Anarchist Lobbies LLC

[john cena]

Introduction/rant:

 

I'm going to start off by assuming that everyone who is a member of this forum would like to see the ideas portrayed here by the community propagate.. Probably naively, but I digress. My question is, why if our ideology of freedom is logically superior in all ways to a state, (provided you are moral) then it seems as if the only solution to this question, is that either the vast majority of people on earth are evil, or we as a worldwide distributed net of freedom minded peoples, all of them, have failed to purvey the argument to such a degree that it is not understandable by the public? Stefan for example talks a lot about how your parents growing up with an abusive parent doesn't give them an excuse to abuse as well.. Would this simple principle not expand to people using rational philosophy? It seems the dichotomy above must be true..

 

If we accept that the majority of people are evil, then we are a subject of deep nihilism for the future of humanity, neglecting some polar random shift in morality. This bleak future for our children is especially magnified if K reproduction strategists are really thriving. Since nihilism is no fun, (yes, that's my entire argument against it, deal with it) I'm going to suppose that the majority of people are NOT evil, and we simply do not lack the motivation, knowledge, or technology to reach the masses effectively. Therefore, we surely must fundamentally transform the way we do things if we ever want any kind of future. 

 

If you're losing against an enemy, the first thing you should do is analyze their tactics. (Thanks, Crysis) We usually refer to statists as using the initiation of force to control their subjects. While this is true at it's root level, like a fractal geometric equation, the result at the end user level after thousands of years/iterations of honing of said tactics is that to the average "citizen" the initiation of force does not even exist in the equation. If you debate a statist, they will not even know they are being stolen from on a daily basis! How can this be so effective? They use FREEDOM as the cover for their arguments! How can we let them use our own argument to discredit itself when the real deal is infinitely better and more moral?

 

 

 

My actual Idea:

People mostly talk about political action in the sense of protests, voting, or austricism. This community also includes child raising as a great way to forward the cause of freedom and philosophy. Those are great, especially the latter; but there's a problem: We are trying to get out of a master-slave relationship from the state, by acting as a slave. This will never, ever work. Genocide is just waiting in the mist of the future, for all of us anarchists slowly protesting an ever growing state, and this is not my opinion, this is historical fact. To end this quickly and righteously, I propose that we put ourselves on level playing fields with the masters, instead of attempting to pull the masters down to us. I mean EVERYONE. 

There is VERY LITTLE capitol left floating around in the free market, and people are getting less and less spending power by the day. The individual has less money than ever to devote to the cause of freedom, as I'm sure the owners of this site know too well. Can you stop for a second and imagine the amount of raw capitol currently being misallocated by states? Evil people at high levels of government will tolerate this huge reduction in economic output, in exchange for psychopathic power over military conquest and their own peoples.. However, greedy capitalists will not. Greedy capitalists just want another yacht, another ferrari, etc, even if we follow the main stream narrative here for a second.. You usually think about anarchic politics as bad for business.. BUT If people like Donald Trump can profit from stock going DOWN or businesses FAILING, WHY are no greedy capitalists tapping into this wealth the public sector is destroying? Why are there not lobbying groups to END public roads, funded by the largest construction companies ready to do the job? Why are there not armed protection agencies lobbying for reduced policing costs in order for communities to be able to pay for improved security and response time with private DROs? I'll tell you why: The majority of us are still partially in a slave mindset. We don't want to take responsibility for actually doing anything about freedom today.. How many of you actually own or operate within a business with freedom as an incentive? 

Even just scrap the above questions, why do we not fund a for profit joint stock company which exclusively lobbies to end government intervention in industries in order to privatize them and reap royalties from companies who take over? (The companies chosen freely by road consumers, not the lobby agency of course) This kind of freedom creates incentive for growth in sectors previously halted by state regulation from progression for centuries.. IE the road/car paradigm. It would put us on par with the slave owners of society finally, and start a self sustaining industry of profit from deregulation. 

