Ancapia And Puritanical Libertarians

[IsaacGage860]

Recently, I've gotten into some heated debates online with Anarchists  that are resolute and immovable regarding the NAP. I'm aware that Stefan has made a video critiquing these people and have tired to convey those ideas to them. Most of the responses I get back are ones of elitist derision and condescension, I'm usually called a lost and confused statist. These people will not touch the concept of Pragmatism with a ten foot pole no matter how much reason, evidence, or logic I try to apply. I guess my question is should I bother trying to proselytize these people or should I focus more on the those who perhaps can still be reached? 

[dsayers]

What does "immovable regarding the NAP" look like? What is Pragmatism? Aren't -isms by definition beliefs and therefore not useful when determining what is true?

 

I can't tell you what to do, but it's definitely more productive spending your time talking to people who will receive what you're saying. For more on this, check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series if you haven't already.

How do you know the ideas you're trying to convince others of aren't in need of revision themselves? I ask because "immovable regarding the NAP" seems like poisoning the well. I'm immovable when it comes to 2+2=4. Would that make me wrong?

[Spenc]

Recently, I've gotten into some heated debates online with Anarchists  that are resolute and immovable regarding the NAP. I'm aware that Stefan has made a video critiquing these people and have tired to convey those ideas to them. Most of the responses I get back are ones of elitist derision and condescension, I'm usually called a lost and confused statist. These people will not touch the concept of Pragmatism with a ten foot pole no matter how much reason, evidence, or logic I try to apply. I guess my question is should I bother trying to proselytize these people or should I focus more on the those who perhaps can still be reached? 

 

In what context would you say they are immovable.  I am immovable on the NAP in the context of discussing right and wrong.  If you had asked me a different targeted question, I might answer differently.  e.g.  A difference between saying, "Is Trump a good candidate for president?" (No) vs. "Is Trump preferable to Hillary?" (Almost certainly yes).

 

In other words, are arguing for people to "support" pragmatism over philosophy or are you offering a debate on which plausible outcomes would be preferable over others?  If you're arguing the latter with the language of the former, you're of course going to run into trouble.

 

Out of curiosity, are you yourself philosophically an anarchist?

[Wuzzums]

As Constantinople burned intellectuals were arguing over he gender of angels.

 

What you are witnessing is a well know socialist tactic. It's detailed in Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals": always hold your opponent accountable to their own principles.

Anarchists/libertarians have the moral argument on their side, there should be no stopping them... unless you make them too scared to act lest they violate the NAP.

 

Never ever forget:

THE NAP DOES NOT APPLY TO COMMUNISTS/SOCIALISTS.

[IsaacGage860]

Thanks for the feedback. Sorry I should have defined my terms and rephrased the question. What I mean to say is that some Anarchists want the NAP to be adopted worldwide tomorrow. What I try to point out is that this is simply impractical given the current government framework and tools we have available. When I say pragmatism, I mean incrementally nudging people in the direction of a stateless society. Its just frustrating to have people condescend towards "statists" who are trying to do the best they can with what they have. People who would otherwise be allies are alienated and attacked over lack of dedication to principle and too much compromise. I do not find this helpful in moving forward the wheel of human inertia. Mocking people for participating in the political process hasn't seemed to accomplish anything significant or meaningful over the decades that the Anarchist/Libertarian movement has existed. The powers that be would like nothing more than to rule over a populous that will not express their views at the ballot box over moral purity. Maybe I am wrong in my approach, but the victory of Donald Trump could potentially show that being involved in the democratic process is not entirely useless. 

[adamNJ]

If the don't have a pulse, move on to the next warm body, you are talking to a corpse.

 

[Spenc]

1.  When I say pragmatism, I mean incrementally nudging people in the direction of a stateless society.

 

2.  Maybe I am wrong in my approach, but the victory of Donald Trump could potentially show that being involved in the democratic process is not entirely useless. 

1.  I would say that incrementalism has been about equally tried and equally failed as the tactics of these ideologues you are pissed off at for refusing to be empirical.

 

2.  That is a huge huge huge IF.  And one of the issues with it is that his supporters offer no test to measure whether his presidency will be a success or failure.  So far it generally seems like we should all just declare victory just on the basis that Hillary didn't get in. And yes, that tastes sweet.  The election is over, I want to hear how you and Stef and everyone else is going to use the connections with the Trump insiders, the other media sources like Cernovich and Adams and Alex JOnes to spread the message of freedom.

