George, if you can’t comprehend the NAP, feel free to ask questions about it.
are you telling me you dont think eichman was practical or realistic? he did get a lot done…
I think some of the problem is that the terminology isn’t very “beginner-friendly.” Maybe a glossary would help?
I think the problem here is mostly that people tend to get confused, and trip over the artifacts of an ideology. What I mean is, that f.ex. the OP talks about narrative, rhetoric and what makes a good political platform. All of this is utterly meaningless. What libertarians need to be doing is simple really:
Do not associate with people who advocate the use of force against innocent people.
Don’t be the “libertarian guy” with “funny ideas”. If people do not accept valid arguments and dismiss you, then you should dismiss them. If you talk about justice and whatnot, and act as if it was important, but then coward away in the face a little bit of social pressure, then why should anyone take you seriously? Molyneux talks about this a lot, and I think that he’s spot on.
Also, it is a simple fact that political liberalism (in the European meaning) is completely dead. There’s no way of resurrecting the movement. It’s futile. Don’t bother. The amounts of money, manpower and time necessery to battle vested political interests in DC/Brussels/where-ever are so gargantuan, that it’s a complete pipedream - it just won’t work. Anyone who has bothered to look into public choice, or read Mises and Hayek on government, would probably agree.
The only thing to do, is point out the mistakes of statism and ride it out. All of the western world will see a radical downsizing of state in the near future, alá New Zealand, or face a complete collapse. In the face of dimished state power, libertarianism might become a viable political option, but until then… it’s not.
Libertarians come off as arrogance when they suggest that tax’s are theft,because they make the issue sound so simple. In reality though the issue of taxation is much more complicated then that.
furthermore Libertarians always talk about abolishing something but the never mention such things as workplace issue being such an issue. For example if right wing Libertarians mentioned the Taft-Hartley act more often i would give them more respect.
Furthermore many Libertarians make a big deal about anti-trusts,but only a few people will ever be remotely effected by such legislation,and thus such an issue does not speak to the masses.
Yeah, just like abolitionists were arrogant for regarding the possession of slaves as illegitimate…
In reality, the issue of taxation is only complicated insofar as much as is the widespread ignorance of economics.
In this case, Austrian Economics and/or schools of thought that run counter to what is either taught or encouraged in the mainstream state society, despite said econ that is taught in the mainstream being thoroughly disproven time & time again by other schools of thought (i.e. The Austrian School).
In other news, politicians, state educators, & state intellectuals continue to lie & spread lies as truth…
There is something we can do. Engage in the production of wealth and do so demonstrating the principle of libertarianism.
My two cents:
If you don’t look sorta crazy and seem like the sorta person they tend to disagree with, then you get a little further. It also helps to know the philosophical roots of the other persons’ opinion better than they do. Another important point is life experience with what you are talking about that isn’t purely someone else’s work or academic (one of my economics teachers in high school actually made up stories about himself being a stock market tycoon, eventhough he wore the same pair of pants every single day).
The production of wealth is not possible without the security of wealth. Libertarians will always and ever be engaged in the production of security.
//Yeah, just like abolitionists were arrogant for regarding the possession of slaves as illegitimate…//
who would a slave owner take more seriously?
A) an abolitionist who is arrogant
B)an Abolitionist who is civil.
no before you scream “false Dilema” let me point out that this is indeed the issue you created,and thus it is the issue.
I wear the same pants all of the time. When did this become a fashion competition? What are you getting at?
Who cares about the feelings of a slave owner?
//Who cares about the feelings of a slave owner?//
do you really think a slave owner would be convinced to let is slaves go if you hurt is feelings and make that individual angry. It is hard to reason with those who are already annoyed with someone.
you need to be civil in your arguments if you are to persuade anyone,furthermore even if both disagree at least the individuals will still respect one another to consider each others thoughts.
A slave owner will never be convinced to let his slaves go. It’s simply against his interests.
<A slave owner will never be convinced to let his slaves go. It’s simply against his interests.>
A suicidal individual will never be convinced to live. it’s simply against his interests.
No it’s not, and how is this relevant?
Abolishionism does not work as an argument because the ‘free states’ existed at the time. There was a concrete non eutopian example, New York, that was once once a slave state but then abolished slavery and prospered(financing and shipping slave grown cotton). Blacks in NY did not run amok, race mixing was not common or a problem, blacks were able to manage their own affairs. There were also places like Egypt and India that were able to grow cotton without formal slavery, so abolishion would not mean reverting to animal skins.
Your world without taxation probably does not exist. I say probably because the Pakistani tribal areas seem to exist in what Americans would call lawlessness, yet it seems things are reasonably ok there, and they are able to hold NATO, Pakistan, and possibly the other Stan nations to a standstill militarily (the military is supposedly one reason for government.)
Once again if you want to eliminate all state force, explain how property disputes will be resolved without it. Person A robs me of $100, It is agreed, even by person A, that the $100 was stolen. Person A refuses to give it back. I am not powerful enough to get it back. What should I do under a liberterian anarcho capitalist regime.
Every single day?
If so, you’re not going to convince me you are a former stock market tycoon who magnanimously came down in the world to help the children. Though, I’m sure you could convince me of other more reasonable real world experience.
As far as I can tell Austrians are only good at pointing out flaws that Keynesians are already aware of and trying to improve upon.
You offer no models empirical based predictions that come as close as Keynesian models.
Want to prove me wrong? After they pass the stimulus bill, make a widley accepted austrian predicition about what GDP or unemployment rates will look like a year from. I guess if enough austrians throw out different numbers, 1 will be correct. But monkeys can pick superbowl winners with the same methodology.
And even if Keynesians and Austrians got in a room and debated, your main rebuttal would be a priori and we don’t use math, cause its based on false assumptions, and something tantamount to an Austrian version of Palastinians saying “You are all zionist propagandists, without the capacity for non-zionist thought” regardless of what empirical evidence demonstrates.
Ixtellor
P.S. Clearly my most aggresive post.