Tired of talking. I want action. We need something tangible. (LONG)

[Jagsfan82]

I am new here.  My name is Nick.  I've been slowly getting deeper and deeper into libertarianism ever since high school (I am currently 25 finishing up an accounting degree).  Recently I've kicked it up to another level on research into the issues and engaging people in conversation about the issues, although time is still limited by time I am not willing to give up with my family, work, and schooling.  Progress seems to be nonexistent when engaging with brainwashed liberals.  I try to approach them with respect and facts, and when they don't understand the facts or don't want to believe them they deny the evidence as being accurate with no counter evidence to prove their point.  I'm sure everyone has been through this and has been discussed often on these forums.  I end up ranting to a fellow anarchist/libertarian at work about all these issues for hours.My most recent posts and discussion have just been trying to get rid of the idea that the 1% or the rich aren't paying their 'fair share'.  When engaging in these discussions I did some research into the federal budget for the first time in a year and looked at some of the projections.  By 2017 our interest is going to start increasing by 80 billion a year and surpass the annual deficit by significant margins.  I believe this will be the point where the masses start realizing the unsustainability in our current system.The point of all of this is I am tired of these meaningless debates that go nowhere.  I am tired of complaining and researching how crappy our current situation is for hours and hours without actually doing anything to work towards solving the problem.  I think as a whole the majority of the anarchist libertarian debate is in this category.  Its either talking to people who agree with the sentiment or talking with people who are too brainwashed and intellectually lazy or incompetent to ever change their ideas.  Stefan has talked about this as allowing ideas win out over empirical evidence.  Can't really make much progress there.  Certainly there are wonderful programs such as these that are the exception, but as a recent video stated they don't have nearly the support and resources they need, and its anyones guess how long shows like this would take to make any sort of difference in policy.  Its also been happening for almost a century and the problem has only been getting worse and worse.I think we need something drastic, and I think we need that to take place sooner rather than later.  I am not sure anyone is going to like what will happen in the earlier 2020s.  I think it is going to get much much worse before it gets better.  To make a difference we need something big.  We need such an onslaught of empirical evidence, that anyone who has any sort of intelligence will have to start considering the possibility that maybe they have been wrong their entire life.  We need droves of easy to understand counters to every crappy upworthy article that gets posted. Ultimately, I think we need to either find existing foolproof, specific examples that show what moving towards a free market can do.  Where those examples don't exist, we need to make them happen. Thinking big here its got to be possible to get a small free market 'state' up and running, or at least something that is drastically closer to it than what we currently have to point to.  Whether it is implementing economic freedom in a current state through focusing resources into one small area (IE: Rebuilding Detroit) or starting something new, there has to be a way.I don't have the real data here, but I think it stands to reason that of the people that have logically thought through the issues and been introduced to libertarianism in an appropriate way, there are actually a significant percentage of those people that have agreed with the principles.  Hard to argue a majority, but still a significant percentage. Peter Schiff has tons of fans.  Not that every one of these is a perfect example (nor do I know their complete views), but Ron and Rand paul have millions of fans.  The Mises institute is highly influential.  We have people who are at least holding office that are trying to spread more freedom (Justin Amash).  There are tons and tons of economists that know the power of the free market.  This show in itself has a huge base of supporters.There has to be a way to bring all of these people together to combine our resources to make a larger difference.  Time is of the essence.  This needs to happen.  If something drastic doesn't happen I just don't think I will be able to stay in the United States.  Anarchy is probably never going to happen, but that doesn't mean we can't get huge chunks of government out of our lives piece by piece. I propose we start by first by building one massive centralized libertarian online community.  We may not all be pure anarchists, and we may not all agree on everything, but if they are open to drastically reducing the size of the government and expanding freedom then they would be welcome.  Maybe something like this is already started.  Maybe this is the place.  I feel this may be too hardcore and we may need something that is a little more friendly.  We all know people can tend to shut off when you throw the word anarchist out.  Then I think we have to focus on attainable goals.  Legalizing marijuana would be one goal that could drove up enough support and would make a big difference.  With enough manpower and research and money there has to be countless examples of government failures that could be dismantled.  The libertarian community is far too disjointed.  It is still viewed by casual observers as radical and extreme.  If we got everyone together and started showing how many people are on board with these views, libertarianism would be viewed nowhere near as radical by the casuals.  People might not automatically shut off every time they hear the word "Libertarian".  Just imagine if we coined a phrase and made stickers.  Every libertarian had that phrase on the back of their car, or in the window of their small business, or on a billboard on the side of the highway, etc...  Libertarianism couldn't be ignored anymore.  People would be forced to talk about the issues.  Thanks for reading.  I'm willing to put in the work to make something happen.  Who else wants to make something happen.  Let's start brainstorming.  We need to keep talking about the issues, but we need to start acting as well. 

[dsayers]

If you haven't already, I would check out Stef's The Bomb in the Brain series. Before trying to influence minds, it helps to understand why they think.

 

For example, you mention "brainwashed" as if it's isolated and/or a mark against a person. But we've all been brainwashed. It's a sign of abuse. In other words, you're holding it against people that they've been abused. You're right in observing that this will go nowhere.

 

One cannot will change. Nor can one fix a problem that they do not understand. We DON'T need to keep talking about "the issues." We need to listen to people, show them what empathy looks like, help them to want to overcome their abuse, help them into rational thought, and let them come to the conclusions on their own.

[cynicist]

Action is good, but promoting marijuana legalization and putting bumper stickers on our cars is not going to bring about any fundamental change. I agree with you that rational people need a community they can rally around, and I think this is a great place for that. Advocating political action though.... trust me when I say that is going to be a hard sell to any anarchist on this board. 

 

However, I would like to welcome you to the board as a start. Good to see you here Nick

[ribuck]

I propose we start by first by building one massive centralized libertarian online community.

 

If that's your thing, liberty.me is launching next month.

[Jagsfan82]

Action is good, but promoting marijuana legalization and putting bumper stickers on our cars is not going to bring about any fundamental change. I agree with you that rational people need a community they can rally around, and I think this is a great place for that. Advocating political action though.... trust me when I say that is going to be a hard sell to any anarchist on this board. 

 

However, I would like to welcome you to the board as a start. Good to see you here Nick

Thanks for the welcome!  Marijuana legalization and bumper stickers certainly wouldn't bring back fundamental change on their own.  The goal is two-fold.  One, is to find and target areas that are currently under heavy government control and regulation that we could potentially garner enough support to remove government.  Marijuana is one I think would be an option.  If we can provide examples such as these to point to, we can make the argument, "We removed government here, and look what at the results".  The second Goal would be to try to lessen the idea that libertarianism is an extreme viewpoint that only a small percentage of Americans believe in.  It is no longer a small percentage, especially in my and presumably your age group.  The problem is many casuals are still oblivious to this fact and fail to even acknowledge libertarianism as a viable option.  Again, this won't bring fundamental change on its own, but it might create a stronger base as to which fundamental change can happen.  Posting on anarchist forums about how much government sucks to other anarchists isn't going to bring about a whole lot of fundamental change either.  I also don't think bringing about a massive wave of fundamental change in a short burst is possible.  As Rothbard said, you need a strategy with short term goals that build towards your ultimate goal. 

