I think libertarianism would be a lot more popular if supporters of it weren't so radical.

Miscellaneous General
1

I’m an anarchist. I’m not a libertarian. But I’ll give my thoughts on libertarianism.

I think that too many people out there in the libertarianism field are too radical. They should take a page from Ludwig Von Mises and start advocating classical liberalism rather than libertarianism (as for now). It is my belief that Ludwig Von Mises’s beliefs are universal to all. He still believes in liberalism. Yet, he wants a free market. It just seems that sometimes we anarchist types can be too radical. Libertarians are laughed at because they want to do away with the whole government right away.

We anarchist types need to have a way of getting from here to there. Some of the supporters are too radical. I’ve heard some so called libertarians support fascism-- only allowing land owners and property owners to vote. I undertsand the logic behind this. But, that’s fascism… and it’s the exact opposite of what Ludwig Von Mises called for.

We obviously can’t do away with the income tax just yet. We need to find ways to gradually lower it. We need to make things viable for the public. People also don’t want to go back to the 1960s. So, we would have to convince people how these affirmative action laws hurt more than help- and we have to show them a better method.

Otherwise, I feel even if we presented the ideas of libertarians to the public-- in our extremely radical way… they wouldn’t listen. I’ve been thinking of ways we could reduce the size of our current government to a smaller one. We should really try to talk to both sides of the aisle here. I think both Democrats and Republicans can appreciate anarchistic philosophy. We have to convince Democrats that their social programs can still be done without much government rather than do the conservative thing and get rid of them altogether… and we have to convince the Republicans that we can have smaller government and a real free market. We can convince Democrats that we won’t have economic-fascism by getting wallstreet out of government, and, getting rid of these government interference laws that actually make it possible for this economic fascism we have to take place. Let’s get rid of these lobbyists.

I just feel that it’s too early to call for the abolishment of the federal government. What we need to do is to slowly get rid of its power over time. And, we need to do it in a responsible method. As an anarchist-- I’ve been inspired by several libertarian philosophies because it shows that true privatization of things is possible… I used to be a brain dead Democrat but the libertarian philosophy has changed those views that I’ve had.

But it is wrong to go out and tell people we want to get rid of the whole government right away. I mean, I think we can appeal to everyone by calling for a non-coercive state. If the state wanted to supply things for people-- we would make it have to follow the rules of the free market.

But, I think it’s foolish to just go to tell everyone that we want to abolish the government right away. I mean, it’s not viable even as an anarchist I see this-- to abolish the federal government. What we should do is try to build public support to get rid of the programs-- that are harmful to the free market.

Otherwise, the public will laugh at us. I don’t think we would want that.

What do you think of my views on this matter? I think it would be foolish to appear so radical to the public as some supporters of the libertarian philosophy are. Though-- we can educate them about freedom in the mean time (see what Ron Paul is doing) and then call for moderate change over time. I just think if we acted like some supporters of libertarianism and called for fascism no one would listen to us. So, just my $.02.

remarks on property
2

interesting, what programs would you cut first? Any sort of plan you have or just a general principle? Thanks

3

I don’t think it is possible to go in the other direction under any such government system. I wish it were, but I feel like I am lying to myself. You may be able to achieve some progress in the other direction here and there, but overall, I think there will always be a net movement towards socialism. I think the only hope is to accept this, realize we are on a one way road to serfdom, but continue very hard to gain grounds in the intellectual domain. This means that we must fight like we actually have a chance of changing policy, even though, it is highly unlikely. I believe (and hope) that the system will eventually break down. It always has! The only strategy in my opinion is to simply prepare for that moment. When that time comes, and the libertarian philosophy is much more established and widespread then today, then maybe there can be a viable chance of actually resisting and overcoming any attempts to reestablish any central authorities. But when that moment comes, and the only dominant philosophy among intellectuals is statism, then forget it.

4

It’s not fascism, it’s a good way of lowering the time preference of the average voter and making society all the more prosperous for it. Notice, when the USA worked like that, the government was far more smaller.

5

classical liberalism is far more radical than modern libertarianism. classical liberalism has no modern incarnation, it is a complete political system that has gone the way of the dodo.

6

Correlation is not causation.

7

Giles offered a reason for his claims before he added this nevertheless interesting empirical observation.

You do see the incentive problem with “one man, one vote”, don’t you? Whether or not this sounds reactionary does not matter in the context of human action.

8

It nonetheless remains a fact that restricting voting to a rich aristocracy is not a consistent position, nor is it a model for a libertarian society by any stretch of the imagination. It’s hypocritical to complain about voting rights while simultanously favoring voting rights for a particular interest group. The problem with Giles is that he perpetually endorses exclusive and plutocratic forms of statism via an appeal to libertarian opposition to democracy, which totally misses the big picture. The problems with democracy do not justify his position or vindicate conservative states.

