"Negative rights restrict liberty"

Economics Political Theory
61

@ Clayton

secession is a form of retreat, capitulation and ultimate surrender to statist power structures in Washington. They become more concentrated and free from libertarian challenges. While libertarians balkanize forces into tiny, disparate and isolated enclaves that can easily be overtaken in detail.

Run, hide and stick head in sand strategy.

If statism is a failed system, why do you feel the need to run from it instead of engaging it ?

Also, why should fellow libertarians trust anarchist secessionists who abandoned the whole for protections within a small state enclave ?

Essentially you can’t be trusted to take up the fight for freedom. Unless you call surrendering the rest of the nation to the statists in Washington as a ‘victory’.

62

The harmful repercussions of aggression render it an unsuitable tool for the purposes of liberty. If you consider this axiomatic, then all sorts of solutions emerge, and phenomena become more clear.

No one is surrendering anything. If there is one lesson that can be learned from history, it is that an idea cannot be killed by killing men, but only by a superior idea. Our ideology is superior because it is correct, and therefore reasoned discourse is our weapon of choice.

63

@Malachi

Human beings are motivated and incentivised by self-interest. There are precious few actions taken by humans that are motivated by a ‘superior idea’.

Your view purports that statists will surrender power and privledge to you simply because you claim that your ideology is superior (something that has not happened to anarchists in 40,000 years of recorded history).

That ain’t going to happen dude. Nobody is going to support (and nobody has supported) an ideology that fundamentally rejects a very effective means to gain and hold power just because a few anarchists say it is a good idea.

Heck, you couldn’t even convince von Mises, Hayek, ALL of our founding fathers who all rejected anarchism and these dudes weren’t stupid. So if you can’t convince them, how are you going to convince some self-interested politicians and their cronies in the private and public sector.

You simply don’t understand human nature.

Statists already know that capitalism is a superior system, yet they reject it anyway for self gain. They are not stupid or acting randomly. These are serious intelligent societal actors whose actions directly refute your view that ‘reasoned discourse’ has sway over self-interest or relative power.

Another fact that throws a wrench into your view is that power is relative. Unlike the market, It is a zero sum game whose goals are not always economic.

The crux of the issue is that anarchists have a coercion calculation problem among other problems associated with their faith.

Like the Marxists who have an economic calculation problem in a quest for economic equality. Anarchists have a coercion calculation problem in a quest for peace.

Both of these ideologies are failures because they seek to subordinate human nature and self-interest to heady social goals, peaceful coexistance and equality.

You can’t create a society like Marxism that removes risk, bankruptcy, inequality, and failure, likewise you can’t create a society that removes coercive means to obtain ends because coercion is a fundamental (and many times beneficial) means that self-interested actors use when peaceful means are not effective.

64

Just because you say that doesn’t mean it’s true. You see anarcho-capitalists referring to “non-aggression” and consider it equivalent to terms such as “non-violence” and “pacifism”. When it’s pointed out to you time after time that anarcho-capitalists consider “non-aggression” to be different from “non-violence” and “pacifism”, you continue to conflate it with such terms. At that point, it becomes obvious that either you’re massively ignorant or you’re making the conflation deliberately (i.e. you’re trolling). My money’s on the latter.

65

Human beings are motivated and incentivised by self-interest. There are precious few actions taken by humans that are motivated by a ‘superior idea’.>>>>

“self-interest” and the long term effectiveness of the variety of means used to pursue it are functions of worldview or ideology. Every ideology necessarily rests on certain assumptions that are derived from experience. Ideas that destroy those assumptions have the potential to radically change behavior, because behavior is derived from ideas of profit that are spin through ideological filters. How else could humans possibly invade other countries and engage in mass murder in the name of freedom?

Your view purports that statists will surrender power and privledge to you simply because you claim that your ideology is superior (something that has not happened to anarchists in 40,000 years of recorded history). >>>>

I believe that human beings will continue to act to bring about what they believe to be profitable behavior, and their inter-subjective comprehension of profit will continue to change and evolve as it has for all of human history. I intend to be a part of that process with peaceful, reasoned discourse, utilizing a minimum of violence and threats.

