Daily Anarchist Forum
April 24, 2014, 02:44:08 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
Author Topic: Are libertarians hurting or helping the cause of freedom when trying to reform..  (Read 12475 times)
ChristineSmith
Newbie
*
Posts: 13


View Profile
« on: May 22, 2011, 12:18:39 PM »

Are issues such as making income taxation "fairer," medical marijuana, immigration control, and the federal "budget," libertarian or statist causes? In the long run, will such efforts increase or decrease liberty? Should we focus on reforming or on abolishing government tyranny? Are "incremental" steps the way to liberty or do they backfire, ultimately maintaining or increasing government control?

My perspective in my video: Are libertarians hurting or helping the cause of freedom when trying to reform statist programs?

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_oyR8ZGNX4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_oyR8ZGNX4</a>
Logged
anotherfreeman
Newbie
*
Posts: 43


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 07, 2011, 08:01:16 PM »

Another great video! Do you mind if I post this video a couple of places?
Logged
helio
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 571



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2011, 04:34:24 PM »

Another great vid.

Best part of the vid was what you said about focusing on the common ground instead of divisiveness.  That's how we grow our numbers.

I think a flat tax would do more to encourage the underground economy and cause people to lose even more faith in statism than the income tax does because half the people don't pay income tax.  If goods and services had a 20-30% tax premium on them, it would create a HUGE black market and drive more of the citizenry out of the arms of the state.  They'll have to chose loyalty over basic economic survival.   I am against all taxation, but the Flat Tax would win more to our cause, I believe.  Just an observation, not an endorsement.

Same with migration.  Want to end the welfare state? Let them in by the millions.  From my perspective, helping 'unapproved' immigrants is like people hiding a jewish family in their attic in nazi controlled Europe.  Granted, the ICE gestapo isn't going to murder them outright, but they will kidnap them nonetheless.

You know, I think the main reason most minarchist libertarians resist anarchism isn't an academic reason.  They have a deep familial connection to America, its culture, history, symbols and general collectivism and it feels like cutting off your right arm to question it. So minarchism is really just a way to defend the institutions they love, while giving them the benefit of seeking more liberty.  I say this because that describes exactly what I went through.   If that is generally true, then the motivation to still participate and use the state to create more liberty comes from nationalism.  A libertarian becomes an anarchist when they give up that superstition.  
« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 01:01:51 PM by helio » Logged

"Fire in the head, peace in the heart."  -Samael
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 24, 2011, 04:21:57 PM »

Quote
You know, I think the main reason most minarchist libertarians resist anarchism isn't academic an reason.  They have a deep familial connection to America, its culture, history, symbols and general collectivism and it feels like cutting off your right arm to question it. So minarchism is really just a way to defend the institutions they love, while giving them the benefit of seeking more liberty.  I say this because that describes exactly what I went through.   If that is generally true, then the motivation to still participate and use the state to create more liberty comes from nationalism.  A libertarian becomes an anarchist when they give up that superstition. 
+1
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
ChristineSmith
Newbie
*
Posts: 13


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 04, 2011, 02:34:40 PM »

+ another. Totally agree with your +1 so make it plus 2--that conclusion as to why so many cling to it seems correct for many.
Logged
David Giessel
Full Member
***
Posts: 230


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 05, 2011, 01:18:59 AM »

Helio, brilliant. +3.
Logged

"Acquire a peaceful spirit, and thousands around you will be saved." -Seraphim of Sarov

"There is no ideology. There is no guru. There is only us, and this, and the silence." -Mark Manson
rahvin
Full Member
***
Posts: 138


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: July 05, 2011, 11:33:02 AM »

I really think libertarians hurt the liberty movement when they advocate reforming programs based on efficiency standards rather than from moral principles. 

For example, the school voucher program may produce better results than the existing public school structure, but the mandatory attendance laws and the funding through taxation don't change any of the pre-existing immoral fundamentals. 

They just end up encouraging statism so long as it can be passed off as "beneficial". 
Logged
helio
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 571



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: July 05, 2011, 02:16:44 PM »

@rahvin

I agree.  Statists, even minarchists are largely consequentialist utilitarians and base their 'policies' on what they believe the benefit will be to who they want to help.  Even though they largely ignore the unseen moral hazards such polices create.

