Daily Anarchist Forum

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Seth King on January 09, 2012, 02:13:52 AM



Title: The most important strategy
Post by: Seth King on January 09, 2012, 02:13:52 AM
If you have to name one strategy to implement in your life that is more important than any other to combat the state, what would it be and why?

My answer is to work towards the goal of using FRN's as little as humanly possible. Years ago when I fully learned of the evils of central bank counterfeiting it became my goal to never have to touch another FRN, for I knew that every second an FRN was in my possession, either in my wallet or in my bank account, that it was losing value to fund my enemies, including the welfare, warfare, police state.

Having that goal also relieved me of my stress when listening to statists ramble on about how they are going to spend my money, because I knew that if I could get to the point where I am no longer participating in their system by using their money, that all of the talk in the world, or laws, or no matter how outnumbered I am, that they aren't getting my wealth.

Of course, I haven't yet achieved that goal. For a long time I thought it I would need to use silver for all of my transactions. But since I've come around to Bitcoin I am much more hopeful that I will be able to achieve that goal in a reasonable amount of time. I am in the process of slowly transitioning my earnings and spendings in Bitcoin. I look forward to the day when I can fully sustain myself without having to hold any FRN's for any length of time. I think if more people adopted this strategy we would be a lot better off.

So, what do you think of this and what is your strategy?


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: dpalme on January 09, 2012, 12:58:41 PM
I agree. Unfortunately, there's only about one or two places here in Maine that accept bitcoin. And I'd guess even less than that which would accept silver (or gold).


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: helio on January 09, 2012, 01:17:21 PM
Having my own small business.

reasons:
1. Directly serving the needs of my fellow man while taking care of my own.
2. With the current tax system, easier to reduce taxes paid than through employment and payroll deductions. Surviving while depriving the state of revenue is win win.
3. I can directly incentivize alternative currencies like silver and bitcoin adoption.
4. I can become a respected member of the community so that my views and example carry more weight.
5. I can afford to raise children outside of public skool and teach them the value of living in the free market.



Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Rothbardian on January 09, 2012, 07:21:12 PM
Indubitably political action is the key. As Rothbard said:

Quote
Before the existence of the LP, the only repealing could be done by Democrats and Republicans, and so libertarians engaged in this form of political action had to try to find the more libertarian, or rather, the less anti-libertarian candidate.  Contrary to Konkin, there have been political parties in the past, especially the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that, while not anarchist were admirable forces for laissez-faire. They didnít smash the State (not their intention anyway), but they did accomplish an enormous amount for liberty, they ushered in the Industrial Revolution, and we are all in their debt.  I think of the Democratic Party in the U.S., the Liberals in England, the Progressives in Germany, etc.  Historically, classical liberal political parties have accomplished far more for human liberty than any black markets.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on January 09, 2012, 08:45:00 PM
Indubitably political action is the key. As Rothbard said:

Quote
Before the existence of the LP, the only repealing could be done by Democrats and Republicans, and so libertarians engaged in this form of political action had to try to find the more libertarian, or rather, the less anti-libertarian candidate.  Contrary to Konkin, there have been political parties in the past, especially the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that, while not anarchist were admirable forces for laissez-faire. They didnít smash the State (not their intention anyway), but they did accomplish an enormous amount for liberty, they ushered in the Industrial Revolution, and we are all in their debt.  I think of the Democratic Party in the U.S., the Liberals in England, the Progressives in Germany, etc.  Historically, classical liberal political parties have accomplished far more for human liberty than any black markets.

Meh. I'm not nearly as impressed, and I'm certainly not convinced that political action is worth much. If you go back and study the early trade liberalization leading up to the industrial revolution etc, what you'll see is that government was just reacting, not causing much. They "had" to allow trade, because people had such a strong interest in it. The government wasn't going to be able to restrict trade anymore, because people had too much to gain. In this particular case, government was epiphenomenal, it just reacted to what the underlying social norms were going to bring about one way or another. Government is always the impediment, it accomplishes nothing. If people who understand that still vote, then I just find it sad. True, the fact that a few of us quit voting isn't going to bring down the state itself. But it's not like I'm asking the early adopters to make some huge sacrifice.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Seth King on January 09, 2012, 08:55:20 PM
Indubitably political action is the key. As Rothbard said:

Quote
Before the existence of the LP, the only repealing could be done by Democrats and Republicans, and so libertarians engaged in this form of political action had to try to find the more libertarian, or rather, the less anti-libertarian candidate.  Contrary to Konkin, there have been political parties in the past, especially the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that, while not anarchist were admirable forces for laissez-faire. They didnít smash the State (not their intention anyway), but they did accomplish an enormous amount for liberty, they ushered in the Industrial Revolution, and we are all in their debt.  I think of the Democratic Party in the U.S., the Liberals in England, the Progressives in Germany, etc.  Historically, classical liberal political parties have accomplished far more for human liberty than any black markets.

Meh. I'm not nearly as impressed, and I'm certainly not convinced that political action is worth much. If you go back and study the early trade liberalization leading up to the industrial revolution etc, what you'll see is that government was just reacting, not causing much. They "had" to allow trade, because people had such a strong interest in it. The government wasn't going to be able to restrict trade anymore, because people had too much to gain. In this particular case, government was epiphenomenal, it just reacted to what the underlying social norms were going to bring about one way or another. Government is always the impediment, it accomplishes nothing. If people who understand that still vote, then I just find it sad. True, the fact that a few of us quit voting isn't going to bring down the state itself. But it's not like I'm asking the early adopters to make some huge sacrifice.

Agreed. As an anarchist my goal is not to take over the state. My goal is to convince those that operate the state that it is not in their best interest to initiate/commit acts of aggression. Take your local criminal/opportunist. He may be a petty thief, but even he knows he has boundaries and cannot willy nilly commit every crime, because he knows there will be consequences. So, he is rightfully afraid to go too far. The same needs to happen to people who work for the state, be it a politician, judge, or cop. There needs to be repercussions to committing crimes. The more repercussions, the less likely they are to commit crimes and they will self-regulate.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Rothbardian on January 09, 2012, 09:10:18 PM
Meh, I think Konkin started this negative and nonsensical influence in Our Movement.

Black market action is essentially worthless in fighting the State.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Rothbardian on January 09, 2012, 09:14:01 PM
Quote from: JustSayNoToStatism
Government is always the impediment, it accomplishes nothing. If people who understand that still vote, then I just find it sad.

I guess you should feel sorry for me then. Because your view clearly makes no sense; historically, the State has only been reduced through political action and revolution. Like I said, black markets are moot, contra Konkin.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Will on January 09, 2012, 09:19:45 PM
So you think participating in the State is the best way to defeat it?

Personally I think we need to show people that they don't need a state to take care of them. Sure we have lots of good theories of how things would work, but most people don't care about good theories they want to see results. And that's what we need to give them. Political action just seems like a waste of time to me, but to each his own.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Seth King on January 09, 2012, 09:25:30 PM
Meh, I think Konkin started this negative and nonsensical influence in Our Movement.

Black market action is essentially worthless in fighting the State.

Any time two or more people get together to trade value for value without giving the state a cut of the pie, that's a win in my book. Right now, people hand over thousands of dollars to the state every year, making it easy for the state. If you make the state "come and get it" it will be so unbelievably costly that it could not go on. The state is broke already. Now imagine the state having to physically steal your property and auction it off in order to get the resources it wants. Couple that with showing the world how thieving the state really is, and it's legitimacy goes way down.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Rothbardian on January 09, 2012, 09:29:22 PM
So you think participating in the State is the best way to defeat it?

I think we should get Libertarians in office who will basically do nothing, as well as work to decrease the State. (An example would be Ron Paul withdrawing the troops from all foreign lands). The anti-political AnCaps are a bit of a shame. They reduce the number of people we can get in office (local, state, federal, whatever) to do nothing. Yes, I just said that: we need people who will persist in doing nothing except State reduction. To deny that people could reduce the State in this fashion is irrational. If 50% of gubmint officials were AnCaps, we would be so much closer to victory than if there are little, uninfluential agorist villages forming in places.

