I don’t have an emotional investment, beyond finding this very entertaining. I do find your charges interesting, given the holier than thou stance you take on many issues. I’m sure it is just coincidence that you always take the right action, and frequently, it is inaction.
Who knew that doing so little could mean so much!
Sure I’m in a position to call you on it; anyone who regonizes it, is. If you would like to force me to not call you on it, by all means.
I rarley challenge (outside of conversational squabbling, that is) anyone on the basis that I’m still learning, or a “newbie”, if you will. I may agree with those that you say are part of my “ideological commitment” frequently, but it would not surprise me if at some point I end up disagreeing as I increase my knowledge base.
I disagree with many on many things, but I agree with putting forth arguments; the reason I’ve recently decided to start developing a blog is partially to help formulate my stances bit beyond the “learning in progress”. You can learn forever, but you can’t be just be forever learning, if that makes any sense.
The only “idealogical commitment” I consider myself, thus far, is “student”, under the spanning term that is “libertarian”, which I consider anarchism filed under such. I call you out on oversimplification, but not on disagreeing with me; I actually don’t entirley agree with what BP said about voting being cowardly, as voting to an extent can be viewed subjective as voting doesn’t prevent you from participating in direct action. I view the labelling of voting as “cowardly” to be a generalization.
So far, I view it as a personal choice (concerning ethics) that is possibly one of the best ways at showing your support for non-voting & direct action, but I do not view voting as forbidden by some code, wherein such code says “voting prevents direct action”. If it helps to clarify, I somewhat agree with Long’s position on voting.
We’ve exchanged words on this topic before and I’ve already tried to clarifying multiple times to you that your assumption that the only alternative to voting is inaction or that non-voting is inherently the same thing as non-action is nonsensical. I observe that you repeat this false assumption over and over again and proceed to bang my head against the wall in frustration.
My premise is based on the empirical observation that representative democracy is highly indirect, that the desires of politicians is generally to obtain or maintain power (and voting is only an indispensable means of doing this by providing a charade of a process to allow the status quo to continue) and that the internal incentives of the state is against the libertarian voter’s wishes.
No, they’re called reductio ad absurdums. Big differance. It would be a straw man if I were argueing that you actually put foreward those arguments, but I’m not doing that. I’m drawing them out as absurd implications of your assumed premises. That’s how I tend to debate - by undermining the assumed premises.
It makes perfect sense. I would argue that you can never vote, but you can’t just be forever not voting.
I think you severely misunderstand my position, which leads to a horrible communication breakdown between us. I haven’t made any moral argument in this thread, it’s all practical arguments.
The reason why I think you have an emotional investment in disagreeing with me is that whenever I make a comment on a thread against voting or political libertarianism or generally expressing some kind of left-libertarian viewpoint, I notice that often you immediately make a reply that doesn’t really address anything I said and you make snide remarks that tend to personalize the matter, particularly the constant insinuation that me and others who tend to take a similar position to me are “do nothing” kids just pointlessly philosophizing or intellectually masturbating in the sky.
You mean like when you accused me of voting?
The miscommunication is that one of us has what seems to be a very narrow frame of reference. You may be the scholarly master on libertarian and anarchist philosophy, but I really didn’t come here to engage in endless philosophical debates. As David_Z says on his “About” page, I get it. I should be free, I’m not free, I need to get free. Move on to lecturing the next guy, I get it already. Frankly, the stuff you guys talk about is boring for the lay person. I realize it must be really exciting for y’all, but there is a reason that people are attracted to Ron Paul, and much of it is a sense of inclusiveness and a message that is not made overly complicated.
Personally, I find the obsession with perfectionism typical of people who have never had to deliver on a schedule, to meet a deadline. It’s fine and dandy to know the ins and outs of every philosophical argument related to liberty. But if we’re never free, it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.
One day, when I have rescued myself and as many others as possible from tyranny, I will sit down in my library with a bottle of fine wine, and read all of the books you sermonize to me from.
Until then, I’m going to do what I know. Elbow grease, intestinal fortitude and capital injection.
