Problem is human nature. The primary source of all bad policies may be ordinary people. Ordinary people may dislike a giant set of government demands but are comfortable with another set of them and want to keep them. It’s a problem of competing bads and prisoner’s dillemma.
For example, since our family is in an exporting business, we used to be happy with the falling rupee and rising inflation. Now, seeing the effect of inflation on society as a whole, I’d rather not want it. It will be a short-term loss for me personally, but I am against it strongly enough to take that minor cost.
Then this comes back to a prior belief I have. Before civil disobedience can be effective you need a body of people large enough to make it so. This means we should be spending more time educating people.
I think it’s more acurate to say. Ordinary people dislike a giant set of government demands pointed at themselves, but are entirely ok with those demands being pointed at everyone else.
I agree with all of that post except the ‘but’ I thought we are seeing more or less on the same lines here.
I do agree that when it comes to CD, you need a certain level of education and support first, but then CD can itself be used as a tool to further promote and educate, in a very visual, real, and potentially moving way. So while it starts with education I think it eventually becomes a feedback loop which snowballs into eventually becoming so popular that politicians can’t help but jump in front of the parade.
filc, I wanted to come back to this question because I personally find the subject and other tangibles fascinating. Maybe looking at what you are saying and asking in reverse will help find an answer, I don’t know.
Are you being too pessimistic? The answer to that may depend on your expectations. I believe it’s necessary to remember that most people are not quite ready to accept the IDEA that the state is the problem. Many Americans seem to be talking about reducing the size and scope of government (which is not a “bad” thing in and of itself, but most of us here on this site know that a mere reduction in the size and scope of government is not a viable, long-term solution), but they still accept the premise or IDEA that the state must be the final arbiter of all things good and evil. This mistaken notion (in my opinion) is the one that must be overcome to produce the broad effects and longevity necessary to deal with the human condition on planet earth. So, I personally agree that education is the avenue to achieve this task. Why settle for this “mere morsel” even though a righteous anger is in me when I see the destruction the state wreaks on me and those I love? For the very pragmatic reason I stated earlier: Most people are not ready to accept the IDEA that the state is the problem. They see the state as a necessity. Some Christians I know see it as a Divine command: Thou shalt have a state! Until they can accept that IDEA (which may take a long time. People don’t typically change their minds quickly about things such as this) those of us who have become “enlightened” must do our part to prepare other, perhaps younger generations be prepared to “Un-state”. Then, we will see the “seeds” that were sown “blossom” into the thing of beauty it is and always had the potential to become. Remember too: Most Americans still see themselves as “free” relative to how “free” other places are. Should this view somehow shift for some reason, or reasons, it may accelerate the ability to agitate for change.
I like this concept, and I think it would act as a kind of snowball effect, though the question is when does one begin this civil disobedience?
One of the things I am struggling with is, is this display of civil disobedience correctly understood by the current populous? You say it acts as a seed, though I could see how people would bend over backwards to defend the state.
In order for the civil disobedience to have a meaningful impact there has to be some level of respect for the individual over the state, that people must recognize. Otherwise, if people always place the state above the individual the civil disobedience observed will just get shrugged off as some crank causing a ruckus!
I might be rambling, do you get what I am saying?
Has anyone read up on any historical examples and/or compilations of civil disobedience?
What are ways you can currently safely civilly disobey?
filc, I’m running out of time here ( I have a very busy day ahead tomorrow, but I would like to come back to this soon), but I think fear explains why people will “bend over backwards to defend the state” as you put it. Look how many “boogeymen” the (American) state has created in the minds of the populace since Lincoln. I believe most people are afraid of not having the state around. It (the state) has made itself indispensable. It must create the illusion that it is needed. Playing on peoples’ fears is a very powerful thing, psychologically speaking. Heck, look what has changed since “Total Federal Failure Day” (a.k.a 9/11). For now.
I have the impression that most instances of civil disobediance came from a figurehead (MLK, Ghandi or Thoreau) and people subsequently referenced their disobediant actions to the superior. It may be a pipe-dream to get a critical mass of people to digest Austrianism & Libertarianism and truly understand it. Rather it can be marketed and sold as a great alternative philosophy to the status quo. You don’t need to know how internal combustion works to know that it is superior to a horse drawn carriage.
It would be great if we had more leaders rise in notability so as to avoid cultist accusations.
filc, When I used the seed as a metaphor what I meant was that in planting them now, if tended to properly and with care, they have the FUTURE potential to blossom AT A LATER DATE (Here I am not trying to advance the argument that we should merely be planning for a future “blossoming” only and not asserting our inherent liberties in the here and now. I personally see this proposition as a “both, and” not an “either, or”).
