I read quite a bit about the growing interest in anarchy and in the philosophy of libertarianism, but I can’t really post articles here at IPR because we are dedicated to discussing third parties and Independents. Here is a thread where I will post some of the articles that might interest you about those topics. Other writers and readers are welcome to use the thread for articles that don’t fit into IPR’s current criteria for articles.
364 Comments
Comments are closed.
Maybe move the discussion to the new post? https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/04/open-thread-ii-for-discussion-of-small-l-libertarianism-and-anarchy/
…was Japan justified in PH? Gee, I’d say no. You?
Definitely not. In fact, my whole point is that there is no such thing as a just war. (Note that I am talking about actual wars, rather than hypothetical fairytale wars).
I am open to the possibility that measured acts to stop genocides could be justified, all things considered.
In theory, perhaps so. The problem is that, in practice, these “measured acts” are nothing but a pipe dream, inspired by the propaganda emanating from the war machine. In the real world, wars are always massive violations of not only libertarian principles, but the most basic principles of human decency. The idea of a “just war” is like the idea of a centrally planned socialist economy. It may sound great in theory, but in practice, it’s an absolute disaster.
…the revisionist take on the Civil War that was so long in favor among NAPsolutist Ls…
If you’re referring to the idea that the South was the “good side”, that is certainly preposterous, but no more preposterous than the standard narrative that the North was the “good side”. The truth is that in the Civil War, just as in every other war I am aware of, there was no “good side”.
make that:
If Nation A is looking to exterminate Nation B, or a subset of Nation B, that behavior is something provokes the humanitarian impulse.
langa: World War II? Dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was defensive?
me: No. Perhaps you didn’t understand what I meant by: “the Axis attacked many nations, most of which defended themselves, at least for a time.”
WWII STARTED was attacks/defenses. I was not referring to the US participation per se, I was talking about the war(s) in general.
But, while I don’t think nuking H and N were justified, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the first act of war on the US.
Yes, I still have my dormant Rothbardian circuitry, so I’m aware that hostile but not overtly violent acts were “started” by the US, and the conspiracy theory that FDR knew and let Pearl Harbor happen. Even if stipulated, was Japan justified in PH? Gee, I’d say no. You? It was also rather unwise of them, since it led to their undoing.
Nation A attacks Nation B. Nation B defends itself from the onslaught. No matter how you slice it, pretty much every war is that way. If Nation A is looking to exterminate Nation B, or a subset of Nation B. The other wars are internal ones, and those can get a bit murkier.
Yes, Nations C-Z COULD stand by and watch millions butchered. Having freed myself from the rigid, simplistic theory and application of the NAP, I admit that watching butchery does not sit well with me. I am open to the possibility that measured acts to stop genocides could be justified, all things considered.
I’m pleased GJ is able to think outside the NAPsolutist box on the matter. If he runs again, and he makes it on Meet the Press, hopefully his thinking is also unchained from the revisionist take on the Civil War that was so long in favor among NAPsolutist Ls, and therefore so long served as a massive millstone on the cause of lessarchism.
World War II? Dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was defensive? Really???
Forget taxes and conscription. Just show me a war with no “collateral damage” (as the military euphemistically terms the casual murder and maiming of innocent people) and we can talk.
Langa: Yes, in theory, there could be a war that was compatible with libertarian principles, but in practice, I am unaware of any war that has ever even come close to being purely “defensive” in nature. Every war that has ever taken place has been a massive violation of libertarian values….I am always surprised that some libertarians buy into the idea that the ends justify the means, as this seems to me to be fundamentally incompatible with libertarianism.
Me: I’d say many wars were largely defensive. In WWII, for ex., the Axis attacked many nations, most of which defended themselves, at least for a time. Yes, the defending nations had taxes and states, but those that lost were for a time ruled by a nation-state (Germany) that has almost no commitment to protecting individual liberty.
Still, the means of defending themselves was all they had in a moment of exigent circumstances. Yes, the attacked nations could have declared themselves stateless, recommended that its citizens read Lysander Spooner instead, but it’s not clear how that would address the very real risks they faced to their lives and limbs.
I agree that war is generally dysfunctional. Subjugation could be more so. Genocide even more so.
Ends and means don’t happen in isolation, but rather in context. If the context is genocide, for ex., the general principle of a non-interventionist stance MAY require bending to the specifics.
Langa: ” I am unaware of any war that has ever even come close to being purely “defensive” in nature. Every war that has ever taken place has been a massive violation of libertarian values”
That does not preclude the fact that many, if not most, wars BEGIN as “defensive actions” in response to aggression by others The problem is that, as Randolph Bourne wrote; “War is the health of the State”, so generally, governments use legitimate defense military action to expand
or justify more aggressive actions for their own agendas.
“Nicholas Sarwark April 4, 2014 at 8:09 am
I suggested to him that he should reevaluate his position on the Fair Tax after his speech at the LP Colorado convention last weekend. His defense is getting more nuanced and polished, but he’s not convinced it is as big a problem for him as I think it is.
Mr. Johnson has run multiple campaigns, some of them successful, as well as being an accomplished businessman and athlete. It’s going to take more than a few Internet commenters to convince him he’s incorrect about this issue.”
If he does not understand why most Libertarians disagree with him about the Fair Tax, there is an obvious flaw in his understanding of libertarianism.
I suggested to him that he should reevaluate his position on the Fair Tax after his speech at the LP Colorado convention last weekend. His defense is getting more nuanced and polished, but he’s not convinced it is as big a problem for him as I think it is.
Mr. Johnson has run multiple campaigns, some of them successful, as well as being an accomplished businessman and athlete. It’s going to take more than a few Internet commenters to convince him he’s incorrect about this issue.
War can be defensive, while rape can’t.
I’m talking about war as it actually exists, not some fairytale version of war. Yes, in theory, there could be a war that was compatible with libertarian principles, but in practice, I am unaware of any war that has ever even come close to being purely “defensive” in nature. Every war that has ever taken place has been a massive violation of libertarian values.
As for “humanitarian war” the justification would be an even larger abuse of people’s rights, such as genocide. In such a case, hypothetically, war could reduce the amount of rights violations taking place. If, say, a regime was killing millions of its own captives, a war by a foreign invader that kills hundreds of thousands but stops the killing of millions is arguably justifiable.
I am always surprised that some libertarians buy into the idea that the ends justify the means, as this seems to me to be fundamentally incompatible with libertarianism. For example, if the government installed surveillance cameras in every room of every building in America, this would almost certainly reduce the amount of domestic violence that takes place, and the same could be said for rape and numerous other things that violate the NAP. But is there really any sane person who thinks that this massive violation of liberty could be justified, simply on the grounds that it prevents greater violations of liberty? The same is true of “humanitarian” war.
“engage Gary Johnson in public debate on the issue”
Should read, “engage Gary Johnson in a public debate on the issue…”
“paulie April 3, 2014 at 11:44 pm
‘What bothers me is Gary Johnson’s unwillingness to debate the issue.’
Who is he supposed to debate it with? If, for example, Chuck Moulton runs for the presidential nomination and Gary Johnson runs for it again I expect they will be debating it quite a bit.”
There are lots of Libertarians who are vehemently against the Fair Tax plan. I’m sure that many of us would be willing to engage Gary Johnson in public debate on the issue and have it posted in a video online.
Chuck Moulton wrote an open letter to Gary Johnson a while ago. It was posted on this site as an article. Gary Johnson never responded to it. I don’t think that Chuck should have to run against him to get a response, but maybe he will end up doing that.
“paulie April 4, 2014 at 12:08 am
OK Barbara Lee. Makes no difference who it was for our purpose here. Ron Paul still voted on the wrong side of this issue and no signing statement changes that fact.”
Sure, in retrospect, I think that he should have voted against it, but you’ve got to consider the circumstances at the time, and also take into consideration that overall, Ron Paul’s record in Congress was really good, maybe the best ever from a pro-liberty perspective, or at least the best in recent decades from a pro-liberty perspective (maybe there was some member of Congress from the past that I’m not aware of who had a record that was as good or better than Ron Paul’s, but I don’t know if such a person existed in Congress). Nobody is perfect.
“paulie April 3, 2014 at 11:59 pm
‘Well, in a way yes and in a way no. It was authorizing the use of force against whoever carried out the 9/11 attack.’
Nope, read it again and pay attention to the part I highlighted. There was no way that anyone voting for the resolution did not know that it would lead to an invasion of at minimum Afghanistan. Ron Paul should have voted with Sheila Jackson Lee.”
I read it, and yes, it could have (and did) lead to an invasion of Afghanistan, however, it did not necessarily have to do that, as it was to authorize the use of force to go after the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attack. It is true that at the time, it was assumed by a lot of people that those who carried out the attack were hiding out in Afghanistan. I believe that this was a lie, and there is plenty of evidence to back this up, however, you’ve got to think of what people were thinking at that time, as in back in September of 2001. It is very easy to look back in time and play arm chair quarterback.
I think that in retrospect, Ron Paul should have voted against it, but I can’t hold it against him too much, because it would be justified to use force against those who carried out such an attack, and it would have passed anyway without him voting for it, and his opposition would have used it against him when he ran for reelection, as in, “Don’t vote for Ron Paul, he did not think we should go after the terrorists who got us on 9/11.”
Ron Paul actually did try to get Congress to use the constitutional method for going after terrorists, the letter of Marque and Reprisal, but this got shot down.
Ron Paul also opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning, and he did call for removing the military from Afghanistan.
Once again, it was thought at the time that some people hiding out in caves in Afghanistan were behind the 9/11 attack. If this had been true, it would have been justified to use force against them. Now the way that the force ended up being used was not justified (as in lots on innocent people ended up being harmed and killed, along with an unnecessary long term occupation of the country), and frankly, the entire premise that some people hiding out in caves in Afghanistan were behind the attack now looks absurd, but I say this as a person looking back on it well after it happened, armed with lots of information that was not known at that time.
It should be pointed out that otherwise anti-war Democrats Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney voted in favor of the resolution as well.
OK Barbara Lee. Makes no difference who it was for our purpose here. Ron Paul still voted on the wrong side of this issue and no signing statement changes that fact.
I just looked it up, and it was actually Barbara Lee, Democratic Party Congresswoman from California, who was the one lone vote against the above resolution. Here is her statement from the House floor as to why she voted against it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh_sxilhyV0
Nope, read it again and pay attention to the part I highlighted. There was no way that anyone voting for the resolution did not know that it would lead to an invasion of at minimum Afghanistan. Ron Paul should have voted with Sheila Jackson Lee.
“paulie April 3, 2014 at 11:31 pm
“The ‘money shot’ is
‘SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR — USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons,’
So it was actually worse than just authorizing the invasion of Afghanistan, which it did do, because Duh-bya could have used it as authorization to invade multiple nations.”
Well, in a way yes and in a way no. It was authorizing the use of force against whoever carried out the 9/11 attack. I think that if a real investigation had been done, that the rabbit trail would have actually gone back to people within the US government, some of whom were in the White House, the Pentagon, and the CIA, and who were likely working in conjunction with the Israeli Mossad. I fully support using force to bring the real terrorists to justice, I just think that they went after the wrong people (which I’m sure was the plan). George W. Bush, Marvin Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Dov Zakheim , Larry Silverstein, Rudy Giuliani, and some others should have been put on trial for treason.
I think that there was only one member of Congress who voted against the resolution, and that was Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat from California.
Who is he supposed to debate it with? If, for example, Chuck Moulton runs for the presidential nomination and Gary Johnson runs for it again I expect they will be debating it quite a bit.
“robert capozzi April 3, 2014 at 2:13 pm
‘a: The people who push the Fair Tax admit that it is revenue neutral, as in it is designed to bring in as much in taxes as the current system does.’
me: Actually, not necessarily. The FAIR Tax can be neutral, increase or decrease revenues, depending on what the rate is set at and what the pre-bate is.”
The Fair Tax, as it is being pushed, is set at 30%, although the people pushing it use a disingenuous method of calculating the tax rate and falsely claim that it is a 23% tax. The fact that they misrepresent the rate of the tax should be a red flag, as in this alone should be reason enough for people to not support it.
“Were I advising GJ, I would suggest that the FAIR Tax was not a good plan for for his campaign a lot of reasons. But it seemed to me unworthy of savaging, unlike Langa’s quirky ‘humanitarian rape’ notion might well require, or another campaign’s advocacy of legalizing bestiality.”
What bothers me is Gary Johnson’s unwillingness to debate the issue. I’d like to see somebody confront Gary Johnson over this issue, and not let him slip out of debating it, and to have this video recorded and posted online.
“Even if the FAIR Tax is a non-starter, I didn’t see it as worthy all the catastrophizing and hyper-ventilating that it still attracts, even today. It has some merits, just as there are merits to maintaining a force-initiation Coast Guard, at least for the time being, until Libertarian Jubilee erupts, that is. ;)”
I really don’t think that it is a good thing for a Libertarian Party candidate to support a new tax plan that is no better than the present system, and might even be worse than the present system. Best case scenario is that the Fair Tax is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, as in it is not necessarily going to make the ship sink any faster than it is already sinking, but it is not going to plug up the hole or help people escape to the life boats, or better yet, not hit the iceberg in the first place.
The “money shot” is
So it was actually worse than just authorizing the invasion of Afghanistan, which it did do, because Duh-bya could have used it as authorization to invade multiple nations.
Here is what Ron Paul actually voted for:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES.64:
H.J.RES.64 — Authorization for Use of Military Force (Agreed to House – ATH)
HJ 64 ATH
107th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 64
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
IN THE HO– USE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 14, 2001
Mr. ARMEY (for himself and Mr. GEPHARDT) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations
September 14, 2001
Committee on International Relations discharged; which was considered and agreed to
——————————————————————————–
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens;
Whereas such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad;
Whereas in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;
Whereas such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force’.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR — USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
And here is the statement Ron Paul made on the House floor about the issue:
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. Sadly, we find ourselves today dealing with a responsibility to provide national security under the most difficult of circumstances. To declare war against a group that is not a country makes the clear declaration of war more complex.
The best tool the framers of the Constitution provided under these circumstances was the power of Congress to grant letters of mark and reprisal in order to narrow the retaliation to only the guilty parties. The complexity of the issue, the vagueness of the enemy, and the political pressure to respond immediately limits our choices. The proposed resolution is the only option we are offered, and doing nothing is unthinkable.
There are a couple of serious points I would like to make. For the critics of our policy of foreign intervention in the affairs of others, the attack on New York and Washington was not a surprise, and many have warned of its inevitability. It so far has been inappropriate to ask why the U.S. was the target and not some other Western country. But for us to pursue a war against our enemies, it is crucial to understand why we were attacked, which will then tell us by whom we were attacked. Without this knowledge, striking out at six or eight or 10 countries will not help.
[Begin Insert]
Without this knowledge, striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal nor to know when the war is over. Inadvertent or casual acceptance of civilian deaths as part of this war I’m certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible.
Too often over the last several decades we have supported both sides of many wars only to find ourselves needlessly entrenched in conflicts unrelated to our national security. It is not unheard of that the weapons and support we send to foreign nations have ended up being used against us. The current crisis may well be another example of such a mishap.
Although we now must fight to preserve our national security, we should not forget that the founders of this great nation advised that for our own sake we should stay out of entangling alliances and the affairs of other nations.
We are placing tremendous trust in our President to pursue our enemies as our commander-in-chief but Congress must remain vigilant as to not allow our civil liberties here at home to be eroded. The temptation will be great to sacrifice our freedoms for what may seem to be more security. We must resist this temptation.
Mr. Speaker we must rally behind our President, pray for him to make wise decisions, and hope that this crisis is resolved a lot sooner than is now anticipated.
War can be defensive, while rape can’t.
As for “humanitarian war” the justification would be an even larger abuse of people’s rights, such as genocide. In such a case, hypothetically, war could reduce the amount of rights violations taking place. If, say, a regime was killing millions of its own captives, a war by a foreign invader that kills hundreds of thousands but stops the killing of millions is arguably justifiable.
In practice I am very skeptical of any government’s ability to correctly make and carry out such decisions without creating unintended consequences that are even worse than the probelms they are trying to solve. Gary is not very enthusiastic about it either, he’s not interested in some “humanitarian” world policing crusade. He’s said that in some extreme circumstances he would not rule it out. But generally speaking he is a peacenik.
And, hey, Ron Paul voted for the invasion of Afghanistan, so is any politician perfect? Not that Gary is either but he’s much better than a lot of people here have made him out to be.
I would say that – in this culture, at least – rape is never justified. I can’t say the same about war, although you may have a different opinion.
Actually, my opinion is that war is actually worse than rape, in part because it includes rape, as well as theft, slavery, murder and property destruction, all on a scale that dwarfs what any private criminal, or even gang of private criminals, could ever dream of doing. I fail to see anything even remotely “humanitarian” about it, regardless of the pious “motives” suggested by its advocates. I’m sure there are some lunatics who felt that they had good justification for committing rape, too. Maybe the woman was unhappy because she was sexually frustrated, and the guy thought he was “liberating” her, or some garbage. But no matter what adjective you put in front of it, rape is still rape, and war is still war, and neither is remotely libertarian.
In its proposed form highly unlikely it would pass. I could see it morphing into a VAT tax added on top of existing taxes. I think that may be the hidden agenda behind the plan (not for most of those supporting it though).
a: The people who push the Fair Tax admit that it is revenue neutral, as in it is designed to bring in as much in taxes as the current system does.
me: Actually, not necessarily. The FAIR Tax can be neutral, increase or decrease revenues, depending on what the rate is set at and what the pre-bate is.
Were I advising GJ, I would suggest that the FAIR Tax was not a good plan for for his campaign a lot of reasons. But it seemed to me unworthy of savaging, unlike Langa’s quirky “humanitarian rape” notion might well require, or another campaign’s advocacy of legalizing bestiality.
Even if the FAIR Tax is a non-starter, I didn’t see it as worthy all the catastrophizing and hyper-ventilating that it still attracts, even today. It has some merits, just as there are merits to maintaining a force-initiation Coast Guard, at least for the time being, until Libertarian Jubilee erupts, that is. 😉
Robert Capozzi April 3, 2014 at 5:22 am
“Rest assured that the FAIR Tax will not be implemented. Tax simplification is a great L idea, as is tax reduction. Some believe ONLY tax ABOLITION is a L position. That absolutism looks alive and well to me, once of the reasons for my non-door darkening, along with health issues.”
I’m not opposed to incremental steps just as long as they lead to less government. The Fair Tax is NOT an incremental step toward less government. The people who push the Fair Tax admit that it is revenue neutral, as in it is designed to bring in as much in taxes as the current system does. The Fair Tax also creates a whole new bureaucracy.
Langa, I don’t know about “deserved,” but I would say that – in this culture, at least – rape is never justified. I can’t say the same about war, although you may have a different opinion. IF a genocide were in progress, I’d say it would be understandable that some/most US citizens would approve of intervening to stop a genocide, at least in concept.