 

 

If you haven't already, I would check out Stef's The Bomb in the Brain series. Before trying to influence minds, it helps to understand why they think.

 

For example, you mention "brainwashed" as if it's isolated and/or a mark against a person. But we've all been brainwashed. It's a sign of abuse. In other words, you're holding it against people that they've been abused. You're right in observing that this will go nowhere.

 

One cannot will change. Nor can one fix a problem that they do not understand. We DON'T need to keep talking about "the issues." We need to listen to people, show them what empathy looks like, help them to want to overcome their abuse, help them into rational thought, and let them come to the conclusions on their own.

I didn't mean to imply "brainwashed" as an isolated incident.  Maybe a mark, but not one I necessarily blame the person for.  I am not sure it is absolutely a sign of abuse though.  Sure abuse could lead to some people brainwashing, but to say the majority of brainwashed people are so because of abuse... not sure if that holds up... maybe I just haven't seen the data.  I was never abused and I was brainwashed heavily until about 19.  Hell, I'm sure I am still brainwashed about many issues, but I am more open to the idea that I may not have been presented with accurate information.  As for the last paragraph, this is all good and dandy for a slow healthy upbringing of a society, but we probably have less than a decade before the "shit hits the fan".  I wholeheartedly agree that we do need to approach these topics in which we currently have disagreements with empathy.  Just saying, 'no you're wrong government is bad, and taxes are theft, and everything you believe in is immoral' will clearly get us nowhere, but that doesn't mean we have to sit back and focus on making people feel better about themselves while the democrats and republicans fight over whether the government grows by 5% or 10% next year.  I think we do need to bring up some issues, but we need to do it in a respectful and as you mentioned empathetic way.  We need to make sure we acknowledge their concerns and we admire their intentions, but there is hard evidence to suggest that maybe the best way to achieve your goals is not through the solutions that are being proposed.... and then back it up with some empirical evidence.  Certainly I guess this all depends on your goals.  My goal would be to try to make some significant changes in the relative short term so I have a country I can feel confident pursuing wealth and prosperity in.  If the goal is a slow and steady culture change in helping people, especially the next generation, think rationally... well yes you are right, talking about the issues really isn't important.  I know Stefan is all about approaching the issues from the standpoint of Morality, but I'm not sure its possible for short term success.  I think even when you start with morals you hit the roadblock of utilitarian morality.  I will try to listen to that series.  Maybe that comes up there.  But ultimately people think the poor and the middle class need to be taken care of and they fully believe that theft is justified if it can help others more than it helps them.  I don't think most people that believe that are going to change their mind.  I think it needs to be shown that the theft is NOT helping the poor.  I think it is fine to start with morals, but I always find that using the moral debate swings back to what works and what doesn't work for helping society as a whole.  

[dsayers]

I am not sure it is absolutely a sign of abuse though.  Sure abuse could lead to some people brainwashing

 

I'm not talking about the brainwash-ers. I'm talking about the brainwashed. Check out the work of Allison Gopnik. Babies are born rational and empathetic. It takes abuse to break somebody to the point of being brainwash-able.

 

I was never abused and I was brainwashed heavily until about 19.

 

How do you know you were never abused? Part of the brainwashing is manipulating language. If your idea of what constitutes abuse, it would skew your capacity to assess whether you were abused or not.

 

You say you were brainwashed heavily until about 19. Were you an orphan? Who brainwashed you or tried to brainwash you?

 

My goal would be to try to make some significant changes in the relative short term

 

Human enslavement and subjugation is a practice that is millenia old. It would be incredibly naive to think that you can make any meaningful change in the short term by addressing the leaves and the branches while ignoring the roots.

 

people think the poor and the middle class need to be taken care of and they fully believe that theft is justified if it can help others more than it helps them

 

But it's not up to them if other people get stolen from and if they consent to being stolen from themselves, then it's not theft. You say people think that as if that means anything. If people thought that 2+2=5, what would that mean in a dialogue about educating people on the subject of math?

 

I will try to listen to that series. ... I think it needs to be shown that the theft is NOT helping the poor.

 

You were given a resource to help you achieve your stated goal, but you did not avail yourself of it. Yet you're expressing a belief on the same subject. Could this maybe explain why you have not been met with the results you'd like to see? Our values can be found in our behaviors.

 

If you had checked out the information in that series (it's relatively short in terms of Stef material), you'd understand that you very well might not be able to convince people that theft is immoral or that is important. However, what you can do is not give people who advocate immorality the pleasure of your company and/or time. See, statism isn't a conclusion that is arrived at by way of rational thought. It is the momentum of history. Just like with slavery, racism, etc the moment it becomes unfashionable to support aggression to solve complex social issues, that is the moment that even the unprincipled will stop subscribing to it. THAT is how YOU can make a difference RIGHT NOW.

[Jagsfan82]

Lots of stuff

Obviously defining abuse would be an appropriate first step, but regardless of that, I would say i most certainly had some forms of abuse against me.  That being said I clearly wasn't abused to the point where I was unable to think rationally, I was just never presented with the ideas and concepts of how government works.  It was a lot to handle and I had trust in the ideas that were being thrown at me my entire upbringing that democracy was good and taxes are necessary and we need government for public services and the like.  Never digging deep into the issues why would I consider this not to be the case.  Once I had the facts I was able to rationally look at the facts and come to the pretty obvious conclusion that free markets and less government is both more effective and morally consistent.  So to say that any abuse I had caused me to lose rational thinking, well I would say I was not abused to that level.  Not sure I agree with the statement you need to be abused to allow yourself to be "brainwashed", but again that requires defining abuse and brainwashed.

 

What I mean is people can accept ideas as valid based on the logical fallacies of appealing to the masses/authority/experts and repetition.  That doesn't mean they were abused or cannot think rationally, simply they have not been presented an alternative in a simple enough manner and broad enough scale to convince them that these people they trusted perhaps have it wrong.  To say that we won't make any progress without first making sure everyone is thinking rationally and have overcome their abuse... I think that isn't the case.  Surely some people have been abused and don't feel empathy and will have a longer process as far as getting them to realize for themselves that government and taxes are not the answer, but I think there is certainly a significant number of people that have simply been presented with a lot of misinformation from people they trust.  