 

I remember Stef used to consistently do debates with giants of Libertarian movement like Walter Block, Jan Narveson, Michael Badnarik, etc.  Everytime I hear an interview with Bill WHittle or VOx Day, I think, Stef should be asking tough questions or flat-out debating these guys on their pro-state bullshit!  He lays down a red carpet for them to march out their shit ideas without any pushback in the name of promoting Trump.  Okay, let's stomach that until Nov. 8, but election night is long past, it's time to use these connections to debate and spread better ideas to their audiences and hopefully even Trump himself.

[aviet]

An anarchist forum isn't going to be the first place to go to to convince people of the unpracticability of instant anarchy. It would be like going into a Britney Spears forum and trying to convince Spears fans she is terrible.

As far as I am aware no one has ever come up with a method to get people to seriously question or discard their deep held beliefs.

I think you would do much better in communicating to Tumpers who have only just got into politics and/or considering the nature of the world, reality etc.

I am in the same camp as you. I have a friend who is an anarchist and even though he was in favour of Britain leaving the EU, he did not vote for it on the principle of not wanting to legitimise the state; even though it was a referendum on removing an unelected mega-structure of the state. But I think he may have flipped for Trump, who he obviously can't vote for. With that in mind, I think its better to not specifically attack their belief, but try and present people with ideas, arguments that may shift their belief. I was never an anarchist, but I was essentially a minarchist, but even then I realised it would be difficult to transition even to a mild libertarian system. In the run up to the Brexit vote, I went though a schism. It seems as if this was some kind of cosmic event, because so many people went through it at the same time. I realised that I would be better off trying to inch myself and the world into a freer path; not that I have much influence to do the latter. There is no pointing virtue singalling on the side lines saying you won't join the battles of today, because they are against your principles. Even though your principles can only reach the battle arena by engaging in the battles of the day. Just in the same way we wouldn't have libertarianism on the fringe today without religious reform of the early modern period.

I think Trump and various other people like Stefan did a good job of presenting arguments and reasons for people to make imperfect choices in an imperfect world. I am a customer of Peter Schiff and watch quite a lot of his videos. He has voted libertarian for something like 30 years and was going to do again for Gary Johnson. He had a few positive words for Trump, but also negative words. But then a day or two before the election a combination between this ad:

and his an argument from his wife made him flip his vote to Trump. So, for him to change his mind, no one challenged any of his beliefs, they just presented him with counter-narratives and a vision of a different world and a path forward.

 

[taraelizabeth21]

As Constantinople burned intellectuals were arguing over he gender of angels.

 

What you are witnessing is a well know socialist tactic. It's detailed in Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals": always hold your opponent accountable to their own principles.

Anarchists/libertarians have the moral argument on their side, there should be no stopping them... unless you make them too scared to act lest they violate the NAP.

 

Never ever forget:

THE NAP DOES NOT APPLY TO COMMUNISTS/SOCIALISTS.

I completely agree. Infighting over adherence to abstract philosophical concepts is counterproductive and will only serve Leftist agenda.

 

Regardless of who wins the argument, Leftists are the ones that really win when Anarchists/Libertarians/Conservatives fight amongst themselves

[dsayers]

THE NAP DOES NOT APPLY TO COMMUNISTS/SOCIALISTS.

Yet another nonsensical claim because somebody was using shorthand while losing sight of what it's a placeholder for. The P is for principle, which means it's universal. It applies to everybody. Non-aggression means that if aggression is leveled against you, counter-force is justified. I THINK you were trying to say that it doesn't apply to people who are initiating the use of force. It does, it's just that they've chosen to waive it by violating it. Creating a debt, which invites counter-force to settle that debt. A standard they initiated at the onset of the transaction.

 

@Isaac: I'm going to push back as much as is warranted because you've expressed you wish to grow, I think you can handle it, and I care enough about you that I want you to have all of that. Just pointing this out because you're doubling down and probably do not even realize it. My replies in bold...

 

What I mean to say is that some Anarchists want the NAP to be adopted worldwide tomorrow.

Anarchy means no rulers. It is an accurate conclusion because people are not fundamentally different in a way that they would exist in a different, opposing moral category. I can't speak for any anarchists, but it seems to me that 99.9% of people spend 99.9% of their lives achieving their goals without initiating the use of force. So I personally don't want something to be adopted tomorrow that's already in place. I personally want people to stop pretending like all hell will break lose if we all achieve our goals without initiating the use of force.

