kavih Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 At 12:32 and 33:44 of this recent discussion Stefan's approach to changing the world is challenged as the best approach. The reason I'm posting this topic is to have enough of the FDR community chime in and rate it up, in the hopes that Stefan will review the video in one of his own videos, where he can have a rebuttal against the two approaches outlined in the discussion and to defend his own approach. Direct link to 12:32: http://youtu.be/BmsH2RFlYbQ?t=12m32s Direct link to 33:44: http://youtu.be/BmsH2RFlYbQ?t=33m44s What are everyone's thoughts? And if you want Stefan to make a rebuttal video, vote this up! Cheers
thelizardking52 Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 IMHO it's a waste of time to resort to violence to change the government, lest it be self defense and unavoidable. You'd inevitably end up with another government and the aggression would continue even if it were on a lesser scale and even then, given time, would naturally escalate to become the beast that it is. Civil disobedience is acceptable, but that means no force to be used. Feesible anarchy requires a peaceful society, not one that was created from violence. I've yet to see a better theory on how mankind reach the stateless society than the idea of peaceful parenting. Abolish the state by pointing out its evil and rejecting it in all its forms. The state can only exist as long as it commands respect and our minds. Society allows itself to be ruled thru acceptance of it's master.Practicing morality and virtue encourages more morality and virtue, likewise practicing violence begets more violence. I'm not pointing out anything new here, am I?
Culain Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 IMHO it's a waste of time to resort to violence to change the government, lest it be self defense and unavoidable. You'd inevitably end up with another government and the aggression would continue even if it were on a lesser scale and even then, given time, would naturally escalate to become the beast that it is. Civil disobedience is acceptable, but that means no force to be used. Feesible anarchy requires a peaceful society, not one that was created from violence. I've yet to see a better theory on how mankind reach the stateless society than the idea of peaceful parenting. Abolish the state by pointing out its evil and rejecting it in all its forms. The state can only exist as long as it commands respect and our minds. Society allows itself to be ruled thru acceptance of it's master.Practicing morality and virtue encourages more morality and virtue, likewise practicing violence begets more violence. I'm not pointing out anything new here, am I? This is literally what I came in here to write. I think Adam's approach at the TopDown dismantling of the Federal Government is a good strategy, but I think that once it's at a state level it will inevitably grow back to a federal level. This will continue to occur until root cause of aggression is addressed. I'm glad that they both acknowledge peaceful parenting as something rather than nothing, but I still have difficulty taking Cantwell serious when he thinks he can get 5% of the population to be ready to shoot cops. Edit: I really think Cantwell needs to solve his own aggression and trauma towards violence before he prescribes solutions to society. He is literally pecking at a hornets nest almost as if he wants an excuse to martyr himself in some bloodbath.
kavih Posted June 12, 2014 Author Posted June 12, 2014 I agree with you both (thelizardking52 and Culain). You hit on a really good point Culain, about Cantwell resolving his own aggression and trauma if it exists (though, he calls himself an Asshole directly on his own blog/website). I think both of Adam's and Cantwell's approaches are striving to solve the issue in a more timely manner than peaceful parenting, because, literally, we have to wait for the peaceful children to grow up to continue the cycle of peaceful parenting with their kids. I think we can all agree we want the state out of our lives sooner than later, but Cantwell's approach just seems too risky and to find justification of his approach being "self-defense" seems fruitless in the eyes of 50% of the population (Democrats, liberals, gun-law proponents, etc.) to be effective.
kavih Posted June 12, 2014 Author Posted June 12, 2014 AustinJames, you may be on to something and maybe all we need is to give Chris some time and some more Stefan, as described at the following comment (where, after listening to Stefan, Chris changed his mind temporarily): https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/37034-chris-cantwell-vs-stefan-molyneux-debate/?p=368776 Though, Chris published that article I believe prior to his interview with Adam, so mabye not...
Magnus Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Statism thrives on two things -- symbolism and force. Shooting police helps liberty in neither respect. In fact, the propaganda value of shooting police would greatly increase the incentive and pressure on the state to grow more powerful. A frontal violent assault on statism is just about the worst approach I can think of, both in terms of the tactical and the symbolic benefits.
PatrickC Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 I haven't watched the video yet. But I thought Chris had changed his mind on this issue after hours of listening to stefs take on male disposibility.
thelizardking52 Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 His argument runs counter to the non-agression principle.