9

This is pretty funny. An anarchist lecturing libertarians on being too radical. [:)]

No. Libertarians want to secede. If others choose taxes, and warfare and welfare, that is their choice. We simply want the opportunity to have self-determination.

But you’re not a libertarian. And as far as getting somewhere, you’re missing the point. There is no group. No plan. No club. No system. No rule book. No annual conference. It is about decentralized action by an ever increasing base of free market supporters. We act collectively by all acting individually. If we were to coalesce in method or organization, it would be very easy to thwart or undermine such an approach. We’re more effective engaging in market competition to achieve our goals, because that will yield the best results (quality) and the lowest price (return on effort).

Since all government does is abrogate property rights, it makes sense that the only people who could vote would be property owners. I’m not saying government is a good idea, but as far as governmental system go, why would you allow someone with no property to vote on your property? You wouldn’t.

Honestly, you’re an anarchist who makes minarchist arguments. It’s very confusing to me. I don’t think you are a libertarian, and I don’t think you are an anarchist. You’ve been making threads like this for months, and I think you’re still trying to figure out where you fall ideologically. Which is cool. But don’t claim to be for something that you obviously are not (like anarchism).

If your liberty is dependent upon the opinions of the mob, then you’re better off sticking to democracy. If you believe your liberty is contingent upon purposeful action to act as an individual, then who gives a flying poptart what anyone else thinks…

10

Exactly, if the vote is tied to land those people who have the ability to exercise the vote will have an incentive to use it wisely. If they vote a socialist into power the value of their property is going to go down, on the other hand, in a mass democracy anybody can vote and everybody’s vote is worth the same. Since it’s not tied to any property the incentive system is such that they’ll each try to get as large a piece of the pie as possible, without any regard to the size of the pie.

If you want to look at it another way, consider this: what are the differences between the voting patterns of stockholders in corporations (with regard to the corporation, obviously) and members of a mass democracy? Then consider why.

11

Take my position to its extreme and you get each individual voting exclusively for the running of their own property, sounds somewhat consistant to me. The position I was advocating above was nothing more than a second best option, one supported in both theory and practise.

No, I don’t, I believe that would be called a straw man attack. I am of the belief that monarchy is a more efficient system to democracy, that needn’t make me a monarchist.

12

When should we do away with it? When you feel like it? When you think individuals are ready?

Again, when should we? When you feel like it? And please do answer what government over the course of humanity has actually shrunk in size?

In what fashion?

I’d call Ron Paul a statist when it comes to social platforms.

In conclusion, why should we spend more day under the rule of government if we had the chance to end it? Why should coercion continue? Why should the injustice of taxation be allowed to fester? If it be for the sake of the masses then sir I see no difference between your argument and a statist claiming that the government is necessary for public welfare. To quote William Pease on the issue of slavery which I think can be linked to the issue of government:

“We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend.”

13

Well, I think the question here is: did replacing “landowner voting” with “one man, one vote” further the cause of liberty? If no, then there’s no reason to act like it did.

I think Giles and me differ on a number of issues, but attacking his observations on “one man, one vote” seems to me like a knee-jerk reaction towards “reactionary”, “conservative” ideas which, however, tend to be in accordance with the facts in some cases.

14

I consider it irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. You see, anarcho conservatives love to rant about ‘democracy’…

People who don’t like democracy should complain to the land-owning slave-owning oligarchs who founded the American state and used to babble about inalienable rights.

By the way, it does make sense for the subhumans to ask for voting rights if the elite has voting rights. One can’t consistently oppose that.

False. Land owning oligarchs use their voting ‘rights’ and the state to enslave people - that’s what the state is for, you know.

15

The assumption that an oligarchical state run by conservatives is going to inherently be bevolvent is questionable to say the least.

16

Do you know what you’re talking about Juan? Historically, the fewer people that have voting priviledges and the more they have an interest in the outcome of the vote the freer the markets have been. Once again, this is supported by theory.

17

It’s not an assumption, and it needn’t be run by conservatives. It only need by run by people with some concern the value of their own estate.

18

Corn laws in England and slavery in the south ? Do you know what you’re talking about Giles ? Oh, by the way, correlation is not causation. You seem to have trouble understanding that ?

19

So the centralization of power has lead to a decentralization of wealth?

20

Slavery was going out of fashion, of course, now our one vote per person system is in place we’re doing far better as far as slavery goes (ignoring the wars, the taxation, the federal reserve, regulation and police state).

No, I study econometrics, I’m well aware of that. It was an illustration, that’s all.