something that I observe to be universal for all, at least at times.
Polycentric law would also be a form of checks and balances, after all. It becomes a more practical question of determining a more optimal form of checks and balances.
Ditto.
I think these threads are useful, and I think starting a fresh one is a good idea.
Real libertarianism?
Sure, Paulie, it’s fine with me.
On the other hand, if you scroll up a few comments, it appears there is at least one libertarian dilettante who thinks this thread is a waste of time, as he’s sure what “real libertarianism” is. 😉
I’d like a few more opinions. Anyone else in favor? Anyone opposed?
Sure, PF. Freshen the festivities.
No opinions?
The “utopian purists” ARE the “practical realists.”
Trying to decide whether to start Thread V in this series yet….
Green_w_o_Adjectives raised a lot of good points here and further shows that total anarchism and mankind are incompatible and unable to work in the long term.
In fact I don’t think a discussion thread like this is productive for Libertarians, since it only seems to pit the utopian purists against the practical realists.
Not all LP’ers think alike, nor do they agree on all the issues either. I can accept that, but some of the purist camp cannot, it seems..
L: Now, this may not apply to you, as you do not seem to really believe in the NAP.
me: Correct.
L: Perhaps you see it as a “helpful suggestion” or something along those lines, but you certainly don’t seem to view it as any type of a moral constraint.
me: The way I’d put it is I like and appreciate the sentiment.
L: (nor is he “equivocating” them, which is what I suspect you meant to say)
me: Nope. Equilibrating.
L: First, that while there may not appear to be a big practical difference between anarchists and minarchists, there is actually a huge philosophical difference between them,
me: Yes, I agree they are different. I’m neither. I’m a lessarchist.
L: and second, that once you admit the need for a state, you quickly head down a slippery slope that undermines virtually all the arguments for limited government minarchy.
me: That’s one way to put it. But I find Jefferson’s “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance” concept the more useful one. As long as there is power, it needs to be constantly monitored and checked to ensure that the inevitable abuses are minimized.
…I read a bit of the Callahan essay. It’s quite a flawed setup for me. It equilibrates “wife beating” with “the existence of a state.”
Perhaps you should have read the rest of it, as you seem to have missed the point. Callahan is not “equilibrating” those two things (nor is he “equivocating” them, which is what I suspect you meant to say). Rather, he is simply pointing out a similarity between them — namely, that they both employ the notion that “the ends justify the means” as a rationalization for advocating aggression. This ties in to the two points that I made above: First, that while there may not appear to be a big practical difference between anarchists and minarchists, there is actually a huge philosophical difference between them, and second, that once you admit the need for a state, you quickly head down a slippery slope that undermines virtually all the arguments for limited government minarchy.
Forced? Who is “forcing” advocacy of minarchy?
The argument I was replying to is generally employed as a euphemistic way of saying, “Just shut up with all this anarchy stuff until we first get to minarchy. Until then, just hop on the ‘limited government’ bandwagon.” To which I reply, “No thanks. I’ve spent plenty of time on that bandwagon, and I have no desire to ride it again.”
Where is the “inherent contradiction”?
Most minarchists claim to adhere to the NAP, but the state cannot exist without committing aggression. In fact, the state is literally defined by its claim to the “legitimate” use of aggression. There’s your contradiction. Now, this may not apply to you, as you do not seem to really believe in the NAP. Perhaps you see it as a “helpful suggestion” or something along those lines, but you certainly don’t seem to view it as any type of a moral constraint.
L, btw, I read a bit of the Callahan essay. It’s quite a flawed setup for me. It equilibrates “wife beating” with “the existence of a state.” Most don’t acknowledge the simile as valid for them. It may well be valid for you, but surely you’ve noticed that your views are hardly universally held, yes?
It’s OK to be on the fringe. Consider not feigning disappointment when you find that most don’t buy your thought system and its premises.
tk, I hear you, but I use the term “peaceful” differently than you do. For ex., it might be “right” to abolish Social Security tomorrow, but I don’t think it’s “workable,” and I don’t find the thought of yanking the only income for a large subset of the population to be “peaceful” either.
SS might be a form of intergenerational “theft,” but it’s an institution upon which many generations have made significant financial plans. Undoing such an institution precipitously seems contrary to domestic tranquility to me, all things considered. Consider thinking such abolition through, and you might arrive at a place of agreement with me.
Even MNR acknowledged that “transition plans” would likely be necessary to institute his construct.
“I pick my places for HOW I would roll back the state by asking if a certain position is 1) right; 2) workable; and 3) peaceful.”
And when you get to (3), if the position involves maintaining the existence of the state, the answer is “no.”
l: Second, being forced to advocate minarchy is a rather arduous burden, as it is an inherently contradictory position — the same arguments that are used to justify the “minimal” state, if valid, could also be used to justify all sorts of other government intervention.
ME: Forced? Who is “forcing” advocacy of minarchy?
This discussion is why I coined (I think) “lessarchy.” Believe what you will, L, but I don’t see how my views are contradictory at all. Today I advocate less government tomorrow. If that works, I advocate less government the next day.
I pick my places for HOW I would roll back the state by asking if a certain position is 1) right; 2) workable; and 3) peaceful. This affords me much latitude in what I advocate and the speed of change. It invites more-archists to re-consider their views, and to make an honest assessment of what too-big government “produces.”
It allows for negotiation and calibration. For ex., “abolition of the Coast Guard” does not pass the 3 tests. “Across the board spending cuts” does. “Unilateral disarmament” fails. “Exiting Iraq” passes. And so forth.
Where is the “inherent contradiction”?
I am weary of the minarchist vs. anarchist debate. Between the present tyranny and minarchy (or even simple Constitutionalism) there is a huge journey. Probably a greater journey then there is between minarchy and anarchy. So when we get to a minimal libertarian style government (if it even happens in any of our lifetimes), it will be an important matter to settle.
I’ve heard this argument many times before, and while I understand the sentiment, there are a couple of problems with it. First, it assumes that the transition from the status quo to a free society will follow a linear path, which I find to be a dubious claim at best. Second, being forced to advocate minarchy is a rather arduous burden, as it is an inherently contradictory position — the same arguments that are used to justify the “minimal” state, if valid, could also be used to justify all sorts of other government intervention. If other libertarians want to try defending such a paradoxical position, they are free to do so, but I long ago grew tired of that attempt. In fact, it was the difficulty of advocating minarchy when debating non-libertarians that ultimately convinced me of the superiority of anarchy.
Ans as for the allegedly trivial difference between anarchy and minarchy, I suppose it’s a matter of perspective, as this article does a great job of demonstrating:
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan154.html
So they get a little free advertising. I don’t see the problem. If they do, they’ll be sure to let us know.
I agree with you on the substantive issues.
OK. Let me try this again:
http://blackflagofficial.com/
By the way. Here is a link to the website of the band who’s trademark you used:
I am weary of the minarchist vs. anarchist debate. Between the present tyranny and minarchy (or even simple Constitutionalism) there is a huge journey. Probably a greater journey then there is between minarchy and anarchy. So when we get to a minimal libertarian style government (if it even happens in any of our lifetimes), it will be an important matter to settle.
Before that time arrives, we (liberty lovers) need to work together to dismantle the current structure. A true anarchist should have no problem with this since less government is a milestone on the peaceful path to no government. Unfortunately, there are plenty of hard statists (or people trying to justify their own sloth) who oppose removing a brick from the top of the wall that separates us from liberty on the grounds that they object to the walls existence. This is not reason. It is defeatist nonsense.
Just a heads up. Did you know the “Black Flag” picture at the start of this post is the trade mark of a hardcore band by that name? Just Saying.
As for the topic. I am weary of the minarchist vs. anarchist debate. Between the present tyranny and minarchy (or even simple Constitutionalism) there is a huge journey. Probably a greater journey then there is between minarchy and anarchy. So when we get to a minimal libertarian style government (if it even happens in any of our lifetimes), it will be an important matter to settle.
Before that time arrives, we (liberty lovers) need to work together to dismantle the current structure. A true anarchist should have no problem with this since less government is a milestone on the peaceful path to no government. Unfortunately, there are plenty of hard statists (or people trying to justify their own sloth) who oppose removing a brick from the top of the wall that separates us from liberty on the grounds that they object to the walls existence. This is not reason. It is defeatist nonsense.
It sounds like RC is a hardcore anarchist when it comes to the meaning of words, while langa is a lessarchist regarding the tyranny of dictionary definitions 🙂
tk: Most cult followers believe the object of their worship IS all-powerful — and if something should tend to disprove that belief, they either deny that thing or come up with implausible explanations.
me: I don’t see it that way. Cult followers that I can think of believe the leader is QUITE powerful, but not ALL powerful.
tk: It’s that they believe the state is a god or the equivalent and they treat the state as a god or the equivalent, on faith, regardless of the lack of evidence and even in the face of contrary evidence.
me: OK…for you. For me, I don’t know anyone who believes the state is all powerful in all things.
“For me, ‘cult of the omnipotent state’ means something like ‘blind followers who want government to be all powerful.'”
That meaning would seem to be at odds with the usual understanding of what the word “cult” indicates.
Most cult followers don’t believe the object of their worship “should” be all-powerful. Most cult followers believe the object of their worship IS all-powerful — and if something should tend to disprove that belief, they either deny that thing or come up with implausible explanations.
So one particular branch of the cult of the omnipotent state confidently predicts that the invasion of Iraq will be a cakewalk and that Iraqis will greet US troops with rose petals strewn in their paths, etc. because the US government is just TEH GREAT. And when it doesn’t happen, it’s not that the prediction was wrong, it’s that all those damn naysayers somehow magically made it not happen, not because they were wrong about the omnipotence of the US armed forces.
And another branch of the cult confidently states that of course Social Security will never become insolvent because look at these numbers its government creators have shown us. And when it becomes clear that the system is not in fact solvent, it’s just not true and/or it’s true because all those meanies who didn’t believe in it, or whatever, but it’s never, ever, evera sign that maybe government can’t get the results it claims it can get.
It’s not that they want the state to be a god. It’s that they believe the state is a god or the equivalent and they treat the state as a god or the equivalent, on faith, regardless of the lack of evidence and even in the face of contrary evidence.
L: None of that is in any way tantamount to your nihilistic claim that words are meaningless, and that all possible ways of using them are equally valid.
me: That’s not quite my view. Words have meaning for the individual, and — yes — those meanings are equally valid. However, there are common understandings of what words mean. And, yes, certainly the common understanding of words do evolve over time — “liberal” being a great example of that phenomenon.
So, for ex., the LP and presumably its members believe that there IS a “cult of the omnipotent state.” That’s certainly valid for them.
For me, “cult of the omnipotent state” means something like “blind followers who want government to be all powerful.” My sense is that that belief in the CotOS is delusional, since virtually no one wants government to have THAT much control of our daily lives.
It’s certainly valid for LPers to believe that, but I think it’s a bad idea to lead a SoP with such nonsense. Some LPers have indicated that CotOS is poetry. To which my feedback is: Bad poetry. “Valid” enough, but if the first words out of a group’s mouth sounds like the ravings of a lunatic, I’d urge reconsideration of the phrase IF the goal is to advance liberty.
It’s interesting that you don’t use so many common terms for their lack of clarity. I seem to recall that you like to say “words have meaning,” and yet you seem to acknowledge that meaning can be quite elastic.
Words do have meanings. Sometimes, those meanings change. Other times, the meanings of words are deliberately hijacked. If I see that happening, I try to prevent it, unless it’s too late. In that case, trying to “take the word back” is generally a waste of time, and as I said above, my goal is to communicate with words, not to pointlessly argue about their meanings. So, I tend to use words that facilitate effective communication, rather than hinder it.
None of that is in any way tantamount to your nihilistic claim that words are meaningless, and that all possible ways of using them are equally valid.
l: I’m really surprised that Rothbard, who had quite a way with words, couldn’t come up with a catchier term to describe his philosophy.
me: I find Nonarchist catchy.
It’s interesting that you don’t use so many common terms for their lack of clarity. I seem to recall that you like to say “words have meaning,” and yet you seem to acknowledge that meaning can be quite elastic.
Consider playing that out in your head. You might be stunned where it all ends.
We need to bring everything down to a human scale, where people actually know each other personally… business, government, religion, you name it.
Regarding the term “anarcho-capitalist”, I tend to avoid using it (even though many of my beliefs are quite similar to those who do use it to describe themselves), for a couple of reasons:
First, it is awkward and inconvenient to say and write. I’m really surprised that Rothbard, who had quite a way with words, couldn’t come up with a catchier term to describe his philosophy.
Second, the word “capitalism” seems to mean a thousand different things, depending on who you ask. As a result, using it tends to generate needless confusion, if not downright acrimony.
For the same reason, I also tend to avoid words like “socialism” or “liberal” (unless you use the modified “classical liberal”). These words often result in petty debates over semantics. While some may find such debates entertaining, I would much rather spend my time discussing the ideas themselves, rather than engaging in pointless arguments about the meanings of words.
I like the ideas of neo-tribalism, what do others here think?
Who is Green w o Adjectives? He is very intelligent.
He’s no longer available, so I can only take it up with those who perpetuate the concept.
“I disagree that government curtails the kind of theft youdescribe; I think it institutionalizes it and takes it up to an industrial scale.”
That depends what you mean by government. Everybody seems to have their own definition. The anarchist definition of government is considerably broader than the Libertarian definition because for anarchists private property, hierarchical production, organized religion, corporate media, as well as private security are all organs of state power. For anarchists, the capitalist mode of production is a form of government and depends on government to sustain and reproduce itself.
When I referred to ‘government’ above I was referring to necessity of organization and community for anarchy (self-government, or no-rulers) to work. Anarchy requires a certain degree of communitarianism and/or collectivism because in anarchy people are responsible for governing themselves and therefore are responsible for taking a close interest in community matters that effect them and determine their future and well-being. In addition, anarchy is more or less impossible without the existence of federated anarchist militias that have common values and a common interest in preventing the rise of oppressive government. The organization of the militias, and the common law/principles/rights that they organize themselves to protect and preserve, could also be described as ‘government’.
This J.W. Lloyd essay (a critique of the Tucker-Schwartz mutualist tradition) elaborates some of the problems of individualist anarchism and how the rhetoric of government as invasion can backfire logically and strategically. While I sympathize with the goals and ideals of anarchism, most of the reasons I am not an anarchist are summarized by Lloyd here. If you have time I encourage you to read the whole essay but for now I will quote a few sections from the middle.
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/plugins/content/content.php?content.174
“Government has its origin in Nature below man. Animal parents control their young, animal packs follow and obey a leader. We see the same among primitive men. Nature has instituted an instinct for government and its purpose has been benefit and preservation. The mother governs her child for the benefit of the family; and the tribe, the larger family, huddles for protection under the strength, courage and wisdom of the chief. The natural roots of government are in the mother and the chief, and in that self-government by which a man conserves his health and safety by controlling his dangerous appetites and impulses. Government of this kind is instinctively sought by human beings, and benefits of this sort are instinctively expected of government; and where benefits of this sort are derived from government, there need be no fear of rebellion. To “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty”, states the essentials pretty well.
Government of the invasive kind began when tribesmen adopted these very principles that Tucker and Swartz would have us accept — they felt an implied contract bound them together in loyalty within the tribe, but outside there was no right but might, no one outside the tract had any rights they were required to respect. The result was invasions, war, conquest of weaker tribes, property in loot, the ownership of stolen lands, the making of slaves. The chief made himself king over these conquered ones, subjects. By a separate contract with his strongest warriors he divided stolen lands among them, and made them feudal lords with serfs, and bound them to him and away from the loyalty to the weaker ones of the tribe. Special privileges in stolen property — that has been the quality of invasive government ever since. But the people have never forgotten that government purely for social benefit is perfectly possible, and the reason they do not forget it is because they still have mothers, and still at time, strong friends and champions arise to use their might to protect them.
Another instance where an implied contract was used for invasion was when men usurped all rights in the name of might, declared women had no rights, subjugated them, and instituted that form of marriage in which, in its pure form, the woman was forced to be monogamous, was purely her husband’s property, without human rights, and her children also property and also his.
Pure liberty — the untrammeled doing as one pleases — nowhere exists. Law and government, in some form or degree, open or concealed, always accompany liberty and modify it. When Anarchists ask only for equal-liberty they themselves acknowledge this and institute a degree of law and government by limiting liberty by equality, governing liberty by equality. Once you admit that, in practice, liberty must be limited, law and government are admitted, and it only becomes a question how much or hoe little liberty is best for the greatest benefit. If Mutualists bind themselves by a contract, the moment any one of them finds he has made a mistake and no longer agrees to the contract, he finds that the Contract has become a Government, and its several parts are laws, which is associates will enforce upon him. He can leave of course but if his home and investments are there that will not be so easy, and if obliged to go to another group, under another contract, he only changes governments, as an American who goes to Canada or Mexico. If a child has the misfortune to be born under one of these contract-mutualisms he finds he has no rights whatever, and is only property of his parent’s might. Not even equal-liberty for him until big enough to put his head into one of those contract nooses. If he chooses to live as a pure inoffensive individualist, outside of any contract, he will find that for his mutualist neighbors he has no rights whatever, unless they choose to endow him with some. If not, they are free to exercise their might upon him.
