That is very interesting. Somewhat off topic, but since you have this unique experience could you tell us anything about the Christians in Egypt? Eg, what is their position institutionally and their social standing? I am always interested in such things.
re: freeradicals,
How often have you heard Ron Paul say that a state is inherently immoral? Did you know that he is actually an anarchist like yourself? Do you see the problem? He calls himself a champion of the constitution, and thereby undercutting his own message. You say you heard about liberty through Ron Paul, but what we need to get any real change is people believing in true freedom, not some messed up ideal where a rulingclass is somehow a positive force.
What would happen if most libertarians came out completely against the state? That is what you have to weigh.
^When the man has Walter Block as his advisor, it can’t be a bad cause. He’s an anarchist, and willing to do the campaign. He doesn’t find it unethical.
Sometimes I feel voluntaryists are way too focused on theory and total consistency, instead of acting. Some are looking for problems that don’t exist, a reason to partition. This “more libertarian then thou” attitude weakens the movement. And to further aggrevate anyone too stuck up on “consistency”:
To paraphrase Lenin: “We will abolish the state with the instruments it gave us”. I don’t think that would be unethical. To say that it is unethical to forcefully take away force is ridiculous. We are giving freedom back, the only force is against the forcefull state. As long as we don’t start shooting people, I’m okay with it, that would just be retarded.
I would vote for Ron Paul. I’m not the only voluntaryist who would. Who else would?
@Free radicals: Islamism is not Islam. I mean there’s no hiearchy within Islamic mosques, why should there be “political” Islam. It’s a ridiculous idea. You can’t teach self discipline, or theology through the barrel of gun. Middle eastern governments are disgusting, if you think the U.S is facist, go to Iran. Then again, at least Iran doesn’t start wars.
Islamism is not Islam, check out this article : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703959704575453211943767790.html
@rosstaylor, we are planning on selling our business within a year so I don’t think there is an issue there. For those who buy it they can easily launch the business in other countries. .COM companies are in great shape to mold and fit within any community with the right settings. Regarding my opinion of the coming years I guess I will reply in that thread.
@Marko, the Christians in Egypt are getting suffocated out of the country. While there is a young liberal generation of Muslims in the country the trend over the last several decades has been a decline in all non-Muslim populations. There are no more jews left in that country, only empty Temples. When I was younger and wore a cross I almost got in a fight with some kids their because they saw me wearing it. They immediately hate the sign of any infidel. Again, It’s not like that uniformly across the country, there are many moderate Muslims there and are in disagreement with the extremists.
@Nielsio I agree more with that Libertyandlife said below your post. And about your libertarian question I don’t think much would change as there still aren’t enough libertarians to make a huge mark (yet).
@Libertyandlife I agree with you Middle eastern governments are discusting and I never implied the U.S. is facist. I was merely describing my observations regarding what is going on there in the name of Islam.
Agreed, they piss me off. I was just saying with all the statism the U.S has, the middle east is much worse. Sorry if I seemed to be getting to defensive. Everyone’s pissed off at Muslims, so it’s become almost a natural reaction.
No worries, I know lots of kind-hearted and great Muslims, it’s a shame what many of the extremists have done under its name (as with all religions).
When the only meaningful action one can take is voting, the cause is already lost IMO. Some of us voluntaryists are acting in the market. Politics is not a market.
@liberty student, I don’t believe we are claiming that voting is the only meaningful action we can take. It is another tool in our toolbox that we can use to advance our cause. Ron Paul uses his public position to amplify his message, would you say what he has done wasn’t worth it?
“Ron Paul uses his public position to amplify his message, would you say what he has done wasn’t worth it?”
Ron Paul can bring some people like you to their senses. People who see the political system as a legitimate and effective means to achieve their goals must be initially “tricked” into opening their mind. I’m not saying Ron Paul does this intentionally as part of some master plan. He may be a true Constitutionalist after all and just likes to hang out with people like Lew Rockwell. It’s just that he happens to serve that function very well. Look at yourself. But I think once you come to your senses, you must move on. You must realize the State is illegitimate and you must withdraw your consent. Otherwise, you continue to feed the same beast you want to destroy. It is counterproductive.