In short, we want anarchists, minarchists, and anyone who will reduce the State (or at least not increase it) in political offices.

Quote
Personally I think we need to show people that they don't need a state to take care of them.

I agree, but only education will achieve this: not the black market.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Rothbardian on January 09, 2012, 09:38:15 PM
Any time two or more people get together to trade value for value without giving the state a cut of the pie, that's a win in my book.

It is a win, but only a very, very small win. And it can only happen on a very small scale. Large companies can't escape the State's thievery, and we shouldn't expect them to.

There's no magical state-reducing effect behind driving 50mph (legal speed) versus 60mph (black market speed). Or from buying drugs on the black market, or anything else on the black market. Buying legal drugs like ibuprofen "reduces" the State just as much as buying cocaine.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Seth King on January 09, 2012, 09:43:14 PM
Would you agree that the state is a criminal organization?

If so, then it is my view that there are only two things that determine the size and scope of ANY criminal organization. They are resources and resistance.

If you want to shrink the size of any criminal organization, you must decrease its resources and increase its resistance.

Starving the beast decreases its resources. Making every dollar it gets and every action it takes more costly increases its resistance. It is those two things that will reduce the size and scope of the state.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Rothbardian on January 09, 2012, 10:07:30 PM
Would you agree that the state is a criminal organization?

Yes, of course, the State is a criminal organization.

I agree with you that "starving the beast" is good. But it can only happen on a small, irrelevant scale: so small, in fact, that the State is hardly drained at all.

In my opinion, I think radical political minarchists are better for the Cause of Liberty than anti-political AnCap sectarians. Of course the ideal is radical political AnCaps, but (thanks to SEK3) the movement is trending away from the good ole Rothbardian strategy.

"Lord, give me radicals, whether they be anarchists or no!"~Rothbard


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on January 09, 2012, 10:53:45 PM
Meh, I think Konkin started this negative and nonsensical influence in Our Movement.

Black market action is essentially worthless in fighting the State.
I didn't make an argument in favor of agorism, just against political action.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on January 09, 2012, 11:05:09 PM
Quote from: JustSayNoToStatism
Government is always the impediment, it accomplishes nothing. If people who understand that still vote, then I just find it sad.

I guess you should feel sorry for me then. Because your view clearly makes no sense; historically, the State has only been reduced through political action and revolution. Like I said, black markets are moot, contra Konkin.
Historically, the state has also grown through political action despite the libertarian dissenters. Political action can only do something when we've achieved some numbers....at which point we would have "purer" options anyways. (Note: this is the first time in this thread that I've said something positive about agorism).

Quote
But it can only happen on a small, irrelevant scale: so small, in fact, that the State is hardly drained at all.
This describes all that most us will ever do to affect the state...A police officer quitting his job because he became an anarchist isn't going to end government. Me writing an article and sharing it with friends isn't going to end it either. But for the effort, just about anything beats politics.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Rothbardian on January 10, 2012, 01:51:48 AM
Historically, the state has also grown through political action despite the libertarian dissenters.

And? Your point is? You ignore all the evidence in front of you that libertarian dissenters have slowed state expansion through the political means, particularly classical liberal parties. They stopped the spread of fascism and even reduced the State in many cases. And they weren't the pure, modern Libertarians that we are. And...Our political movement is relatively new, so you're not giving us a chance.  

Political action can only do something when we've achieved some numbers....at which point we would have "purer" options anyways.

I disagree. Political means and education would still be the #1 means of abolishing the State. (If every gov. office was filled with an AnCap, Mr. State wouldn't exist). Even with numbers, black market efforts could still get crushed, and would do hardly anything to beat the State.

But for the effort, just about anything beats politics.

I disagree. Lew Rockwell's and Rothbard's political efforts have accomplished far more that anything else, I think. (As well as the education they provided, of course).

I didn't make an argument in favor of agorism, just against political action.

Did I say you did? That was my preemptive strike against the silliness of the black market strategy, which Rothbard brilliantly destroyed as a viable possibility in his reply to Konkin (http://www.anthonyflood.com/rothbardkonkin.htm).


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: David Giessel on January 10, 2012, 01:57:49 AM
A good an-cap friend of mine recently sent me this with the comment, "Cross out nihilist, write in anarcho-capitalist." I replied, "Guy in the lower pane is Doug Casey." Seriously love this.

(http://frankhereford.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/smbc_nihilist.gif)


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: David Giessel on January 10, 2012, 01:59:53 AM
BTW, neither Lew nor Murray ever bothered to vote. I asked Lew myself in person.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Rothbardian on January 10, 2012, 02:01:51 AM
I'm probably not going to bother to vote either. What's your point? I still advocate Rothbardian politics as the best thing we can do.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Rothbardian on January 10, 2012, 02:08:59 AM
The reason I'm probably not going to bother voting is because I adhere to Rothbard's "style," so to speak. But if I did vote, it would be perfectly moral and meritorious to vote for a Libertarian candidate like RP.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Seth King on January 10, 2012, 02:09:53 AM
I'm probably not going to bother to vote either. What's your point? I still advocate Rothbardian politics as the best thing we can do.

I have two more questions for you.

Are you against engaging in agorism and civil disobedience at all, or only that it alone will not suffice in ending the state?

And secondly, pretending all Ron Paul voters were anarcho-capitalists and voted as well, if 49% of the voting population voted for Ron Paul, and 51% of the population voted for Obama and Obama gets re-elected, do you think the 49% of Paulites should continue to obey the government and try to win the next election, or do you think they should totally disavow their allegiance to the government and disobey, violently if necessary to defend themselves?


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Rothbardian on January 10, 2012, 02:17:52 AM
Are you against engaging in agorism and civil disobedience at all, or only that it alone will not suffice in ending the state?

The latter, and I'm against engaging in either of those myself. I'm fine with civil disobedience in the Thoreauvian tradition, though it's not something I'd do; I can see it as actually being helpful. (But agorism is 100% worthless and pointless; I don't think it achieves anything for Liberty or for ending the State).

And secondly, pretending all Ron Paul voters were anarcho-capitalists and voted as well, if 49% of the voting population voted for Ron Paul, and 51% of the population voted for Obama and Obama gets re-elected, do you think the 49% of Paulites should continue to obey the government and try to win the next election, or do you think they should totally disavow their allegiance to the government and disobey, violently if necessary to defend themselves?

If it was 49% of voters, it would be closer to a revolution population. So I'd think something could actually be accomplished with revolution in that case. Never said I was against revolution.

But if it seemed impossible to start a revolution, I'd still advocate a seizure of the political means via winning a RP election. (Technically, even in revolution, we'd still want to seize the political means).

 


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Seth King on January 10, 2012, 02:32:15 AM
I just fail to see how NOT giving the state money is pointless. In fact, I believe that a good part of the reason the state is on the brink of financial collapse isn't only because of overspending, but because the black and gray markets are so strong, and people aren't simply handing their money over to the state like chumps, like they probably did in the 50's or something.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Seth King on January 10, 2012, 02:57:52 AM
BTW, neither Lew nor Murray ever bothered to vote. I asked Lew myself in person.

This is actually the MOST baffling course of action to me. Not promoting agorism, promoting voting, but not voting. That makes no sense.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Syock on January 10, 2012, 04:00:54 AM
If you have to name one strategy to implement in your life that is more important than any other to combat the state, what would it be and why?

So, what do you think of this and what is your strategy?

The real battle of the existence of a state is a battle of ideology.  Even if the state collapses, and many have through history, a new one will emerge without the ideology in peoples minds to prevent it.  I am not convinced that is a battle that can be won.  