If the Canadian government were executing all residents of Quebec, for ex., I personally might support a US intervention IF the intervention stood a reasonable chance of halting the genocide. I remain heavily biased against foreign intervention, but I keep my options open.
You may not, along with most/all NAPsolutists.
It may feel good to you to take that “principled” stance, i.e., an ABSOLUTE opposition to ANY forceful non-defense measure.
God may agree with you, too, but my sense is this sort of extremist absolutism puts and keeps Ls WAY out on the fringes for most, and through such self-marginalization, damages the general case for lessarchism and actually HELPS the more-archists by branding liberty-lovers as lunatics, in effect.
GJ was savaged for other stuff, like his general support for the notion of humanitarian wars.
If he had voiced his “general support” for the notion of humanitarian rape, would he have deserved to be “savaged” for that, or would any such criticism also be another case of knee-jerk libertarian purism?
NS, yes, I share your skepticism. GJ was savaged for other stuff, like his general support for the notion of humanitarian wars. And his association with Roger Stone. And his “black box” political advisory firm. I’m sure there were others.
Rest assured that the FAIR Tax will not be implemented. Tax simplification is a great L idea, as is tax reduction. Some believe ONLY tax ABOLITION is a L position. That absolutism looks alive and well to me, once of the reasons for my non-door darkening, along with health issues.
Gary Johnson gets criticized for proposing to implement a new tax. I don’t doubt he’s sincere in his belief that it would be a better tax system than we currently have, but proposing a new tax, rather than cutting/simplifying the existing system, is a much harder sell to Libertarians. For some reason, we’re skeptical that a government told to take one step forward (passage of the Fair Tax) and two steps back (repeal of the income tax) will remember to take the backward steps.
I was referring to your absence from the LP subsequent to Portland, not that I found your presence unpleasant.
NS, hmm, I’d say GJ withstood a fair amount of the sort of savaging I refer to for his heresies, deviationist tendencies. Still does. Indeed this site’s owner implies that he’s either a patsy or a conscious Trojan Horse, sent by unnamed R operatives to undermine the great and glorious good name of anarchocapitalism.
BTW, do I really darken doors? Sheesh. Not my intent. I’m all about love and light! 😉
Maybe it did back when you last darkened the door of an actual Libertarian Party event and the big issue of the day was private nukes, but I haven’t seen it much of late.
pf: Never said “no negotiation” – you invented that part.
me: OK, I see why you say that. But then maybe we’re watching very different movies. When a L candidate advocates something short of abolition, the boo-bird purists have a tendency to shriek “unprincipled sell out” or its equivalent. Can we stipulate that this happens a fair amount?
That’s what I mean by “no negotiation.”
When I briefly worked for Ron Paul in the 80s, I asked him if he would vote for a federal budget that was reduced year to year, but contained one line item that increased. He said he would not.
That’s well beyond “principle,” as I see it. It’s extreme zealotry. YMMV.
I guess I should read it.
I think this is hilarious. It’s probably meant as a hit piece, but doesn’t seem mean-spirited.
Yeah, I agree, that’s quite humorous. Of course, it doesn’t in any way refute the logic behind libertarianism, which was probably the author’s intent, but it was, nevertheless, really funny.
Thanks!
Never said “no negotiation” – you invented that part.
pf:The problem with wanting less government on most issues but more on just a few is that the few that (generic) you want more government on are a lot more likely to actually pass and be implemented than the rest.
me: I hear that. The “problem” with being a strict on-every-issue lessarchist with no negotiation is that is not how the world works.
Now, I s’pose if there were 300 RPs in Congress at one time, the world might work differently. That tree hasn’t fallen in the forest as yet.
Okay, I’ll start a new thread next time I have something to post.
I think the time has come today…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHfB63ln1Ig&feature=kp
Whatever you think. Maybe it’s a good idea for the new quarter.
Time for a new thread like this?
I think this is hilarious. It’s probably meant as a hit piece, but doesn’t seem mean-spirited.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/shouts/2014/03/libertarian-police-department.html
Non-initiation of force principle applied across the board to issues is an example of systematic approach. The problem with wanting less government on most issues but more on just a few is that the few that (generic) you want more government on are a lot more likely to actually pass and be implemented than the rest. That’s just the nature of government.
pf: far short of a systematic libertarian approach to issues
me: Define “systematic.” Or do you mean something like “comprehensive”?
Minarchism and anarchism seem not so interested in doing anything in a systematic way. Both seem more interested in deriving/divining moral principles, and then critiquing the current configuration against these principles. Developing plausible, systematic programs for rolling back the state don’t seem to be of much interest for most Ms or As.
Dr. Paul, noted M, for ex.,was known as Dr. No, voting against most bills. I didn’t see much in the way of a systematic approach there.
pf: people who want a slightly more libertarian arrangement than what we have now
me: Wouldn’t most Ls want that? Sounds like progress to me!
I don’t think “libertarian lite” refers to speed with which people advocate change, or in most cases to minarchist libertarians. It tends to refer to people who want a slightly more libertarian arrangement than what we have now, but far short of a systematic libertarian approach to issues (whether it be minarchist or anarchist). That doesn’t mean such people are necessary wrong, and it certainly doesn’t have to mean they are stupid or evil in any way, only that they are kind of sort of libertarian-ish but just barely.
seconded!
Humility and even a sense of wonder and exploration seems in order to me. And never making it personal.
Consider the (false) term libertarian lite. Accusing someone of being “lite” makes it personal. Why do that? If one prefers to advocate MASSIVE, RAPID change, that’s cool, but calling those who don’t buy into that approach seems to lack civility, as well as being generally unproductive.
Good article.
http://www.dailypaul.com/314654/libertarian-purists-libertarian-on-everything-except-liberty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VIMnIh10po0
http://youtu.be/hknONC407PE
I left a comment on the article, and I saw that it had been posted. 15 minutes later, it had been deleted, which indicates to me the writer is a coward. This is really a perfect example of why the GOP is dying a slow and agonizing death.
Of all the hit pieces against the libertarian movement lately, this one has me the most angry. It’s truly pathetic to blame the dismal state of the GOP on libertarians.
http://godfatherpolitics.com/14723/libertine-libertarianism-will-reverse-americas-death-spiral/
JP, thanks. This is a pleasant surprise for me, as Tucker seems to me more associated with “brutalists” than “humanitarians.” My bad, perhaps. Or could be he’s seeing that abolitionism as a brutalist approach, and it gives him pause.
Love this clause: “the gradual emergence of cultural norms.”
Seems especially contra “abolitionism.”
http://drrichswier.com/2014/03/12/against-libertarian-brutalism-by-jeffrey-a-tucker/
Here’s a very worthwhile article. I know about the brutalists in our movement. Hopefully, those of us who love humanity far exceed those of us who don’t.
I’m not cloaking anything. Have promoted it many times here and elsewhere. What I don’t have time for is the endless back and forth, which I already did too much of in this thread and reached my limit. Too many other things to do, even on IPR, and IPR itself is a major distraction and overextension of my time. That’s my own fault, but you’ll have to find someone else to argue about anarchism with; I have too many more immediate concerns.
pf: not going to play defense
me: Sorry, I hope my simple question hasn’t come across as an attack. I just would like to understand your perspective.
It might be ME that has the blind spot here. I don’t see it that way, but it’s possible.
I’d think that a radical would relish the opportunity to convert all who’d listen. I’m not getting that vibe from you. You seem to want to cloak your ideology rather than promote it.
Now, the topic of South Park and libertarianism:
http://mises.org/daily/6335/
Here’s a discussion of immigration from Reason:
http://reason.com/archives/2014/03/04/libertarian-answer-to-immigration-reform
Sorry, not going to play defense and I believe my previous answers do provide enough explanation. You don’t have to agree.
PF, pointing to links that extrapolate from Canadian traffic practices IS evasive.
I respect your time, but I’ve asked a very simple question, one that should take less time than your previous post did.
It’s fine with me if you want to equilibrate liberty and anarchy, though it’s non-standard English. To me and, I suspect, most of humanity, they’re different.
If you want others to buy-in to your construct, you should be prepared to defend it.
Nothing evasive in the links and answers I provided earlier, or in the truthful statement that I have not read your last however many comments. I skimmed part of them and have kept telling you I have other things to do. You keep insisting on asking so the answer remains the same.
Technically, evasive answers qualify as “answers,” but not really;)
I’m sure there’s an answer but I don’t have time to read the question.
i feel so abandoned! 🙁
If there’s an answer that works, who knows, perhaps I’d return to the nonarchist fold!
(Or maybe, as I suspect, there really is no answer.)
Sorry, I don’t have time to read or respond to these questions any time in the foreseeable future. Way too many other priorities.
pf, thanks for that very partial response. It seems like one of the simpler questions I’ve asked, requiring maybe a sentence or two.
I have to wonder whether your feeling trapped on this point, given the ease with which you could clarify yourself.
But, if you can’t answer for time reasons or because you really can’t answer, perhaps another abolitionist anarchist would be able to stand in for you, and lay out how anarchy = liberty. Or how some liberty is the manifestation of the anarcho construct. Or something.
Can ya help an asymptotic brother out?
Yes, meaning both. No, I do not have time to elaborate.
PF, meaning both “liberty” and “anarchy”?
If so, please elaborate.
To me, 100% liberty would be anarchy, i.e., statelessness. 99% liberty would NOT be anarchy.
But maybe you use these words in a more novel, different way than most.
Help us understand the Frankelistic approach.
Both.
Here’s where The Great One coined the term “nonarchy”:
http://mises.org/daily/2801
PF, yes, sometimes truth can be inconvenient! 😉
The very short version is: Liberty – not anarchy – is all around us.
Somehow, I missed this video from last week:
http://reason.com/reasontv/2014/02/18/joe-trippi-on-the-rise-of-libertarian-po
I might answer that some time if I ever have the patience to finish reading it 🙂
pf: The presence of something does not mean the absence of its opposite. The budding grass is growing through the cracks in the concrete but the concrete is still there. Soon, no more concrete.
me: Thanks, I can work with this. I might suggest,though, substituting the word “liberty” for “anarchy. If the State is concrete and liberty is the grass, it tracks for me, as liberty/grass is the natural state, with the concrete being the artificial constraint/covering of liberty.
Anarchy, to my way of thinking, is an endstate…of statelessness! Liberty is the natural state, and can be viewed as a proportional thing; anarchy is all or nothing.
Whether an entire withering away of the State/concrete is advisable and wise is an open question in my mind. It seems indicated to maximize liberty, but without a concrete edge, is 100% liberty (anarchy) a sustainable model. Is a viable rule of law possible without a monopolistic component to it? Is there a stateless model that can contain proliferating WMD? Is there a practical, workable means to maintain a semblance of domestic tranquility if anyone and everyone can make up the rules for a civil society anywhere, at any time?
Or, is the grass washed away without a state to keep some sense of order? Does 100% liberty devolve into a feral situation where anything goes?
Fantastic.
P and A, nonarchy was coined by the most influential anarcho-L in the LM, M.N. Rothbard. .
It’s a synonym for anarchist, apparently.
Robert Capozzi said: “many nonarchists”
What is a nonarchist? I don’t believe that I’ve ever heard anyone other than Robert Capozzi use this term.
The presence of something does not mean the absence of its opposite. The budding grass is growing through the cracks in the concrete but the concrete is still there. Soon, no more concrete.
Put another way, PF, if anarchy “is all around us,” then why not declare victory and go fishing? Why expend energy on politics? If the Promised Land has been reached, now’s the time for Jubilee!!!!
pf: Anarchy is all around us, and it works.
me: Yes, well, you’d need to first define your terms, specifically “anarchy”, “all around,” “works,” and probably “us” while you’re at it.
For my part, I see cops perhaps 30% of my days, politicians on the TV almost daily. I drive most days on state-built and -owned roads.
So, if my experience is any indication, we live in a “stated” society, not a stateless one.
Over in the Paulie Matrix Pod, perhaps the programming is different?
Here’s an opportunity some of you might be interested in.
http://libertarianfictionauthors.com/2014/01/11/libertarian-short-story-contest/
Not so. Anarchy is all around us, and it works. Looks like you barely skimmed the surface of the links I posted.
JP,, use your time wisely as you see fit. My only challenge to you is that those label themselves anarchist are, in fact, taking a hypothetical position.
Ponder that.
I just don’t have time to discuss this. I still have way too many responsibilities now to argue hypothetical points with someone who will simply pose another hypothetical each time I answer something. Nothing personal, though. I just need to make more money than I have the past few years.
Sorry, I missed them. I HAVE seen wild extrapolations, e.g., some people in Canada disobey street signs, therefore statelessness is viable. Or, some tribes in remote mountains don’t answer to the state where they reside, therefore statelessness is viable.
I guess those arguments work for you, and I respect that that works for you. I trust you recognize that they don’t for me, and that I’m fairly certain that virtually all logicians and lay people find such logic DEEPLY flawed. Which is OK, because it’s all good.
And I have NEVER seen even a nanarcho’s attempt to handle the WMD question, aside from TK’s statement iirc that the dudes in the silos are no more risky than they are now taking orders from states. We can’t prove that his assessment is incorrect, but, again, I find view far-fetched. Same, I suspect, would virtually all logicians and the mass of humanity.
Again, all good.
Answered many different ways in many threads, and in the links I posted in this one.
pf: Not wanting to be going around endlessly in circles =/= inability.
me: I don’t disagree. Going around endlessly in circles strikes me as contra-indicated, too!
As I’ve suggested earlier, save Bob Murphy, I know of NO nonarchist who has ever even attempted to address how statelessness a) is achievable (I’ve not seen Murphy address this) or b) what it might look like (Murphy’s construct struck me as ludicrous, but he gets points for trying). This is in ANY form, ANYwhere. iirc, even the prolific MNR just waved his hands and said something to the effect that he could not be bothered with such details.
That’s incomplete enough. But – given that the State possesses WMD – I’ve asked the narrow question of many, many nonarchists: What would you do with the nukes and chemicals? If we wish to transition from “stated” to “statelessness,” the biggest risks need to be addressed first, I offer.
Deafening silence from the anarcho corner is all I hear….
Here’s another interesting discussion:
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/death-neoconservatism/#ixzz2uRnBWPkc
Here’s a thoughtful article:
http://thoughtsonliberty.com/liberty-doesnt-need-politics
Not wanting to be going around endlessly in circles =/= inability.
GH: civil libertarians weren’t paranoid enough about the PATRIOT Act circa 2005.
me: Fascinating perspective. I wonder why Healy thinks paranoia is useful in reversing the PATRIOT Act?
Anyone care to speculate?
Here’s more on the “paranoid libertarian” topic.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/libertarian-paranoia-is-the-newest-fad-in-politics/article/2544542
http://washingtonexaminer.com/why-ghostbusters-is-the-most-libertarian-hollywood-blockbuster-of-all-time/article/2544522
PF, I prefer the ongoing dialog of this thread. Exploring the theory and application (or inability to apply) of differing approaches to lessarchism is a timeless conversation, and the ability to refer back to previous insights in one thread is helpful.
I don’t care, Paulie. I’m not sure that we need a new thread, though. Maybe every three months or so?
But, here’s the update:
UPDATE FROM LARKEN ROSE (02-22-14):
Crisis Averted
Less than 24 hours ago, I threw out a sort of distress signal, just
before hitting the road for another day of driving. For those who
missed my “tale of woe,” I’m including it below. It’s so sad it’s
almost funny. What made it extra funny is that right after sending
that message yesterday morning, I thought, “Oh well, time to start
the long, boring drive to Houston, and then home,” only to gaze
outside and see what looked like a freaking hurricane–trees
leaning over from gail-force winds, a complete downpour, etc. Oh,
and the driver’s side window of the car I was using didn’t roll up
all the way. Yippee!
Because I have an extremely dumb phone (as opposed to a “smart
phone”), I have hardly any contact with the outside world while on
the road. So I flung out my plea for help right before hitting the
road, and then drove through blinding rain, lightning storms, and
tornado warnings–and that was just North Carolina.
To get to the punchline here, I cannot begin to express my
gratitude for the outpouring of support that happened, unbeknownst
to me, while I was driving yesterday. I haven’t had time to add
everything up, but at this rate, I fully expect that: 1) I will get
my car back; 2) I will more than break even on this 7,200-mile road
trip (that was supposed to be 4,800 miles), and; 3) I will feel
slightly guilty at doing a lot better than breaking even, just
because I pitifully whined for help. Of course, Tessa and Elyssa
are hugely grateful too, back in snow-covered Pennsylvania. It will
be another several days before I see them again, but at least when
I see them, they won’t be frozen solid, huddled around an empty
kerosene heater. Yippee!
But seriously, thank you so much to those who basically saved our
butts from this drastic series of unfortunate events. I hope this
message of “We’re not doomed anymore!” spreads as fast as the
message of “Help!” did, though it probably won’t. Rest assured, if
we end up with excess, it will simply free up more of my time to
keep battling the plague of authoritarianism. And on that front,
things are looking pretty dang encouraging in a lot of ways.
Now it’s time to hit the road yet again, and be out of contact with
the outside world for another eight or ten hours. And miles to go
before I sleep. And miles to go before I sleep.
Larken Rose
[email protected]
FROM LARKEN ROSE (02-21-14)…
Desperate Times
It’s time to see if there is any way of salvaging the wreckage of
what this cross-country tour has turned into. Don’t get me wrong:
the events themselves–in Missouri, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas and
North Carolina–and meeting different people, and having a bunch of
interesting discussions, has been great. It was the “complications”
that were a little too “interesting” for me. For those who didn’t
hear what happened, here’s the relatively short version:
Months ago I was invited to speak at “Freedom Summit” in Phoenix,
Arizona. Since I refuse to fly the fascist skies, that would mean a
4,800-mile round trip drive. I decided to try it, having a few
meetings along the way to make it interesting, and to hopefully
sell some books to cover the costs of gas, lodging, etc. I had
meetings with little groups in St. Louis and Albuquerque, and did
the main event down in Phoenix, and all of that was fun and
productive. My goal was to at least break even on the trip, and
right up until Tuesday, I was actually ahead.
Then, on Tuesday, while driving along I-10 in the middle of Texas,
my timing chain broke. I was scheduled to do an event that night in
Houston–which was still 250 miles away–and I figured that was
doomed. And I was sure that the event scheduled for Thursday night,
in Raleigh, North Carolina, was doomed. (I was already pushing my
luck with timing, driving over 500 miles a day on average.)
However, thanks to the help, ingenuity and generosity of two guys
named Tom and Matt, I ended up doing the last 250 miles to Houston
in the front of a flat-bed truck, with my dead car on the back.
(The tow-truck driver and I had a fun chat, and I ended up giving
him a copy of “The Iron Web.”) We dropped my car off at a mechanic,
and Matt drove me to the event in Houston, which went very well.