If a contract exactly expresses the will of a member it, of course, does not govern him. But it is a rigid form, for all that, and, sooner or later is bound to pinch somewhere, for he is growing and changing. When it pinches it governs, and if he enforces it on his dissenting desires he aids it to govern, but it governs none the less. If he does not enforce it on himself, but breaks it, and others enforce it on him, he is sure it governs. If enforced only by forfeiture of bonds, loss of privileges, etc., it governs still. A contract enforced limits liberty, tho not necessarily equal-liberty, and a contract not enforced, or not intended for enforcement, is weak, and weak precisely at points of greatest strain. And it is safe to say that, with any contract involving social life, there will be moments of emergency and crucial necessity when imperious wills will enforce the contract or violate it spite of any scruples about equal-liberty.
Perhaps the contract will be enforced only by the boycott. Mutualists would fain [sic] persuade us that there is no possible invasion of equal liberty in a boycott. Comrade Swartz, instinctively sensing a weak spot in his levees here, throws all his strength to its support. “It is”, he says, “the only weapon that cannot be used invasively?The reason for this is that the boycott is not an act; it is merely the refusal to act.” Yet please note that he admits it is a “weapon”, and implies that it can be “used”, and on page 163 admits that a boycotted person “may correctly allege that he has been coerced”, and lower down speaks of a boycott exerting a “pressure.” On page 165, we see it recommended as a “punishment for crime”, and a “drastic penalty”, “more painful to many than to be incarcerated in a prison”, etc. Now how can the use of a weapon, to exert a pressure, to coerce, to inflict a drastic penalty or punishment, worse than incarceration in a prison, be described as no act, “merely a declination to act”? It is absurd. The confusion of the Anarchist here comes from his failing to understand that, in the paradoxicality of the universe, there are acts-negative as well as acts-positive, and that the boycott is one of the acts-negative. A failure, or refusal to act in a positive manner may still be an act-negative. Thus if a baby, at my feet, falls into a ditch, and I, quite able to retrieve it, allow it to drown, I am just as guilty of its murder as if I pushed it under; if I see a spark starting to ignite a house, and I, quite able, indifferently permit it to burn on, I am morally guilty of arson. When I boycott or ostracize a person to coerce him to do something which he is unwilling to do I am acting, and my act is an act of government.
For this is precisely what government is — in the relations of human beings, it is the action of one mind to control another mind to coerce it to perform an act, or cease to act, where it is reluctant or unwilling to comply — that is government, and is so understood by all mankind — or, more briefly — government is the imposition of a stronger will upon a weaker will that is here unwilling. It is always a limitation of liberty, even if intended to maintain whatever liberty may be possible.
Anarchists will find, whenever they try to apply their theories, that they cannot maintain an orderly, comfortable home, or run an orderly, harmonious school, or conduct an orderly public meeting, (Tucker averred that it was necessary that the moderator should be an autocrat), or run a safe railroad train, or sail a safe ship, without government. There must be discipline for order and efficiency — self-applied, or externally applied, and almost invariably the latter, for the self-applied is very unreliable in practice. Swartz praises the superior efficiency of private business concerns over government action in the same lines. He fails to note that the reason is that the discipline and government of the business enterprises is far more instant and severe than that of ordinary political government. In the army and navy, where government is still more strict and severe, efficiency is supreme. Efficiency is apt to be in inverse proportion to liberty. But of course government is a blind force and must be directed by intelligence; a fool must not be an engineer.
I cite all this merely to prove that Anarchism is a natural impossibility. Government is ubiquitous and pops up everywhere. There is no such thing as complete liberty, and equal-liberty, tho a beautiful moral standard, as an ideal, is, in real life invaded all the time, by stern natural necessity. There is no such thing as an “individual sovereign”, a “single, separate person” — he does not exist. Centrally there is a certain nucleus of individuality, yes, and very precious to us, but on all borders and contacts one merges with forces, things and persons, depends on them, and becomes all tangled up, coercing and being coerced, governing and being governed, in all sorts of conscious or unconscious, secret or overt way, by acts-negative or acts-positive. Society is not a mere word, but a living reality. As soon as any group forms there begins to develop a collective, composite spirit, or mind, invisible, but very real, that more or less telepathically unites and includes it — all its members. All contribute life to it — all are influenced, modified by it. This is Society — the composite spirit of the group — and it exercises an invisible, but very real government. The visible leaders must mainly express it or they do not last long. There is always a majority rule, tho a powerful individual mind may captivate the majority, at least for a time. Anarchists cannot escape the action of this government; moreover they will participate in it.
I first really faced the fallacy of Anarchism when I faced the problem of Conservation. When Anarchists forgot the assertion of the single right of might, they were full of rights to assert, and one was that the individual sovereign had an indisputable right to go to wild Nature for anything he could use and, provided he left the field open for others, no one had a right to prevent him. I agreed, till suddenly I realized that this meant that an Italian could live on slaughtered son birds, a market pot-hunter could kill all the year round, fish could be seined out of all waters, the lumber-hog could seep away the forests, and, as long as these men left equal-liberty for others to commit equal havoc, there was absolutely nothing in Anarchist principles that could consistently be applied to stop them. They were occupying and using, and not invading equal-liberty — and to stop them was “government”, that is, “invasion”. I dropt Anarchism right then and there. I began to see emerging the rights of society — of a wise collectivity, envisaging the rights of all and of posterity. Some social benefits required even the sacrifice of equal-liberty.”
The King may not have had any power. I’d have to study it more.
According to the video, this libertarian period lasted for 1,000 years. This is a long time, and is longer than a lot of governments/nation states.
Your comment about being conquered and not lasting is why I proposed defense mechanisms in my Libertarian Zone concept.
The reason that there have not been more libertarian societies is because of sociopath control freaks and people who like being lead around by sociopath control freaks.
I’d note that Ireland and Iceland were conquered. Meaning that micro-states and LZ’s might not be sustainable in the presence of aggressive nations in the vicinity.
It sucks, I know, but unfortunately it is what it is.
“Little” =/= “No”
Aubrey Herbert was MNR’s pseudonym.
The video also said that the King had little power and was more a ceremonial position than anything else.
It sounds like Ireland had a fairly libertarian society during this time period.
What pseudonym did Murray Rothbard use when he coined the term nonarchy?
A, vid is funny. First it sez Ireland was anarchy, then it proceeds to discuss its kings and legislative process. Perhaps there’s some fine nuance that I’m missing?
MNR also coined “nonarchy,” under a pseudonym.
Take it up with the ghost of Murray Rothbard. He’s the one who came up with the term anarcho-capitalist as far as I know.
Why do you think it was capitalist? Free markets aren’t capitalism.
Apparently, an anarcho-capitalist like society existed successfully in Ireland for 1,000 years.
Ancient Ireland’s success with the free market and a stateless society
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su9OqvBbSD0
https://markstoval.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/1000-years-of-irish-anarchy/
Money and property trump justice and human rights in liberal democracy and the same thing would happen under anarcho-capitalism
As I see it, there are at least two relevant differences between the status quo and the scenario you envision. First, absent monopoly government, the rich would have to bear the entire financial cost of these nefarious schemes. This makes a huge difference, as currently, the rich need only commit the amount of money necessary to buy off the people in charge of government. The actual crimes themselves are financed by a combination of taxation (of which only a fraction is paid by the rich) and inflation (which disproportionately affects the non-rich). Neither of these things would be possible without monopoly government. Second, absent the state, corrupt security forces like the ones you describe would still have to worry about their reputation. If they behaved the same way that cops behave now, they would quickly find themselves with no customers, aside from the few criminals who were willing to hire them. Thus, they would be much more comparable to status quo private criminal gangs (such as the Mafia) rather than the status quo government. An inconvenience, for sure, but nowhere close to as dangerous as the huge, institutionalized criminal enterprise currently known as the state.
(Caveat: Different libertarian anarchists have vastly different conceptions of what a free society would look like. I do not self-identify as an “anarcho-capitalist” — and even though I do agree with self-described “anarcho-capitalists” on many issues, I cannot speak for them, or for anyone other than myself.)
GwoA it seems like my idea of anarchism is closer to what you describe than what you descrie as “anarcho-capitalism,” at least as far as how I typically see security in a free society.
I disagree that government curtails the kind of theft youdescribe; I think it institutionalizes it and takes it up to an industrial scale.
“On Paulie’s garage sale post, what I’m saying is that it seems that, under a completely anarchist society without ANY law enforcement or restraint- while the resident of the garage sale can sell and run it any way he/she pleases (and I’m in total agreement in not regulating sales and capitalism taking place on private property or even public property (in most circumstances)), yet at the same time, there would also be no stopping an armed individual, or armed gang, from robing the resident in charge of the garage sale at gunpoint, or doing even worse to him/her. And even if that resident running the garage sale was armed, that would still mean nothing if the robbing individual, or gang, had more firepower then the resident.
And in the anarchist world, there would be no law enforcement to stop that from happening to the individual. Oh and don’t get me started on private militias or vigilante groups, because that still counts as ‘force’.”
A realistic anarchism would be grounded in voluntary small communities. There would be contracts, constitutions, and compacts to help delineate what can and can’t be done. So if someone inside or outside the community ripped off a community member running a garage sale, every able bodied adult in the community would probably be obligated to take an active interest in justice. This is why injustice would be so “costly”. Everybody gives a fuck about injustices (to community members) whether the injustice affected them personally
or not. Consequently, the community has to be very careful about who it accepts as a member because they don’t want to have to commit themselves to violence on behalf of people who are consistently getting ripped off or victimized.
Anarcho-capitalists want to argue that communities won’t have to be so close knit and self-defense-oriented in order to prevent injustice being inflicted on its members. That we can maintain the individualistic anome characteristic of liberal democracy in anarchy by relying on paid security services. They say that these security services would seek to minimize conflicts and focus on settlements because conflicts would be expensive. However, if the security services take money and their primary job is property rights enforcement, then they will quickly become the paid agents of the richest people (or, as in the case of ordinary government, a consortium of rich people). So instead of a community militia enforcing justice there will be security firms (paid by the highest bidder) enforcing justice. Which is not all that different from what exists today. Money and property trump justice and human rights in liberal democracy and the same thing would happen under anarcho-capitalism
What makes theft expensive is the expected retribution or cost. But when security firms are competing in a money-driven culture, it is in their interest to consolidate and/or cooperate to increase their profits. For example, one security firm could steal resources while the other firm gets paid to get them back and then both firms split the payback profits later on. These kinds of rent-seeking activities go on all the time under the capitalist mode of production and are part of its basic logic. Morally, they are the same as theft. This theft is easy and efficient and not very costly and has plenty of precedence in human history. The only thing that can make this theft costly is active compacts, traditions, and determination among communities to prevent it. Eg…government…or its equivalent.
Another way of putting it is you can’t expect these security services to deliver justice if justice is a matter of who has the most currency. Inevitably, these services will privilege the interests of property owners and those services that serve non-property owners will be at a structural disadvantage in the market.
Justice is the quality of adhering to mutual agreements. It shoudn’t be ok or easy for one party to abrogate mutual agreement just because this party happens to have alot of money.
http://www.examiner.com/article/alternet-and-salon-move-this-file-to-the-recycle-bin
“Stupid Without Adjectives”
Did you pick that name for yourself or did your parents pick it? Either way it’s fitting.
Libertarians need to get out of the house and talk to Joe Sixpack more. It’s called “feedback and correction.” Politics without “feedback and correction” is just masturbation.
Greens need to read a few books and become libertarians, or kill themselves. Either option would contribute to progress.
Socialism is antithetical to libertarianism. Anyone who suggests otherwise is idiotic, or is defining socialism in a way that the world never defined it, and never will.
This thread is the reason nobody takes libertarians seriously as anything except serious wastes of time.
sr: Whilst petitioning for ballot access I’ve always found it best to pander to both left and right, but if they are both present at once, I point out that the only legitimate position is “classical liberalism,” or just “liberalism,” in the sense Hayek meant it.
me: How does that go over with the “left and right” when they are both present? My gut tells me that the term “classical liberalism” is not commonly known, nor is Hayek, but I’d like to be wrong.
Pretty much complete agreement with Knapp and Paulie. Whilst petitioning for ballot access I’ve always found it best to pander to both left and right, but if they are both present at once, I point out that the only legitimate position is “classical liberalism,” or just “liberalism,” in the sense Hayek meant it.
Now, I only go down this path if both of the levels of left and right are approximately equal. Communicate to those who can understand your communication, or you are wasting your time.
The Nolan Chart is a great invention, and, if people I encounter are intellectually honest (this is rare), I pull a copy out of my pocket, and show them how those who most favor individual freedom are at the top of the diamond. Harry Browne also preferred to espouse “consistent libertarianism without respect to right or left historical baggage.” I think he did a great job. When I entered the LP he had just run for president, and I had voted for him. He also made a libertarian out of my aunt, who saw him on TV.
Even so, I think virtually all LP campaigns are delusional. The LP is a bunch of ex-Republican dickheads who don’t know how to speak to moral issues because they lack anything but vestigial mirror neurons. As with most things in a “state of nature,” such neurons are in short supply. (And the “economic-processing” neurons in leftists are in even shorter supply.) The GOP rejects who run the LP understand that the left doesn’t understand economics, and the right steadfastly rejects social tolerance, but that doesn’t stop them from running campaigns based primarily on economic liberty.
That’s OK, natural selection will kill this version of the LP, and replace it with a more viable option that may or may not be a political party. (Or, we will decay into totalitarianism.)
Focusing on economic issues strikes leftists as morally “tone deaf.” And, such leftists do not understand basic economics. So the huge opportunity is to try to reach “intellectually honest leftists” with a strong moral message. We can do this if we try. If we don’t try, we will lose all of our liberty, because the Republican Party is pure fascism (Rand Paul and Justin Amash excepted).
We need versions of Rand Paul and Justin Amash in the Democratic Party, winning office on a message of organized jury independence. That could make libertarianism relevant again.
However, this won’t likely happen, because libertarians are generally idiots who don’t care much about the outcome of actual freedom. People like Paulie are excepted from this criticism, and, to the extent Knapp has ever helped someone get out of a cage, I’d include him, too.
There are a lot of nice people in the LP, but they’re not very strategically-inclined. Good people to have a beer with, bad people to expand freedom with.
Until they start talking to strangers every day, and helping those strangers resist the state, “libertarians” are “tits on a bull.”
If you can’t measure it, it’s not an increase in individual freedom.
Among many other reasons. I don’t like to spend a lot of time talking about anarchy vs minarchy though, I prefer to spend most of my focus on more immediate concerns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3yUQFluNq0
Its a snow day here in the DC area. Thankfully, I came to this post early in the day, as seeing that Black Flag logo reminded me that I’ve got nothing better to do than watch TV and have a couple of brews.
pf, bracing stuff, thanks.
So, from your perspective, is the logic:
Police and the law itself are often abusive, therefore abolish the State?
http://liberty.me/create-music/cop-block/
Scroll down for the infographic
tk, yes I am happy, although your framing does not capture my point. I used the world “civilization” to differentiate from a person going into the wilderness and proclaiming him or herself stateless.
Or that study you’ve shared in the past where remote tribal villages in SE Asia that are, in a sense, stateless while inside the borders of several nations.
“I’m saying that there’s basically been monopoly government throughout history in virtually all civilizations.”
Well, there’s a problematic word in there. “Civilization” is by definition a “complex state society,” i.e. a society with monopoly government. So yes, I agree, that throughout history all societies with monopoly government had monopoly government. Happy now?
tk: Are you suggesting that we 21st century anarchists are trying to overthrow the regime of Nebuchadnezzar?
me: No. I’m saying that there’s basically been monopoly government throughout history in virtually all civilizations. It’s taken many forms.
It’s kinda sorta interesting to imagine what a stateless society might look like, just as it’s interesting to speculate about how other forms of states might work out. All these are mere speculation, with virtually unprecedented statelessness being the most speculative.
mm, all governments are limited. They could be larger, after all. I’d suggest the task is to limit them more and, if ever achieved, more still.
Oxymoronic fantasies in desperate need of extinction, example # 3,324: “Limited Government”.