Certainly smaller changes can be won as it is a lot easier to convince someone that a police state is dangerous than it is to convince them anarchy will be safe.  That does not achieve the goal.  

Governments have dominated the planet throughout human history, even if on a small scale.  I do not expect to see a free world, or even a free part of it that is left alone long enough to become stable within my relatively short lifespan.  The only option I see to be truly viable for me is to do my best to avoid the state control in every aspect that I can.  If that means I have to use their own game against them, then that's what I will do.  If that means I have to go to a place that has a better set of rules, then that's what I will do.  If I have to hide from the state, well, I think you know where this is going.  

Live free or die!


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: David Giessel on January 10, 2012, 06:03:31 AM
BTW, neither Lew nor Murray ever bothered to vote. I asked Lew myself in person.

This is actually the MOST baffling course of action to me. Not promoting agorism, promoting voting, but not voting. That makes no sense.

Do as I say, not as I do?

I've never seen an article by either actually advocating that people go vote. I do believe Rothbard is misinterpreted when he's cited as advocating political means. I think that he was simply saying it is most effective to meet people where they are. For philosophical discussion, this unfortunately means the political arena. As an example of someone who's never been effective politically but has been effective philosophically, you could look at Ron Paul. Ron stands alone tho due to his unusual dedication over an unusually long period of time.

Being in Alaska I have met many of the "effective" movers and shakers from the early Libertarian Party movement of the late 70s and early 80s. People you all have never heard of like Dick Randolph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Randolph) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Randolph)). That movement (specifically the one in Alaska) fell apart in a comedically tragic way that would warrant a post of its own. I have an at-length play by play of how it all went down in my email archives from one of the guys who was very active in it. Short story is that some people were hard line to the philosophy while others tried to "sell out around the edges" to become more relevant. The already small movement tore itself in half and became irrelevant. Oh, and the more proactive members of the ideological half all ended up in jail for several years due to tax protest activities (with the cleverest one actually successfully winning his case and causing a fundamental change in state policy as a result).

I do find it ironic that anyone involved in austro-libertarianism (Murray or otherwise) would be interpreted as saying that the actions of an individual are of no consequence relative to the actions of some abstract "social aggregate" like a body politic. This goes directly against the most fundamental bases of Praxeology.

I think there are two mistakes "libertarians" of assorted stripes make, but these aren't axiomatic or anything, just my opinion.
1) Trying to get other people to do what you do or adopt your strategy
2) Choosing a course of action solely based on perceived future effectiveness

By chasing goal 1) we exclude other possible strategies and thus weaken the activism/advocacy gene pool by creating a philosophical mono culture. Further, we don't have the knowledge to know if 2) is even close to being true and if we succeeded at 1), we would never have any means of comparing the effectiveness of other strategies (empirical means tho they may be).

From this, I would say that THE RIGHT STRATEGY ( ;) ) is to do what you're most effective at and what seems "right" to you. This will be the most satisfying course of action anyway, so who gives a **** about anything else. Life is about doing what you enjoy and maximizing every experience. After all, as creatures bound by sensory perception, subjective experience forms our entire reality (STOE). Enjoy it (or don't if you derive greater subjective utility from sensory deprivation, which would then still technically be enjoyment).

:D 8) :P


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Freya on January 10, 2012, 07:31:45 AM
I'm personally in favour of Seths strategy of using alternate currencies to avoid taxation. Also a big fan of agorism. Being a programmer I'm in a perfect position to start an agorist bussiness, though I think I'll start off as a wage slave first to get some experience and money ;).

I'm not completely against using social welfare to bleed the state dry, but I probably couldn't do it myself with the thought in the back of my mind that is was someone else's hard earned money that was stolen from them.

Maybe cashing in welfare checks and spending it on charity would make me feel good about that? Better then it ending up being spent on some bomb thats going to kill some innocent civilians in *insert favourite middle eastern country here*


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Syock on January 10, 2012, 07:41:21 AM
I'm not completely against using social welfare to bleed the state dry, but I probably couldn't do it myself with the thought in the back of my mind that is was someone else's hard earned money that was stolen from them.

Most of the money now is coming from printing money in many countries.  I doubt as an individual you can get enough from the government to offset the theft of the value of what you already have.  


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Freya on January 10, 2012, 08:32:55 AM
I'm not completely against using social welfare to bleed the state dry, but I probably couldn't do it myself with the thought in the back of my mind that is was someone else's hard earned money that was stolen from them.

Most of the money now is coming from printing money in many countries.  I doubt as an individual you can get enough from the government to offset the theft of the value of what you already have.  

You are forgetting the the idea is to avoid taxation, entirely if possible. Though that is probably impossible :P. So any money taken would be extra money. It would be pretentious to state that I could spend money in a way that better serves another individual then that individual could himself. But I'm pretty confident I can do a better job then the state at least.....


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Syock on January 10, 2012, 09:06:42 AM
I'm not completely against using social welfare to bleed the state dry, but I probably couldn't do it myself with the thought in the back of my mind that is was someone else's hard earned money that was stolen from them.

Most of the money now is coming from printing money in many countries.  I doubt as an individual you can get enough from the government to offset the theft of the value of what you already have.  

You are forgetting the the idea is to avoid taxation, entirely if possible. Though that is probably impossible :P. So any money taken would be extra money. It would be pretentious to state that I could spend money in a way that better serves another individual then that individual could himself. But I'm pretty confident I can do a better job then the state at least.....

I'm talking about monetary inflation, not taxation. 


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Freya on January 10, 2012, 10:01:23 AM
Inflation on my silver and bitcoins? I don't think government has control over that.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on January 10, 2012, 10:02:18 AM
Historically, the state has also grown through political action despite the libertarian dissenters.

And? Your point is?
My point was to illustrate that there was no point in your statement "historically, the State has only been reduced through political action and revolution." If you took revolution out of that sentence, you would see it's true strength.

Quote
You ignore all the evidence in front of you that libertarian dissenters have slowed state expansion through the political means, particularly classical liberal parties.
No, I'm not ignoring the evidence. In my previous post I questioned the causal relationship you have proposed, but you did not address that part of my post.

Quote
They stopped the spread of fascism and even reduced the State in many cases.
Again, epiphenomenal.

Quote
And they weren't the pure, modern Libertarians that we are. And...Our political movement is relatively new, so you're not giving us a chance.
If classical liberal political parties failed to maintain a classical liberal order, I don't see why we should expect market anarchist parties to fare any better. Being more rigid and less compromising will only hurt your chances in the political world.

Quote
Political action can only do something when we've achieved some numbers....at which point we would have "purer" options anyways.

I disagree. Political means and education would still be the #1 means of abolishing the State. (If every gov. office was filled with an AnCap, Mr. State wouldn't exist). Even with numbers, black market efforts could still get crushed, and would do hardly anything to beat the State.
Education is #1, yes. But the rest isn't very convincing. With numbers, black market efforts wouldn't get crushed (see Italy). With numbers, any method will work, so why make it politics? If every government office was anarchist, then almost all of us are anarchist, so we have ignored the state out of existence long before we "voted."

Quote
But for the effort, just about anything beats politics.

I disagree. Lew Rockwell's and Rothbard's political efforts have accomplished far more that anything else, I think. (As well as the education they provided, of course).
When I think of Rothbard's achievements, his dabbling in politics is not what comes to mind. In fact, the futility of his efforts there is a lesson learned for me. His legacy is in his writings. That's what mattered.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Syock on January 10, 2012, 10:56:37 AM
Inflation on my silver and bitcoins? I don't think government has control over that.

Do you own no property?  No car, no home, no stocks?  Their value won't adjust fast enough to keep up with the monetary inflation were seeing right now.  Do you not get paid anything in cash?  If your on someones payroll, your income won't scale with monetary inflation.  

They may be able to inflate silver.  Look for any government that holds silver reserves.  I bet someone can inflate it.

