Again, Inquisitor, that is not his point,
Why would he say this if his point was merely that the load on the taxpayer increases? Why would he think that after admitting that the welfare state would rapidly collapse on its own with open borders?
Please, look at this from an unbiased perspective. Your dear Hoppe is or does possess significant racist tendencies that can not be ignored.
I suppose this represents a difference in preference for long-term vs. short-term gains. I view the Ron Paul route as, at best, leading to short-term gains. By voting for Ron Paul, perhaps you can gain a tiny increment more of liberty in the present. But in the long-term, I don’t think it will do anything to ultimately slow down the growth of the state, let alone reduce it. I would rather be less free now and work towards a critical mass in order to out-compete the state then reinforce the system in order to increase my liberty by a percentage point or two in the present. I’d rather be patient then persue politics in vein. Apply “what is seen and what is not seen” to the political process itself, and you’ll catch my drift.
My understanding of agorism tells me that the market process itself is an indispensible tool towards making the state unecessary and pointless. I think of it in terms of out-competing the state, and while agorism concentrates on black markets, the point is to make these black markets eventually free markets, to make them essentially out-compete the state. If the state is a monopoly, then introduce competition. A state monopoly is not broken up by creating separate branches and sub-states within it, since they are still within it. A monopoly is broken up by external competition.
In terms of education, I think the Ron Paul campaign presents an illusion of liberation and ends up giving people more faith in the idea that we can make the government work, “by the people for the people” (that “if only the right person were in power” everything would be swell), while also blurring the distinction between libertarianism and paleoconservatism due to his positions on several issues and some of the people tagging along his campaign. So while Ron Paul is spreading the message of libertarianism to some extent, he is also simultaneously spreading the message of social democracy and nationalism - and associating libertarianism with them.
This can also be thought of in terms of resource allocation. In allocating resources towards the Ron Paul campaign, you are implictly reinforcing the institutional framework of social democracy, wether you intend to be doing so or not. Resources that could have otherwise been used in the economy itself, black or not, are redirected towards political ends. And while I won’t argue against the Spooner style voting as self-defense arguement, I will gladly argue that voting is not an efficient means of self-defense, that it has never worked and will never work as a reliable means for reducing political power in the long run. I will also argue that voting effects 3rd parties of people, so even if you attempt to vote in self-defense, you are still implictly forcing your will on others.
When the smoke clears after this election, the libertarian movement will be left with less resources, a lost election and in a state of frustration. Just like Goldwater and just like Reagan, even if he did get elected (of course, I don’t mean to imply that Reagan was a libertarian, since he was arguably the president who really brought neoconservates into the government big time, and expanded the state while touting libertarianish rhetoric). And even if by some miracle he did get elected, it is doubtful he would be able to do much in the face of a hostile congress. He would certainly be forced to compromise.
So, let me get this straight. You’re a libertarian. You believe the market process is the most efficient process for allocating resources to meet ends. Yet, it’s not the most efficient process when it comes to meeting the ends you want? [^o)] Explain.
So did Barry Goldwater supporters. Guess what. It doesn’t, it won’t, it never has, and in the long run you’ll end up worse off than you were before. You’re destroying this movement! Don’t you see! Can’t you see what’s so plain and clear in front of you?!? Your ridiculouc cult of personality reflects on me as a libertarian! You’re extinguishing the flames that burn within Anarchist spirit and the potential Anarchists have! You’re malinvesting, misinterpreting, and sh-i-tting on any chance we might have had to overthrow the state.
If you don’t think so, then please watch this with an open mind.
Oh, you naive, house slave! You still don’t get it, do you? You’re a weak minded fool if you think that you’re going to be any freer by waiting another several months and voting for Ron Paul. You’re a worthless, weak-hearted soothsayer if this is what you seriously believe. Even if it could bring any change - which it wouldn’t - your change of substance is not going to come unless you begin living the life, that means not paying taxes, that means not obeying the government, that means throwing the chains from your back like a man as opposed to crying in the corner, begging with no pride and no dignity for just a little bit of freedom from the state that you’ll NEVER-EVER GET!
You’re what’s causing the increases in civilization’s degredation! You’re what’s lullabying people into this mistaken myth that the system is only being misused and can be reformed, you’re a greedy, self-righteous, power-hungry slave trying to convince everyone of your own da/mned virtue and justice if only you were in office.
