Weak.
I suggest you reread the original post on microsecession. Microsecession is not anarcho-zionism, i.e. running away to liberty land. It is not a high TP strategy. It is not even necessarily for libertarians: Since the project is rooted in economic incentives, it would most likely be businessmen who would move there, turning it into a trading hub free of taxes, government regulations, and trade barriers.
In fact, microsecession is probably the most efficient way to bring about universal libertarianism. To quote Hulsmann again:
Clearly, secession avoids all these fatal long-run consequences of “imposing liberty.” It might take a long time before the conditions for successful local secession are given, and secession might then leave many dark (politically unenlightened) spots on the political map. However, at least these reforms would be genuine accomplishments that do not already contain the seeds of their own destruction."
Once secession movements succeed and break off the hegemonic bonds of their government, the door would be opened for other secession movements. As secession becomes legitimized, it would open a Pandora’s Box of secessionist claims that no State could reject. Thus, secession starts off with “small pockets of libertarian societies,” but it leads to a wildfire of secession movements spreading across the globe, and ultimately worldwide liberty.
Moreover, reformism is plagued by the paradox of imperialism: as the State becomes more limited, the economy becomes more robust, creating more resources for the State to parasitically leech off of and use to expand. Hence, the more you limit government, the harder it becomes to limit it, and the harder it becomes to abolish it altogether. The incentive structure of government militates against reformism. Mises talked about the “exhaustion of the reserve fund” under socialism. This is the exact opposite. Successful reformism would create a bigger pie for the government to feed off of, creating stronger incentives for the State to grow.
Secession avoids this problem by killing the parasite, i.e. abolishing the State entirely. Of course, there is the possibility that governments might try to take over a super-wealthy microstate, but this can be prevented. For instance, the microstates might hold off on becoming tax havens until a critical mass is achieved. At that point, they could organize a massive capital drain and simultaneously bankrupt all the governments in the world!
Let’s hear it and see if I accept it as a reflection of what I think I am
No because that assumes I know what is in their self-interest setting me up as some pseudo-lord of their future actions. Frankly I see very much in common with someone who assumes to know the best for a stranger and the government official.
I’d rather use ration and logic then hoodwinking. Perhaps that is our difference.
Alright, I’ve updated the original list:
- No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority - Lysander Spooner
- Anatomy of the State - Murray Rothbard
- The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts - Murray Rothbard
- The Production of Security - Gustave de Molinari
- Chaos Theory - Robert Murphy
- Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security - Hans Hoppe
- On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution - Hans Hoppe
- Market Anarchism As Constitutionalism - Roderick Long
- Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy? - Alfred Cuzán
- Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections - Roderick Long
Comments?
What a great job. You have Rothbard, Hoppe and Long arguably the 3 most important libertarian thinkers of the last 25 years, and each has two pieces.
If we were to rank them in importance, I would say #9 is really #10. If something good can be found, that might be the first one to bump off the list.
If we are to rank them in order of exposure, I might rank the first few like this
- 1
- 6
- 7
- 2
- 8
- 10
The order someone is exposed to this is important. Their attention has to be captured early. In the first couple documents if not the very first document.
I have to check out Hoppe. Perhaps I should not judge him by his batshit insane followers for they maybe different from what he expouses.
Yeah, it would be one of the first to go. But I think it’s pretty important; the insight that anarchy is omnipresent had a pretty big impact on me. Although, Cuzan only notes that the members of government are in anarchic relationships, while this is also true of citizens of different countries (international anarchy), and governments and their own citizens (as argued, e.g. here and here.)
True. I think starting with Spooner is good, because as Laughing Man noted, the Constitution is the minarchists’ sacred cow. “Anatomy” goes second to establish what the State is; laying the groundwork. Rothbard and Molinari go third and fourth to show how minarchists’ own principles (free competition) compel them to accept nonmonopoly police and courts. Murphy extends this analysis in elaborating on the role of insurance companies.
Once they’ve come this far, they’re ready to tackle public goods theory. Then Hoppe again for is insights on the Constitution, monarchy>democracy, insurance companies, and secession as a strategy. Long has a ton of insights, especially showing how market competition is a better constitution than a piece of paper. Then Cuzan for the omnipresent anarchy argument. And finally, “Ten Objections” goes last as a fun-filled romp designed to reinforce and fortify their understanding of market anarchist philosophy.
