Foster Gamble, one of the heirs to the Proctor & Gamble fortune, writer, host and producer of the 2011 documentary THRIVE, and self-described “radical voluntaryist” has published a detailed essay titled, “Defining Politics: Knowing what we are talking about could save our lives” on his Thrive Movement BLOG. In this essay, Mr. Gamble provides brief explications of, socialism, social democracy, communism, fascism, democracy, republicanism, totalitarianism, and tyranny.
In a section of the essay titled, “SO WHAT DO WE DO?”, Mr. Gamble writes:
“While it is clearly irrational to expect Socialism in America to lead anywhere but where it has led in every country throughout history, the disparity of access to health care and education and money and the increasing sense of desperation inspire all of us to want to “do something!” . . . I have found it to be of profound value to ask myself and others, “What, if any, justifications do you have for any person to violate the person, property or privacy of another, except in defending oneself?” Though the reasons given are usually well intended, it is both rational and demonstrated that violation can never be an effective foundation from which to achieve justice. It is both unethical and illogical to use the threat of violence to require people to fund the authorities to rule them against their will. The hidden virus is this…that the whole notion of a “regime” is corrupt from the start.
“Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” — Lord Acton
“The problem is not just the abuse of power…it’s the power to abuse.” — Stefan Molyneux
“Yet most people can’t imagine doing without a regime.”
(In an earlier essay titled, “Solutions – Liberty,” Mr. Gamble wrote: “I imagine a world where each being is free to act according to his or her inner guidance, provided there is no violation of any other’s person or property. Association is voluntary, not coerced. Exchange is by choice, not force. There is no involuntary taxation (plunder), so there is no involuntary governance (tyranny). Money is a medium of exchange based on real value (sound currency) rather than arbitrary “fiat” decree (counterfeit and fraud). There are no wars of aggression (mass murder). A truly free market has led to prosperity beyond current imagining, where people have the time and the resources to follow their passions and to care for one another, as needed, voluntarily.” That essay can be read in its entirety HERE.)
Mr. Gamble then provides an analysis of the current political alternatives in the United States using the following modified version of the Nolan Chart.
(Thrive’s version of the Nolan Diagram)
He writes,
“How can we have a peaceful, productive, society with rules but without rulers? We must think newly, as Einstein reminded us, because problems don’t get solved at the level of thinking that created them. And that’s where new concepts are needed.”
The essay then explicates Libertarian (the Party), libertarian (the philosophy/movement), anarchism, minarchism, voluntaryism, and capitalism.
Mr. Gamble writes:
“It is critical to distinguish between a “capital L” Libertarian which has become a political party that advocates for small government with them in charge, and the actual philosophical definition above which would not condone any centralization of power over others. A thorough “libertarian” would be a “voluntaryist” or “anarchist.”
He then provides a brief analysis of the past and present US Presidential campaigns of Dennis Kucinich, Ron and Rand Paul, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, and Marco Rubio, before stating the following about the Green and Libertarian Parties.
“With the Green Party . . . it’s all about mandates — rather than personal liability, and a single unquestioning belief on climate change rather than an educated exploration of the facts and potential motives (see my blog on this topic.)
“With the Libertarian Party, I believe we would get more common sense and true freedom and prosperity . . . (but) they are also still caught in the myth of authoritarianism and believe they should be in charge.”
Mr. Gamble highlights the work of FREE AND EQUAL writing:
“In the current system, no one from any but the “big two” parties has a chance of winning the (US Presidential) election because of exclusionary funding and debate structures and the fact that the corporations, banks, military and government institutions are committed to the security of knowing any candidate put forth after the primaries is already working for them and can be counted on not to rock the big boats. (Free and Equal works to include more than just the two dominant parties in the political process.)”
The full essay, DEFINING POLITICS: KNOWING WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT COULD SAVE OUR LIVES by Foster Gamble can be read HERE.
Also of interest to IPR readers may be the “Reality Check” quiz on the Thrive website, available HERE.
I need to rewatch it. I honestly don’t remember anything at all.
I watched the Thrive film a few years ago- I don’t recall what was in it specifically but only I thought it was nutters. I then though would have thought anarchy was nutters. I need to watch it again.
…he reveals himself to be an unqualified anarchist…
I’m not sure about that. I skimmed through the “quiz” linked in the article, and whoever wrote it (Gamble?) seems to be a fan of the “net neutrality” scam. I’m not sure how net neutrality could be enforced without some sort of coercive authority.
cah, I see your point. If everyone has property and everyone STAYS on his or her property (or voluntarily agrees to the new “monopoly” each and every time s/he crosses a boundary), then there is — in a sense — no “enforcement.”
And, yes, voluntary banding might work in the moment, until someone no longer agrees to the band’s edicts. Which leads us back to a 7 billion Pod model.