A term heard early and often whenever conservatives and “libertarians” congregate. Like “settled science”, the Tooth Fairy and Honest Politicians, not only is there no such thing, there never has been.
And never will be.
RC,
Are you suggesting that we 21st century anarchists are trying to overthrow the regime of Nebuchadnezzar?
If so, I’d like to suggest the counter-possibility that maybe we’re aiming a little more at the actually existing states which conform to the Westphalian model and which hyper-metastasized in the last century.
You know, the states in which, for example, “police departments” came into existence in, roughly, my great-great-great-grandfather’s time and weren’t a regular part of the American landscape until my grandfather’s time — about the same time that standing American armies and very large permanent American navies (like the one he was drafted into in 1944) entered the scene.
tk: the modern state dates from the 17th century and the Peace of Westphalia.
me: Right. But there’ve been states or tribes going back to Mesopotamia.
“And in the anarchist world, there would be no law enforcement to stop that from happening to the individual”
Highly unlikely.
I’ve been busy with work & family to respond the last few days, FYI, so I’ll respond to some of your responses in due time.
But while I have the time, I’ll respond to two things here for now-
On Paulie’s garage sale post, what I’m saying is that it seems that, under a completely anarchist society without ANY law enforcement or restraint- while the resident of the garage sale can sell and run it any way he/she pleases (and I’m in total agreement in not regulating sales and capitalism taking place on private property or even public property (in most circumstances)), yet at the same time, there would also be no stopping an armed individual, or armed gang, from robing the resident in charge of the garage sale at gunpoint, or doing even worse to him/her. And even if that resident running the garage sale was armed, that would still mean nothing if the robbing individual, or gang, had more firepower then the resident.
And in the anarchist world, there would be no law enforcement to stop that from happening to the individual. Oh and don’t get me started on private militias or vigilante groups, because that still counts as ‘force’.
And from what it looks like, I’m being accused of being a fascist or “supporting” the current state of law enforcement in America.
Wow! Are you people that stupid and paranoid about what I’m talking about in maintaining some level of law enforcement in a more free society?! Seriously, stop putting words in my mouth and get a fucking clue, because it seems that some of the hardcore anarchists here are behaving like Pro-Gun Control Left-wing Democrats in their level of understanding and tolerance!
And for those that still think I’m a “fascist” after reading this post- you can kiss both sides of my practical Irish Mormon Ass.
RC,
I don’t have any firm opinion about the efficacy of common law. You seem to be mixing me up with someone else.
But, as it happens, the modern state dates from the 17th century and the Peace of Westphalia.
tk: provided we continue to anchor our speculations in our better grip on history?
me: OK, that’s valid. If you REALLY believe you can separate common law from the context of the state, and you’ve really tested and retested that in your mind, then of course your view is valid for you.
But let’s say there was no monarchy or Parliament in England prior to, I dunno, 1700. Say it was a nonarchic Paradise from 1000-1700, and common law worked just fine. Since 1700, Anglo-American common law HAS evolved in the context of the State, yes?
And would you not acknowledge that the complexity of life, including economic and social interactions, has increased many, many times over since 1700?
If yes, then what makes you think that common law would work in a modern context?
pf: we have rule of law?
me: For most people most of the time, yes. Are there exceptions? Yes. Too many, IMO. Are the exceptions caused by the cult of the omnipotent state? Unlikely, as I see it, only because the only cult cited so far (by TK) are the Ba’athists, and I’ve seen no evidence that the Ba’athists are in the US. Are they? Or is there another cult I’m not aware of?
Indeed, Knapp.
Homan Square, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Kelly Thomas, Eric Garner, John Crawford…we have rule of law?
“I urge abolitionists to consider my perspective, rather than speculate wildly.”
Why should we not speculate at least as wildly as you, provided we continue to anchor our speculations in our better grip on history?
still more…
I would say that were we to get toward a Nozickian nightwatchman state, I’d have more confidence (or not) that civil society could exist without a state.
I urge abolitionists to consider my perspective, rather than speculate wildly.
more…
Listened to the show, thanks. GLARING overstatement….Hasnas wants to go “back to” the common law AS IF the common law didn’t evolve in the context of a state. News flash: that’s precisely where it evolved and continues to evolve.
It’s like metamorphic rock. Some veins are state, some “common law.” Together, it has created an overarching domestic tranquility institution. Separating them is basically impossible, at least when looking back at the history.
Could there be stateless common law? Possibly. I simply don’t buy this notion that common law exists separate from what they were calling “political rule.”
btw, in the article, I’d say false to 2-7. However, the Constitution also has provisions against “treason,” so I’m not sure, but I might say true to #1.
In that case, the Constitution may contradict itself.
L: Exactly the same logic would hold true in a stateless society.
me: Would, or could (if everything breaks right). I’d say we simply can’t know what a stateless society might be like. For me, “stateless society” = “state of nature.”
Here’s Tom Woods interviewing the author of the article:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lD2Xe0XEZo
…in a civil society there is a rule of law that most recognize.
You seem to pride yourself on questioning every assumption, so perhaps you should question your belief in the “rule of law”:
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
A trivial violation is mostly deemed not worth the hassle of going to court. Most are not highly litigious, and they let minor disputes go.
Exactly the same logic would hold true in a stateless society. Your argument rests on the rather dubious assertion that “civil society” is impossible without the state.
L: If people are really that inflexible, then why doesn’t every trivial dispute in the status quo lead to a lawsuit?
me: Because in a civil society there is a rule of law that most recognize. Outside of civil society, there is no property and no property rights, just temporary possessions.
Since over time in a civil society, most are familiar with the basic rules and the costs to bringing a lawsuit. A trivial violation is mostly deemed not worth the hassle of going to court. Most are not highly litigious, and they let minor disputes go.
L: How would settling disputes by arbitration be “constant conflict” — and even if you want to apply that bizarre label to it, how does it support your claims about battling it out on the front lawn?
[RC]: Because without a ubiquitous rule of law no agreement is enforceable for more than a day. Polycentric and Konkin may agree to an arbitrated settlement today, but tomorrow they could have different clients with different demands. Law would have no continuity. Uncertainty would skyrocket.
Even if your assessment were correct, I fail to see how frequent arbitration is in any way similar to violent conflict. Besides, even though arbitration would be much cheaper than would violent conflict, it would still be relatively expensive, so, in all likelihood, people would try to settle their disputes in a more informal manner. To assume that every trivial disagreement would result in arbitration is just silly. If people are really that inflexible, then why doesn’t every trivial dispute in the status quo lead to a lawsuit?
Thanks, JP. Nice piece. HoC certainly dramatizes the excesses of government. It’s interesting that FU is a D who goes after entitlements, especially.
I wonder if viewers see these excesses, see that the excesses are similar to real life, and then decide, gee, let’s abolish all government and setup polycentric law and private security policies from insurance companies? 😉
We’re late to this series, and are only about halfway through Season Two. However, the release of the third season has been huge for several of my friends. Here’s this:
http://libertycrier.com/4-libertarian-moments-in-the-new-season-of-house-of-cards/
<> Right on, Tom.
You should see this comment, Mr Anonymous.
Perhaps you’ve been smoking something in your mother’s basement too long, otherwise you might have noticed just how many libertarian anarchists there are. Many of the founders / early members of the LP were anarchists — long before you were old enough to drink the Republican tea talking points you’re parroting.
Sounds like pure projection to me.
“Ever be allowed…”?
Wow, what a great self-identification that is.
Dictionary much?
“I can only think”
Well, that would be a start. Let us know if you ever decide to give it a try.
Wow. Just wow.
Just when I thought the LP anti Rand Paul meme was the most obviously retarded thing I had ever seen. And then there’s….this.
Why exactly would someone post a headline that associates “libertarian” with anarchist?
I can only think it would be someone who hates libertarians and wants to elect progressive socialist Democrats or trotskyist neocons. Maybe a CIA stooge. Or someone really stupid and delusional, either taking a lot of drugs or not taking the drugs they actually need to take.
Nobody should ever…I mean EVER…be allowed to confuse you with actual libertarians.
pf, not kidding, but let me fill in the holes. To me the big deal was Putin deciding that HE was going to be in charge of the investigation. Maybe I missing something, but putting oneself in charge of the investigation of the assassination of Putin’s critic demonstrates scary amounts of chutzpah. On its face, it tells me the guy thinks he can do anything. Given the military and intelligence he has at his command without apparent checks and balances, that’s a big, fat warning sign for me.
Yes, I completely agree that engineering a soft landing is a practical question. At the moment, I see no viable political forces even wanting any kind of landing, but rather most pols are more-archists, with the only difference being how fast they want to grow government and in what areas. Few advocate descent much less landing. Without a viable political force at the table advocating descent, talk of landing seems quite premature to me.
LOL, are you kidding me? Whether it was ex-KGB man Putin, CIA agents trying to set Putin up to look guilty, or some mobster whose girlfriend Nemtsov was screwing, bumping off one guy is about as big a deal to them as swatting a mosquito. The challenge of a soft landing is not whether it’s a good idea, it’s whether it can be engineered or not.
pf, well said. A balloon pop concerns me, and I hope it doesn’t happen.
Look at Russia now. While we don’t know what exactly happened yet, but the assassination of Nemtsov feels like a gangland kill to me. If a dictator could do something like that, I just don’t know if it’s wise to advocate for hard landings knowing what hyper-statists are capable of.
I’d prefer a softer landing also. But it may not happen, could be a “balloon pop” instead. Not my preference, but if that happens, yes there would be chaos at first but than people would gradually find ways to solve problems. Not to minimize any damage in the meanwhile, which is why a soft landing would be better.
rb, I like that framing. I might amend that slightly in that I’m not sure that it works better if the rate of change is too large. For ex., if SOMEHOW government could be cut 75% overnight that it would work better than the status quo. The unintended dislocations might be unacceptable.
So the smaller the government, the better it works. Sounds about right to me.
“Work” is subjective. I’d say the Pol Pot regime did not work. I’d say the US during my lifetime has more or less worked. Most people most of the time could function and pursue their aspirations.
Were I you, I’d say no stated society works, since they all violate the NAP. It’s a rather grim way of looking at things, but your opinion is certainly valid.
Not sure what you call “work.” Show me that state monopolies can Work at anything other than oppressing people, how about that? Call it goingaroundincircles.
mm, sorry, I’ve read many of PF’s links. He positions them as “proof” of the optimality of nonarchy. I have yet to see a proof, though.
I see recitations of dysfunctional things states do. And I see wild speculations of what a polycentric order might look like if everyone saw the light and insisted on statelessness.
If I — an asymptotic anarchist — am not persuaded, it seems unlikely he will convince many of the “proofs” offered.
In some ways, I think Andy’s L Zone is the better strategy. DEMONSTRATE that ubiquitous territorial statelessness can work first. Call it Langanapkelvania.
L: How would settling disputes by arbitration be “constant conflict” — and even if you want to apply that bizarre label to it, how does it support your claims about battling it out on the front lawn?
me: Because without a ubiquitous rule of law no agreement is enforceable for more than a day. Polycentric and Konkin may agree to an arbitrated settlement today, but tomorrow they could have different clients with different demands. Law would have no continuity. Uncertainty would skyrocket.
L: Perhaps not, but we definitely have a history of much more technological progress in societies with relatively low levels of state intervention in the economy — unless you would like to regale us with tales of the great technological advances and improvements in the standard of living in, say, the USSR, or Maoist China, or North Korea.
me: Agreed. I’m a lessarchist, so you are preaching to the converted.
Paulie, he isn’t even giving you a fair listen. All of the links supporting your point — he doesn’t even look at them.
He is an apologist for the state and it makes no sense to give him even one minute of your time.
Jill: “The LAPD killed another homeless man yesterday. Despicable.”
It’s even worse than anyone knows.
American police killed at least 1,400 citizens in 2014. That isn’t a statistic, it is a documented LIST.
Preliminary 2014 data: http://practicallawandjustice.liberty.me/2015/01/01/killed-by-police-preliminary-2014-data/
The most complete list: http://www.killedbypolice.net/
Another attempt at compiling police killings: http://regressing.deadspin.com/were-compiling-every-police-involved-shooting-in-americ-1624180387
Two years of collecting data:
http://gawker.com/what-ive-learned-from-two-years-collecting-data-on-poli-1625472836
Arbitration happens now in the context of a monopoly rule of law. In polycentric nonarchy, each conflict opens another round of arbitration. It wouldn’t be a “war,” per se, but constant conflict over the most basic transactions, potentially.
I have no idea what you mean by this. You claim that there would be more violent conflict in a stateless society. I respond by pointing out that in such a society, violent conflict would be very costly to all involved (as opposed to the status quo, where such costs are socialized). You then respond with a bizarre series of non sequiturs. How would settling disputes by arbitration be “constant conflict” — and even if you want to apply that bizarre label to it, how does it support your claims about battling it out on the front lawn?
We don’t have a history of stateless technological progress.
Perhaps not, but we definitely have a history of much more technological progress in societies with relatively low levels of state intervention in the economy — unless you would like to regale us with tales of the great technological advances and improvements in the standard of living in, say, the USSR, or Maoist China, or North Korea.
“I see the rule of law as ubiquitous and creating the DT that enables innovation.”
And I see pretty colors. When I use hallucinogens.
“You’ve REALLY cut your work cut out for you to change the perspectives of the 99.999% who see the utility of a ubiquitous rule of law.”
Not really. The state ISN’T a ubiquitous rule of law. It’s a ubiquitous rule of men. And it’s responsible for hundreds of millions of murders in the last century alone. It’s not obvious to me that everyone else is as deeply affected by Stockholm Syndrome as you are.
pf, well, yes, you CAN look at it that way if you want to. I see the rule of law as ubiquitous and creating the DT that enables innovation.
You’ve REALLY cut your work cut out for you to change the perspectives of the 99.999% who see the utility of a ubiquitous rule of law.
“Maybe. All but zero evidence of this.”
Tons of evidence of this. Scroll up, follow links, see past threads, do same. Etc.
“The phrase “What’s (ours) is (ours), what’s yours is negotiable,” (is) in force always in”
….Monopoly government enforcement of monopoly law.
“. We don’t have a history of stateless technological progress.”
Most technological progress is outside the state. The state only plays a parasitic role.
pf: So the mounting crisis of police abusing citizens, and the history of governments literally killing hundreds of millions of their own citizens, are just little bumps on this great road of tranquility?
me: No. Tragedies, I’d say.
pf: They do more harm than good, and were created to round up runaway slaves. Communities can police themselves on a volunteer cooperative basis more effectively, and/or hire professionals who compete for the business and are fully liable for their actions.
me: Maybe. All but zero evidence of this.
L: It would be much cheaper and easier to settle it through arbitration. Wars are a lot more tempting if you can pay for them with other people’s money.
me: Arbitration happens now in the context of a monopoly rule of law. In polycentric nonarchy, each conflict opens another round of arbitration. It wouldn’t be a “war,” per se, but constant conflict over the most basic transactions, potentially.
The phrase “What’s mine is mine, what’s your’s is negotiable,” would be in force always in nonarchy. That is, UNLESS Murphy’s vision comes about, which would be basically a prevailing monopoly by contract vs. the current setup.
L: I’d argue that wealth and life expectancies have increased due to technological innovations and other products of the market.
me: Hmm, yes, it’s a bit of a chicken and egg situation. Unfortunately for you, we see the history of technology flourishing under a monopolistic state. We don’t have a history of stateless technological progress.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/texas-town-sees-61-drop-crime-firing-cops-hiring-private-firm/
Texas Town Experiences 61% Drop in Crime After Firing Their Police Department
http://www.guns.com/2015/02/27/opinion-its-time-to-consider-privatized-policing/
Generally, by most measures, wealth and life expectancies have increased with monopoly governments.
That’s your interpretation. I’d argue that wealth and life expectancies have increased due to technological innovations and other products of the market. In other words, things have gotten better not because of the state, but in spite of it.
About police brutality, Marc and Paulie are right. The only thing more sick and disgusting than what happened to Mr. Patel is the people who casually blow it off as some sort of anomaly.
Seems like a setup for agents from Polycentric and Konkin battling out on Kropotkin’s front lawn. If not, why not?
Because it’s too expensive. It would be much cheaper and easier to settle it through arbitration. Wars are a lot more tempting if you can pay for them with other people’s money.
So the mounting crisis of police abusing citizens, and the history of governments literally killing hundreds of millions of their own citizens, are just little bumps on this great road of tranquility?
I don’t see anything wild about it, but at least it’s not the Frankel Singularity anymore.
Not really. They do more harm than good, and were created to round up runaway slaves. Communities can police themselves on a volunteer cooperative basis more effectively, and/or hire professionals who compete for the business and are fully liable for their actions.
Marc Montoni said: “These apologists for the state get more exercised at the thought that someone may want to eliminate, for example, police brutality, than they do about the *actual* police brutality.”