Brentb Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Why do they ask how to get rid of government when it is about to collapse under it's own weight? The current system is growing more unstable by the day. Will there be police departments after the dollar collapses? I don't see why anyone should rush into a burning building to plant bombs. I also don't see how normalizing killing could possibly lead to anything but mass deaths and broken and dysfunctional people. If you kill someone, then you and everyone around you will have to live with a killer for the rest of your lives.
Ahren Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 Basically he is advocating starting a second American Civil war to end slavery. I think that is insane.
DSEngere Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 One thing that's troubled me is Cantwell's callous attitude toward generally decent people who have simply been brainwashed their entire lives. Seeing that a lot of us have come from conservative backgrounds (strong police, strong military, etc.) How many of us considered joining the police or military before we became anarchists? I would wager a good percentage. That being said, if I were a cop, I would rather someone reason with me instead of simply shooting me or my family members. I'm not inherently opposed to the use of force, but it must only be used as a last resort against aggression when reason has failed. Your thoughts?
TDB Posted June 20, 2014 Posted June 20, 2014 , if I were a cop, I would rather someone reason with me instead of simply shooting me This is better from our perspective also, though difficult. I think it would be very difficult to prevent a violent revolution from producing a new state. Reminds me of a quote, something about, "use good means and the ends take care of themselves."I do ink this is a challenge. Some LEOs can be convinced, but they have a hard time keeping their jobs after that. And removing the good apples increases the proportion of bad apples.
dazed and confused Posted June 20, 2014 Posted June 20, 2014 using direct force against the state is a terrible idea, there is no way you can win, you will all just get shot. all you"ll get is tanks running through the streets. peaceful parenting wont work either, if 1% on the population is going to be raised by non violence they will still pay taxes and still vote. there is no causation between not getting spanked and being an anarcho capitalism. i dont know what would work but my current thinking is that the best bet would be to get together and start our own small communities. something like the amish have done.
prolix Posted June 20, 2014 Posted June 20, 2014 A couple things. First it is not "stefans approach". Hopefully that is self evident. Secondly, I do recall Stefan has outlined the response to this particular issue many times. Maybe not specifically and point by point in regards to this video. The issue basically comes back to the "how????" discussion. "Who cares" and "I don't know" are the only reasonable answers. Only when children are raised properly is the "how" even relevant. Once it is actually relevant it will be impossible to outline at this point in time. I do think a debate between Stefan and Cantwell would be interesting. But I also think it could possibly go the Peter Joseph and/or Sam Seeder route and be interesting in all the wrong ways...
Sal9000 Posted June 20, 2014 Posted June 20, 2014 What Cantwell says is insane. Counter-insurgency techniques (killing people, torture and so on) have been studied by governments all over the world. Some manuals describing tactics likely to be used in case of an insurrection are available online (http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf). I strongly recommend every armchair anarchist to see 'The battle of Algiers'. Warning: this movie is realistic in its display of violence http://www.chebmusic.com/viewvideo/64853/algerie/battle-of-algiers-english-subtitles '
DSEngere Posted June 20, 2014 Posted June 20, 2014 Very stimulating discussion.One thing that stands out to me is how the state must feel when they read responses like "Armed revolution is insane". I think it probably bolsters them a lot, and it's exactly how they want you to feel. When you have most people shouting "even though the state is the bane of society, we will never resist it!", I think that may be counter productive. If you had a much smaller and easier to manage criminal gang on your hands going around and wrecking society, there would be absolutely no question that using force against them would be the proper course of action.
James Dean Posted June 20, 2014 Posted June 20, 2014 A revolution-esque transition to a stateless society might work, much later down the road. I would predict civil disobedience on some sort of large scale, a tax revolt (though they would just print more money) maybe a boycott of the current currency, pockets of agorism sprouting up everywhere, that sort of thing. I don't think that it would be violent at all, but the public consciousness needs to be there. You can't shoot a flare over a crowd of blind people. I don't know if this would even be possible in my lifetime, let alone Stef's. ALSO! a big problem with adam's plan is that once you return the power to the states, you create a mini minarchist problem, in that the reduce in bullshit from the federal level will increase wealth, and then the government will just get bigger.
Recommended Posts