I know I will be charged property tax, and they will want to take payroll tax, sales tax, fuel tax, capital gains tax and any other tax they can think of.  Monetary inflation will just make all those go up as well.  


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Freya on January 10, 2012, 11:02:13 AM
Inflation on my silver and bitcoins? I don't think government has control over that.

Do you own no property?  No car, no home, no stocks?  Their value won't adjust fast enough to keep up with the monetary inflation were seeing right now.  Do you not get paid anything in cash?  If your on someones payroll, your income won't scale with monetary inflation.  

They may be able to inflate silver.  Look for any government that holds silver reserves.  I bet someone can inflate it.

I know I will be charged property tax, and they will want to take payroll tax, sales tax, capital gains tax and any other tax they can think of. 

The point is to avoid as much of that as possible. IE getting paid in bitcoins by your employers. Accepting bitcoins for purchases.

The more people that do it the easier it gets. You will never be able to completely dodge taxes/inflation though, I agree.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Seth King on January 10, 2012, 02:20:01 PM
BTW, neither Lew nor Murray ever bothered to vote. I asked Lew myself in person.

This is actually the MOST baffling course of action to me. Not promoting agorism, promoting voting, but not voting. That makes no sense.

Do as I say, not as I do?

I've never seen an article by either actually advocating that people go vote. I do believe Rothbard is misinterpreted when he's cited as advocating political means. I think that he was simply saying it is most effective to meet people where they are. For philosophical discussion, this unfortunately means the political arena. As an example of someone who's never been effective politically but has been effective philosophically, you could look at Ron Paul. Ron stands alone tho due to his unusual dedication over an unusually long period of time.

Being in Alaska I have met many of the "effective" movers and shakers from the early Libertarian Party movement of the late 70s and early 80s. People you all have never heard of like Dick Randolph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Randolph) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Randolph)). That movement (specifically the one in Alaska) fell apart in a comedically tragic way that would warrant a post of its own. I have an at-length play by play of how it all went down in my email archives from one of the guys who was very active in it. Short story is that some people were hard line to the philosophy while others tried to "sell out around the edges" to become more relevant. The already small movement tore itself in half and became irrelevant. Oh, and the more proactive members of the ideological half all ended up in jail for several years due to tax protest activities (with the cleverest one actually successfully winning his case and causing a fundamental change in state policy as a result).

I do find it ironic that anyone involved in austro-libertarianism (Murray or otherwise) would be interpreted as saying that the actions of an individual are of no consequence relative to the actions of some abstract "social aggregate" like a body politic. This goes directly against the most fundamental bases of Praxeology.

I think there are two mistakes "libertarians" of assorted stripes make, but these aren't axiomatic or anything, just my opinion.
1) Trying to get other people to do what you do or adopt your strategy
2) Choosing a course of action solely based on perceived future effectiveness

By chasing goal 1) we exclude other possible strategies and thus weaken the activism/advocacy gene pool by creating a philosophical mono culture. Further, we don't have the knowledge to know if 2) is even close to being true and if we succeeded at 1), we would never have any means of comparing the effectiveness of other strategies (empirical means tho they may be).

From this, I would say that THE RIGHT STRATEGY ( ;) ) is to do what you're most effective at and what seems "right" to you. This will be the most satisfying course of action anyway, so who gives a **** about anything else. Life is about doing what you enjoy and maximizing every experience. After all, as creatures bound by sensory perception, subjective experience forms our entire reality (STOE). Enjoy it (or don't if you derive greater subjective utility from sensory deprivation, which would then still technically be enjoyment).

:D 8) :P

These are my sentiments as well. In New Hampshire there are big riffs between in system and out of system activism. But I don't let it bother me if other anarchists choose to vote or run for office. I'm not fully convinced that I'm right(that they shouldn't) and by trying to nag at them to do what I do will only cause unnecessary conflict. In places like Alaska, where there were too few people, a riff in strategy caused so much internal strife that the movement tore apart. FORTUNATELY, New Hampshire has SO many activists with so many different strategies, that even though there ARE internal riffs, it hasn't torn apart the movement, THANK GOD.

The REAL debate for me is whether or not you believe the state is legitimate. Once you've converted to anarchism, debating strategy is really a battle of subjectives.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Rothbardian on January 10, 2012, 07:48:59 PM
Maybe it would be good if the movement was torn apart. Anti-political anarchists are extremely annoying and I think detrimental to carrying forward Our Cause. It's almost more important to convert Anarcho-Capitalists to being political than to convert Minarchists.

I'll look at responding to some of your posts later, but right now I just feel sick of the anti-politcal, irrational, annoying arguments. But I'll take a look at them later.


Hey, Giessel, I live in Alaska too! ;D



Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Seth King on January 10, 2012, 07:52:51 PM
Maybe it would be good if the movement was torn apart. Anti-political anarchists are extremely annoying and I think detrimental to carrying forward Our Cause. It's almost more important to convert Anarcho-Capitalists to being political than to convert Minarchists.

I'll look at responding to some of your posts later, but right now I just feel sick of the anti-politcal, irrational, annoying arguments. But I'll take a look at them later.


Hey, Giessel, I live in Alaska too! ;D



A hardliner! Ha! I never thought I'd consider myself a MODERATE!  :D


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Rothbardian on January 10, 2012, 08:29:24 PM
Yeah, I was thinking about when Rothbard split the more Cato-type libertarians and the more Mises-type libertarians in his political actions. (A good thing). I'm honestly thinking I might be willing to do the same thing between the politicals and anti-politicals. I also really want to write an essay for political anarchism. Rothbard has political remarks interspersed throughout all his works, but it seems that there is lacking an essay strictly concerning this subject.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Seth King on January 10, 2012, 08:30:41 PM
When are you moving to New Hampshire? Or are you going to tough it out in Alaska?


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Rothbardian on January 10, 2012, 08:34:39 PM
Haha, I wasn't planning on moving to NH. ;D

It would be pretty cool, even though I'm not sure if it's strategically beneficial. (I'd have to put some more analysis into the subject).


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Seth King on January 10, 2012, 08:36:41 PM
There are a lot of anarcho-capitalists who have worked their way into the statehouse. And it grows every election, too. New Hampshire was the only state in the nation to decrease its annual budget, and it did so by 12%. Things to consider.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Rothbardian on January 10, 2012, 08:41:07 PM
Wow, 12% is pretty damn radical, especially for being the only state to decrease its budget. I like it.

Very interesting, thanks for giving me this train of thought.



Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Will on January 10, 2012, 10:19:55 PM
The reason I'm probably not going to bother voting is because I adhere to Rothbard's "style," so to speak. But if I did vote, it would be perfectly moral and meritorious to vote for a Libertarian candidate like RP.

I'm not familiar with Rothbards style of politics, could you expound? I mean if your not going to vote what is there left to do? Run for office?

I don't vote for a number of reasons, but mainly because in my state it's pretty pointless.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Rothbardian on January 10, 2012, 10:41:40 PM
I'm talking about the style of staying in the political background and encouraging others to vote/run for office. i.e., the intellectual political anarchist behind the movement. Rothbard took to heart the concept of the political cadre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_revolutionaries); it is this style of being a proffesional revolutionary, intellectual, and political organizer/motivator that was embodied by Rothbard. 

When you are a leader, and you get thousands to vote for radical political change, the vote of all theirs is the spiritual vote of your own. That's why you don't have to physically vote yourself. 



Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Freya on January 11, 2012, 01:38:49 PM
The best reason to vote for people like Ron Paul is that it is kind of like a "price signal" in the "market of ideas". It shows to other people that you value his ideas. If those ideas are valued by a lot of people then they have more chance of being adopted by yet more people.

