Great… Another junior wanna be economist that thinks he knows it all because he read “What Has Government Done to Our Money?”
First, the “magic checkbook” is not particularly armed through the government. Sure, the government will spend wildly, but can they spend forever? Wouldn’t the purpose be to enduce the “magic checkbook” into overdrive.
Second, the strategy comment was just too ironic. Thanks for the laugh!
It involves a state.
You’re conflating actively participating in systematic governance with living under a government’s heavy hand. Blame the victim.
There’s a difference between actively promoting your brand of statism in a parliament and being forced to use state resources in some form while organizing direct action.
Yes, if only WE could wear the ring! Muwahaha!
Educate people? Vote? Get in office? You brand it as if you live in a democracy. HAH!
**
I would just as soon load the bullet.
Except the point of Agorism is to not only ignore the election, but the taxes, regulations, spending, etc. or better actively fight against them through direct action.
Coming from the Ron Paul supporter.
lol.
Again, you are not “we” and “we” are not you. We want none of the same things that you want. We aim for none of the same targets that you aim for.
You wish to encourage politicians, inherently evil hegemonic creatures - yes, your precious Ron Paul is an evil entity, not quite a human being - to actively deceive people into spending small fortunes on their campaigns in hopes that their dollars will lead to a fulfilled Reagan.
No politician anywhere is an anti-statist.
If Ron Paul were one, then he would reject the blood money he receives for his job in congress, among other things.
I’m really getting quite annoyed with calling people “capitalists.”
Really? Everyone is a capitalist? Libertarianism advocates capitalism? The embodiment of such “free-market” enterprises as the East India Company and the Muscovy Company?
Like your vulgar “libertarianism” the idea that capitalism is the libertarian creed is just as much a lie and a fraud.
Okay, let’s watch Zimbabwe and see if they even seriously consider that one [:)]
Are the people of Zimbabwe even trying to move toward anarchy or are they just trying to survive while the government works itself out?
Okay, you got my attention. Thusly, I investigated your blog. And I see that you’ve posted a film clip where you lay out your position, which I took the time to view (my apologies if that isn’t you, as I assume). I don’t agree with your argument, on grounds which I will expound on in a moment. First, let me say that I admire your passion, which really came through at the end of your film clip. We live in a world of sheep, as I’m sure you’re aware, so I always like to see a fellow with a bit of fire in the belly. Also, I should preface my comments by saying that I’m only addressing your strategic “counter objection”.
Now, as I understand it (and please correct me if I’m wrong), your counter objection is on two grounds, 1) that “reformists” have historically failed to halt the advance of the state, even on the rare occasions that they promised to do so (e.g. Reagan), and 2) that the government’s home court advantage is too strong for libertarians to overcome.
On point one, let me point out that it wasn’t long ago that the sun never set on the British Empire, but in the end she gave it all up. Also, Britain had a highly socialist government from 1945-1951 that was defeated through political means (http://www.unionhistory.info/timeline/1945_1960.php). India was a socialist country from 1947-1991, at which point they embraced republicanism and laissez faire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Republic_of_India). So it seems to me that defenders of freedom can win battles within the system.
Also on point one, let me point out that humans are teleological and not deterministic. Therefore, any conclusions drawn from a dataset (such as human history) are invalid. Put another way, history is full of firsts. For a fellow consumed with being a winner and castigating losers, I’m surprised this isn’t self-evident. You don’t seem the type to let anyone, even history, tell you something can’t be done. I’m certainly not.
On point two, let me simply point out that this is loser-talk. There is nothing better than throwing down the gauntlet on an opponent’s home floor and then beating the tar out of him. But you know that, I’m sure. So let me point out that Nixon took the dollar off of gold via executive order (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blumert/blumert35.html). A future president could re-establish that link via executive order. That’s a pretty mighty blow for freedom, and all from one man. Now imagine if that president has the support of several hundred similar minded congressmen, senators and governors? Not only providing Austrian policies, but providing inspiring leadership? Do you think this impossible? I can’t help but look at what Newt Gingrish accomplished in 1994 and think that it’s not.