I was still sure that the Raleigh event, scheduled for two days
later, was doomed. But someone suggested I throw out a message to
my e-mail list and YouTube channel to see if any miracle might
occur. I did, and this time three people who didn’t know each other
(Matt, Hal and Adam–all anarchists, by the way) cooperated,
organized, and generously chipped in their time, effort, money,
etc. to pull off a miracle, and at 5:00 p.m. Wednesday afternoon, I
was hitting the road again, in a borrowed car.
I spent the next 23 hours driving (through the night) 1,200 miles
to North Carolina, with just a few nap breaks along the way,
because I refused to chicken out from an event that another
anarchist had arranged to happen at State University in Raleigh. I
got to where I was going to stay for the night, made myself seem as
human as possible, jumped back in the car, and made it to the venue
with less than an hour to spare. Having not slept for about 36
hours at that point, I gave a talk, and we had a great discussion
until late at night. I got back to my motel at just before 11:00
(after 40 hours without sleep). In one sense, it was mission
accomplished! Miraculously, all five of the scheduled events
happened!
However, that “smashing success” was somewhat mitigated by a few
things. First of all, this whole time Tessa and Elyssa (my wife and
daughter, for those who don’t know) are back home without a car,
trying to stay warm in a house under two feet of snow, buying
heating oil and kerosene a few gallons at a time. I was supposed to
make my triumphant return home TONIGHT, to see them again and save the day. Instead, I now have to drive BACK to Houston with the
borrowed car, trade it for my car (being worked on now), turn
around and drive all the way home.
So my whole “breaking even” goal is pretty much shot to hell,
thanks to:
$700 bill for being towed (carried) from the middle of Texas to
Houston.
$1100 repair bill for busted timing chain and the valves that got
damaged.
$900 in car rental, gas & lodging expenses for my extra excursion
to NC and back.
Now, a bunch of people have already made a serious dent in that,
but I haven’t yet had time to total things up yet, to see just how
big the hole still is. At this point, I’m pretty sure that my
“break even” trip is going to cost me over $2,000 that I don’t
have. Meanwhile, my family is stuck at home in Pennsylvania, with
no me, and no money, and soon no heat. Quite the tale of woe, huh?
So this is one of those times when I must flush my pride down the
toilet, and pitifully beg for help from others (one of my least
favorite things to do). Aside from everything else, I don’t know if
I can physically get home at all if I don’t, because at the moment
I don’t even have the money to pay to get my car back, much less
pay various bills that I had to borrow funds from just to get this
far. So to hell with pride. With the help of a bunch of others, I
made sure that all five of my committed stops happened (St. Louis,
MO; Albuquerque, NM; Phoenix, AZ; Houston, TX; Raleigh, NC). Now my
future is in the hands of a bunch of radical anarchists!
So I’ll end my tale of woe, and start thinking about how to get
back to Houston. (Annoyingly, my home and family are a mere 400
miles away from me right now, but I have to drive another 2,800
miles before I see them again.) To save my sorry butt, and my
family, I must now pitifully grovel and beg a bit. If you can spare
some alms for a down-on-his-luck anarchist, and want to chip in
your spare change, my PayPal address is just
“[email protected]” and my “snail mail” address is below. If
you send CASH to the address below, Tessa could definitely use it
as soon as it arrives. If you send check or money order, she can
deposit it there, but only I can access it where ever I am. So
either would be much appreciated, but since it will now be at least
four more days until I get home, I really hope some people can send
some cash to Tessa.
Whether my tale has a sad ending or a happy ending remains to be
seen. But at least it’s been exciting!
Larken Rose
P.O. Box 653
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
Maybe time for a new one of this thread? Make it a monthly, or no?
a: I think that Bush and Obama are both sociopaths who will say anything to get their agendas through.
me: It feels good to say that and I definitely hear the sentiment. Whether it’s true as a general proposition, I’m inclined to agree.
But, specifically, in the 2 ex.s, I can’t say, since I’ve not seen evidence they KNEW their statements were false. They could both be Emissaries of Satan, here to increase human suffering and promote mayhem.
I’d need evidence for that, too.
Guess I’m a hard case…. 😉
Robert Capozzi said: “My guess is Obama oversold the keep your doctor/plan line. It sounded good, resonated, and perhaps someone thought that was the case. Powerful people in all walks of life start to believe their own bullshit, in my experience.
As for whether the Bush A truly thought there were WMD, I’ve seen no evidence that they fabricated and knew there was NOT WMD. It would be easy and pat to assume it was all a fabrication, given my belief that the Iraq War was a colossal mistake.”
I think that Bush and Obama are both sociopaths who will say anything to get their agendas through.
MC, words taken out of my mouth.
JP, I can’t say what most believe, though a lot certainly call both “lies.” However, that’s likely because many use untruth = lie.
My guess is Obama oversold the keep your doctor/plan line. It sounded good, resonated, and perhaps someone thought that was the case. Powerful people in all walks of life start to believe their own bullshit, in my experience.
As for whether the Bush A truly thought there were WMD, I’ve seen no evidence that they fabricated and knew there was NOT WMD. It would be easy and pat to assume it was all a fabrication, given my belief that the Iraq War was a colossal mistake.
Now, of course, I don’t foreclose the POSSIBILITY that the evidence was fabricated, or old intell offered as current. I just don’t assume so, given the lack of evidence. OTOH, there IS some evidence that some in and around the Bush A wanted a war.
Leaping to conclusions, however, seems unwise and contra-indicated.
It wouldn’t make them liars, but it would make them idiots. Of course, there’s no reason they can’t be both.
If Bush and Obama really believed what they were saying was true, then, no, I guess they weren’t liars, I suppose. In each case, though, I would give them only 1 or 2 % chance that that was the case.
Isn’t it generally believed by most people that those two examples I gave were lies? I thought that was the case.
Playing Devil’s advocate here…. If the Bush administration honestly believed, based on intelligence reports, that there were WMD in Iraq, and Obama truly intended for people to be able to keep their insurance plans, but circumstances were such that they ended up being wrong, does that make them liars?
I admit that I’m at a point where I hear and read anything from our government with a tremendous degree of skepticism, and sometimes outright disbelief. I didn’t just wake up in morning feeling this way, however. The people in our country who are in charge have earned this, over and over again. I don’t understand why other libertarians don’t doubt more often, actually. We KNOW we’ve been lied to about Iraq’s WMD, and we know Obama lied about “you can keep your doctor”. We can continue listing the brazen lies from the last 15 years at least. If you had a child who told so many lies, I’ll bet you would hear all his or her words with skepticism, Why give the people in charge a free pass at all? I agree with Andy that not every person employed in public work is bad or has bad intents However, for the most part, my beliefs are a result of my life experience, and my life experience has taught me not to trust anyone who works with our government.
I suppose some people might read this as paranoia, However, that’s not my problem or my concern.
Matt Cholko said: “EVERYTHING government does is done with bad intent” seems like a bad idea to both of us, I think. Jill, CLC, and Andy may or may not agree with either of us.”
I don’t think that everything that government does is done with bad intent. Government is a very large institution. It is made up of a lot of people with a lot of intentions/agendas. While I think that the institution itself is flawed, it does not mean that everyone in it is bad. Some of them of course are bad (particularly those who are at higher levels of control), while some of them are not necessarily bad, but get used for bad purposes and are not deep enough thinkers to realize that they are being used for bad purposes. A lot of people who work in government are just there for a pay check, and yes, there are even a few decent people in government as well.
mc: viewing all government actions with skepticism (assuming that the program/law/whatever is a bad idea, for example) is healthy.
me: Agreed.
mc: In other words, “…to presume that EVERYTHING government does is hurtful…” sounds like a good idea to me. I gather that it doesn’t seem like a good idea to you. However, “…[presuming that] EVERYTHING government does is done with bad intent” seems like a bad idea to both of us, I think. Jill, CLC, and Andy may or may not agree with either of us. So, whose opinion is the right one?
me: Correct. I advocate being skeptical of everything the government does, and that MOST of what the government does is hurtful, but not all of it. There’s an hypothesis on the table that says “all of it” is, and yet those who take that position (except, perhaps, Bob Murphy) refuse to engage on some very practical questions about how statelessness might be achieved and sustained. I find their silence a deafening tell.
mc: ….see Root as a crazy.
me: By all indications, a true statement.
a: The official government story about 9/11 has never been proven,
me: Good point. “Proof” is, after all, subjective,ultimately.
a: yet politicians and bureaucrats beat us over the head with the official government story
me: Can’t say I feel beaten on the matter. It certainly seems sensible for the government to assess what happened on 9/11. President Andy would have done so, yes?
a: and use it as an excuse to increase government.
me: Yes, most disappointing. Tragic, even.
I’d note that EVEN IF the government’s 9/11 narrative is false, it does not follow that the Truthers narrative is any truer. You, Andy, might buy the latter, but it seems to me wildly histrionic and, frankly, well, paranoid. I’d really counsel against adoption of the histrionic, innuendo-laden, more questions than evidence, Truther narrative, IF ONLY because it sounds so half-baked. Now, if hard evidence surfaces or there’s a death-bed confession by Cheney, I’d reassess my view.
a: those who believe that a shadowy group of foreign bogeymen known as al Queda is “out to get us,”
me: Let me get this straight…you think there is no Al Qaeda? I’ve not heard that one. I HAVE heard that Osama was at one point on the US payroll, but it’s not hard to imagine that he turned on the US, yes?
RC says: “Where I sense that many Ls have gone off the rails is to presume that EVERYTHING government does is hurtful and EVERYTHING government does is done with bad intent. That approach sounds paranoid to me. And I’d think we know many Ls who comes from that perspective.”
Me: There is a fine line in there somewhere between skepticism and paranoia. In my opinion, viewing all government actions with skepticism (assuming that the program/law/whatever is a bad idea, for example) is healthy. Paranoia (assuming that everything government does is done for nefarious reasons, for example) is probably not. But, we can all have differing opinions of what is or is not healthy, and we can all place our line between skepticism and paranoia in different places.
In other words, “…to presume that EVERYTHING government does is hurtful…” sounds like a good idea to me. I gather that it doesn’t seem like a good idea to you. However, “…[presuming that] EVERYTHING government does is done with bad intent” seems like a bad idea to both of us, I think. Jill, CLC, and Andy may or may not agree with either of us. So, whose opinion is the right one?
And yes, obviously some Ls are paranoid, by anyone’s definition. Just as some doctors are tall, no matter what (reasonable) height you consider tall. But, this fact, in and of itself, doesn’t tell us anything of value.
From a political perspective, I think its an issue by issue, voter by voter, geographically and time dependent thing as to whether “paranoia” sells. At one point, thinking that commies were everywhere, trying to bring down the USA from within, was a popular position. Nowadays, you’d be seen as a nut job for taking a position like that. Similarly, W.A.R.’s Obama witch hunt if seen as absolutely correct to some people right now, while others see Root as a crazy.
Taken further, it is a stone cold fact that some people will like you more if you state publicly that you believe Bush and Cheney knew that the 9-11 attacks were going to happen, and decided to allow them to occur in order to have cause for wars in the middle east. This, to me, is clearly a crazy position to take. But, some people have succeeded in selling this position in a political context.
God bless you Andy, but this reads like it comes from the Robert Milnes book of crazy.
But Andy, if there were no authoritarian and paranoid government, who would indoctrinate us? Who would lie to us? This is done for the common good of society. You can’t have people running around thinking on their own. That would result in chaos and not the orderly society that an authoritarian state provides us, with due process and equal (or more equal for some) justice under the rule of law.
Robert Capozzi said: “IF they are unproven (e.g., 911 “Truth”) mere hypotheses and they are stated as a larger truth, THAT is paranoid.”
This is a statist way of thinking. The official government story about 9/11 has never been proven, yet politicians and bureaucrats beat us over the head with the official government story and use it as an excuse to increase government.
How about calling the politicians and bureaucrats and their supports paranoid? They are the ones who call for more government to supposedly solve a problem which manifested itself in the form of an incident where they can not even prove that their version of how the incident happened and who was behind it is true.
If one actually examines the facts, rather than mindlessly repeating government talking points, I think that there is more than enough evidence to say that the official government story about 9/11 is false, and that those who believe that a shadowy group of foreign bogeymen known as al Queda is “out to get us,” and that al Queda has no connection to the US government, and that it was really necessary for the US government to enact more police state measures and to engage in military actions abroad because the US government officials behind these decisions are really interested in protecting our lives and our freedom, and that we should allow government officials to enact even more police state measures and launch more foreign military interventions because these government officials really have our best interest at heart, is what I’d called paranoid thinking, as well as delusional and naïve.
The primary reason that those who question the official government story are referred to as “paranoid” or “crazy” is due to statist indoctrination. The government “authority figures” tell everyone what to believe, and all who go along with this are good, mainstream, respectable people, while those who dare to question what the government “authority figures” say are labeled as being “paranoid” or “crazy,” never mind how many facts they have on their side, and never mind the fact that government “authority figures” have been caught lying on numerous occasions.
LOL! I’m glad Root has found his calling.
I thought the LP encouraged broadcasting crazy right-wing conspiracy theories far and wide, as long as the word “libertarian” is repeated over and over again. This behavior is usually rewarded by nominating the conspiracy theorist as a candidate for national office – even if that causes LP membership to flee the party.
In fact, Mr. Libertarian Quadrant, Wayne Root, recently offered PROOF that Obama is a communist hell bent on destroying America:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tL4bMTqyzQ
Maybe the LP can convince Root to return to the LP and run for Imperial President to restore America to Exceptional Greatness now that he conclusively proves his Obama Conspiracy Theory!
JP, now I’m confused. You “don’t care”? If you are engaged in politics, I would think you would care very much.
As for silence on the topic of warrantless wiretapping, it seems me good politics to be against it.
I think the issue is whether a political activist is advocating some remedy, or making wild claims that are unproven. IF they are unproven (e.g., 911 “Truth”) mere hypotheses and they are stated as a larger truth, THAT is paranoid.
e.g. Governments kill more than the private sector, therefore we should have no government.
e.g. Chemtrails, Queen Elizabeth as Lizard, etc.
Chemtrails, for ex., might well be a government conspiracy, and government has conducted experiments. Hysterically asserting a global conspiracy, however, strikes me as counterproductive.
Now, if the next Assange or Snowden find compelling evidence, that’s the time to adopt the conspiracy theory, not before.
Actually, Robert, I don’t care which would be taken more seriously. For example, I’ve known and told anyone who would listen for years that the government was listening to our phone calls and reading our emails. Many thought I was paranoid. Now, it turns out things were worse than even I thought, because, instead of selecting certain people to spy on, we’re ALL being spied on. So, frankly, I don’t think the population of this country in this case would have been served by silence on the topic.
JP, OK, now we’re getting somewhere.
I agree that paranoia is not a prescription for incorrectness. But do you agree that appearing paranoid to many onlookers is, at least, damaging to credibility?
For ex., one L could say that the monetary system is in need of an overhaul. Another L could repeat (for decades) that the monetary system is about to crash.
Which do you think is more likely to be taken seriously?
One L could say the TSA is a wild overreaction to 911, invades our privacy, and is an absurd government overreach. Another could say that 911 was a massive (yet amazingly well kept secret) government false flag conspiracy, the FAA should be abolished tomorrow, and anyone should be able to tote guns in jets.
Which do you think is more likely to be taken seriously?
My answer to your question, Robert, is ‘no’, I don’t think paranoia is is a good foundation for public policy. There most likely are some paranoid Libertarians somewhere, and they probably aren’t aware that they’re paranoid.
However, someone else perceiving them as paranoid doesn’t make them wrong.
JP, yes, I get that you don’t agree. And I do also somewhat agree with Reason’s response.
I asked you a narrower question, though, and I’m curious what your response is to the question:
Do you think paranoia is a good foundation for public policy?
I assume your answer is No, correct?
If so, then the question becomes, Are some Ls paranoid? Or even, can we see why they are perceived as paranoid?
I agree with Reason, for ex., about the presumption of innocence. That’s a great foundation, IMO. Where I sense that many Ls have gone off the rails is to presume that EVERYTHING government does is hurtful and EVERYTHING government does is done with bad intent. That approach sounds paranoid to me. And I’d think we know many Ls who comes from that perspective.
It makes Ls sounds like neoconservatives talking about the Muslims, that so many of them are evil jihadists, wanting to kill all non-Muslims. This is Demonization 101, and I’d think Ls would see it for what it is: Paranoid ravings.
Most unfortunately, that’s what far too many Ls do about the US government: that they are ALL out to kill us, or subjugate us.
Many Ls start to sound like the dude who’s declared himself the Principality of Hutt River, his own Lichtenstein surrounded by Australia. Sounding like that guy seems like a great way to marginalize oneself.
Or do you see it differently?
Here’s a good article explaining how libertarians and conservatives are not the same:
http://c4ss.org/content/24742
Here’s an excellent article:
http://libertarianchristians.com/2014/02/19/libertarian-answers/#sthash.MJYcHZtT.dpbs
No, but I don’t agree with his comments about “paranoid libertarian”. I find the term to be nonsensical, as per his description of what it means.
JP, can you share what you find off about the Posner piece. This, for ex., seems about right to me:
“Sunstein concludes, with apparent good sense, that “Paranoia isn’t a good foundation for public policy.” ”
Do you think paranoia is a good foundation?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/world/asia/02australia.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Excellent story about a Nonarchy Pod!
JP, it’s all good. I don’t find your question “bitchy.” At this point, I consider IPR another version of Zynga’s WORDS WITH FRIENDS. 😉
But, no, I don’t mean to be “difficult.” I do point out when a thought system or rhetorical approach don’t work. P&T’s argument — one that I’ve made to — has limited appeal and IMO only scratches the surface of the matter. Banging that particular drum for 50 years hasn’t gained much traction, I assume most would concede.
Why not try a different tack? What have we got to lose?
And the hit pieces continue. There are so many wrong statments in this article that I don’t know where to start.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/02/the_paranoid_libertarian_and_his_enemy_the_angry_liberal.html
Says Reason about the article:
“At Slate, University of Chicago law professor Eric Posner adds his voice to the growing chorus of disapproval directed at so-called “paranoid libertarians,” the group who allegedly “distrusts the government to an unreasonable extent.” According to Posner, paranoid libertarians pose a genuine risk to the social order, since their incessant harping on government misdeeds threatens to undermine the functioning of the American state. “If people trust the government, they may accept its assurances that flying or nuclear power is safe. They may absorb the messages of its educational programs. If they don’t trust the government, then no go,” Posner writes.
We’ve seen this claim before. And once again, the response is that there’s nothing dangerous or unusual about what Posner or his predecessors are lamenting. In fact, bedrock American jurisprudence requires our courts to do precisely what is described above. Criminal suspects, for example, are presumed to be innocent, meaning that cops and prosecutors are not taken at their word and are instead required to shoulder the burden of proof. By the same token, regulations that touch on free speech or religion are presumed to be unconstitutional, thus forcing lawmakers to provide a compelling justification for their actions that can survive strict scrutiny by the courts. We don’t even trust Congress to be alone in the same room with the First Amendment.
