HumanThought Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 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. If you have nothing for them to take then they will take you, because they realize they've lost control of you. That is my assumption at least, and that is why the ascetics (think Jesus, Ghandi, Siddhartha Gautama) are the leaders of the biggest revolutions. Ascetics are the biggest threat to the state, because the state keeps you obedient by threatening to take away your things. What if you have no things? What if you work for food and shelter directly, effectively bypassing currency? Live this way and you will find what true power and confidence is. You will find fullfillment. And most of all, you won't have to actively push your ideas on others, people pick up on your newfound confidence of action and come to you interested. That's when they are ready to listen. Fuck the players. Fuck the game.Be the change. Create the game. Render the old one obsolete.
Magnus Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 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. I don't disagree with it, so much as it sounds like a proposal to grow wings out of your back and fly to the moon. It's ridiculous, in the extreme. To say that we couldn't be elected would be to say that votes don't matter. 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. I can only say what I've said before so many times before I assume you aren't going to listen.The point of communicating the anarchist view is long term benefit. As in 5+ generations from now, maybe anarchism will be somewhat mainstream. 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. Always? No. But it took 3,000 years for Western society to accept atheism to the point of not murdering atheists on sight. The point is to build a successful, thriving, but tiny group of people who will survive the collapse of the US government, and perpetuate ideas of non-aggression, building generation after generation, until we can count our numbers in the tens of thousands. At what point does the tyranny of government become reduced? Five or six generations from now. Not in our lifetimes. Or, maybe sooner if we experience a near-total collapse of civilization, involving a loss of electricity production. I still believe that the constitution allows us to have a certain amount of influence. No, none. The US Constitution ceased to be meaningful after the so-called Civil War. It means nothing. Read Bastiat, who saw 150 years ago that the Left and the Right wings were two factions fighting over who could rob the populace faster. Read Lysander Spooner, who explained the insignificance of the Constitution 130 years ago, and that was well before the rise of the welfare state and the habit of launching foreign wars. Read Smedley Butler, one of the most decorated Marines in US history. He saw in the 1920s that the US Marine Corps was worse than the Mafia. Read Confessions of an Economic Hitman.One of the most important parts of the US Constitution was the prohibition on all exercises of power except those specifically enumerated. That limitation formally ceased to exist in 1937, well before you and I were born. There is zero Constitutional authority for the Federal Reserve, Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, Medicaid, welfare, SSI, drug laws, bank fraud and robbery prosecutions, telecommunications regulation, the federal highway system ... pretty much 90% of what the US government pays for and does these days. Try convincing the banks, financial industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the media or the oil industry of these arguments. Pick any one, and give it a try.
cynicist Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Your view seems to be different than that of cynicist... That's interesting, in what way? From what I've seen, Magnus and myself have been saying the same thing using different words. 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. Government is not really hierarchical, that's just an illusion, because the people at the top are no different than you or I. The only reason they are able to do anything at all is because the overwhelming majority support government in one way or another. If you make one thing legal, you are not saying that violence is wrong in all situations, you are saying it is only not ok in this instance, and so you change nothing. What we're saying is that once people learn how to be free, empathetic, and ethical, government will no longer make sense. The origin of the government's power is in the family and more specifically the abuse against children, which conditions them to accept coercive power as legitimate authority. I think the core issue here is that you and I look at the government quite differently, and that's why you can't see what I'm proposing as a solution to the problem. One of the most important parts of the US Constitution was the prohibition on all exercises of power except those specifically enumerated. That limitation formally ceased to exist in 1937, well before you and I were born. There is zero Constitutional authority for the Federal Reserve, Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, Medicaid, welfare, SSI, drug laws, bank fraud and robbery prosecutions, telecommunications regulation, the federal highway system ... pretty much 90% of what the US government pays for and does these days. Yeah I missed the part of the constitution that gives the president the authority to murder Americans abroad. If that doesn't shake your confidence in the legal system then nothing will.