Assuming away practicalities doesn’t work. This autachy-on-steroids model is a rabbit hole that leads nowhere, in my experience.
Robert, I am sorry you are not that thick. Self-enforced, when there are many “selfs’ is not an enforced monopoly. Nor is a voluntary banding an enforced monopoly.
I thought I couldn’t be more profoundly uninterested that I was yesterday. I was wrong. And tomorrow is a new day.
jb, I watched it when it came out. My memory for its details are sketchy, but I think my impressions of it are more or less accurate.
cah: an enforced monopoly over a geographic area
me: A Harlos Nonarchy Pod would also entail an “enforced monopoly,” although it would be SELF enforced. A Podster could enforce against others to the extent another would wish to cross into the Pod, which the Podster could claim was trespassing. Or there could be eccentric rules of behavior within the Pod that the self-seceded Podster would impose on visitors.
Why is “monopoly” a bad thing when there is always monopoly somewhere?
Thanks Robert.
I’m highly inclined to vote for anyone who is committed to a dramatic downsizing in the size and spending of our federal “government.” I put that in quotes because so much of that spending/power is obviously used outside of any reasonable definition of government. I’ve not seen anyone write about that better than Foster has here, or at least anybody who is currently outside the familiar libertarian/liberty movement social circles . . .
Wondering if you watched THRIVE back in 2011/12 or if you watched it as a result of this article?
Thomas,
I completely agree. I went through Nozick quite thoroughly and posted a great deal of notes on where I think he failed in his justification. He was my last gasping hope for minarchy. I became an anarchist after his failed attempt. I had read snippets in the past and everyone assured me he had the problem thoroughly worked out, so when I started staring down that chasm, I clutched on to that. And promptly went over the edge. And one thing I have found. Most minarchists (not all, I am not looking to start a fight here— I am sure the IPR crowd is not normative with what I have found in the wild) who confidently cite Nozick have never read him. Why do I know that? Because his arguments are really too clever by half, and if no one ever cites his unique points, they haven’t read him to use him as their justification. Most people who toss around his name don’t even know what I mean when I say Nozickian side constraints, and that is a clear tell. I think Nozick succeeded more than Rand. Rand was IMHO more just shrill assertions rather than actual arguments. And I like Rand.
Nozick was very clever though in his attempts to cover his tracks when making odd leaps of logic in his book. I remember reading a few pages where he tried to claim he had reached the “state” and literally yelling THAT IS NOT THE STATE! (because he omitted from the definition an enforced monopoly over a geographic area). That was in one of his invisible hand steps… he later does get to at the monopoly but really glosses over the part of this theory where it does not exist.
All that being said, the first few chapters were pivotal to me. I held to what he said, but he put a clear articulate voice ion a way I had never heard (I didn’t and still don’t read a great deal of libertarian books… I wasn’t “converted” by a book or a person)
jb: Wondering what other IPR readers see as the potential of a Foster Gamble bid for the LP nomination?
me: If he got the nomination, I’d probably vote for him.
There’s a lot of baggage there, though, I suspect. In some ways, I generally thought THRIVE was way cool and well done. OTOH, the ET, conspiracy, Icke, and Griffin stuff — iirc — is, let’s say, highly controversial. And now based on this IPR reportage, he reveals himself to be an unqualified anarchist, one who is basically outside of electoral politics, near as I can tell.
Gamble is kind of like Ventura, without the electoral resume. Interesting dudes who are are unafraid to explore the fringe. Whether that makes them good candidates is highly questionable.
Been reading through Foster and Kimberly Gamble’s content rich website http://www.thrivemovement.com and thinking about A) how the issues raised there deserve more attention (and how some of them have been clearly ignored/suppressed by the mass media) and B) what kind of LP POTUS candidate could best raise them? Wondering what other IPR readers see as the potential of a Foster Gamble bid for the LP nomination? Feel free to post here, or write me directly (drbuchman (at) gmail).
I also see where both Foster and Kimberly are speaking at http://anpconference.com in January (along with Catherine Austin Fitts former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development). Foster’s lecture is titled:
Solutions Toward a Thriving World- Principles, Strategies and Tactics for the Most Critical Moment in Human History . . . Foster will share examples from various Sectors of the best breakthrough applications that the Thrive Movement has found through their research and involvement with hundreds of inventors and innovators, as well as over a thousand self-created action groups in the global Thrive solutions network. . . . “What are the compass and tools by which we can alter the moral course of humanity on Spaceship Earth and create ways of living where everyone has the opportunity to thrive?” See more at: http://anpconference.com/speakers_2016
Based on what I remember from the documentary THRIVE, I suspect that the “moral compass” Foster will propose in January will be one based in the principles of Non (initiation) of Aggression and Self-Ownership.
tk, magnanimous of you! 😉
Caryn,
Yep, Nozick is where I got it. I’ve started using it lately because it seems more ecumenical to me, leaving the door open for many forms of “libertarianism” where everything is optional except the single non-negotiable constraint.