 

In reference to making significant change... the theory you proposed would be a false dichotomy.  Surely addressing the core problem of building empathy and rational thinking and overcoming abuse... and of course ending a culture that accepts abuse is extremely important for long term viability, peace, and prosperity.  But to say that significant change can't be done in the meantime as well?  That sounds like not wanting to put forth the effort more than a logical conclusion.  We don't need to dismantle the federal government to have significant change.  We don't need to become a taxless state to have significant change.  We don't need to end all victimless crimes to have significant change.  Significant change would be repealing one regulation that costs thousands of jobs.  Significant change would be repealing one law (IE: legalizing marijuana) that keeps hundreds of thousands of people from having their freedom taken away.  Significant change would be preventing one tax hike from the left that prevents even further weakening of our economy.  The approach you are advocating is obviously extremely important.  But to say there isn't anything we can be done until progress is made on that level... I can't believe that.  That may apply to a few individual people, but like it or not we are still in a democratic state and people can influence policy changes that do have serious impacts on peoples freedoms in the present day.

 

"But it's not up to them if other people get stolen from and if they consent to being stolen from themselves, then it's not theft."

 

I don't even know what this means.  It is up to us as citizens... or at least a majority of citizens, if taxes are increased, stay the same, or decreased.  It's not that they are disagreeing its theft, its that they believe it is necessary, and they believe others should feel the same, and if they don't feel that way they don't care.  So they aren't consenting to theft, they are donating to a cause they believe in.  To say that people holding a viewpoint that taxes aren't theft doesn't mean anything in the discussion of politics/morality is just not accurate.  Certainly it doesn't have any bearing on reality and what happens, but it does mean something in terms of the actions they take and the policies they propose.  I agree with you in that there is no point in arguing with a person if they don't understand the basic concepts and refuse to accept.  I am saying there might be ways to accept that they feel this way, yet still make progress in providing evidence and strong examples of taxes as inefficient and contrary to their ultimate goal.  

 

"You were given a resource to help you achieve your stated goal, but you did not avail yourself of it. Yet you're expressing a belief on the same subject. Could this maybe explain why you have not been met with the results you'd like to see? Our values can be found in our behaviors."

 

There are a lot of assumptions here.  One is that I really had a whole lot of time to do this and I chose not to while continuing to try to make progress in the area OR its possible that you assumed this applied to past situations where I had a resource to help me and i refused to use it.  So no, I would say this is probably not the reason I have not been met with the results I would like.  Maybe I'm not getting the results I would like because I don't have a proper enough education on how to influence minds, but it would not because I tried to do so while ignoring known resources that would help me achieve that goal.

 

"THAT is how YOU can make a difference RIGHT NOW."

 

Not sure if this is accurate either.  In fashion what happens is someone who people look up to or respect or think looks cool puts something on, and other people think to themselves one of two things.  One is "If that person is wearing it, it must be in style and I should wear it to be in style" or the other being, "wow that looks cool I am going to put that on".  In the form of not associating with statists resulting in a change of what is fashionable to believe in, we aren't exactly in a perfect analogy.  There is a general disrespect among statists for anarchists.  So when an anarchists says, "If you aren't going to prescribe to what I morally believe in I cannot associate with you", that does not mean that person is going to say wow, I need to become an anarchist to fit in.  Surely, this might happen if that person had respect for you as a person, but then again if they truly had that respect and admiration you would be able to win with logic and reason.  If 10% of the United States started not associating themselves with the statists, that does not instantly make it fashionable to be an anarchist.  What this does do, and what I was driving at in my original statement, is make a point that if 10% of people believe this maybe it is worth looking into.  

 

I guess my point is if the conditions exist to where not associating with people would make it "unfashionable" to be a statist and move over to the anarchist side, then those same conditions should lead to being able to get people to buy into whatever ideas you want to throw at them, especially when that propaganda has some empirical evidence to back it up.

 

 

 

[jpahmad]

How bout not labeling yourself as an anarchist, or atheist, or, libertarian, or anything.  Describe yourself to others as just being a human being who thinks rationally.  I think labels, although convenient and efficient, will just immediately invite animosity. 

 

For example, if someone asks me whether I go to church or not (this happens a lot in Texas), I find it most effective to say that "church is uninteresting to me."  In this way, the conversation ends and they know where I stand.  If someone follows up and asks if I believe in god, I just state that the whole idea of god is boring and I'd rather spend my time thinking about something else. 

 

These reactions immediatley humanize my position and invites empathy from the person with whom I am speaking.  Maybe this would work when discussing ethics as well.

[tasmlab]

I'm currently reading Harry Browne's "How I became free in an unfree world*", and it reads like a summary of FDR.  I know Stef had great affection for Browne and schooled off him quite a bit.

 

He strongly advocates for finding personal freedom.  He claims 'indirect' methods (e.g., convincing other people) is largely fruitless and ineffective.

 

Personally, I think taking your kids out of school is the biggest thing anyone can do for liberty.  In my case, it removed 120 hours of government participation EACH WEEK for my family alone.  Even as a signal to others (a tertiary benefit to be sure), people know I'm more serious about this than any bumper sticker could portray.

 

* Sadly out of print.

[Magnus]

If we can provide examples such as these to point to, we can make the argument, "We removed government here, and look what at the results".   

 

I have come to the conclusion that rational argumentation does not work when trying to remove governmental control. 

 

Rational argumentation was not used to get these things implemented in the first place.  If it were, there would have been no need for voting, which is about as anti-rational a process as could possibly be invented. 

 

Democracy and voting was created to achieve the results it has achieved -- a brain-dead populace, increasingly dependent on the State, that's more or less impervious to radical change.

 

I believe the greatest change you can effect are in the following areas:

 

1. Media.  Now that we have the internet, our viewpoints have at least some potential to be disseminated.  Learn how to be as skillful as possible in things like: marketing, advertising, media production, writing, websites, graphics, audio production, videos, etc.  Increase the standard for libertarian-anarchist production values to be at least comparable to the mainstream Statist media.  This is critically important, and requires a wide range of real skills.

 

2. Convince the people in your immediate circle.  If you can't, because they're die-hard statists, then you might want to spend time with other people.  But don't withdraw into an insular circle of fellow travelers.  If every anarchist convinced just one person, there'd be twice as many of us around, right? 

 

3. Focus on children.  Save as many as possible from the State indoctrination camps.  Set up non-State schools (a lifetime project in itself), or help develop freedom-oriented homeschooling materials.  This is what Ron Paul is doing now, since his political career ended.  As a politician, he got nowhere, and achieved nothing.  But as a homeschool material producer, he might succeed. 

 

4. Set an example.  Focus on your own life. Live well.  Be happy.  Remove as much of Statism as possible from your life, and keep purging, as a complete lifestyle. 

 

5. I think any politically-minded action should be last on one's list of priorities, and if done at all, it should be directed at either maximizing the rate of government growth (which will cause it to break), or at monkey-wrenching the system.  Start local.  There will be some town council or similar process where you live, and once you look into it, you'll quickly see how it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the real estate developers and their buddies at the banks.  Getting a traffic light removed might take you a year of your life.  But there are comprehensive development plans that affect all of us, and they are required to be open to the public, although no one does.  Try organizing opposition to Statism at that level.  Gum up the works.  See if you can keep your County from expanding its road system to yet another massive subdivision (which only discourages the redevelopment of existing land).  Take a stand against local government-sponsored sprawl, before trying to enact a Constitutional amendment. 