Jean-Paul, how some more intellecutal inclined people imagine the democratic world is one where macrobiotic restaurants would replace fast-food ones, where dance schools would teach Ballet instead of Salsa and however they would like things to be… So what I was alluding to with the “look at how people vote with their money” was that whatever you think is wrong with society may very well be the only options you’d end up with in such an unrestricted democracy. Surely all resources shall be spent to the will of the people. As I see it, entire neighbors would be displaced because the rest of the city wants a new shopping center built. You think modern music is bad? Well, you better say bye-bye to the artists you like, because the majority has better plans for them in those new boy’s bands the bureaucrats are assemblying.
I haven’t read The Myth of the Rational Voter yet, but I have been told it makes a good case compiling all the work on government failures. To give you one problem, voters don’t feel the cost of the promises of politiceans as they do when they have to buy the stuff from someone actually delivering it. Plus, since the costs are socialized and they have only one vote, they don’t do nearly as much research into politiceans as they do to even buy a MP3 player. A lot of western government have been accumulating massive debts as a result. They have a lot of unfunded programs like social security, whose moneys have been diverted to the general revenue, and are already becoming a problem in some countries (in Portugal retirment age to get the full promised social security is now at 70 years old). And wealth production and distribution is at most stagnate.
Anyway, I warn you not to lose your time with us. 
We are not only a lost cause, but you’ll also not get any value by debating with us because we are SO not representative of the general population. You’d find more supporters of monarchy here than of democracy. Seriously. As you can see, a lot of folks here don’t even appreaciate those working to reduce the size of government, so you won’t get very amicable replies when you talk of increasing government power and of international government. This is the economic school of such prestitious economists as Ludwig von Mises and Frederich Hayek who defeated socialism in the intellectual arena. There has been since a tradition of works speculating what kind of social organizations and order would come to be under anarchy, actually advocating it as a superior system.
Maybe you’d get more cooperative responses, even if not without much enthusiasm, if you asked for more economic oriented stuff like the least regressive taxation, taxation strategies to help hide the size of such bloated government, whether socialism or corporatism (government direct or indirect control over production) is more efficient, etc.
With regard to me being passionate, I think it may be the fact I’m not an English native speaker. I guess I don’t put many smiles in my posts, but you can be sure I reply in good mood, or I wouldn’t reply. You’ll find I am much more conservative and reachable than most folks here. I certainely have had the many occasional thoughts on how the state structure could be improved since I was a boy, and I still like to think on state reforms, though my favorites are reforms to make more transparent the costs of government.
Nope, wasn’t me.
Nor did I suggest that voting is the only alternative to doing nothing. There are plenty of things you could be doing like trying to bust the state monopolies through competition (why the competitors didn’t think about that is beyond me) but in the context of voting your inaction is an action since the vote has a direct result on the conditions under which you live.
This is why it’s called representative government, supposedly you get to sent a ‘representative’ to ‘govern’ in your name if you are lucky enough to find a candidate that not only agrees with your views 100% but is also able to get the majority vote behind them.
In practical reality this doesn’t happen so the best you can hope for is someone who won’t grow the state and if it’s a real good year they will actually shrink it.
Or you can sit back and try to convince the people that agorism is the way while also getting them not to vote thereby virtually guaranteeing that the statist big central government gets into power and works in exact opposition to your agorist goals.
Yeah, you say potato, I say blatant fallacious strawmen especially since your inaction doesn’t directly contribute to the condition of the other people in your 'reductio ad absurdums’.
Like I said, your whole argument is based on the premise that ‘representative democracy is highly indirect’ which can be disproved by simply pointing out the initiative process whereby the vote becomes law.
How, prey tell, is not voting against an initiative that will directly tax you to build a new football stadium not implicit approval?
Dear Stranger,
Could you please explain further why you believe that minorities will be the ultimate default of an improved democracy? Are you for or against this scenario and why?
Based on my theory, an improved democracy would simply strengthen the four basic democratic parameters through the mitigation of the seven endemic problems. I don’t think such will lead to a solely minority dominated democracy due to the strengthening of collaboration between individuals and groups in civil society on hot topics. But then again, minorities need to be respected so as to keep the majority in check. Where to find the middle ground I wonder…
I had a paper published last year at the Tomorrow People’s Conference for Peace and Conflict Resolution in Bosnia, Sarajevo, Dec. 7-9, 2007, about the benefits of mitigating the endemic problems. It was a survey styled paper and essentially argued that an increase in accountability in government would lead to greater trust from people and continue forming the positive feedback loop. I truly acknowledge here as I do in my thesis that there exists no one salve for government but rather a continuous process of dialogue, thought, etc., through the generations. Who knows what will be attained in the future, but I think if it is based at least on some of the things I’m working on we should be able to enjoy a government that strives to further the human condition based on the desires of its people and perhaps a reinvigoration of the public sphere in politics. Big dreams really, who knows if even the most practical (once more in my opinion) of ideas will make a change in a sea of adversity.