Also consider that most of the power you refer to is a function of authority over other people. I target these people with my discourse.

That ain’t going to happen dude. Nobody is going to support (and nobody has supported) an ideology that fundamentally rejects a very effective means to gain and hold power just because a few anarchists say it is a good idea.>>>>

I am wondering if this is a prelude to your coming over to my house, kicking in my door, and drafting me into your army of freedom? Just kidding dude, I dont think you would do that. My point is that obviously my methods are useful to your purposes, elsewise you wouldnt be using them. Can you name an instance when aggressive violence brought about greater peace and harmony in the long term?

Statists already know that capitalism is a superior system, yet they reject it anyway for self gain. They are not stupid or acting randomly. These are serious intelligent societal actors whose actions directly refute your view that ‘reasoned discourse’ has sway over self-interest or relative power.>>>>

They do not gain in the long term when taken as a whole. Their moral rot and decadence do more to destroy their own happiness and human life experience than a thousand lifetimes of blue collar labor (unpoisoned by sick ideas of entitlement) could do.

Furthermore, your argument neglects the enablers who are the real targets of my reasoned discourse. The individuals who embrace a flawed sense of values and sacrifice that allow the few powerful statists to prosper.

In a sense, there are groups along a continuum, united by ideology and apparent self-interest. In the long term, very few actually profit. Many seem to profit because they engage in conspicuous consumption, but this cannot be seen as true profit.

“Better is a dry morsel, and quietness therewith, Than a house full of feasting with strife.” Proverbs 17:1

Another fact that throws a wrench into your view is that power is relative. Unlike the market, It is a zero sum game whose goals are not always economic.>>>>

I would like to hear more about this, in my experience destructive power is still positive sum. Consider mutually assured destruction, or any arms race.

The crux of the issue is that anarchists have a coercion calculation problem among other problems associated with their faith.>>>>

based on my experience overseas spending trillions of dollars to combat insurgents who live in caves and have a fraction of our wealth yet tons more freedom and a much more efficient military organization, I would suggest that it is the aggressors who have the coercion calculation problem. As both ideologies are a matter of faith, I would like to hear more about who you would apply violence or the threat of violence, how much of each, and what the intended effects would be.

Both of these ideologies are failures because they seek to subordinate human nature and self-interest to heady social goals, peaceful coexistance and equality.

You can’t create a society like Marxism that removes risk, bankruptcy, inequality, and failure, likewise you can’t create a society that removes coercive means to obtain ends because coercion is a fundamental (and many times beneficial) means that self-interested actors use when peaceful means are not effective.>>>>

you take it as given that they are entitled to their ends?

66

You simply don’t understand human nature.>>>>

This deserves its own post. Does your theory of human nature account for the fact that humans are evil? Does your theory of human nature account for moral hazard? Moral hazard is a risk whenever projectile weapons are used. What about the repercussions of harming unwitting agents?

My understanding of human nature accounts for the observation that training for violent behavior is a net positive for mental health, but engaging in aggressive violent behavior is a significant net negative, as evidenced by the ptsd, alchoholism, drug abuse, and suicide among the population of veterans.

I have a feeling we will hash out more of our disagreements on the nature of human beingsas the discussion unfolds.

67

Centinel, if we overthrow the current system with violence, the idea will not have been overthrown in the minds of the public. It will want to reinstate the past system. The only way to achieve a society founded around NAP is to educate the public. If the public doesn’t believe in NAP, AnCap won’t work. If you don’t tame your horses, they will kick you in the face.

Are we hypothetically justified in beating IRS agents when they take our stuff? Yes. Will it get us anywhere? No.

68

“self-interest” and the long term effectiveness of the variety of means used to pursue it are functions of worldview or ideology. Every ideology necessarily rests on certain assumptions that are derived from experience. Ideas that destroy those assumptions have the potential to radically change behavior, because behavior is derived from ideas of profit that are spin through ideological filters. How else could humans possibly invade other countries and engage in mass murder in the name of freedom? - Michelanglo

When liberal democracies win wars, there is a net increase in life, liberty, prosperity, and stability. More so because liberal democracies do not fight each other. They never have.