Magnus Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Yeah I missed the part of the constitution that gives the president the authority to murder Americans abroad. If that doesn't shake your confidence in the legal system then nothing will. There is an enormous surveillance apparatus in place, tracking everyone's electronic communications. All emails, all phone calls, all texts, all Internet traffic, everything. It's all going into data centers like the one in Utah. When the Boston Marathon bomber was first identified, but still on the loose, they tracked down his ex-wife. There was an article in the Guardian about the CNN interviews that revealed how extensive the surveillance network is: anonymous government officials are claiming that they are now focused on telephone calls between Russell and Tsarnaev that took place both before and after the attack to determine if she had prior knowledge of the plot or participated in any way. Since Tsarnaev wasn't under specific surveillance prior to the bombing, the only way it would be possible to listen to pre-bombing phone calls is: every single telephone call made by and among Americans is recorded and stored This is the State that is going to respect the Constitution when a few trillion dollars in government money are at stake?
Jagsfan82 Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 . I think the core issue here is that you and I look at the government quite differently, and that's why you can't see what I'm proposing as a solution to the problem. False. The difference is you don't seem to be advocating any incremental change. You seem to want complete consistency rather than fighting for as much freedom as possible... The only reason they are able to do anything at all is because the overwhelming majority support government in one way or another. If you make one thing legal, you are not saying that violence is wrong in all situations, you are saying it is only not ok in this instance, and so you change nothing. Ya... I don't get that logic. I never said I want to achieve a moral victory in which all violations of the NAP are prevented. I just want to target the violations that I believe could garner popular support. If we make one thing legal (IE: Marijuana) then we don't 'change nothing', we change the fact that people's property rights are being violated in regard to marijuana use. Sure they still can be violated for cocaine or heroin, but its still more freedom than people had before... I don't disagree with it, so much as it sounds like a proposal to grow wings out of your back and fly to the moon. It's ridiculous, in the extreme. You mention wanting numbers in the tens of thousands. The libertarian freedom movement is in the millions. I don't think the government is going to collapse to the point where the anarcho-libertarian movement can sweep in with logic and reason and set up a more ethical society. I think we could make change now if we focus on the right issues. To say that people can't have any impact over government seems to deny past 'revolutions'. I am no history major but what about the American revolution? Was the constitutional government we had in the early 19th century not far better than what we have today? This is an area I have no knowledge of but the 'Arab Spring' had no impact? I get that these things just institute a new government, but if it takes generations upon generations to get significant change, shouldn't we try for incremental change in the mean time? I think you vastly underestimate the amount of libertarians. Anarchists certainly are fewer than libertarians, but it would be much easier to convince a libertarian of the virtues of anarchy than a liberal. No, none. The US Constitution ceased to be meaningful after the so-called Civil War. It means nothing. Read Bastiat, who saw 150 years ago that the Left and the Right wings were two factions fighting over who could rob the populace faster. Read Lysander Spooner, who explained the insignificance of the Constitution 130 years ago, and that was well before the rise of the welfare state and the habit of launching foreign wars. Read Smedley Butler, one of the most decorated Marines in US history. He saw in the 1920s that the US Marine Corps was worse than the Mafia. Read Confessions of an Economic Hitman. certainly most of the constitution is useless, but I simply mean the governmental structure that it is based around. Officials in office still pass laws. To say this isn't true just doesn't make sense. Bush tax cuts enabled more freedom than before the tax cuts. The top tax bracket was at what 90% tax rate in the 50s? Is the fact that it currently sits under 40 not a significant win for property rights? What about the civil rights movement? Did the minority of black citizens using non-violent protest really have NO impact on their rights as humans?I get that all government is evil. I get that to try to push for a state that is even close to what we had in the early 19th century is very unlikely. I get that relatively speaking it isn't SIGNIFICANT change and there are still huge ethical concerns with the actions of government. But making SOME change ANY change that increases the amount of freedom and restores liberties has to be worth fighting for doesn't it? Would real life examples and before and after pictures of what peeling back small amounts of government not have an impact in making people realize the fallacies that are given to them on a daily basis by those in power?