When people see RP get 21% in Iowa they will be all like: "Wow gotta check that out". If he actually gets elected and helps us get more freedom and a better economy thats just bonus.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Seth King on January 11, 2012, 01:52:57 PM
The best reason to vote for people like Ron Paul is that it is kind of like a "price signal" in the "market of ideas". It shows to other people that you value his ideas. If those ideas are valued by a lot of people then they have more chance of being adopted by yet more people.

When people see RP get 21% in Iowa they will be all like: "Wow gotta check that out". If he actually gets elected and helps us get more freedom and a better economy thats just bonus.

On the flip side, when 100 million people vote, they are essentially giving their legitimacy to the system. If only 5 million out of 300 million people voted, it would be a telling statement how few people buy into it.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Syock on January 11, 2012, 02:03:04 PM
On the flip side, when 100 million people vote, they are essentially giving their legitimacy to the system. If only 5 million out of 300 million people voted, it would be a telling statement how few people buy into it.

I don't think that will happen, as so many people do have so much to gain by using the force of government against other people.  Until the ideas of freedom spread, people will vote.  I would bet the 2/3 of the population that don't vote primarily don't vote because they simply don't care who gets elected, rather than them finding the system illegitimate.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: derick on January 11, 2012, 07:46:26 PM
My strategy is working for cash or trading my labor for something I can sell. I no longer have bank accounts and I do not save currency. I believe that using FRN's in my transactions leaves a minimal paper trail, so the state has less opportunity to plunder my property. By eliminating(avoiding) contracts that obligate us to have our property stolen from us, the FRN becomes just a medium of exchange. The people that think operating in the black market has very little effect on the state do not understand the theory of "what is seen and what is not seen"

As for voting, I choose not to participate based on the fact that we have a de facto government. I believe by voting we consent to the actions of this de facto government, making us an accomplice to their crimes.

Do I fit in as an anarcho-capitalist?


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Seth King on January 11, 2012, 07:48:48 PM
Yes, you do! Welcome to the forum Derick!

Care to give us any pointers how to make a living under the table? Also, have you considered moving to New Hampshire?


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: derick on January 11, 2012, 07:55:24 PM
Thanks seth!

Care to give us any pointers how to make a living under the table? Also, have you considered moving to New Hampshire?

I am a skilled craftsman that can do many things, so I trade my labor where I can. If we move it will be to Montana.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Seth King on January 11, 2012, 07:59:17 PM
Fair enough. Obviously I think New Hampshire is the better choice for anarchists, but I'm happy any time a person leaves one of the lost cause states and moves to one of the hopefuls, i.e. New Hampshire, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska.



Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Rothbardian on January 11, 2012, 08:24:20 PM
On the flip side, when 100 million people vote, they are essentially giving their legitimacy to the system.

On the flip side, when 100 million people use the roads, they are essentially giving their legitimacy to the system. ::)


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: derick on January 11, 2012, 08:42:53 PM
Wouldnt less legitimacy be better than more?


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Rothbardian on January 11, 2012, 08:52:03 PM
I don't believe that driving on the roads/voting legitimizes the State anyway, hence my point.

We as Anarcho-Capitalists need to seek radical candidates to grasp the political means. It's the only way we'll win.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Rothbardian on January 11, 2012, 08:55:50 PM
I should note that voting for someone who wil use Aggression would constitute a legitimization of the government. But voting for a candidate who will do nothing (as well as reduce the State as much as possible) is not legitimizing the government.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Syock on January 11, 2012, 08:59:10 PM
Seems to me another point to say there is no need to argue.  Both are better than nothing. 

Welcome to the forum!


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Rothbardian on January 11, 2012, 09:13:26 PM
There is a need to argue this. Like I've repeated, I'd rather have radical political minarchists than non-radical, anti-voting anarchists. I'm totally intent on writing an essay on this, and I am also fine with splitting the movement over this point, if such happens; the title of my essay will be "on political anarchism" or something of that sort.



Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Seth King on January 11, 2012, 09:15:20 PM
There is a need to argue this. Like I've repeated, I'd rather have radical political minarchists than non-radical, anti-voting anarchists. I'm totally intent on writing an essay on this, and I am also fine with splitting the movement over this point, if such happens; the title of my essay will be "on political anarchism" or something of that sort.



Despite my total disagreement with you over this point, if you can write a very high quality article making your case, I'd be happy to be the FIRST to publish it. I don't publish material that's ever been published anywhere else, no matter how obscure. So, make sure you try me first. Also, I pay for contributed articles, FYI.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Syock on January 11, 2012, 09:19:36 PM
There is a need to argue this. Like I've repeated, I'd rather have radical political minarchists than non-radical, anti-voting anarchists. I'm totally intent on writing an essay on this, and I am also fine with splitting the movement over this point, if such happens; the title of my essay will be "on political anarchism" or something of that sort.

Trying to make people do what you think is like herding cats.  They are going to do what they want to do.  Make your case to add to their activism.  However your not going to accomplish anything by belittling other peoples methods, especially if they have tangible or emotional benefits to them. 


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Rothbardian on January 11, 2012, 09:28:46 PM
Despite my total disagreement with you over this point, if you can write a very high quality article making your case, I'd be happy to be the FIRST to publish it. I don't publish material that's ever been published anywhere else, no matter how obscure. So, make sure you try me first. Also, I pay for contributed articles, FYI.

Sure! I am getting to collecting resources right now, and this essay will be long in the making. I'm unwilling to write or let alone publish anything that would be low quality.

Quote
However your not going to accomplish anything by belittling other peoples methods, especially if they have tangible or emotional benefits to them.

I am going to say this up front; in my essay, the idea of black markets overthrowing the State is totally going to be belittled. Not in the sense that I am against black markets, but in the sense that I am against black markets as a viable strategy for Libertarian social change. And I'm going to make the case in an intellectual fashion; as Rothbard did, I am going to destroy their doctrine before attacking them. (Hence no ad hominem will be involved, of course).   

These terrible ideas have infected the Movement for too long, and for too long there has been no clamour over it. 


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Syock on January 11, 2012, 09:34:51 PM

I am going to say this up front; in my essay, the idea of black markets overthrowing the State is totally going to be belittled. Not in the sense that I am against black markets, but in the sense that I am against black markets as a viable strategy for Libertarian social change. And I'm going to make the case in an intellectual fashion; as Rothbard did, I am going to destroy their doctrine before attacking them. (Hence no ad hominem will be involved, of course).   

These terrible ideas have infected the Movement for too long, and for too long there has been no clamour over it. 

They don't harm the movement to have people actively pushing for the black market.  It gives people the tangible benefit of more money in their pocket and the emotional benefit of knowing they are not feeding the state.  Your tilting at windmills my friend. 


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Rothbardian on January 11, 2012, 09:42:58 PM
The main harm they do to the movement is in their hostility to politics, one of the fundamentally important strategies for anarchist social change; they harm the movement by advocating against politics.

They also harm the movement by encouraging ideas allegedly in the name of Liberty which do nothing for Liberty. I have no problem with black markets, but black markets do nothing significant at all to beat the State. Be a black marketeer, but it's not helping the Cause, and that's what I am frankly going to say.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Syock on January 11, 2012, 09:50:47 PM
The main harm they do to the movement is in their hostility to politics, one of the fundamentally important strategies for anarchist social change; they harm the movement by advocating against politics.

They also harm the movement by encouraging ideas allegedly in the name of Liberty which do nothing for Liberty. I have no problem with black markets, but black markets do nothing significant at all to beat the State. Be a black marketeer, but it's not helping the Cause, and that's what I am frankly going to say.