So either “paranoid libertarianism” is a meaningless term or America is already a nation of paranoid libertarians. Either way, there’s nothing to freak out about.”
I guess the above comment sounded bitchy. I don’t mean for it to.
Robert Capozzi…why do you read so much into everything and make everything so difficult? Just curious.
JP, thanks for the link. Unfortunately, P&T don’t address the real weakness/lack of clarity in 2A: what are “arms” and “where” can the people “bear” them? As any good Rothbardian will know, for ex., rights are by definition circumscribed within the context of property rights. You, for ex., have the right to “ban” me from coming into your house with a bazooka on my back, yes?
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/video-2/awesome-explanation-of-the-second-amendment-video
pf: OK then. The situation is that I have better things to do than play defense.
me: Most excellent realization!
pf: The (resistance is fertile) analogy makes sense to me, and from comments I saw on facebook, to others as well. If it doesn’t make sense to you, that’s OK. Perhaps a time lapse video would have been better but I went with what I found.
me: The pavement and the green shoot are – near as we can tell – not resisting, as there’s no reason to believe that either have thoughts/consciousness. Many have many ideas that they BELIEVE is working for them, e.g., deontological absolutist abolitionists or garden variety liberals. It seems kind to share with them the apparent weaknesses in their thought systems, just as I find it kind for them to share their reasons why non-dualistic metaphysics and asymptotic anarchism/applied lessarchism has their own weak points.
If one feels the need to resist what is, I say knock yourself out! I do share that it seems odd to knock oneself out, though…counterproductive. Self-flagellation seems unappealling to me, but then masochistic practices do seem common in the human condition.
OK then. The situation is that I have better things to do than play defense.
The analogy makes sense to me, and from comments I saw on facebook, to others as well. If it doesn’t make sense to you, that’s OK. Perhaps a time lapse video would have been better but I went with what I found.
Bingo!
JP, thanks, hadn’t. Does the list of issues that Gillespie cites qualify FOR YOU as transformative? They sound pretty good to me, but then again I don’t like the odds of the Rs becoming a reasonably consistent voice for liberty. Or the Ds, for that matter.
pf: I don’t have a problem defending it.
me: Like Avi said to Jason Stratham’s character in REVOLVER (awesome flick, btw): “There’s no such thing as problems, Mr. Green, only situations.”
Resistance may be fertile, but – near as I can tell – neither the pavement nor the green shoot are resisting anything. They are just being.
Truth needs no defense.
Have you all seen this?
http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/17/rand-paul-republicans-will-not-win-again
Forced Taxation is Slavery by StormCloudsGathering
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oawOidATagg
I don’t have a problem defending it. I do have a problem going in circles and repeating myself endlessly. I’ve said what I had to say. Saying it again isn’t the best use of my time right now. Or most likely any time in the foreseeable future.
That would be my view on monopoly government’s inevitable downfall. But I don’t feel like keeping going on and on about it. Too many other things to do.
PF, I feel you. I recall what a burden it was to carry around the deontological absolutist construct, believing it was true — DEFENDING it as the truth. Like the proverbial boy desperately trying to plug the leaky dam, it takes a tremendous amount of energy and focus to support and maintain the false as true.
Or like spinning plates.
Let the dam break. Let the plates fall. They will anyway, and postponing the inevitable only makes it worse.
I didn’t say never. I am ever optimistic. Just worn out for the foreseeable.
PF, I suggest to never say never. After all, I unplugged from the deontological absolutist Matrix myself. It can be done! I even once believed that the “moral” position favored the right to private nukes. Deprogramming often requires repetition.
That again is a matter of perspective, who’s blowing what up, blind spots, etc. Not that more verbiage is likely to change any of that. If I wasn’t sitting up all night I wouldn’t even say this much.
PF, of COURSE it is. The beholder’s eye is the Alpha and the Omega. Everything always come down to an individual’s perception.
Still, when such an obvious logic leap is exposed and avoided or waved away, after a while the individual starts to recognize his or her own blind spot.
So, ya might say I be blowin’ up your spot! 😉
I guess it’s in the eye of the beholder.
PF, yes, I s’pose we could find wisdom in words of the Unabomber, too. I might, if his points were helpful.
At the end of this vid, we see INFOWARS.COM. So this looks like a Jones operation.
But the arguments here are weak. We can stipulate that states do deeply destructive things, but it doesn’t follow that society would exist without a state. More important, even if it could, we’d need to see a plausible path to achieve statelessness.
This Jonesian offers no responses to the obvious flaws in his argument.
I haven’t watched that video, but if he makes a good argument on this particular topic it’s of little importance what his view on other topics are. I would take it as a stand alone argument unless he references oter topics.
a: The State is a Parasite on Society (Interesting note here, Paul Joseph Watson has been the top reporter on http://www.infowars.com for Alex Jones for several years.)
me: Thanks for the history. Those of us who don’t resonate with Jones and his conspiracy-mongering might want to examine Watson’s premise especially closely, then. I’d include the nonarchists who don’t care for Jones most especially, for my sense is that most nonarchists are not conspiracy theorists, just as most conspiracy theorists are not nonarchists, including I think Jones himself.
Links expire, so you may be able to… or not.
Some day I’ll read all of these.
Paul Joseph Watson: The State is a Parasite on Society (Interesting note here, Paul Joseph Watson has been the top reporter on http://www.infowars.com for Alex Jones for several years.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IFpOCy12-U
Here’s a funny read, even if you’re not a libertarian–
http://thoughtsonliberty.com/9-ways-you-know-you-are-dating-a-libertarian
Yes, sort of like a caucasian Leon Phelps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UKXIKqgMSM
PF, smooth. The cigarette and wine thing is quite the touch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k34k_sZx28
A, cute vid. I wonder, though, do you and the producers recognize the VASTdifference between the first and second set of questions? The first are the sorts of questios we lessarchists get quite frequently. The second are hypothetical questions based on a hypothetical setup.
And, yet, they are presented as balanced, equal.
Does that give you NO pause?
http://www.yaliberty.org/posts/liberty-is-polling-wellvery-well
Questions for Statists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaDjlWAzIck
And here’s another silly article:
http://www.bostonreview.net/made-america/claude-s-fischer-libertarianism-very-strange?utm_source=Newsletter%3A+Feb+4%2C+2013&utm_campaign=Feb+4%2C+2014+Newsletter&utm_medium=email
http://www.alternet.org/economy/5-obnoxious-libertarian-oligarchs-who-earned-fortunes-government-theyd-destroy?page=0%2C0
Just a thought, here….it strikes me that the difference between a dogmatist and a true radical is that the dogmatist cannot imagine another way of looking at a situation, i.e., in this case, one’s political ideology.
A true radical can easily answer the question: Under what circumstances would you change your view?
I’ve offered in this thread circumstances in which I could buy into abolitionist anarchism. I invite the abolitionists to offer the same, or to explain why they cannot imagine circumstances under which their viewpoint might change.
pf: I stand by everything I said in this thread.
me: For my part, your sincerity’s never been in doubt.
And, for my part, I stand by nothing I’ve said! It’s been, however, my best swing at articulating why humans wanting to join in a civil society virtually always establish and/or abide by the institution of the rule of law in the state they reside in. And why competing institutions have not been attempted in the same territory.
Lao Tsu Tranquility Services standing alongside Unabomber Rough Justice Inc. and Manson Mayhem-is-Good-for-You Amalgamated may have a certain romantic appeal, and PF may be right…they may well work it out over time, but for the life of me, at this moment, I’m not grokking it.
Perhaps my bandwidth is too narrow…dunno…
I might eventually find time to read the last few comments, but I won’t do it now or I would be too tempted to respond and that just leads to more and more of the same. If I fail to get back to this, I stand by everything I said in this thread. In the meantime….enjoy, or not.
more…
I should add to this: the subsumation of human action to prohibit certain behaviors deemed hurtful [and to facilitate the pursuit of happiness].
I add this because just because we subsume ourselves to a prevalent rule of law, we also in some cultures make enforceable contracts among ourselves. Merely not harming each other is insufficient, esp. in a more technologically advanced culture.
PF, yes, it’s probably correct that ELEMENTS of polycentric law are in place. They rest, however, on a foundation, an undergirding: civil society, the stepping out from the state of nature, which entails some subsumation of human action to certain groundrules, which, thankfully, as subject to change.
Can the “framing” take the place of the “foundation”? It’s certainly an open question in my mind, although in a building, it sounds like a bad idea!
Yes, though, the abolitionism movement started, was tested in various places, and after centuries, chattel slavery has been abolished, by and large, worldwide. It’s illegal, at least, I think everywhere. Laws were changed regarding personhood, but the RULE OF LAW (absence of the state of nature, the subsumation of human action to prohibit certain behaviors deemed hurtful) remained the same.
There is no subsumation in the state of nature, where anything goes.
Murray Sabrin: Time is Ripe for Libertarian Movement in New Jersey http://ivn.us/2014/02/05/murray-sabrin-may-challenge-cory-booker/?utm_source=ivn&utm_medium=listing_home&utm_campaign=opt-beta-v-1-0
I guess slavery abolitionism was an untried experiment once, too. Although every element of polycentric law has been in place at various times even in modern societies. No time to hunt up links, running late.
All good, P. Hit me back when you can, if you care to.
RoL (as opposed to laws and forms of arbitration) is and has been monopolistic in virtually all places at all times. Exceptions might include pockets of Somalia, mountainous spots dotting south Asia, possibly first millenial Iceland, possibly other remote places that are largely uninhabited, and my bedroom at this moment. 😉
But maybe I should just use “not the state of nature” as the dividing line, since you seem to continue to confuse the “overarching institution of the rule of law” with “the bountiful examples of state-free human action.” I stipulate that the latter should be maximized, but I see no evidence that that implies in any way that that means that the RoL can be instituted in a sustainable way over decades in a discrete, populated area with complex and varied social and economic interaction, e.g., the US.
No nonarchist theorist has pointed to one since such an arrangement is unprecedented to my knowledge. They point instead to wildly extrapolated constructs, built on thin examples that bear no relation that I can see to this time and place.
Whatever gets you through the night, though….
Rule of law =/= monopoly. That’s all I have time for right now, sorry.
Well, your unclouded crystal ball may well be correct.
I’d note that the many-to-many mode of communication has happened inside of the RoL, not in a state of nature. Those communications happen because the inventors and deployers and users have property rights, complete with residual claimants and utility maximers. So, extrapolating from the Internet to a new model for the foundation of civil society requires a massive leap of faith. Apples could become oranges post-singularity, or Grannies could become Golden Deliciouses. Then again, post singularity, Grannies and Golden Deliciouses may remain more or less the same.
As a practice, I find staying focused on the moment at hand to be the optimal path to, at least, minimize anxiety, which tends to make the next moment less stressful. The future will undoubtedly take care of itself, as it always does. Que sera.
I’d say virtually certainty. Exactly how soon, that I can’t say. But I think based on history a punctuated equilibrium model of change is most likely, and going from a hierarchical one-to-many mode of social organization in many different field to a many-to-many model is the next step, based on our evolving prevalent methods of communication as a benchmark and lead indicator.
Dramatic paradigm shifts are not beyond the realm of possibilities. I bank on none of them.
You’re signed up. And don’t assume what our lifespans will be; read up on the singularity and transhumanism a bit if you haven’t already.
PF, ever the optimist! In a few decades, I’ll have given up the ghost, so I won’t be able to make the choice you suggest. If your prognostication is correct, we’ll likely be signing the reprise of LIFE DURING WARTIME quite a bit…this ain’t no party, this ain’t no disco, this ain’t foolin’ around.
But, if nonarchy IS sustainable, sign me up!
And I don’t agree with Kinsella. I think that old dogs can and will learn new tricks. I also think it will happen in the next few decades and that it will be a bumpy ride, but will work out for the best. Wish I had time to go more in depth but I need to pack, put up articles, etc. Also I’m helping to run the national LP twitter account now, so I need to start putting some time into figuring out how to get better at that.
I likewise suggest that the few people who will want a monopoly government a few decade from now should take over an uninhabited island and make it their archy pod. It probably doesn’t have to be a very big island.
oh, yes, when I had such discussions with Kinsella, I suggested his model only worked with the emergence of the Anarchist Man, i.e., people who are born with an innate sense of personal and property rights, baked in. As I recall, he agreed. fwiw.
pf: Not because I can’t keep going, more because it’s circular and I have other stuff to do.
me: Yes, much of these sharings (not “debates” which pre-supposes a “battle” and “winners and losers”) often cover previously plowed fields. But I do believe there’s been some new material in this thread.
I will share that my skepticism that a viable, sustainable stateless society has actually increased on the strength of this thread. Still, I am open minded, and I do encourage those with the means to buy an island somewhere and give it a go.
It’s good practice, but I am worn out. Not because I can’t keep going, more because it’s circular and I have other stuff to do.
Headed your way tomorrow so I’ll be seeing you in person in the next few days…
Blanton: Thank you for some serious gems.
Paulie: Debating with him is a complete and utter waste of time.
I’ll have to get back to this some day, or not. Used way, way more time on this back and forth than I bargained for. Lots of other things to catch up on.
pf: The idea that only competitive, not cooperative, instincts are part of our DNA (or whatever) is a mistaken one and not borne out by what research I’ve seen (none handy at the moment).
me: Yes, it seems self-evident that people are highly conflicted. Our craven ego side want more, more, more in a whatever-it-takes, by any means necessary perspective. At the same time, we yearn for peace. Nevertheless, any research that’s been done almost certainly has been conducted in the context of a RoL, since all but possibly some Puntlanders and mountain dwellers in south Asia reside in “stated” societies.
pf: And even if we (Ls) weren’t already predisposed to being cranky, all this government trespass on us makes us crankier (or crankier still).
me: This sounds like an excuse, since outward conditions should have no effect on one’s state of mind. Ideally. Still, I do hear you.
pf: I wonder if there would be any art, education, philosophy, religion, charity, etc, etc, if they were not completely 100% monopolized by government?
me: My guess is that, yes, to the extent statelessness could be sustained for any period of time, all those things would be produced. For a time, the Lord of the Flies was stateless, after all.
pf: Someones/things have to define it and enforce it, yes.
me: Thank you.
pf: No one has to have a monopoly on it. Education, religion, music, art, etc., happen regardless of whether they are monopoly or not. Some things win in the marketplace of idea or the marketplace of volunteerism or the literal marketplace and some do not. Conflict resolution is no different.
me: I agree that some, possibly most conflict resolution can be done privately certainly. Most things can, including discrete commodities and services like the one you cite. These things can happen in a state of nature or in civil society. Civil societies (which 99.9999% of people have lived in in some form for millenia) have institutional groundrules that most are aware of. For most of history, most have been subjugated by these ground rules, e.g.,the king is sovereign and the individual has no rights. This has changed in recent centuries, in which the general groundrules are generally agreed with by many, sometimes most, in part because increasingly citizens HAVE rights, at least per the groundrules (e.g., murder and stealing are wrong and should be dissuaded). The specific laws codifying the groundrules are often in dispute (e.g., some have the “right” to own slaves).
At root, I’d venture to say that you think the move from the state of nature to the rule of law is a matter of commerce. I don’t. Trading could conceivably happen in a state of nature, but commerce requires the institution of a rule of law.
pf: A final arbiter doesn’t guarantee that justice gets done, and the lack of one doesn’t guarantee that it doesn’t. My point here is that a monopoly artbiter actually makes it less, not more, likely that it does.
me: Grand, except “justice” pre-supposes a RoL. There is no justice in a state of nature.
You believe these are INNATE human characteristics, not learned ones?
Some of both. And the learned part doesn’t have to imply monopoly. Yes, some of it is innate. The idea that only competitive, not cooperative, instincts are part of our DNA (or whatever) is a mistaken one and not borne out by what research I’ve seen (none handy at the moment).
Regardless, we’re DEFINITELY watching a different movie.
Yours is a bad remake 🙂
Heck, allegedly like-minded Ls have a REAL hard time with the first one, if you’ve not noticed. Or do you blame that nasty way of being on the government or something?!
In large part, but not entirely (not sure why the “?!”). And the more prevalent government initiation of force is the more it distorts social morality. This was very evident in the USSR and to a lesser extent in NYC as I was growing up.
As for “allegedly like minded Ls” we are disproportionately the outlier folks who don’t go with the flow, so why should it be surprising that we are an unusually ornery and contentious bunch?
And even if we weren’t already predisposed to being cranky, all this government trespass on us makes us crankier (or crankier still).
Um, no. Footwear is a finite, material thing. The RoL is an undergirding institution, not a commodity.
I wonder if there would be any art, education, philosophy, religion, charity, etc, etc, if they were not completely 100% monopolized by government?
The Unabomber doesn’t define it as force initiation. Someone/thing needs to define it, and enforce it. Who has the monopoly on the DEFINITION of “force initiation”?
Someones/things have to define it and enforce it, yes.
No one has to have a monopoly on it. Education, religion, music, art, etc., happen regardless of whether they are monopoly or not. Some things win in the marketplace of idea or the marketplace of volunteerism or the literal marketplace and some do not.
Conflict resolution is no different.
A final arbiter doesn’t guarantee that justice gets done, and the lack of one doesn’t guarantee that it doesn’t. My point here is that a monopoly artbiter actually makes it less, not more, likely that it does.
And it’s also completely mistaken that shooting it out is the only way conflict resolution happens in the absence of a monopoly on conflict resolution. In fact, a monopoly is more likely to lead to shootouts (and worse) than to prevent them.
pf: Common decency, self-interest (conflict can be unpleasant and dangerous), war weariness and shared social experience over time. The cooperative instinct can also be observed in other species.
me: You believe these are INNATE human characteristics, not learned ones? Regardless, we’re DEFINITELY watching a different movie. Heck, allegedly like-minded Ls have a REAL hard time with the first one, if you’ve not noticed. Or do you blame that nasty way of being on the government or something?!
pf: If there wasn’t a monopoly on shoes how would people have footwear?
me: Um, no. Footwear is a finite, material thing. The RoL is an undergirding institution, not a commodity.
pf: The fact that force may be needed to deal with people who are willing and able to initiate force in no way leads to the conclusion that such force has to be monopolized.
me: The Unabomber doesn’t define it as force initiation. Someone/thing needs to define it, and enforce it. Who has the monopoly on the DEFINITION of “force initiation”?
Common decency, self-interest (conflict can be unpleasant and dangerous), war weariness and shared social experience over time. The cooperative instinct can also be observed in other species.
If there wasn’t a monopoly on shoes how would people have footwear?