Democratic Peace Theory

I believe that human beings will continue to act to bring about what they believe to be profitable behavior, and their inter-subjective comprehension of profit will continue to change and evolve as it has for all of human history. I intend to be a part of that process with peaceful, reasoned discourse, utilizing a minimum of violence and threats. – Michelanglo

Good luck to you in that endeavor. Do you think that effort would be better served undermining a liberal democracy or North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, China, and nations like these?

Also consider that most of the power you refer to is a function of authority over other people. I target these people with my discourse.–Michelanglo

I disagree, liberal democracy seeks to intentionally limit the power of government. Of course, we have gotten complacent and allowed statists to gain power by economic coercion, but the gig is up thanks to electronic communication and the information age.

I am wondering if this is a prelude to your coming over to my house, kicking in my door, and drafting me into your army of freedom? Just kidding dude, I dont think you would do that. My point is that obviously my methods are useful to your purposes, elsewise you wouldnt be using them. Can you name an instance when aggressive violence brought about greater peace and harmony in the long term? – Michelangelo

You don’t have anything to worry about, your not a statist. I don’t even advocate coercion against totalitarian regimes that leave me alone. But, I think that the world is far better off thanks to the spirit of 1776. Also, I think that removing totalitarian regimes that engage in mass murder or export violence to Western interests must be met with force. These actions almost always result in a net increase in life, liberty, private property, and stability.

Take the most difficult example for me to prove this, Iraq:

From a moral standpoint, empirical evidence shows that the removal of Saddam has resulted in a net savings of over 450,000 lives:


> Citing casualty figures of 110,000 Iraqi deaths during the 8.5 year war that equates to approximately 13,000 deaths per year during the US occupation. Note that these numbers are dropping significantly since the Surge and they are likely to drop to a latent level before the US withdrawal provided the Obama/Biden administration does not screw things up (Iraqi Body Count, 2011).
>
> During Saddam’s reign over 1,600,000 Iraqis died violently as a result of his policies over a 24 year period that equates to 67,000 deaths per year! I’ll do the math for you. 67,000 – 13,000 = 54,000 x 8.5 = 459,000 lives saves as a result of the US action to liberate Iraq (http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

So empirical evidence seems to confirm that the war in Iraq saved innocent lives. I didn’t include the losses from the sanctions which would have increased the net savings of human life thanks to the war effort.

They do not gain in the long term when taken as a whole. Their moral rot and decadence do more to destroy their own happiness and human life experience than a thousand lifetimes of blue collar labor (unpoisoned by sick ideas of entitlement) could do.

Furthermore, your argument neglects the enablers who are the real targets of my reasoned discourse. The individuals who embrace a flawed sense of values and sacrifice that allow the few powerful statists to prosper.

In a sense, there are groups along a continuum, united by ideology and apparent self-interest. In the long term, very few actually profit. Many seem to profit because they engage in conspicuous consumption, but this cannot be seen as true profit.

–Michelanglo

Your opinion on this matter is irrelevent. Meaning you can’t force your value system on statists. If they believe that big government benefits them and their cronies despite the fact that they are wrong, then so be it. What you are arguing for is a rejection of other people’s value system based on your own. It doesn’t work that way.

What I find interesting is that the more affluent society becomes, the greater the tendency toward statist ideas.

But we both agree that statism is harmful to all involved, especially the lower class.

I would like to hear more about this, in my experience destructive power is still positive sum. Consider mutually assured destruction, or any arms race. --Michelanglo

If coercion is used to remove statists from power and say install a liberal democracy in its place, then it represents a net positive to society. But in terms of relative power, it is zero sum.

based on my experience overseas spending trillions of dollars to combat insurgents who live in caves and have a fraction of our wealth yet tons more freedom and a much more efficient military organization, I would suggest that it is the aggressors who have the coercion calculation problem. As both ideologies are a matter of faith, I would like to hear more about who you would apply violence or the threat of violence, how much of each, and what the intended effects would be.-- Michelanglo

I agree that the method the USA is projecting power is not efficient relative to leveraging indigenous fighters in global hot spots. Meaning we should provide air support with munitions, electronic intel and training. We did this in Libya at a cost of less than the Federal government spends in 1 hour and zero losses to US combatants.

fighting 80 IQ Islamic drones in the mountains of a central Asian backwater with our Cadillac conventional military forces when our government is bankrupt is lunacy. Also, we should not be engaged in ‘nation building’ , let those in country govern their own affairs. We should simply provide support for those fighting totalitarian regimes hostile to Western interests. Remember we could do this with very very slight costs in dollars and virtually zero risk to US troops. yet I believe that 99% of anarchists on this site would oppose helping any ‘freedom fighters’ abroad for any reason. They are pacifist isolationists.