Finally, let me offer an additional objection to agorism. The world is full of women and sheep. They don’t like to think too much and they trust their leaders, which is what got us into this mess. You will find it impossible to educate them, and you will find they care not for your agora because it’s too much of a hassle and involves listening to boring people talking about boring things. There are way more of these people than libertarians, yet you expect the agora to grow in size to the point where it can realistically challenge the government? This seems to me FAR less feasible than making changes from within via powerful charismatic leaders that the sheep trust, but who happen to be Austrians and not statists.
The observation that people would find agora boring is skewed; obviously it would sound next to pointless if the economy seems to be doing fine. It will be doing far from fine in a year or so, and it will be a good opportunity for agorists to help ease economic pains of the mainstream by offering different ideas.
Yes, obviously spouting highly dense agora theory would probably not get you willing ears (just like spouting typical rhetoric concerning free markets may not resonate with certain people due to the popular misconceptions involving the phrase free markets), but if you show it in action (bartering, for example; almost everyone knows what that looks like, and knows how valuable it can be), and boil down a simple intro to agora with simple & key concepts utilizing real world examples, I’d be willing to bet some individuals are going to listen to you.
Especially if you offer to ease their troubles by taking some of their useless stuff in exchange for more useful things like food, alcohol, bullets, etc. if the economy were to get so bad in certain areas.
I think others could further elaborate better than I, but I think your assertion that agora won’t work because it is “boring” is simply false & naive.
Statism has been around for a long time; historically, if any huge leaps of progress were made and agorism suddenly won in our lifetime, historically that would also be a first in terms how short that is compared to statism’ reign. It would be nothing short of a miracle, and I doubt many agorists have such dellusions that ‘victory’ could be accomplished in a single election cycle. They’re in it for the long haul, I’d imagine they would say.
The point I think some keep missing is that fighting for liberty inside the system of statism is tantamount to easing the pain, and in the long term, may or may not help drive the concept that the State is an older model that is proving to be less & less efficient as time goes on. There is a huge difference between doing what’s easy, and doing what’s right.
I would attribute that fact that because our state is based upon positive rights, individuals (mostly in the mainstream) are inclined to constantly searching for what is the easiest thing to do, and what is convenient, which can be & is easily reinforced by our consumption based society.
Based upon negative rights, statism absolutely does not make sense & violates an indivduals freeom, and I think if more people knew the implications between positive & negative rights, you could easily work with them & start building common ground with them. Another way of doing that would be a lot less elitist concerning that this nation is “full of sheep”, as if it’s their fault that they are all “sheep”.
I would’ve thought the whole RP 2008 mess online would’ve taught people some common sense in not insulting people you are trying to teach libertarian concepts to, with some incredulously yelling at a wall, asking why the “sheep” don’t bother listening, while not getting the simply fact that individuals do not like being belittled & insulted.
The view that people are not able to be educated is simply backwards and largely ignores the fact that many of us were previously stuck in the mainstream, and were part of the “sheeple that cannot be taught”.
Yet, somehow, individuals manage to rise above whatever the mainstream entails, and educate themselves. Frankly, I found that comment to be insulting, and borderline social-darwinian; as if certain people will never evolve beyond the level of sheep.
“You don’t seem the type to let anyone, even history, tell you something can’t be done. I’m certainly not.”
Does that not apply towards the objection and/or assumption that agorism cannot be done? Seems to be a bit of a double-standard there…
Also, when you say: “…defenders of freedom can win battles within the system.” The ‘liberty’ you speak of is based upon positive rights, and it would still be a lesser of the evils (the least of all evils, if minarchism were somehow attained).
Yet, it would still be evil, still be Statism, and historically, little would change, leaving the ancient problems of Statism largely untouched, and able to grow all over again. Reading up on agora, recently, the arguments are pretty solid, and I’d much rather be involved in something that tries to improve my situation, instead of swallowing sour medicine & hoping for the best.
Whether or not Statism falls is not as important as when it will fall, as it just isn’t a system that clearly works anymore with the immense problems involved with it (positive vs. negative rights, the welfare/nanny state, increasingly relying on wars to keep the economy going, geopolitical conflicts over resources, etc…).