 

What I try to point out is that this is simply impractical given the current government framework and tools we have available.

This is an assertion. The fact that everybody already lives this way is proof that it is NOT impractical. You're essentially saying that non-rape is impractical because there's rapes going on. That no cancer is impractical because cancer is afoot. This doesn't seem like a valid conclusion.

 

When I say pragmatism, I mean incrementally nudging people in the direction of a stateless society.

I've argued before that "step in the right direction" is a myth. Because the initiation of the use of force is either immoral or it is not. What is the point of achieving less rape? Less cancer? That's not solving the problem at all. So if it were to provide the illusion of accomplishment, it would in fact be very dangerous. Do you realize how much the media, colleges, and legislators are catapulting the State forward every day? Incremental victories--even if a valid concept in this context--would be buried under the ground actually lost in the meantime. You cannot beat the State. You have to replace it with something that makes it obsolete. Which the free market does every day. It's just that some people are too afraid to accept it because they've been told to be afraid. Or because they've been told that incremental victories are forward motion.

 

Its just frustrating to have people condescend towards "statists" who are trying to do the best they can with what they have. People who would otherwise be allies are alienated and attacked over lack of dedication to principle and too much compromise. I do not find this helpful in moving forward the wheel of human inertia.

I agree with you. This is a lack of self-knowledge though. This is why peaceful parenting is paramount to the liberation of the human race. Child abuse is both what makes the State seem so legitimate and is what leads to people communicating ideas in a provocative or competitive manner. It's a lack of empathy.

 

Mocking people for participating in the political process hasn't seemed to accomplish anything significant or meaningful over the decades that the Anarchist/Libertarian movement has existed.

Could you be poisoning the well with your use of the word mock? I cannot speak for others, but I have been vigilant in holding people accountable that accept property rights, but choose to violate them anyways by engaging in political voting. I would not mock them because I understand the reasons why they're not prepared to live their stated goals.

 

The powers that be would like nothing more than to rule over a populous that will not express their views at the ballot box over moral purity.

It's the other way around. Ever hear the expression, "If they can get you to ask the wrong questions, they don't care what your answer is"? Every election, when people show up to play along, the government wins. Saying Republican and Democrat is just two different doorways into the same slaughterhouse. It's an illusion of choice. What they fear is the people who live as if they don't need rulers.

 

Maybe I am wrong in my approach, but the victory of Donald Trump could potentially show that being involved in the democratic process is not entirely useless. 

Democracy is mob rule. Gang rape is applied democracy. If you cannot make a rational case for how the democratic process is useful, anything you claim to be evidence of it will be a conclusion arrived upon by flawed methodology. Which means we can discard the conclusion.

[IsaacGage860]

1.  I would say that incrementalism has been about equally tried and equally failed as the tactics of these ideologues you are pissed off at for refusing to be empirical.

 

2.  That is a huge huge huge IF.  And one of the issues with it is that his supporters offer no test to measure whether his presidency will be a success or failure.  So far it generally seems like we should all just declare victory just on the basis that Hillary didn't get in. And yes, that tastes sweet.  The election is over, I want to hear how you and Stef and everyone else is going to use the connections with the Trump insiders, the other media sources like Cernovich and Adams and Alex JOnes to spread the message of freedom.

 

I remember Stef used to consistently do debates with giants of Libertarian movement like Walter Block, Jan Narveson, Michael Badnarik, etc.  Everytime I hear an interview with Bill WHittle or VOx Day, I think, Stef should be asking tough questions or flat-out debating these guys on their pro-state bullshit!  He lays down a red carpet for them to march out their shit ideas without any pushback in the name of promoting Trump.  Okay, let's stomach that until Nov. 8, but election night is long past, it's time to use these connections to debate and spread better ideas to their audiences and hopefully even Trump himself.

