Daily Anarchist Forum
October 16, 2021, 08:06:19 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6
  Print  
Author Topic: The most important strategy  (Read 35960 times)
Rothbardian
Radical Libertarian
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 272


Abolish the State!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #60 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. 
Logged

Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #61 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. 
Logged

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


Abolish the State!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #62 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.
Logged

Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #63 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.
Logged

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


Abolish the State!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #64 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. 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 Grin). I'll certainly address this, and civil disobedience could be incorporated as one of the main topics especially to add some variety.
Logged

Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #65 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. 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 Grin). 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.   Tongue  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. 
Logged

derick
Full Member
***
Posts: 160


View Profile
« Reply #66 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?

« Last Edit: January 11, 2012, 10:23:06 PM by derick » Logged
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #67 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.
Logged

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


View Profile
« Reply #68 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.
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
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #69 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.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2012, 08:04:59 AM by Syock » Logged

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


Abolish the State!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #70 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.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2012, 12:02:13 AM by Rothbardian » Logged

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


View Profile
« Reply #71 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.
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
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #72 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.  Grin
Logged

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


Abolish the State!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #73 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. Undecided

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.
Logged

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



View Profile WWW
« Reply #74 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.
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 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!