cynicist Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 False. The difference is you don't seem to be advocating any incremental change. You seem to want complete consistency rather than fighting for as much freedom as possible... Anything other than consistency is not going to bring about freedom. Like the example I gave you earlier. If you try to convince abusive husbands not to hit their wives for letting a meal get cold, you haven't really achieved much have you? In fact I could argue that convincing them to abstain in that area would only make it easier for them to justify it in others. If the truth is that the system as a whole is corrupt and evil, why don't we work towards removing it instead of trying to work within it? (where there is a large incentive for people who benefit from state power to oppose you, and fund your enemies or tempt you with money) Ya... I don't get that logic. I never said I want to achieve a moral victory in which all violations of the NAP are prevented. I just want to target the violations that I believe could garner popular support. If we make one thing legal (IE: Marijuana) then we don't 'change nothing', we change the fact that people's property rights are being violated in regard to marijuana use. Sure they still can be violated for cocaine or heroin, but its still more freedom than people had I never said all violations of NAP would be prevented. The capacity for human beings to do great evil will always be there, the difference is it won't be lauded as necessary or even moral like it is today. Marijuana legalization is not a huge issue for the state, they dangle it in front of voters but they could care less as long as they continue to print money and increase taxes in various ways. Hell, they can tax the newly legalized drug as well. Changing the stuff that really matters is not going to happen through political action. Sorry but we absolutely see things differently here. I'm not sure what is motivating you to pursue this path but I can see that I'm not going to sway you, so I'll just leave the wisdom of George Carlin here and wish you luck in finding the solution for freedom.
Magnus Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 The American revolution was a step down in terms of economic freedom. Monarchy was marginally better, as Hoppe laid out in Democracy: The God That Failed. There was more economic freedom under the British monarchy than Cromwell's disastrous republic. Without the US revolution, slavery (which England abolished) would have ended sooner than it did. The Articles of Confederation were scrapped and a stronger central state was organized largely in response to the prior government's inability to effectively quell tax protesters. Ironic, I guess. The Civil War was fought because Lincoln was a professional railroad lobbyist, and his agenda was to expand massive railroad-building subsidies, which were to be paid for with taxes collected from Southern taxpayers (almost all taxes were import duties, and the South bought most of the imported goods). The war was fought to prevent the railroad-building tax source from escaping federal taxes. Also, as a response to criticism, Lincoln used the military to shut down newspapers. Secession was patently Constitutional. The government you think was more free than today's killed 700,000 people in an illegal war, just to ensure a steady stream of funds for its railroad subsidies. Do you really think that same organization is going to allow any meaningful changes in the benefits it currently confers on banks? Military contractors? The oil business? Try something relatively simple -- start a telecommunication company that competes against Comcast, which enjoys federally-sponsored legal monopolies all over the place. Try organizing a repeal of the federal telecom market restrictions. Step on a few crony capitalists' toes. Threaten the protectionism they currently enjoy by trying to offer consumers a better, cheaper telecom service. You would give people a great market alternative if you succeeded, but the reality is that you'd be shut down within a month or less before you strung the first length of coaxial. You'd quickly see who the politicians really work for. (And telecom is about 11th on the list of the corporate owners of USA, Inc. They'd still crush you, just for daring to upset the status quo.)
Devon Gibbons Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 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. In my opinion the faster people stop trying to revive this scarcely viable state, the faster it will fall - and the better.