And of course Nozick attempts to prove that an ultra-minimal state is compatible with the constraint. I don’t agree that he SUCCEEDED, any more than I agree that Rand’s contortions to the same end made any sense, but I’m happy to give people who do agree with one or the other benefit of doubt. That is, libertarians in error are still libertarians.
Thomas,
==Non-Aggression Constraint==
I like that wording. Probably because hearing Nozickian side constraints was a huge eye-opener for me.
it took me about a year or so from adopting the L label to adopting Rothbardian anarchism as my politics. That lasted about a year, as I came to see it is an unworkable construct.
Of course, voluntaryism might be something that could work, but it would probably require the dawning of the Frankel Singularity.
In a sense, I support voluntaryism TODAY in the form of Harlos Nonarchy Pods.
It took me approximately ten years. But when I finally “came out” of the anarchist closet, it was really quite a liberating experience!
I’m developmentally challenged. Took me about 7 or 8 years.
I think it took me about a year to make the journey. I’m not even sure, really. Minarchy is pretty abstract. So, I’m not sure when I passed through that stage.
Thanks for the correction! I have added Rand and left Ron in there as I agree that he would have made a good transition President.
==Ron Paul would have been a good Stage 2 transition politician with his track record of integrity and his consistent commitment to sound money, limited state intervention in people’s lives and no foreign wars of aggression. His son Rand is a watered down version of this,==
Autocorrect keeps doing that. Thanks for catching it. Also in your intro to my article, I think you meant Rand instead of Ron Paul.
==Foster — good to have you here! I think you meant minarchist though. The journey from monarchist to anarchist takes a bit longer!==
On second thought . . . when the Monarch orders “Off with their heads!” it probably takes far less time . . .
Foster,
==Thanks, Joe, for sharing my article with your network. I appreciate that trust and I am delighted to see a spirited, respectful discussion from various shades of L. I have found both amusement and some truth for myself in the serious joke, “What is the difference between a monarchist and an anarchist?…About six months!”==
My spellcheck also seems to mistakenly believe I would ever be using the word “monarchist” with some regularity.
It took me ten months.
Thomas,.
==“Why does Marc Allan Feldman seem to think that words like ‘libertarian’ and ‘authoritarian’ describe how one defines words?”
Thomas L. Knapp November 24, 2015==
LOL one of the best comebacks I have seen to date to that nonsenical statement.
==That is why I think the definition of Libertarianism includes anarchism, minarchism, voluntaryism and other groups of people who believe in fighting concentrated power and maximizing individual liberty.===
That’s funny because no one here denied that.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t more consistent expressions.
Believing there are more consistent expression isn’t authoritarianism. I would submit that saying such is pretty authoritarian yourself for you cannot assert such a thing without getting into complete circularity. Its like saying there is absolutely no absolute truth which negates that from being absolutely true.
I don’t think Libertarianism is just a word. I think it is a political movement. It is a coalition, not a cult. That is why I think the definition of Libertarianism includes anarchism, minarchism, voluntaryism and other groups of people who believe in fighting concentrated power and maximizing individual liberty.
“Why does Marc Allan Feldman seem to think that words like ‘libertarian’ and ‘authoritarian’ describe how one defines words?”
Thomas L. Knapp November 24, 2015
“Why do some people think it is more consistent for Libertarians to be authoritarian about Libertarianism? I think it is more consistent for Libertarians to be Libertarian about Libertarianism.”
Marc Allan Feldman August 23, 2015
Foster — good to have you here! I think you meant minarchist though. The journey from monarchist to anarchist takes a bit longer!
Thanks, Joe, for sharing my article with your network. I appreciate that trust and I am delighted to see a spirited, respectful discussion from various shades of L. I have found both amusement and some truth for myself in the serious joke, “What is the difference between a monarchist and an anarchist?…About six months!”
Ayn Rand, 1962 —
” We are radicals for capitalism; we are fighting for that philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it was doomed to perish . . .
“Politics is based on three other philosophical disciplines: metaphysics, epistemology and ethics — on a theory of man’s nature and of man’s relationship to existence. It is only on such a base that one can formulate a consistent political theory and achieve it in practice. When, however, men attempt to rush into politics without such a base, the result is that embarrassing conglomeration of impotence, futility, inconsistency and superficiality which is loosely designated today as “conservatism.” . . .
“Today’s culture is dominated by the philosophy of mysticism (irrationalism)—altruism—collectivism, the base from which only statism can be derived; the statists (of any brand: communist, fascist or welfare) are merely cashing in on it.”
“Choose Your Issues,” The Objectivist Newsletter, Jan, 1962,
cah, um, what? I’m sure I don’t know what you mean.