The LAPD killed another homeless man yesterday. Despicable.
mm: These apologists for the state get more exercised at the thought that someone may want to eliminate, for example, police brutality, than they do about the *actual* police brutality.
me: Interesting framing. Nonarchists want to eliminate police brutality by eliminating the police.
Strikes me as a wild overreaction, one that I don’t support.
Sorry if you find that disappointing, even wrong-minded. I disagree, at least at this time.
pf: How’s that “ONE set” working out for us?
me: Generally, fine, actually. Of COURSE there are abuses and contradictions. Generally, by most measures, wealth and life expectancies have increased with monopoly governments. Could it be better? Why, of course it could.
Now would it be even better still in a global nonarchic setup, with polycentric domestic tranquility institutions? I can’t say No, but I’m sure I don’t see it happening anytime soon, and my sense is you don’t, either, unless the Singularity ushers in a massive consciousness shift.
Maybe all the holes I see in nonarchy will be addressed then. Such wild speculation seems, well, wild.
tk: And yet I have two items on the way from China on that same common understanding even though I live under the rule of a completely different regime, speak a completely different language, and use a completely different approved currency than does the seller.
me: I’m really not sure what this proves. China has its monopoly, as does the US. For millenium, there have been conventions that facilitate (as well as impede) trade among nations.
However, were there no DT institutions in either China or the US, we can’t know with certainty what that would look like. Whatever it might be, it seems highly risky to me, and to most, by all indications.
I say the same things over and over too. It’s unproductive and bad for my health, a waste of time…and yet I’m addicted to it. A lot of people tell me I’m smart, but I feel pretty stupid for not being able to make myself stop. I’ve dealt with horrible addictions throughout my life, and this is one of them.
To be fair, I am going to guess that would actually be me. Not that this is any kind of achievement I should be proud of; in reality I am getting nowhere in life and may not have that much of it left with my health issues. Although who knows.
I don’t know that Cody is parroting Robert, he has his own views – some of them may coincide at the moment, but for different reasons.
To be fair to myself, I do try to get out and do other things in the real world. I should do it a lot more often and fuck off on here a lot less.
You make excellent points, Paulie.
Unfortunately it’s kind of pointless. They’re not listening. RC says the same crap over and over and over. He has dominated IPR with more raw word count than anyone else for several years — but that’s all he can be bothered to do.
Now someone else is parroting the same lines.
These apologists for the state get more exercised at the thought that someone may want to eliminate, for example, police brutality, than they do about the *actual* police brutality.
It’s sick and disgusting.
50,000 SWAT raids a year + in the US right now for serving routine warrants and all kinds of crap. Dogs shot on sight as a matter of policy (even very small and friendly dogs). Often on video. People beaten, arrested, brutalized, killed, hospitalized, injured, crippled….cops basically never indicted much less convicted.
One person being killed an average of every eight hours in the US by police so far this year (maybe more because the numbers are being purposely suppressed).
Zero officer deaths so far in 2015 as of the last time I checked except at anyone’s hands but another police officer. Safest working environment for police since the 1800s, and they are not even close to being in the top ten most dangerous professions (except to other people).
People being beaten and killed on video by cops routinely now…no charges.
Hell, they can throw flash bang grenades into the wrong house, mutilate a baby, leave the family with a million dollars in medical bills which the police refuse to pay for, no indictments, and they don’t even apologize, instead attack the family for complaining.
This is domestic tranquility?
How much less tranquil does the overwhelming monopoly of power need to get before people finally say enough is enough?
Maybe we’ll have to live through a bigger democide in this century than anyone did in the last before that happens? Not even then?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Y_SSGa7-6BQ
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/fundraiser-set-cop-paralyzed-innocent-grandfather-speaking-english/
What is Wrong with People? Fundraiser Set Up For Cop Who Paralyzed Innocent Grandfather
Dunno how this will go yet but if it’s like the hundreds of other cases I have been reading about lately chances are the officer will be cleared of all wrong doing and reinstated with back pay. Maybe the cop will sue for damage to his reputation and psychological trauma, and win, like the one who is famous for walking up and down a line of peaceful sitting protesters and pepper spraying them in the face.
But, hey, I’m glad we have all this domestic tranquility, because monopoly government has never gotten much, much worse than this, like so:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
“There’s an overarching civil society with laws allowing this yard sale to go on. There’s common currency, common language, and a common understanding that the seller owns the stuff until the buyer pays.”
And yet I have two items on the way from China on that same common understanding even though I live under the rule of a completely different regime, speak a completely different language, and use a completely different approved currency than does the seller. And it’s not either regime guaranteeing that the seller gets his money or that I get my products. It’s eBay. The only thing “my” government is doing is slowing down the shipping with its customs racket.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/florida-sheriffs-threaten-illegally-arrest-citizens-silentziplock-dui-checkpoint-method/
Florida Sheriffs Threaten to Illegally Arrest Citizens if They Try to Exercise Constitutional Rights
How’s that “ONE set” working out for us?
You’re mistaking the parasitic monopolization of force with domestic tranquility. Civil society arises organically in the bazaars and souks of the world despite multiple languages and currencies because peaceful commerce is in everyone’s interest. Monopoly government is just the most organized group of thieves and thugs preying on the good peaceful and productive people of the marketplace, not the creator of domestic tranquility by a long shot.
Here’s the kind of domestic tranquility monopoly government parasites create:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YKYHZ4U4g0g
pf, of course that is NOT anarchy. There’s an overarching civil society with laws allowing this yard sale to go on. There’s common currency, common language, and a common understanding that the seller owns the stuff until the buyer pays.
There ONE set of laws that provide for domestic tranquility, not an unlimited number of laws and law-enforcement institutions.
tk, OK, I guess. I’m not sure there are too many instances when the LA cops and Orange County cops get into a shoot out over which jurisdiction’s laws prevail at the border where the two localities meet.
“In my experience, jurisdiction is generally pretty clear under the rule of law as practiced in the US.”
In my experience, the next time the rule of law IS practiced in the US will be the first.
tk: But since it’s that way now, what’s the problem?
me: Elaborate, please.
In my experience, jurisdiction is generally pretty clear under the rule of law as practiced in the US.
Too much concentration of power is the biggest problem.
“Seems like a setup for agents from Polycentric and Konkin battling out on Kropotkin’s front lawn. If not, why not?”
Well, it might turn out that way. But since it’s that way now, what’s the problem?
BTW I neglected to ask whether to continue this thread or start #5. You all just let me know when this one gets too long and it’s that time.
Right. So the Polycentric Insurance Company might attempt to enforce its Law A but the violator of Law A (Cal Kropotkin) doesn’t subscribe to Polycentric’s Law A, but rather Law B, which is enforced by Konkin Mutual.
Seems like a setup for agents from Polycentric and Konkin battling out on Kropotkin’s front lawn. If not, why not?
“how can purist libertarians support Rule X if they also oppose any form of force or any type of enforcement of Rule X?”
Your “if” describes few, if any, “purist libertarians.” Not supporting the vestment of a geographical monopoly on the initiation of force in a particular kind of institution is not the same thing as “opposing any form of force or any type of enforcement.”
I figured I was going to get flak for my nonconformist Libertarian views from those of the more dogmatically anarchist & socialist-leaning bloggers here.
So of course I’ll respond back, as always…
“That was how I started.”
And that is one thing that has always been mostly repetitive for me, and still will be decades from now.
“Those two statements, put together, directly contradict each other.”
According to your interpretation of Libertarianism. Yet there are certainly other LP’ers out there that disagree with you.
“Government is based on force, whether that force is applied at the local level or the national level.”
Society isn’t going to be any better with a complete absence of force, especially if one individual, or group, decides to infringe upon the rights and/or privacy of another individual and/or group- and there is no force or law to stop such infringement from happening.
“In addition, you make the mistake of thinking that without government rules, there will be no rules at all governing society. This is the same mental error that people make on every libertarian issue:”
Problem- if there are rules, yet absolutely NO force at all to make sure the rules are followed, or even enforced, then what is the point on having rules if there is going to be nothing to stop people/groups from breaking those rules without them facing punishment in the first place?
Lets not ignore the nihilistic elephant in the room.
“Because libertarians do not support government supplying Good Thing _x_, that means that libertarians do not want Good Thing _x_.”
Substitute a government activity for “x”. Schools, for instance.”
And you just changed the subject of a serious question- how can purist libertarians support Rule X if they also oppose any form of force or any type of enforcement of Rule X? What then is the point of having Rule X if it can be repeatedly broken without any consequences on the offending party?
“The fringe element in the LP are those who get most of the LP’s work done. We’re the wallet openers and petition carriers, and almost all of the long-term LP members tend to be fairly radical. Without us, the LP will die.”
Interesting that since the LP has moderated their platform and their approach in the political arena, they seem to be performing better in elections and ballot access then ever before, and the LP keeps moving more so into the mainstream and are attracting more practical-minded folks and voters. I also remember a bunch of radicals that got pissed off over how the platform got reworded back in 2006 and went to form the Boston Tea Party… So how’s the BTP doing currently?
I guarantee you, if the radicals of the LP left and started a more radical third party, the LP would still be on top, and the radical breakaway faction would perform poorly since their appeal would be way more narrow, their views more extreme, and their membership requirements a lot more heavy handed; it’ll be just like what is happening among the constitutionalist parties, and what especially has happened to the various socialist/marxist third parties in American history.
Sorry, but I disagree, especially with how Libertarianism is moving ever further into the American political mainstream, and for the radicals to get their way and force the LP back on the path on focusing on overly specific issues of drugs and vice and anarchism with such narcissistic, anti-populist individuals leading the charge- that scenario will reverse the trend and alienate Libertarianism- much as Riley Hood & company have alienated Constitutionalism in Wisconsin.
“And indeed, the increasing hostility towards the radicals of the party has left a lot fewer of them bothering to stick around — and the results have been crystal clear recently: the LP’s 12-month donor rolls are at a 20-year low.”
Some of my LP facebook friends added me to a few Voluntarist/Anarchist/radical LP groups on there, and let me tell you, many of the zealots in such groups are the anarchist/left-wing version of Don Grundmann; the only thing they do is masturbate their egos, argue politics, and attack anyone that disagree with them, or consider to be intellectually inferior.
They are the kind of people that not only do I not want to work with in the political field, but would rather toss them off a 60-story building for how arrogant and counterproductive they are.
For such people to leave the LP, would actually be a good thing since I’m quite sure that such individuals have done more harm then good for the LP cause.
BTW, I left many of those groups.
“So be careful what you wish for.”
Should I ever be given such a wish, I think I’ll take my chances.
“To my way of thinking, you have that exactly backwards: Having any faith whatsoever in the current model (ie government services) working as advertised is what is a utopian fantasy.”
Actually its a dystopian fantasy, and while many people are waking up and coming to terms that the way government is right now, and the services that it provides doesn’t work- yet to go to the opposite extreme and embrace complete nihilistic anarchism wouldn’t at all usher in a perfect “utopia”, but instead of that which takes place one night a year in The Purge movies- only it would last as long as there is no force around to make people follow the simplest rules of civility, and therefore be unrestrained in murderous barbarism and mayhem.
“Government doesn’t work.”
Neither does total anarchy. Sorry but without rules and standards, human beings are savage in nature, and in such extreme circumstances, will they revert to their basic savage nature, and therefore, infringe upon the rights of others without force to stop them.
“Small government plus one exception equals big government.”
There are plenty of LP’ers that disagree with you on that. Plus I don’t have political standards as ridiculous as yours; if you think ALL form of government or force is as evil as totalitarian government, then you are a unrealistic absolutionist that will not be able to advance your cause in the political arena by your extremely narrow approach and lack of logic.
“Perhaps you meant irrational.”
Well that’s how you’re sounding right now.
“But yeah, I want to stop all of those leftist government employees in Northern Virginia from moving into the Shenandoah Valley where I live. They pollute the local politics (and environment), they tend not to have a work ethic, most of them are on welfare (retirees), and they vote for Democrats (and Republicans) who steal our money and send our kids off to misadventures overseas. We certainly don’t get anything of value from them.”
And taking your absolutionist approach with such nihilistic views isn’t going to stop them. Rather they and the MSM will use it as fodder for their arguments as to why people, or northern Virginians, shouldn’t vote LP and should stick with the major parties.
“People who attempt to redefine libertarianism into a swiss-cheese philosophy where the NAP can be violated whenever the principle stands in the way of expediency are far more likely to be marxist plants.”
Hi Pot! I’m Kettle!
I could say the same of the libertarian/socialist hybrid philosophy then.
“But if it is true that those who hold views like I do are actually marxist plants, then I think I have been missing the paychecks I was promised by George Soros”
There are some political plants/fifth columnists are motivated by non-financial means, and without any support from the establishment.
The religious nutjobs that came in and screwed up the CP permanently are a good example.
“Libertarianism does not seek to “govern”. It seeks to free people from being governed; it seeks to promote self-government.”
Hold on, you’ve been arguing that ANY form of government is bad here. Aren’t you being hypocritical? Plus again, many Libertarians don’t seek to get rid of all government, but to keep government at a minimum and only for basic matters that do not at all infringe upon the individual, but instead protect the individuals right to keep his/her liberties and keep others from infringing upon them.
“Bah. This is stereotyping. Libertarianism has found fertile ground all over the world. No, it isn’t the majority philosophy anywhere yet. But nowhere on earth was there a vibrant libertarian movement in 1950; now there is an organized libertarian or near-libertarian presence in every nation.”
And judging by the last various European elections, many libertarian-oriented parties aren’t doing so good in their respective countries, nor in the EU Parliament- in fact many Europeans are now turning to Nationalist/Populist political parties that advocate protectionism.
The Libertarian-oriented party in Costa Rica (PML) while well established, yet doesn’t seem to be getting much traction after the last few elections.
Hey I’m all for Libertarian-oriented parties in other countries coming to power and giving their peoples more/all basic freedoms that they could enjoy, as long as uphold their country’s national sovereignty and take an approach that is still mindful of that nation’s social and traditional norms that do not conflict with personal liberty.
But again, it’s not going to work in every nation on earth, as I have yet to see a ideology work on a uniform, international scale that’s economically & socially productive in the long run.
“And I intend to continue pushing radical libertarian solutions to all sorts of state activities without regard to whether they’re ideas that “conservatives” or “constitutionalists” find palatable.”
Judging by the logic of your arguments, I have just become more motivated to get involved with the LP and push my interpretation of Libertarianism in there.
Libertarianism and socialism are not opposites, even today, and even in the US. Most socialists, at least when they are not in power, support or at least pay lip service to the same peace and civil liberties issues most libertarians also support. And both are united on the economic side on issues like opposing corporate bailouts and corporate welfare. Many libertarians also oppose corporate personhood and nonconsenting limited liability, many oppose intellectual property, and at least a few oppose absentee land ownership. Most libertarians agree that voluntary socialism or communalism is OK, and that authoritarian “socialist” states actually put the power in the hands of bureaucrats who come to function as monopoly capitalists – the opposite of putting control in the hands of the workers (what the term socialism is actually supposed to mean). If libertarianism and socialism are opposites, which is the side of warmongering crony corporatists? Which is the side or voluntary communalists in tiny communes governed by consent where everyone there explicitly agreed to the rules to join and is always free to leave? And if I am a Marxist plant, or a Koch plant as was alluded to on another thread, where the fuck is my paycheck?
“In fact libertarianism and socialism are nearly complete opposites, and for some LP’ers to adhere to that paradoxical viewpoint makes me wonder if those individuals in particular are actual marxist plants whose possible goal is to push the LP to the Left of the spectrum?”
libertarian (small l) means (or used to mean) libertarian socialist everywhere but the USA.
The use of the word ‘liberal’ in the United States is a similar in(per)version of the original meaning. Political words having confused and contradictory meanings is part of the Orwellian character of contemporary American politics.
In Europe, people advocating (big-L) Libertarian beliefs are called classical liberals.
The idea that anarchists within the Libertarian Party (particularly the ones that post here) could be “marxist plants” is far-fetched in the extreme.
Well said, Marc.
That was how I started.
Those two statements, put together, directly contradict each other.
Government is based on force, whether that force is applied at the local level or the national level.
In addition, you make the mistake of thinking that without government rules, there will be no rules at all governing society. This is the same mental error that people make on every libertarian issue:
“Because libertarians do not support government supplying Good Thing _x_, that means that libertarians do not want Good Thing _x_.”
Substitute a government activity for “x”. Schools, for instance.
The fringe element in the LP are those who get most of the LP’s work done. We’re the wallet openers and petition carriers, and almost all of the long-term LP members tend to be fairly radical. Without us, the LP will die. And indeed, the increasing hostility towards the radicals of the party has left a lot fewer of them bothering to stick around — and the results have been crystal clear recently: the LP’s 12-month donor rolls are at a 20-year low.
