As long as you only see allies in radical extremists, you aren’t building a revolution. You’re a spinning wheel.
It’s easy to attack Ron Paul. Even attack his message. But the man is 72 and his little left to prove to this world. In my opinion, he’s done his share, however imperfectly. I certainly believe he doesn’t deserve to be called a sniveling coward for his contributions to Austrian education, and the furthering of Von Mises and Rothbard’s legacy.
Man oh man, you must be a lot of fun at parties.
Radicalism is not the only opportunity for change. Every day, we can make progress towards change. Even right now, I imagine you are not practicing 100% agorism, shunning all economic exchanges. At the very least, you are interacting with “sniveling cowards” who do in fact practice less than perfect agorism, furthering the state by paying their taxes, and using their fiat currency.
One could argue that your less than pure radical approach to agorism is incrementalism. And if you believe that incrementalism in agora is progress or worthwhile effort, than you surely must allow the same for political change.
Radicalism is the only opportunity for change - that is, change that should be desired if you want to get short term relief at the cost of long term progress, then please, jump off a cliff. It will solve all your needs for liberty in just a few seconds.
As for my practice in Agorism, I am following the phase by phase aspect outlined in the New Libertarian Manifesto. You cafoni believe that the only way to affect change will come in an instant - a get-liberty-quick scheme where you can vote in your beloveds and win a few tax dollars back.
I am not interested in short term progress. I am not interested in short term gains. I am intersted in winning.
As for Ron Paul in general. When he gives back his blood money over the course of his congressional career and the lives back to those that were murdered by his friend Ronald Reagan, we’ll talk about who isn’t a snivelling coward.
I am new to agorism and very excited by it. It does seem to be the only strain of libertarianism where theory is entirely consistent with practice. On the other hand, I believe that people like Ron Paul have helped the libertarian cause a great deal. I meet people all the time who were former social democrats, believed in the welfare state, wanted a lot more government than we have now, etc. who now want to decrease government. They usually are not so radical as to be anarcho capitalists, but are against the income tax, fiat money, and all sorts of interventions they previously were in favor of. Guess who is responsible for this change in mindset? Ron Paul. In fact, my own interest in libertarianism came about from the RP campaign. I am not a Paul worshipper and detest a lot of things about him, namely, his desire to close the borders, associate himself with conservatism, use the same old stimuli to rile up the public (fear of them dirty foreigners, religious motivations, etc) and of course, his minarchism. No matter how imperfect he is, however, I think his campaign has been a victory by spreading general libertarian philosophy into the minds of the public. I can count five people in my family, my brother, my father, two of my cousins and myself who have become significantly less statist and more open to libertarian ideas because of RP. Granted, besides myself, none of them have made the jump to being completely anti statist, but its definitely a good start. I do not think we should put a lot of faith in actual change happening because of the political process, or even put a good deal of resources into campaigning. But I think political campaigns with the intent to educate can have a great effect and should not be demonized as you think.
What you call short term relief, I call short term progress. Steps if you will.
I don’t believe radicalism is the only opportunity for change. Black and white extremes like that are the key to fanatacism. We don’t live in an absolute world, and we as humans are not beings of absolute honor, rationality, perspective, emotion etc.
Please spare the name calling and Ad Hominem. I do not believe it will come in an instant. I believe in winning, brick by brick, working my life even if I don’t see the rewards of that effort.
And I of course realize that it’s hard to accomplish much, as but one of 6 billion on this planet, but the task does get easier by not alienating or insulting people.
What’s your timeline for victory? I don’t have one. Just a dedication to learning and sharing what I have learned.
The angry agorist thing, is a good way to turn people off. Based on what I have read here, agorists can only achieve their final goal when there is sufficient momentum.
Why someone would jeopardize that momentum by seeking enemies instead of friends is beyond me. Best of luck with that.
‘The radical, on the other hand, believes that the State is fundamentally antisocial and is all for improving it off the face of the earth; not by blowing up officeholders, as Mr. Palmer appears to suppose, but by the historical process of strengthening, consolidating and enlightening economic organization. The radical has no substantial interest in politics, and regards all projects of political reform as visionary. He sees, or thinks he sees, quite clearly that the routine of partisan politics is only a more or less elaborate and expensive byplay indulged in for the sake of diverting notice from the primary object of all politics and political government, namely, the economic exploitation of one class by another; and hence all candidates look about alike to him, and their function looks to him only like that of Dupin’s pretended lunatic in “The Purloined Letter.”’