You might want to address the civil disobedience crowd as well then.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Rothbardian on January 11, 2012, 10:01:43 PM
Well, technically civil disobedience can be good if it is directed to inspire radical political change, i.e., used as a political tactic. This would be like an Anarcho-Capitalist elaboration on the great ideas of Thoreau in his essay Resistance to Civil Government (http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/transcendentalism/authors/thoreau/civil/). I would agree with you that some civil disobedience isn't truly helpful for Liberty, and that the civil disobedience crowd who advocates against politics are totally useless. (Unless they end up indirectly inspiring political change ;D). I'll certainly address this, and civil disobedience could be incorporated as one of the main topics especially to add some variety.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Syock on January 11, 2012, 10:20:04 PM
Well, technically civil disobedience can be good if it is directed to inspire radical political change, i.e., used as a political tactic. This would be like an Anarcho-Capitalist elaboration on the great ideas of Thoreau in his essay Resistance to Civil Government (http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/transcendentalism/authors/thoreau/civil/). I would agree with you that some civil disobedience isn't truly helpful for Liberty, and that the civil disobedience crowd who advocates against politics are totally useless. (Unless they end up indirectly inspiring political change ;D). I'll certainly address this, and civil disobedience could be incorporated as one of the main topics especially to add some variety.

I wouldn't want to claim that some civil disobedience isn't truly helpful.  I advocate for all methods after all.   :P  Oddly the silly things that happen like getting a kids lemonade stand shutdown gets more attention than anything being done intentionally.  Only a few acts of civil disobedience make it into history books. 

There are certainly civil disobedience types that are against politics.  That seems to be how many of them get there in the first place, sick of failures of trying to change it through the rigged system.  After they get arrested enough or for certain things, they probably lose the "right" to vote too. 


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: derick on January 11, 2012, 10:20:40 PM
I believe we have the government that we deserve. We can not deny the fact that most people in this country want the state telling them what to do, providing a social and moral safety net. Lets pretend that libertarians succeed in taking over most positions of government and begin dismantling the nanny state. What will be your plan to calm the mass of people who will violently revolt against you? They worked and paid into that safety net, they will demand pay out, so who will pay?



Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Seth King on January 11, 2012, 10:39:55 PM
I believe we have the government that we deserve. We can not deny the fact that most people in this country want the state telling them what to do, providing a social and moral safety net. Lets pretend that libertarians succeed in taking over most positions of government and begin dismantling the nanny state. What will be your plan to calm the mass of people who will violently revolt against you? They worked and paid into that safety net, they will demand pay out, so who will pay?



Exactly! It's one thing to try and sneak in, but once you start enacting changes they will mobilize against you. If you can maintain a 51% majority then you probably can abolish the state anyways through disobedience and/or armed defense.

Another reason I don't like wasting money and time in politics is that if the anarcho-communists try to take over the government and have it reflect their ideology then we are back to square one. If, instead, both AnComms and AnCaps create the world they want outside of politics, then we can both win. But if we continue to use the state as our battle ground, then we just empower it.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on January 11, 2012, 10:59:43 PM
I don't think I'll be able to convince Rothbardian of anything, so we'll have to agree to disagree. But he might not agree to do so, in which case I guess we'll actually disagree about agreeing to disagree.

Regardless, here goes my exercise in futility (beats voting!!)....
I think that not voting is a way to have a big impact on the people closest to you. A market anarchist not voting is very different from an uninformed apathetic person not voting. If you have been political your whole life, and then go and talk politics with some of your friends, and explain why you won't ever vote again, that has a big impact on them. It's consistency. If you truly believe the system is rigged, and completely fucked, then you wouldn't vote. Saying you support RP and vote libertarian makes it look like you aren't holding true to your convictions. Even if you only want to use politics for spreading a message, and don't think anyone will get elected, it still won't help your image. To tell others the elections are shams and to work for a political campaign looks snaky. To say the state and all politicians are criminals, but to drive around with a RP bumper sticker makes people take the "anarcho" of your anarcho-libertarian title a little less seriously. It makes it look like even the most radical people still believe that "democracy" is salvageable and a universally appreciated ideal.

When I speak with people I know about this, I can make a huge impact on them. Years ago, when I would tell someone I supported RP, that would go in one ear and out the other. All it told them was that I supported some fringe candidate, and they didn't really care. To actually go outright and explain why the whole thing is criminal is a much more powerful stance. I'm not trying to straddle the line between anarchism and political libertarianism, and necessarily appearing hypocritical. If taxation is theft and government is a criminal organization, then why do I support specific candidates? If I vote and my guy wins, I accept it...but if my guy loses, I think it's wrong? I'm not going to tell people that, because it looks very dishonest. People can detect snakiness a long ways away.

Whether I like it or not, and whether you like it or not, you are a "representative" of anarchism. When you "come out" to someone, you are likely the first market anarchist they have ever met. How they judge your character affects how they perceive the entire political philosophy. When you explain your radical understanding of the nature of government, but then turn around and talk about voting, you throw away an opportunity to make your statist acquaintances experience cognitive dissonance. You had a chance to make them question the entire thing. But by reassuring them that voting is a useful, moral, practical, justifiable thing to do, it weakens the impact you can have on them. Here we have come full circle. The title of the thread is "The most important strategy." It happens to be education. The last thing you want to do is leave the other person without challenging the supreme monolithic position that "the democratic process" holds in their hearts and minds.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Syock on January 11, 2012, 11:19:54 PM
http://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,641.0.html
http://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,587.0.html
http://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,96.0.html
http://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,635.0.html
http://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,988.0.html

We have a lot of threads on this.   heheh

I am sure there are a lot more than that, as threads have a way of morphing.  That was just a quick search result.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Rothbardian on January 11, 2012, 11:31:04 PM
Line-by-line refutation.

I think that not voting is a way to have a big impact on the people closest to you.

I disagree. The biggest way to have an impact on people close to you is to convert them via presenting convincing arguments.

Quote
It's consistency.

No, it's inconsistency, since you are against the funadmanental way of reducing government.

Quote
If you truly believe the system is rigged, and completely fucked, then you wouldn't vote.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it is "rigged" or "fucked" if we can get Our People in office.

Quote
Saying you support RP and vote libertarian makes it look like you aren't holding true to your convictions.

No, because supporting RP and voting libertarian is the only realistic way to reduce the State in the first place. (Aside from revolution, which is a form of political action, but that's a different matter). The purpose of educating and converting people to AnCap has no purpose if not defeating the State via political action.

Quote
Even if you only want to use politics for spreading a message, and don't think anyone will get elected, it still won't help your image.

Well, I don't just want to use politics to spread a message. Politics is a fundamental tenet of Anarcho-Capitalism, as I will prove in my essay.

Quote
To tell others the elections are shams and to work for a political campaign looks snaky.

Nope, since the candidates I am proposing want to reduce the State, it looks perfectly consistent. You turn people off more because you don't appeal to their political side.

If they are unpolitical, don't bring politics up, and give them straight ideology. Bingo, problem solved. See how easy that was?

Quote
To say the state and all politicians are criminals, but to drive around with a RP bumper sticker makes people take the "anarcho" of your anarcho-libertarian title a little less seriously.

False. You're just spewing sectarian nonsense.

Quote
It makes it look like even the most radical people still believe that "democracy" is salvageable and a universally appreciated ideal.

Nope, it's not about democracy, it's about seizing the political means to end democracy.

Quote
Years ago, when I would tell someone I supported RP, that would go in one ear and out the other. All it told them was that I supported some fringe candidate, and they didn't really care.

Your fault, don't appeal to people on political grounds who won't listen about the politics. Appeal to such hypothetical un-political people on strictly AnCap ideological grounds, but at the same time don't denounce politics as a means of change. (Because it is one).

You just never grasped the full meaning of being a political anarchist, that's all.

Quote
To actually go outright and explain why the whole thing is criminal is a much more powerful stance.

You can do that while still being political. You have to judge on a case by case basis how you want to take your course of action. You apparently are a bad judge of this.

Quote
I'm not trying to straddle the line between anarchism and political libertarianism, and necessarily appearing hypocritical.