I would not want to align with an ideology that I could not depend on to support me when I was at risk from statist threats. Likewise, it is doubtful that anarchists would ever be able to form a defensive coalition to defend against threats since that is counter to your non-aggressive stance unless directly attack. This kind of thinking makes it very hard to find reliable friends in a dangerous world. And if you don’t think the world is dangerous, crack open a history book, any page will do.

you take it as given that they are entitled to their ends? – Michelanglo

The only ends anyone or anything is guaranteed is those that they can gain and hold.

There is no guaranteed right to anything in this world. However, liberal democracy seems to afford the best chance at life, liberty, prosperity and stability.

69

This deserves its own post. Does your theory of human nature account for the fact that humans are evil? Does your theory of human nature account for moral hazard? Moral hazard is a risk whenever projectile weapons are used. What about the repercussions of harming unwitting agents? – Malachi

I don’t consider human beings evil. They are just self-interested. Under a capitalist system, self -interest is mutually beneficial. Under a statist system, self-interest exploits fellow humans and reduces standards of living. So I think that the repercussion of removing statists from power by coercive means is a net positive.

My understanding of human nature accounts for the observation that training for violent behavior is a net positive for mental health, but engaging in aggressive violent behavior is a significant net negative, as evidenced by the ptsd, alchoholism, drug abuse, and suicide among the population of veterans.–Malachi

I would rather have a case of PTSD in a free society watching the game on a 54" HDTV then the alternative offered to the Islamic extremists now eating worms or hiding in caves serving a statist master disengeniously claiming to represent the will of a brutal god.

70

Centinel, if we overthrow the current system with violence, the idea will not have been overthrown in the minds of the public. It will want to reinstate the past system. – Wheylous

I agree that there will always be the threat of violence in society, not because of past transgressions although they are an important motivator for violence, but my view is that those that can’t achieve relative power by peaceful means in a private-property society will resort to coercive means. I also think that there is a large group of people on the lower end of the income spectrum who can be beguiled into joining statist coalitions to take power by coercive means.

You would think that in a relatively affluent society like those in the West that people would understand that benefits of capitalism, yet it appears that the more affluent a society, the more likely statist nonsense holds sway.

Are we hypothetically justified in beating IRS agents when they take our stuff? Yes. Will it get us anywhere? No. – Wheylous

What is a little tar and feather between friends? Just kidding.

I don’t advocate any kind of coercive action against any government entity. I believe in our Constitutional Federal Republic. I think we can force positive change from within. Not overnight, but through education and effort. But the possibility must be open to defend the Constitution by coercive means if a statist coalition emerges and disregards the Constitution.

Anotherwords, I am not prepared to write the epitath on the COnstitution and liberal democracy as most of the anarchist on this site are prepared to do without a viable and realistic alternative.

71

My understanding of human nature accounts for the observation that training for violent behavior is a net positive for mental health, but engaging in aggressive violent behavior is a significant net negative, as evidenced by the ptsd, alchoholism, drug abuse, and suicide among the population of veterans. – Malachi

The sacrifice of those veterans have saved tens of thousands of innocent lives. Also, they have exposed the folly of political-military Islam and given pause to the expansion of this same totalitarian system.