Thanks Stranger,
– Jean-Paul
Dear Wombatron,
It seems that the form of political theory you are conveying here (at least in my view) is that of anarchism. It also mirrors the social contract scenarios some of the great thinkers enjoyed writing about. What I am desirous to know is how you propose people will manage their own affairs in a sustainable way? Personally, I think any such scenario would default into the re-emergence of the state. I get this argument from the archeo-anthropoligical school of thought. Many archeo-anthropologists study the development of early human settlements and compare them with many different “nomadic” or “traditional” societies which currently exist (Papua New Guinea, Brazil, Ituri Forest in the Congo, etc.). The consensus most often reached is that as human populations increase the need for regulation between non-raleted groups to stem violence is needed. People confer (as usually an equal communication is undertaken, sometimes with a “big-man” or “big-woman” as the mediator) to decide on how to make these decisions. Often, not invariably though, the result is an early bureaucracy which stems into a growing power hierarchy. This was the case in many island nations (like Hawaii, Samoa, etc.) but not in PNG tribes (the argument there is that resources too scarce and homicide too common for populations to explode, thus a status quo was reached lasting over a thousand years apparently). Not that I think negatively of people, but if the state was removed from any modern social equation (even with all the intelligent people we have today) there would be utter chaos. I think only until some other plausible form of government can make a practical and better deal over democracy will we see some shift in policy.
What are your thoughts?
Wombatron, thanks for your time.
– Jean-Paul
If voting was a real threat to the state it would be outlawed ASAP. However, politicians want people to vote and ‘participate’ - that must mean something…?
Dear MacFall,
The topic you discuss is a growing theme in this forum thread. What methods would you devise to create (my term for this is percentage based compromise) a market styled form of democratic voting? The challanges here are totally conflicting ideologies. Would you be able to tolerate Sharia law no matter how much some of your friends think it’s a good legal system? I don’t know why I default to this example all the time…maybe it’s just when I was in Canada there was a proposal to have Sharia law and it raised quite a few hairs and arguments similar to the ones met here in Mises.
MacFall, thanks for your thoughts.
– Jean-Paul
Dear Brain Police, thanks for your reply.
It is interesting to read your thoughts concerning political democracy. I think that many of your points are valid, however, in almost everything you described a counterpoint exists or is in the process of building up. Just to throw some examples out there (and these are not here to refute any of your opinions as I think they are justly made but rather the examples are for some food for thought) there is a growing decline in “party politics” with the rise of independent candiditates, campaigning methods are slowly being revised to allow greater inclusion of other “non-sponsored” candidates of major executive positions, methods for appeal, redress, and re-legislation are growing (escpecially with a strengthened judiciary and greater communication between citizen and state), etc. How do these growing directions sit with you? Do you think they are not enough or are they valid attempts which should be continued?
My theory is based on a massive history of famous thinkers, modern researchers writing about older times, and modern research writing about the present. It is also based on an in-depth empirical study. Thus it is founded on (borowing your term) the naive belief of improving democracy and in that sense is naive. I’d like to issue a friendly challenge however. My work itself is a realistic and practical approach to improving democratic processes in every state of the world at any level desired. It is an effort to make things better. I’d like to read something similar from any other school of thought (including free-market anarchists) and for everyone to think of how realistic or practical your idea(s) may be. I was impressed with Andrew’s developing theory, are there any others? Let’s start diverging from the often seen complaints, disdain, apathy, rage, dissilusionment, etc., so often seen in threads like these and start talking about practical ideas. If you believe such a thing is naive, then I am naive and will continue to be. My passion is to help as many people as possible and the natural environment in whatever time I have on this earth, who else shares this ambition? I encourage you all to continue talking to me and each about your ideas so we can learn from each other and develop them. Pursue them at all costs with higher education if you aren’t doing so already.