It's not hypocritical. If it "appears hypocritical," I elaborate to explain why it's not. Also, nothing about being a political anarchist says you have to discuss politics at every turn. Strawman. For some people, maybe it is better to convert them to A-C first, and then convince them to vote for Ron Paul. For others, it might be the opposite. If you misjudged, that's not my fault. Additionally, it's good if you can convince someone to, say, vote for Ron Paul, even if conversion for said person isn't going to happen.

What's hypocritical, sir, is your hypocrisy of not wanting to reduce the State. You are not a radical, by any means.

Quote
If I vote and my guy wins, I accept it...but if my guy loses, I think it's wrong?

That's not how being a political anarchist works mate. Again, massive strawman. If my guy wins and cuts the taxes by 50% (hypothetically, it's unrealistic), that's virtuous.

Quote
Whether I like it or not, and whether you like it or not, you are a "representative" of anarchism.

Yup.

Quote
When you "come out" to someone, you are likely the first market anarchist they have ever met.

Yup.


Quote
How they judge your character affects how they perceive the entire political philosophy.

Correct.

Quote
When you explain your radical understanding of the nature of government, but then turn around and talk about voting, you throw away an opportunity to make your statist acquaintances experience cognitive dissonance.

False. And nothing about being a political anarchist means you have to "turn around and talk about voting" in a given discussion. Also, if they're willing to try to understand Anarcho-Capitalism, then they're sure as hell willing to understand why politics are not a contradiction. (Something simple which you can't grasp, apparently).

If someone is hypothetically willing to understand AnCap but has an issue with politics, don't bring it up. Problem solved again for the political anarchist like myself.

Quote
But by reassuring them that voting is a useful, moral, practical, justifiable thing to do, it weakens the impact you can have on them.

Nope.

Quote
The title of the thread is "The most important strategy." It happens to be education.

It's one of them. The most important strategies, in no particular order, are politics, education, and revolution. There is no (immediate) point in educating them if not as a means to politics and revolution, I should also add.


Quote
The last thing you want to do is leave the other person without challenging the supreme monolithic position that "the democratic process" holds in their hearts and minds.

Agreed, if you replace "democratic process" with "democracy," and you explain how the "democratic process" can be used to destroy "democracy," because it can. The "democratic process" is just one Anarcho-Capitalist way of seizeing the political means, which is exactly what we want.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on January 12, 2012, 12:19:49 AM
1) I never said that the biggest way to have on an impact on people was not voting. I said it was a big impact though. So even if you think converting them is the biggest way, it doesn't necessarily mean you disagree. So your second statement doesn't follow your first.

2) It is consistency. I say government is criminal, I say I am not criminal, therefore I do not attempt to wield the state.

3) It's fucked because you CAN'T get "our people" in office. Our people don't run, and couldn't win if they did.

Quote
The purpose of educating and converting people to AnCap has no purpose if not defeating the State via political action.
You keep using this as though it somehow refutes my position, but it's just stating your own. I don't think this is right at all. If I could snap my fingers and have 56% of people become market anarchists, we wouldn't vote for RP to end the state. We would withdraw. We would ignore it, and defend ourselves against it, and treat it like the criminal organization it is. It would shrivel up and die without us checking some damn boxes.

Quote
Nope, since the candidates I am proposing want to reduce the State, it looks perfectly consistent. You turn people off more because you don't appeal to their political side.
The main candidate you support is republican, and it makes you look republican. You have your experiences, and I have mine. So it's no use telling me I'm wrong here. All I did was tell you that people's eyes glazed over much more often talking about RP than they did with market anarchism. Voting isn't consistent, because it makes it look like you and your opponent simply have different political preferences, and that you disagree, and it's no big deal. As a market anarchist, it's not like that at all. It's not having different political preferences, it's accusing the state of theft and murder. It's calling the voters accomplices.

Quote
False. You're just spewing sectarian nonsense.
Why is this false? It's absolutely true. Do you take the "anarcho" of anarcho-communists seriously? Hell no. Because they are just democratic socialists who only reject the results of elections when they lose. When they win it's all okay. Market anarchists for RP are exactly the same.

Quote
Nope, it's not about democracy, it's about seizing the political means to end democracy.
Yes, I see. So democracy is not a good way to solve problems, but we should use it to solve problems.

Quote
You just never grasped the full meaning of being a political anarchist, that's all.
I never was a political anarchist. But I understand it quite well, I have the ancoms to serve as wonderful examples. See above.

Quote
You can do that while still being political. You have to judge on a case by case basis how you want to take your course of action. You apparently are a bad judge of this.
How so? I "judge" that by claiming "the whole thing is criminal" I give up any way of credibly endorsing a political candidate (without of course, looking like a self-described criminal). We'll let everyone else here judge for themselves if that makes me a "bad judge."

Quote
What's hypocritical, sir, is your hypocrisy of not wanting to reduce the State. You are not a radical, by any means.
You question my desire to end the state? Now you're embarrassing yourself. I disagree with your assessment that political action is worthwhile. That's no reason to question my resolve. I don't question your intentions just because you disagree with me. I only question the efficacy of inspiring people to mark ballots.

Everyone here has been very polite and accommodating of your different beliefs and approaches. But your hostility and condescension is rendering this discussion fruitless. If you want to write an essay explaining why apolitical anarchists are all wrong, that would be great. I'll read it. In the meantime, avoid starting line-by-line wars, because no one else will read them (tl;dr). It only excludes people from discussion. Don't question anyone's intentions, and don't attack anyone's character. We like to maintain etiquette standards around here, so let's try to hold back the anger. Spend your time crafting your essay if that's your plan, and we'll discuss it, in a civil manner. I look forward to it.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Seth King on January 12, 2012, 01:11:49 AM
JSNTS finally found somebody who's as hard-headed as he is and is willing to write a pseudo-novel to prove their point.  ;D


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Rothbardian on January 12, 2012, 01:16:00 AM
Wait, wait, hold on. Let me defend myself and let me try to fix this mess a little bit. :-\

I'm only going to talk about the last paragraph of what you said, rather than address what we've been arguing, of course.

I hope I never had hostility or condescension. Perhaps I've been misinterpreted. I also never attacked your character or questioned your intentions. When I said you weren't radical, I did mean it. I do not, however, define radical as merely the desire to end the State, but putting this desire into action. I would never, never question your desire to end the State, or anyone else here for that matter. Please take that into account. When I said you are not radical, I was using the Rothbardian sense of the term, OK? Please take no offence. The accusations of sectarianism were also sincere, and were not meant as a personal attack to your character or intentions. Perhaps I assumed wrongly that people are well-versed in Rothbard's politcal semantics here. No issue, I should have explained them as I went along. I'll admit it was a bit of character judgement to say you are a bad judge, but if I elaborated on that point, maybe you would see what I mean. I should not have said it anyway, so I sincerely apologize for that. I think you might have mistook my intentions a bit.

I shall admit I ranted in the above post. It has been a long time coming. I always have felt a little frustrated with anti-politicals, and have even felt my interaction with them was hostile. (Not on this forum). So I've had some bad experiences in the past with people like you, and that's why I ranted a bit. It happened as a result of my culminated feelings on this issue.

I apologize; please don't take what I said personally. The only personal remark I made was the one I already apologized for; the other remarks about you were simply observations, for which I presumed you understood my terminology. Bad assumption, I can see why it seemed offensive.

Let's start over and we can discuss this issue when I have written my essay. Until that time, I cease fire on the matter. Sorry, I hope I have not made you have an enmity for me.

I agree line-by-line is stupid. I need to slow down and explain things.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Seth King on January 12, 2012, 01:25:19 AM
I'm sure there will be much debate when your article gets published to the front page, assuming I publish it, that is.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Rothbardian on January 12, 2012, 02:10:14 AM
Yes, Seth, I will freely admit that I am hard-headed. ;D

But I am not hard-headed in the sense that I want any sense of enmity. I agree, let's have an intellectual, friendly discussion on this later.