Maybe I should try to clarify more. The government is not going anywhere anytime soon. Adhering to a strict moral guideline hasn't done anything to shift public opinion and at the end of the day that's whats needed in order to mobilize people. Millions of people depend on the government for services like SS, Medicare, Medicaid etc. What do you think will be the result if we just trash the system tomorrow and defund everything? I don't believe people will be running towards the NAP but instead demanding whatever remains of their government(s) to fix things. There is very little you or I or anyone for that matter can do about this. So the question then becomes, "Ok, what do we do with the tools we have?" Its true, I cannot see into the future and predict what will happen with a Donald Trump presidency, but assuming the worst case scenario is rather demoralizing. You have to try and look at it from these people's point of view. Even in a theoretical Anarchist society you will still need entrepreneurs who have a vision and who can display leadership in order to keep people on track and focused on the goal of the business or company. These people are going to have to have the authority to acquire and use money to build their projects up along with other people. You are never going to remove the concept of a leader from people's minds because we are social animals. Productive activity doesn't get down without strong leadership. I am not advocating for a central planner to be in control of everything, but merely that leaders are still going to be needed. After all, an entrepreneur cannot go at it alone.          

[dsayers]

Isaac, you continue to speak in sentiments rather than arguments. If your desire is to determine what is true, you'll have to let go of this methodology at some point. Are you open to the possibility that your conclusions are wrong? Because you've only spoken as if you're clarifying rather than actually addressing the arguments being put forth.

 

The government is not going anywhere anytime soon.

In what context? The State isn't present in my life. Sure they steal from me, but once my protection money is paid, I live my life freely. If everybody did this, the State would just be a mosquito at a barbecue. Also, how do you know? Just because you're not willing to let go of it doesn't mean it cannot be let go of. Beware the self-fulfilling prophesy. It's also begging the question.

 

Adhering to a strict moral guideline hasn't done anything to shift public opinion and at the end of the day that's whats needed in order to mobilize people.

Not sure what you mean by mobilize people. The lifeblood of the State is its perceived legitimacy. The counter to that is not treating it as legitimate in your own mind, which requires no physical mobility. People usurp the State all the time by engaging in free trade, alternative currencies, etc. Also, the implications of your sentence here is that when not initiating the use of force ("adhering to a strict moral guideline"; the word strict here is poisoning the well) doesn't yield the result you'd like to see, it's permissible to initiate the use of force. If this is what you believe, then you need to say so directly. If it's not what you believe, you need to examine the ways in which you're thinking that leads to saying this.

 

Millions of people depend on the government for services like SS, Medicare, Medicaid etc. What do you think will be the result if we just trash the system tomorrow and defund everything?

I don't care who will pick the cotton; Slavery is immoral. People gambled on violence and they lost. This gamble led to them engaging in very foolish decisions such as not providing for themselves, not developing a support network to help provide for them, and making poor decisions because the State would force others to pay to subsidize it. Your sentences here are an appeal to emotion and for the purpose of perpetuating institutionalized theft.

 

I don't believe people will be running towards the NAP but instead demanding whatever remains of their government(s) to fix things. There is very little you or I or anyone for that matter can do about this.

See above how do you know, begging the question, self-fulfilling prophesy.

 

So the question then becomes, "Ok, what do we do with the tools we have?"

As with my last post, if they can get you to ask the wrong questions, they don't care what your answers are. Through faulty methodology, the option to be free is not present in your mind, and so you squander your energy trying to determine what's the best way to steal from, assault, rape, and murder people. I've seen you do better. What we do with "the tools that we have" is to not throw them at people, but build something better. It's an artificial mental prison to think the only tools you have are the ones that the State steals from everybody to provide a little of.

 

There's nothing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence except for violence itself. So anything you think people need, people will provide. The State doesn't provide anything. They steal from everybody and then give SOME of it to the same people to do exactly that. While then taxing that labor, the materials they use, etc. It's a ponzi scheme where only the very few in power benefit.

 

Even in a theoretical Anarchist society you will still need entrepreneurs who have a vision and who can display leadership in order to keep people on track and focused on the goal of the business or company. These people are going to have to have the authority to acquire and use money to build their projects up along with other people. You are never going to remove the concept of a leader from people's minds because we are social animals. Productive activity doesn't get down without strong leadership.

Here, your words really start to come off the tracks. You and I are communicating via machines we did not build ourselves. There's no question that we stand on the shoulders of those before us. Is this what is meant by "needing leadership"? Because it's the only way that sentiment makes sense, but the language is so far removed, I don't think most people would receive it as such. Also, you're conflating voluntary association with involuntary masters. This only serves to conceal violence. Is that your goal? You achieve numerous goals in your life every day without requiring a leader (other than in the standing on shoulders analogy, which applies to all of us).