[ribuck]

I'm currently reading Harry Browne's "How I became free in an unfree world" ... Sadly out of print.

 

A web search for"How I became free in an unfree world" pdfwon't disappoint.

[Jagsfan82]

I have come to the conclusion that rational argumentation does not work when trying to remove governmental control. 

 

I believe the greatest change you can effect are in the following areas:

 

1.  Increase the standard for libertarian-anarchist production values to be at least comparable to the mainstream Statist media.

 

2. Convince the people in your immediate circle. 

 

3. Focus on children.  

 

4. Set an example.  

 

5. I think any politically-minded action should be last on one's list of priorities

I believe that its going to be very tough to remove serious governmental influence, but that doesn't mean there can't be small achievable goals.  Again, legalization of marijuana is a fantastic example.  Whether it be at the local, state, or federal level there has to be examples of crony capitalism or just plain stupidity that we could point out and say hey, I think most people can agree this is a little bit insane.  1 and 2 seem counter to your initial point don't they?  I agree that argumentation won't work if we define argumentation as sitting down at a table and debating someone.  But if we advocate what you are saying in 1 and 2 I think you can make a difference.  Stopping the spread of misinformation for example through facebook would be a legitimate cause.  There are a lot of articles that get spread around filled with either straight lies or blatantly false or misleading statistics.  Having a unified group to write calm, well written counterpoints I believe would have a huge impact.  Many of these articles make it appear as though no one can logically argue against their position.  Jon Stewart for example does it through the daily show, which gets reblogged on the internet a quadzillion times.  3 and 4 I absolutely agree with and very important.As for 5, again, I feel like this is somewhat of a copout and giving up.  If you think better libertarian/anarchist media and convincing people within your friends group can work, why couldn't we get anything done via political action?  We wouldn't even have to put anyone directly in office, just build support for a few common sense ideas that would have real impacts and help provide examples of the efficiency benefits of less government. 

 

How bout not labeling yourself as an anarchist, or atheist, or, libertarian, or anything.  Describe yourself to others as just being a human being who thinks rationally.  I think labels, although convenient and efficient, will just immediately invite animosity. 

I completely agree and I think that is part of the strategy that needs to be used if you want to try to influence others.  As a new employee at a job example, first you must build up some level of respect.  Once people trust you as a rational, intelligent person then you have a certain amount of influential power over them.  Once that happens when you bring up things in a calm manner, such as, "I read an interesting piece on ___ the other day.  People seemed to give it a lot of support but there was quite a bit of bad assumptions and facts used.  They claimed ____ but theres a lot of studies that say quite the opposite".  This seems somewhat forced in that scenario, but I think we get the idea.  

Ultimately I guess the main problem I have with the feedback I am receiving here is that it doesn't seem to have any sense of urgency.  Its all fantastically valid and helpful at long term outlook, and that must be something that continues with ever increasing intensity, but it does nothing to address the short term upcoming collapse.Are we at the point of acceptance here?  We're just gonna sit back and hope sometime soon the keynsian policies will cause a huge crash and then somehow Government will say, "Hey, maybe I was wrong, we should scale back"?Whats the thought process as to how this is all going to unfold?

[Magnus]

Jon Stewart for example does it through the daily show, which gets reblogged on the internet a quadzillion times.

Jon Stewart is the front man for one of the largest media conglomerate of multinational corporations in the world.You will not get anti-statist viewpoints conveyed through such a medium. Never.Yes, my suggestions 1 and 5 are not entirely serious. I do believe in the power of media, but believe employing it to political ends is a colossal waste of time.I also would never spend my time on local politics. But I suggest it only as a way of enlightening people to the nature of political reality. It's like dreaming of being an actor -- try your local volunteer community theater and see if you like it, before you plan to star in the next superhero movie.I suspect that if you were to see what local politics is really like, up close, how sleazy and corrupt it is, then you'd likely give up trying to elect a libertarian president.No one can get anything (un)done by political action because the system is rigged.There is a whole host of unstated assumptions and beliefs that underlie the modern democratic political system, and they are all allied against the libertarian anarchist position.Today's politics asks the unstated question "What do you want to extract from others by force?"They never come out and say this overtly. They hide behind about 8 layers of euphemism, jargon and outright lies. Part of the Big Lie of government is that it can do anything, accomplish anything, express any values, be a perfect reflection of the people it purports to represent.It's not true. It's a system for extracting economic value forcibly. If you're opposed to that on principle, then you're a misfit ab initio.Let me give you a very simple example. It would cost the government nothing to put a "None of the above" option on every ballot. And if None were to win, the rule could be that all candidates lose and a new slate be determined. So easy. They will never do this. Never.Attempting to use government to promote freedom and limit government is like trying to use a shotgun to cook bread. It was invented for a wholly different purpose. Swords and plowshares.Politics exists as pure theater. It's the fig leaf, concealing the reality of our subjugation. It is the social-pressure relief valve, providing us with the illusion of control, thereby preventing or delaying violent revolution.In wartime prison camps, the camp operators typically would give the prisoners a kind of internal self-government. The Nazis were especially good at this. The point of allowing them to organize that way was not to make the prison more free, but to deepen and solidify the level of control. It's to mollify the inmates by giving them a trivial degree of control over their daily lives.That's what politics is.

[cynicist]

How bout not labeling yourself as an anarchist, or atheist, or, libertarian, or anything.  Describe yourself to others as just being a human being who thinks rationally.  I think labels, although convenient and efficient, will just immediately invite animosity. 

 

For example, if someone asks me whether I go to church or not (this happens a lot in Texas), I find it most effective to say that "church is uninteresting to me."  In this way, the conversation ends and they know where I stand.  If someone follows up and asks if I believe in god, I just state that the whole idea of god is boring and I'd rather spend my time thinking about something else. 

 

These reactions immediatley humanize my position and invites empathy from the person with whom I am speaking.  Maybe this would work when discussing ethics as well.

 

This is a great point. Labels are tricky because atheism is a conclusion that may not have been arrived at rationally, same as the others. It's also problematic since people don't always agree with what the labels mean in the first place. I like the convenience but when you have to explain yourself anyway due to misunderstandings it seems less and less useful.

 

I like your approach. It's better to just honestly state your thoughts on the issue.

[Jagsfan82]

No one can get anything (un)done by political action because the system is rigged.

Here's what I know. There are members of the Senate and Congress and local office and Gary Johnson who, despite massive misinformation and very little organization and direction from the libertarian movement, have been elected to office. They are able to craft ideas that get support. Point being there ARE success stories about politicians who genuinely care and want to shrink the federal government. If they got elected without significant organization of the libertarian population, how many could we get elected with? How much support could we getfor specific ideas with organization?If the answer is not enough, then what's the plan as I asked before? Wait to see what tyranny those in power come up with? Just sit back and take it?

