No. Not at all. Conspiracy theorists want a representative and limited government. They want a perfect government theory- one where the government didn’t control everything- did what it’s supposed to in theory- and one- where it could be held accountable. They don’t want the government to extend their power all over our lives. But most of the people who are “conspiracy theorists” who I’ve spoken to on the internet are tired of criminals running government. I think most conspiracy theorists see the government as a necessary evil. If you had to put an ideological label on most conspiracy theorists- I would say that most of them are minarchists. They’re outside the left and right spectrum. They just want to live their lives, and, don’t want government to rule over every aspect of their lives.
Is a representative government (Democracy) not a statist in nature? Some of the biggest advocates of a representative government are the socialists and interventionists, i.e., the social democrats of Europe. In fact, the big governmetn people worship the idea of representative government. I already acknowledged that some of the conspiracy theorists that are for a small government are indeed statists but to a smaller degree. I realize that they do seek freedom, yet they are still apoligizing for the State.
Let me clarify my point. Take Mises for example who would be considered today a mini-archist. I don’t recall any of his writings that put blame on “bankers” or any other special interest. He knew these groups existed, but he put the blame where it belonged: The government and the anti-capitalistic mentality.
So they are apolgizing for the State. How is this not an apology for the State is beyond me.
Sounds like a variant of “If you arent with us, you’re against us”.
And some of us wonder why libertarianism goes nowhere when some try to maintain a total intellectual purity like a bunch of Marxists.
well, you might not be interested, but people who are true believers in representative government rather than anarchy are my ideological enemies…
oh! an Argumentum ad metum fallacy with Guilt By Association thrown in for good measure. two fallacies in one !
The problem for me isn’t the mere speculation on conspiracies, but rather the true believer syndrome that often hijacks the honest discussions regarding behind the scenes activity (nefarious or not). But this is often true of any speculation that is prefaced on contrary premises (that a conspiracy can magically remain secret, but at the same time enough people know about it as to talk about it…), so it’s not surprising kooks will take over the discussion of things as to the possible private origins of the Federal Reserve Act. Or that of the ICC and etc.
So, when considering conspiracies ask yourself this: what is the main thesis of the given claimed conspiracy, and what does it mean in terms of the impact of its revelation in terms of yourself and others involved in the speculation (what can you do about it, what can you learn from it as to prevent future similar acts?).
I call false on the latter charge.
So, how is the principled libertarian circle jerk going?
are you encouraging me to not have principles?, to not be principled?, to have different principles?, or perhaps you are just poor at discussion and debate.?
and i would say mentioning marx and saying we should avoid doing what people who are marxist do is classic guilt by association fallacy. marxists eat food to live, yet, i’m not going to avoid eating food.
No, but I think reaching out on certain issues where we have common ground is the best option. Do many of these minarchists hate the fed? Yes, and some have a variety of goals in regard to it. Speaking from personal experience, most want a private, precious metal currency to replace it. So they might believe in representative government, but who cares? On this issue most of them have the same end goal. The ones that want it to be simply accountable (Huffington Post) ought to be totally rejected, of course.
I should probably do a separate thread at some point on the perfect intellectual purity some libertarians want to maintain.
well now, we can be reconciled.
I might make common cause with my ideological enemies, they can be my practical allies, even whilst they are my ideological enemies.
you probably should make it seperate… but i can’t imagine it will go too well :-p
Fully agreed. But the problem is not conspiracy theorists per se, but conspiracy theorists who can’t understand the nature of government, or more likely, don’t want to.
So let me guess this straight, some of you have angst against the “Conspiracy theorists” although they undermine the legitimacy of the State, regardless of whether they believe it has been hi-jacked or not? [:|] You are denouncing folks like Alex Jones - calling folks like Kissinger a war criminal, and the Bush Administration a gang of criminals? Making films like the Obama Deception, which is a massive attack against the state / msm propaganda? Anyone still wish they would shut up? 9/11 was an inside job? Who knows for sure, but more to the point - am I going to denounce and ridicule the folks who are calling out the status quo as mass murders? No, because that would be stupid.
The Conspiracy Theory of History Revisited by Murray N. Rothbard (excepts)
“It is no wonder that usually these realistic analyses are spelled out by various “extremists” who are outside the Establishment consensus. For it is vital to the continued rule of the State apparatus that it have legitimacy and even sanctity in the eyes of the public, and it is vital to that sanctity that our politicians and bureaucrats be deemed to be disembodied spirits solely devoted to the “public good.” Once let the cat out of the bag that these spirits are all too often grounded in the solid earth of advancing a set of economic interests through use of the State, and the basic mystique of government begins to collapse.”