And with that rant done (haha) I would like to thank you BrainPolice for taking the time to write a response to me.
– Jean-Paul
I would point that driving participation & voting drives more legitmacy, no matter what sides or collectives oneself may align with politically, towards Statism.
To a certain extent, not participating in voting helps, but it is not the only thing required in order to make a difference towards disassembling Statism. Enacting out Agorism, in tandem of developing or discussing theory, or instead of only talking, would obviously be required, assuming one thinks Agorism is a valid strategy.
I would say on a personal level, from experience, me ignoring* the bland day-to-day arguments between Red Team & Blue Team gives me more attention & time to focus on reading up on non-Statist propoganda, and allows me to develop a more solid & flexible knowledge base that isn’t nearly as influenced by the State as those who keep advocating Obama’s “character”.
(*It’s important to step in whenever a conversation seems ripe to get in alternative points though, but I’ve observed that beyond a 1on1 conversation, it isn’t very productive countering Statist logic; even if that isn’t the case all the time, it’s perpetually frustrating.)
It’s different for everyone, however: some may be very established within the pink market, so it would be harder for those who have “legitmate” buisnesses to declare libertarianism /anarchism / whatever, and start radical action without massive losses to one’s ability to provide some type of sustainable living standard.
For those, simply not-voting, while doing nothing to violate the physical manifestation of the State’s infrastructure, may be all they can do at first, while they eventually make the transition towards aligning their life more in towards their (hypothetically) newly discovered ethics concerning liberty & Statism.
For other’s who are younger, and who essentially have their lives in front of them, the capacity towards more radical direct action is potentially greater (“less to lose”, I suppose), and it’s easy to see somewhat of a potential generational gap when comparing older & younger libertarians / anarchists on stealth vs. opaque activity.
However, even to the younger can this also seem daunting if they do not think becoming a radical overnight, going off-grid, not using fiat money (or cash only), trading only with alternative currency or economies, possibly moving to an area that is more compatible with such an anti-statist lifestyle, and evading taxes are possible at the moment.
They may think that while they do not agree with the State, at least getting somewhat of a standing in the pink market, to help provide for themselves some type of standard of living while they make the transition & increase their knowledge on the associated philiosphy, economics, etc., may be the better idea.
(ending tangent above…)
People also advocate other people to vote & participate, which when considering the reason of reinforcing legitmacy amid the general people themselves as politicans possible prime motive, it’s easy to see why many will be absolutley against voting & possibly view it as a feedback loop (elections) for pro-Statism, even if everyone doesn’t want’s the same ‘flavor’ of the State.
Hi Fred,
Thanks for your explanation. It’s very interesting to read further into these viewpoints. I understand what you mean by moral double standards and will look into the links you sent me when I get to my personal pc as I can’t have audio going at my office (share it with other phds). I suppose I may have misrepresented Nietzsche in my ultra condensed version. He doesn’t deny truths but rather uses his arguments to really uphold the “scientific” view of truth and challenges those “truths” from belief based reasonings.
May I ask what syle of democracy you are referring to? Many countries around the world (like Switzerland for example) have a great deal of experience including minorities by way of decentralized voting systems in the cantons. The roots of the American government are also founded upon the principle of protecting the minority from the will of the majority and such is the case in almost all “democratic” governments in the world. Do you think that these efforts are not visible or not practiced? Or are simply not enough to really matter against the majority? What about the ability for minorities to have laws reviewed through lobbying or the judiciary or ombudsman? I ask just to know more about your perspective, it’s very interesting!
I find your points on the double standard quite good. They resonate back to the critiques of the social contract in that we never exactly got to make one. It also speaks to a theme in my research that perhaps written constitutions nowadays aren’t really that relevant anymore. After WWII and the massive diaspora of various ethnic groups to many different countries in the world have created a more mixed society that may not be represented well enough by the standard constitution. Do you think that constitutions should be re-written periodically (say something arbitrary like 50 years or so) or wholly revised through a long-term referendum aimed at including as many citizens as possible?
Thanks!
A very interesting addition to this: In Australia, it is actually a legal obligation to vote. The penalty is a monetary fine, but I heard that you can get out of it if you have a good enough excuse and that the government isn’t too sharp about it.