[cynicist]

Point being there ARE success stories about politicians who genuinely care and want to shrink the federal government. If they got elected without significant organization of the libertarian population, how many could we get elected with? How much support could we getfor specific ideas with organization?

 

Libertarianism has been around for some time now, yet the government has only grown larger. I voted for Ron Paul a while ago so I've been there. The problem is that the incentives are hugely stacked against the reduction of government even after you get in. 

 

If the answer is not enough, then what's the plan as I asked before? Wait to see what tyranny those in power come up with? Just sit back and take it? 

 

This is a false dichotomy. The choice is not political action or do nothing, it's try other things that might actually have an effect. I'd recommend the podcasts or books in order to learn more since Stefan has done an excellent job explaining the issues. The key is to first examine why Libertarianism has failed so far in reducing the size of government and then you can go deeper into why the government is around in the first place. Without a deep understanding of the reasons why it hasn't worked so far there is no hope of improving the situation.

[Magnus]

Here's what I know. There are members of the Senate and Congress and local office and Gary Johnson who, despite massive misinformation and very little organization and direction from the libertarian movement, have been elected to office. They are able to craft ideas that get support.

 

Point being there ARE success stories about politicians who genuinely care and want to shrink the federal government. If they got elected without significant organization of the libertarian population, how many could we get elected with? How much support could we getfor specific ideas with organization?

 

If the answer is not enough, then what's the plan as I asked before? Wait to see what tyranny those in power come up with? Just sit back and take it?

 

Why do you define "success" as electing your desired politicians?  Why do you think the political arena is the place where important social change occurs? 

 

You seem to be accepting a few underlying, unquestioned assumptions about the nature of the State.  The first would be that that democracy (i.e., voting) creates a responsive government. Or that the USA is a government “of the people.” Or that the State is somehow subordinate to the voters. Or that the government somehow “represents” us.

 

These ideas are a perfect inversion of reality.  Elections and voting mean nothing.  Zero.  The hard reality of our lives is that voting has about as much influence on the actions of the government as does voting for the winner of American Idol. Imagine that everyone's votes go into a random number generator.  Imagine that the voting machines didn’t even bother to record votes at all. That’s how trivial voting is.

 

The State is the enforcement department of the true OWNERS of this country.  The Owners are a handful of huge corporations who make decisions that you will never be privy to.  They attend conferences that you will never be invited to.  They are (mainly) finance, pharmaceuticals, oil, media and military contractors.  Do you think you have more influence than them over US government policy? 

 

That's who politicians work for.  Not you or me.  If you think that any politician, much less one like Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, has any chance to effect the SLIGHTEST change on the agenda of the U.S. government, then you are delusional.  You are buying into the false reality they have synthesized in order to enslave you.

 

We are serfs on their plantation. But they discovered that it’s far too expensive to keep us all in actual, physical shackles, so instead they have trained people, from birth, to enslave themselves.  How do they do this?  By convincing people of the importance of the democratic system. 

 

Voting is not designed to change the government.  Voting is designed to prevent people from fully accepting the reality of their subjugation.  Once you fully accept the proposition that THE STATE DOESN'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK, then you’ll see what voting amounts to — self-abuse.

 

If you really want to end or even limit Statism, take all the time that you would spend thinking about voting, or participating in politics in any way, and spend that time running a website.  Or becoming a famous novelist.  Or a popular songwriter.  Or a movie director.  Or an entrepreneur.  Weave your ethical principles into these worthy endeavors, and your influence will be tremendous. 

 

Or start a school based on freedom, not only political freedom, but mental and emotional freedom.  Create an environment that churns out young geniuses -- scientists, inventors, artists, entrepreneurs, philosophers.  After you've produced a disproportionate number of luminaries, the world will beat a path to your door and beg you to reveal your guiding principles, and then you can tell them that it all began with the non-aggression principle. 

 

But please don't waste your time on politics.  It's worse than doing nothing.

[HumanThought]

Stop funding violence. Stop paying taxes. Simple. How many people here are against statism and still fund it?

[Jagsfan82]

 

 

So let's assume all this is true.  Lets assume political action would get us nowhere.  Let's assume the country, and all modern countries for that matter, are run by evil politicians and corporations that no matter how much we try we cannot penetrate and influence.  Whats the point of trying to spread the message?  What's the point of bringing about new intelligent rational minded thinking into society?  If they aren't going to have any influence on changing anything... what are we really doing?  If they are going to be able to change anything, why is the future going to be any different than now?  At what point does this magically switch over from not being able to change anything to being able to change anything?  If we are constantly going to have a government that can start wars, put people in jail, take taxes, and regulate business... then what is creating more rational people going to help if they are going to have no influence over that system?I am not proposing the only two choices are political action or do nothing, but those are the only two options that have been presented in this thread thus far.  The ideas being proposed about a slow steady sustainable growth of rational empathetic thinkers is all good and dandy, and very important, but that does not address the short term problem that the economy is just setting up to get worse and worse, reaching a very likely tipping point in the early 2020's.   

 

Stop funding violence. Stop paying taxes. Simple. How many people here are against statism and still fund it?

This is an actual idea.  Certainly raises a lot of questions.   How much revenue would need to be lost?  Considering the top 20% pay  about 85% of federal income taxes, it might be difficult to make a dent.  State level?  If you got enough people to stop paying taxes at the state and local levels... there is no way those governments could handle the combination of lost revenue and increased workload.  In order for this to work I get the sense it would need to be a surge rather than incremental.

[cynicist]

I am not proposing the only two choices are political action or do nothing, but those are the only two options that have been presented in this thread thus far.  The ideas being proposed about a slow steady sustainable growth of rational empathetic thinkers is all good and dandy, and very important, but that does not address the short term problem that the economy is just setting up to get worse and worse, reaching a very likely tipping point in the early 2020's.  

 

This is the issue. You think that there is a way to address the government in the short-term. It does not exist. The only way is long-term through peaceful parenting and the raising of rational thinkers that are not susceptible to this bizarre notion that government is the solution rather than the problem. The best that you can do short-term is simply protect yourself and your assets, and try to help the people that you care about do the same, so that when the impending collapse comes you aren't as devastated. Forming strong community bonds is not a bad idea either.

 

Whats the point of trying to spread the message?  What's the point of bringing about new intelligent rational minded thinking into society?  If they aren't going to have any influence on changing anything... what are we really doing?  If they are going to be able to change anything, why is the future going to be any different than now?  At what point does this magically switch over from not being able to change anything to being able to change anything?  If we are constantly going to have a government that can start wars, put people in jail, take taxes, and regulate business... then what is creating more rational people going to help if they are going to have no influence over that system?

 

The point is that in the future, people will understand that government and the initiation of force is not required for self-defense or a legal system, or any of the things that people think are necessary prerequisites for having a civil society. The ultimate goal is to not have that system, so there is nothing to curtail or be vigilant over. Before accusing us of not having any solutions to the problem, I'd recommend starting with the books or podcasts as a primer on the kind of ideas that we support as a community. 

