filc,
Freedom is not a “policy” but rather the absence of a policy.
Other than that, your analysis was correct.
Thats an interesting concept. I agree to
Well, I’m not trying to defend slavery, nor am I really trying to defend the status quo or the current system of government per se. What I’m saying is that perhaps a crash can be avoided if limited government ideas get used in policymaking. I don’t see any reason why an-cap ideas can’t be incorporated into the discussion as well, I just find it very hard to have a reasonable discussion with people after they’ve decided I’m an anarchist (which they usually think of as being the equivalent to satanist or someone who wants chaos, which isn’t true.) I’m not really saying history is going to defend me, I’m saying I’ll bet anyone on this forum that we’ll see people continue looking to government for solutions and people in government willing to try and please those people in return for votes. I know this is a tricky subject because anarchists are usually unwilling to compromise on key elements of their policy platform but I don’t think we’ll get it all at once. Limited government must come before no government, imo. I could be wrong though. And I’ve thoroughly enjoyed this conversation as well.
I personally see “freedom” as being as much a policy platform as socialism is. It’s just that the means and ends are totally different.
I dunno, in my mind, collapse of the US wouldn’t be worth having entitlement programs ending or any of the rest of it because political upheaval and revolution is almost always very violent and nasty. I’d rather see the changes be made now to avoid ever having to deal with that eventuality.
In a democratic system, everything is about elections. So yes, the practicality of a platform can be measured by how many votes it can get. Perhaps an-cap could win elections, but I doubt it. Doesn’t mean it’s not worth a try though. And no, I don’t want to try something unless it’s been successful or unless I believe it could be successful and I personally don’t think an-cap in its purest form would be successful. But I can’t really say for sure because I’ve never seen it tried.
I think that I can say I’m looking for practical ideas because that’s what I’m looking for. Something that can be sold to a majority of Americans and then implemented fairly quickly. Now, if that’s an-cap, it’s an-cap. But I think we need something as emotionally appealing as socialism, and an-cap just doesn’t have that “you’ll get everything for free” appeal. Neither does limited government though, so maybe either way, I’m screwed.
I think you’re right. Humans are rational and if someone is willing to offer them something for free, they’ll often take it and not ask where it came from. Which is unfortunate, because, as you point out, that’s the allure of socialism.
We have to be able to discuss and share ideas. Ultimately the fundamental difference between an anarchist libertarian and a minarchist libertarian is how high they set the compulsory monopoly threshold. Everything else lines up. we benefit each other by engaging each other peacefully and teaming up against status quo statists alike.
The reason why market anarchists get frustrated is for the same reason libertarian’s find conservatives as hypocrites. Ancaps for the same reasons will consider minarchist libertarian’s as being inconsistent with themselves.
I never accused you of defending slavery my friend. I was pointing out your points fallacy using an analogy.
Actually in a free market society, innovators and entrepreneurs make life better for everyone and all they have to do is keep working. If you think about it, the masses are free-riding on all the advances made in the free market.
The common farmer sure as hell isn’t responsible for all the tools/chemicals he uses today. This is better than providing things for free, since while the farmer has to pay for his equipment, he actually makes more money by doing this.
Its also been noted that propositions such as raising the minimum wage and other things that are supposed to help workers suppose that the common man will be able to buy more stuff with their new wealth, but if you don’t find a way to make society more productive, this will never happen and price levels will just rise. So socialism just says you have to redistribute stuff but doesn’t give any way for us to continue making more stuff. Everyone can be equally poor, or unequally rich. Take your pick.
flic and bloomj31,
I will save myself some breath/keyboard energy and copy+paste from a previous disagreement I had with someone about the use of the word “policy”
Source: http://n-k-1.blogspot.com/2009/09/anarchy-is-logically-consistent.html#c7025826868255932857
“Policy” is strictly a political concept. Freedom is not a political concept. It’s the state of nature. But, as a person who doesn’t fully detest the political system, I suppose I can understand your usage and your view that a politician calling for the removal of regulation from some aspect of social interaction has a “freedom policy.” But then I’d say he’s a deregulationist or a non-interventionist on that issue. I wouldn’t say he has a “freedom policy.”
I think to the extent you buy into the political nomenclature, you buy into the idea that it’s appropriate to have policies, including policies concerning freedom and in that sense the State is strengthened, not weakened. You commit the same offense in conceding that the Department of Defense is engaged in providing “national defense” or that airport TSA checkpoints are a “security” measure, or that govt welfarism could be construed as a “poverty reduction” mechanism (ignoring that in the zero-sum game of politics, someone was discreetly impoverished in order to satisfy the consumptive needs of someone else who is already in poverty).