What do you think the USA would be like if it was legally mandatory to vote? What alternatives do you propose to the vote?
Historically, espcecially in the Italian City State Republics it was often very common to choose people via lot (lottery) to run areas of the state. The lottery was composed of volunteers and I think in Florence or Venice those applying had to have certain qualifications. So it sortof diluted the meritocracy and factionalism. It was an alternative to voting (I think finally done away with during the Federalist period in the US Constitutional talks). What else is out there?
It’s interesting to read your opinion concerning the inneftive nature of voting. There are difficulties in representative styled democracies given that representatives often do not represent the will of their voters adequately and may shirk their duties. Punishments often range from not being re-elected to incarceration. But I think that perhaps you are dismissing the qualities of voting too rapidly. What other methods do people have to choose how to orgnize their society? Voting is an area in need of improvement, but it may trump other methods due to its practicality.
Can you further explain the other alternatives to not voting? I’m interested to learn more about this area of thought, thanks!
Dear Blacksheep,
Your reply was very informative, thanks! I don’t really ascribe myself to anyone form or school of thought but generally like to see the benefits and pitfalls of all schools. I enjoy synthesizing areas together in attempts to bridge the ideological gaps. This often relates to a few good practical ideas of what can be done to open democracy up to people and their wills. I’m not for an increased size of government or for an international “world” government. Rather, I enjoy figuring ways to streamline governments and I suppose my ideological stance on that would be to increase the basic parameters of democracy which are: 1) discerning rulers, 2) communication, 3) the rule of law, 4) equality/justice/pluralism. I also really think that by advocating accountability, transparency, anti-corruption, a call for long-term planning, rethinking the role of the constitution, rethinking campaigning methods, and reform in representation in governments would greatly help all of us with our ideas about government. Who knows, maybe this opening up of government through democratic channels will result in a strengthening of market-based capitalism.
I have read Hayek’s work and find it very interesting indeed. To be honest, I do have an attachment to socialism for some reason…I can’t really explain why other than the feeling inside of me that it is my responsibility to do what I can to help others less fortunate than me in a non-condescending manner. I don’t know, maybe that is just what makes me happy in life.
Haha, I don’t think I’m losing my time with you guys! It’s actually really interesting to read the posts here as I am passionate about the implications capitalism and the free-market economy have for democracy. In my thesis I incorporate some very minor themes. I actually argued that Kropotkin and the original school of Anarchism led to a strengthening of decrentralization and federalism. I like to think that if you look hard enough you can find a gem in anything!
What is your native language Blacksheep? Maybe I have been to your country!
I share your ideas in that the costs of government should be completely transparent. In fact, I argue such in my thesis as well (it falls under the endemic problem of transparency). What do you think of the building attack on neoliberalism? I think that the free-market, like government, needs to be completely accountable to people (my theory is also in the process of diverging into the business world, so we will see what results form there as many businesses share government styled structures) and as such fall under the category of legislative constraints which is often what neoliberalists wail about, haha. I also read in King & Kendall that for business to strive there must be an already established set of legislation and that neoliberalism in fact strengthen’s government rather than weakening it.
Can you offer more light into neoconservatism? I know the long argued differences between them ideologically, but economically they are looking to me more and more the same.
I really enjoy this forum thing. I’ve never participated in one and am excited to be part of this arena. Thanks for the time you put in your responses Blacksheep, I very much appreciate it.
Hi Brainpolice and Anonymous Coward, just a note I thought would be an addition to your vibrant dialogue: in Australia, as free-market response to the horribly slow internet (there’s even a download limit here…) a new company popped up called IInet I think. They offer the same services in most part that the major corporations do but obviously to a better extent in some ways. The weird thing is that I think they were supported by government due to the popular call for action concerning the internet situation by the people of Australia.
What are your thoughts on this? It seems to be government meddling in the marketplace but on behalf of the people (and if you talk to most Australians that own computers, slow internet would be very high on their list of things to improve, haha. Strange how technology can be a uniting factor in politics eh?), so what are the implications here? I think the biggest competitor affected by this action is Telstra.
Hi Nitroadict,
Pardon my ignorance, could you please explain what the “pink market” is? I’ve never run into the term before and am interested to know more.
Thanks!