Also, your use of the word authority was imprecise. The ability to acquire capital doesn't require authority at all. Phrasing it as much makes it seem as if people NEED to be able to steal in order for goals to be achieved. It's an assertion and it is false. Also, you assert a couple things here, using the word need, which begs the question.

 

You appear to be starting from a conclusion and then saying whatever sounds right in order to make it fit. This isn't how philosophy works.

[IsaacGage860]

Yet another nonsensical claim because somebody was using shorthand while losing sight of what it's a placeholder for. The P is for principle, which means it's universal. It applies to everybody. Non-aggression means that if aggression is leveled against you, counter-force is justified. I THINK you were trying to say that it doesn't apply to people who are initiating the use of force. It does, it's just that they've chosen to waive it by violating it. Creating a debt, which invites counter-force to settle that debt. A standard they initiated at the onset of the transaction.

 

@Isaac: I'm going to push back as much as is warranted because you've expressed you wish to grow, I think you can handle it, and I care enough about you that I want you to have all of that. Just pointing this out because you're doubling down and probably do not even realize it. My replies in bold...

Thank you for the push-back. I suppose I have more to consider and shouldn't just condescend. And just by the by the video of Stefan's I was referencing was this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZzeC06hVvA

[Spenc]

Maybe I should try to clarify more. The government is not going anywhere anytime soon.

 

Fair enough.

 

Adhering to a strict moral guideline hasn't done anything to shift public opinion and at the end of the day that's whats needed in order to mobilize people. Millions of people depend on the government for services like SS, Medicare, Medicaid etc. What do you think will be the result if we just trash the system tomorrow and defund everything?  I don't believe people will be running towards the NAP but instead demanding whatever remains of their government(s) to fix things.

 

I think most anarchists believe that social change will come incrementally, not overnight.  How would an overnight shutdown even occur unless the government just ran out of money and confidence of the people in the first place?  In which case, what would people be running to them for?  In the other scenario of a ROn Paul type leader taking charge and making a dramatic shift, and then another coming along to make the next step, and so on, is not a political change, it is a social change, because you have to change the minds of the people and the nature of the society in order for people like these to even be elected in the first place.  In which case, it wouldn't really be any type of drastic de-funding.

 

There is very little you or I or anyone for that matter can do about this. So the question then becomes, "Ok, what do we do with the tools we have?" Its true, I cannot see into the future and predict what will happen with a Donald Trump presidency, but assuming the worst case scenario is rather demoralizing.

 

I don't think I was putting forth the worst-case scenario in any way.  I merely said, what type of test would you conduct over the course of the next 4 or 8 years, or into the generation beyond that, to determine the success or failure of the Trump experiment?  I'm just saying, getting him elected is not a very high standard for success, as delightful as it was to see that horrible wretch Hillary lose.  If this is a real movement about achieving movement towards our principles, then there ought to be a test to determine the efficacy of Trump's presidency in assisting us in this goal.

 

And on another matter, as a member of the FDR COmmunity, do you agree we should have a test for determining the efficacy of Stef's focus on Trump and away from the personal freedom issues which he has a unique skill in presenting to the public?  What the Trump presidency period to maximize his spread of freedom philosophy?

 

You have to try and look at it from these people's point of view. Even in a theoretical Anarchist society you will still need entrepreneurs who have a vision and who can display leadership in order to keep people on track and focused on the goal of the business or company. These people are going to have to have the authority to acquire and use money to build their projects up along with other people. You are never going to remove the concept of a leader from people's minds because we are social animals. Productive activity doesn't get down without strong leadership. I am not advocating for a central planner to be in control of everything, but merely that leaders are still going to be needed. After all, an entrepreneur cannot go at it alone.        

 

I really have no idea what you're addressing here, this seems to be coming straight out of the blue.  I didn't see anyone suggest leaders and entrepreneurs aren't valuable in a free society

[Tyler H]

1.  I would say that incrementalism has been about equally tried and equally failed as the tactics of these ideologues you are pissed off at for refusing to be empirical.

 

2.  That is a huge huge huge IF.  And one of the issues with it is that his supporters offer no test to measure whether his presidency will be a success or failure.  So far it generally seems like we should all just declare victory just on the basis that Hillary didn't get in. And yes, that tastes sweet.  The election is over, I want to hear how you and Stef and everyone else is going to use the connections with the Trump insiders, the other media sources like Cernovich and Adams and Alex JOnes to spread the message of freedom.