The malice I have witnessed on this forum is useless. You haters out there are doing a great disservice to Agorism. Let your stated ideas speak for themselves.
While insulting people may worsen their opinion of your character(for you haters), it will do nothing to improve your argument.
I don’t believe I’ve acted like a “hater” or have been inflammatory. I’ve merely tried to argue for my position. Niccolo can be inflammatory sometimes but it’s just an aspect of his character you have to get used to.
While I disagree with some of Niccolo’s conduct, I remember from when what seems long ago when I was a Leftist, despite my own sense of humor & respect for other’s opinions, I was capable of being so ‘offended’ by certain remarks that I would unconsciously strive to censor remarks or opinions I did not agree with (either in the literal opinion or the way which opinions were presented).
I would come to view similar treadings of the fine line on many an Internet forum, and I would adivse it might not be so different here either, in the capacity for some individuals to do such, in the name of manners &/or for other individuals being “haters”.
Niccolo presents radical commentary that while others may not agree to their presentation in the form of inflammatory remarks, wherin the definition of inflammatory is highly subjective, from person to person, it is still valuable nonetheless to defend said commentary.
Nobody should let the tyranny of good intentions, however minor they may be, get in the way of an interesting discussion :).
I find it hard to believe you can tolerate his immature behavior. Agorism is an awesome set of concepts but the nature of Niccolo’s comments will make it devilishly unlikely that newbies will stick around.
Would not the current disagreement & discussion of said effects of Niccolo’s conduct serve to temper any potential “newbies” from jumping ship, thinking that we all act in a similar matter?
I still don’t think it’s a wise idea to object to someone’s ability to express their opinions, for the sake of anyone else not holding that idea to stay here in hopes of, ironically, educating themselves on similar ideas regarding the nature of liberty, simply because we do not agree in which the way said individual presents their words.
I believe his methods will stifle the momentum of Agorism. Objecting to his methods does nothing to suppress liberty, but may in fact lead to more liberty. I’m convinced that the ideas of Agorism are sound enough that the more ears it reaches, the more liberty we will obtain.
I’d like to hear Niccolo’s reasoning for his belligerence.
Except it isn’t progress when it only results in a relapse.
This is, of course, all that can be done. Take your god Mises, for example, talks about economic intervention saying,
If then one is to accept that with one intervention in the market, additional interventions become necessary - as all the problems of intervention will not be repealed by any government (it would be taking away its bread and butter) - how then can one begin to believe that single repeals will ever result in a victory for Anarchists? If Mises’ analysis that placing controls on one industry leads a government to make excuses to place controls on others, then certainly it works the other way. If a government repeals one price control amidst a sea of other price controls, the market adjusts uncomfortably - thus causing a back-lash to the reformists inane schemes - this will cause the government to either contract further - an unlikely venture - or to again refix the price - think Enron.
Without complete and total abolition of the state, reforms will only lead to blowback, parlor revolutions will only bring a sudden defeat to a movement’s name.
Then you’re just wrong.
I have no problem with fanaticism; I don’t know why you, and others, do.
Well obviously that’s why you demand your representatives do something NOW! [8-)]
New Libertarian Manifesto, p. 60 - 67
Momentum is not hard to manufacture and it is never brought with masses. Masses lean towards momentum, momentum brings masses, not the other way around.
I seek the right kind of friends.
I know that there’s no use in having friends you can’t trust.
You clearly don’t understand how these things begin.
A. Berating the opposition often serves to both intimidate opponents and attract those that are not too sensitive to take the internet as the sriz biznez you seem to.
B. People tend to pay more attention to that which is most vociferous. For example, if I had made this thread a polite and non-biting discussion of Agorism, it would not have received quite the same level of traffic.
C. If it were an issue of, “HAHAHAHA, I have more recruits then you do, nahnahnahnahanahanah!” I’d just point you to some of the e-mails I’ve received about people interested in Agorism.
Like this one,
However, I am not interested in that. I am interested in refuting arguments against Agorism - as to appear more competent and decisive on the issue than my opponents. Why do I do this? Because it is what attracts the most people, like it or not.
Really, I know what I’m doing here. I have a clue what persuasion is and I have some background in the science of convincing people - political science.