I posted this earlier, it is pertinent:



From a moral standpoint, empirical evidence shows that the removal of Saddam has resulted in a net savings of over 450,000 lives:



> Citing casualty figures of 110,000 Iraqi deaths during the 8.5 year war that equates to approximately 13,000 deaths per year during the US occupation. Note that these numbers are dropping significantly since the Surge and they are likely to drop to a latent level before the US withdrawal provided the Obama/Biden administration does not screw things up (Iraqi Body Count, 2011).
>
> During Saddam’s reign over 1,600,000 Iraqis died violently as a result of his policies over a 24 year period that equates to 67,000 deaths per year! I’ll do the math for you. 67,000 – 13,000 = 54,000 x 8.5 = 459,000 lives saves as a result of the US action to liberate Iraq (http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

You speak of moral hazard. Moral hazard led to the attacks on 9/11. According to bin Laden in his declaration of war against the USA, he stated specifically that the US was a paper tiger that would not defend its interests abroad.

I don’t think any Islamists share that sentiment today.

72

Good luck to you in that endeavor. Do you think that effort would be better served undermining a liberal democracy or North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, China, and nations like these?>>>>

yes, I believe that my efforts to liberate myself before others are better than sticking my nose in my neighbor’s business. How much worse can the norks be, when americans are subject to extrajudicial assassination at the hands of flying robots for exercising controversial speech? Good luck convincing the cubans that you represent human rights when you shoot cuban soldiers that are the sons of cuba. How much wealth is squandered on bringing freedom to far off nations when we dont have freedom here? It is quite paternalistic, and just one more thing: what gives you the right to spend my money on a religious war? I believe in self-determination, not paternalism.

“You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” -Jesus Christ

I disagree, liberal democracy seeks to intentionally limit the power of government. Of course, we have gotten complacent and allowed statists to gain power by economic coercion, but the gig is up thanks to electronic communication and the information age.>>>

those intentions are clever camouflage that create moral hazard and cause people to abstain from due diligence. You ought to start a PDA that helps out people who cannot afford the help.

You don’t have anything to worry about, your not a statist. I don’t even advocate coercion against totalitarian regimes that leave me alone. But, I think that the world is far better off thanks to the spirit of 1776.>>>>

sure is! We can now say tha minarchism has failed. Is it possible to maintain? Sure, for a few generations…sort of. Lets try something a little more pluralistic.

Take the most difficult example for me to prove this, Iraq:>>>>

110,000 civilian casualties is highly optimistic, and even if correct, provides a one dimensional view of a very complex conflict. Without derailing tis entire argument, let me just say that while saddam was a tyrant deserving of death for his many crimes and operation iraqi freedom may have been executed with the best of intentions, we can now say that it has been an enormous waste of human life and wealth because of the terror and uncertainty that has been foisted upon the iraqi people. The broken window fallacy does not even begin to describe the damage that is still evident in a city like fallujah. The burning trash pits that aerate toxins and contain body armor and classified documents available for salvage stand as a silent witness to the trillions of dollars wasted. The cultural cost of a military occupation can be frightening, in terms of psychic trauma. The manhood of an entire generation of men is called into question. To take the most optimistic estimate of casualties and say that “fewer innocent civilians were brutally murdered under this occupation than that one” is scant evidence for your position.

So empirical evidence seems to confirm that the war in Iraq saved innocent lives. I didn’t include the losses from the sanctions which would have increased the net savings of human life thanks to the war effort.>>>>

what is life without liberty? your preference that iraqis live under a foreign military junta does not address their preference. Paternalism.

Your opinion on this matter is irrelevent. Meaning you can’t force your value system on statists. If they believe that big government benefits them and their cronies despite the fact that they are wrong, then so be it. What you are arguing for is a rejection of other people’s value system based on your own. It doesn’t work that way.>>>>

So we can reject my values, and the statists values, and the iraqis values, but not your values? Because wha?

If coercion is used to remove statists from power and say install a liberal democracy in its place, then it represents a net positive to society. But in terms of relative power, it is zero sum.>>>>

not if everyone buys guns, and they were prohibited from such earlier. That represents a net increase in power. Then if you privatized the state, and sold all the army and navy equipment, you realize a net increase in defensive power, due to the decentralized nature, but a net decrease in offensive power, or the ability to impose your values on another society.