So be careful what you wish for.
To my way of thinking, you have that exactly backwards: Having any faith whatsoever in the current model (ie government services) working as advertised is what is a utopian fantasy.
Government doesn’t work.
Small government plus one exception equals big government.
Perhaps you meant irrational.
But yeah, I want to stop all of those leftist government employees in Northern Virginia from moving into the Shenandoah Valley where I live. They pollute the local politics (and environment), they tend not to have a work ethic, most of them are on welfare (retirees), and they vote for Democrats (and Republicans) who steal our money and send our kids off to misadventures overseas. We certainly don’t get anything of value from them.
People who attempt to redefine libertarianism into a swiss-cheese philosophy where the NAP can be violated whenever the principle stands in the way of expediency are far more likely to be marxist plants.
But if it is true that those who hold views like I do are actually marxist plants, then I think I have been missing the paychecks I was promised by George Soros.
Libertarianism does not seek to “govern”. It seeks to free people from being governed; it seeks to promote self-government.
Bah. This is stereotyping. Libertarianism has found fertile ground all over the world. No, it isn’t the majority philosophy anywhere yet. But nowhere on earth was there a vibrant libertarian movement in 1950; now there is an organized libertarian or near-libertarian presence in every nation.
And I intend to continue pushing radical libertarian solutions to all sorts of state activities without regard to whether they’re ideas that “conservatives” or “constitutionalists” find palatable.
I’ve had this debate with Paulie before.
cq: I still believe that pure libertarianism cannot work in every single aspect of society and life
me: What makes you think there is such a thing as “pure libertarianism”?
Ugh, misspelled *weigh
I’d figure I’d way in on this since I’m a LP’er now, and I’ll be talking about it in a upcoming article soon enough.
While I have been a social libertarian for some time, and have largely embraced the majority of the LP philosophy. However I am not only NOT a philosophical anarchist, but I am opposed to it in general.
I’m all for achieving a society where the majority of government and rules/regulations therefore coming from a local instead of a federal level, as long as it doesn’t infringe upon one’s personal rights and liberties.
HOWEVER I am opposed to doing away with all government, regulation, and rules in general, and am opposed to anarchism and the radical libertarianism as advocated by the fringe elements in the LP and some of the LP bloggers on here.
I still believe that pure libertarianism cannot work in every single aspect of society and life; to make, or even guide society into some fantasy utopia of no laws or regulations of any sort will be as successful as Communism turning Russia into the ideal, prosperous Red state- which had disastrous results in the long run.
Mankind cannot leave in perpetual peace under a lawless, legally limitless society- our own human nature will screw up that idea in no time flat. Furthermore, the idea of doing away with borders and national sovereignty, as advocated by marxist/socialist-oriented libertarians I consider to be dangerous and as rational as those members of the Constitution Party that want to see a Calvinist-oriented theonomy (theocracy) established in this country.
In fact libertarianism and socialism are nearly complete opposites, and for some LP’ers to adhere to that paradoxical viewpoint makes me wonder if those individuals in particular are actual marxist plants whose possible goal is to push the LP to the Left of the spectrum?
Also, while libertarianism is the ideal philosophy to govern this nation and it’s government, however there are many other nations in which the social/cultural mindset is too alien and much too inhospitable to the libertarian ideology, as well as other ideologies (most European nations are a good example, since many European nations and their people/cultural mindset is way too collectivist and centralized to ever become fertile ground for libertarian-oriented parties and groups, especially in the future).
Being a Integralist in my viewpoint on international politics, I believe in Localism and that politics are organic and are best suited to one nation’s societal/cultural attitudes and norms; healthy politics on a international level should never be uniform and homogeneous, IMO.
Therefore, I identify with Paleolibertarianism and Classical Liberalism that is conservative and national-oriented.
And once I decide to become active in the LP, I will support this line and also any attempts by the LP and it’s state parties to become a better home to conservative-libertarians and practical-minded constitutionalists.
However I will still vote the LP line, no matter what, since the two-party system must come to an end and any LP that wants to put a stop to big government and runaway red-tape automatically gets my vote.
Not sure what you mean. A strawman’s a strawman, and blows away in the wind.
pf, yes, but how would characterize the use of a straw man argument? Laziness?
Strawmen =/= weaknesses.
mm: “some bloodshed is necessary to have a free society”
me: I don’t recall ever saying that.
L; Debating RC is like the IPR equivalent of playing computer solitaire.
me: Sorry you feel that way.
My guess is that my political views are far more reflective of far more people than any anarchist’s. Now, that doesn’t make me “correct,” but I’d say anarchists are politically lonely ones. They may not be playing solitaire among themselves, but certainly an isolating game.
The open-minded will notice how anarchists — when their premises are challenged — have a high propensity to resort to ad hominem retorts, further exposing for me, at least, the weakness of their views.
Yeah, I realized a long time ago that arguing with him is basically a waste of time. But I still indulge him from time to time, when I’m bored and looking for some amusement.
Debating RC is like the IPR equivalent of playing computer solitaire.
I doubt that. In my experience those who employ hypotheticals do so to avoid shutting off the computer and doing any actual work to promote the movement.
That’s a laugh. The truth is you just discard anything that doesn’t appeal to your politically-correct “some bloodshed is necessary to have a free society” point of view.
Now that’s just plain false.
Langa, with all due respect… He’s just trying to waste your time.
L, I employ hypotheticals to test absolutist stances. Invariably, so far, the absolutist stances have all crumbled. But I remain open-minded…perhaps one can be crafted that works from all angles.
Thinking outside the box can be helpful, I agree. Imaging, for ex., a nuke-free world feels great to me. Unfortunately, once a wonderful outcome is envisioned, then the hard work begins of finding the best path toward that outcome.
If global anarchy is to be achieved, then, the obstacles to that ideal would need to be addressed and remedied. The current states on the globe are heavily armed, including doomsday weapons.
It strikes me that from a first-things-first perspective, if you want to achieve buy-in from those who don’t buy your construct, you need to craft a plausible path toward the nonarchic ideal.
You seem addicted to a construct, a gigantic what-if.
You’re the one who’s always throwing around crazy hypotheticals, like rocket launchers on the subway, or on this very thread, North Korea and ISIS somehow gaining control of all the WMDs.
And imagining a better world is not being “addicted to a construct”; it’s more like thinking outside the box. Many things we take for granted today were once derided as flights of fancy.
L, no, those are not my “counters.” My feedback is that you and many anarchists I encounter have a massive blind spot. You seem addicted to a construct, a gigantic what-if.
Your what if doesn’t work for me and I suspect most except that hardiest nonarchists. The reason: Massive stockpiles exist, right now.
You can’t just assume away reality.
Hmm, well “can’t” is too strong. It’s inadvisable to assume away reality.
RC, assembling these huge stockpiles of WMDs that you keep talking about is an extremely expensive hobby. In a state of global anarchy, it would be impossible for the cost of such stockpiles to be socialized, as they currently are. Given that, WMDs don’t seem to be particularly cost-effective, except for possibly the ultra-rich, who would have too much to lose from possible retaliation. I’m sure you’ll counter with some example of a hypothetical ultra-rich madman, but i would ask you if you can think of any ultra-rich madmen who have amassed their fortune without the aid of the state? Or perhaps you’ll try to claim that they’re not so expensive, in which case I’ll ask you why they aren’t currently being used by private criminal madmen? Surely, it’s not because they are afraid of breaking the law, as they are already stipulated to be both immoral and too deranged to fear consequences, right?
http://www.missliberty.com/
a: I disagree. There are examples of lack of government. Take those examples and add up the amount of death and destruction compared to what happens under too much government.
me: It’s SO interesting to me what people will convince themselves of, and disregard all else that does not fit their narrative.
Notice that I acknowledge that non-stateless territories could be “possible minor exceptions,” and yet A seems to miss that point.
Notice too that A ascribes “death and destruction” to “too much government.” As a lessarchist, I of course AGREE.
Conversing with zealots can be, shall we say, challenging.
Interesting. I would have thought otherwise:
Manchester, NH – February 24th, 2015 – The Free State Project announced that it is now responsible for nearly 40% of New Hampshire’s net in-migration from other US states. As reported Saturday in the New Hampshire Union-Leader, based on the latest Census Bureau data, New Hampshire has seen a rebound of migration from other US states to approximately 1,117 people from July 1st, 2013 to July 1st, 2014. During that same period, the Free State Project confirmed that 405 of its participants had officially “made the move” to New Hampshire. In short, the Free State Project is responsible for over one-third of interstate migration into New Hampshire over the Census Bureau’s reporting period.
Libertarians make the Ask a Mexican column….
“Robert Capozzi
February 26, 2015 at 7:24 am
Andy, I trust you see the fallacy in LR’s setup, yes?
There is no ‘lack of authoritian power.’ There are states all over the globe, and always have been, with possible minor exceptions.”
I disagree. There are examples of lack of government. Take those examples and add up the amount of death and destruction compared to what happens under too much government.
pf, true. No dispute here. Individuals have poisoned others, too.
But these are largely irrelevant to the perennial anarchist claim. It’s impossible to prove a counterfactual, but I’d frame the question this way:
If SOMEHOW global anarchy was achieved, would domestic tranquility be enhanced or worsened?
My answer, at the moment, is that I see no path toward its achievement and I see no reason to believe DT would be enhanced. Now, I am open to the possibility that polycentric peacekeeping institutions MIGHT spontaneously and non-monopolistically be better keepers of the peace, but I am highly skeptical.
Regarding types of weapons, chemical weapons have been used by governments quite a few times.
I knew we’d get to nonarchy pods and/or private nukes in this thread sooner or later. I thought it would be sooner. Well, this is the place for that….
Agreed.
TK, good point. Chemical weapons have been used. But those are used privately — in different forms — as humans have privately poisoned other humans. So yes nukes only for this particular illustration.
more…
That’s fairly restrained, thankfully, at least thus far.
Very often in life, the choices are all about the least bad option, in my experience. The Nonarchic Utopia isn’t one, unless one wants to exit from civil society.
What, now WMD only applies to nukes?
tk: Since there’s no possible worse situation, any other situation will by definition be better.
me: None, huh? I guess that depends on what one considers “possible.” If all the world’s stockpiles of WMD were held by North Korea and ISIS, that strikes me as potentially far worse.
So far, these “most murderous and irresponsible organizations” have — in aggregate — only used them 2x on people.
“BTW, has LR addressed the 800 pound gorilla in the room”
More like a 20-pound rhesus monkey in the end stages of some debilitating mortal illness.
At present, those stockpiles of WMD are in the hands of the most murderous and irresponsible organizations in the history of humankind. Since there’s no possible worse situation, any other situation will by definition be better.
Andy, I trust you see the fallacy in LR’s setup, yes?
There is no “lack of authoritian power.” There are states all over the globe, and always have been, with possible minor exceptions.
LR’s logic is weak. Something like: Governments do bad things, therefore there should be no government.
BTW, has LR addressed the 800 pound gorilla in the room: If he advocates statelessness, what’s his plan for all the stockpiles of WMD?
Here’s a game that Larken Rose has challenged statists to play with him, but so far he has not had any takers.
Larken Rose said: “I can’t count how many statists I’ve invited to play my game, and none of them have taken me up on it! The game goes like this:
We take turns: First, I name an example of large-scaled injustice, assault, extortion and/or murder that was a direct result of the belief in ‘authority’ (I would start with 42,000,000+ dead in Red China). Then the statist names an example of large-scale injustice, assault, extortion and/or murder that was a direct result of a LACK of authoritarian power. We keep taking turns, and adding up the numbers, and see which people should fear more: ‘government’ or ‘anarchy.’
Why won’t any statist play my game?”
Wow, that Giuliani and Mussolini thing would have been great to hand out as a card when Giuliani was running for President.
Which reminds me, remember when Dondero started Libertarians for Giuliani? What’s next, Libertarians for Jeb Bush? Probably if Jeb gets the nomination, since Dondero started Libertarians for George W. Bush back in 2004.
Paulie, I like all those Mozart beats. I think the last one would probably be best for battling.
http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/02/ferguson-protester-faces-three-years-in-prison-for-anonymous-mask/
If you haven’t already, see https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/02/avens-obrien-to-win-hearts-and-minds/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzRNCNfwu3M
Last one for now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzsSUbE2CBg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNoD35eq10M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N09bX221fMA
Yeah, that would be pretty amusing, especially if the beat sampled Mozart.
Yes, like that. But with the Randians busting on Rothbard in reply to Mozart was a Red etc.
It’s too bad they did not do this in serial retort style, a la rap battle.
Like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
It’s too bad they did not do this in serial retort style, a la rap battle.
pf, what a hoot!!! TY!!
http://mises.org/library/mozart-was-red intro and screenplay
Performance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIk5C2qsRH8
The problem with Rand was that she insisted there was no proper way to get to her politics other than through her metaphysics (and her epistemology, and her ethics, and even, weirdly, her esthetics) — that any other route was defective/indefensible.
This led her to reject political allies who failed to genuflect before an altar covered with her chosen idols (herself central among said idols).
Well said, TK.
I submit that Rand was one very confused person. In many ways, she was well intentioned, but she came to many, many loopy conclusions.
I don’t disagree with any of this. However, if she says that her atheism affected her political beliefs, I see no reason to doubt her claim.
You assert here “surprise” that I “didn’t know” something, in this case the AR believed that one had to be an atheist to be rational and share her political views.
Point is: I DID know that. Your statement assumes that I didn’t. To assume that, you’d have to read my mind, since I had not at that point said one way or the other.
The reason I made that assumption was your statement that atheism has no political implications, which led me to believe that you were unaware of rand’s claims to the contrary. Now, however, I see that you were aware of them, but choose not to believe them. I hadn’t considered that possibility, hence my erroneous conclusion.
L: As a former Randian, I’m surprised you didn’t know that.
me: Sorry, didn’t address this and the mind-reading point more directly. You assert here “surprise” that I “didn’t know” something, in this case the AR believed that one had to be an atheist to be rational and share her political views.
Point is: I DID know that. Your statement assumes that I didn’t. To assume that, you’d have to read my mind, since I had not at that point said one way or the other.
There are many, many things I don’t know, Langa, and odds are very high that that’s the case with you as well. I don’t know what you don’t know, and I know it.
You don’t know what I don’t know, but you seem to think you do!!!! 😉
tk, yes, my metaphysical views influence my politics. They do not dictate my politics. That’s probably true for most, though I can’t say that it’s a universal truth.
There are many paths to any conclusion.
RC,
It just seems strange that you’d posit no connection between one’s metaphysics and one’s politics, then admit that there’s a connection between your metaphysics and your politics.
It seems to me that the two are inextricably linked for everyone.
The problem with Rand was that she insisted there was no proper way to get to her politics other than through her metaphysics (and her epistemology, and her ethics, and even, weirdly, her esthetics) — that any other route was defective/indefensible.
This led her to reject political allies who failed to genuflect before an altar covered with her chosen idols (herself central among said idols).
Most people, it seems to me, are able to manage a more complex internal mental traffic system in which elements that others might consider incompatible somehow manage to share the same road without crashing into each other.
But that doesn’t mean that those elements don’t influence each other. Most politicians (and many voters and other people) will tell you that their political values are affected by their religious beliefs (or lack thereof), which in turn reflect particular metaphysical judgments.
tk, no. Some liberals and socialist cite the Tao, too. As did MNR.
If there’s a Taoist insight that seems on point to me, I may well use it to illustrate a point.
I really don’t need to “justify” my politics. (Nor do you!) I share them.
“I see no connection between one’s metaphysical viewpoint and one’s politics.”
Does that mean you’re going to stop justifying your politics with Taoist musings?
L, I see no connection between one’s metaphysical viewpoint and one’s politics. Some atheists are L, some are communist. Some Ls are atheists, some subscribe to a faith, some are spiritual but not religious. The results suggest she was wildly incorrect on that subject.
I see no “shaping” there. I submit that Rand was one very confused person. In many ways, she was well intentioned, but she came to many, many loopy conclusions.
Rachminoff and Vermeer was “objectively” the best composer and painter, respectively. Really?
You are surprised, then, at a non-fact, one that I’ve not discussed one way or the other here. If you think you can read minds, I’m here to tell you that your antennae needs some tuning! 😉 I do recall that that was her opinion, one that I’m embarrassed to say I once shared.
I’m not sure where you got this stuff about “reading minds”, as I never claimed the ability to do so. I was simply referring to your past comments, including one just the other day, that you were a “Randroid”, which lead me to believe that you would be well aware that being an atheist can, in fact, significantly shape a person’s political views. What am I missing here?
