This has pretty much already happened.
Advocating individual succession and being responsible for one’s own person is not something you support? By support I mean to repeat what you said, “because in my mind”, which therefore this above is what you philosophize/mind, but I want to know if you would let people succeed from the government and live lives of liberty/voluntary actions or do you vote to make sure everybody is dominanted by whichever government you vote for?
This is something of a trick question because you and I both know I don’t have the authority to give you the “freedom” you desire.
And if it does last another ten years?
Well, running any good candidate will hopefully shift peoples opinions and educate them on the issues even if they don’t win. The problem (as been experienced in the past) is people tend to get weary when it’s all educational campaigns. An LP presedential, congressional, or senatorial candidate is mainly an educational candidate. (I agree that Barr was not the best candidate. I don’t think he was as bad as you said he was, but he didn’t do the best job of selling the message. Barr did not distinguish himself enough from the Republicans to be worth voting for.)
However, parties need to have victories in elections to get any momentum. You can’t just run educational all the time. That is why in Kentucky, the LP tries to get people elected to small, local offices to give people victories. It also builds credibility that libertarians can get elected. On top of that the candidate has a “political resume” that could get him elected to a higher office.
So you’re right about running educational candidates for big elections, but you also need candidates that can win in small elections to build momentum and credibility.
Even if you could get enough voters, the election code would simply be changed to make it more impossible.
And to add, If the libertarian party replaced the republican party the only thing that would change politically is the party name. The same existing problems would remain and the libertarian name would just get tainted.
Not to get this thread into a libertarian/anarchist debate but… Our government in it’s present form is entirely incompatible with libertarianism as we know it.
I know from my experience running in elections that the governments are always changing the election acts to prevent smaller parties from winning. They went so far as to give a subsidy per vote to to parties that pass a % threshold. They are paying themselves to get re-elected.
Party-politics tends to crowd out a real choice!
Every election makes men more encumbered by government; whether by more taxes more rules, or more tampering with free interpersonal exchange.
Everyone pays but the blessed lawgivers.
I am wondering what politican you would vote for and what party platform. I know Ron P. for instance, but he is definitely not the only one extant and historically that adheres to the right of individual succession. The U.S. government is founded on individual succession (Declaration of Independence). The U.S. gov’ts whole model is based on sucession as it was individuals that came together and formed the differing states and then representatives of those states formed a federal government. The U.S. government is based on the individual succeeding from any governing entity and the existing states and federal entities can be abolished. This isn’t necessarily what I think, but it’s the whole basis of the U.S. as a whole. It’s why ‘the south’ succeeded from the north. It’s why I believe other states have tried to succeed at times. It’s part of the politics of the U.S. that it is understood that the federal entity only operates at the consent of the states and the states only operate due to the individuals that form the governing bodies of each individual state. I haven’t even brought up anarchism in this whole passage - I hope you understand - I’ve only discussed the politics of the U.S. The Supreme Courts own rulings still adhere to this established politics of the U.S.
I may be saying something you already understand about U.S. politics. This is what I was referring to and wondering if you adhere to any political party based on their continual advocation of this particular issue or maybe you don’t. The authority in U.S. politics always rests with the individual. It’s the whole idea beyond voting in and of itself for one.
Finally we’re talking about secession…
I.e. the utopian fallacy of limited, or “behaved” government.
This is quickly becoming a word game. The problem anyone will run into with openly advocating “individual succession” or “state succession” is that there are a lot of individuals (and states I’m sure) who absolutely would be willing to force said individuals (or states) to adhere to the current union. Look at what happened during the civil war. The North wouldn’t let the South go. They still won’t.
Therefore, for practical political reasons, I will not worry about trying to sell or vote for what some might consider extreme ideas or ideologies. I will try to vote for the party (or party member) who most openly advocates the policy paradigm that I want to see. Which could be described as minarchy or limited government or whatever.
It’s also worth stating that state succession and individual succession are fundamentally different ideas and I may have been amiss in conflating the two because they are quantifiably different concepts even though the names sound similar.
Actually something like 75% of northerners recognized the south’s right to secede from the Union. The civil war was largely initiated by authorities, not the people themselves, just like all wars the US has ever embarked on.