@DD5, I’m still not entirely convinced we should abandon the political process completely. I understand the problems of government and would much rather make do without it. However, my thoughts regarding it is not to get into a public seat as a way of consenting with the process, but instead, as a means to disrupting the process entirely. As I asked before, if we got enough Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists into public seats couldn’t we then deal a heavy blow to the State?
Read this paper on political activism http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/06/patri-friedman/beyond-folk-activism/
This makes no sense. If you could get that many libertarians into office, then this is obviously begging the question. Can you guess what the question is?
After reading that article I see more clearly now the futility of attempting to change the system by participating in it. My thoughts about how to bring about change are as follows:
-
Education: Start aggressively educating people about the corruption of government and special interests. You slowly build up a group of like-minded libertarians who will scold any politician who appeals to special interests.
-
Actively build up competing alternatives to Government WHILE continually harassing it with campaign that reveal its true nature. The alternatives I considered fell in line with those proposed in the article.
-
Some government-competing alternatives I thought of were:
3a) Gather enough wealth to buy out land from an existing weak State and start our own country with all the free-market principals in place from the start. Hopefully enough people will join the country and build up the capital to afford enough private security forces to protect us from the the original or other States, optimally at this point we would still be seen as a “nobody” and be ignored until we are big enough to reach the tipping point and not be stopped.
3b) This would be much harder but ultimately colonizing another planet far enough out of reach of Earth to prevent existing States from interfering. This to me is more fantasy than fiction but perhaps one day become a reality. The seafaring city-states idea is much more plausible.
I thought if you had a nice blend of all the steps we could achieve our goals. Political activism would be only a cog in the overall machine. However, it seems that the consensus here is that it’s futile and we should focus only on building up alternatives. Isn’t that right DD5, Sieben?
I am not advocating that the political process as a means to an end. I’m simply saying that if it came down to it, if he launched a campaign, I would support him and vote for him. If we could force the state to fall without violence, why not?
Do you think Walter Block is being inconsistent with his support? Has he addressed this?
Have you checked out freestateproject.org? I am convinced this is our best hope for liberty.
BTW, a big welcome.
What he has done is never pass any meaningful legislation and never won higher office than the Congress, where he tries to have as little impact as possible. Because American culture is obsessed with media and politics, this gives him a platform, but let’s not pretend it was intentional that Ron Paul harnessed the internet, because I was involved in the summer of 2007, and they were not running any sort of campaign to accomplish anything except the usual educational thing, and even that they couldn’t comprehend the scale of. In fact, there was a good chance RP was going to drop out after NH.
What drove his campaign was activism, not political power or a great strategy from the top. It was driven by grassroots enthusiasm and the internet.
If Ron Paul is a reason to vote, then people miss the point that a great many people who pushed Ron Paul as far as he went, never cast a ballot in his name. There was no need to. The results were secondary to the message.
The Ron Paul thing already has a full head of steam. Pick a new strategy, a new way to make progress because a movement dependent on Paul, dies with Paul.
I have said it before. Voting is a waste of time. The chance of your vote meaning anything is tiny. If you want to politic, run for office or support a campaign. I do not however think that voluntaryism is compatible with politics, so voluntaryists who politic will have a tough time defending their principles.
I see a peaceful secessionist movement as the only hope to ever achieve liberty. This is introduced here in this wonderful piece by Hoppe:
you see, I have a problem with this position. It implies that it is theoretically possible for politicians not to appeal to special interests. That is not the case.
All government activity amounts to a zero-sum game. One always gains only at the expense of another. It is therefore not possible to have a government that does not appeal to special interests. When someone says he doesn’t approve of special interests, he is basically saying that he doesn’t approve of this group or that group, but there are other special interest groups that he does approve off.
DD5, well put. The issue becomes a battle over which special interest is more powerful, instead of recognizing that the institution of the state is fundamentally immoral. If libertarians want to position themselves as special interests to contest who holds the reins of power, then it will be impossible to achieve statelessness.
Though I would prefer whatever works or happens earlier, do you guys expect us to succeed from a state such as the one we have now, or do you expect for us to abolish a smaller more limited government?
It just depends on if there are enough people willing to disobey bad laws, including taxations.