 

I remember Stef used to consistently do debates with giants of Libertarian movement like Walter Block, Jan Narveson, Michael Badnarik, etc.  Everytime I hear an interview with Bill WHittle or VOx Day, I think, Stef should be asking tough questions or flat-out debating these guys on their pro-state bullshit!  He lays down a red carpet for them to march out their shit ideas without any pushback in the name of promoting Trump.  Okay, let's stomach that until Nov. 8, but election night is long past, it's time to use these connections to debate and spread better ideas to their audiences and hopefully even Trump himself.

I agree.

 

 

Yet another nonsensical claim because somebody was using shorthand while losing sight of what it's a placeholder for. The P is for principle, which means it's universal. It applies to everybody. Non-aggression means that if aggression is leveled against you, counter-force is justified. I THINK you were trying to say that it doesn't apply to people who are initiating the use of force. It does, it's just that they've chosen to waive it by violating it. Creating a debt, which invites counter-force to settle that debt. A standard they initiated at the onset of the transaction.

 

@Isaac: I'm going to push back as much as is warranted because you've expressed you wish to grow, I think you can handle it, and I care enough about you that I want you to have all of that. Just pointing this out because you're doubling down and probably do not even realize it. My replies in bold...

 

Well said.

 

 

Maybe I should try to clarify more. The government is not going anywhere anytime soon. Adhering to a strict moral guideline hasn't done anything to shift public opinion and at the end of the day that's whats needed in order to mobilize people. Millions of people depend on the government for services like SS, Medicare, Medicaid etc. What do you think will be the result if we just trash the system tomorrow and defund everything? I don't believe people will be running towards the NAP but instead demanding whatever remains of their government(s) to fix things. There is very little you or I or anyone for that matter can do about this. So the question then becomes, "Ok, what do we do with the tools we have?" Its true, I cannot see into the future and predict what will happen with a Donald Trump presidency, but assuming the worst case scenario is rather demoralizing. You have to try and look at it from these people's point of view. Even in a theoretical Anarchist society you will still need entrepreneurs who have a vision and who can display leadership in order to keep people on track and focused on the goal of the business or company. These people are going to have to have the authority to acquire and use money to build their projects up along with other people. You are never going to remove the concept of a leader from people's minds because we are social animals. Productive activity doesn't get down without strong leadership. I am not advocating for a central planner to be in control of everything, but merely that leaders are still going to be needed. After all, an entrepreneur cannot go at it alone.          

 

I do not believe that if we had the magical power to get rid of the state tomorrow that it would be a good idea or something we should do, nor do I know anyone who suggests that.  That being said, the reason we can't is because the state is a manifestation of society's approval for the initiation of force.  If it was proffered, "could we abolish the initiation of force tomorrow, would we do it?" who would decline? I think most of us recognize that we cannot abolish violence and getting rid of the state is just getting rid of a structured form of violence that will inevitably resurface in a more chaotic way since the core issue is society's reliance on the initiation of the use of force to solve problems.  

 

I disagree with political action because of the empirical evidence that violence does not solve problems.  You can not use the state to reduce the state.  The emersion of a voluntary society has to be voluntary - that is why we cannot snap our fingers to abolish the state.  

[IsaacGage860]

 

Maybe I should try to clarify more. The government is not going anywhere anytime soon.

 

Fair enough.

 

Adhering to a strict moral guideline hasn't done anything to shift public opinion and at the end of the day that's whats needed in order to mobilize people. Millions of people depend on the government for services like SS, Medicare, Medicaid etc. What do you think will be the result if we just trash the system tomorrow and defund everything?  I don't believe people will be running towards the NAP but instead demanding whatever remains of their government(s) to fix things.

 

I think most anarchists believe that social change will come incrementally, not overnight.  How would an overnight shutdown even occur unless the government just ran out of money and confidence of the people in the first place?  In which case, what would people be running to them for?  In the other scenario of a ROn Paul type leader taking charge and making a dramatic shift, and then another coming along to make the next step, and so on, is not a political change, it is a social change, because you have to change the minds of the people and the nature of the society in order for people like these to even be elected in the first place.  In which case, it wouldn't really be any type of drastic de-funding.

 

There is very little you or I or anyone for that matter can do about this. So the question then becomes, "Ok, what do we do with the tools we have?" Its true, I cannot see into the future and predict what will happen with a Donald Trump presidency, but assuming the worst case scenario is rather demoralizing.