L: I think Rand would beg to differ, as her adherence to atheism was apparently a major component of her political philosophy. As a former Randian, I’m surprised you didn’t know that.
me: You are surprised, then, at a non-fact, one that I’ve not discussed one way or the other here. If you think you can read minds, I’m here to tell you that your antennae needs some tuning! 😉 I do recall that that was her opinion, one that I’m embarrassed to say I once shared.
Paulie – yes, of course, but that’s what I mean by perpendicular. You can hold any cultural view, and either try to force it on others or not.
The Montana legislature is nearing the halfway point. Any non-revenue bills that are not passed unto the next house will have failed. This bill appears to have failed today as well, but there is still a 3rd reading. Republicans control the Montana House, and could have passed this out on a party line vote. HB 583 Revise laws with respect to protecting property rights.
http://www.kpax.com/story/28181041/bill-decrying-uns-agenda-21-gets-house-committee-endorsement
House fails bill to ban Agenda 21 recommendations
51 MINUTES AGO
HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A bill aiming to protect property rights in Montana from an obscure global development concept known as Agenda 21 has failed in the House.
Sponsored by Republican Rep. Randy Pinocci of Sun River, House Bill 583 failed 59-41 Tuesday.
Agenda 21 is a non-binding resolution, signed by Republican President George H.W. Bush in 1992, urging nations to conserve open land and steer development toward more populous areas. Some conservatives across the country see Agenda 21 as an indication of a United Nations takeover.
Pinocci says his bill would allow Montana to reject what the United Nations and federal government says to do regarding sustainable development.
Opponents say Agenda 21 is only a list of recommendations regarding smart growth and that no one has come forward from a local government saying they’ve been forced to accept the guidelines.
This one was even more interesting. It’s about holocaust denial, Gary North, Reason magazine and the Koch brothers:
http://pando.com/2014/07/24/as-reasons-editor-defends-its-racist-history-heres-a-copy-of-its-holocaust-denial-special-issue/
Interesting links in the rationalwiki article’s footnotes. Here’s one of them, about Gary North:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2013/04/08/the-theocratic-ron-paul-curriculum/
Ayn Rand’s atheism may have been of the aggressive variety (she owes a lot more to Marxist thought than she would have ever acknowledged), but I don’t think Walter Block’s comes anywhere close.
Regarding Gary North’s advocacy of theocracy, one can start at http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gary_North and proceed from there. Among other things he wants to bring back stoning to death, old testament style.
“North, OTOH, has a reputation as a Dominionist”
Actually, a Reconstructionist. And not just any old Reconstructionist, but the son-in-law of the movement’s founder. And Reconstructionists, including North, are in fact openly theocratic. Quoth North:
“We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.”
It may be known by some that Block’s an atheist, but it’s the first I’ve heard that, and I don’t think he much of a reputation as a proselytizer of atheism.
Actually, Block mentions his atheist beliefs pretty frequently, including in many of his columns at LRC. In particular, he seems to bring it up every time he discusses abortion, which seems to be one of his favorite topics. Besides, my point was that simply associating with someone is not evidence that you agree with them on everything, although in the case of Ron Paul, many people (including many libertarians) seem determined to act as if it were.
Dominionism has political implications, whereas atheism does not.
I think Rand would beg to differ, as her adherence to atheism was apparently a major component of her political philosophy. As a former Randian, I’m surprised you didn’t know that. In any case, for more on the link between religion and politics, I suggest this article by, ironically, none other than Walter Block himself: http://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block103.html
L: Yet I never seem to hear anyone claiming that Paul and/or Rockwell are in the business of promoting atheism.
me: True, but not much help, analogy-wise. It may be known by some that Block’s an atheist, but it’s the first I’ve heard that, and I don’t think he much of a reputation as a proselytizer of atheism.
North, OTOH, has a reputation as a Dominionist, which is a more controversial viewpoint, at least in my judgment. Dominionism has political implications, whereas atheism does not.
Similarly, if, say, Kinsella were a Satanist (I think he’s an atheist, not sure), associating with him would also be dicey.
“Paul and his allies” does not have to mean only Ron Paul, it can also mean folks like Gary North, prominently featured at LewRockwell.com. However, if you are only looking for quotes from Ron Paul himself, I’ve been told that he said some things along those lines on John Lofton’s show The American View. I don’t have sound on the computer I am on right this minute, but it may be the one at http://archive.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=898 unless Ron Paul was on this show more than once.
I listened to the entire interview, and I didn’t hear Ron Paul say anything that fits my definition of “theocratic”, despite Lofton’s repeated attempts to goad him into taking those sorts of positions.
As for North, I have read very little of what he’s written, and most of what I have read has dealt with economics, rather than politics. Having said that, I’m not sure that I would classify him as a theocrat, at least not in the traditional sense. He doesn’t really seem interested in any sort of top-down imposition of Biblical law. Rather, he seems focused on eliminating all government involvement in education, which, of course, is a libertarian position. Where he seems to differ from most libertarians is in his belief that abolishing public education will lead to a massive surge in the popularity of Christian fundamentalism, which, in turn, will lead to widespread support for Biblical law.
On the one hand, this viewpoint could certainly be seen as a type of “grassroots” theocracy. On the other hand, it could also be viewed simply as him wanting his beliefs to have a fair chance in the marketplace of ideas. Personally, I would probably take the former view and would, in fact, classify his position (assuming I understand it correctly) as a form of theocracy.
Ultimately, though, I don’t think it matters that much, because I don’t think that Ron Paul’s association with North, either directly or through North’s association with Lew Rockwell, is tantamount to an endorsement (by either Paul or Rockwell) of North’s religious or political beliefs. After all, Walter Block, who is also a close friend of Ron Paul, and is also frequently published on LRC, is an atheist. Yet I never seem to hear anyone claiming that Paul and/or Rockwell are in the business of promoting atheism.
I’d say some Ron Paul associates such as Gary North would be a bigger concern from that standpoint than Paul himself.
Well, I’m known not to be a fan of Ron Paul, but I’ll say this in his defense:
Yes, he’s a declared Christian. Yes, he believes that “divine providence” led the founding fathers to create the system they created, a system which he believes promotes human freedom and flourishing. And yes, he has publicly stated that he thinks a nation which defies “God’s law” will come to grief.
That said, when he talks actual policy, he doesn’t justify his policy proposals on “God says …” He argues for his policy proposals on a set of ideas — most of which are, broadly speaking, libertarian — that appeal to logic and reason rather than to declarations of religious law.
Personally, I have no problem with religious people bringing ideas into the public square that arise from their religious beliefs. But they should be ready to justify those ideas beyond mere appeal to said beliefs.
Well, yes, from the standpoint of people like those at that link who believe that other religions should be literally outlawed, Ron Paul would be far too liberal.
Here’s an interesting article on whether or not Ron Paul is a theocrat. Their view: Not sufficiently.
I’ll also add that at least as I first used it in this thread theocracy was shorthand not just for eclisiocracy per se, but also for other forms of government-mandated cultural conservatism that are not necessarily overtly theocratic but often have that as their justification and/or root cause.
Re. Ron Paul and theocracy.
Yes, Ron Paul is not a theocrat (as far as I know). However, many of his supporters are and Paul could ill-afford to alienate them 2008-12. To succeed as a Republican he needed to win over the sort of people who voted for Mike Huckabee.
For what’s it’s worth Gary North was the ‘theocratic’ association I had in mind. It is significant because North is not simply some media figure like Alex Jones, but someone who is educating children via Paul’s prestige. This is a significant association taking place after Paul retires from politics.
From what I understand there are other intellectuals prominent within Mises who also hold beliefs that could be described as theocratic.
I don’t want to suggest that having theocratic views is necessarily bad in itself or ought to be verboten. Just that from what I’ve observed, they can easily be abused and lead to bad consequences sometimes.
To some extent they are, other than when some people try to use state force on behalf of theirs.
Not all do, and some do more so than others.
1. Keep in mind that YMMV. For some people on the left, they don’t hold these opinions at all. They’re on the left because of cultural, social and/or foreign policy issues, police – vs – civilians issues, ethnic or religious background (the right may be perceived to some degree as anti-Arab, anti-Muslim or even anti-Hispanic, perhaps to some degree anti-black because of siding with racist abusive police, etc), other background/identity (LGBT folks may consider the right to be hostile to them, and so on). They may simply not know or care much about these economic issues in many cases, especially but not only among young people. Some of them are actually at least ballpark libertarians, that is they would actually like to see government be smaller across the board including on economic issues, but they see themselves as being on the left and vote that way (if they vote) because the non-economic issues are more important to them.
2. Some people on the left hold their economic views as part of a package deal. They’ve never had a different economic perspective given to them by people who are coming from the same place as them on the cultural, religious, social, military and police state issues. Nor have they ever heard free market economic positions explained in terms of empowerment for poor folks rather than self-interest for the rich and upper middle classes.
3. Ransberger pivot.
None of this will, of course, persuade everyone on the left, just as nothing libertarians say will persuade everyone on the right, it’s just that I see the low-hanging fruit as having primarily already been picked on the right, as well as conservatives being among other things more likely to be temperamentally conservative – that is, immune to change – than liberals or progressives.
A little of both, among other things.
Paulie,
Absolutely. Campus newspapers and the “independent community weeklies” are major pickup sources for the stuff I submit widely and personally I think they’re among the best.
There are different kinds of victories.
If we get a libertarian piece in a regular, mainstream, daily city or town newspaper, we’re getting it front of Joe Sixpack. He’s 40-ish and works construction or in a factory. That piece may not “convert him to libertarianism” — there’s a good chance his political views are pretty fully formed — but getting a word in edgewise might at least move him on an issue. Do that with enough people and politicians have to start catering to it.
But reaching college students BEFORE their political views are fully formed is pure gold. I get quite a bit of stuff in the University of New Mexico Daily Lobo, the University of Indiana Daily Student, etc.
As far as the independent weeklies/free papers, they reach two kinds of communities.
One of them is substantially the same as the college papers — late teens, early 20s, looking for who’s playing at their favorite bars this weekend, etc. When they’re 40-ish and working at the factory, chances are the political views they have will have been shaped by what they’re reading now. I do a little dance every time the River Cities’ Reader or Urban Tulsa Weekly grabs one of my things.
Then there are the “ethnic” community newspapers. Those tend to be dominated by “progressive” voices. So when I’m able to get a libertarian word in edgewise in the Portland, Oregon Skanner or the Richmond Voice or the Arab-American News, etc., it’s good stuff.
You quoted my reply, yet just repeated the original argument without answering either of my points made in response. Here it is again:
“Paul and his allies” does not have to mean only Ron Paul, it can also mean folks like Gary North, prominently featured at LewRockwell.com. However, if you are only looking for quotes from Ron Paul himself, I’ve been told that he said some things along those lines on John Lofton’s show The American View. I don’t have sound on the computer I am on right this minute, but it may be the one at http://archive.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=898 unless Ron Paul was on this show more than once.
Note that you completely failed to address the point that Paul and his allies includes not only Paul but also his allies (I used Gary North as an example). Allies can be sort of an amorphous term, but at a bare minimum it should include LewRockwell.com – wouldn’t you agree? And while LRC does publish some article by people who are not of the same ideological bent, at the very least I think we should include people with three-digit counts of articles on LRC such as Gary North.
You also failed to address the Lofton interview.
TLK, with your media placement service, do you include college newspapers and alternative free weekly city papers? I’ve found it very easy to get just about anything into those.
The fights themselves aren’t, but how nasty they sometimes get, along with other intra-movement and intra-party fights, does have a good bit to do with it IMO. That and the right-fusionsim tends to self-select for the wrong personality type and reinforce passive recruiting (and aggressive anti-recruiting).
tk, great. What’s the plan for linguistic re-education?
“tk, well, it sounds like you are trying to re-define ‘left’ as ”libertarian-leaning.'”
Well, no. I was trying to have a little fun.
But in fact “libertarian-leaning” is a pretty good definition of original leftism, just as “left-leaning” is a pretty good definition of original libertarianism. I would like to see that territory reclaimed as much as possible.
tk, well, it sounds like you are trying to re-define “left” as “libertarian-leaning.” People who ID as “left” support economic interventionism.
Re-education is great for both rightists and leftists, but to not recognize the challenges and biases of those folks is not something to be taken lightly.
Now if Ls accepted something like a citizen’s dividend or even Friedman’s negative income tax, self IDed left-leaners might pay attention, I suggest.
“what would you do address the left-oriented’s revulsion to libertarian economic abolitionism? Abolish the income tax, abolish SS, abolish the FDA, abolish the Department of Labor, abolish the Department of Agriculture, abolish student loans, etc., etc.”
Because leftism and libertarianism are co-terminous, the things you name are right-deviations and those who cling to them are the opposite of “left-oriented.” We must re-educate them!
paulie Post author
February 23, 2015 at 10:58 am said: “‘
…theocratic political philosophy…
I’d be interested to see any quote where Ron Paul has ever endorsed or advocated anything remotely resembling a theocracy.’
“Paul and his allies” does not have to mean only Ron Paul, it can also mean folks like Gary North, prominently featured at LewRockwell.com. However, if you are only looking for quotes from Ron Paul himself, I’ve been told that he said some things along those lines on John Lofton’s show The American View.”
I have been following Ron Paul since 1996. I’ve read many of his articles. I’ve read a couple of his books. I followed his bills and voting record in Congress. I’ve seen many of his interviews. I’ve seen many of his speeches, including 5 in person. I even met him in person.
Ron Paul has never endorsed or pushed for a theocracy, and he in fact criticized Mike Huckabee during his 2008 run by bringing up the quote, “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.”
I’ve made this point before (and clearly most don’t agree) but it feels relevant to make it again. My opinion is that cultural issues are perpendicular to liberty/statist divides, not symptomatic of an underlying statist ideology. My suggestion is to take the Nolan chart shape, but have the vertical axis run coercive/non-coercive, and the horizontal axis run right/left – with right and left understood in cultural terms, not as packages of political positions, but as dreams for how people want the world to look. The middle of that axis expresses indifference, so long as relations are done however the individual wants them done. The middle of the vertical axis expresses indifference to the means so long as the outcome is as desired. The origin expresses complete indifference to everything.
I say this because it seems to me that libertarians are prone to assuming that everyone else must use the categories of liberty/coercion in their thought – which is why we believe we can cover the gamut of thought with the current Nolan chart. Of course, we can – but I think it distorts a few areas and unfairly limits the pool of libertarians.
I think this belief, translated into politics, is closely related to the image some have of politicians sitting at a desk, looking at a dial marked “freedom” on one side, “less freedom” on the other, and us wanting them to turn it to freedom. We’re not the only ones guilty of this – or close to the worst offenders. Vulgar liberalism imagines the same dial, only labeled “everyone happy rich and equal” and “lots of poverty and inequality.” Vulgar conservatism imagines the same dial, only labeled “sinful society ala Sodom” and “land of virtue.” The problem is not understanding that most people don’t share your lens.
Now, I also have some economic beliefs that lead me to highlight certain areas of the chart and say “yea, that’s not possible.”
I think railing against anyone with cultural concerns (that is, not on the middle of the cultural axis) and assuming that this is a statist position is 1. false and 2. unhelpful. If one is a “culture warrior” persay, the warrior part is the problem, not the culture part – but plenty of people might be called “culture warriors” yet not have a warrior mentality about it.
pf: There’s already a long history of right-fusionsim coming from both the paleo and Koch/beltway wings of the movement.
me: I track with that, but what would you do address the left-oriented’s revulsion to libertarian economic abolitionism? Abolish the income tax, abolish SS, abolish the FDA, abolish the Department of Labor, abolish the Department of Agriculture, abolish student loans, etc., etc.
Do you downplay those stands when dealing with lefty types? Sit them down and walk them through how such abolition is in the interests of those on the bottom rungs? Something else?
MM: Gee, I can only imagine how a Hollywood production would depict libertarians and libertarianism.
me: Ask and ye shall receive. Here’s a bit of the dialog:
“Libertarians believe that everyone has the right to do what they want as long as they aren’t infringing on the rights of others.”
“But libertarians aren’t religious.”
“Clearly this sect abandoned libertarian principles.”
Still, overall, it’s probably not the most positive representation, ATC.
Glad to hear he’s OK, and I did say my only source on that was a FB post. The song is still good, and everything he says in it is still true. Cops are now killing someone an average of every 8 hours in the US, all while their own jobs have become safer than they have been since the 1800s, and that’s not even counting all the thousands of dogs they shoot, the property damage and terror from their tens of thousands of SWAT raids a year, the physical and emotional injuries of people they have beaten but not quite killed, the humiliation of “stop and frisks,” etc, etc, etc.