“Don’t worry! I’ll lead you to freedom! Just put ME in the white house. Put me at the head of the most powerful military in the world! I’ll lead us all to the land of milk and honey!”
Vaffanculu! [8o|]
And that’s why you’ll lose, prideless and nameless. Your life will be extinguished with the life of your children, and you will be nameless for eternity as though you never existed. Your life is a pitiful one, pathetic and unworthy of living. I am ashamed of you. I am disgusted by you. I am sorry for you.
Niccolo, I know what his point is - his position is that open borders coupled with a welfare state lead to a heavier tax burden, more socialism and forced integration, meaning those who’d prefer disassociation have very little choice in the matter (whereas in a private property regime the situation would be the reverse.) One could even argue that this is a classical case of the State thriving on the discontent it sows - it exploits the fact that certain individuals do not desire more immigration and further that assimiliation does not take place smoothly, paints this as ‘discrimination’ and presto, it has a new ‘issue’ to ‘solve’!
Although you’re right on one thing - if immigration causes individuals to grow more dissatisfied with the State and hastens the welfare state’s implosion, it should be welcomed. Anyway, I am done for now on the matter, as this is detracting from the OP; if a new separate thread comes up on it I’ll debate it further.
Sigh… I can’t do this anymore. If you want to accept Hoppe’s Anarcho-Nationalism as pure Anarchism and a real solid theory with logical tendencies as opposed to an indication of his xenephobic racism - whether through his unconscious conscience or not - then fine, but I’m going to call him on it every chance I get.
I definitely see your point, but I guess I don’t understand why both can’t work. I mean, if a Ron Paul presidency led us closer to “libertarian” ideals- less laws, more freedom, less taxes- how couldn’t that not work to the benefits of the agorists? Heck, maybe a Ron Paul presidency would lead to seccesion, maybe a complete breakdown of the U.S. as we know it. He’s certainly ok with secession, or at least, he wouldn’t use force like Lincoln to stop it. I guess I just don’t understand why more freedom couldn’t help. Short term benefits can definitely lead to long term benefits-the two aren’t exclusive. Say we get a Guliani, and more of a police state, more restriction, less personal privacy. It obviously becomes even more difficult, and more dangerous, for an underground economy to work and function. That is to say, an underground economy works better now, where we have some remenents of rights, then it would under a Soviet Russia, where, even if it did work, the consequences of getting caught (even if its not something technically illegal like a grey market) could be your life, and possibly your families life.
The same can be said about non-voting as well. Like I said, you may be “ungovernable”, but you may make things worse for everyone else in the short AND long run. I mean, you can’t simply sit back, as things go to hell in a hand basket (or at least get worse), stick your nose in the air and say “I didn’t vote, and therefore I have no responsibility in this.” It comes back to my view that the dichotomy between now and long term are not mutually exlusive. If you have the chance to improve things NOW, then there is no excuse for not doing it. I mean, you don’t have to act on it, but its irresponsible in my opinion.
In the end I guess it comes down to this: can long term effects come from short term successes? I believe they can. You, apparently, don’t think so.
Just as a side note, I do sympathize with the frustration many libertarians have with the Ron Paul movement. He’s not the savior, he’s not the end all be all of our time here on earth. Theres a very good possibility he won’t be elected, and if he was, perhaps he wouldn’t be able to do much, as you say. Still, I do believe good can come from it, both now and in the future.
Perfect example of the vacuous responses common on these boards. Here is a perfect opportunity to respond in a constructive way to someone who appears to be relatively open to new information and instead of answering with sound reasoning as to why his thinking might be off base, you fire back with plenty vitriol and no substance. No doubt you have made a new friend. You sure are an ace when it comes to the best strategy for spreading your philosophy, so you must be equally competent in all things related to strategy in general.By the way, regarding your blog on Block and the above response; when one is capable, by way of overwhelming intellectual power, of figuratively dragging another into the street and disabusing them of erroneous ideas, they typically simply do it and rarely feel the need to announce it. As they do it all will see it after all. If they are not capable of such feats, they may shout it from the hilltops but no amount of vituperation will change the fact that they have not accomplished their goal and this too will be plain for all to see.