 

Surely with guys like peter shiff, stefan molyneux, etc, around, there are people with the know how to do this, and we the people have the capitol. In addition, it's a sure business model because once the public sector is no longer in charge of the task, IE buildings roads, there will be huge vacuum in that sector of the economy for new road construction companies, since the state paid monopolies rarely do the job in a satisfactory way, and I think every american knows that. Lobbyists are a minimal cost for return on investment, as the private sector shows today.. Imagine the economic boom from ANARCHY LLC!

 

 

Why are we not funding this? 

[dsayers]

we as a worldwide distributed net of freedom minded peoples, all of them, have failed to purvey the argument to such a degree that it is not understandable by the public?

 

You mean a public raised by abusive parents, dropped into daycare, neglected, shoved into government schools which teach them how great the State is, all while watching the media say non-stop, from birth that the world is burning and the only solutions are violence and giving more power to the State? You think pointing out that we own ourselves, this is universal, and therefore theft, assault, rape, and murder, taxation is theft, oh and by the way, your parents, teachers, everybody you trusted who was responsible for your survival lied to and abused you, not landing the first time is a reflection of the person presenting the information?

 

We are trying to get out of a master-slave relationship from the state, by acting as a slave.

 

A LOT of people do this. It's habitual. They don't understand that just seeing the farm is to be free from it. They want to end it and think attacking it is the way to go, even though this just strengthens their enemy. You cannot solve a problem you don't understand. It's not easy to accept that modeling voluntarism and not abusing children is the answer that will work, but probably not in our lifetimes.

 

Why are there not lobbying groups to END public roads, funded by the largest construction companies ready to do the job? Why are there not armed protection agencies lobbying for reduced policing costs in order for communities to be able to pay for improved security and response time with private DROs? I'll tell you why: The majority of us are still partially in a slave mindset.

 

This seems like a contradiction. Lobbying is the slave asking the master to hurt other slaves more than them.

[john cena]

You mean a public raised by abusive parents, dropped into daycare, neglected, shoved into government schools which teach them how great the State is, all while watching the media say non-stop, from birth that the world is burning and the only solutions are violence and giving more power to the State? You think pointing out that we own ourselves, this is universal, and therefore theft, assault, rape, and murder, taxation is theft, oh and by the way, your parents, teachers, everybody you trusted who was responsible for your survival lied to and abused you, not landing the first time is a reflection of the person presenting the information?

I was actually referring to all like minded peoples reading this message, not the general masses. Also yes, it is somewhat relevant to the person presenting the information, I would not say reflective at all, but I judge based on results not "I tried to convince them". Also the entire point of this post was to illustrate how we are asking for freedom, and we are not providing incentives for freedom, while government is doing the exact opposite and is gaining volume. I have spent hundreds of hours talking people out of statism, so I understand where you're coming from. 

 

 

A LOT of people do this. It's habitual. They don't understand that just seeing the farm is to be free from it. They want to end it and think attacking it is the way to go, even though this just strengthens their enemy. You cannot solve a problem you don't understand. It's not easy to accept that modeling voluntarism and not abusing children is the answer that will work, but probably not in our lifetimes.

If the amount of peacefully raised children is not quantified and seen to be trending upwards exponentially, then I see no real science to that opinion. Certainly I'm open to that solving the problem, but the evidence is not there that it is working nearly fast enough to subvert the next dark age.. I am certainly not satisfied at simply raising my child peacefully and casting them into the world to deal with the evils I neglected all my life.. That just seems like more Keynesian school economics running in the personal life to me.. Push it off to the next generation.. 

 

 

This seems like a contradiction. Lobbying is the slave asking the master to hurt other slaves more than them.

You are thinking too black and white here in my opinion. Just because lobbyists are not directly part of the government, does certainly not mean they aren't part of the power structure. Lobbying is how tyrants have gotten unjust power and defeated truth, why not use the effective method they have created against them,  except with positive freedom minded market incentives on top for a sure win? I am just saying to use their own weapons against them, but in a logical way instead, until we can resolve the issue of abolishing government. 

 

Are you just providing constructive criticism or do you genuinely disagree with creating freedom incentive based corporations and lobbies?