Jagsfan82 Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 Anything other than consistency is not going to bring about freedom. Like the example I gave you earlier. If you try to convince abusive husbands not to hit their wives for letting a meal get cold, you haven't really achieved much have you? In fact I could argue that convincing them to abstain in that area would only make it easier for them to justify it in others. If the truth is that the system as a whole is corrupt and evil, why don't we work towards removing it instead of trying to work within it? (where there is a large incentive for people who benefit from state power to oppose you, and fund your enemies or tempt you with money) I never said all violations of NAP would be prevented. The capacity for human beings to do great evil will always be there, the difference is it won't be lauded as necessary or even moral like it is today. Marijuana legalization is not a huge issue for the state, they dangle it in front of voters but they could care less as long as they continue to print money and increase taxes in various ways. Hell, they can tax the newly legalized drug as well. Changing the stuff that really matters is not going to happen through political action. Its not that I disagree with you. I also want everything you want, I just am not giving up hope on incremental change, whereas many are. I haven't achieved much when I convince a husband not to hit their wives when the meal gets cold? I've achieved saving the wife from getting beat every time this happens. I would say thats important. Who are you to determine what freedoms are important to people and not important to people? I don't understand how I could in any sense be advocating violence in another scenario by convincing the husband not to hit his wife over dinner. Explain the logic and maybe I can buy it.There is a better more logical argument for saying using the current system to achieve incremental change might legitimize the system and prolong its existence, but I don't buy into it. If that was the only effort we were pursuing I completely agree. I am not advocating ignoring the type of influence and change you are suggesting. I just don't believe in the scarcity argument here that we have to have one or the other. I don't see how Stef spending his time advocating for less abuse in childhood while peter schiff fights to end the fed isn't a legitimate possibility. I did not mean to imply you thought you could achieve 0 violations of the NAP policy, I meant specific to government. "Marijuana legalization is not a huge issue for the state"Bullshit argument. Whose on this board of directors for "the state". I didn't know there was a secret committee of decision makers that were pulling strings on what the state cares about. The state is nonexistent. People make decisions. The idea that theres some long term plan of keeping the society dumbed down so they can continue to take advantage of the people and collect more and more data is as insane as believing there is a god. These things are effects. The dumbing down of society is an effect and a trend of government monopolies. Increasing taxes is a trend of government control. Increasing control both economically and socially is a trend of government. These are not plans that the founding fathers talked about as passed on to future politicians to work towards behind the scene. They are just what happens when government exists.To say that keeping millions out of prison by legalizing marijuana isn't a significant change is amazingly selfish and displays a huge lack of empathy towards those who have had their freedoms taken away. I get that there is a bigger issue at hand that needs to be worked towards, but to ignore the possibility of helping others in real significant ways is... really amazing. Especially when you make the claim legalizing marijuana isn't a big issue. If its not a big issue then it should be easy to accomplish right? Again I can't stress enough. I agree with you. Changing the BIG underlying issues are going to be hard to do through political action. Creating a higher population of empathetic rational thinkers that don't buy into the logical fallacies behind government is very important. But to say that political action cannot help increase freedom I can't buy. You do accomplish something by convincing the husband not to beat his wife over cold dinner. Using data estimates on marijuana use before and after legalization compared to improved crime rates, less money to drug cartels, financial savings in related public services like police and the judicial system. These are measurable cause and effect relationships that provide the liberty movement with more ammunition to fight logical fallacies. These are all real effects that make a difference in peoples lives. In my opinion the faster people stop trying to revive this scarcely viable state, the faster it will fall - and the better. Certainly a viable argument, except do we know how government is going to respond after the "fall". Will it ever "fall" hard enough to where it doesn't just justify increased control over its citizens and the economy to keep "law and order?Don't we have some history to look to for what happens after governments fall? The American revolution was a step down in terms of economic freedom. Monarchy was marginally better, as Hoppe laid out in Democracy: The God That Failed. There was more economic freedom under the British monarchy than Cromwell's disastrous republic. Without the US revolution, slavery (which England abolished) would have ended sooner than it did. The Articles of Confederation were scrapped and a stronger central state was organized largely in response to the prior government's inability to effectively quell tax protesters. Ironic, I guess.The Civil War was fought because Lincoln was a professional railroad lobbyist, and his agenda was to expand massive railroad-building subsidies, which were to be paid for with taxes collected from Southern taxpayers (almost all taxes were import duties, and the South bought most of the imported goods). The war was fought to prevent the railroad-building tax source from escaping federal taxes. Also, as a response to criticism, Lincoln used the military to shut down newspapers. Secession was patently Constitutional. The government you think was more free than today's killed 700,000 people in an illegal war, just to ensure a steady stream of funds for its railroad subsidies.Do you really think that same organization is going to allow any meaningful changes in the benefits it currently confers on banks? Military contractors? The oil business?Try something relatively simple -- start a telecommunication company that competes against Comcast, which enjoys federally-sponsored legal monopolies all over the place. Try organizing a repeal of the federal telecom market restrictions. Step on a few crony capitalists' toes. Threaten the protectionism they currently enjoy by trying to offer consumers a better, cheaper telecom service. You would give people a great market alternative if you succeeded, but the reality is that you'd be shut down within a month or less before you strung the first length of coaxial. You'd quickly see who the politicians really work for. (And telecom is about 11th on the list of the corporate owners of USA, Inc. They'd still crush you, just for daring to upset the status quo.) Thanks for the history. There are plenty of viable substitutes to Comcast, and there are plenty of small telecommunication companies competing with comcast. That is not to say that comcast does not enjoy higher barrier to entries in specific markets due to crony capitalism, and not to say that your point doesn't have at least some merit. There are a lot of corporations that have a lot of money and influence that are not for changing the crony capitalism system we currently have... but doesn't every example of the use of government influence to shut down legitimate companies / movements just increase the ammunition we have to influence others? If I started said telecommunication company, couldn't I use this experience to gain support against crony capitalism among customers that are unhappy with a monopolistic comcast?