I agree that the method the USA is projecting power is not efficient relative to leveraging indigenous fighters in global hot spots. Meaning we should provide air support with munitions, electronic intel and training. We did this in Libya at a cost of less than the Federal government spends in 1 hour and zero losses to US combatants.>>>>

explain to me again why business owners in iowa should pay for millions of dollars in petroleum, munitions, and labor to get explosives precision aerially delivered to mud huts that are suspected of containing “enemies of freedom.” I do not mean to say that killing people indiscriminately halfway across the globe should be inexpensive. Actually I am more interested in what rules of engagement would govern such a killing. Somehow, I think they might be prone to moral hazard.

fighting 80 IQ Islamic drones in the mountains of a central Asian backwater with our Cadillac conventional military forces when our government is bankrupt is lunacy. Also, we should not be engaged in ‘nation building’ , let those in country govern their own affairs. We should simply provide support for those fighting totalitarian regimes hostile to Western interests. Remember we could do this with very very slight costs in dollars and virtually zero risk to US troops. yet I believe that 99% of anarchists on this site would oppose helping any ‘freedom fighters’ abroad for any reason. They are pacifist isolationists.>>>>

we can help them by selling them quality goods, such as munitions, and services, such as PDA services. Now you dont have to rob businessmen in phoenix to do it.

I would not want to align with an ideology that I could not depend on to support me when I was at risk from statist threats. Likewise, it is doubtful that anarchists would ever be able to form a defensive coalition to defend against threats since that is counter to your non-aggressive stance unless directly attack. This kind of thinking makes it very hard to find reliable friends in a dangerous world. And if you don’t think the world is dangerous, crack open a history book, any page will do.>>>>

the world is dangerous because of well-meaning authoritarians firing weapons indiscriminately, among other reasons. Also consider that you wrongly conflate aggression by a state on another’s behalf with a defensive agreement. Since anarchists favor social cooperation there is no reason to suppose they would refuse to cooperate on defense. You are grasping at straws here.

The only ends anyone or anything is guaranteed is those that they can gain and hold.>>>>

my question referred to the immaterial moral title deed. Not guarantees. Your definition of “guarantee” is only confirmed post-mortem, am I to conclude you do not believe in objective morals?

There is no guaranteed right to anything in this world. However, liberal democracy seems to afford the best chance at life, liberty, prosperity and stability.>>>>

unlikely. You appoint flawed humans to positions where they are expected to be more than human. It doesnt work that way, not matter who does the voting.

73

I don’t consider human beings evil. They are just self-interested. Under a capitalist system, self -interest is mutually beneficial. Under a statist system, self-interest exploits fellow humans and reduces standards of living. So I think that the repercussion of removing statists from power by coercive means is a net positive.>>>>

If you will not say “evil” then try “human beings are imperfect calculators of self-interest.”

I would rather have a case of PTSD in a free society watching the game on a 54" HDTV then the alternative offered to the Islamic extremists now eating worms or hiding in caves serving a statist master disengeniously claiming to represent the will of a brutal god.>>>>

false dichotomy. And, you impose your values on a completely different society half a world away. Paternalism. Expensive paternalism.

The sacrifice of those veterans have saved tens of thousands of innocent lives.>>>>

who are now free to continue bearing their own mental scars as victims of a brutal foreign military dictatorship where many of their loved ones have been killed for various reasons. Your entire argument rests on the one assumption that government was benign enough to tell you the honest truth about iraqi casualties, when all the other estimates are assumed to be biased. Furthermore you neglect the decrease in quality of life due to the bungled occupation, the loss of things like reliable electricity, the ied hazard (local national ied casualties are rarely reported to the coalition), and the dismissal of close to 800,000 iraqi public servants, police, and military in the early months of the invasion that brought this mess on. Thats just off the top of my head. Oh yah, if we invaded to secure the weapons of mass destruction than how come muthanna chemical complex has been breached repeatedly and no one cares?

You speak of moral hazard. Moral hazard led to the attacks on 9/11. According to bin Laden in his declaration of war against the USA, he stated specifically that the US was a paper tiger that would not defend its interests abroad.>>>>

he also stated that his motive was our paternalistic and intrusive foreign policy.

74

Nonsense! Secession is a form of political divorce and, when it is successful, it is backed by real force (a new political boundary is drawn on the map which cannot be crossed without precipitating war).