Yes. When Mises says that once you allow any type of secession whatsoever, there is no logical stopping point before individual secession, he is clearly just mislead by how the words sound. No, they are fundamentally the same thing. Allowing a group of n people to secede from the state is exactly like allowing a single person to secede; just set n=1.
-
Well, that 25% clearly had enough power to overrule the 75%. Not that I trust those numbers but whatever. There are still enough people with enough power to stop succession. Whether or not the arguments for or against it are logical.
-
I’m not saying he’s mislead by how words sound, I’m saying that one man succeeding and entire states succeeding are two totally different things and would obviously be dealt with with different levels of severity. In other words, one man can move into the mountains or to some island somewhere and probably be left alone, but if the entire state of Texas tries to declare itself a country, the reaction will be different.
The minority used the reigns of government to do so. If tyrants act carefully, they can make life very difficult for you even if you are in a majority.
“During the War of 1812, many in New England favored abandoning the union; and our author, relying on the research of Howard Cecil Perkins, points out that the majority of newspaper editorials in the North from late 1860 to mid-1861 recognized the right of secession.” Source
I couldn’t find the 3/4’s statistic right off hand. DiLorenzo says it in one of his talks on mises.org, but I couldn’t find the text version. Oh well.
The foundation of the state rests upon popular support. The Soviet Union had millions of citizens while a small minority lived on their backs. It was through mass propaganda that they maintained power. From this it becomes obvious that our goal in while in the public realm is to educate and deprogram as many as possible so that secession might be achieved even if we can’t convince them to get rid of the state.
Moving somewhere else isn’t seceding, it’s called emigration. If an individual secedes that means he takes not only himself but all his property, including land, out of the jurisdiction of the state.
true, the northern powers wouldn’t let the south leave, but that’s not the point of current discussion that I’m having with you, at least from my end. Was there something you were trying to point out here in relevance to the topic at hand? Please clarify.
So you don’t believe in the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution? I’m really trying to understand what you are speaking for.
So what about the U.S. government? Would you vote for it’s originality - for what the U.S. gov’t is in it’s foundation or have you opted that doesn’t work anymore and are trying a different way… a way different than the U.S. government? Understand the U.S. government is based on succession and many other principles. It is a unique political system and I’m wondering if you believe in the U.S. anymore or not.
Individual’s such as Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, and a whole host of other people did their own individual thing leading up to the succession of the ‘then’ colonies from the British Empire. Eventually a certain number of individuals decided to meet together and Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Indepence in which all but one initially supported the document before it was sent to King George the Third. After he had recieved the declaration and was became inevitable - all the individuals decided to succeed from the British Empire and they then drew up plans to meet again to decide on the future of the then non-existent country. Eventually delegations would meet and constitutions for each state were made. The states then being the ruling political entity decided by representation to form a federal government but with the stipulation that each state in the current Union is still apart of and this being that the state’s be union formed the federal government and it is the states that can dissolve the federal government. It is the individuals in the very beginning that further stipulated that it is the individual person that forms the states and can dissolve the states. That’s the U.S. political system. There is a very formal process in the U.S. political system that still is in existence for this is still the so-called U.S. political system and that formal process that I’m referring to outlines how state delegations meet, what they are to do if they decide actions to dissolve the federal government or not, etc… If you think that’s extreme then I ask what political system are you trying to instill upon this geography? In other words have you - yourself - already succeeded from the U.S. government and are trying to form your own federal government that is different from the U.S. government?
I think this is about the same topic at hand in our current discussion, but I thought a bit of focus on this might be useful. It has been pointed out that most of the northerns supported the south’s succession. Yet a much smaller, thus, minority in the northern’s government to the point of Lincoln breaking numerous Constitutional tenants for what he felt and thought to be right “for the Union” happened. The populace support during the war was very weak on the northern end and only increased (I don’t know by how much) after the Emancipation Proclamation which advocated southern slaves not under the jurisdication of northern domain (meaning if slaves were under northern domain they were not to be releashed and none were fully recognized as being releashed until after the war when the amendment was added to the constitution. Point being, the support for the Union to go into war to stop the succession was very weak with a very small number of people in comparison with total population was present.