It would be foolish to think that humans evolve, but the way in which humans govern themselves doesn’t. People may or may not realize that anytime soon, or they may even realize this, but under different terms and theory that haven’t been written or considered yet. I may not know for certain, and neither do you, but what I’m most certain I know is what you speak of is not really a solution, it’s buying wiggle room.
Just my 2 cents; even if I’m a bit fuzzy in areas, I’m sure others, again, could suceed where I might’ve fell short.
That is not entirely the argument. Indeed, that is a large piece of it, however, the bigger piece is that reformists have always failed historically in the ideology they represented, that is, no political movement has ever existed that did not begin first in direct action. As the pleas and anger build, however, the state finds a way to simply pass off the radicalism with a few appeasements to the flare here and there.
However, with the origin of the radicalism, the direct action, being such that only complete and total abolition of the government could be considered a success, of course the Torries in drag, the reformists, will fail. This is their job.
One could argue the British empire merely transformed into the American Empire.
Britain still has a highly socialist government. You’re confusing the situations as if one or the other was better. They aren’t. One may be more efficient for the state, and so the state will do it. However, what benefits the state, and the “national economy,” only puts a poison in the ale of the common man.
No, freedom cannot win within the political system. First, any reform requires direct action to scare the government into bending just a little bit. Second, that reform is meant to appease the revolutionaries, if considering ourselves revolutionaries, then the reformists are our enemies - they exist to counter-revolt. Third, no progress, no victory, no happiness can ever be won until leviathan is dead. To accept anything less is to play directly into the hands of the government, as the reformists would have us do.
I’m also not the type to work within the system of conventional beatins and internment. Are you?
You’re still not understanding me! It hasn’t a thing to do with the impossibility of X,Y, and Z gaining control. It is that X,Y, and Z shall always work in directly counter to revolutionary interests. THIS IS WHY X,Y, and Z EXIST!
IT’S THEIR PURPOSE!
Wow…
I’m done with this.
Well, good luck with that. We have the same ends in mind. We’ll let history show who’s naive, eh? [:)]
I don’t think agorism is impossible, but I do think it’s highly unlikely, especially given that it seems like agorists think that grooming leaders is an unnecessary step. What I said is that I find it much less feasible than a single man organizing a successful run for president alongside a few hundred like-minded colleagues running for lesser office. Both seem kind of pie in the sky, but for me the latter is actually acheivable while agorism is not (for me, at least, I don’t discount the possibility that some one superior to me might actually pull it off – that is, I can imagine an agorist society, even if I can’t imagine how they’ll get there).
But hey, as I said, good luck with that.
Ha ha… too politically incorrect and don’t want to go there, eh? Fair enough… it’s a fact you’ll have to deal with one day. Or perhaps you didn’t notice that all your revolutionary friends and 99.9% of the people on libertarian forums are men? Ayn Rand is the exception that proves the rule. I love women as much as anyone, but IMO it’s undeniable that their biology (e.g. menstruation, pregnancy) makes them learn to live with the fact that (at least at times) they must be cared for by a big strong man/tribe/state, and in my experience this translates strongly into their political views.
But hey, good luck with getting the ladies into your agora… wouldn’t be much fun without them, eh? [;)]
Niccolo, you can pretend that Ron Paul is “sub-human” despite the fact that he has done more to further the cause of liberty in the past year than anyone else. You can pretend that any libertarian who wants to use the political process – as one of many tools – is a “counter-revolutionary”, despite the key fact that they don’t want to stop your agorism. You’ll just alienate the few supporters libertarianism has. Please stop calling me a statist, though. We both know that I’m not statist, and it’s unnecessary and dishonest to intentionally lie and claim that I want to have a state simply because I want to use the political process.
In fact, you’re no different that I am!
Niccolo, why do you post poorly lit videos of yourself behind a pool table onto the Internet? The Internet was created using millions of tax dollars. The Internet is maintained by giant servers, sitting happily in tax-funded universities. Perhaps it’s because you think the Internet is a valid tool to combat the state? Just like I think that voting is a valid tool to combat the state?