We aren’t just starting with a blank slate here. There’s already a long history of right-fusionsim coming from both the paleo and Koch/beltway wings of the movement. It creates an atmosphere where anyone coming from the left can easily be made to feel unwelcome and pushed away. It happens all the time. The whole emphasis is continuously made on trying to bring in people from the right and framing libertarianism to try to make it more appealing to them, but the problem is that at the same time it makes it harder to bring in anyone from the left, and from what I have seen we actually have more and better prospects there.
“Paul and his allies” does not have to mean only Ron Paul, it can also mean folks like Gary North, prominently featured at LewRockwell.com. However, if you are only looking for quotes from Ron Paul himself, I’ve been told that he said some things along those lines on John Lofton’s show The American View. I don’t have sound on the computer I am on right this minute, but it may be the one at http://archive.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=898 unless Ron Paul was on this show more than once.
Gee, I can only imagine how a Hollywood production would depict libertarians and libertarianism.
All, do check out S4, E3 of Criminal Minds, available on Netflix. Not only is the word “libertarian” used many times, but some of our favorite subjects are discussed, including:
-separatism, complete with a kind of Nonarchy Pod
-sex with minors
-the NAP.
Marc,
I feel your pain! Yes, getting libertarian advocacy journalism into non-libertarian media is a tough row to hoe. As you note, it has to be well done, which means there have to be editors to whip the material into shape. Then you ship it off and the payoff, if there is one, seems to be minimal.
But let me hold forth, since this is my personal hobbyhorse.
First, a couple of disclaimers:
1) I don’t believe in silver bullets, nor do I think that my own preferred method of outreach should replace all others, or that it’s one of those “stop arguing inside the movement, start talking outside the movement” things. I happen to like internal movement discussions and arguments, both because they’re fun and because it’s important to be RIGHT, and the only way to do that is to perpetually wrestle the ideas out. So I am NOT saying “everyone — drop everything else and do what I do; by golly, we’ll win a congressional majority by 2020 if we do.”
2) I think that at a gut level, most libertarians realize that getting libertarian messages into the mainstream is important. That’s why journalists like John Stossel (and, the last few years, the occasional Fox talking head like Andrew Napolitano) have such big fan bases within the LP. For that matter, it’s why anyone cares about Ron Paul. He got himself elected to what, 10 or 11 terms in Congress? And that bully pulpit allowed him to be heard outside the movement. So I’m not trying to say that libertarians don’t care about things like external advocacy journalism.
That said, I think it deserves more attention than it gets, especially from the LP. And I thought that even before doing external advocacy journalism became one of my primary jobs.
Yes, the payoff seems small. I spend many hours with each new arrival at C4SS, teaching him or her how to put out a good argument that a newspaper editor will like. 800 words max, but the “sweet spot” for maximum appeal is about 500 words. Stick to one issue, and make sure that issue has a current “news hook” that readers will actually care about this week. Pick one, two, a maximum of three good arguments and make them well instead of throwing a pile of undeveloped arguments at it. WRITE WELL.
Then I ship it off to media outlets (right now, up to about 1,600 in the US, another 900 worldwide, depending on what the piece is about).
And wow, the only place it appears is in a local community weekly with a readership of 5,000.
But that’s 5,000 readers whose newspaper of choice is telling them “here’s the libertarian position on this issue.” And, implicitly, telling them “libertarians are legitimately part of the marketplace of ideas — after all, we wouldn’t print this if they weren’t.” I think cultivating that impression is an important part of building the movement. And the party. But not the only part.
Marc,
Well, Stephan Kinsella has obviously been a major thought leader within the movement on IP. C4SS has produced a number of op-eds on the subject. For the last few years, Jeffrey Tucker seems to have been on the same page. A few weeks ago, the Foundation for Economic Education moved all of its material to a non-restrictive license.
With respect to representing the libertarian movement to the public as opposing IP, that’s not all C4SS talks about, but we talk about it a lot. I’d say about one op-ed per month that’s about IP specifically, and at least one or two per month that reference it among other issues.
My last IP piece (written last October) didn’t get any real play in the US, but it did appear in mainstream media in India, Fiji, Bangladesh and Jamaica. Our most recent IP piece, on DRM by Erick Vasconcelos, got picked up by fairly prominent lefty magazine CounterPunch.
And if I’m not mistaken, Cato included draconian IP restrictions in its criticisms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
I think we’re making progress on that issue externally, and starting to move toward an internal movement consensus as well. That consensus may not be entirely anti-IP, but its most pro-IP range seems to be “stop perpetually extending copyright and reform patent law to smoosh the trolls who abuse it in ways that stifle innovation.”
Yes, it is, Tom, and glad to hear it.
It is gratifying that you guys are seeing some reach into the mainstream. I tried this several years ago with “Freedom Commentaries” where I picked up a couple of good articles every week from libertarian op-ed authors, and shipped them off to a thousand or so media outlets. Lots of smaller papers printed something I sent them; I even got Wendy McElroy in the Chicago Tribune, and got her a royalty her trouble.
However it was time-consuming and often involved being an editor and correcting basic spelling and grammar — and I couldn’t figure out a way to do it without spending a couple of hours per article on it — which was too much for me at the time, so I faded out on it after a couple of years.
Tom, if that has happened, I would be elated. However, I’m not seeing much evidence that it has. Have you seen any libertarian articles or authors suggest this recently?
I have written about IP on many occasions over the past twenty years (one example here), but from the comments I’ve gotten, there are still many libertarians who are absolutely hostile to a NAP view of IP.
Absolutely.
But I’d probably take that even further: Culture warriors are in reality probably statists who have simply adopted the cloak of libertarianism (or anarchism) because it has become a cool cloak to wear.
L: Rather, we should be looking to ally ourselves with anyone who rejects the use of aggression, regardless of whether they consider themselves to be on the “left” or “right” side of the stupid culture war.
me: Sounds reasonable. But, given the way YOU look at “aggression,” there ain’t many allies.
So then you need to convert, persuade, and otherwise convince others to buy NAPsolutism. A tall order indeed, since there are not many who do after all these decades of effort by the cadre.
The culture war IS unwise, though, so there we once again agree!
langa said: “‘…theocratic political philosophy…’
I’d be interested to see any quote where Ron Paul has ever endorsed or advocated anything remotely resembling a theocracy.”
Ron Paul has never endorsed or advocated for theocracy. I have been following Ron Paul since 1996, and I’ve rarely even seen or heard him talk about religion.
I think it’s the continuous fusionism with the right, whether it be fusionism with the corporatist/militarist right (a la Koch) or the theocratic right (a la paleo) that is cutting us off from much bigger and better opportunities on our left flank.
My point is not that libertarians should be practicing “fusionism” with the right, while shunning the left. Rather, we should be looking to ally ourselves with anyone who rejects the use of aggression, regardless of whether they consider themselves to be on the “left” or “right” side of the stupid culture war. As GwoA points out above, the whole point of the idiotic culture war is to divide and conquer. To the extent that libertarians (whether they be “left” libertarians like Carson, or “paleo” libertarians like the ones he excoriates) seek to purge genuine libertarians from the movement, simply because they don’t take the politically correct* position on certain cultural issues, we are merely playing into the hands of the authoritarians.
*When I use the term “politically correct”, I am not talking just about one side or the other. The left and the right each have their own particular versions of political correctness.
Paul and his allies help direct sincere citizens towards dead-ends favorable to elite interests such as…Rothbardian deontology…
For the life of me, I can’t fathom how anyone who had read any Rothbard at all can believe that “elite interests” are eager to see his philosophy gain popularity. On the contrary, I’d say they are absolutely terrified by the possibility of that.
…theocratic political philosophy…
I’d be interested to see any quote where Ron Paul has ever endorsed or advocated anything remotely resembling a theocracy.
…and of course perpetuating the left vrs right cultural wars that help keep working people divided and conquered.
Here, I agree with you 100%. The whole point of the “culture war” is to divide and conquer. It’s the oldest trick in the book, and unfortunately, it still works quite well.
Aside from being military contractors, they are the biggest donors to the Republican party and many pro-war Republican candidates, and the tea party groups they sponsor as well as some of the foundations (Heritage, etc) push a pro-militarist agenda. Although my original statement was only that they push fusionism with that element of the right, not that they themselves are militarist.
pf: fusionism with the corporatist/militarist right (a la Koch)
me: In what way is “Koch” militarist?
Can’t say I agree. I think it’s the continuous fusionism with the right, whether it be fusionism with the corporatist/militarist right (a la Koch) or the theocratic right (a la paleo) that is cutting us off from much bigger and better opportunities on our left flank.
For a non-expert, I’d say you very much nailed it.
I can understand why some at c4SS feel Cato is a worthier target than Mises because the Cato Institute and its fellow-travelors are probably a greater enemy of liberty than Mises and the paleos. The agenda of Cato seems pretty much corporatism and policies favorable to objectivists, billionaires, mobile finance capital, corporate control of administration and governance, etc.
The Paleos, to their credit, seem to be bothered by absurd concentrations of power in the hands of a few and genuinely opposed to military imperialism. In this respect, sources like LewRockwell often feature useful and relevant information. However, what the paleos themselves propose is usually not that much better than Cato policy-wise (see for example Paul’s proposed 2012 budget). And insofar as the media portrays the Pauls and co. as the only visible alternative to the duopoly, Paul and his allies help direct sincere citizens towards dead-ends favorable to elite interests such as Constitution-fetishism, Alex Jonesy conspriracism, Rothbardian deontology, theocratic political philosophy, climate change denial, and of course perpetuating the left vrs right cultural wars that help keep working people divided and conquered.
Just mho from a non-expert on Libertarianism.
TK, well framed. I’d say both are incorrect. Arrogant, too.
langa,
Well, for the record, I disagree with the content of both those paraphrases because I’m not a “thick” libertarian.
But in defense of both Hoppe and Long, what they’re doing is inside baseball, not public outreach. There will always be internal debates as to the definitions, meanings, importance, etc. of libertarianism and everything it encompasses. And the important question with regard to positions such as Hoppe’s or Long’s is not “do they make the movement more or less inclusive?” but “are they correct or incorrect?”
TK, I definitely agree with you about the importance of emphasizing different issues for different audiences, and I don’t even mind putting a cultural “spin” on libertarian positions (e.g. talking about the racial aspects of the Drug War, rather than simply sticking to the pure NAP-style arguments).
However, I think there’s a difference between that sort of positioning, as opposed to the claims that libertarianism is inextricably linked with a particular cultural viewpoint. For example, I have heard Hoppe say things like, “Libertarianism can only work in a society based on bourgeois values.” Similarly, I have heard Long say things like, “One cannot be a libertarian without also being a feminist.” (Those are both paraphrases, rather than direct quotes, by the way.)
While the former sort of argument that you are describing (the “spinning” of libertarianism) is designed to make the movement more inclusive, I can’t see how the latter sort of argument (the “inextricable link” position) does anything but make the movement less inclusive.
I always thought so.
This is a nice little article about Jon Stewart, by his friend Andrew Napolitano, Apparently, Jon had some libertarian leanings.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/02/andrew-p-napolitano/jon-and-me/
langa,
ALEC is the American Legislative Exchange Council. It’s an organization that drafts model legislation and “works to advance the fundamental principles of free-market enterprise, limited government, and federalism at the state level through a nonpartisan public-private partnership of America’s state legislators, members of the private sector and the general public.”
By “advancing the fundamental principles of free-market enterprise,” they mean things like protecting entrenched utility monopolies by getting legislation passed to tax home installations of solar panels. These days they apparently call themselves “conservative,” but they used to be thought of as “libertarian” and apparently used to consider themselves so (they were one of the old Free-Market.Net “partner organizations” back in the day).
Let’s talk about the various implications of “tying libertarianism to a particular cultural viewpoint.”
To put it bluntly, when doing OUTREACH, you absolutely, positively have to do that.
The Portland, Oregon Skanner — a black community newspaper — is more likely to pick up a piece that casts a libertarian viewpoint in terms of effects on the black community than one that doesn’t (I’ve placed pieces on police brutality with them; IIRC, also pieces that support gun rights with an emphasis on the racist roots and effects of “gun control”).
The Sonoran News — “Arizona’s Conservative Voice!” — on the other hand, is more likely to pick up pieces that white Republican southwestern voters relate to (offhand, in the last year I’ve placed pieces with them on the Bundy Ranch standoff and on how 3D printing makes “gun control” futile).
When doing outreach, you have to get to them where they are in order to pull them toward where you want them to be.
Internally, I’m somewhat with you. I am an “ultra-thin” libertarian, in contrast to most of my “thick” comrades at C4SS. I figure that anything which neither requires nor tolerates the initiation of force has a fair claim to the title “libertarian” and that questions about second-order conclusions from or contributions to that premise, while they can be very interesting, can also be very divisive and time-consuming. I just don’t worry about it much, though, because I think it’s natural and unavoidable. We’re going to have these arguments, and people are going to spend time thinking and talking about the stuff they want to think and talk about.
TK, you make some good points, and I’ll admit I may have overstated my case a bit (due to a combination of my naturally polemical writing style, and being a bit inebriated). It is certainly true that each of the different factions caters to a different audience, with only minor overlap.
However, I do think that the obsession with infusing cultural viewpoints into libertarianism limits the number of people that might potentially find it appealing. Even if this stuff is not intended for a mass audience, there will always be some people who stumble upon it, and in such cases, it will inadvertently serve as their introduction to libertarianism.
In my own case, I was already a libertarian before I discovered what the word meant (or even that there was such a word), but nevertheless, if my first introduction to it had been something that tried to tie libertarianism to a particular cultural viewpoint (regardless of whether it was left or right), I would have been much more reluctant to embrace it, and I’m sure I’m not alone. The more conditions you add, the fewer adherents you are likely to gain.
By the way, who or what is the “ALEC” you are referring to?
langa,
Yes, I understood your point. And I disagree with it.
Nobody outside the movement itself pays the slightest bit of attention to that stuff. And within the movement, it’s well understood that the various factions exist and are going to fulminate against each other.
The only extent to which that stuff “limits the growth of the movement” is to the extent that Kevin Carson or Tom DiLorenzo or whomever spend time on it rather than on “outreach” to the rest of the world outside the movement. But the same thing applies to time they spend washing their dishes, walking their dogs, watching reruns of Seinfeld, etc. It’s their time. They’re free to spend it however they like, and if they don’t spend it savaging each other, they’re probably also not going to spend it doing more “outreach” than they already do.
The intra-movement fights also have positive aspects to them to the extent that they convince anyone of error, invite correction and bring us closer together. That’s very speculative and probably very marginal in most cases, but it does happen (notice how far the movement has come toward unification against the statist fiction of “intellectual property” in only a few years — a phenomenon that’s moving fast in the correct direction on both the “left” and “right” wings of the movement).
Internally at C4SS, we had a recent discussion about the intra-movement stuff. A fellow traveler chided us for spending so much of our intra-movement fight energy on the paleos (e.g. Mises) as opposed to the Beltway/cosmo branch (e.g. Cato and Reason).
My view as to why that is is because while we’re polar opposites of Mises on some things, we care about the same things they do. Both institutions are radical, anti-state and anti-political (except when Mises is having one of its “you’re only a libertarian if you vote for that one conservative Republican” fits). Cato and Reason are more interested in state policy, so they kind of fly under our radar as irrelevant (except that Carson sometimes uses Reason as a foil for criticism of “vulgar libertarianism” that doesn’t distinguish between today’s rigged political markets and actual free markets when extolling outcomes).
As far as how this plays out with respect to growing the movement, well, it doesn’t. Here’s why:
At C4SS, we run several kinds of content. We commission and publish academic type studies. We run “mutual exchanges” and publish “feature articles” on issues of interest within the movement. But from my point of view (skewed because it’s what I spend my time on), our MAIN activity is our op-ed operation. We generally produce 20-30 op-eds per month. Those op-eds are not aimed at a libertarian audience, they’re aimed at the non-libertarian mainstream and political media.
When one of our writers tries to use our op-ed space to hash out an intra-movement conflict, you can hear me screaming “NO INSIDE BASEBALL IN OUR OP-EDS!!!!” all the way to Peoria (I live in Florida).
The only exception to that is when the baseball has already gone over the fence and is bouncing around in the mainstream/political media stands (e.g. when there’s a story in mainstream media that incorrectly ascribes some horrifying ALEC/Rand Paul/whatever idea to “libertarians”).
According to the C4SS press room, where we catalog “pickups” of our op-eds and so forth, we’re coming up on 2,500 articles placed in the non-movement mainstream/political media worldwide. We’re averaging about 50 per month right now. That’s the real game. The “inside baseball” stuff is a hobby that we’re entitled to pursue. We wouldn’t be writing more op-eds if we weren’t also having that extra fun. We’d just be grumpy.
