Daily Anarchist Forum
April 23, 2014, 07:00:31 AM *
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 12457 times)
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: July 15, 2011, 05:40:20 PM »

Quote
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.
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.
Okay, so I'm going to start off the same way helio did, I'm glad you're here, but I have to make some friendly criticism (partially devil's advocacy here)

If the state was evil and efficient, it would be okay. You don't personally think the state is efficient. In my opinion the state is efficient. I think the state is evil. I am now okay with the state, according to your own formula for deciding what is acceptable or not.

 So this is a dead end for the discussion, unless I'm missing something.
My opinion of what efficient and good mean could be completely different from yours, and now their is no way to continue debate without trying to tell them their subjective valuations are incorrect. When it comes to discussions about "good and bad," it's very hopeless.

Also, by interchanging good and efficient, we've blended the utilitarianism with morality, making everything really confusing.

Welcome to the forum! No jest.
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
dissidentX
Newbie
*
Posts: 26


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: July 16, 2011, 11:51:10 PM »

This is where anarchists make the grand mistake and expect the world and all it's inhabitants to magically see the light, whereas libertarians take things like human nature into consideration. Libertarians are fighting to help our society to make baby-steps while the very strict anarchist makes very little progress in changing peoples' minds about the state and often turn people against them.

We are not in this tyrannical situation due to the general populous being smart enough to be individualists. It's actually quite the opposite. People are stupid and lazy (generalization). We are animals that will take the easiest route to survival and prosperity. I can't see how anyone can study history and argue with that. We are just a species of animals with a larger brain capacity than the other species. Enlightenment and education can change our views but it will not happen radically as many anarchists seem to demand it to be.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2011, 11:56:26 PM by dissidentX » Logged
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3096



View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: July 17, 2011, 01:19:34 AM »

Paradigm shifts can happen on a moment's notice.
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: July 17, 2011, 10:03:20 AM »

Quote
This is where anarchists make the grand mistake and expect the world and all it's inhabitants to magically see the light, whereas libertarians take things like human nature into consideration.
I don't expect the whole world to magically see the light. I'm not sure if libertarians take human nature into consideration. If people are willing to behave in "evil" ways to achieve their goals as easy as possible, we certainly shouldn't have government, because otherwise the bad people will flock there.

The transformation that political libertarians expect of people is equally, if not more radical.

Asking people to accept government, but not use it to their advantage is about as likely to succeed as asking teens to abstain from sex.
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
AgoristTeen1994
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 575


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: July 17, 2011, 12:20:34 PM »

Quote
This is where anarchists make the grand mistake and expect the world and all it's inhabitants to magically see the light, whereas libertarians take things like human nature into consideration.
I don't expect the whole world to magically see the light. I'm not sure if libertarians take human nature into consideration. If people are willing to behave in "evil" ways to achieve their goals as easy as possible, we certainly shouldn't have government, because otherwise the bad people will flock there.

The transformation that political libertarians expect of people is equally, if not more radical.

Asking people to accept government, but not use it to their advantage is about as likely to succeed as asking teens to abstain from sex.

That is something I agree with you on...well accept for the part about asking teens to abstain from sex, since myself and doing so, and have  several friends who are doing so...but I do see your point. And you're right, I think it's most efficient to not have government for several reasons one of them being that bad people, (by bad I mean those who'd willingly use violence and coercion aggressively) will flock to government so they can accomplish their goals, goals that probably won't be right for everyone. And to put what you said another way, wanting government to exist and expecting that it won't be oppressive and that it won't grow into a tyranny is the height of stupidity.
Logged

dissidentX
Newbie
*
Posts: 26


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: August 02, 2011, 01:18:59 AM »

Paradigm shifts can happen on a moment's notice.
OH come on. Never in the history of this nation (the US) has anyone besides the natives ever stood up for anarchism. The majority seems to beg for government. Can you honestly try persuade us that your ideology is a popular one? Pulleeeazzee.... You simply need to come to terms that you are a minority.
Logged
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3096



View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 on: August 02, 2011, 11:11:03 AM »

Paradigm shifts can happen on a moment's notice.
OH come on. Never in the history of this nation (the US) has anyone besides the natives ever stood up for anarchism. The majority seems to beg for government. Can you honestly try persuade us that your ideology is a popular one? Pulleeeazzee.... You simply need to come to terms that you are a minority.

I've come to terms with being in the minority, but that doesn't change the fact that paradigm shifts can happen on a moment's notice.
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: August 02, 2011, 04:58:21 PM »

When shtf, perhaps the mass of people whose opinions form the paradigm will be split up to the point where different paradigms can compete. We wouldn't need a complete change, just the freedom to better represent ourselves.