If you are referring to how long you’ve been a L, iirc, you offered that without any prompting from me. If it’s that, I’d surely not refer to that as “personal,” any more than my considering myself L for 36 years. These are just facts, not personal at all.
I think it’s great that you are L, and I surely think the world would be a better place if a LOT more people were L, too.
fwiw, when I first stumbled on the whole L thing, I was at first filled with piss and vinegar about it all. THIS, I thought, was IT! I was a bit of a zealot. This often happens with newbies in any sort of endeavor.
It may well not be the case with you. You just landed on the RIGHT answer quite quickly. If so, most sincerely, good for you.
And that rhetoric and humble-bragging is why I am profoundly not interested in discussing this with you Robert. There is something particularly noxious about that use of personal information that I do not wish to associate with. Getting me to share personal details is a privilege (as I consider it when someone does so with me). It is not one I will give you so readily in the future.
tk, clarifying…the ZAP/NAP/NAC premise is what I refer to. Yes, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me beyond a nice sentiment, but, no, I don’t reject it. Perhaps I will see the light of NAC-ism when I wake tomorrow!
Bob,
Well, no, you don’t “check” that premise. If you did so you’d find that it’s correct.
What you do is REJECT that premise.
There’s a difference.
tk, yes, I can see that ZAP/NAP/NACism consistently leads to voluntaryism. I just check that premise.
cah, it may well be that in your ONE year as an L, you have found the TRUTH, the WHOLE TRUTH and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. In my 36 years as a L, I’m honest enough to say, I have not. Good for you!
Thomas,
==I find those broad/asymptotic/other-standards definitions less reasonable, less practical, and above all less morally defensible than the NAC-adherence definition, but that’s just me.==
I simply find them less consistently libertarian. But certainly libertarian as I view it as a spectrum.
Not interested in the semantical wranglings. Have explained this before. Not doing it again.
IF one defines libertarianism in one of several particular ways (most notably in terms of strict adherence to the Non-Aggression Constraint, but in some cases going even further, e.g. LeFevre, to a completely pacifist interpretation), THEN consistent libertarianism inevitably leads to an anarchist/voluntaryist position.
But not everyone defines libertarianism in one of those several particular ways.
Quite a few people define more broadly, and/or asymptotically (as Robert likes to put it), and/or to some other standard.
I find those broad/asymptotic/other-standards definitions less reasonable, less practical, and above all less morally defensible than the NAC-adherence definition, but that’s just me.
Why does different have to mean lesser?
cah, I’m too open minded to ever “argue.” I just want to understand, to separate the wheat from the chaff.
So, since TAAALism is consistent, it’s just not L consistency, but something else, apparently something lesser than your views.
Libertarian consistency? Yes. Not going to argue about it Robert… we have been to this rodeo before.
cah, does voluntaryism have a monopoly on consistency, IYO?
I agree with Mrs. Harlos @17:06 in both respects.
I absolutely agree with his conclusion on the consistently of voluntaryism. Disagree with his assessment of the LP writ large.
So by “problem” you mean “benefit?”
George: Hey, check this out. I gotta give out Christmas presents to everyone down at Kruger, so I’m pulling a Whatley. (Gives a Christmas card to Jerry)
Jerry: (Reading it) “A donation has been made in your name to the Human Fund.” – What is that?
George: (With pride) Made it up.
Jerry: (Continuing reading) “The Human Fund. Money for people.”
George: What do you think?
Jerry: It has a certain understated stupidity.
One problem I see with the Balance and Credit plan is George Costanza’s “The Human Fund” … that being said implementing it would bankrupt the government so I am for it 😉
I’ve met Foster once, Burning Man 2012; and Kimberly and Foster once, at the Sonoma International Film Festival 2013. I’m hopeful he will read and comment on the comments posted here.
@Foster_Gamble writes that no Libertarian Presidential candidate addresses “the needs of those most hurt and dependent as we engage in this transition.” I have published a plan that achieves exactly the transitional support needed, based on individual empowerment and free choice. This is the Balance and Credit plan.
1. Balance the federal budget, and keep it balanced.
2. Change all charitable donations from taxable income deductions to 100% dollar for dollar tax credits.
As more taxpayers take advantage of the tax credit, sending less money to the IRS and more to support private, voluntary social safety nets, the balanced budget imperative leads to congruent cuts in the budget. These cuts need not be based on politics, but on the objective data on where taxpayers are funding privately. For details see:
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/11/marc-allan-feldman-balance-and-credit-a-libertarian-plan-for-growth-through-empowerment/
fg: A thorough “libertarian” would be a “voluntaryist” or “anarchist.”
me: I feel just as “thorough” a L as any voluntaryist, taking the theoretical asymptotic anarchist/applied lessarchist stance that I do. FG is of course entitled to his opinion, but surely disagree with his unsubstantiated assertion.
Commenting to subscribe.