The fact that force may be needed to deal with people who are willing and able to initiate force in no way leads to the conclusion that such force has to be monopolized.
pf: I don’t think that’s why.
me: Don’t leave me hangin’, bro. Where does it come from, then?
pf: Through a variety of different means and agencies.
me: And so the Unabomber has his means and agencies that work for him. Unless monopoly force is used, how is he checked?
I don’t think that’s why. I’ll grant they have taken credit, but I believe it is undue credit.
Through a variety of different means and agencies.
pf: informal social consenus
me: I like that phrase, thanks! I think it’s likely there’s such a thing currently, for ex., particularly since the culture has been honed by church and state all these centuries…thou shalt not steal, Golden Rule, laws against murder. Defining those things have taken lots of twists and turns, though, like justifiable homicide rules, which are NO LONGER informal, but I’d think is largely informally grokked.
So, that’s a stumbling bloc for full-blown nonarchy (vs. lessarchy or the asymptotic anarchist approach toward the Good Society.
Perhaps that can be overcome with deep and wide social conversation.
But, then, we come to the enforcement of reasonable levels of domestic tranquility. Here things get overwhelming for the nonarchy partisan. How do you maintain these informal (then codified in some form or fashion) social consensi? Trying REALLY hard to accept your argument, but (Bob) Murphy’s Law doesn’t pass the guffaw test, ADR.
Willing and open to hear others, though….
So am I. My whole point is that most of those are an informal social consenus and that monopoly government for the most part ad overall only hinders that informal consensus.
pf: There is plenty of rule of law that is not in the context of forced monopoly right now
me: Pardon me, when I say “rule of law” I don’t mean “laws.” You are quite correct about laws. I am talking about the groundrules when we leave the state of nature and enter civil society, where property rights are recognized.
Without groundrules, we are in a state of nature, where there are no rights, property or otherwise. In the state of nature, there is only bodies and temporary possessions.
Well done video, but it’s the same anti-voting argument I addressed above. As far as taxes she’d right. However, many people are justifiably afraid to be the ones caught for not paying the regime’s taxes, even if they agree with the philosophical argument. Naturally, it is true that once there is a critical mass the regime can’t effectively function, and the risk is reduced as more people cease to comply, but in the meantime a lot of people are still unwilling to take the risk of dealing with the consequences regardless of how they feel about it. This is a rational fear, since some people do get caught and some get convicted no matter what argument they use. Sure, a few win their cases and many more are never caught, but there is no foolproof argument (it doesn’t matter for this purpose whether they are correct or not, only whether they always work). Caught is not being used in a sense that implies that non-compliance was morally wrong; more like being caught up in machinery or snagged on a fence.
mc: Further, lets say society is a bit more chaotic here in NoVA, after the collapse of the state. Is it possible that RC, PF, or MC may prefer it that way? May each of us prefer different degrees of order/chaos? Seems possible to me.
me: Yes, yes of course. But my point is different. It’s not even the degree of domestic tranquility. It’s whether those in an area are or are not governed by basic groundrules, the institution of A rule of law.
mc:If we’re talking about order as something roughly opposite of chaos, I think common sense tells us that it is possible to have some degree of order regardless of the RoL.
me: The question is not “the” RoL, but if there is A RoL. That is, basic groundrules that define how ownership is recognized, and what aggressive behaviors are not tolerated by the civil society. The state of nature doesn’t have these groundrules, they are instead person-made.
Josie the Outlaw: Who Owns You?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpcfZzx8xY0
Because progressives are libertarian? The author and Milnes could have a fascinating discussion.
I’m using Rule of Law in the sense of peaceful order, not in the sense of forced monopoly.
I think it would be a lot more peaceful and orderly.
If it is the result of a sudden collapse, it is likely that it would be at first, then things would shake themselves out.
Like my old neighborhood in NYC….slightly before, during and after when crack became a nationally talked about phenomenon in the mid 1980s my neighborhood was the epicenter of it, situated at the intersection of I-80 and I-95 and right by the George Washington Bridge. Billions of dollars in drugs a year moved through the neighborhood and it became one of the worst in the city with over a hundred murders a year in the neighborhood in some years, open drug markets, regular sounds of gunfire and police sirens, etc, etc.
Now it is actually one of the safest neighborhoods in NYC with zero murders in some years and maybe one or two in others. But it is still a major illegal drugs marketplace, both wholesale and retail. It isn’t the government’s “rule of law” which ended the war – in fact, the government’s prohibition is what created it in the first place. What ended it is that drug distribution and sale territories shook themselves out and got established. The drug markets, open and indoor, still exist, but now few people are being shot or killed over them. And that was a spontaneous order phenomenon, despite the existence of the police and federal drug taskforces, which were waging their ridiculous “war on drugs” back when hundreds of people were being killed just like they are now.
There is plenty of rule of law that is not in the context of forced monopoly right now. To the extent that I observe what forced monopoly adds to the equation most of it seems to be of a negative value. This is based on observation, corollaries, and logic. I think I’ve exhausted my patience for trying to phrase this in different ways for the timme being. I’ve provided more than enough links, put in any numbers of ways…some people may be able to use what I have said here to understand what I am saying, but I grant that not everyone will.
The hit pieces are becoming ridiculouser and ridiculouser–You’ve gotta read this!
http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/04/did-libertarianism-kill-philip-seymour-h
What definition of order are you using here?
If we’re talking about order as something roughly opposite of chaos, I think common sense tells us that it is possible to have some degree of order regardless of the RoL. Exactly how orderly things will be is certainly debatable though. Will it be equivalent to, or greater than the degree of order currently observed in say, northern VA, United States? I have no idea.
Further, lets say society is a bit more chaotic here in NoVA, after the collapse of the state. Is it possible that RC, PF, or MC may prefer it that way? May each of us prefer different degrees of order/chaos? Seems possible to me.
PF, certainly. Are you saying you have observed a civil society where there is a Rule of Law that was not in the context of a forced monopoly?
And that there is order PRIOR TO the Rule of Law?
To each their own.
PF, like Paine’s confusion about order, when I was an abolitionist, I thought like you that it was one or the other. Upon observation, upon entrance into a civil society (forced monopoly), the optimal arrangement is to allow a spontaneous order to flourish IN CONTEXT. An out-of-context spontaneous order is observable, but it is not civil society.
Dunno bout Murphy. Given the general performance of forced monopolies vs spontaneous order, I think spontanoeus order would do better, albeit not necessarily right away, and you have to keep in mind what the baseline is in any given example.
PF, terrible! But with Universal Pre-emptive Theft and Murder Murphy contracts with specific ex ante restitution clauses for all crimes of person and property, such abuses would be a thing of the past. Yes?
Except, perhaps, in the eccentric areas….
Meanwhile back at the ranch…
http://www.nationofchange.org/missouri-executes-man-while-his-appeal-was-still-pending-supreme-court-1391443889
http://filmingcops.com/cop-charged-with-purposely-spreading-hiv-for-nearly-7-years-brags-about-sex-with-victims/
http://www.mynews3.com/content/news/local/story/metro-ois-andrews-solario-shooting-laughlin/aa0LNtMV3kiRNq_VkEwNgQ.cspx?rss=3269
Metro officer, suspect in deadly Laughlin shooting ID’d
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/stop-resisting-execution-cold-blooded-arizona-cops-assassinate-suspect-with-his-hands-in-the-air_022014
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/02/how-rios-residents-are-fighting-world-cup-inflation-with-fake-currency/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/02/william-norman-grigg/if-you-are-arrested-in-the-us/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKaliMoKIOI
Death Sentence: ‘Alarming’ number of inmates dying in local US jails
http://libertycrier.com/ny-police-brutally-break-arm-emotionally-disabled-student-school-bus
http://libertycrier.com/ny-police-brutally-break-arm-emotionally-disabled-student-school-bus
http://libertycrier.com/redflex-bribing-cities-install-surveillance-cameras
http://iacknowledge.net/iceland-lets-banks-fail-now-2-unemployment-in-sight/
Yes, that’s one of many. Murphy’s essay, while unharmful, is equally unmoored from reality. Everyone (except a few in eccentric areas) are going to sign contracts to pay unspecified estates millions of dollars they don’t have with the knowledge that the private arbitration courts will be fair and blind (and infallible?) discerners of justice!
They’d need to write non-performance clauses if they refuse to pay the money they don’t have stating….I don’t know what. And if THAT doesn’t work, they’d need backup non-performance clauses, and on and on.
Oy vey!
Unproven claims like the various jokers claiming to be governments of all or part of the former Somalia? I find them less fascinating than you do.
PF, while I was not a fan, I do think Rumsfeld nailed it when he said: “There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”
The world is an epistemic house of mirrors, filled with unknown unknowns.
Which may begin to explain my fascination with unprovable constructs and those who make impassioned claims about their viability.
A strange hobby, I admit.
Many parts of many areas claimed by many states all over the world are effectively free of control by those nation-states.
It’s pretty easy to set up a powerless “government” and claim a huge stretch of territory you don’t even come close to controlling. If you are the only one or one of the few living in your general vicinity to waste time making such ineffectual claims, you may have some luck in getting other government gangs, including really big and powerful ones, to acknowledge your claim as legitimate. You may have a lot more trouble persuading all the people that you claim to rule that you actually do rule them, however. As far as I know that remains the case in Puntland and/or Somaliland. I coud be wrong, but I’ve seen no evidence of that. The official recognition by the US regime of some such claims tells me very little about the facts on the ground. The unacknowldged claims of a “government” that manages to get a page up on wikipedia is also not very persuasive, either.
PF, yes, I’d read the Leeson essay years back. Yes, of course, effective control is tricky to define. My nonarchy pod today – in this moment – is not controlled, effectively or otherwise! It’s harder to make that case when I start doing my taxes, however.
I could not find any sources to say that Puntland is today effectively nonarchic while the rest of Somalia is under the jackboot of the State.
Leeson’s essay came out in 07, prior to the Somali pirates and other news that made positive associations with Somalia only viable for the most committed to the cause of statelessness. For a while, statelessness advocates pointed to Leeson as “proof” that statelessness was viable, but I hear less of that now, given the bad press.
So I guess you need to define your terms. What constitutes “effective control”? How is it measured? And if it meets your test of statelessness, there is still the question of portability. Can we glean much from a semi-arid, pastoral stateless society that ports over to a post-industrial US?
TK has pointed us to mountainous jungle areas in south Asia as effectively stateless places. Perhaps they too are, despite being claimed by states.
It’s likely that parts of AK might pass the effectively stateless test, too.
The existence of a group of folks that deem themselves a government, create a design that they call a flag, etc., does not mean they have the effective control level of a government in the sense we are used to, or anything even remotely close to it.
http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf?
pf, thanks. You GOTS to love the name, Puntland!
Oddly, the Wiki description of Puntland doesn’t track with your description. It has a sitting president and regional government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puntland
Any idea of how much of Somalia is not controlled by the Mogadishu gang or warlords?
That would be very hard to say, but I doubt either have much sway in Puntland (Northern Somalia, the area that has had peaceful non-territorial monopoly government).
…. bigger picture THREAT to life as we know it.
pf: Somali government doen’t mean that gang has effective control over every part of the territory it claims.
me: Yes, as I pointed out earlier, I am in anarchy RIGHT NOW. As are you, unless there’s a jackbooted thug sitting with you, that is! 😉
Any idea of how much of Somalia is not controlled by the Mogadishu gang or warlords?
tb: I believe things will end badly if government is not abolished or drastically decentralized.
me: I neglected to mention that a bad ending is certainly possible. After call it 3 thousand years of either tribes or states, we’ve arrived at a place where states are at their most dangerous.
100% agreed.
Whether the cure is abolition or drastic decentralization, I can’t say I’m on board. With WMD, it seems likely that the prospect of a bad ending will be with us for the rest of our days here on the mortal coil. My guess is we all squeek through, that somehow the lunatics are checked and balanced just enough that we are not all incinerated or poisoned into early deaths.
I don’t see how abolition or decentralization addresses this bigger picture to life as we know it.
I haven’t claimed anarchy would be paradise. But I believe it would be less lawless than monopoly governments, which killed something like 200 million of their own citizens in the 20th century alone, and probably another hundred million (?) in wars between governments, plus all the other misery they have caused. I stand by my original statement that they hinder the rule of law more so than facilitate it.
The story is correct. The fact that the US regime has given official recognition to one of the gangs claiming to be the Somali government doen’t mean that gang has effective control over every part of the territory it claims. Nor do various gangs claiming to be governments in many other parts of the world have effective control over every part of the territory they claim, either.
pf, could be. Never been to paradise, and certainly not recently.
So, this story is incorrect, then.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2013/0118/US-recognizes-Somalia-government-after-two-decades-of-anarchy
Wouldn’t be the first time….
tb: Finally he might load up his shotgun, walk next door and blow this Hannibal Capozzi’s brains all over the basement wall.
me: Yes, that would be likely. Due process might well be the first thing to go in anarchy, as it lacks monopoly enforcement of a basic RoL.
Thanks for making my point!
I’ve already said several times today that as far as I know yes, you are mistaken.
pf: …which leads to more information including many practical examples.
me: Yes, that’s how I uncovered Murphy’s gem, by digging through some of Molanari’s stuff. Recall, though, that I’m a Randian/Rothbardian in recovery. There was a time when I thought FOR A NEW LIBERTY was the Bible. I’m reasonably familiar with nonarchic thought.
Would you find it helpful for me to share why I find Murphy’s essay ludicrous?
The link from Pierre Lemieux, among other things, illustrated.
“Just lay out a thought experiment. Say Blanton declares himself and his property a stateless nation,subject to no law. Then say he murders someone off his property. How does anarchist “law” handle this?”
OK, let’s play “thought experiment” – say some sociopath named uh, Hannibal Capozzi, declares his mom’s basement to be a “nonarchy pod” with no laws. Then let’s imagine he goes next door and rapes the six-year-old girl that lives there and then cuts off her head with a chainsaw, leaving a trail of blood back to his mom’s basement. How does anarchist “law” handle this?
Hmmm, I suppose the father of this young girl would first bury his dead daughter. Then he would read everything he could lay his hands on by Hayek, Mises and Rothbard. Then he might go to IPR and discuss the theoretical aspects of the rule of law in a stateless society. He might even say that he’s sorry that government had been abolished, claiming that his daughter might still be alive if only there had been codified laws against rape and murder duly enacted by a democratically elected government. Finally he might load up his shotgun, walk next door and blow this Hannibal Capozzi’s brains all over the basement wall. Then he would go home and his neighbors would applaud his actions – especially if there had been a number of headless children found in the neighborhood.
Hannibal’s little brother, Toby, might decide that it wouldn’t be a good idea to rape little kids in the neighborhood and his mom might decide to sell the house and move far away.
pf, I’m sorry. I was under the impression that there no longer no stateless areas in Somalia. Am I mistaken?
pf: I don’t have much time to continue this ad infinitum.
me: I respect that. I note, though, that abolitionists never seem willing to illustrate how their New World Order might work. Murphy at least took a swing at it, which at least gave me a great chuckle.
Still waiting on evidence that someone ended the experiment. News to me.
tb: Abolish it and there will still be a great deal of human suffering, but it won’t be as bad as with government.
me: You’ve got my attention. Please expand on why you think so. For ex., you could say that extrapolating on the Somalian experience, those glorious years of statelessness were superior the surrounding areas, until, sadly, the statists ended the experiment.
If that’s the best you’ve got, I’d say that’s somewhat lucid, but again I would think we’d want to see a sustained nonarchic experiment, say for maybe 30 years, preferably in a densely populated area with reasonably modern technology.
Show me that, and I may begin to buy your hypothesis. Until then, I remain an asymptotic anarchist.
The links are a starting point for further exploration, which leads to more information including many practical examples. I don’t think you could have spent much time exploring them, rather than cherrypicking a few things. I don’t have much time to continue this ad infinitum. Backed up on many other things to do.
more…
Oh, yes, this passage from Bob Murphy (Law without the State) was funnier than any episode of Seinfeld. Love, love, love the bit about “very eccentric areas”:
Murder
Of course, one of the most basic stipulations in any contractual relationship — whether entering a mall or living in a neighborhood co-op — would be strong prohibitions on murder. In other words all contracts of this type would have a clause saying, “If I am found guilty of murder I agree to pay $y million to the estate of the deceased.” Naturally, no one would sign such a contract unless he were sure that the trial procedures used to determine his guilt or innocence had a strong presumption of innocence; nobody would want to be found guilty of a murder he didn’t commit. But on the other hand, the procedures would have to be designed so that there were still a good chance that guilty people would actually be convicted, since people don’t want to shop in malls where murder goes unpunished.
And, because all contracts of this sort (except possibly in very eccentric areas frequented by people who liked to live dangerously) would contain such clauses, one could say that “murder is illegal” in the whole anarchist society, even though the evidentiary rules and penalties might differ from area to area. But this is no different from our current system,[7] and no one doubts that “murder is illegal” in the current United states.
“To be a persuasive Pied Piper, it seems you need to make an aspirational appeal. I still haven’t heard one!”
OK. In a stateless society there would be prosperity for all. All children would have a first rate education. There would be no hatred between people. Crime would be a thing of the past. Everyone would could afford the best healthcare. All products would be safe. People would be safe from all forms of violence and all risks to human health and happiness would be eliminated forever. Everyone would have meaningful employment that would pay a living wage with enough left over to save for a retirement free of economic worries.
Oh wait…I’ve got the wrong script here. This one is for the statist politician promising rubes all the shit they want to hear.
I’ll just say government sucks, and you know it. It causes a great deal of human suffering. Abolish it and there will still be a great deal of human suffering, but it won’t be as bad as with government. I believe things will end badly if government is not abolished or drastically decentralized. Show me why I am wrong and prove that things are actually getting better and better all the time. Show me how voting for the “right candidate” has helped.
I don’t find persuasive the claims that things would be much worse if there weren’t a small number of “libertarians” running around in circles “working for liberty” and “educating” people. The one thing I do know is that government will wither away when people start resisting and stop paying taxes, voting, and complying with tyranny. I understand that most people don’t mind not having freedom and seek a risk-free existence, so I don’t expect people to resist – especially middle-aged middle class white folks living a comfortable life in suburbia, regardless of how much they prattle on about freedom and limited government.
I do know that in poverty stricken areas of many inner-cities, people do resist. They’ve already stopped paying taxes, voting, and complying. There are black markets and gray markets. People are armed without having permits. Many already communicate on throw-away phones. These are the people that your police state are using to fill up prisons. They are why your police state buys armored vehicles and why small towns in the rust belt have SWAT teams. Men send their women to government offices to hustle whatever benefits they can get. They make doctors for pills they get with Medicaid benefits and then sell the pills for cash. All kinds of scams go on all the time to get by in places where the state has essentially made young men unemployable because of victimless crimes or nonviolent crimes of survival – not to mention forcing them to attend broken government schools that neglected to teach them basic skills.