Anarchists should spend more time discussing this. Would it be possible to organize enough people to come together when shtf to build a free society, and reject the rule of whatever new government comes along? I'm not saying win a majority of people over, but rather to establish a community wherein we would be the majority, regardless of what the rest of the ex-U.S. thinks.

Anyone who says no should A) present a good case, and B) start thinking about alternative ways of establishing free societies.

Anyone who says yes should A) present a good case, and B) expand upon this idea.

We're all good at recognizing the problems, and it's easy (sometimes...) to convince people of that. But finding solutions is very hard.
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
helio
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 571



View Profile
« Reply #23 on: August 02, 2011, 07:31:04 PM »

Quote
Would it be possible to organize enough people to come together when shtf to build a free society, and reject the rule of whatever new government comes along?

A) It depends.


B) It depends.

I know that is unfair =) so here is a better attempt.  I've pondered this myself to some degree and here are some criteria I came up with. 

IF sufficiently remote from any power centers
IF large stocks of supplies have been laid down before hand
IF some number of prior committed and oath-bound agorists provide an initial framework
IF the new government is sufficiently weak or divided and lacking the proximal presence of combat/enforcement personnel.

Then it might be possible to exchange food for explicit social contract with some of the refugees that will surely exist.  Founding a dispute resolution organization in this manner under such circumstances is worth further examination. 

The problems are of course the wealth needed to store all that food and the supplies necessary to have a chip to bargain with.....   And of course getting the agorists together.  That is kind of like trying to herd cats =) 
Logged

"Fire in the head, peace in the heart."  -Samael
David Giessel
Full Member
***
Posts: 230


View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2011, 05:26:24 AM »

Organized anarchists  Huh Huh Huh Huh

 Grin
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
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: August 03, 2011, 05:22:22 PM »

Organized anarchists  Huh Huh Huh Huh

 Grin
Ha, from the moment I typed those words I knew this was coming.

Obviously, solving the problem of the state isn't a simple task. I still think it's worth thinking about a little bit. Even if we don't figure it all out here on the forum, at least it shows that government isn't needed to solve collective action problems, since it is the biggest example of such a problem.
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
Linux
Moderator
Full Member
***
Posts: 119


Your friendly (srs) neighborhood Anarchist


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: August 06, 2011, 11:10:57 PM »

It seams like the state getting worse helps the cause for liberty. Anyone care to point out why I say this?
Logged

"Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order." - Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
If you use Bitcoins, you should check out this site for earning Bitcoins - when you click my link and sign up I get a referral bonus!
helio
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 571



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: August 07, 2011, 05:45:01 PM »

Quote
It seams like the state getting worse helps the cause for liberty. Anyone care to point out why I say this?

Only the hard reality of peoples' miserable suffering under state rule can shake their faith in the institution. 


Quote
Organized anarchists?
That word usually implies centralized hierarchical schemes, but it need not be the case.  A free market is organized, but is only done so decentrally.

When I said,
Quote
IF some number of prior committed and oath-bound agorists provide an initial framework
I didn't mean to imply that a bunch of anarchists subject to the decision making power of a cabal, but rather to that of explicit contracts determined through consensus.
Logged

"Fire in the head, peace in the heart."  -Samael
David Giessel
Full Member
***
Posts: 230


View Profile WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 07, 2011, 06:19:15 PM »

Quote
Organized anarchists?
That word usually implies centralized hierarchical schemes, but it need not be the case.  A free market is organized, but is only done so decentrally.

Of course.

It would seem the only barrier to market organization in order to solve the problems the state "solves" is the belief that in order for a group to benefit, the members comprising that group must make some individual sacrifice. This being the basis of state intervention and labor movements throughout history.

Where does this idea come from? "Taking one for the team." I remember growing up with it and believing it until I discovered Rothbard.

EDIT:
Was just re-reading Leonard Read's "How to Advance Liberty." His last sentence, "... the effort demanded of each individual is not a sacrifice, but the best investment one can make in life's highest purpose."
« Last Edit: August 08, 2011, 04:42:26 AM by David Giessel » 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
helio
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 571



View Profile
« Reply #29 on: August 19, 2011, 12:41:46 AM »

Quote
"Taking one for the team."

Funny you should mention that.  Boss told me yesterday day that I wasn't being a 'part of the team'.

I didn't say it, but there is no team.  It is just a bunch of people competing to push off their work onto everyone else, or at the least to control what everyone else does without having any personal responsibility themselves. 

After that discussion, I took a medical leave of absence.  It is much easier to deal with medical problems without worrying about that crap.  It is also a great opportunity to finally absorb Mises's book, Human Action in exquisite detail.

I feel a blog article coming on....
Logged

"Fire in the head, peace in the heart."  -Samael
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!