I think this is an advantage to achieving our goals, rather than an impediment because unintended consequences get people doubting the institutions they once cherished.  And once someone begins to have subconscious doubts about efficacy of governmental policy, they'll be more inclined to search for answers and alternatives.  Once they start learning about the consequential benefits of liberty, they'll be more receptive to the ethical arguments. 

Of course that is speculation on my part based upon my own experience and how I got to where I am now, but it may or may not apply to others.
Logged

"Fire in the head, peace in the heart."  -Samael
AgoristTeen1994
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 575


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2011, 10:12:31 PM »

There's nothing wrong with being a consequentialist utilitarian...I myself am one, and while I wouldn't be opposed to the State even if it is immoral, that's only if it was the most efficient means...in my opinion a truly free market is the most efficient means....though that is a conclusion I came to only after a lot of thought...while there are some inefficiencies...overall it's actually very efficient, and brings the most benefit to the largest number of people. The main problem I see is the protection of individual rights though that's assuming there are natural rights (which I do admittedly believe) and I'm sure the free market will figure it out somehow.
Logged

helio
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 571



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: July 13, 2011, 04:29:46 PM »

Quote
There's nothing wrong with being a consequentialist utilitarian...I myself am one, and while I wouldn't be opposed to the State even if it is immoral

I hope this is a sentiment that you don't let lie and instead continue to ponder and challenge. 

Either you view people as something to be manipulated, attacked, destroyed, intimidated, robbed, threatened, extorted, or lied to in order to get what you want out of life, or you view them as sovereign individuals to be traded with and associated with when you agree and to be left to their own devices when you don't. 

There isn't any middle ground. 
Logged

"Fire in the head, peace in the heart."  -Samael
AgoristTeen1994
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 575


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2011, 05:37:27 AM »

I disagree on that. For example, I personally think the State is immoral, and I despise it...however IF it was the most efficient type of society, I would  put aside that hatred...however since I think it is both  immoral, illogical,  AND inefficient, I gladly try to "Smash the State" albeit in a "peaceful" manner
Logged

helio
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 571



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: July 14, 2011, 11:52:23 AM »

I don't understand what you mean by efficient.   Efficient at what action or task? 

Certainly, the statists are very efficient at achieving their goals of controlling society, confiscating wealth for redistribution to supporters, waging wars against their foreign enemies, developing technologies that solidify their grip on power, and many other things.

Logged

"Fire in the head, peace in the heart."  -Samael
AgoristTeen1994
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 575


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: July 14, 2011, 01:50:53 PM »

By efficient, I meant efficient at actually being a force for good, and since the State is incredibly inefficient at being said force for good, and is illogical as well as immoral...that is why I want to abolish it. So I'm not saying the State is efficient, at being a force for good...I said IF it was efficient...which it isn't.
Logged

helio
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 571



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: July 15, 2011, 09:48:17 AM »

I hope you don't think I'm being hostile, because I am truly glad you joined the forum.

With that said, here is my main point of contention.

Quote
being a force for good

The point is, a consequentialist's view on what is good depends on the subjective worth of an outcome and ignores the act itself.

It is good for the state to extort from people, because the outcome is to give poor people handouts.

It is good for the state to bomb foreign villages, because the outcome is to get a few terrorists.

It is good for the state to force people to get permission before they can do business in certain fields, because the outcome is that people feel safer.

It is good for the state to force children to attend it's training institutions, because the outcome is that most of them can read and write.

My view is that what is good depends on what the act does to a person's possessions. 
Logged

"Fire in the head, peace in the heart."  -Samael
AgoristTeen1994
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 575


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2011, 10:47:20 AM »

I see where you're coming from, but I wasn't saying I think it is a force for good...I'm just saying IF it was. And those things you listed, I don't think they're good because they do more harm then good...while they might help to a certain point...the harm they cause is much larger, and farther reaching the the occasional, and tiny bits of good.

P.S. Don't worry about me thinking you're being hostile, because, 1. I"m used to dealing with hostility over my views, and 2. I don't think you're being hostile.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!