Right. It’s just important to remember that if we’re going to be successful in any marketing endeavour, we have to put our “customers” first. That’s why I think most of the ancap material is too long, too sophisticated for primary arguments. You might value it, but you are not the customer. You are much better read than many people.
The downside is, it is 60 pages. That’s beyond the attention span of 80% of the adult population. We’re the exceptions, not the norm. I read a couple hundred pages a day, I imagine most of my fellow libertarians the same. Most adults barely read the newspaper or magazines anymore, let alone full length books.
I’ll make this the last time I say this because I am definitely sounding like a nag, but remember to put your audience first. Successful marketing plays on what they want not what we like or how we want to tell them things, or what things we value. You’re getting a lot of feedback from anarchists here. But the real market test would be to see if this list has any actual value to minarchists.
We’re just product researchers, validation via profit (or failure) will come in the market place. That’s the only test that matters.
Opinions are a wonderful thing…
I do not need a leader…
At least you concede that point…
Nothing to do with the entire thought it was left in reply to…
Yes, tradition, revealed religion and ‘culture’ will all be wiped out sooner or later. Reactionary conservatives like you are on the losing side of history. You better get used to it.
We will bury you!
So much for “pluralism”.
Our dear Juan, always spouting the Jacobintarian line.
And it was entirely pointless, since I can point out atrocities of a much greater scale by the secular state.
I’m not attempting to vindicate any of those, rather, my point is that if you want a comparison of the a number of dictators with similar regimes, except for the religion, but with huge differences in their death tolls, the aforementioned dictators are particularly apt.
Of course it is. Just like all “atrocities” commited by religion are. The leftists (including many people here) are furious that one can’t go around with tattoos and piercings over in Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, they’ll probably not shed a tear for the man who gets arrested for wearing a Nazi shirt in Germany or Austria. Freedom of speech is very important when they want to tell people that their religion is a joke, it’s not all that OK when I want to tell people that race can account for differences between people. Likewise, people should be free to do as they please without hurting anybody else, with the minor caveat that religion is not included in that list. Of course, I say religion, but what I really mean is Christianity, Islam and Judaism. If one wants to worship the devil or the earth, the leftists will be more than willing to tell you that you’re “a brave man” and that “you’re fighting a worthy cause”, anything to challenge the major religion and the bourgeoisie.
See, the cultural Marxists will be only too quick to forget the enormous deaths of the secular state (of which the US is one), on the other hand they’ll quickly condemn any religious state for crimes that don’t even compare. Which is why you won’t often see them complaining about the murder of religious people anywhere in the world, but you’ll have to suffer their usual whining if an atheist anywhere gets into trouble for being obnoxious about their “belief” (which truly, it is)
Moreover, they seem to forget all their antistate rhetoric and blame Iraq on Christians. As if the religious beliefs of leaders has any bearing on what the state commits. But as long as they can somehow pin it on Christianity, that’s OK. In fact, to the modal libertarian atheist, all evil can be traced back to religion. It’s funny really, because, they almost sound “fanatical”, imagine that. All of this is fine by me, I find it quite amusing that those who preach tolerance and open mindedness have the same conviction in their belief system as I do, only, they’re far more dogmatic and for some reason most often feel the need to convince the poor “misguided” religious folk. Dawkins etc. give the same powers to cells are Christians do to God, because they can’t explain anything otherwise. All this in the name of science and reason (faith should be banished, of course, how they manage to believe in the outside world without faith is quite beyond me, but there we go).
As I’ve said before, Cato is better suited to these folk. Using the state to abolish religion is probably not off limits for the modal libertarian, they’re just going to be quite annoyed with the Leviathan they’ll consequently be stuck with. Of course, it won’t be the state per se they’ll be pissed off at, just the fact that as usual they’re at the bottom of the social hierarchy. That’s what egalitarianism is all about: bringing the rest of society down to their level.
That is the point. No matter who has the territory monopoly atrocities are committed.
I’m really not trying to go down that road. I’m focused on the State aspect. That’s what a theocracy is, a coercive government by another name. As I’ve said, I have no problems with religion. It’s when the religious want to play king of the hill with the secular politicians, that’s what I have a problem with.