It’s not fair for you to blame the victims when they vote. It’s not their fault they live in a statist system, and it’s not their fault when they use every tool at their disposal to combat the government. Still, if you do choose to blame the victim, at least apply your irrational rules to yourself. [:)]
Am I correct in assuming that in the past, you chose to be a leftist?
This last part is to any other “revolutionary” who is opposed to any anarcho-capitalist who want to take steps to shrink the government: isn’t it silly to oppose weakening the organization that you’re fighting? If you’re worried that a less-oppressed citizenry is less likely to join your revolution, what does that say about your respect for other citizens (both their suffering and their intelligence)?
edit: 1000 typos
Excuse me? Did you just blame this mess on women? As a woman I find this comment absolutely retarded and totally mind bending. We weren’t even able to VOTE until the 1920’s… yet we are part of the blame for the expansision of government? Exactly how many women are in power vs. men?
No, it’s so unbelievably stupid that it warrants walking away from the conversation.
Cared for by strong men? How many single mothers are out there again? Maybe this forum has so many men because the woman don’t spend as much time on the internet as men do…
Oh hey, there are plenty around :D… have fun voting in super heroes.
How many women are in this forum besides you? How many women attend Mises University (I did in 2005 and there were only a handful of women there)? How many prominent female economists are there? How many women are strong and independent while 8 months pregnant? If one looks at a timeline of the growth of quasi-socialism in the U.S., does it flatline or shoot up since the 1920’s (in congruance with a fact you note in your post above)? Is one unreasonable if he draws certain inferences from these facts? Is a strategy which discounts these facts likely to succeed?
Even if your assumptions were true, they’d all be entirely irrelevant for an anti-political approach. Woman tend to have more highly developed empathy, and to learn more by doing than by being taught in the abstract. Showing people, men and women alike, a free market actually working in the form of the libertarian counter-economy will serve as all the proof they need to understand that it works. You can get up on your soapbox and prattle on all day and night about abstract economic concepts, and it won’t mean a damn thing to most people, regardless of gender. They frankly aren’t going to give a shit about you, what you have to say, or your campaign. As for me, I’ll continue to deal with people on an individual level, showing them by example that there’s a better way to live, and using that to relate the abstract to the concrete so that anyone could understand it. And because I’m dealing with them as equals who are quite capable of thinking and learning, not as my inferiors, nothing but mindless and incorrigibly stupid sheep, they might actually listen, and give a damn about what I have to say.
It’s also pretty funny that you fancy yourself becoming an electable “leader” with that kind of attitude towards half the voters. You should run on the lolcow ticket; at least then you might get the /b/tard vote, for lulz. Good luck with that.
Weakening? You think the British Empire was weak? You think the American Empire is weak? Are you joking, or just blind?
Less oppressed? So if someone puts a gun to my head and demands a quarter of my money, it’s less oppressive than if he demands half? Are you just missing the whole gun to my head aspect? There’s nothing less oppressive about what you propose.
I don’t mean to burst your bubble here but Ron Paul has done virtually nothing for the cause of liberty. Yes, he’s been a reoccuring no vote against a nearly unanimous consensus, but none of those no votes really amounted to anything at the end of the day. A sober analysis must diagnos him as a complete failure in light of his own stated goals. Most of his peers in government see him as a nutbag and there is endless institutional inertia against him. If anything, Ron Paul is a pristine example of the futility of trying to get the state to shrink from within. Yes, he’s spread aspects of minarchist philosophy to certain segments of the population, but in the process he has restored people’s faith in the democratic process and leads them to accept the principle of government itself. He has not engaged in any direct action whatsoever that furthers the cause of liberty. Your average tax resister or prohibition law breaker does more for the cause of liberty than Ron Paul is capable of as an institutional agent of the state.
Ron Paul exposed a legion of people to miniarchism (and managed to convert a few leftists, of all people!) while, at the same time, proving the futility of running a radical candidate. I’d say he accomplished a lot. [:)]