Correct - I wouldn’t. If boycotting is done using non violent means (which is what boycotting is all about in theory ?) then physical defense has no place - actually using violence against boycotters wouldn’t be defense but aggression.
Yes, I see things that way too.
Although an scenario I’d consider is small ‘communities’ (towns ?) where a majority of conservatives or a majority of progressives boycott dissenters basically because of some sort of mob psychology. While the majority can do that without violating the NAP, I wouldn’t say that such communities are libertarian in a broad sense.
Right, but we have to accept that as a starting point of libertarianism, all social systems are possible. I agree with you, people who performed mass boycotts based on collectivism would not be behaving in a libertarian manner, just as people starting a commune in a free market would not be operating a libertarian social order.
That’s why I think the workers councils fans are being a little disingenous with us. They like the market, to validate establishment without coercion of a new order. But they do not want the market to be a part of the new establishment.
The feudal folks at least maintain they will pay their way to their preferences, which is a small improvement. I think however they may be mistaken that choosing to be very selective equates to being very profitable.
Yes, but I also see certain situations, such as the example I gave about Bob the store owner, in which the whole community doesn’t like the way he runs his business. So as individuals they boycott him. They vote with their dollars. I don’t see how they need to be forced to pay homage to his store if they find something he does to be atrocious. This is the whole creative process and beauty of culture in the first place.
If the whole community doesn’t like the way he runs his business, then he will fail. If they don’t like him (reputation) he will fail.
I’ve written before that I don’t believe that people will do much picketing, protesting etc in a free market. There is no upside. They can just shift patterns of exchange to something that satisfies them. The real power in a boycott (or a picket) is the social stigmatization of the people who will shop there, and how their neighbors feel about someone exchanging or associating with an undesirable. I barely know my neighbors. In fact, I have been where I am for almost a year, and I know the older couple next door to wave at them, but I don’t think they know my name or I theirs.
The sort of social pressure necessary for a boycott can only come in a community where people are very close interpersonally. Some believe the dissolution of the state will lead to that. I’m not so sure. I’m not convinced that social decentralization and differentiation are all because the state subsidizes it. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that it is more convenient for me to talk to my mother on the other side of the country by phone, than it is to establish social relations with the family across the street. I’m not saying it is or is not in my best interest to do so.
And likewise, easier (and more preferable) to interact and form my political opinions amongst y’all than it is to participate in the pro-union statism of my local community. This wouldn’t have been possible 10 years ago. Certainly not 50 or 100.
Traditionally, in simpler cultures with less technology, the conventional family has a major role to play. But with technology today, the trend is more towards families spreading themselves out, than piling on top of each other. Likewise communities of like minded people are more likely to be all over the world, interacting through technology, than looking to move to the same town.
I think the modest success (or lack of success) of the FSP is an indication of that. There is an attempt to assemble people for common ideology and social ideals into a region where they can collectively exercise libertarian political and economic group action. Interesting idea, maybe it is just not being sold right.
I don’t think boycotting has to be excluded to picketing and such that you write here. I think boycotting can be a simple… (as you write in the next sentence here below):
yes
I talk to my neighbors occasionally and I’ve labored with them on occasion. I’ve gotten free things from the one next door before since he was only going to burn the wood. Our road in this neighborhood is private. We all own it. Not the county. It is completely private. So when it washed out in late winter we all got together and worked on it to rebuild it. That actually is when I got to know all them much more than I ever have. I have yet to talk to them about the State though. I’m not that close to them yet. I almost did once with the next door neighbor our conversation was leading that way, but then it was time to cut his tree down as the other neighbor came to help so we stopped talking about it. Some day maybe…
My parents talk to me about sitting on their front porch talking to neighbors. When I lived in an urban area when I was young we did and so did my parents, yet, not as much. In the country I’ve had many a deep conversations with friends on numerous issues. Massive boycotts though would be very difficult, but if they happen as in the case of Bob it would be a growth over time episode. I think social leaps would be rare as I foresee quick leaps to be too frictional and too sudden. Could be more violent than actually keeping a non-aggression, barter atmosphere intact. I think people do incline to keep the peace and tolerate a lot of peace sakes.
Yeah, I haven’t gotten to the State issue with my neighbors, but I certainly have shouted it out on the internet very quickly in different forums.
What’s FSP?
I live around the Amish. I see them as contrasting much of the modern life in a very real way. How far distinctions go though depend on the State’s tolerance as you well know.
I read his post about “Rights and Entitlements” and I do not agree with his and Feinberg’s conclusion about how justified is to break into someone’s house. It is definitely Not justified. This is a wrong word.
I don’t know that is what he is saying. I disagree with him on preferences, but I agree with the underlying statement that anti-market, anti-trade hyper-emotional selectivism is not conducive to trade, and thus not conducive to markets and thus not conducive to liberty.
In a selfish world (short-sighted selfishness) I would want to be very generous in my trade preferences and everyone else to be very selective. That defacto awards me the largest share of the market.
The problem is, it limits the size of the market. Would you rather have a 80% share of a market of $5 million, or a 5% share of a market of $500 million?
But rationally, if every trade increases prosperity, that is we give up things we want less than other things, than I want as much trade as possible, and selectivity while necessary and useful, can also be harmful and counter-productive when taken to an extreme. Not only will the selective party have to pay more for their limited choices, but they will reduce the prosperity of my potential trade partners by refusing to do business with them, which affects my prosperity.
Well, if that was all he was saying (and said in the past) I would agree. But he seems to have this idea that neighborhoods that might frown upon people walking around in the nude (as an example) are not at all libertarian. Just a do whatever the fuck you want neighborhood, where no ones gives a shit because no one has preferences.
I’m not going to speak widely for Juan, because I am not sure I agree with him. But I feel confident saying that is not his position because he clearly does have preferences about what is and is not libertarian behaviour. Not giving a shit about people walking around nude, is also a preference.
Oh, I know what that is now. Wasn’t sure of the initials since I’m not around it that much (not seeing it being mentioned all to often in the places I go, etc…).
I’m saying that the attempt at imposing uniformity, even using allegedly non-violent means, is clearly totalitarian.
Both right-wing conservatives and left-wing conservatives want ‘homogeneous communities’ where dissidents don’t simply exist and/or are boycotted into oblivion.
Juan, i respectfully disagree, you take all the venom out of the word totalitarian when there is no coercion/violence in it. What word would we use for the violent ‘totalitarianism’ we are drastically opposed to to contrast it with the gentle advertising and reciprical reinforcement of some kind of ‘homogenous culture’?. The fact that we are all talking in english is surely an example of a cultural homogeneity, I assume there are some visitors to the forum who would prefer the debate here was in French or Spanish, but I’m at a loss to understand how that is bad in the same way as say ‘murder’
I’m not sure what point you are making. For starters, I’m using English voluntarily, I’m not, say, being boycotted by a bunch of religious fundamentalists into either using English or else moving to another (small) town.
Feel free to suggest a word to describe people who want uniformity and use boycotts to achieve it. You think the word ‘totalitarian’ is too strong ? Fine. At any rate, what I’m saying is that calling such people ‘libertarian’ is simply wrong.
if you were to start writing all your posts in elvish, or klingon, people would use non-violent means to make you conform. they would not be totalitarian,
the word for those who seek uniformity and use boycotts to achieve it when they have good reason are ‘lobbyists’ or ‘activists’’
and the word for those who seek uniformity and use boycotts to achieve when they are idiotic are ‘bigots’ :-p