 

I'm happy to answer questions but given that there are like 9 books and thousands of podcasts, it may take a while to cover some of the important points  (the first 100-200 podcasts cover the core issues well, everything after is also great but the first ones are basically the introduction to the main ideas)

 

Stop funding violence. Stop paying taxes. Simple. How many people here are against statism and still fund it?

 

I don't think risking imprisonment or seizure of your property is a simple decision at all.

[HumanThought]

In order for a withholding of taxes to be successful I think it would require more widespread societal awareness than we currently have. I don't think the goal would be achieved by actually denting the amount of revenue, the goal would be achieved by friends and families watching their loved ones being hauled off to jail because they refused to fund violence. My moral code does not allow me to engage in violence, that means I also cannot fund violence. The end result being that I cannot write checks to an institution that forces me to fund military operations. Even if I wanted to pay for certiain things like roads or some social programs, the fact that I am not given that choice forces me to withhold my money until I am given that choice. This leads to me being caged simply because I am a radically non-violent. I have the clear moral highground, and if I have been loving and compassionate enough to the people around me, then they will pick me and my torch up when I fall, and slowly it spreads. Once it spreads, then we can talk about making a dent in revenue. But the dent in compliance is huge, because that causes the state to get nervous and react, and their reaction causes more people no not comply and the movement grows exponentially from there.The idea of non-violence is something everyone can get behind. We can't get everyone to become anarchists because a lot of people just aren't ready for that. They probably still believe in paying for programs like social welfair and all that crap, but that's okay for now, because we have to focus on what we agree on, which is non-violence, and the fact that we don't get a choice in the matter. Those who still believe in the state will refuse taxes until they get a tax system that allows them to choose the programs that they agree with (this is probably the mass majority of people in this country) and in this light, archarchists can join forces with people who simply don't want their money going to the pentagon. If we ever achieved a 'pick and choose tax system' the military, CIA, NSA, etc would cease to be. We have more in common than we realize, and we have to use what we have in common to drive this tangable movement. Everyone can rally behind non-violence. We'd probably even get a bunch of greedy rich fucks who don't care about philosophy to join the movement because let's be honest, no one wants to pay taxes either. We just need to make tax refusal ethical to the clear minded, and fashionable to the lesser enlightened.The degree to which this society is enlightened will determine how quickly this movement spreads. My assessment is that we are no there yet, but we will never get there until those first few are willing to take it in the teeth. That is how all massive movements begin- with the few first brave souls taking it for the team, laying their body down, and never getting the gratification. It is a long road filled with dissappointment after dissapointment, but the change can happen and sometimes does. The question is, are you willing to lay yourself down? Are you willing to lose everything for results that you are likely to never see? This is why asceticism is so dangerous to power structures. Ascetics are able to let go of their worldly possessions and lay their lives down for an idea, they have no fear, nothing can be taken from them and thus they cannot be controlled. Can you let go of it all? Society will become enlightened once we are willing to let go and become wrungs on a ladder that our children may climb.(EDIT: Basically added a paragraph so re-read it if you didn't see this edit line when you orignially read this post)

Edited April 29, 2014 by HumanThought

[HumanThought]

I don't think risking imprisonment or seizure of your property is a simple decision at all.

 

It is difficult and scary, but simple. You cannot live a life consistant with your ethics if you are funding the system that you hate. The punishment you will receive appeals to your emotions. When fear arrises, let logic be your guide. You cannot sincerely speak against an institution that you continue to fund every month.

[Jagsfan82]

The degree to which this society is enlightened will determine how quickly this movement spreads. My assessment is that we are no there yet, but we will never get there until those first few are willing to take it in the teeth. That is how all massive movements begin- with the few first brave souls taking it for the team, laying their body down, and never getting the gratification. It is a long road filled with dissappointment after dissapointment, but the change can happen and sometimes does. The question is, are you willing to lay yourself down? Are you willing to lose everything for results that you are likely to never see? This is why asceticism is so dangerous to power structures. Ascetics are able to let go of their worldly possessions and lay their lives down for an idea, they have no fear, nothing can be taken from them and thus they cannot be controlled. Can you let go of it all? Society will become enlightened once we are willing to let go and become wrungs on a ladder that our children may climb.

I'd be willing to go to jail for this.  I don't think you need as many people as I get the sense you think you need.  The problem I am having is would they actually throw me in jail for not paying taxes, or would they just get money out of me some other way?  I haven't paid my local taxes... ever... so I know that won't do it.  You can file exempt on your W-4s to not have federal taxes withheld from your paycheck, but I'm assuming payroll taxes you can't get around.  State taxes I am not sure how those work.  If people started getting locked up over taxes though... I think that might make a strong enough point.  Tough would need to talk it out much more in depth. 

 

 

I'm happy to answer questions but given that there are like 9 books and thousands of podcasts, it may take a while to cover some of the important points  (the first 100-200 podcasts cover the core issues well, everything after is also great but the first ones are basically the introduction to the main ideas)

Yes.  I've listened to about 20-30 hours of Stef.  I have read no books.  I asked you a question.  I have yet to receive an answer.  You say the point is to convince more people government is not the answer, but yet again you say that you cannot change the government in the short term.  But at some point the long term changes into the short term.  At what point does that occur, and what happens?  How is change made?  How is it going to be different from now?I did not mean to accuse anyone of not having a solution if I did, but i don't think I did, rather I meant to simply infer as to what that solution was.  So we get 50% of the people to believe government is the initiation of force... then what?  How is that different from convincing 50% of the people to legalize marijuana and then act on that principle and make a difference? Again, not saying there isn't a valid response to this, I have just yet to hear it.

[cynicist]

I did not mean to accuse anyone of not having a solution if I did, but i don't think I did, rather I meant to simply infer as to what that solution was.  So we get 50% of the people to believe government is the initiation of force... then what?  How is that different from convincing 50% of the people to legalize marijuana and then act on that principle and make a difference? 

 

I have to admit I'm really confused here. After 20-30 hours of listening you must realize that the only reason the government can do anything is because nearly everyone supports it right? Not only supports it, but thinks it is essential to having a civil society. And you think that raising people who don't believe that is no different than convincing people that legalizing marijuana is a good idea? 

 

It's like we are talking about husbands assaulting wives and you say we should convince 50% of them to not hit their wives for letting a meal get cold, and then when I say that we should get them to understand that hitting anyone is wrong, you ask me how that is any different. 

[Jagsfan82]

I have to admit I'm really confused here. After 20-30 hours of listening you must realize that the only reason the government can do anything is because nearly everyone supports it right? Not only supports it, but thinks it is essential to having a civil society. And you think that raising people who don't believe that is no different than convincing people that legalizing marijuana is a good idea? It's like we are talking about husbands assaulting wives and you say we should convince 50% of them to not hit their wives for letting a meal get cold, and then when I say that we should get them to understand that hitting anyone is wrong, you ask me how that is any different.