But “originary secession” isn’t synonymous with “secession.” Guido Hulsmann defines the term here:

Let us notice … that even if I rejected a government only in thought and obeyed it merely out of prudence, this would already be “originary secession” since my brains are undoubtedly part of my property. The government would then no longer control my thoughts, and its control of my behavior would also be diminished.

I have no qualms with centralization nor do I think it’s my business or anybody’s business to “challenge” the parasitic Elite. I just don’t want myself, my family, friends and others in my community that I care about to be stolen from, whether by private thieves or well-dressed bureaucrats who live on the other end of the continent. Unfortunately, while the cost of avoiding theft from private thieves is pretty manageable for the average, middle class American, escaping theft by the US government is something only the very most wealthy can afford to do (probably around $100M+ net worth.. even those with 10’s of millions are falling to the US dragnet in Switzerland and elsewhere).

*shrug - as I said, I don’t care about “libertarians” per se, I care about my family, my friends and my community. I espouse the ideas of libertarianism but they stand on their own merit and do not require me to become a postmodern memetic-suicide-bomber.

I am engaging it at a much higher level than the prescribed, lobotomized method of ballot boxes and party politics.

It really is hard for you to escape the collectivist mindset. I have no sense of obligation towards libertarians generally no do I suspect that any true libertarian has any expectations from me.

Clayton -

75

Saw an article this morning, more American soldiers killed themselves last year than died in combat. Somehow I think the neocons will see this as evidence that the number of combat casualties is acceptably low.

76

Let us notice … that even if I rejected a government only in thought and obeyed it merely out of prudence, this would already be “originary secession” since my brains are undoubtedly part of my property. The government would then no longer control my thoughts, and its control of my behavior would also be diminished.-- G.

Spoken like a true and obedient slave.

@Clayton

Essentially your the rest of your post admits that you are being coerced by govt. - you don’t like it – and you dont offer any substantive action to remove this parasite.

Help me out here, if anarchism is a superior system what is your plan ?

Is it a wait and see plan in which generations after generations spend years of labor and tribute to statists in Washington while you blog since coercive means is not in your tool kit of remedies?

77

@Malachi

What is your plan to eliminate the parasitic governance in Washington and elsewhere in the state and local govt. besides criticizing minarchists who seek to reduce govt. ?

You reject my minarchist views that impose restrictions on govt that you believe are coercive. I advocate a constitutional system that places limits on the role of govt, makes govt transparent, balances govt. power both vertically and horizontally that will increase freedoms. OUr own constitution has increased and strengthened political and civil freedoms unparalleled in history. Also, this example has spread across the globe with more fervor than any other system yet devised.

It needs to be adjusted to remove the ability of govt to engage in economic coercion, but working towards this end – economic bill of rights – is far more attainable and realistic than promoting a demonstrably failed anarchist model that has never held sway anywhere, including in the brilliant mind of von Mises

Nothing in your post offers anything to rebut my assertion that anarchists never have had a plan, they don’t have a plan today, and there is no plan tomorrow.

Since you discount coercive means, what is the alternative ?

78

You should know by now that the plan is to “change hearts and minds”.

79

@Centinel: No, the slave is the man who refuses to consider all available means to escape his master and submits to the “system” whereby the slaves get together once every four years, debate amongst themselves and elect one of themselves to “lead” themselves while their owners watch, unobserved, through the picture window of some distant estate.

The Powers that Be have such complete control of the system, today, that it is impossible even to organize against them. Every organization with an anti-State mission (to one degree or another) in the United States that I’m aware of has been infiltrated and then co-opted or destroyed by the Establishment. Mont Pelerin Society. Co-opted. John Birch Society. Co-opted. 1960’s Anti-War Movement. Destroyed. And so on.

This doesn’t meant that organization is absolutely impossible. In fact, the Establishment itself is not nearly so monolithic as the label would imply, it actually consists of many, competing power groups who are involved in a continual tug-of-war with each other. But the much more durable means and methods which they employ also come with a high price-tag. It’s costly to maintain a family office, to hire private investigators to keep track of your business and political associates, to retain a retinue of lawyers and insurance policies against any kind of disaster, to give to charity and religious organizations to maintain a positive social image, to straddle one’s wealth across multiple jurisdictions, to mingle in high society and raise one’s children and grandchildren to readiness for inter-marriage with other wealthy families, and so on.