And thanks for giving the great opportunity of publishing such things. I'm impressed that you would allow someone with whom you might disagree to possibly publish on your site. You seem like a pretty nice guy, to be honest. :)

Also, is it fine if I tried to get this published on, say, Mises.org, after a couple months if it got published here? Just curious in advance. I'd have no problem with making it exclusive to your site or whatnot.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Seth King on January 12, 2012, 02:30:06 AM
Articles must be published here first. After that I don't really have any control, I ask only that authors do not republish their articles in full on their own blogs. Republishing snippets with links to the article here is fine. But if an author republishes the article in full on their own blog then I likely won't publish any future articles by the author.

As far as other websites go, I have no control, nor do I care, if they republish articles. So, if it got republished on Mises.org, I would have no problem, and probably like it, so long as they provided a link back.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Rothbardian on January 12, 2012, 02:36:14 AM
Thanks for the information! I'll certainly try to get this published here first, if and when I finish writing it. I don't do the whole blog thing, so don't worry about that. ;D

Yes, hypothetically republishing the article on Mises would be really good for your site's traffic and everything. Not saying that would happen, of course, but it would be cool for us both if it did. :P



Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: David Giessel on January 12, 2012, 02:43:29 AM
Seth, you need a smiley eating popcorn. This thread is entertaining.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Syock on January 12, 2012, 07:53:13 AM
Tilting at windmills...

This topic of voting has been argued for a long time well beyond the walls of the forum.  

For most people there simply isn't enough people around for voting to ever work.  Once the FSP kicks in, then NH should have plenty to work on a state level, but that is a far cry from doing anything at all on a federal level.  In some ways we are better off being spread out because that means the activists are all over the country, reaching more people, although achieving nothing politically.  

There are just too many people with too much to gain by threatening their neighbors.  

Of course I would rather live under a minarchism than a police state, however starting from a police state where 1/2 the economy runs through the government, and the other 1/2 is regulated by it with a rigged system is a bad place to start from.  It would be a lot more reasonable to start with a minarchism and keep it that way.  That again is something I would not expect to survive the test of time.  

RP's constitution is not protection from the government, and many people only use it when it is convenient and ignore it the rest of the time.  It has no mechanism to enforce itself, it is flawed, the government will always grow back like a weed.  If someone wants to vote, I will send them RP's way.  It is a step in the right direction for them.  It will educate them on issues they will not have examined before.  If someone doesn't want to vote, telling them they are wrong won't do anything but build barriers as they certainly will have their reasons for it.  It really tends to be more of a minarchist/libertarian thing to support the system through political activism.  Yelling at the anarchists won't get you anywhere.  

There is merit in every form of activism, as they bring about different and necessary things.  If you think a black market can't work, look at the drug market.  It dominates the economy and the government in many countries.  The government corruption seen there is no different than the corruption seen here influenced by big business, big unions, and groups specializing on one issue having excessive influence.  The money is just coming from a different source.  Keep in mind all those groups have incentive to make new laws, new regulations, new things that we find harmful.  Honestly even the drug market and police have an incentive to keep it illegal and scare the public into thinking it is incredibly dangerous.  

Any government is flawed at its very core.  A smaller government is still a government, and still has the ability to grow to insane proportions with the abuse of its power.  Is this knowledge not why we're ancap in the first place?  


I probably left gaps in this, but I don't care.    :P  


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Freya on January 12, 2012, 08:40:37 AM
All I have to say to both Rothbardian and JSNTS is this:

Feel free to judge or condemn the actions of other individuals if you think they are detrimental to your mutual ends. But do not pretend you know that these actions are such. Only the individual has the knowledge to determine his actions. Only he can decide the rational course of action that he thinks will meet his ends. You can provide him with more information that you have and he doesn't, but don't pretend to know more then him.

I live at least 6000 kilometers away from most of you across a vast ocean. It is futile for you to argue to me that I should use political action unless you have the knowledge I have. I can tell you that we don't have any Ron Pauls in my country. There is literally no one I can vote for that would reduce the size of the state.

You don't know the people around me. My friends and family. You don't know the best way to convince them. I don't know either, but I certainly have a lot more knowledge in that area. I'm going to let my knowledge guide my actions, and you should all do the same.

A marketplace of ideas folks, thats what its all about. There is no "most important" strategy. And even if there was we'd have no way of finding what it is without trying a whole range of things. Ideas by the many, not the few. Let the market figure out what is best in the end.

P.S. I've been learning about praxeology and reading bits of "human action" by Mises, I wonder if it shows in my post? :P


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: dpalme on January 12, 2012, 09:05:12 AM
This has got to be one of the most intelligent internet forum debates.

I can agree with both sides of this argument on some parts, more leaning towards Seth (sorry Rothbardian). While I still vote for the most part, but to be honest, I wasn't an anarchist at the last election, so that may be why. I agree with the pro voting aspect only because whenever I've told somebody that voting is pointless, they tell me it's "your duty as an American" and then just dismiss anything else you say afterwards.

For my anti-voting stance, I need only to quote the late great George Carlin when he said (paraphrasing), "if you keep electing these rich cocksuckers you have no right to complain." We have to face it, true libertarians, let alone anarchists, will never be allowed to get into the political positions high enough to really do any good. Dr. Paul's doing a helluva lot, only because people are getting behind him. You guys know how it works, even if he got the nomination, they'd do something drastic to not allow him in there.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: Syock on January 12, 2012, 09:17:00 AM
... because whenever I've told somebody that voting is pointless, they tell me it's "your duty as an American" and then just dismiss anything else you say afterwards.

That is when you start calling into question the legitimacy of being American.  You never signed the Constitution, or agreed to any of the things that happen here without being threatened.  How is it your duty when you had no choice over being "American" because of where you happened to be born?  The government here certainly doesn't and has not ever represented you.  It never can.  


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: dpalme on January 12, 2012, 09:21:23 AM
... because whenever I've told somebody that voting is pointless, they tell me it's "your duty as an American" and then just dismiss anything else you say afterwards.

That is when you start calling into question the legitimacy of being American.  You never signed the Constitution, or agreed to any of the things that happen here without being threatened.  How is it your duty when you had no choice over being "American" because of where you happened to be born.  The government here certainly doesn't and has not ever represented you.  It never can. 

Exactly, my friend. I will start bringing that up.


Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: derick on January 12, 2012, 11:11:48 AM
I happen to believe voting can be described best as insanity, that is, doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. We as Americans voted ourselves into the situation we find our nation today and I can find no evidence or proof we can vote ourselves out of it. I know of no country in the history of the world that voted themselves out of slavery and into freedom.



Title: Re: The most important strategy
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on January 12, 2012, 12:30:12 PM
JSNTS finally found somebody who's as hard-headed as he is and is willing to write a pseudo-novel to prove their point.  ;D
This hope is why I stick around the forum.

@Rothbardian: Don't worry. It's my fault. I'm also guilty of line-by-line. I just know I've killed some threads in the past with page long "refutations." But the truth is that the arguments are rarely air-tight enough to warrant the line-by-line. So I guess I'm stopping it mainly because I believe that I will end up stifling the discussion with tl;dr.

Seth, you need a smiley eating popcorn. This thread is entertaining.
Well I guess this is evidence against my previous statement^^^

Feel free to judge or condemn the actions of other individuals if you think they are detrimental to your mutual ends. But do not pretend you know that these actions are such. Only the individual has the knowledge to determine his actions. Only he can decide the rational course of action that he thinks will meet his ends. You can provide him with more information that you have and he doesn't, but don't pretend to know more then him.
Absolutely Eddy. I hinted at that with: "You have your experiences, and I have mine. So it's no use telling me I'm wrong here. All I did was tell you that people's eyes glazed over much more often talking about RP than they did with market anarchism." But stating it explicitly is a valuable contribution. Thanks.

Quote
P.S. I've been learning about praxeology and reading bits of "human action" by Mises, I wonder if it shows in my post? :P
It sure does.