cynicist Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 I haven't achieved much when I convince a husband not to hit their wives when the meal gets cold? I've achieved saving the wife from getting beat every time this happens. I would say thats important. Who are you to determine what freedoms are important to people and not important to people? I don't understand how I could in any sense be advocating violence in another scenario by convincing the husband not to hit his wife over dinner. Explain the logic and maybe I can buy it. The logic is this, the husband thinks violence against his wife is ok, even if you convince him not to do it in a particular situation. The real problem is the violence, not the instance of it. How could you think you are saving the wife from anything? As long as violence is acceptable he will just hit her for any other reason or come up with any other justification for it. All you have done is give him cause to say, "See? I'm reasonable. I'm not hitting you when you do that anymore." I don't see how Stef spending his time advocating for less abuse in childhood while peter schiff fights to end the fed isn't a legitimate possibility. Except Peter is not going to end the fed, and Stefan has already reduced child abuse by convincing many parents not to hit their children. Do you see my point? Bullshit argument. Whose on this board of directors for "the state". I didn't know there was a secret committee of decision makers that were pulling strings on what the state cares about. The state is nonexistent. People make decisions. Wow you are actually starting to irritate me. I'm not saying there is a formal committee.... What I'm saying is that people act in their own best interests. If I was a politician who got paid to dole out favors to people, then I'm not going to be interested in the issue of marijuana unless there is profit involved for me, by either voting against it or supporting its legalization. Whatever gives me more power or financial resources is going to be where I invest my efforts, because that is the whole point of being in political office. Increasing taxes is a trend of government control. Increasing control both economically and socially is a trend of government. Exactly. So why are you being so naive by suggesting that we are going to elect people who this time, will absolutely go by principles rather than simply increase their own wealth or power? To say that keeping millions out of prison by legalizing marijuana isn't a significant change is amazingly selfish and displays a huge lack of empathy towards those who have had their freedoms taken away. I get that there is a bigger issue at hand that needs to be worked towards, but to ignore the possibility of helping others in real significant ways is... really amazing. Especially when you make the claim legalizing marijuana isn't a big issue. If its not a big issue then it should be easy to accomplish right? Oh my god. Aren't you forgetting all the police officers, prison unions, and federal agents that you will be putting out of a job by legalizing these drugs? Not to mention commercial industries that might have something to say about it. I think what's amazing is your capacity for deluding yourself into thinking that this will happen without it being beneficial to some politician. My point is that it's not a big issue currently because politicians don't benefit from it, so they have no incentive to do it. Accusing me of being selfish and having a lack of empathy is just... I don't even know... well I'm definitely done from this point. I really hope you don't waste your life chasing this fantasy.
Jagsfan82 Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 I think we've hashed this one out pretty good.I don't buy that political action won't work. I think we can win back some liberty on the way to building a more ethical, empirically thinking, rational populous. Others think it is a waste of time because there are too many money connections and self interest motivated people in the office. There is no real way to measure this. We both could probably find ample empirical evidence to support our sides, only partially relevant to the current politics of the US.I don't mean to imply that you might not be correct. Its certainly possible despite a combined effort of millions of libertarians we would get absolutely nothing accomplished in terms of freedom and just end up in a net negative by perpetuating the problem. I just really don't want to find out what happens when shit hits the fan in a few years. I feel government tyranny is going to get worse. I'd like to try to prevent that situation from happening. I think its pretty obvious real significant long lasting change won't happen for a significant time period, and the only way to get there is through the methods you and others have mentioned. We agree on that. So thats good.
dsayers Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 @Magnus: Thanks for making that contrast. It was educational.
Recommended Posts