So, Capozzi, maybe you could go teach these folks all about freedom and all the different kinds of hyphenated archies. They already distrust government. Maybe you can get the ones who aren’t felons to register to vote and go vote for limited government former Republicans running as LP candidates. You might find the felons who can’t vote or get a job don’t really give a shit about government and would prefer that it wither and die, but maybe you could change their minds before the whole system you cling to collapses and basic survival sends them to your neighborhood. Of course, by that time your neighbors (the same ones building the nukes) might have already cleared your pantry for you.
pf, you’re a smart guy, you don’t need to point me to vague theoretical sources.
Just lay out a thought experiment. Say Blanton declares himself and his property a stateless nation,subject to no law. Then say he murders someone off his property. How does anarchist “law” handle this?
btw, your first cite says this:
” Paul Krugman too has contributed to spontaneous order theory in his book The Self-Organizing Economy,[17] in which he explains that cities are self-organizing systems.”
Second says this:
“Anarchist law is a hypothetical body of norms… ”
IOW, like the rules for Dungeons and Dragons. 😉
Third is merely a definition, brought about by Mises and Hayek, neither of whom was an anarchist.
Fourth cites T Paine saying, “It (order) existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished.” To which I say, Great, Tommy, show me. Prove it. He and you respond with deafening silence. I’m not sure why you don’t think the Somalian experiment failed despite the fact you acknowledge that the nonarchic experiment has ended. Perhaps you find “failed” too pejorative?
Of course, there’s always another way to look at things. As I lay here typing, I am anarchy. The state is not telling me to do anything or forcing me to do anything. There are no laws governing me in this moment, I am completely free. I can prop my head up with another pillow, or add another blanket. I can even open a new Chrome tab is I choose to.
I might even jump in my car next and run a red light.
Therefore, this proves that anarchy works! 😉
Actually anarchy is all around you. It does not just exist in areas not claimed by one government gang or another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catallaxy
http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm
Every element of what monopoly government claims it and only it can do is being done or has been done by other non-monopoly structures.
Not taken to its logical conclusion, but a good start: http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/04/practical-anarchy
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf
No, that is not my impression.
As far as I know, yes.
rb: When did it fail? Do you have some links or information on that?
me: It failed because it no longer exists, at least that’s PF and my impression. Is there a thriving nonarchic territory in the area formerly known as Somalia?
tb: The reason anarchy can’t work is because the government I support will spend billions of dollars to kill people and destroy property wherever there is no central government that corporate/banking interests can control in order to exploit the inhabitants of such a place.
me: That’s the fuck of it, ain’t it? Governments exist, and they will tend to fill a stateless vacuum with a state. It sucks, I know.
Does the stateless oncologist then say, “First, we need ALL states to go into spontaneous remission” THEN we can experience the Jubilee of worldwide statelessness? 😉
I merely observe that nonarchy seemed to begin to work in Somalia, but then failed.
When did it fail? Do you have some links or information on that?
tb: I love this argument: “Anarchy can’t work – look at Somalia!”
me: To be clear, I have not made this argument…you leap to that conclusion. I merely observe that nonarchy seemed to begin to work in Somalia, but then failed.
If nonarchy CAN work, sketch out a plausible case for how it might maintain a RoL and a semblance of domestic tranquility. OR…make the case that a RoL and/or a semblance of domestic tranquility is not desirable.
To be a persuasive Pied Piper, it seems you need to make an aspirational appeal. I still haven’t heard one! Instead, I only seem to hear about government excesses, but then I remind you that I agree with you…up to a point.
As far as I know, yes, you are mistaken.
Correct.
I love this argument:
“Anarchy can’t work – look at Somalia!”
Of course, this argument is generally much more snarky:
“How’s Somalia workin’ for ya?”
Well, Somalia’s decentralized tribal based system hasn’t worked out so well because the U.S. government that American statists cling to has engaged various parties to conduct a proxy war in Somalia in an attempt to establish a central government there. From actual covert operations by US actors to paying other nations and arming militant Somalians, America has been actively been destabilizing Somalia for many years for the purpose of benefiting wealthy elite special interests.
So, any argument against anarchy that throws down Somalia is actually an argument that goes like this:
The reason anarchy can’t work is because the government I support will spend billions of dollars to kill people and destroy property wherever there is no central government that corporate/banking interests can control in order to exploit the inhabitants of such a place.
I find this argument to particularly disgusting when made by statist “libertarians” and their right-wing conservative cousins all seeking to limit government to the functions they desire, which apparently includes subjugation of the entire planet. No wonder these same people imagine that hobgoblins are plotting to kill them. They naturally assume that all other humans are just like themselves. Their fear is so great they have even adopted the delusion that a powerful government can protect them from their own paranoid fantasies.
Of course, to quit poking hornets’ nests is out of the question as that is what control freaks are compelled to do.
more….
Apparently, there have been documented cases of cancer patients spontaneously going into remission. This seems quite interesting to me and many, and yet there is no plausible medical explanation for these miraculous cures.
An oncologist could tell a new patient that he or she might experience such a spontaneous remission, and that seems true enough. And yet a patient might find such a medical assessment woeful
The oncologist might suggest something about the thus-far unexplained mind/body connections between disease and health, and at least offering a psychosomatic explanation for the patient’s disease. The doc might suggest contemplative meditation as a first step seeking a cure.
At least the oncologist is sketching something out for the patient, examples of how he might get better.
C’mon, Paulie, take a stab at it!
pf, my understanding is that there no longer is a nonarchist region in the territory known as Somalia. Am I mistaken?
I surely don’t recall your explaining how nonarchic RoL would work. The closest you’ve come is to say something like: They’ll work it out when the time comes.
If that’s what you mean, can you imagine why I and most of the planet might not find that a sufficient answer?
Yes, anarchy in parts of Somalia in the period of a few short years has not solved the problems caused by tyranny, imperialism and communism that went back for many centuries. Meanwhile, the US is relative better off because it was relatively closer to anarchy for several centuries than anywhere else. However, parts of Somalia under peaceful anarchy have grown faster than any other part of Subsaharan Africa and today other countries with more economic freedom than the US have surpassed the US in growth and advancement.
When? I’m not aware of any such collapse. Some gang in Mogadishu calling itself a government doen’t mean much of anything.
I’ve explained several times in this conversation, and I don’t know how many times in previous conversations.
pf: In the parts of Somalia where polycentric spontaneous order actually was tried to any meaningful extent it worked out much better than anything else in that part of Africa, including Somalia, has.
me: First, I assure you I’d not heard the term “polycentric” until recently. I see now that Barnett and Chartier have written on the subject. I’ve corresponded with Chartier and while he strikes me as bright and thoughtful, I have been utterly unsatisfied with his explanations, as he – and most abolitionist anarchists in the MNR tradition – simply avoid the inconvenient, yet obvious, questions about the construct you all seem to point us to.
These are basic questions that, I’d think, any open-minded person would ask.
To point to the brief period where Somalian polycentrism seemed to work relative to neighboring territories proves nothing IF one cares about offering others a sustainable model for optimizing civil, peaceful society. Just because the relative poverty in the nonarchistic regions of what was known as “Somalia” abated slightly avoids entirely the facts that: a) it remained in horrific poverty, and b) is nothing like the US, where the wealth on-the-line dwarfs Somalia. With more property comes the risk of more theft, by definition.
Since the Somalian experiment collapsed, this if anything shows us that a baseline of peacekeeping institutions would seem necessary to SUSTAIN relative wealth. To say “trust us, non-state RoL institutions will spring up and allow for continued AND IMPROVED social conditions” is, well, asking a lot.
Still, just as I’d be willing to (and do) at least TRY to explain some of my more challenging notions, if you get around to it, I’d really like to understand how polycentrism would work in the US. If, say, Blanton declares himself a nation, and that he’s not under the jurisdiction of US law, how do you sort out what would be the appropriate response if he violated US law. Do we view him as a kind of Lichtenstein? Do we exact “retaliation” as you like to say? Do we bribe him? etc.
It seems that if you are going to put such an outlier stake in the ground, you SHOULD be prepared to explain the stake!!!
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/liberty-panacea/2014/02/03/states-gone-wild-police-brutality-innovative-disruptive-technology
Don’t Get Too Comfortable With the GOP’s New Love For Libertarians http://reason.com/archives/2014/02/02/dont-get-too-comfortable-with-the-gops-n
I’ve given you links before, and I know you know how to use search engines. And you continue to mix up anarchy and chaos. They aren’t the same. As has been pointed out at some length previously, you are also wrong about Somalia. In the parts of Somalia where polycentric spontaneous order actually was tried to any meaningful extent it worked out much better than anything else in that part of Africa, including Somalia, has.
pl (from pf’s link): Thoreau understood well the difference between resisting unjust laws and cheating on your neighbors’ legitimate expectations.
me: It’s an OK differentiation in my book. I prefer to say that it’s useful to ID dysfunctional laws from functional ones. Regardless, this serves to support my point that a baseline of domestic tranquility laws makes sense to me, and apparently to the vast majority WITH GOOD REASON. Otherwise, we are in a jungle where possession is 10/10ths of the (effective) law. For rights to be meaningful, we need groundrules of some sort. I see no alternative, and you (PF) have only made highly vague references to a “polycentric” order, which is a term I’d not seen until recently and which you’ve not defined for me. What the heck is it, in theory and in practice (the short version, for now, please)?
pf: That’s the excuse. But the day to day reality is that it is often just an excuse for some people to lord over others and abuse them.
me: I disagree. It’s not an excuse, it’s a description of reality. But I certainly agree that there are many, many dysfunctional, counterproductive laws. Indeed, I’d say at least 90% of them are so.
pf: Which it would still be under polycentric law, and the enforcement would be both more effective and less burdensome.
me: To paraphrase Mick, “Me I’m just waiting so…patiently, lying on the floor. I’m just trying to do Paulie’s jigsaw puzzle, but almost all of the pieces are missing.”
pf: It only seems that way. In reality, it does not reduce risk, but increases it.
me: As has been said before, “you can’t beat something with nothing.” In a state of nature, there is no property, only possessions. Dysfunctional as civil societies can be, they don’t entail constant, daily war between each citizen. Most respect most’s property most of the time. For risk to be increased, there’d need to be a sense of it’d be compared with. Somalia’s polycentric spontaneous order hasn’t worked out so well. 😉
Yeah, my ears are still ringing from how much the Republicans don’t mind 🙂
See, for example http://www.pierrelemieux.org/artho.html
That’s the excuse. But the day to day reality is that it is often just an excuse for some people to lord over others and abuse them.
Which it would still be under polycentric law, and the enforcement would be both more effective and less burdensome.
Possibly the least fun sentence I have ever seen that included the words “oral” and “intercourse.” 🙂
Actually…refer to link earlier in the comment.
It only seems that way. In reality, it does not reduce risk, but increases it.
No, that’s chaos. And that was my original point: chaos and tyranny have more in common with each other than either one does with anarchy.
Not so.
Since third parties don’t matter, the D’s and R’s in Virginia won’t mind at all when Robert Sarvis runs again.
more…
Interesting, though. In some ways, anarchism IS the rule of men/women, vs. law. You point to a world in which there are no rules, and anything goes.
Isn’t it ironic….
tb: The fact is that rules that are just and generally accepted don’t require codification or government enforcement.
me: Evidence? Please!
The whole rule of law vs. men (people) is kinda ridiculous,don’t you think. People make laws, after all. They invent them in order to facilitate and allow for a certain continuity of behavior patterns that are acceptable in a civil society.
There’s a certain risk-abatement that undergirds civil society with the knowledge that walking down the street, it’s illegal to point a gun at a person and take his/her wallet, for ex. Or burst into a person’s house and take their stuff.
i’d think this’d be non-controversial, yet apparently for some it is.
Yes,the Blanton Nonarchy Pod needs no codification of the rules of civil behavior, since only you live in the Pod. Perhaps two might have an informal understanding, three even. As the numbers increase, oral understandings of basic rules of intercourse seem necessary.
Millions, though, not so much. It seems abundantly practical to write the rules down to minimize misinterpretation, all for the purpose of reducing risk in daily life.
Third party candidates have had a profound impact on this country. The Free Soil Party, though short-lived, achieved its goals. The Prohibition Party got a Constitutional Amendment muscled through (though it was eventually repealed). Ross Perot changed the public debate, and had a profound influence on the Clinton Administration’s economic policy. Ralph Nader’s candidacy helped move the Democratic Party leftward.
While technically not a third party candidacy, Ron Paul’s campaign changed the way many people look at economics. “End the fed” is now a household phrase.
Third party candidates provide an important public service: we’re the voice of the opposition! You’re taking a stand by voting against the duopoly, actively voting against those the media tells us to vote for. Not voting just makes you look apathetic, lazy, disinterested, uninformed. No one will ever look at it as anything else. Nobody seriously counts the number of people who didn’t vote. We don’t care about them, they don’t matter.
You’re not sending any message other than that you’re too damn lazy to get off your fat ass and go vote. THAT’S the truth.
Show up and vote, and vote for those they tell you not to. That’s true resistance.
Yes, and more importantly to their puppetmasters.
Your guess is wrong. They care deeply, which is why there are ballot access barriers. Among other things.
There have been such attempts for many years. They don’t make a huge impact on the percentage of people who vote and just get counted as apathy by the powers that be.
If I didn’t believe in what I was doing there are other things I could do for a living.
Winning elections, while it does happen, is not the most important function of alternative parties. Our most important function is to influence the debate by exerting pressure due to our ability to swing close elections and challenge otherwise unchallenged incumbents. There’s always the threat that if they don’t win our voters, or voters teetering on the edge of coming to us, back that we could rise up to challenge them, so that is where our power comes from.
All of the alternative parties have done this, as a part of their overall movements in tandem with other tactics. It has worked, continues to work, and has very little to do with electing the right people.
“A Libertarian vote is a clearer message than non-voting.”
A clearer message to who? The other candidates or other political parties?
My guess is that a total of 2% to 10% of total votes going to several third party and independent candidates is sending a message that the duopoly doesn’t care about.
On the other hand, any organized attempt to suppress voting that might achieve a significant reduction in the number of total votes cast for all candidates sends a clear message that people are in fact withdrawing their consent to be governed by an institution that is not legitimate, especially if that is the basis stated by activists for a movement to not vote.
I can understand a bias against this type of a movement among those whose livelihoods depend on political organizing and related industries, this being a variation of public choice theory. The problem is that at some point the rubes are going to figure out that third parties can’t win elections playing by the rules set by the major parties – even when the third party candidates deemed most likely to win come directly to the third parties from the major parties.
Something needs to be done to shake up the system and none of the third parties have done this over a period of decades. Rationally, it would seem to be a model for change that hasn’t worked. Hoping to one day elect the “right people” is not a solution – it more resembles a hideous scam to prevent a solution.
The reason for that is that the US was relatively laissez faire, relative to the rest of the world, for many years.
In other words, monopoly government has harmed us, but it has harmed other people even more.
“The prevailing system is one that is multi-tiered and serves only the elite in any meaningful way.”
Can’t say that I agree with this. Certainly, the prevailing system does serve the elite far more than the rest of us. But, it does serve most of us relatively well, at least in terms of the USA vs. 80% of the other countries in the world.
The state sucks, bigtime. In a general sense, I think we would be better off in a stateless society. But, lets be realistic about what we currently have. Life in the USA is far from perfect. But, it could be much, much worse. Even for the little guys.
TB – thanks, that was my original point that started this back and forth.
“Me: You are misunderstanding what I – and I believe most – define as the RoL. Yes, the laws are and always have been corrupted, been prone to favoritism, etc. The idea of the RoL is that there is a general agreement that property and life are to be protected with a set of rules, and that the rules are generally just, and near-universally accepted.”
Actually, the idea of the rule of law is that defined law is to rule as opposed to the rule of man, such as a dictator. In America, not only are the written laws themselves corrupted, the interpretation and enforcement is corrupted, thereby giving us, in effect, the rule of man. Statists, even of the libertarian variety, seem to think society must have rules to live by and that only a government can set forth these laws and enforce them. The fact is that rules that are just and generally accepted don’t require codification or government enforcement. The idea that theft or the initiation of violence against others is universally known and accepted by everyone but a handful of sociopaths.
Government tends to protect sociopaths who ignore rules. Hell, government attracts sociopaths who seek to use the monopoly of violence and authority to their own ends. In the absence of government, murderers would be dealt with swiftly by interested parties and offenders of lesser crimes would be ostracized or forced to make restitution through any number of means. Society has the ability to spontaneously and voluntarily organize to deal with specific problems of mutual interest without setting up what amounts to a standing army chasing hobgoblins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WVVfCtULHY
Could someone email newfederalist and give him my email so that I can apologize?
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2014/01/are-religious-conservatives-welcome-on-the-libertarian-left/
TB: The prevailing system is one that is multi-tiered and serves only the elite in any meaningful way.
Me: You are misunderstanding what I – and I believe most – define as the RoL. Yes, the laws are and always have been corrupted, been prone to favoritism, etc. The idea of the RoL is that there is a general agreement that property and life are to be protected with a set of rules, and that the rules are generally just, and near-universally accepted. For ex., most in our civil society believe that murder is wrong and should be illegal. There is surely disagreement about the specifics of the laws against murder.
Do some get away with murder, now and forever? Hope that helps clarify….
Now, you may object to the RoL, generally and specifically. If so, I feel nothing but compassion for you. Still, virtually all in civil society recognize that some basic rules are necessary to apply universally so that life can be conducted.
Ruppert is entirely wrong, especially about the jury pool. Jury pool is drawn from multiple databases, not just voter registration, so you will still be in the jury pool if you deregister to vote.
Two silver linings:
1) It gives you the power to nullify bad laws, which is really a lot better thing to table about than deregistration
2) If you still don’t want to vote, no need to worry. The notices don’t come by registered mail so there is no proof you ever received one and half go in the trash.
As for not voting half the people don’t vote already. If you don’t vote you will just be assumed to most likely be apathetic. A Libertarian vote is a clearer message than non-voting.
Anyway, I stopped by to share the latest rant from Bill Buppert:
Voting is a pernicious form of violence that is counter-intuitive until you discover what the ballot box does in democracy……
http://zerogov.com/?p=3227
There’s even an interesting idea for direct action activism that is peaceful (and even legal) at the end of the article, for those who love to set up booths and interact with totalitarian zombies and authoritarian rubes.
“Wow, libertarianism really scares some people.”
Looking at that AATLP website it appears that what really scares these people are not libertarians but people like the Koch brothers, Ayn Rand (who hated libertarians), pro-business fanatics (not pro-market), and various right-wing memes that some phony libertarians latch onto as a tactical means of trying to trick all types of conservatives into thinking libertarians are actually ultra-conservatives.
This tactic appears to have failed in that has alienated large numbers of people who aren’t really paying attention to anything but the mainstream shills of all varieties. Therein lies the danger of embracing the Wayne Roots and other Republicans of the world. When libertarians decide they want to sell libertarianism as an idea, they will stop selling using conservative, or liberal, rhetoric to do so.
