It is almost like the Marxian historical materialism concept
Well with you saying this (the answer is…):
No, I don’t agree with you. Arguably, somebody calling themselves a radical libertarian, then they, arguably, disagree with little government is the limit to liberty, but would argue that no government involves more liberty. Or maybe the radical libertarian calls him or her self a libertarian, but defines their position as no government.
Perhaps I should clarify, I believe that when Rothbard is called a radical libertarian then it is in a sense a traditional libertarian before the term libertarian was taken over by the Libertarian Party which tried to establish that government can be involved in liberty.
Throwing Rothbard into the mix brings up unanswered questions I have. As I stated in that “long paragraph” post, Rothbard is said to have voted or agreed with voting. Rothbard helped Reagan get elected, but later called that conservative movement with Newt Gingrich “Sell-outs” cause they abandoned liberty. Yet as I stated Rothbard may have stopped voting when he went back as he stated, “To the American Heartland”. Also calling them “Sell-outs” brings up another question. Did Rothbard conceive that the Libertarian Party would do what this Reagan conservative abandoned, which is abolish aspects of the government?
As I stated, just going through the motions with somebody in dialogue that calls themselves a libertarian may lead anybody to find out what they define a libertarian as. It does have multiple meanings and it’s history shows that as the article I linked can profess.
Yes. In his speech ‘The Current state of Affairs’ given in the early 90’s, he said that the councilmembers in the LP would stab their mother’s in the back for $5. He also said the libertarian movement was lucky to survive Reagan.
I don’t think there is multiple meanings to the concept of liberty. There may be different enactings of liberty through subjective desires but before this, there is no contest.
And so there’s many labels people identify with to bring instant recognition to what they are talking about. Libertarian, at least to me, still sounds anti-statist and wants to rid all government. But as I said there are other libertarians that are gradualist and may even be miniarchists. I’ve seen people clarify their position by calling themselves anarch-libertarian. So dialogue reveals what a libertarian means is all I originally was saying.[:)]
I agree and that’s why I said I still see libertarian meaning anti-State. I’m for liberty all the way.
Great article.
Its one of the essays in Anarchy and the Law, also a great book.
What did you like about Hasnas’ article?
I’m not sure I want to include it in the list, because Long’s “Market Anarchism as Constitutionalism” has the same basic insights (and much more) about the nature of legal systems.
I remember Hasnas’ was one of my favorite essays in a book with many great essays. I loved his presentation, very straight forward. His pointing out of double think is very important, as that is required for the state to exist, as it is a institutionalized contradiction. His First Amendment example is also powerful.
I’m not sure if its a great introduction(but it probably is), but certainly its an important essay for any anarcho-capitalist, (or Objectivist!)
Let me read Long’s article and I’ll get back to you.
“I don’t support the institutionalization of theft. Do you? Nor the re-distribution of wealth. I support the voluntary actions between individuals who do not violate each others private property with aggression.”
There is a different slant you can give it all. Over all I think it is more positive, than negative and thus more effective.
i.e Institutionalization of theft = taxation. Re-distribution of wealth = taxation. Voluntary actions. Private property. Non aggression principle.
I’d rather have minarchy than what we have now. Of course, I’d keep fighting for the total elimination of the state.
The patient that I’m refering to is the liberty movement. I think an attempt to eliminate the state right now in a political situation would kill the liberty movement due to the image it portrays to the general public.
I’d like to add that I think reformism is the only way to acheive a large-scale libertarian society. Seasteading and Microsecession are things that I totally support for those who wish to pursue those options, but that will only create small pockets of libertarian societies throughout the world. It is great for libertarians who want liberty right now but this high time preference comes at a cost: you can no longer work to bring liberty to the rest of the world. Maybe some of you don’t want to. . Maybe you just want liberty for yourself (That is a perfectly honorable position to hold.), but I want more. I want liberty for everyone.
If you want to bring liberty to everyone, you have to work to undermine the state at large. That process is slow and painful. Some people won’t be able to handle it, and I don’t blame them, but for those who want to stick it out, reformism is the only option. (Agorism has been thoroughly demolished by Rothbard, so I don’t think that’s an option either.)
In short microsecession and seasteading is great for those who choose to do it, but I don’t think I consider myself one of those people. Maybe I’ll grow weary of reformism in a few years and give up, but I’m young now, and I still think reformism has a fighting chance to seriously cut back, and eventually eliminate, the state.
Individuals falsely thinking that government will limit itself or too scared to carry out the logic conclusions of the theory they propose.
But there should be no dialogue as to what libertarian means. We do not sit around and argue what the definition of ‘car’ means. When we open the door to subjective interpretation of the plain meaning of words then we invite nihilism.
That’s a second best. It’s meaningless in the context of this discussion. Needless to say, we all would rather be shot once than twice, be beaten by one cop than 2, pay half taxes instead of full.
Voting and politics institutionalizes political action. Let’s say political action and democracy rolls back the state. What will you tell your comrades, who you encouraged to vote and politic when it is time to get rid of the state? That’s presuming you are sincere that minarchy is unacceptable because you accept that any state monopoly is still immoral.
Why, oh why oh why, would anyone care what the general public thinks? If you really believe your liberty is tied to their opinions and the power of their votes, then you will never be free.
Unfortunately, their votes have the power to further enslave me or give me a bit more freedom. I choose the latter. I don’t expect to be truly free in my lifetime, but I sure as hell will try my hardest to. It’s going to be a slow process.
p://jim.com/treason.htm
When encountering an enemy, make him react to your strategy, not you to his. I think I am be paraphrasing Sun Tzu there.
I am a common man. I do not invent new jargoon for words already established.
You can say that again…
Yeah, I think you meant phraseology. And why not? The left does it very effectively. Why discard the power of words? You are a complete fool if you do and make it harder to sell Liberty, convert others, convince them of your point and the need for the removal of the State. Fight smarter, not harder.
“Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent’s fate.” ~ Sun Tzu
“Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.” ~ Sun Tzu
“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Is there something contempable with being common?
Oddly enough I don’t feel the need to sell someone the idea that they are free to carry out their will in a manner they see fit while being inline with the NAP. I feel it is already instinctually within them. The idea that we need to convert others into doing what we want in order to carry out what they want seems counter intutitive and sets up the premise that we are their keepers. Are you implying that we are better then they in knowing what is best for them??
All due respect dude…
One thing you completely leave out…
If Anarchism is the best option, it will succede, if it succedes it will do more to change the world than telling people how great it is…
Those micro communities will do more good than converting people to LP voters, because those voters will bring their baggage with them and unfortunately will destroy the LP from within…