Its becoming quite apparent you don't know the answer to my question. I am saying the process is the same. You need to build up a consensus and then use that consensus to achieve the desired result. I never tried to say legalizing weed is gonna give us a free state. I'm saying its an incremental goal that would increase freedom in-between the long term goal of getting people to understand the more broad concepts. I can teach a kid to add on their fingers up to 10. Sure that doesn't necessarily mean he knows how to add and subtract in the broad sense, but it sure as hell works in the mean time.My point is you say nothing can be done in short term politically, but at some point long term goals will require short term progress. How will that transition happen if we accept the idea that we can't use political action to get what we want? What's the transition plan. The short term goal is to convince more people how much government sucks. So its 2030 and people are convinced. Now what.

[Magnus]

So let's assume all this is true. Lets assume political action would get us nowhere. Let's assume the country, and all modern countries for that matter, are run by evil politicians and corporations that no matter how much we try we cannot penetrate and influence.

How could it not be true? Every country has central banking and income taxation. The State will serve the interests of its central and member banks, every time, all the time, no matter what you say or do. Government schools are also essentially universal, and they, naturally, serve the goals of Statism by making freedom not just obscure but unthinkable. How can these massive, structural, systemic control mechanism be ignored?

Whats the point of trying to spread the message? What's the point of bringing about new intelligent rational minded thinking into society? If they aren't going to have any influence on changing anything... what are we really doing? If they are going to be able to change anything, why is the future going to be any different than now? At what point does this magically switch over from not being able to change anything to being able to change anything? If we are constantly going to have a government that can start wars, put people in jail, take taxes, and regulate business... then what is creating more rational people going to help if they are going to have no influence over that system?I am not proposing the only two choices are political action or do nothing, but those are the only two options that have been presented in this thread thus far. The ideas being proposed about a slow steady sustainable growth of rational empathetic thinkers is all good and dandy, and very important, but that does not address the short term problem that the economy is just setting up to get worse and worse, reaching a very likely tipping point in the early 2020's.

Your plan is to fight the State where it is strongest -- the realm of electoral politics, which it created, controlled, and uses as its primary method of deluding the populace into believing we have a meaningful influence over them. The Statist system overall is actually very fragile. But not as to voting. They own the voting realm. The system is vulnerable in other areas. It can't function without the active cooperation of other slaves. Also, the State overreacts wildly to symbolic displays of defiance. Remember the LiteBrite display in Bostom that shut down the entire freeway system a couple of years ago? Cliven Bundy? The Branch Davidian standoff and mass murders? The 9/11 hijackers killed roughly as many people as are killed in 30 days on the government's highway system. The government pays zero attention to the 35,000 traffic deaths caused every year by the way the government designs and polices its roads. But that one symbolic act of Fuck You on 9/11 caused a shift in government policy for a generation or two. Remember the Unabomber? How many people did he kill? Do you remember without looking it up? The search for him was the biggest in FBI history. His death toll was 3. But he's housed in the deepest hole in the US prison system for life. Why? He embarrassed the State. He made them look weak. Gandhi. MLK. The list goes on. Anything that symbolically demonstrates the State's impotence causes them to freak out. Any time there is a violent rebellion, the State destroys the rebel symbols. In the US, it was Hamilton marching on Shay's Rebellion that set the tone for the next 250 years. The State deals in symbols. If you want a solution to fighting the State in the short term, the most powerful would by non-violent ways to publicly undermine the power in the State's symbols of authority. But I would never promote or recommend those actions. They typically end with the rebel's destruction. Our goals are to thrive, and to demonstrate the State's irrelevance. That's why I focus on living my principles, talking about them, and raising non-aggressive children.

[cynicist]

Its becoming quite apparent you don't know the answer to my question.I am saying the process is the same. You need to build up a consensus and then use that consensus to achieve the desired result. I never tried to say legalizing weed is gonna give us a free state. I'm saying its an incremental goal that would increase freedom in-between the long term goal of getting people to understand the more broad concepts. I can teach a kid to add on their fingers up to 10. Sure that doesn't necessarily mean he knows how to add and subtract in the broad sense, but it sure as hell works in the mean time.

 

You are ignoring my answer.

 

Participating in voting as a method to achieve freedom does the opposite of getting us closer to freedom from the state, it further enslaves people by giving them the illusion that fundamental change can happen through the political process. You are trying to convince them that voting works, despite all the evidence to the contrary. 

 

My point is you say nothing can be done in short term politically, but at some point long term goals will require short term progress. How will that transition happen if we accept the idea that we can't use political action to get what we want? What's the transition plan. The short term goal is to convince more people how much government sucks. So its 2030 and people are convinced. Now what.

 

I just told you there is no short term solution for dealing with the government, and you are choosing to ignore that. Convincing people that the government sucks is not the plan. The plan is to raise children peacefully, which people certainly are not convinced of in the mainstream. If you want to beat the libertarian drum go right ahead, but don't be surprised to find yourself stuck in the 1% of the population that has voted libertarian historically.

[Magnus]

If you want to beat the libertarian drum go right ahead, but don't be surprised to find yourself stuck in the 1% of the population that has voted libertarian historically.

Don't forget the 60% of eligible voters who don't vote. That's a great libertarian electoral victory!

[ribuck]

If people started getting locked up over taxes though... I think that might make a strong enough point.

 

People already get locked up over taxes. For example, Irwin Schiff (Peter Schiff's father) is languishing in prison on a 13-year sentence (his second imprisonment) for tax resistance.

[jpahmad]

Use the Bartleby approach and just say "I prefer not to."  That way you are not stating how things ought to be, but just stating what you are not going to do.  This will be met with the least amount of resistance and most amount of understanding.

 

"I prefer not to use violence"

 

"I prefer not to vote"

 

etc..

 

Lead by example

[Jagsfan82]

People already get locked up over taxes. For example, Irwin Schiff (Peter Schiff's father) is languishing in prison on a 13-year sentence (his second imprisonment) for tax resistance.

I didn't mean to imply no one gets locked up over taxes or ask if anyone does, I mean to imply that I do not know if I would.  First of all, I haven't given the federal government a dime of taxes in my entire life.  As a matter of fact, I have received credits of probably 5-10k over the past 7 years.  I do anticipate owing the federal government taxes and typically pay the state a couple hundred dollars a year.  How much in taxes would I need to not pay before they put me in prison?  I know the jail sentences for fines in traffic court can be close to insanity (I seem to recall about 40 days in jail for $1000?).  

 

 

 

If you want a solution to fighting the State in the short term, the most powerful would by non-violent ways to publicly undermine the power in the State's symbols of authority.

 

But I would never promote or recommend those actions. They typically end with the rebel's destruction. Our goals are to thrive, and to demonstrate the State's irrelevance. That's why I focus on living my principles, talking about them, and raising non-aggressive children.