For example, “we” are now reaping many of the benefits of a long line of those who came before us; the “seeds” they planted are now “blossoming” (where it will lead is anybody’s guess), and my gut tells me “they” were on the right track: Use clear logic to expose the state for what it is by its very nature; a tool of violence, force and coercion (or the threat thereof) against ALL members of society and its resources and how the state accomplishes this (the means). I personally believe this aspect should be hammered away at because it is a serious weakness on the part of the illusion of the state’s perceived benevolence, and if approached properly (with respect to those you are arguing against, without pulling any punches, and with impeccable logic), it would probably yield the greatest dividends, even if you and I never live to see them.
Haing said this, do I personally believe the general public recognizes what “we” do (or want to do) as being “good” (in the true moral sense of the word)? For the most part, unfortunately, no. Many people just don’t study the relevant, necessary materials or ask the “right” questions. Thus, in all probability, they walk away with the “wrong” answers". Let’s face it: Many people get their (dis)information from the “news” (brrr!) and other seriously deficient outlets void of any rigorous intellectual analysis; there is a lack of critical thought on their part and problems like this are not changed overnight.
As I said before, I don’t believe it is correctly understood by the populace. They get the vast majority of their “intellectual” input from the MSM, inferior websites, blogs, state indoctrination facilities (“public” schools), books whose author(s) adhere to a statist view, etc., so this is understandable. Obviously, those outlets aren’t going to have a libertarian view of society to “pass along” to their readers or viewers; quite the opposite. This is what makes the task that much more challenging (and, yes, sometimes very frustrating) for “us”. However, let’s not forget the bright spots! It wasn’t so long ago that one would have never imagined seeing/hearing Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Tom Dilorenzo, Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, etc., etc., on TV and radio (whether all these people “fit” into the same category is not the point. The point is, progress IS being made and it is being made on a large scale! The issues and subjects being disseminated and given discourse on are of tremendous value to the world of ideas that we are all subject to. In short filc, I guess what I’m saying is, keep it all in perspective. We’re all only human and I know as well as the next person that sometimes it’s difficult and it sucks but I am quite certain that better things lie ahead no matter what may come in the meantime to dissuade “us”.
I can accept that, but I believe it would be a mistake to assume that this recognition will come from a likely source (i.e. the “visible” machinations of everday life). I believe it is more likely that it will come from an “invisible” source (i.e. the “underground”).
I’ve got to get some rest. We can discuss this more if you’d like. I would like more input on this subject myself since there are many aspects of anarchy and economics I am totally unfamiliar with that I’m sure would be useful.
filc, re: point #1 here, there is something more I would like to add. Even if the masses are pro-state, I fail to see why those who are not should be forced to accept the status quo or “herd” mentality. Why should you or I or anyone else allow “them” to be the measuring stick or standard of anything? If my logic is correct, this just puts those who are not pro-state on the slippery slope. Further still, I fail to see why I (or anyone else) should remain silent in the face of evil and injustice. As a matter of fact, I would say the opposite is incumbent upon any decent and reasonably intelligent human being. That is, to speak up and speak out against government and rulers who perpetrate and perpetuate evil. I believe this is true for a number of reasons. This was part of my reason for posting the Ron Paul speech link.
re: point #2, “Don’t get into trouble”. Sometimes this is unavoidable. It may very well happen. Again, this is a part of the reason I posting the Ron Paul speech link. He clearly states that being arrested is a distinct possibility when certain conditions obtain. I believe it would be more accurate to say one should not go looking for trouble. That seems to me to be the anti-thesis of libertarian philosophy.
I have to be totally honest and confess here that the second half of point #2 is difficult for me to comment on with any credibility whatsoever. Being relatively new to this philosophy there is much I myself would like to learn and know re: some of the finer points of civil disobedience and the extent of its appropriateness. I am hoping to find people with a more mature and well-developed philosophy who can make certain aspects of this subject clear to me because, quite frankly, it’s not. I would very much like to learn how to “live” and “act” this aspect of the philosophy boldly, consistently and credibly. If anyone has any input I am all ears. For example, I have responsibilities to my family (my children). It is difficult for me to envision what conditions would have to obtain in order for me to be willing to set those responsibilities aside and essentially sacrifice my children. Do you understand what I mean?
No, you are not being pessimistic. Civil disobedience works fantastically well if you have a large subsegment of the population which will engage in it, but so long as most people support the present regime at least passively there is really no benefit from it. It is far more practical and productive to protect yourself than to bother butting heads with the militarized state.