Don’t you think this is getting a little over the top? The functioning of cells can be observed and, to a certain extent, even reproduced. It’s a mechanism that does not require faith to be explained since it behaves on a purely chemical basis.
As far as we know, of course. But at least science is making an effort to further our knowledge. Religion (and revealed religion in particular) is disturbingly content with a fixed amount of information put down thousands of years ago and at the same time, fiercely hostile towards fundamental criticism.
I’m certainly not interested in weakening bourgeois culture. To the contrary, bourgeois culture, as we know it today, could not emerge until the dominant influence of the church-state had been crushed for good. Or do you know of any examples of bourgeois culture before the era of enlightenment?
No, scientists are just as dogmatic as religion is meant to be. Dawkins himself said that unless a theory is in line with evolution we shouldn’t even look at it, of course, that sounds a lot like what religious folk are chastised for by atheists.
Not really, I see plenty of Christian philosophers (Feser, Plantinga) and even Christian scientists (Behe).
You, perhaps not. On the other hand, look at some of the trash being spilled by BP, Juan et al.
That’s quite besides the point, atheists are wont to attribute to cells features that theists attribute to their God.
Only, when you appeal to God for legitimacy, killing millions of your own people isn’t going to do you a great amount of God in the eyes of your subjects. On the other hand, when you appeal to egalitarianism for legitimacy the stakes are entirely different. No amount of people is too much to acheive it.
I don’t advocate theocracy. My point is not difficult to grasp: the attrocities of the USSR, Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot are incomparible to those commited by Salazar, Mussolini and Franco.
That sounds very loosely paraphrased, especially for Dawkins’ standards. How can a theory in the realm of physics or mathematics be “in line with evolution”?
Anyway, even if he did say it, he’s not a representative of all science and most certainly not all scientists. There is a genuine interest to further human knowledge within the largest part of the scientific community, and I think this should be appreciated.
Not really, I see plenty of Christian philosophers (Feser, Plantinga) and even Christian scientists (Behe).
But doesn’t the Bible say in Jeremiah 23,16:
Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD.
By being a Christian philosopher, can you really still be a Christian if your philosophy is not exactly equal to the literal meaning of the Bible? By being a Christian scientist, can you “legally” inquire phenomena for which the BIble already has an explanation, e.g. the origin of the world, or do you have to limit yourself to proving the Biblical theory?
That’s quite besides the point, atheists are wont to attribute to cells features that theists attribute to their God.
That’s hard to believe. Can you give specific examples?
::Rolls Eyes::
I do not care about either case…
I have said it before here, I am sure you missed it, the fact is that no one can “save the world” from government, some people are not going to choose to live without it, regardless of the tyranny they put up with for it, some people are just afraid of the loss of a safety net that government is in their eyes…
I did not say being “Christian” was bad, I said dragging your religious dogma (as it is a personal choice) into the day to day life of the individual who does not choose to follow your religion is replacing a tyranny with a tyranny…
It is the formula for a government of freedom, so long as you do not violate the morality set by the authority…
Again a case of replacement, not to mention that people, secular and religious alike have a tendency to take a single case (the inquisition) rather than the death toll of the entire reign of the particular organized religion, or the population percentage, as historically we have had less people in the affected areas than we do in the 20th century.
Never mentioned or thought that, but that is OK, you seem to think that if one does not want a theocracy that they must think that.
Of course this line of thought of yours shows a massive lack of knowledge on how the state works here in the US, IAPAC is a lobby, based on the religious belief that the Jewish people are chosen by God and their platform here is that the United States, as a “Christian Nation”, should spare no expense at the defense of Israel. Maybe it is just coincidence that there are more Evangelical Christians that belong to IAPAC in the US than there are Jews?
Where did I say this? I said faith is a personal choice, if you wish to believe that there is a mysterious ghost who is omnipotent and omniscient, by all means, but it does not make for less of a tyranny than any other athority based monopoly…
I am not going to pretend to know what ulta left wing commie spoke to you about religion and made such a convincing argument to the extent of anyone that does not want a religious state organization to mean the same as abolishing religion, in the end what it comes down to is property rights, a religious state organization would be as bad as a secular state organization in regard to violating the right to live as one pleases in the confines of one’s property…