[dsayers]

I judge based on results not "I tried to convince them"

 

I think time is a valid component to the equation though. If I say to you, "I planted the seed," then the results being there's no plant yet isn't really meaningful. Or if you say to me "paint this room" and you come back 5 minutes later and there's only a patch covered, wouldn't the size of the undertaking have a bearing on evaluating what the current results are? The inability of being able to convince somebody out of a conclusion they arrived at not by way of logic, reason, and evidence doesn't reflect on us.

 

we are not providing incentives for freedom

 

No? People in my life have noticed that I'm happier, more out-going, WAY more capable of expressing myself, and able to stand up for myself. When we talk about property rights or other serious topics, they are more receptive to what I have to say because they see the results of accepting these truths.

 

the evidence is not there that it is working nearly fast enough to subvert the next dark age.

 

I agree that given our level of technology at this point, that another dark age is a very real risk. Of course I also appreciate the inefficiency and incompetence of those acting in the name of the State. And this is where I think you mentioning the numbers not bearing out isn't quite as bad as you might think. Obviously there's truth in the "there's more of us than there are of them." So how does the State get its power? Two ways. First, the actual iron fist: the enforcer class. Second: slave on slave violence (mostly intellectually speaking).

 

Slave on slave violence we directly combat by living our values and putting forth rational arguments for others. Think of when you have a teacher that's molesting their students. Once one or two victims stand up, the rest begin to. Just standing against the grain can be the spark that starts the fire.

 

As for the enforcer class, here's the dirty little secret of ushering in freedom: All you have to do is convince the enforcer class. THEY'RE the ones doing the real damage. And if you can convince them to reject the proposition that they exist in a separate moral category, we'd have freedom tomorrow and without any bloodshed. This is good news indeed for a few reasons. Police misconduct is sharply on the rise with all the terrorism talk and paramilitarization of local police forces. Cameras and the internet are on the rise also, bringing this front and center (which seriously disgusts the otherwise good people who became enforcers). Look at the suicide rate of American veterans. It's just gotten to be too much, too obviously.

 

Are you just providing constructive criticism or do you genuinely disagree with creating freedom incentive based corporations and lobbies?

 

Always with the constructive criticism, yes. I very much want to be as precise and effective as I can be by soliciting feedback, and also to help others be as precise and effective as they can be.

 

Yes, I think of lobbying like I think of political activism. By working within the system, you legitimize the system. More importantly, I think that people that think like that are not free even in their own mind. The way I like to think of it as is this: If somebody is concerning themselves with how rulers should make use of their imaginary existence in a different, opposing moral category, they're not focusing on whether people can actually do so.

 

As for freedom incentive based corporations, I'm not sure exactly what that means. Like Taco Bell offers me tacos and acknowledges that I'm free to say no. If I trade with them, yeah, the State is trying to steal from both of us for that reason alone. Other than that, it's a free trade and that happens right now in a statist society. You mentioned LLC before and this is a State-created fiction. In a free society, I really don't see the difference between that and say insurance. Except that in a free society, insurance won't cover genuine malfeasance on the part of the company being insured. As long as people are responsible for their actions, it doesn't much matter to me if you call it insurance or a corporation.

[john cena]

As for freedom incentive based corporations, I'm not sure exactly what that means. Like Taco Bell offers me tacos and acknowledges that I'm free to say no. If I trade with them, yeah, the State is trying to steal from both of us for that reason alone. Other than that, it's a free trade and that happens right now in a statist society. You mentioned LLC before and this is a State-created fiction. In a free society, I really don't see the difference between that and say insurance. Except that in a free society, insurance won't cover genuine malfeasance on the part of the company being insured. As long as people are responsible for their actions, it doesn't much matter to me if you call it insurance or a corporation.

Sorry I may not have explained it well enough. Extremely concisely, I wan't to create companies that profit from dismantling government programs and replacing their market share. That was my main point in this thread, that we as individuals should pursue vast amounts of wealth through this means. Would the "most moral" person in a totally free society be the richest? The person who has given the most value to others? I say we can spread these ideas just as effectively through these means as with child raising; although child raising is surely needed to keep it sustainable. Like stefan.. A stay at home dad with so much mulla rollin' in that he gets to just record philosophy all day.. THE DREAM@!