Yes, I believe it is the most efficient process for allocating resources, but its not God, my friend. I can’t simply wish for something, and have the market deliver it. It can’t do anything and everything. Bringing down the ENTIRE political and corporate structure is an entirely different thing then delivering us bread to eat, and cars to drive. But, hey, like I said, I wish you the best of luck mate [:)]
Not necesarrily. Lets say Ron Paul got elected. Over the time of his presidency, lets say he removed the IRS and income tax, got rid of a lot of the welfare state, ended the war on drugs, ended our constant warring overseas, saving perhaps hundreds of thousands of foreign and American lives, and overall decreased the power of the federal government. How could we be worse off, even long term? Wouldn’t that give you and the agorists even more of an oppertunity to fight the state? Maybe secession would even happen. Paul certainly wouldn’t stop it. A weaker state is easier to fight then a stronger one, right? And then, maybe that wouldn’t happen. But I think theres a better chance of it happening than the underground economy collapsing the entire political establishment, rather tomorrow, or a hundred years down the road. But like I said, keep at it my friend. I’m for you 100%[<:o)]
You have entirely missed my argument (or ignored it). See what I said above, but I really don’t think you’ve established that change can’t come from the political process. True, not the radical change your looking for. I don’t believe it can either. But I don’t think there is any reason to think Paul (or someone like him) couldn’t change things some, or even quite a bit. And why a weaker state wouldn’t be easier to fight then a strong state. I believe secession is probably the best way to establish freedom, and I think it would be a heckuva lot easier under Paul. Oh, and do you pay your taxes? Answer honestly, because I would really like to know. And if you don’t, explain how you are not in prison please. And if you do pay your taxes, when exactly do you plan on stopping?
You ARE radical, aren’t you? Heh. But thats ok. I do wish you the best of luck, Niccolo!
So then it’s NOT the most efficient system for allocation resources for the end objective one wishes to attain?
And if I had three wheels I’d be a tricycle and you could ride me down the hill to mama bear’s house. Doesn’t mean it’s possible.
Did you watch the video? That’s why it wouldn’t work. For the next five centuries you’d have images of beaten single-mothers and welfare children.
Then it’s worthless and unsustainable.
I haven’t established change can’t come from political process?
Alright, here’s an example that you should try, join a black pride group, if you’re black, if you’re something else then join something else, but join a black pride group and try to get elected on a platform of anti-black agendas. Turn the whole black pride group around from advocating black empowerment to another Ku Klux Klan.
Seems ridiculous doesn’t it? Why? It should be millions of times easier than joining the largest political power in the world and turning its agenda completely around against its own constituents.
The reason it doesn’t happen is because it contradicts HUMAN ACTION. Human’s act for benefits. Attempting to make human’s act contradicting those perceived benefits is an impossibility. The existence of any organization, better, of any individual is based on the advancement of that individual’s pleasure. What makes an individual tick is what makes him happy, what makes him stronger, what satisfies his will to power. Anything else is pissing in the breeze, only worse, you’re pissing on all of us too.
Do I need to put it in formal terms for you? Christ! I DO!
Axiom i: Humans act according to their desired ends.
Axiom ii: What is desirable is what progresses or directly causes the a man to prosper in some way.
Axiom iii: Humans will not contradict their desired ends unless there is some benefit to it.
Axiom iv: Given two innate enemies correlating completely different end goals, the substance prosperity of one will cause substance decay to the other for the long run objective.
X attempts to change organization like A into an organization like B.
If the state of B ⇒⇐ A
Then X can not successfully act to change organization A into an organization like B.
I honestly don’t. If you want a letter on my methods for avoiding taxes, then I’ll be happy to send you one, but I’m not going to reveal it over the internet. Suffice to say, the only tax I’ve ever paid are sales taxes, and I’ve done quite nicely at avoiding those as well.
If I was not already familiar with your level of intelligence, I would have been impressed by the word, “vituperation,” but now I just assume it was the word of the day.
I’ve seen Stefan Molyneux make this allegory. I have to say that it’s pretty strong. The state is much more powerful then your local black panther group or the ku klux clan. Yet one couldn’t even realistically manage to muster such a feat in a local, small organization. Turning the state, of all institutions, against its own interests seems rather ridiculous.
The allegory is useful and I agree with you, it makes a pretty strong argument for his position. However, it is not entirely accurate. The state is not much more powerful than your local Black Panther or kkk group. The state’s territory is much broader but its power in controlling the minds of people is not much greater. Practically every member of a hate group is very close to or already willing to kill or be killed for their cause. While this can certainly be said of many under the state’s control, the number of people in the general population willing to do the same is dramatically less, relatively speaking. You would be hard-pressed to show a high, much less nearly 100%, percentage of average Americans who you could approach and talk to with your most passionate and inspirational message and convince them to go take the life of a foreigner so that America can grow. This has, does, and will continue to happen amongst hate group members. The power these groups hold over their members is qualitatively different than that which the state holds over citizens. I agree the difference is not large in some respects, but it certainly is there.