The federal government is huge now in comparison to it’s initial beginnings, obviously, and yet you side with a limited or minarchy government. The north trying to stop the south from succession put those northern few into the category of “extreme ideas or ideologies”. They were not of the mainstream preference which would up to the south’s succession thereby include not only any northerns for or against southern succession but would also include all of the south’s individual preference. At the time it was the mainstream way or ideology to succeed. The fringe or extreme ideas were those opposed to succession.
Now to wrap this all up. Seeing now that the federal government is huge wouldn’t you or would you not say that minarchism is the extreme idea or ideology? It is big government that gets voted in each election cycle. It is the federal government expanding - not rejecting and becoming limited that is the norm of the government presently.
What do you think?
Then it will be no more than this:
It was pretty enlightening to hear Francisco de Narváez today on TV.
Talking about the huge crime problem we have in Argentina some of the things he said made me feel less paranoid, while others made me feel a bit naïve.
First, only ¼ of the actual crimes get reported. We’re talking about home invasions robberies, etc. Serious stuff that would land you in jail but here, getting mugged at gunpoint doesn’t deserve the waste of time of going to the police station. Home invasion or a brake in? No one takes prints. That’s stuff seen on cable TV.
Think good old FerFAL is BSing you? Stay with me for a second longer.
You see, this is what my gut instinct has been telling me for many years now, and what I’ve transmitted to you, my faithful reader: The feeling, the sensation that here, we have to fend for ourselves.
Why do I have this sensation?
Well, because as De Narvaez explained today, out or 4000 crimes that get reported (remember, only ¼ only get reported at all) only 7, that’s right just 7 out of 4000 crimes get resolved at all, with the criminal ending up behind bars.
In case you don’t have your calculator near by, that means that 99.825% of the crimes committed go unpunished. Its VERY easy to become a bandido in Argentina. You have to be drop dead stupid to end up behind bars… or innocent.
Makes sense. Usually, when I mention some of the terrible crimes committed in my country, there’s rarely ever a follow up news with the criminals getting caught. Even worse, sometimes they just put in jail some guys with a criminal history they just manage to get their hands on, but eventually get released or even worse, get convicted for something they didn’t do. This happens often enough, we have a term for this, the infamous “perejil” , the guy that has no funds, no friends and happened to be on the wrong place at the wrong time, cops put the blame on him and throw him in a cell. There we go community, we caught the bad guy! People relax, maybe a couple years later the guy gets released, but hey they got the angry crowd off their backs back then.
Lets cover all this wonderful stuff with hot chocolate syrup, ok?:
Only 7% of the Argentine border is monitored by radar. For the other 93% planes full of drugs or guns can fly back and fourth as the want.
Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, all neighboring countries, they have 100% of their borders covered. But once they get to our side, nothing. No one cares, no one is controlling. For this reason Argentina is now one of the largest producers and distributors of drugs of all kinds in Latin America.
So yes my friends, I’m not nuts and Argentina is as messed up as I’ve always said.
In spite of all this we keep going.
As I got home tonight, 9 PM, I watched the city: People rushing home, scared, looking all around them. Cars speeding, ignoring traffic signs. The few pharmacies left opened, doing business through closed barred doors.
Yesterday there was a big car accident in front of my home. I called 911 (yes, here too) I was put on hold. Got tired of waiting and hanged up. An ambulance drove by but was heading somewhere else. Both cars were totaled but the passengers where ok, one of the cars ended up crashing against a house, throwing down a sign and tree.
This happens often because as I said before, when it gets dark people just ignore traffic lights because of the robberies.
That’s how we live her my friends, take care and good luck.
FerFAL
http://ferfal.blogspot.com/2009/12/for-anarchy-and-argentina.html
What does Narváez think the soln for Argentina is? More state or more private security?
Ok, this thread has become something entirely different than what I intended it to be. Basically, my original point was simply to say that I liked libertarianism but didn’t think libertarians had the numbers to win in general elections. So I suggested that they simply run as Republicans and vote libertarian. Like Ron Paul. Or Jim DeMint.
I know that right now this seems like a losing strategy. And it might be. But I think it’s the best shot we have at seeing any real changes made to the size of government, the level of taxation, the prevalence of the welfare state and so on.
My philosophical beliefs are, in my opinion, not relevant to this thread. All this thread was meant to ask was “can libertarians get elected as a separate party or do they need to use the Republicans (or Democrats) to do so?” I think that question has been answered quite well. Good thread.