 

 

You are ignoring my answer.

 

I just told you there is no short term solution for dealing with the government, and you are choosing to ignore that. Convincing people that the government sucks is not the plan. The plan is to raise children peacefully, which people certainly are not convinced of in the mainstream. If you want to beat the libertarian drum go right ahead, but don't be surprised to find yourself stuck in the 1% of the population that has voted libertarian historically.

I am not ignoring your answer, you have not given one.  You stated

 

"The point is that in the future, people will understand that government and the initiation of force is not required for self-defense or a legal system, or any of the things that people think are necessary prerequisites for having a civil society. The ultimate goal is to not have that system, so there is nothing to curtail or be vigilant over."

 

My question was once the future arrives and people understand that government and the initiation of force is not required for self-defense, or a legal system, or any of the things that people think are necessary prerequisites for having a civil society... once this happens how to we reach the ultimate goal of not having that system?  How do we go from enlightened people living under a tyrannical state fueled by big corporations and corrupt politicians to enlightened citizens not living under a tyrannical state fueled by big corporations?  

 

So although being pretty vague as to my actual question, and despite some contradictions in what was said earlier... I am going to do some work and make up what I THINK the plan to make a difference is.  

 

It appears that the thought is to never use any sort of political action to make a difference.  The plan is to slowly build up a population that has a significantly higher degree of enlightenment and rational thinking then the current population.  At this point the goal is to then simply choose to ignore the state, which would suffocate the state out of existence.  Maybe its the not paying taxes idea.  Again.. the answer received is very vague and I'm trying to fill in some blanks, so I beg of you to elaborate.

 

 

[Magnus]

the answer received is very vague and I'm trying to fill in some blanks, so I beg of you to elaborate.

 

 

I don't think the answers you've gotten are vague.  I think you are resistant to a new way of thinking, which is entirely normal, since broad new ideas take time to digest. 

 

One of the main problems of modern life under the corporate State is that we have been conditioned from birth, for many generations, to believe in the power of politics.  We are told, explicitly and implicitly, that the composition of government, and actions taken by it, are all-important and a reflection of society as a whole.  This is an inherent attitude of progressivism, conservatism, from Communists through Christian Social Democrats and everything in between. 

 

The State is a master at two things -- violence and lies.  It is an expert at taking credit for other people's successes, and avoiding blame for the destruction it causes.  It's easy to mistakenly believe the government could be a potential instrument for good, but it can't be.  It's corrupt at its core. 

 

Trying to vote to get the State to stop subjugating people is like trying to organize a vote whereby the inmates in a prison camp can vote on whether they'll be released.  They wouldn't be in a prison camp in the first place if that were one of the realistic outcomes of an election.  Obviously, the prisoners can only be permitted to vote on a very small range of topics. The fundamental restructuring of the power relationship between inmates and prison guards is not one of them. 

 

We are trained (by the Statist school system, mostly) to look to the State as the fountain of importance.  For the infrastructure and coherence of the society.  For the definition of the composition of society.  For our identity. 

 

Most histories that have been written are essentially political histories.  Even the calendar used to be expressed in terms of the number of years the current king has ruled (i.e., regnal years).  The West didn't change over to numbering years consecutively until the 8th century, when the idea was promoted by the Venerable Bede, as a way of adapting the custom of using regnal years to instead base them on "the King of Kings."  In other words, even the marking of time is, in its origin, a political reference. 

 

How is it possible to use the political system to end the political system?  That's not what it was made to do.  It gets stronger by your participation in it.  The only two options are to either accelerate its inevitable self-destruction, or avoid it altogether.  Otherwise, it's like using slaves to end slavery.  Or forming a church to end theism.   You're working against your stated goals.

 

The important parts of life are out here, away from government.  In family, friends, community, art, science, entrepreneurship, etc. 

[LovePrevails]

What is the point in talking liberals round to libertarianism? what are they gonna do? vote?

 

if you want talk about what people can change

spread the word on peaceful parenting for example

 

that kind of stuff makes a real difference to peoples lives

[tasmlab]

A web search for"How I became free in an unfree world" pdfwon't disappoint.

 

I ended up buying a used copy for like $50.  As an aside, that this book doesn't remain marketable for even a few decades is sad news.  I know Stef has plans that FDR will be around for centuries.

[Jagsfan82]

 

Your view seems to be different than that of cynicist... 

If I understand it correctly, I am not resistant to it as much as I just disagree with it.  I disagree that you cannot make progress through political action and who we elect to office doesn't matter.  To assume that would be to say if Stef and 400 other anarcho libertarians controlled the executive and legislative branch we would somehow change all of our views, be influenced by money, and not vote to peel back the control of government.  I don't think you would agree with that statement.  To say that we couldn't be elected would be to say that votes don't matter.  To say that we could never get votes would be to say the whole point of FDR and other avenues of communicating the libertarian anarchist view aren't effective, which would be defeat the purpose of investing time and energy and money into the effort, which was kinda the whole purpose of this post.  Even if we take that statement as true though, that we can never have an impact through political action, I was simply trying to inquire as to how we can eventually make dents into government control and power.  It appears your viewpoint is essentially that it is impossible, and we have to learn to live as free, empathetic, ethical people under the tyranny of government that will always be there.  If that is not your viewpoint than I ask again to elaborate and be more specific.  At what point does the tyranny of government become reduced?  I understand the importance of what you are saying and I completely agree in the importance of the steps you are advocating.  And under the assumption that we have no influence over the government it would be pretty silly to try to disagree with what you and cynicist are saying about sustainable long term influence and change.  I just think you are taking the tendencies of government long term, which is to increase and power and influence, and apply them to the individuals.  Its sort of like taking the tendencies of the free market and saying that each individual situation within the free market must follow those principles, which would be pretty illogical.  Of course not every worker gets paid what they are worth.  Of course not every good is sold at the equilibrium point between supply and demand.  Just because increasing government size and control over time is inevitable does not mean that it is impossible to work against those trends.   

What is the point in talking liberals round to libertarianism? what are they gonna do? vote?

 

if you want talk about what people can change

spread the word on peaceful parenting for example

 

that kind of stuff makes a real difference to peoples lives

Certainly.. but the idea behind this post is how to prevent the impending collapse of the economy.  The general vibe I am getting is there is nothing we can do about.  We just need to prepare ourselves accordingly.  Were in the path of the tornado.  We don't have time to get out of the storm path, and we just need to bunker down and make the best of a shitty situation.I am not ready to give up on hope though.  I don't think things will get better after the collapse, I think it will get worse, especially if we believe the individuals influencing government are as evil and corrupt as Magnus claims them to be.   I still believe that the constitution allows us to have a certain amount of influence.  Just because dismantling government completely cannot be accomplished, does not mean we can't make enough of a difference to at worst keep our freedoms from further attack, and at best increase our freedom significantly.