Anyone who believes there is rule of law in Amerika is either a shill for the elite or a fuckin’ fool, possibly both. The prevailing system is one that is multi-tiered and serves only the elite in any meaningful way. It is not a system that is broken but could be fixed if only the right people are elected. It is a system that never worked well, despite Norman Rockwell images to the contrary.
I seem them more as being for the refuseniks who can’t stand a polycentric order and must have a territorial RoL. It allows them a way to opt out of the peaceful polycentric legal order that the vast majority of society will freely choose. Hopefully sooner rather than later.
The Pods are for those refuseniks who object to the territorial RoL. It allows them a way to opt out of the whole deal.
I’ve already told you I like the idea of archy pods.
The problem is that monopolarchs (and bipolarchs) don’t confine themselves to pods, needing to dominate each and all.
As for comparison it is all around us, but probably too complicated to get into here.
PF, for the life of me, Paulie, I simply don’t see how you can maintain a case for propensities when you have NO comparisons, at ALL in the modern era. RoL enforcers necessarily enforce USING monopoly force, anyway. If Kropotkin Co. retaliates against Blanton for murder and Blanton doesn’t agree, that sure looks like a monopoly to me.
(Nonarchy Pods solve this, anyway, where Blanton can do what he wants in his nation of one!)
This article is related to my comment above:
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/libertarians-need-check-privilege-gender-politics-w-cathy-reisenwitz-video/#axzz2rdNLeVg1
Found on Facebook:
“Many newly minted libertarians have come out of America’s indoctrination factories feeling a mix of guilt and sanctimony. They’re still libertarians, but they admonish you to “check your privilege” and caution that you may unwittingly be perpetuating a culture of oppression. Identity politics has come to the freedom movement. But does it fit? Join the discussion: http://FEE.org/toleration“
I think you have explained yourself just fine. It’s just that we do not agree here.
I’ve noticed that there is a greater propensity to do so over time, and that government monopolies over law and law enforcement tend to overall hinder rather than help this process.
It actually becomes easier to establish effective rules over aggregates where many of the same problems come up repeatedly and ways of resolving themselves evolve and become customary over time.
My original point, which is that in practice monopoly government tends to promote, rather than curtail, rights-violation – e.g. chaos.
Austrian Economics with Glenn Jacobs (aka-WWE wrestler “Kane”)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8xphl-CyvU
This is an old video from ISIL entitled “The Philosophy of Liberty”, but it always brings tears to my eyes. Even the music is great!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I#t=17
Here is a good article from Lew Rockwell to counter the weekend’s NYTimes hit piece on the LP:
http://mises.org/daily/6648/We-Win-the-NY-Times-Prize
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/us/politics/rand-pauls-mixed-inheritance.html?_r=0
The article in the link above takes a serious look at Rand Paul and discusses his libertarian roots. It’s a long article and seems rather fair (for a mainstream newspaper, especially). It’s worth the time it takes to read it because it helps those of us interested in moving past the existing duopology to see how the libertarian views are understood by others. Will Rand Paul be a serious part of the the 2016 presidential campaign? At this point, I’m willing to bet that he will be.
https://www.facebook.com/AATLP
Wow, libertarianism really scares some people.
On Day One…
And
Maim
pf, let me go back to square one, since I’m clearly not explaining myself well. One Day One, there is Rothbard and Konkin. They live on contiguous plots of land. There is no government, no law, and no insurance companies. They live in a state of nature, wherein they possess material things, but there is no agreement that their possessions are “property.” As far as they each are concerned, they can kill, main or steal from the other, and there is nothing to stop either from doing so. In this state of nature, anything goes.
Now, it may well be in their interest to enter into a civil social order in which they agree to rules that govern both, such that they can trade and live peacefully next to each other. However, surely you’ve noticed that people don’t always work things out, EVEN IF IT’S TO THEIR MUTUAL BENEFIT TO DO SO.
And this is just among two parties. Negotiating the terms of a civil society becomes mathematically far more difficult with each additional party. But until such terms are established, we are in a state of nature WHERE ANYTHING GOES.
As soon as any party disagrees with/won’t abide with the codified rule of law, we revert to a state of nature WHERE ANYTHING GOES.
This, near as I can tell, is what you point to. Am I missing something?
My references are to the codification, policing and adjudication of the rule of law.
PF, it appears to me you are confusing the POLICING of the RoL with the actual institution of the RoL. In the state of nature, there are no laws (aside from physics). There is no property, only things. It’s only until civil society is formed that things like property because operative. The set of rules that protect property, life and limb evolve can be enforced through a variety of means. The the actual RoL is not a cafeteria item, that buyers can pick the frank and beans and jello. It’s rather the foundation that civil society organizes itself around.
It can be, although it can also be provded on a basis of community charity, mutual defense, barter, exchange, insurance, or any number of other ways, including by non-profits, charities and community organizations. The same is true of basic necessities such as food, housing, transportation, medicine, education, etc.
pf: As far as the undesirability of a monopoly provider, no, I don’t.
me: Perhaps I didn’t phrase the question well. I’m simply asking is the RoL a commodity, something to be purchased?
I’d say one, the other or both are virtually certain, but I can’t say the time frame. My guess would be anywhere from this year to maybe within 50 years at most. Probably within 20.
Not kidding.
As far as the undesirability of a monopoly provider, no, I don’t.
Disagreed. They don’t have shootouts because it’s bad for business.
For example take my old neighborhood in NY. In the late 80s and early 90s (right before and after I moved out) over a hundred people a year were getting killed just in that one neighborhood, the deadliest in NYC, as billions a year in cocaine and crack made their way through our neighborhood at the intersection of I-80 and I-95. The sounds of gunfire, police and fire sirens and people screaming were commonplace. Nowadays, as the drug territories have sorted themselves out, there may be one or zero people a year being killed in that neighborhood and it is considered one of the safest in NYC although just as much illegal drug trafficking, both wholesale and retail, is going on there as before. The war is over. The drugs are still illegal and highly profitable, but the criminals have finished dividing up the pie and made their own peace.
Meanwhile: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37450.htm Cops War On People Deadlier Than Iraq
informationclearinghouse.info
Same thing with providing rule of law.
Not exactly. As I pointed out earlier, they have natural incentives to work out an agreement about how situations get handled. If the rules are wildly disparate there would be a lot of conflict and violence between them as people scramble to get the agency they want to handle the dispute. So I think the rules would be very similar, as a result of spontaneous order and social peferences rather than monopoly edict. The competition would be over providing the services at reasonable rates and to the satisfaction of all involved. And I believe there would be no great disparities there either, but the results would be much better than with a monopoly due to the competition.
This article is a couple of months old, but significant, I think:
http://benswann.com/has-apple-gone-libertarian/
Forbes had to get in on the action of trashing libertarianism:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2014/01/24/sorry-libertarian-anarchists-capitalism-requires-government-2/
pf: I don’t see either as at all unlikely.
me: So you are at once highly pessimistic and highly optimistic, yes? “At all unlikely” sounds something like “fairly possible, though not the most likely.” What kind of odds do you give a) total calamity and b) massive L moment in which the State is rolled back by, say, 50% or more.
pf: Coke, Pepsi and RC Cola don’t have to have shootouts in the street for none of them to have a monopoly.
me: This sentence suggests to me that a) you are kidding or b) you don’t see any difference between a commodity (soda or pop in the Midwest) and a domestic tranquility institution(s) that facilitate and allow for economic and social intercourse with minimal levels of overt violent or fraudulent disruptions. Coke, Pepsi and RC don’t have shootouts because it’s illegal to do so. They are doing business within a network of laws such that they generally don’t need to take extreme security measures from the plant, to the distributors, to the retailers. Most of the time, the consumer pays for the product, as does the retailer, as does the distributor.
pf: If you can choose different products on store shelves and different stores offering some of the same goods what is accomplished??
me: I’d think that’s obvious: The consumer can optimize his or her utility.
pf: Retaliatory force is OK, as I’m sure you remember.
me: Bracing notion, this. So if Kropotkin, Hoppe and the startup, Frankel Peace & Eternal Vigilance Assurance Co., can each exact retaliatory force in any place where they have customers, then their Pinkertons could each have their own rules about how they can apprehend, judge and prosecute the accused Blanton.
While Kropotkin and Hoppe use more measured tactics, Frankel caters to an angrier, more bloodthirsty clientele. Like some in our current “monopolistic” RoL setup, they want the accused apprehended and mercilessly killed…quickly. Thankfully, our admittedly non-optimized setup doesn’t allow for that, for the most part (although it does happen, sadly). When it DOES happen, it’s at least illegal itself.
Without a level-set of laws, you point to an anything-goes, might-makes-right set up, where FPEVA Co. has no checks and balances. The market “demands” the FREVA Co, and it will be provided if enough will pay for it. More chillingly, say Larry Ellison wants to pay for it. He’s got the bread, after all.
Perhaps you think Kropotkin and Hoppe would challenge Frankel’s extreme tactics. Maybe. Though I could easily imagine they’d deem challenging Frankel’s business strategy itself unprofitable for them. They’d continue to cater to more civilized clients and steer clear of Frankel’s Pinkertons and their victims.
YMMV.
Dunno where you get your crystal ball. I don’t see either as at all unlikely.
No. Coke, Pepsi and RC Cola don’t have to have shootouts in the street for none of them to have a monopoly.
If you can choose different products on store shelves and different stores offering some of the same goods what is accomplished??
I your example, the hypothetical Blanton, who as I understand it is not related to the real Blanton, initiated force. Retaliatory force is OK, as I’m sure you remember.
pf: Using your own logic, government was bigger 50 years ago, because it went about doing such things as forcing women to go back to abusive husbands they ran away from, locked up gay people in jails and mental hospitals just for being gay, enforced segregation in some states, etc. But certainly in some ways it was smaller.
me: Thanks for your kindness (using my logic)! Yes, it’s hard to measure. I put chattel slavery at 100% coercion, so it strikes me as more dysfunctional than the coercions of 50 years ago.
pf: Of course, we could also argue that if we don’t roll it back rapidly it is headed for a cliff, which will cause even more massive dislocation than a rapid rollback.
me: Yes, you could.Yes, that’s possible. So many things are possible, though. Personally, I play the percentages, and odds of that sort of dislocation are long. Similarly, a massive rollback of the State prior to such a potential calamity is — likely –longer still. It’s not my practice to push on a string.
pf: Again, there are incentives for justice providers to work out cooperation agreements; I don’t see why you presume that it is the accused who would choose the venue; that seems rather unlikely.
me: Oh, so you think Kropotkin and Hoppe create an effective monopoly, then? If Blanton can’t choose, and K&H CAN, what exactly’s been accomplished? The Man is the Man, after all, and if the Man can put Blanton in the hoosegow, he’s using force against poor Blanton’s will!
pf: Any monopoly would seem sensible if you’ve never experienced an alternative. If there was a monopoly over music and art, someone could argue that allowing different styles of music, fashion, art, and other self-expression to proliferate would cause irreconcilable conflicts between people and would make society unworkable….
me: Thanks, now we’re getting down to it. You seem to think the RoL is a commodity. I’d maintain that it’s an institution that allows and facilitates economic intercourse. If in your mind, RoL is commodity to be traded like any other good or service, I’m simply not seeing it.
That can change with time and effort and it’s work, not luck. The progressives did not win control of the term overnight either. That took many years and lots of work on their part. Nor did the conservatives turn it into a pejorative instantaneously.
“paulie January 24, 2014 at 10:05 pm
Actually I’m thinking we should start taking the word liberal back since the progressives who jacked it don’t really seem to want it anymore.”
Good luck with that. Unfortunately, I think that the word has too much negative baggage attached to it now.
Actually I’m thinking we should start taking the word liberal back since the progressives who jacked it don’t really seem to want it anymore.
“Liberal” is Not a Dirty Word http://www.libertarianism.org/blog/liberal-is-not-dirty-word?utm_content=bufferc9c8a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Marijuana also opens up some people’s consciousness to all the ways in which traditional patriarchy, jingoism, chauvinism, corporatism, police and military bootlicking, nationalism, militarism, etc. etc. are destructive and even ridiculous. That’s another way in which marijuana leads libertarians away from conservatism.
3 Ways Marijuana Sorts Conservatives from Libertarians http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/01/24/3-ways-marijuana-sorts-conservatives-from-libertarians/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=t.co
In some respects it is smaller. In others much bigger.
Using your own logic, government was bigger 50 years ago, because it went about doing such things as forcing women to go back to abusive husbands they ran away from, locked up gay people in jails and mental hospitals just for being gay, enforced segregation in some states, etc. But certainly in some ways it was smaller.
I don’t believe the prior question was how fast government would become smaller in those aspects again, but how much smaller it would ultimately become.
Of course, we could also argue that if we don’t roll it back rapidly it is headed for a cliff, which will cause even more massive dislocation than a rapid rollback.
Again, there are incentives for justice providers to work out cooperation agreements; I don’t see why you presume that it is the accused who would choose the venue; that seems rather unlikely.
Any monopoly would seem sensible if you’ve never experienced an alternative. If there was a monopoly over music and art, someone could argue that allowing different styles of music, fashion, art, and other self-expression to proliferate would cause irreconcilable conflicts between people and would make society unworkable. If there was a monopoly over food, some would say that it if it were otherwise there would be widespread starvation. If there was a monopoly over housing and clothing, certainly we would hear that if we tried to break it up millions of Americans would soon die naked and homeless out of exposure to the elements. Likewise with the idea that only a monopoly can provide rule of law, or indeed that what a monopoly is providing us with now is anything like a true rule of law at all.
Here’s another hit piece against libertarianism. There’s so much wrong with it that I wouldn’t know where to start, so you can read it yourself and laugh. I love the “radically liberbertarian Tenth Amendment Center”. It looks like we’re really scaring the big kids.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/01/24/3189211/can-states-kill-the-nsa-by-shutting-off-its-water/
Man! Tom Blanton is so on point there is nothing left for me to say except right on!
pf: they have incentives to work it out, in that peace is good for commerce and war isn’t.
me: I don’t disagree. And, yet, I’d never really realized just how untenable Hoppean, abolitionist anarchism is until just now (and I say that as a asymptotic anarchist).
Say Blanton kills someone because the victim looked at him sideways. Under the crazy quilt of Hoppe and Krapotkin Insurance Companies’ rule of law, Blanton can choose which set of laws he wants to apply to him. Hoppe has a high standard of justifiable homicide, but Krapotkin’s are low, including sideways glances perceived as hostile (tantamount to fighting words).
Blanton chooses Krapotkin justice. Why wouldn’t he? Since there’s no monopoly, Hoppe’s Pinkerton’s hands are tied.
There is no “war” here, but I don’t see it as peace, either.
Tell me why my impulse is incorrect: The monopoly RoL over a territory is a sensible institution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDXuPQ9ML9E
If they disagree…they have incentives to work it out, in that peace is good for commerce and war isn’t. The same holds far less true for governments that control large swaths of territory. Chicago in the 20s, incidentally, was a government-created scenario. Unprecedented? Hardly, and bold or not..it’s just true.
pf: Not if Kropotkin Mutual can do the same thing in the same area and they have to compete.
me: LOL! And if Hoppe and Kropotkin disagree? You conjure up images of Chicago in the 20s!
pf: what rule of law there is under the boot of the state is less than what would exist without its monopoly.
me: Fantastically unprecedented! (not counting Chicago!) Tis a bold stance, yours, to be sure.
tb: Many in the LP prefer a state much larger in scope than a government limited to the functions of the federal government 200 years ago. How is this not statism?
me: Check your premises. First, government is smaller today, since 200 years ago, the government enforced chattel slavery.
Second, your scale is hosed. I, for example, would prefer the fedgov to be smaller than it is today, but not necessarily smaller than it was, say, 50 years ago – next year. Once accomplished, I’d like to see it smaller yet. The next year, smaller yet.
Why not go for the full 50 year rollback in one year? Because the risk of massive dislocation is too high. I am for peace, and taking such a risk is not peaceful, in my assessment.
My counsel is to lose the “statist” label.
Nope. Not if Kropotkin Mutual can do the same thing in the same area and they have to compete.
It’s only a state if it has a monopoly on those types of services over a certain piece of landmass.
I am.
They claim to, and perhaps try to, provide a rule of law. I stand by my opinion that states are more apt to produce chaos than rule of law.
Not sure what AL has to do with this; I think I was in Texas when I wrote that. But in either case, what rule of law there is under the boot of the state is less than what would exist without its monopoly.
Perhaps collectivists/statists see liberation as a society liberated from the state and individualists can see liberation as a person being liberated from the state. Of course, this can’t be a total liberation because any individual will be subject to the possible various crimes of the state sometimes. Collectivists and statists view personal liberation as being atomistic as it is apart from the collective. Liberated individuals simply see it as freedom.
I also understand that many libertarians who claim to be seeking freedom will object to being called a collectivist or statist, but it is all only a matter of degree. Just as Republicans absurdly see Democrats as statists, it is certainly not a stretch for anarchists, or even true minarchists, to view many libertarians as statists, and more generally, members of any political party as collectivists as this is what they are.
So, it would seem that people tend to view anyone who wants more government than they prefer as a statist, or sometimes even a “socialist”, and one can’t deny that any sort of coerced collectivism is, in fact, statism. Many in the LP prefer a state much larger in scope than a government limited to the functions of the federal government 200 years ago. How is this not statism?
tb: In fact, you apparently were unable to understand what McElroy meant by “All of them (strategies) liberate individuals, here and now”.
me: True, since by your and WMc’s (I think) meaning for “liberation” is “statelessness.” Since the globe is covered with states, there’s no liberation.
My view is that “liberation” is all in the mind anyway, available to all always, regardless of the worldly situation. Metaphysical liberation is the only true liberation I can think of, for there is always something for anyone to complain about.
tb: Anyone who claims there must be a government to PREVENT their neighbors from building nuclear weapons in their tool sheds implies the “rule of law” results in that particular outcome.
me: Beg your pardon. I don’t see how you read such an implication is suggested, but I assure you I for one don’t mean to imply any such thing. The RoL – by my way of thinking – is not a guarantee that certain outcomes will not happen. There’s a law against murder to curb murder, not to end it.
Hope that clarifies….
Tom Blanton continues to get it exactly right. Bravo!
Jed, I voted exclusively for LP candidates from 1980 through 2004. It was fun while it lasted, but I
found there were better things to do – like watching re-runs of Leave It To Beaver. I’ve found I get
much more pleasure by ignoring the “duopoly” and anything they are involved with. I withdraw my consent to be governed. I refuse to play their game any longer.
At this point, I will allow Mr. Capozzi to interject that I am a fool because the government does not know I have withdrawn my consent.