…
“Far from being a paranoid or a determinist, the conspiracy analyst is a praxeologist; that is, he believes that people act purposively, that they make conscious choices to employ means in order to arrive at goals. Hence, if a steel tariff is passed, he assumes that the steel industry lobbied for it; if a public works project is created, he hypothesizes that it was promoted by an alliance of construction firms and unions who enjoyed public works contracts, and bureaucrats who expanded their jobs and incomes. It is the opponents of “conspiracy” analysis who profess to believe that all events – at least in government – are random and unplanned, and that therefore people do not engage in purposive choice and planning.”
…
“These reflections are prompted by the almost blatant fact – so blatant as to be remarked on by the major newsweeklies – that virtually the entire top leadership of the new Carter administration, from Carter and Mondale on down, are members of the small, semisecret Trilateral Commission, founded by David Rockefeller in 1973 to propose policies for the United States, Western Europe, and Japan, and/or members of the board of the Rockefeller Foundation. The rest are tied in with Atlanta corporate interests, and especially the Coca-Cola Company, Georgia’s major corporation.”
Cont…
Well not everyone. True, much conspiracy mongering may be a little wrongheaded, but the so called ‘debunkers’ and ‘skeptics’ end up acting as state apologists. They would have us believe that every government investigation that has ever happened over a crime, etc has been infallible and not a cover up/hack job.
This is why I am sympathetic to Rothbard’s ‘Lone Nut’ theory.
I personally have nothing against conspiracy theories per se (I’m sure many of them are true), and I think it’s overall good because it gets people questioning things. I am not 100% sure it’s good, though, because there are positives and negatives to weigh.
Positive: Gets people questioning the media
Negative: Gives people a false solution - still statism, or still fiat money for instance.
Still, I’d rather try to convert a conspiracy theorist to AnCap than a neocon or a democrat soccer mom.
Conspiracy Theory, Philosophical Inconsistencies - Anarchists vs Statists
Fact 1 : 99.99% of conspiracy theorists are statist through and through, and therefor unable to see that the state is the ultimate culprit in all of their conspiracy theories.
Fact 2 : based on an understanding of elementary, high school level laws of physics [i.e. using basic simple, laws of elementary physics] , it is scientifically provable that no planes hit either WTC1, WTC2, or the Pentagon, on September 11th 2001. Such a conspiracy theory is commonly called “no plane theory” [NPT], although in my own case, NPT stands for “no plane truth”.
Fact 3: NPT is by far and away the most consistently anti-state, “outside the matrix” of all 911 conspiracy theories, being as how it obviously involves the acceptance of massive media complicity in the [mostly fictional] “events” of that day in order for the theory , to be viable and to have been pulled off in the real world.
Fact 4: most 911 conspiracy theorists automatically reject NPT out of hand [and given their pro state belief systems, they have a very good excuse - obviously such behavior is perfectly reasonable, understandable and consistent with their belief system.]
Fact 5: Most self described anarcho -capitalists [i.e “an caps” ] and “libertarians” here and elsewhere, just like their statist conspiracy theorist ideological “enemies” , also automatically reject NPT out of hand , and won’t even consider a serious, unbiased investigation of the main proposition involved [i.e media fakery of plane crashes into buildings] , let alone acceptance of any/all of the final NPT conclusions as briefly outlined in fact 2 , above].
Consistent or Hypocritical Behavior?
Given their fundamental belief systems, in completely rejecting/denying any serious consideration of 9/11 NPT, exactly who exhibits the most philosophically consistent behavior here - those terrible, pro- state, conspiracy theorists [eg Alex Jones ,the “Loose Change” crowd etc.] , or the so called self-described “ancaps” and “libertarans” etc. inhabiting both these forums and locations elsewhere?
Lesson?
[Maybe] that looking for any type of philosophical consistency in others, “an-cap” or otherwise, is a mistake?
How many engineers have to display the fact that the events of September 11th follow the laws of physics before conspiriacy theorists believe them?
we should probably conduct a survey of high school physics teachers, neh?
Or, to put it another way, how many state- employed “engineers” , state media pundits and other state sycophants who directly benefit from spouting the official “scientific truth”, have to insist that the events depicted in this video follow the laws of physics, before most self-described “anarcho -capitalists” believe them?
Answer: very few, apparently 
how many no-planers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?