'Against Me' argument -- possible caveat

[Laforge]

I genuinely think FDR is awesome and want to extrapolate its success here.
Let's assume it won't be long before the whole statist world starts to really take notice of voluntaryist principles.
Say, thanks to the internet, around 2018 Stefan really hits the media positively.
(maybe some intelligent rich famous people finally start to agree with him and donate the living shit out of FDR )

The politicians will probably hate his guts but will as always try to manipulate everything to their advantage.
The current rulers certainly don't want to give up their power so what i think will happen is this:
They'll use the 'Against Me' argument against FDR.

"Ok, so you don't want to pay 100% of your taxes?"
"Fine, we won't initiate force against you."
"But... you are not allowed to leave your house and enter 'our' state-owned property, you lose those rights"
"We'll point a camera with motion sensors at your door to make sure you don't enter the public domain. Maybe we'll fence you in."
"We'll turn off your water, gas, electricity and maybe even block your sewer pipes."
"Now do you wanna pay taxes? Or would you prefer to be 'voluntarily' put in a rape cage for five years?"

Naturally it won't be explained like this in the media. The 2018 media may say something like:

"Stefan has a 100% free american heart and he has helped upgrade our horrible philosophical void into a proud nation again!"
"Welcome to North America, the only true voluntaryist lands where we DON'T initiate force against citizens"

Any insights on how the against-me argument can still be used then?

[Wuzzums]

If voluntarism becomes the norm then people will start policing the fake "voluntarist" state themselves. The phrase "I didn't agree to those terms" will become the ultimate defense against any scheme the state might try to pull. If they shut down your electricity and you say that you didn't agree to those terms then others will see that as the initiation of force and the state will have to deal with some severe backlash. The initiation of force does not imply violence necessarily, 

[WasatchMan]

"Ok, so you don't want to pay 100% of your taxes?"

"Fine, we won't initiate force against you."

"But... you are not allowed to leave your house and enter 'our' state-owned property, you lose those rights"

"We'll point a camera with motion sensors at your door to make sure you don't enter the public domain. Maybe we'll fence you in."

"We'll turn off your water, gas, electricity and maybe even block your sewer pipes."

"Now do you wanna pay taxes? Or would you prefer to be 'voluntarily' put in a rape cage for five years?"

 

Any insights on how the against-me argument can still be used then?

 

Your situation does not conflict with, or change, the against me argument, it is actually the impetus behind the against me argument.  That is a threat of force situation behind the against me argument.  An institution that claims dominion over all property and services with no legitimate claim and tells you have a choice to pay, die, or go to jail, is not voluntarism, it is the gun in the room.

 

Are they going to spin, and build propaganda, to make the "voluntarists" look like selfish free-loaders? Sure, but that is why Stef has always claimed that voluntarist society comes with the evolution of civilization and the acceptance of universal ethics, which is a multi-generational process of raising people better. There may be some rocky transition periods, but if the state is still able to convince the majority of people that "War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength" (1984) then we are still far away from a voluntarist society.

[jpahmad]

We don't have to wait for 2018.  That argument happens now.  I've must of heard it 500 times in my life from various people over the past 20 years.  Anytime someone mentions the phrase "public good", they're making that argument.

[DaviesMa]

One premise of your argument is that the 'state' has property rights, despite the state being a collection of individuals of a given country.

The state is a concept, in the same way that a forest is a concept but a tree is real or a herd of sheep is a concept but the individual sheep are real. A concept can't own property, only individuals can. Therefore 'the state' does not have the right to prohibit him from trespassing as it does not own the property.

 

Even if you said that the state was an entity, with the same capacity to own as an individual, the property that the state had homesteaded had been done by force by taxing people and paying for workmen to build the roads from the proceeds.

 

It is the equivalent of saying that a thief is the legal owner of the property he owns. If he has stolen it, which the state has done so with 100% of it's property, then it forfeits its right to ownership.

[Laforge]

Yup i'm just concerned that (through propaganda like above) the state will try to 'incorporate' libertarian values.
Like: hmmm, people are starting to listen to FDR, quick! Do what you did in history with successful companies: try to make FDR part of the state.
They'll show one of many videos proving the state is evil where only the against-me argument is used. And then yell "We fixed it thanks to FDR!!" "We are no longer criminals!"
...and one week later sign a bill to increase the empire's external military bases to 1000.

Whats tricky is that the majority of people don't know FDR and will only remember Stefan in the way that he is first introduced by the fascist media. I don't think they'll actually show 'the story of your enslavement', that may draw a too clear picture for people.
I don't think this thread really has much debating value here. I just hope that if FDR reads this, they'll have a strategy ready if the state tries to pull this unholy group hug.
 

[WasatchMan]

Yup i'm just concerned that (through propaganda like above) the state will try to 'incorporate' libertarian values.

 

 

I think the standard of true and consistent is the standard to aim at.  Trying to make things propaganda proof is likely impossible.  If people can't think no amount of framing the argument the right way will help.

[swhetten]

I think that any publicity is good publicity. We are in the moral right. Some people will believe and not question what the media says. Those people were going to do that anyway. However, others will be made curious, and more traffic will be driven towards philosophy and reason as they get wonder "what is the big fuss really about".

 

In summary, I think that the people who are influenced to be against it by the media were never going to be allies in this cause. However, the increased attention will give those of us who do actually follow the path of liberty more opportunities to discuss it and bring the rational on to our side.