After all, language is important ( http://thejungleiseverywhere.blogspot.com/2009/09/control-dialogue-control-minds.html )and if you control it you control minds ( http://thejungleiseverywhere.blogspot.com/2009/09/control-language-control-minds.html ).
What do you want?
Do you want freedom? Or something that will get votes?
If you want freedom, you need to expand your mind beyond winning votes, because you can’t really “vote for freedom” but rather the opposite. If you want something that gets votes, you may want to try socialism and you may not want to discuss that around here since that isn’t what these forums are about.
Not telling you to go away, just asking if you are even clear on what you want. You seem to want something impossible: something as principled and just as liberty, yet something as politically palatable as a “free lunch” at the voting booth. Ain’t gonna happen, NSTAAFL.
First, let me say that I agree with you. Secondly, let me ask you: have you ever talked to anyone who was a socialist? If so, what was that like?
I just don’t see “freedom policy” as an oxymoron and I don’t think politics and freedom are mutually exclusive. And no, I obviously don’t want socialism.
This is true in a way. Voting in freedom is somewhat oxymoronic is it not?
I never said we shouldn’t be able to talk, I like these discussions. I’m saying that people often stop listening once they’ve decided I’m an anarchist. And they’re right, the line between anarchist and minarchist is rather thin. I mean have you ever talked to anyone who was a rabid Keynesian socialist statist type?
Could be because your principles aren’t clear and you don’t understand the nature of the State. The State is a tool of violence. It produces nothing on its own that it hasn’t first taken from someone else by force. It does not create cooperation via convincing someone through superior reasoning. It creates cooperation through compulsion, ie, do as I say or you will be hurt/killed.
If you don’t see how politics and freedom are mutually exclusive, you haven’t paid any attention to the inexorable march of statism/interventionism/socialism against freedom as a result of the political system. Tell me, when was the last time the state was rolled back via popular vote or a charismatic politician with a winning freedom platform?
People don’t get into politics to spread freedom. They get into politics to spread the wealth. RP, as consistent as he is on freedom in many ways, is also inconsistent in many others (taking a salary paid for by taxes, advocating for border regulation and control, advocating for medical welfare for US troops, etc.), so please don’t cite him as a counter-example.
You are right now asking for the impossible. When you encounter a committed socialist who has no problem with using violence to achieve his ends, this does not mean you should give up on principles and start discussing concessionary violence/redistribution with him. Instead, you should just walk away. You can’t reason with a person who has announced they are commited in principle to violence.
Alright, well, I don’t take as hard a line about this stuff as you do. I have principles but I know that lots of people don’t. What do I do with those people? I try to convince them. I don’t walk away from a discussion just because they don’t agree with libertarian principles.
IF you’re right, and there is NO way to get a great deal of freedom under any form of political system, then I think socialism will win because socialism is so much easier to sell than freedom. Therefore, I hope you’re wrong.
About the inevitability of politics in any human society see Gene Callahan’s FEE lecture. Just listen to it.
To summarize calculatingsocialists point. Voting is the practice of enacting compulsion on to others. SO it is oxymoronic to violently compel others into freedom.
Damnit, I give up with this. I just typed out a response and the system ate it up and spit out an error message and when I back-clicked it was gone with no chance to resubmit.
Quick summary of my more elaborate point I just typed up: you can not move into discussions of other things (such as “sound policy”) with these people until you have first convinced them of libertarian principles. Do you agree or disagree?
Second point: I am right about politics, but don’t despair. The good thing is that socialism is not a functional method of production but rather a method of consumption. It can’t sustain itself because it doesn’t produce anything. It will in the end consume itself.
If I may clarify my own point, here is what I am saying:
Most votes are for interventionists to put them into power to intervene OR, if they’re popular referenda issues (such as a ballot measure in California), they are votes about implementing a policy or not implementing a policy, via a YES or NO vote. If you vote YES you are voting for compulsion. If you vote NO you’re not actually voting for anything but rather that things remain as they are. A “NO” will not result in any change/positive action, it will result in no action. (The exception to this rule is a referenda item that will result in the repeal of an existing aspect of intervention. But even then you’re simply returning to a freer, original state… you may vote FOR the positive change as far as removing regulation, but all that’s really happening is the officials in charge simply stop aggressing in this way whereas in the past they did aggress.)
Now, as a practical matter, you will likely never be given a vote on whether or not the political class will allow you your freedom. But even if you could partake in such a vote, you wouldn’t be “compelling” someone to be free. They’d just be free after the vote because the political class would stop using compulsion against them. You wouldn’t be doing anything to them yourself. You can’t do something to someone by not doing something to someone. THAT is oxymoronic.