I’m actually quite surprised how many people, in a nationalistic fervor, would be willing to murder for the state. Technically that is my ethical view of non-drafted soldiers: murderers for the state, rather then the notion that they sacrifice themselves for my sake. In either case, never underestimate the madness of mobs. And in the spirit of La Boetie, the state’s very existance would not be possible without the compliance of people who are willing to do the dirty work of the people at the top of the chain: policemen, soldiers, bereaucrats, and so on. These people’s very livelyhoods are dependant on the state. Granted, the group of people who actually constitute members of the state is a relatively tiny portion of the population. Yet this relatively small group of people manage to control everyone within a given territory. They have their own interests. How can one possibly join the institution of the state without, even without meaning to, being corrupted by it? How can we possibly get people within the state to stop persueing their interests?
I agree with most of what you are saying. I just don’t think it is justifiable to equate the mentality of the average individual within the state with that of the average hate group member’s. I don’t have numbers here so this is just my opinion, but I would bet there have been more individuals from within the state have adopt liberty as a goal, however misguided there strategies may be, than there have been hate group members who have begun to love everybody, percentage wise. If this is true, it demonstrates the qualitative difference in the mentality of the two groups. It is defenitely a good argument though because regardless of the difference I am suggesting, it illustrates the enormity of the task.
Mentality is not something you can really measure, however, the amount of vying groups for sole state power compared to vying groups for say, sole black pride group power aren’t even close.
It isn’t qualitative, it’s quantitative, and given the highest percents I’ve seen from a respectable “straw poll” 10% compared to 90% +/- isn’t going to cut through. Moreover, you have extra externalities at a national level, intrecacies and other indirect competitions that make it almost impossible for Ron Paul to do what you people want him to do. The biggest problem with libertarianism as a philosophy is the apparent unwillingness to deal with human psychology. Outside of Molyneux, I’ve yet to encounter one real libertarian dabbling in the psychological methods of the master-slave morality in the modern internet age. This is probably why there are so many misconceptions about plausible outcomes.
The one place where I’m not a radical is the fact that I believe stages must be incremental, as SEK3 established in the New Libertarian Manifesto: Stage 0, Stage 1, Stage 2, Stage 3, and finally the Libertarian society.
You may not be able to measure mentality, but you can certainly understand certain aspects of it. I agree with you (did I just say that?) that it is quantitative, but I think it is also qualitative for the following reason. A person who is willing to kill for religious reasons has a mentality that is qualitatively different than someone who is willing to kill because they are greedy. The first usually believes they are doing something good; the second usually has no such delusions but does it nonetheless. This is not just a quantitative difference; there is a different quality to the mind of each. But I agree that in the case we are talking about it is probably both qualitative and quantitative. Your comments regarding psychology are interesting; I will have to look more at Molyneux’s work. I am a practicing psychologist who was attracted to the Mises Institute because I felt a need for more liberty in my field and in the way I work with people. Most psychologists treat patients in a way that very much mirrors how the state treats its subjects, namely violently. This does no good for the patient and certainly does nothing to advance the field. I definitely think libertarianism could benefit from sound psychological principles as much as I think psychology could benefit from sound libertarian principles.
Are your a “Szaszian” on psychology by chance?
The state is an interesting topic, on one hand, yes the state exists for the purposes of greed. On the other hand, speaking from that master-slave hierarchy humans beings have with the state, the actual protection the state possesses is merely protection through the morality it waivers over people. How many times are you actually confronted violently by the state? How many times when you come to the Mises forum and say, the state is bad and needs to be significantly downsized or eliminated do you receive an officer on your door step the next morning? The reason this doesn’t happen is due to the fact that the state doesn’t need to do it; the state doesn’t need to lift one finger.
Your fellow slaves are much more in tune with protecting the state than the state itself is. Without addressing the psychology of that, you’re not going to get anywhere, and once you address that psychology, I highly doubt you’ll even need the “Ron Paul” messiah.
the idea that the black market was somehow constrained under communism is fanciful, at best. the “mafiya” that have now entered the hollywood-bad-guy-cliche didn’t just spring from glasnost. here’s just a brief primer:
yes