But the man on the street, such as myself, can start small. This is what George Bernand Shaw parodied as “middle class morality.” It’s the imitation of the upper classes by the middle class in its attempt to bootstrap itself and “get in the game.” These are the pesky “bourgeois” who are reviled as “ghetto snobs” by the lower classes from which they come and reviled by the upper class as “new money,” if they are successful. It’s the Volvo-driving, Birkenstock-shod yuppies at town-hall meetings that have ceded control of their lives to their Owners as they’ve simply given up trying to improve themselves and their family so they can move into a higher socio-economic class, instead contenting themselves to “participate in democracy.”

There’s a townhall meeting next week… all slaves invited.

Clayton -

80

What is your plan to eliminate the parasitic governance in Washington and elsewhere in the state and local govt. besides criticizing minarchists who seek to reduce govt. ?>>>>

I advance the cause of liberty by educating people about the folly of socially sanctioned aggressive violence. You can reduce it all the way to zero for all I care, just leave me alone. But spending tax dollars to ship the youth of America to foreign lands so they can kill people who dont believe in the totally badass choose-your-own-dictator model of tyrantocracy we have here has as much to do with liberty as it does with the price of weed on the moon.

If you go check up on current events, you would see that I dont have to do much of anything, the system is cracking up as it is. Arent you glad we borrowed a trillion dollars from that beacon of human rights china so we could scatter our freedoms all over the globe?

You reject my minarchist views that impose restrictions on govt that you believe are coercive.>>>>

your idea of government defines “coercion.” and I simply do not trust your “restrictions,” because I know what it means to delegate authority. I refuse to sign a power of attorney (legal, medical, and fiduciary) to a gaggle of ever-expanding bureaucrats who mean to dictate values to me and my neighbors. The spirit of 1776 was a ghost by 1800. (but now we have internets lol)

I advocate a constitutional system that places limits on the role of govt, makes govt transparent, balances govt. power both vertically and horizontally that will increase freedoms.>>>>

I think we have both seen how well a constitution restrains a government. You havent suggested “better people” so I can only imagine you propose a better document. I am open to such an argument, provided you have a rough draft available.

OUr own constitution has increased and strengthened political and civil freedoms unparalleled in history. Also, this example has spread across the globe with more fervor than any other system yet devised.>>>>

which is why we keep having to back our exports with force of arms? Tell me how the freedom to vote for someone who will tell me how much I am supposed to pay him, is more freedom, than no taxation?

It needs to be adjusted to remove the ability of govt to engage in economic coercion, but working towards this end – economic bill of rights – is far more attainable and realistic than promoting a demonstrably failed anarchist model that has never held sway anywhere, including in the brilliant mind of von Mises>>>>

your liberal democracy is demonstrably tyrannical and demonstrably a failure. So it’s unacceptable for you to advocate a minarchist position, and then claim that the night watchman could not simply go home one day because he is not needed. The fact that that outcome is unimaginable to you says nothing about anarchy but plenty about you.

Nothing in your post offers anything to rebut my assertion that anarchists never have had a plan, they don’t have a plan today, and there is no plan tomorrow.

Since you discount coercive means, what is the alternative ?>>>>

I believe you already know, since you are doing it now, albeit poorly. Before people can seek liberty, they have to know what liberty actually is. Right now, your mind is so consumed with thoughts of exporting the righteous boot of freedom onto the necks of people who are too stupid to know what is good for them, and commanding fleets of flying killer robots to assassinate webmasters and propagandists so they dont attack our freedoms with newspapers and webpages full of gibberish, that you cannot see the forest for all the bodies hanging from the trees. I know, I was there once. That is why I am quite reluctant to sanction violence against unwitting agents. Violence is only appropriate in halting imminent aggressive violence, as a last resort. This is moral and correct for many reasons, among them, most compelling to me is the plain fact that all knowledge is incomplete. Therefore we should be extremely reluctant to behave violently, lest we err.