“Heroic figure” and “more than any man of our epoch or even of our century, [Che] was the living embodiment of the principle of revolution”.
I was quite surprised to read this recently. It sounds like Rothbard admired Che very much. Could this mean that Rothbard supports libertarian revolution? Perhaps according to Guevara’s tactics of “focalism?”
Rothbard always seemed like one of the major libertarian theorists who seemed to have a revolutionary-leaning, citing the Bengali revolt against the Punjabi occupiers as a prime example of a way he’d like to see it done.
Thoughts?
Possibly. Rothbard also favoured a political strategy to attain liberty, which is unproductive.
I suggest despair. 
I think libertarians need to achieve social, economic, and community standing, while at the same time having a close solidarity in these goals (the two go hand in hand). This requires initial dissemination of information in order to discover those who can understand liberty and can join in this endeavour (building up what Albert Jay Nock called ‘The Remnant’).
Roth the Bard was big on outreach, he wrote stuff like that to reach out to communists because if you can get someone to understand economics, you can make them an ancap. This was the big tent theory days. Personally I cant imagine a more fitting fate for a that commie rev than to be on commercialized t-shirts. As has been said before.
So, quietly taking over, basically.
Also, figure this was in 1967, so he was probably also trying to annoy Ayn
Yes. You can’t win a fight against a vastly more powerful opponent. So don’t fight directly. Undermine him in other ways until he is weakened. Use his own strengths against him, e.g. the division of people against eachother and the waste of their energy in politics, the fact that conspiracy theorists are so stigmatised that conspiracies are less suspected by the general population (the key point is that his makes all conspiracy theories less believable to the average joe, even non-state ones).
But if we want a stateless society, wouldn’t a revolution have to occur eventially, regardless of how many libertarians “quietly take over?” I don’t think the state will simply dissolve once that happens, and bloodthirsty statists in power won’t go without a fight.
Technically, the non-aggression axiom has already been violated by the state. At this point, we have a right to an anti-oppression revolt.
Not necessarily. It really depends on the particular situation. A Galt’s Gulch would probably be more effective. Even politics could be useful if the required societal infrastructure had already been captured.
Of course, but it’s an extremely counter-productive activity (unless you just want to be a martyr).
If we want to overthrow the state we must make sure WE WIN.
If we lose by violent means, the state will make its iron grasp even tighter, and we might as well see the death of libertarianism.
Who else recognizes that right, lol, remember rights are social.
but theres a bigger practical problem, and thats that people need society to work. Youre not going to take over the government and then make them go fill out job applications or something. For a lot of people, that would be a fight to the death, which is bad news but also bad for the survivors. People would be so traumatized that they wouldnt care what government they had as long as no more of their young people were killed. Then you have two armies that are now supposed to go get jobs? Its a historical fact that figting men dont always want to quit fighting.
Whereas the state doesnt even actually exist, its just an idea that allows people to transfer liability. Once you destroy the idea, the illusion is gone, no one needs to kill or get killed.
Lololol Kelvin is noiding out
look dude, liberty is inevitable. Theres no stopping N idea whose time has come. Our progeny arent going to become too stupid to figure out that human action is purposeful, its only the combination of cultural identity and a monstrous social machine piloted to dubious ends that has allowed things to get this far. Cultural identity is uncontrollable in the long term for most people. They make their own culture.
I still don’t believe statists would give up their power under that manner. I just don’t think it’s their nature.
Statists have a different nature than libertarians? Do tell.
@ Your earlier post
I’d just like to know what we can do right now, to make that idea’s time come sooner. I’d like to see a stateless society, or, at the very least, a minarchist country in my lifetime, and the two options that I’ve heard that sound like a quick way to get there are seasteading/creating a new society elsewhere or revolution. I hate violence, but the NAP HAS been violated, and it has been violated as long as the state has been stealing from individuals (a long time).
If we believe in the NAP, then we believe that retaliation is justified.
Imagine you’re walking down the street, unarmed, and a 6’8", 250 lbs muscle-bound dude pushes you to the ground and steals your sunglasses. Do you have a right to retaliate? Sure thing. But would you?
Still, maybe you could make an important contribution to seeing some degree of freedom in your lifetime. You mentioned seasteading. Well, if you could just help to solve one specific difficulty of such a venture, you would be contributing a lot. If many others did the same, the project would be far easier to undertake. So if that’s what you want, develop your skills towards that end and see what you can come up with.
You have to live with people who dont believe in the NAP unless you change their minds (what I want us to do), so no matter what violence will never be justified unless we do my plan. It doesnt matter that your fellow partisans think violence was justified, thats usually the case.
as for what to do, you need to educate yourself and then everyone around you. The only reason this will work is because we are right. And, look at how far marxism got with agitprop and determination. Surely we can do better, for the truth is on our side.
besides, I am tired of war.
@ Aristippus
Good point. But my problem is what everybody else here sees - the government is getting bigger and bigger and bigger. Every day. We have to weigh what’s better here - revolution based on libertarian principles NOW, or the possibility of seasteading, which seems like it would be decades away.
That’s the thing about libertarianism - how do you make it come about? And as for political action, I think Konkin had a point when he emphasized how you can’t change the state by becoming the state. I think Ron Paul even knew this when he ran, as he even admitted at one point that it was all about the education.
@ Malachi
Could you expand more on your plan?