TK, you are technically correct, in that the actual article itself (or the time spent writing it) doesn’t hurt the growth of the movement. Rather, my point was that the attitudes that are exemplified in articles such as these (or Tom DiLorenzo’s frequent attacks on the “Stato Institute” and/or “Treason Magazine”) are limiting the growth of the movement.
Guess I’m with TK on this one. These fights are not the underlying reason the LM is small and powerless, near as I can tell. Largely well-meaning but dysfunctional ideas would be my diagnosis.
It’s kinda interesting in a soap-opera way that Carson lumps the Mises and Cato crowds together. On the culture stuff, they are quite different, is my impression.
“Regardless of the intentions behind them, this article by Carson and this ‘open letter’ to Ron Paul are exactly the kinds of things that keep the libertarian movement small and powerless.”
Not even a little bit.
To the extent that people spend time writing or reading or arguing about that kind of stuff, it’s their time to spend, and it’s far from obvious that if they weren’t spending it that way, they’d be spending it enlarging or empowering the libertarian movement.
In the case of Carson and of at least one of the “open letter” authors (the only one I personally know), they spend a lot of time doing the latter as well.
The whole line of argument to the effect that “people who argue within the libertarian movement keep the movement small and powerless” is both erroneous and, to the extent that it exemplifies the phenomenon it condemns, deliciously hypocritical.
Regardless of the intentions behind them, this article by Carson and this “open letter” to Ron Paul are exactly the kinds of things that keep the libertarian movement small and powerless. Unfortunately, it seems that many libertarians — and, to be clear, I am not just talking about “left libertarians” like Carson (more on that in a second) — are much more concerned with which side of the idiotic “culture war” that one is on, rather than where one stands in regard to war, statism, and other forms of aggression — you know, the things that libertarians purport to be concerned about. If they were, in fact, as concerned about these things as they claim to be, they would put aside their differences of personal opinion (about cultural matters that have little, if anything, to do with libertarianism), rather than trying as hard as they can to divide the already miniscule (but slowly growing) libertarian movement.
Again, this is certainly not limited to Carson and the “left libertarians” — witness, for example, the repeated sniping between the Mises/Rockwell crowd and the Cato/Reason crowd, etc. Internecine conflict between various libertarian factions has unfortunately been almost a constant fact since I first became aware of the ideology around 20 years ago.
However, things like this Carson article certainly do not help matters, at least not if your goals are to develop an effective coalition aiming at securing peace and freedom. On the other hand, if your goal is to develop a coalition of entertaining party guests, as seems to be the case for Carson (witness his fixation on the “white guy in the $3,000 suit” [a characterization not unlike some of the stereotypes in the infamous “Ron Paul Newsletters”, only reversed]), then perhaps Carson is on exactly the right track. And if the goal is simply to form a tiny sect of self-righteous hipsters, there’s no doubt that “Carson’s Manifesto” hits the nail on the head.
I find the continued attacks on Ron Paul (including dredging up, for the billionth time, the old “Newslettergate” garbage) to be particularly ridiculous. Whatever your opinion of Ron Paul, I can’t ever recall him attacking anyone for their positions on cultural issues. Indeed, I think one of the main reasons he has been so successful is his willingness to look past cultural baggage, and work with members of all the little libertarian factions, rather than trying to pit them against each other. He is a unifier, not a divider. But Carson won’t tolerate that. He intends to force Paul to “pick a side” in the idiotic culture war, and if he won’t, then Carson will pick for him.
My own personal opinion is simple: Fuck the culture war, and if you care more about it than about opposing war and opposing the state, then frankly, fuck you, too. Just like every other war I’m aware of, the culture war is an utter waste of time, and the people on both sides are largely full of shit. As far as I’m concerned, if you’re a consistent and principled opponent of the welfare state, the warfare state and the police state, then I welcome you to the libertarian movement, and I couldn’t give less of a shit whether we agree or disagree on cultural issues.
Finally, let me repeat one more time that I am NOT criticizing Carson because he is on the “wrong” side of the culture war. As far as I’m concerned, there is no “right” side. Hell, I’m quite sure that if I somehow ended up at a dinner party with the likes of Gary North or Hans Hoppe, I would probably dislike their company just as much as Carson would. The difference is that I am unwilling to shun someone like Ron Paul, who, more than anyone in my lifetime, is responsible for whatever growth that libertarianism has experienced, simply because I don’t agree with his choice of friends, or his personal opinions that have absolutely nothing to do with his politics.
In other words, I am unwilling to let personal disagreements get in the way of building a big enough coalition to actually move the country in a libertarian direction. I find it highly ironic that many people (including here on IPR) are constantly arguing that we need to tone down our actual positions, and ally ourselves with those who are willing to tolerate the use of aggression, all in the name of building a broad-based coalition. But apparently, this mindset extends only to those who disagree with our substantive positions. Those who have deviant personal opinions (about subjects almost wholly disconnected from libertarianism) must be shunned at all costs.
Interesting stuff.
The Students for Liberty chapter at a local university also contains an S4SS faction. One meeting they were giving out anarchist propaganda (Roderick Long’s “Equality”) right next to pocket Constitutions.
tk, OK, thanks.
Shrinking would probably have been a clearer word to use than dying.
It’s not just that time frame only, and I am thinking of writing a longer opinion piece to give a more comprehensive answer, but the Wall Street bailouts come to mind.
For anyone who hasn’t read the letter to Ron Paul referenced by Carson:
http://corymassimino.liberty.me/2015/02/20/open-letter-to-ron-paul/
Robert,
I don’t think it’s that complicated.
He’s not describing PEOPLE as “dying, and rightly so” in the physical sense.
He’s describing a DEMOGRAPHIC bound by a particular ideological mindset as “dying and rightly so” in the statistical sense:
1) Fewer and fewer 20-something white middle class males think that “big business is the last oppressed minority;” and
2) The remaining ones who do fit that description constitute an ever-smaller percentage of the libertarian movement.
The demographic of “people who think that Lost is the greatest TV show ever made” died off pretty quickly, and rightly so. It didn’t die off in the the Lost fans keeled over with cardiacs or got strangled, shoved into the trunks of cars and dumped in lakes. It died off because they noticed Breaking Bad.
tk, yes, we all have our moments. Perhaps it’s a permanent state for me.
Not sure how you spin “dying (and rightfully so)” any way other than to read it as a malicious statement. This is not to say that I don’t agree with much of KC’s opinion here, for I do.
I think I’ve established that I’m no fan of the paleoL set, tonally and sometimes as a matter of the substance of their brand of L-ism.
In context, what it sounds like is that you don’t read English very well.
pf, generous read on your part. “dying (and rightfully so)” sounds like someone who’s been swiggin’ the haterade to me, no matter how ya slice it.
Perhaps it’s because people of that age group are increasingly poor, so less likely to be entitled or to believe that big business is the last oppressed minority?
kc: Frankly, I’m sick of libertarian outreach being sabotaged by the need to apologize for people like this. I’m sick of trying to challenge the perception of libertarianism as the movement of entitled 20-something middle-class white males who think “big business is the last oppressed minority,” and the world is going to hell in a hand-basket because of women and racial minorities — and then going to Mises.org, Lew Rockwell, Cato and Reason and seeing a bottomless cesspool of people saying that very thing.
The version of libertarianism preached by these people is dying, because it’s the ideology of a dying (and rightfully so) demographic.
me: My advice to Carson is to stop hatin’. He thinks it’s “right” that white, middle-class males are “dying.” Shrinking relative to the rest of the pop…maybe.
Dying…rightfully?
Jeez!
Funny, I was just going to post that same link 🙂
From Kevin Carson:
http://c4ss.org/content/35931
pf: Big government is very busy redistributing wealth to the rich, and that’s a fact.
me: Might be true, but I’m not sure how it’s a “fact.” When I use the word fact, I point to an easily discernible cause-and-effect situation. What specific things did big guv do in that timeframe that redistributed up the income scale?
Or do you use the word “fact” differently than I do? If so, how so?
Vince Vaughn speaks out about libertarianism!
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/02/13/vince-vaughn-on-second-amendment-i-believe-in-the-right-to-protect-yourself/
Of course it’s not just Vermont and not just 2009-2012. Big government is very busy redistributing wealth to the rich, and that’s a fact.
tk, sure, actions speak louder than words. Whether your analogy is valid is another question. For me, not so much, in that for the most part the political class is not decapitating and raping.
It IS valid for YOU if you believe that what the political class is doing to you and others is equivalent to decapitation and rape.
For me, what they do is a range of things, most of which I consider to be inappropriate, though some of which feels more or less necessary, as I consider the alternative highly risky and likely to lead to less domestic tranquility. At least for the foreseeable future.
GwoA,
Yep, that’s about the size of it.
It makes me want to vomit every time I see an American libertarian taking Burke’s side versus Paine.
“I can’t read minds, so I don’t know if the political class believes it is at war with the productive class”
I’m not trying to describe what the political class “believes.” I’m trying to describe what the political class “does.”
If the Viking shows up with his war ax, cuts your brother’s head off, rapes yourwife, steals all the wheat from your granary, sits down at your table, eats all your dinner, then picks up his ax, heads back toward his ship and calls out over his shoulder “see you next week,” he’s at war with you even if he calls it “my weekly Saturday picnic.”
Unfortunately, Thomas, most of the time I dialogue with Libertarians they are defending the interests and actions of the “political class”. “Wealth creates wealth” and all that. The French Revolution is usually described as the opening salvo of “government” vrs. “us”, with the sans-collette and the revolutionaries being government, and the aristocracy and church being the defenders of princely freedom. I predict that the propaganda complex will continue to paint the Revolution in a negative light throughout our lifetimes.
Contemporary “government”, for anarchists, is rule in the interests of (and reproducing the dominance of) a financial elite (the managerial elite being their well-paid servants, or knights). Monied elites (ownerz) reproduce and exacerbate their status primarily via usury and other rent-seeking activities. Supporting this “class” politically means supporting the financial and property laws and norms that enable this class to accumulate more capital and more property via the labor of producers.
Any time anyone starts a business or takes out a loan or makes a monetary transaction, the financial elite get a piece of the action via the structure of the system. Which is precisely what Jefferson and the early republicans were at pains to avoid.
TK, thanks. I can’t read minds, so I don’t know if the political class believes it is at war with the productive class. My guess is they don’t think of what they do in those terms, at least by and large.
And, of course, as we established earlier, much of the political class are actually hybrids, like the GE managers.
This is where transcendence comes in. Aside from the nastiest statists, who may be largely beyond hope, the idea is to appeal to the higher nature of the assembled. To identify the dysfunction and offer a path out of the warring mess we’ve made of civil society.
Think Reagan’s shining city on the hill line. That was a transcendent appeal. Think JFK’s a rising tide lifts all boats. Those are banners worthy of holding high, in part because they are effective in painting a peaceful, aspirational picture.
“There are at least 2 models of negotiation and conflict resolution. You point to the first…warfare/win-lose. I point to the second: transcend/win-win.”
Yes, there are at least 2 models of negotiation and conflict resolution. And the political class has always chosen one of them: War.
The productive class are the villagers. The political class are the Vikings. The villagers may not want war but when the Vikings come ashore with their axes to plunder the village, the villagers have war whether they want it or not.
That doesn’t mean the villagers have to grab their scythes, duke it out and get cut down. But it does mean that they have two choices: They can submit or they can resist.
Your “transcendence” ideas are pretty cool. But make no mistake about it, they are ideas of resistance rather than of submission. There is not and cannot be a “win-win” with those who aren’t willing. They’re not interested in transcendence, they’re not interested in conflict resolution, they’re only interested in compliance, control and the ability to loot at will.
I’m not sure where you got the idea of “pitting rich versus poor” from. It certainly wasn’t from me. That there happens to be significant congruence between “rich” and “political class” in 21st century America is an artifact of the political class’s success. The goal of the political class is to forcibly redistribute wealth from the productive class to itself. That’s what American government does; that’s what it IS. Because of that congruence, there will be a similar congruence in any political movement which sides with the productive class.
tk: The point of class warfare is to make him realize that in the long run, he can’t be both and that he needs to make up his fucking mind which one he’s going to be.
me: There are at least 2 models of negotiation and conflict resolution. You point to the first…warfare/win-lose. I point to the second: transcend/win-win.
Transcending a problem, taking it to another level, does involve CONSCIOUSNESS RAISING, but NOT class consciousness raising.
Pitting rich vs poor does sometimes work in the short term, but the more elegant solutions (which often take more work and time) seeks for those win/win situations. It’s not to say that there would not be short-term losers in the peaceful lessarchist approach, for bureaucrats and rent seekers would have their setbacks.
I am not saying that the transcendent model is “better,” but I am saying that seeking the win/win always feels better to me, and my observation is that it’s a more sustainable model.
As for the GE manager, usually s/he will do what his/her boss wants.
Were peaceful lessarchism to become a movement, a company like GE would dial back its rent-seeking operations and ramp up its productive ones.
I’m with Knapp on this one.
Also, glad to see this thread finally getting used.
RC,
With respect to class warfare:
As long as there are productive and political classes, there will be class warfare and that warfare will be mostly economic until such time as one side or the other feels threatened enough to take it to the streets for real as occasionally happens.
At present in the United States, the political class is increasingly militarizing its domestic operations to protect and enhance the ability to conduct its plunder; and of course it uses foreign warfare of the “real” sort as a main pretext for that plunder.
The productive class’s interests, of course, lie in preventing the plunder, but defensive warfare is still warfare.
As to who belongs to which class, it’s presumptive that any given person may belong to one, the other, or in part to both. The whole idea of raising class consciousness is to get everyone to choose a side and get the war over with.
Yes, the United States has done a fairly good job of separating the clergy from the political class as such. But the US has certainly always had an aristocracy. The US Constitution was a revolt of the New England mercantile and southern planter aristocracies against the revolution and the ink wasn’t dry on it before Washington led an army to war against Pennsylvania farmers who had the gall and temerity to try to hold on to the freedom from such things that they thought they’d won (it was called “the Whiskey Rebellion”). And Hamilton’s nobility have been sucking the blood of the productive class ever since.
Is a manager at GE a member of the productive class or of the political class? In all likelihood, both. He probably earns part of his salary designing/manufacturing goods for sale to willing customers, and part of it designing/manufacturing goods for sale to the state, to be bought with money stolen from those customers. The point of class warfare is to make him realize that in the long run, he can’t be both and that he needs to make up his fucking mind which one he’s going to be.
tk, sold. I amend my term to “economic class warfare.”
But even here, I don’t think “warfare” lines up with my peaceful lessarchism. Rothbard once said that all Ls must “hate the State.” I disagree. “Hate” only hurts the hater, and masochism seems like a bad idea to me.
Still, there is something like a political class, and my opinion is that they will likely recognize that a lessarchist path is not in their short term interests. They are unlikely to support the path of peace.
Note that there is no nobility in the US, and I don’t think the clergy is all the politically powerful here, either. So, the “political class” is quite a bit harder to isolate as it was in times past.
Are managers at, say, GE in the political class or the productive class?
Seems like a bit of both to me.
Quoth RC at:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/02/gary-johnson-i-hope-to-run-for-president-again-would-do-so-as-libertarian/#comment-1111538
“I think it’s a mistake if lessarchists play the game of class warfare.”
It is not possible to be a lessarchist, an anarchist, or any other kind of [prefix]archist without playing the game of class warfare, because class warfare is what politics is.
As Bastiat wrote, the state is “the great fiction by which everyone attempts to live at the expense of everyone else.” This inevitably has the effect of a centrifuge, spinning different classes out of the previously undifferentiated mass.
Early libertarian class theorists Comte and Dunoyer correctly identified the two essential classes as “the productive class” and “the political class.” They observed that identification in the old “estates” of pre-revolutionary France and where they sat during the meetings of the Estates General.
On the left sat the productive class — the peasants, farmers, tradesmen and merchants, who earned their wealth through labor and exchange.
On the right sat the political class — the nobility and the clergy, who seized their wealth from the productive class through the instrument of state force.
Original political leftism and original political libertarianism are represented in that delineation of class interests.
The same centrifugal phenomenon, albeit with severe errors of classification, is visible in Marx’s “capital versus labor” and late 19th-century populism’s “the masses versus the power elites.” In the 20th century, James Burnham distilled it back to its essence in his description of the “managerial revolution” (and ended up taking the side of the political class).
Libertarianism itself is merely what Nozick referred to as a “side constraint.” A political group or system is “libertarian” if it adheres to non-initiation of force.
But when that side constraint goes into action as a political movement, it has to choose between fighting for the productive class or fighting for the political class. And the choice there is not unclear, since the latter’s claims to dispose of wealth are always, entirely and every time based on claims to a right to violate the libertarian side constraint.