(Don’t tell him that is the way I want it because what they don’t know won’t hurt them, or me)
As for limited government, it seems everyone in America is for that – government limited to doing whatever it is any particular person wants the government to do, no more and no less. Even I am for limited government – limited to doing nothing at all.
In response to Capozzi,
“me: OK, y’all find this to be true. And, yet, WMc doesn’t bother to illustrate where these strategies HAVE worked. There are no anarcho territories, not even Somalia.”
These strategies have worked in the lives of individuals. This concept may be difficult to comprehend by statists/collectivists. In fact, you apparently were unable to understand what McElroy meant by “All of them (strategies) liberate individuals, here and now”. Granted, she did illustrate where these strategies have worked, only who they have worked for. But, did you really expect her to name every location where individuals have exercised free will with total disregard for your government? Remember, she is merely an individual and does not force you to pay for data collection and a huge database in order to track the activities of other individuals. Only your government does that. However she did write these strategies had worked “here” – presumably wherever she was located when she wrote that.
Somalia? Isn’t that the place where the government you cling to fights proxy wars to establish a central government, Capozzi?
“If the intent of the rule of law (much less the outcome) is to PREVENT all crime, who sez so?”
Who? Anyone who claims there must be a government to PREVENT their neighbors from building nuclear weapons in their tool sheds implies the “rule of law” results in that particular outcome. And
we all know who claims to worry about tool shed nukes.
“You’re another member of that big club of folks that gets some sort of
fulfillment from voting.”
Weird formatting, dude. But yeah I do. I like voting. It’s fun. It feels good to vote against the duopoly. I’m sorry you don’t feel that way.
In response to Jed,
“I won’t try to change the Democrats/Republicans from within, because they’re illegitimate.”
I agree. I never used the term “change”, scroll up and you will see the word “destroy”.
“I believe that there SHOULD be a functioning government, but it should be severely limited in its power at all levels.”
Good luck with that.
I will vote, because I have that right.
Good luck with that, too. You’re another member of that big club of folks that gets some sort of
fulfillment from voting. Fear and the false emotion of patriotism are among the many reasons
people desire a state. The notion that people can appoint others to rule them while simultaneously
controlling these rulers is inexplicable to me and does not seem to have ever occurred in history.
We all know what they say about people who do the same thing over and over while each time
expecting a different result.
Just remember, each vote you cast indicates your consent to be governed by the duly elected officials and gives the government legitimacy – even though you may feel the political factions that control the
government are not legitimate. You have no standing to complain about whatever the government does
to you as you consented to play the game by the rules set forth by those you say are not legitimate.
WMc: I pursue a broad range of strategies that have proven to work in the world. They include counter-economics, parallel institutions, grassroots movements, community-building, education, non-violent resistance, moral suasion, self-sufficiency, non-cooperation, civil disobedience…and voting with your feet. None of those strategies sanction the state or require anyone to become part of it. All of them liberate individuals, here and now.
me: OK, y’all find this to be true. And, yet, WMc doesn’t bother to illustrate where these strategies HAVE worked. There are no anarcho territories, not even Somalia.
Civil disobedience CAN work in rolling back elements of government overreach, agreed. As can politics.
She’s not paying attention.
tb:By the way Capozzi, I don’t murder people, so the insurance companies would have no jurisdiction over me.
me: Thanks. I didn’t say you do. I said “If,” and you are not the only “Blanton” on Earth.
tb: Your beloved state does that.
me: Please don’t put words in my mouth. I don’t “belove” the state. I accept that rule-of-law institutions are required to maintain a semblance of domestic tranquility. Don’t you?
tb:I can only suppose that you would also murder people if there was no state to prevent you from doing so.
me: Gee, I sure hope not! 😉 But, more to the point, states and (in theory) non-state domestic tranquility institutions (which don’t have have never existed) don’t “prevent” murder or other acts of aggression. They dissuade them, signalling what is unacceptable behavior.
I trust that clears that up for you.
If the intent of the rule of law (much less the outcome) is to PREVENT all crime, who sez so?
The State sees the spectre looming ahead of terrorism and anarchy, and this increases the risk of its over-reaction and a reduction in our freedom. -Stanley Kubrick
Tom Blanton and Wendy McElroy have it exactly right. Everyone should read the link Tom Blanton posted and act accordingly!
This is in response to the McElroy article, and Blanton’s comments.
I vote Libertarian because I believe that we need more choices in America, and its the party that best conforms to my beliefs. I believe that there SHOULD be a functioning government, but it should be severely limited in its power at all levels. I believe the constitution does not go far enough in defending individual liberty.
I get pissed off at the LP sometimes too, but I’m still proud to be a Libertarian.
I won’t try to change the Democrats/Republicans from within, because they’re illegitimate. To do so would be to acknowledge them as a legitimate political party, and a worthy adversary. They’re not. Legitimate political parties hold real votes, not sham votes like the Democratic Party had over including support of Israel in its platform, or like the Republican Party had where they refused to acknowledge nominating votes for Ron Paul and other presidential candidates. They are not real political parties. It’s a game, it’s all fake.
I will vote, because I have that right. And I will cast my votes for real candidates and real political parties. I will cast my vote for principled candidates who work for people, not machines. I will vote for the Libertarian Party.
By the way Capozzi, I don’t murder people, so the insurance companies would have no jurisdiction over me. Your beloved state does that. I can only suppose that you would also murder people if there was no state to prevent you from doing so.
Besides, libertarian insurance companies exist only in the dreams of middle-class suburban anarcho-capitalists seeking to convince their fearful Republican friends that gated-community anarchy can be just as authoritarian as they are. In a stateless society, most regular people would probably just pack some heat for insurance if they are concerned about thugs.
I think Wendy McElroy speaks for a lot of libertarians in her article “LIBERTARIAN PARTY MOVES US AWAY FROM FREEDOM ”
http://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2014/1/21/libertarian-party-moves-us-away-from-freedom.html
and this doesn’t even begin to address what happens to the libertarian movement when the LP runs candidates claiming to be “real conservatives” or deify people like Wayne Root who go out and
get in bed with right-wing Tea Party hacks in an attempt to convince them that their most cherished beliefs are exactly what libertarians believe.
If libertarians want to become involved in political parties, they should go join the GOP or the Dems and attempt to destroy them from within – you know, pretty much the same thing conservatives do by joining the LP.
The only way I would ever vote for another LP candidate is if the candidate’s only platform was to dismantle as much of government as possible, and then only if I believed he or she was honest about it.
Nick Gillespie of Reason makes an excellent suggestion to Obama:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/21/ending-the-war-on-pot-is-obama-s-last-chance-for-a-legacy.html#url=/articles/2014/01/21/ending-the-war-on-pot-is-obama-s-last-chance-for-a-legacy.html
Rule #5: Murder should not be illegal.
😉
Now that we’ve dispatched the silliness, perhaps we can have an actual conversation!
Larken Rose: The Rules
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk5NgnsgeMc
pf: rule of law without territorial monopoly is not a state.
me: Anytime the rule of law is ENFORCED, it is in effect a “monopoly.” If Blanton murders someone, and the Hoppe Insurance Company comes to enforce the “voluntary” law against murder, and Blanton sez “Your law doesn’t apply to me,” and Hoppe hauls his ass into the MNR Correctional Facility, Hoppe is imposing itself territorially and monopolistically on Blanton.
You can deny it’s a state, but in that moment, IT IS. Over time, if Hoppe replicates the sorts of events, it cements its standing as a state, even if it CLAIMS to be “voluntary.”
pf: Since states are more apt to produce chaos than rule of law
me: You’re not paying attention. States all provide a rule of law, it’s just that they do so excessively, ineptly, and corruptly, in varying degrees.
Are you telling me that there’s no rule of law in AL?
Of course there is. It is a sub-optimal RoL, to be sure….
There are plenty of such anarchists. I have been one myself in the past.
Rule of law=/= state. A state is a territorial monopoly; rule of law without territorial monopoly is not a state. States for their part only pay lip service to rule of law, if that. There may be some overlap from time to time, but generally states and rule of law don’t coexist – we get one or the other but not both in most cases.
Since states are more apt to produce chaos than rule of law, states and nihilists actually have more in common with each other than either one of them has with peaceful rule of law anarchists.
Therefore, only nihilists advocate true statelessness. Non-nihilist anarchists are effectively statists.
That does not make it a social contract. A contract is something which is chosen freely prior to being undertaken by a person capable of rational decision making. The state is more like polluted water to a fish brought up in the muck and the descendent of many generations of fish brought up in the increasingly polluted water. At this point the pollution is near-fatal, and is already atal to many fish as well as shortening their lifespan and making it miserable, but these fish know no other life and have no realistic alternative. Combine that with statist propaganda and you get acceptance/resignation/delusion….but still no contract.
Seven Ways Libertarians Sometimes Run Off the Rails http://notesonliberty.com/2014/01/19/seven-ways-libertarians-sometimes-run-off-the-rails/
Libertarianism & The Charge of Utopia http://wearelibertarians.com/guest-post-libertarianism-charge-utopia/
Josie the Outlaw: A Prison By Any Other Name
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMhURei8N6Q
Libertarian Activist Adam Kokesh Gets Two Years Probation for Exercising His Freedom in Freedom Plaza http://reason.com/blog/2014/01/17/libertarian-activist-adam-kokesh-gets-tw
pf, re: the fact that no one has ever pointed to a signing of the social “contract” is only somewhat true. It surely was never executed, like a legal contract.
OTOH, there is no evidence that there’s not a near-universal acceptance of a state. Yes, there are a small number of anarchists advocating statelessness, hence my acknowledging “near” universal.
I know of no anarchists who are nihilists, that is, who don’t advocate at least a rule of law. But, to advocate law is to advocate something tantamount to a state, in that the rule of law requires ENFORCEMENT, which by definition is involuntary. (e.g., murderers can be imprisoned, thieves can be forced to return stolen property.)
Therefore, only nihilists advocate true statelessness. Non-nihilist anarchists are effectively statists.
“Welcome to the camp, I guess you all know why we’re here.”
This is an interesting discussion about the privilege some groups of people have or do not have. Cathy Reisenwitz is much more in line with my way of thinking, but Julie makes some good points.
These are both very young women. They certainly understand the world much better than I did at their age.
https://www.fee.org/the_freeman/arena/a-question-of-privilege
CALL FOR ENTRIES: 4th ANNUAL LAVA AWARDS
The LAVA Awards are designed to recognize and reward books written or published by Libertarian, Agorist, Voluntaryist and/or Anarch authors or publishers.
The LAVA Awards occur annually and are open to all books that were published or republished in the last 10 years.
LAVA will award the Lysander Spooner (Book of the Year) Award & Charles Angrand (Artwork) Award; category (fiction and nonfiction) and press awards may also be awarded for micro (less than 10 books per year), small (more than 10 but less than 20 books per year) and large (more than 20 books per year) publishers, depending on the number of entries.
Registration automatically qualifies the book for the Lysander Spooner (Book of the Year) Award, (regardless of category or class) & Charles Angrand (Artwork) Award.
–Affordable Entry Fee $45 per title ($30 for LAVA Members)!
–Registration deadline is April 15!
–Winners and Finalists will be announced on Peace, Love, Liberty Radio on June 29, 2014.
Visit http://www.lava-apa.org/p/lava-awards.html for complete information
###
LAVA is the Libertarian, Agorist, Voluntaryist & Anarch Authors & Publishers Association. LAVA was founded in November 2010 with a mission “to assist the membership with promoting their books and other published material” with membership open to all who identify as Libertarian, Agorist, Voluntaryist and/or Anarch.
http://www.examiner.com/article/everybody-s-answering-the-question-libertarians-can-t-answer?CID=examiner_alerts_article
What don’t you agree with? Seemed on point to me…
http://networkedblogs.com/SODSJ
There are tons of things to think about it this article. On first reading, however, there are a couple points I don’t agree with. I’ll have to mull things over for a few days.
http://reason.com/archives/2014/01/02/british-free-marketeers-should-welcome-r
British Free Marketeers Should Welcome Romanian and Bulgarian Immigrants
reason.com
Larken Rose: How To Be A Crook
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjWR4_ekego
http://reason.com/archives/2014/01/02/lets-make-2014-the-year-of-freedom-for-l
http://libertycrier.com/nullification-alternative/
http://reason.com/blog/2014/01/03/repeat-after-me-david-brooks-repealing-p
http://networkedblogs.com/SybMd
http://libertarianchristians.com/2014/01/05/cult-of-the-uniform/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+libertarianchristians+%28LibertarianChristians.com%29&utm_content=FaceBook
http://youtu.be/g5AMOlBpLVc
“As for abortion, I think the link is deceptive. For example, it may be lumping in people who believe that abortion should only be legal in cases of rape or even only in the case where the mother’s life is in danger with those who believe it should be legal on demand in any trimester and publicly funded. “All or some circumstances” covers a very broad range of different opinion on the issue.”
I thought the same. Abortion is a tricky issue even for libertarians. Is it a social issue best left to individuals, or is it a criminal justice matter that is one of the duties of government? It all depends on whether you view the unborn as an individual, and therefore whether you view abortion as an unlawful use of force. Libertarians can have good faith disagreement on the issue.
Myself, I’m a pro-life libertarian, but I do make exceptions where the mother’s life is in danger & in the case of rape (because I know how traumatic rape is). I’m also hesitant to give such power to the federal government, this seems like a state and/or local responsibility.
SUPPORT EDWARD SNOWDEN FOR 2014 NOBEL PEACE PRIZE
The 26th annual Nobel Peace Prize Forum will take place March 1st and 7-9 in Minneapolis, on the campuses of Augsburg College and the University of Minnesota West Bank. This event will be open to the public.
The Nobel Peace Prize Forum is a unique civic learning experience. This dynamic, public, global event brings Nobel Peace Prize winners, civic leaders, and scholars together with students and other citizens. As the Norwegian Nobel Institute’s only such program or academic affiliation outside of Norway, the Forum has a special mission: to inspire peacemaking by celebrating the work of Peace Prize winners.
The 2014 Forum is comprised of four different events, each of which will have a separate ticket:
March 1: Faith and Peace Day
March 7: Law and Business Day
March 8: Science and Health Day
March 9: Global Day
From the above link:
The numbers on marijuana and homosexuality, while still far short of a consensus, are rapidly moving in the correct direction and I don’t see any likely circumstances under which they would move rapidly in the other direction.
The same is true on the number on medical insurance and trust in government, but those gains seem like they may be less permanent.
As for abortion, I think the link is deceptive. For example, it may be lumping in people who believe that abortion should only be legal in cases of rape or even only in the case where the mother’s life is in danger with those who believe it should be legal on demand in any trimester and publicly funded. “All or some circumstances” covers a very broad range of different opinion on the issue.
Newsflash: Americans in Broad Agreement About Pot, Abortion, Homosexuality http://ideas.time.com/2014/01/03/newsflash-americans-in-broad-agreement-about-pot-abortion-homosexuality/
Sounds on topic to me.
And a bonus:
http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm
Lots of good stuff there…
http://www.policymic.com/articles/77877/13-problems-only-libertarians-will-understand-in-gifs
Are you logged in? Just the url should do it. Testing….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puusxNAkoe4
Maybe a bit off-topic for this off-topic thread, but I recently watched a very impressive history lecture on YouTube by one Stephen Davies, a historian giving a presentation to students at the libertarian Institute for Humane Studies (IHS).
This guy is terrific. I’d love to see him as a speaker at a Libertarian Party convention.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puusxNAkoe4
Paulie, can you remind me how to add a video link?
Many good resources here: http://libertycrier.com/liberty-movement-youtube-subscription-bomb/
Both of those sources have great articles, Paulie.
http://c4ss.org/content/23051
Libertarians And The 60s Counterculture
http://reason.com/archives/2013/12/29/the-moral-case-for-freedom-is-the-practi
The Moral Case for Freedom Is the Practical Case for Freedom
The division of human life into the moral and the practical is of recent vintage.
Sheldon Richman
Here is an article by Crissy Brown from a blog that has lots of interesting article, ThoughtsonLiberty. You can find the link and blog here: http://thoughtsonliberty.com/left-right-libertarians-why-cant-we-be-friends
You owe it to your philosophy to learn how to win – Morton Blackwell
Libertarianism is first and foremost a philosophy, and not a political party. It is because of this that so many of us became enamored with the ideas espoused by libertarianism in the first place. Free markets and free minds—the tenets we all champion—are ambiguous in execution, and we all have our own interpretation of exactly how to spread these ideas to society. It is not surprising that we disagree from time to time about nearly everything, but when we turn on each other because of splinters in ideology, we only give our political enemies an advantage. In the political arena, we must be unified if we want to win.
Within the throws of the liberty movement, it is not enough to identify as a ‘libertarian.’ Fellow liberty lovers will want to know if you lean to the right or the left, if you are a minarchist or an-cap, pragmatic or idealistic, Big ‘L’ or little ‘L.’ Are you a fusionist? Constitutional conservative? It can all get pretty confusing. And while libertarians tend to agree with each other on 90 percent of issues, you would never know it based on how we interact with each other. You would never guess that we are all striving for the same end goal.
I have had enough of the contempt and ridicule that we approach each other with – I have had enough of the pejorative in-fighting. With the New Year upon us, I would ask you all to resolve to become better advocates of liberty. Remember who and what it is you really fight against, and realize that alienating those you agree with on 90 percent of issues for the sake of the 10 percent of disagreement is stupid. Don’t be stupid. Don’t be like this former Facebook friend of mine.
Facebook user: I’m unfriendng you tonight because of your association/connection with “thoughts on liberty”.
me: Um, ok
me: That’s possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard, but good luck with that.
me: You’ll do good work changing opinions and having meaningful conversations if all you ever do is associate with those like you.
me: And more to the point, you clearly don’t read my articles.
Facebook user: why is that stupid exactly? who one associates with says a lot about who they are. Your association with this blog says a lot about who you are… and I don’t want that type of person
For the record, let me say that I am very proud to associate with Thoughts on Liberty and my fellow bloggers. I hope that it does say a lot about me – as both a conservative leaning libertarian and as a fusionist. We don’t agree on everything. It says so in our mission statement. We all are strong, opinionated women, and we care about what we believe in. All the TOL writers have differing opinions on the best way to achieve the goals of liberty, but we unite under a common banner because we are all striving for the same goal—we are all women writing for a free world.
There will always be disagreement, but if we have enemies in the game of politics, they are the people threatening individual liberty and freedom of choice, and those people don’t identify as any sort of libertarian. And we really aren’t changing anything at all—however you define progress—by refusing to engage each other. Political victories come from strength in numbers, not ideological factions or unyielding dogmas. Tactical intelligence will defeat resolute principles every time, and furthering liberty should always be the most important objective.
So in this New Year, hit the gym and learn that new language, but save some resolve for helping grow your philosophy. With the proliferation of liberty, we all thrive, so you owe it to yourself (and to the unyielding principles that make you a libertarian) to learn how to win.