 

I don't think I was putting forth the worst-case scenario in any way.  I merely said, what type of test would you conduct over the course of the next 4 or 8 years, or into the generation beyond that, to determine the success or failure of the Trump experiment?  I'm just saying, getting him elected is not a very high standard for success, as delightful as it was to see that horrible wretch Hillary lose.  If this is a real movement about achieving movement towards our principles, then there ought to be a test to determine the efficacy of Trump's presidency in assisting us in this goal.

 

And on another matter, as a member of the FDR COmmunity, do you agree we should have a test for determining the efficacy of Stef's focus on Trump and away from the personal freedom issues which he has a unique skill in presenting to the public?  What the Trump presidency period to maximize his spread of freedom philosophy?

 

You have to try and look at it from these people's point of view. Even in a theoretical Anarchist society you will still need entrepreneurs who have a vision and who can display leadership in order to keep people on track and focused on the goal of the business or company. These people are going to have to have the authority to acquire and use money to build their projects up along with other people. You are never going to remove the concept of a leader from people's minds because we are social animals. Productive activity doesn't get down without strong leadership. I am not advocating for a central planner to be in control of everything, but merely that leaders are still going to be needed. After all, an entrepreneur cannot go at it alone.        

 

I really have no idea what you're addressing here, this seems to be coming straight out of the blue.  I didn't see anyone suggest leaders and entrepreneurs aren't valuable in a free society

 

As a member I do believe we should have a test to determine the effects of a Trump presidency, but the man hasn't taken office yet and hasn't done anything. Fundamentally, I approach this from a Minarchist position. The reason I referenced the concept of leaders is because most in this community express a desire to not be ruled or have rulers. I wouldn't want to generalize anyone here into that category, but its a sentiment that I've noticed. The Invisible Hand of the market cannot function without cooperation between many different individuals, but its much more than that. There need to be leaders and there have to be a minimum set of rules put in place. If you think about this, what would society look like if everyone went off to do their own thing? If there are a bunch of different competing currencies that have to be exchanged or traded wouldn't that reduce the level of efficiency? It would be like 20 people in a room all speaking a different language while not knowing at all what anyone else is saying. The whole goal of humanity thus far has been to make life easier. In order to do that there need to be rules that everyone observers and a way to enforce them at least in the context of an individual nation. Let's take an example. If someone were to come and rob your house and there was no way for you to know who had done it, what would your recourse be? What I'm getting from most people here is a failure to account for human nature. By human nature I mean the natural tendency towards self-interest and self-preservation. If the only mechanism to curtail this behavior is the abstraction of the NAP, what do you do with the outliers? I understand that it can be argued that it would be self-defense and thus would not violate the NAP, however that relies on the assumption that everyone around you shares the same ideals, which is simply not the case. Assuming this is not the case, what avenues for recourse are available to you without some form of defense from a state? You have to look at how these abstractions manifest in the real world, not just in theory. I do not mean to take on such a contemptuous and stubborn stance, but part of philosophy involves questioning and perhaps revising your own beliefs as well, not just expecting it of others.    

[dsayers]

If no curiosity is exhibited, this will be the last time I invest the time and effort. I won't let a good first impression prevent me from acknowledging this.

 

There need to be leaders and there have to be a minimum set of rules put in place.

This is still an assertion. And I think you need to define "leader." If you and I offer the same good/service, one of us would satisfy our customers more efficiently and gain a larger market share. Is this what you mean by leader? Because this would be naturally occurring, so to describe it as a "need for" would be misleading. Do you mean like in the manager/entry level position relationship? Because again, "need for" would be a bizarre way to phrase us doing so much business that we can no longer do it alone, so we hire somebody to do the things that are more easily farmed out for a portion of the profits. Do you mean when somebody speaks the truth at a time when people are afraid to? that is voluntary association and not comparable to a ruler.

 

If you think about this, what would society look like if everyone went off to do their own thing?

Same as it does now except their wouldn't be people pointing guns at other people, commanding them to do arbitrary shit and stealing from them. Most mechanics don't do their own dentistry, so they hire a dentist. It's division of labor and the State didn't create this spontaneous order, it actively inhibits it.

 

If there are a bunch of different competing currencies that have to be exchanged or traded wouldn't that reduce the level of efficiency?

