Daily Anarchist Forum
November 27, 2021, 12:25:54 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
  Print  
Author Topic: The most important strategy  (Read 36597 times)
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #15 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.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2012, 11:07:30 PM by JustSayNoToStatism » 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
Rothbardian
Radical Libertarian
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 272


Abolish the State!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 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.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2012, 01:57:04 AM by Rothbardian » Logged

David Giessel
Full Member
***
Posts: 230


View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 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.

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
David Giessel
Full Member
***
Posts: 230


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: January 10, 2012, 01:59:53 AM »

BTW, neither Lew nor Murray ever bothered to vote. I asked Lew myself in person.
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
Rothbardian
Radical Libertarian
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 272


Abolish the State!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 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.
Logged

Rothbardian
Radical Libertarian
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 272


Abolish the State!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 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.
Logged

Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 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?
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
Rothbardian
Radical Libertarian
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 272


Abolish the State!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #22 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).

 
« Last Edit: January 10, 2012, 02:22:20 AM by Rothbardian » Logged

Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 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.
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 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.
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #25 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!
« Last Edit: January 10, 2012, 04:12:12 AM by Syock » Logged

David Giessel
Full Member
***
Posts: 230


View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 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). 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 ( Wink ) 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).

Cheesy Cool Tongue
« Last Edit: January 10, 2012, 06:10:09 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
Freya
Tranarchist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 353



View Profile
« Reply #27 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 Wink.

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*
« Last Edit: January 10, 2012, 07:35:05 AM by EddyK » Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #28 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.  
« Last Edit: January 10, 2012, 07:43:26 AM by Syock » Logged

Freya
Tranarchist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 353



View Profile
« Reply #29 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 Tongue. 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.....
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
  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!