[David Ottinger]

I think what you're looking for is agorism.  But as far as dealing with the state, rather than lobbying, I think you'd be better off pulling money together to present grievances to the courts.  By lobbying, you're essentially bribing your way into gaining the kings favor.  By taking it to the courts, you're presenting grievances, i.e. moral objection, to the current method of governance. 

 

 

But, this is an uphill battle that has been fought many time now from the Magna Carta to the Declaration of Independence.  How does a slave get the master to surrender his authority? 

 

 

Revolution?  This simply leads to a coup d'etat.   In other words, engaging the state for remedy simply rearranges the deck.  You're expecting the state, or rather those who impose it, to remedy these issues when the issue is the state, or rather the force that comes with it.  What incentive do they have to stop the game when you're joining in and bringing money into the fold for them to use?

 

 

Essentially, you're trying to take the state head on.  And personally, I'd rather not make the state my enemy.  I want to make them irrelevant. 

[john cena]

I think what you're looking for is agorism.  But as far as dealing with the state, rather than lobbying, I think you'd be better off pulling money together to present grievances to the courts.  By lobbying, you're essentially bribing your way into gaining the kings favor.  By taking it to the courts, you're presenting grievances, i.e. moral objection, to the current method of governance. 

 

 

But, this is an uphill battle that has been fought many time now from the Magna Carta to the Declaration of Independence.  How does a slave get the master to surrender his authority? 

 

 

Revolution?  This simply leads to a coup d'etat.   In other words, engaging the state for remedy simply rearranges the deck.  You're expecting the state, or rather those who impose it, to remedy these issues when the issue is the state, or rather the force that comes with it.  What incentive do they have to stop the game when you're joining in and bringing money into the fold for them to use?

 

 

Essentially, you're trying to take the state head on.  And personally, I'd rather not make the state my enemy.  I want to make them irrelevant. 

I am not saying to use the court system, because I know it will never work. Let me give you an example.

 

A large pool of investors opens a highway business. They do not use police at all, but rather electronic means of enforcing traffic rules, and ostracism as the enforcement method. Numerous road safety and efficiency as well as road surface longevity improvements are made. Now, the roads can out compete the state. As more and more people use this system, the need for government roads decreases. It is especially critical that travel time is decreased, which would divert commercial flow, which in my opinion should pay the bulk of fees for the highways, since they cause the most wear and tear by far. (But that's besides the point) At some point the company would grow to such size that they would be able to lobby local governments to sell them the roads, possibly in exchange for public access..

 

I am really curious as to why this does not happen more. If the government is doing such a terrible job, why is the free market not out competing?  You may say that we pay for the roads, but we do not really directly pay for the roads. They are largely paid for by borrowed money.. How does the mere illusion that people are already paying for roads result in this monopoly? Are all of the engineers/investors literally just missing this?

[David Ottinger]

Colby,

 

If I'm not mistaken, the taxes paid when you fill your gas tank go towards a road fund.   But, that's beside the point you're getting at.  

 

So, if I understand your main point correctly, you're basically asking: Why don't market entrepreneurs lobby the state in order to free up the market?    (I'm assuming you're familiar with the market entrepreneur vs political entrepreneur distinction.) 

 

What you pointed out with the roads is what I see happening with the prison system.  However, when the entrepreneur is lobbying the state for business, then he/she becomes a political entrepreneur.   All monopolies arise, either directly or indirectly, due to state intervention in the market place.  And one way government does this is by claiming via decree that something is a public good. 

 

On a side note (if I'm not mistaken) Disney World -- which has its own zip code -- has its own private road system, and they have their own security and fire trucks, etc patrolling the roads as needed.  But, I think the roads are still deemed a public good and thus fall under the jurisdiction of local, state, and federal authority. 

 

 

So, maybe roads aren't the best example here.  Government grants permits as well as seizes land for roads.  To my understanding, no legal construction on any land can be carried out without a permit.  So, such restrictions, for example, can hinder competition. 

 

 

I assume I'm at least in the ball park of what you're getting at.