Do you take a path to work that is less efficient? Or do you make the choice that best serves your needs based on the criteria you find to be important to you? Like with anything else, there will be competition and people will gravitate towards whichever suits their needs best. Do you think State-overprinted toilet paper is better? To the point of stealing from everybody?

I'll say this again: The only thing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence is violence itself. This means that anything the State appears to do, could be done without the State, and conspicuously more efficiently.

 

It would be like 20 people in a room all speaking a different language while not knowing at all what anyone else is saying.

Like at the UN? Then there's Google translate... You're using problem -> end to justify State violence while pretending problem -> solution isn't an option.

 

The whole goal of humanity thus far has been to make life easier. In order to do that there need to be rules that everyone observers and a way to enforce them at least in the context of an individual nation.

Assertion and begging the question. Perhaps you should define rules. If you understand that you own yourself, then you understand that I own myself. I don't need a rule saying don't touch me without my consent. I wouldn't call that a rule anyways. It's me disposing of my property how I see fit. Like I could say you cannot come into my house unless you agree to not smoke inside my house. If it's my house, that's perfectly valid because you are free to decline. Nobody is free to decline the State. Again, "need to be rules" would be a bizarre way of phrasing property rights are universal.

 

Let's take an example. If someone were to come and rob your house and there was no way for you to know who had done it, what would your recourse be?

What is your recourse now? I assume that only answers that provide you with restitution are acceptable.

 

What I'm getting from most people here is a failure to account for human nature.

Human nature is to adapt. That's it! It's like referencing the shape of water. If it's your premise that humans cannot be trusted with freedom, how then could we trust them with superhuman power?

 

By human nature I mean the natural tendency towards self-interest and self-preservation.

In what way is this problematic? It's in your best interest to work and earn a car than it is to steal one because of what might happen to you and your reputation if you steal one. In a statist society, a car thief mostly only has to watch out for police uniforms and cruisers. Because people believe police are a solution and therefore hiding and calling upon them is acceptable. Network strength dictates that without such a proxy, people would be more responsible for their neighborhoods and fellow humans. A car thief would have to be up against everybody else instead of just everybody else that is a cop.

 

If the only mechanism to curtail this behavior is the abstraction of the NAP, what do you do with the outliers?

So since there's a CHANCE of ISOLATED incidents, let's hedge our bets by DEFINITELY stealing from EVERYBODY? That's like burning down your country to take away the possibility that your kitchen might catch fire some day.

 

I understand that it can be argued that it would be self-defense and thus would not violate the NAP, however that relies on the assumption that everyone around you shares the same ideals, which is simply not the case.

How do you know? How many people would let somebody steal from, assault, rape, or murder them? How many people would want a thief, a batterer, a rapist, or a murderer in their neighborhood? Have you made ANY effort to understand objective morality or basic economics? Morality is infinitely more simple than your masters have led you to believe for the purpose of making you fear everybody but them.

 

Assuming this is not the case, what avenues for recourse are available to you without some form of defense from a state?

This again presumes that there is recourse within the State. If you're at all curious about such things, you could Google things like innocent victims, dogs getting shot, people being killed after already restrained, truly hideous monsters walking free while people who cross imaginary lines have their lives destroyed. The State is who you need recourse AGAINST.

 

You have to look at how these abstractions manifest in the real world, not just in theory. I do not mean to take on such a contemptuous and stubborn stance, but part of philosophy involves questioning and perhaps revising your own beliefs as well, not just expecting it of others.    

Except these are very tired sophistry. You are making assertions while demonstrating little curiosity.

[IsaacGage860]

If no curiosity is exhibited, this will be the last time I invest the time and effort. I won't let a good first impression prevent me from acknowledging this.

Thank you again for the pushback. I'm not sure what has gotten into me recently. I apologize for any offense given. I hope you can forgive my ignorance, but I will not hold you to it. 

[dsayers]

I hope you can forgive my ignorance, but I will not hold you to it. 

I first read you express this sentiment here, so I'll just link to it here instead of repeating it.

 

You're welcome for the pushback. I hope you are willing and able to bring up any challenges you experience as you process it all. Always happy to help bring about human freedom.

[Tyler H]

Thank you again for the pushback. I'm not sure what has gotten into me recently. I apologize for any offense given. I hope you can forgive my ignorance, but I will not hold you to it.

 

I admire you're willingness to graciously receive criticism; a quality we should all strive for.