On the strategy of persuasion, a caveat.

Economics Political Theory
, , , ,
1

There is a disturbing trend that I’ve come across lately and that is when, people of anarcho-capitalism persuasion drag down their fellow free-market libertarians and minarchists for not going ‘all the way’. Now i personally would say that support the rights-based anarcho-capitalist ideal; albeit with my own distinct bent, but i believe this trend is doing more damage than not.

I understand the argument, or at least the most persistent one. which goes: ‘by minimising the government will leave us in square one, and the government, by its nature will grow again’.

But this i think this argument misses the point.

We first have to understand that we are no-where near where we want to be - ie, free. And also, that it is far better to be freer than not (ovbiosuly). On top of this, the libertarian bashing an-caps seem to be proposing an all-or-nothing type proposition. But the fact is there is virtually no chance that anything resembling an-cap will ever exist with this attitude.

What needs to occur is a realisation within even the most ‘radical’ an-cap camps, that we need to slowly move toward a freer society step-by-step. From this, eventually sometime in the future the an-cap ‘dream’ will not seem so radical! We’re not just here to describe the perfect world.

added to this, the libertarian bashing probably turns many people off. Let’s face it, very few were brought up with anti-statist views, and many off you only came across the ideas of a smaller government and Austrian economics by chance. for me, it was the book ‘The law’ by Fredrick Bastiat that lead me to explore libertarian ideas further. But i could have very easily been turn off from read that book if the person who convinced me to read it was arrogant and condescending.

Anyhow, what will occur if this libertarian/minarchist bashing continues? well, i can only foresee that the an-cap camp will become less involved with the reality of the current situation and more involved in straw-splitting over whose political position is more perfect. Along with this comes the esoteric and even cultish vibes that even i get from reading many people here - not all. I think the word ‘statist’ has actually become the playground word equivalent of ‘gay’, with everyone going to all sorts of lengths to prove that they are no such thing - this is simply disturbing.

This is not a call for moderation in people’s own personal views. The libertarian or minarchist may very well be wrong, but for now, as a matter of strategy, they are our allies. It is not just about having the absolute perfect idea of liberty, nor is it just a numbers game, It is about strategy too, people.

~

So let me know what you think people.

2

I think you used quite a lot of tags for your post. Is this some kind of link farming?

3

From Rothbard’s “Do You Hate the State?” -

“Perhaps the word that best defines our distinction is “radical.” Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul.

Furthermore, in contrast to what seems to be true nowadays, you don’t have to be an anarchist to be radical in our sense, just as you can be an anarchist while missing the radical spark. I can think of hardly a single limited governmentalist of the present day who is radical – a truly amazing phenomenon, when we think of our classical liberal forbears who were genuinely radical, who hated statism and the States of their day with a beautifully integrated passion: the Levellers, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine, Joseph Priestley, the Jacksonians, Richard Cobden, and on and on, a veritable roll call of the greats of the past. Tom Paine’s radical hatred of the State and statism was and is far more important to the cause of liberty than the fact that he never crossed the divide between laissez-faire and anarchism.

And closer to our own day, such early influences on me as Albert Jay Nock, H. L. Mencken, and Frank Chodorov were magnificently and superbly radical. Hatred of “Our Enemy, the State” (Nock’s title) and all of its works shone through all of their writings like a beacon star. So what if they never quite made it all the way to explicit anarchism? Far better one Albert Nock than a hundred anarcho-capitalists who are all too comfortable with the existing status quo.

Where are the Paines and Cobdens and Nocks of today? Why are almost all of our laissez-faire limited governmentalists plonky conservatives and patriots? If the opposite of “radical” is “conservative,” where are our radical laissez-fairists? If our limited statists were truly radical, there would be virtually no splits between us. What divides the movement now, the true division, is not anarchist vs. minarchist, but radical vs. conservative. Lord, give us radicals, be they anarchists or no.”

… Ron Paul is a radical, [he’s also a voluntarist… but that’s another point :wink: ] Hence, no beef with Ron Paul (unless you are demented and fall for the purist deviatation fallacy. “Sorry bro, you’re using state roads - your argument is invalid”)… the beef is with “libertarians”, i.e Cato, the LP electing Bob Barr etc… non radicals.

Furthermore, it’s actually the Ron Paul “supporters” who are kicking out the radicals from RPF etc. Go take your beef over to them then.

“The pattern repeats itself so often that it almost seems to be a law of history: the radicals who change history must do so over the resistance of the moderates, who claim to be friendly to the same cause, but somehow always end up on the side of established interests.” (Moderates and Radicals) – Lew Rockwell

/ thread.

4

Does Rothbard consider that Paine’s distaste for the state was also matched by his own desire for statist measures? Such as Paine’s advocacy of Social Security?

“It is painful to see old age working itself to death, in what are called civilised countries, for daily bread… pay to every such person of the age of fifty years … the sum of six pounds per annum out of the surplus taxes, and ten pounds per annum during life after the age of sixty… This support, as already remarked, is not of the nature of a charity but of a right.” Thomas Paine

5

Quote

i’m new to posting here. that wasn’t my intention. ot really sure what the usual is, may have went over-board

6

Not a big deal. :slight_smile: Welcome to the community.

7

It’s been going on a long time. People are going to be passionate about their ideology and their ideological differences.

8

I am sorry if my remark came through as rather harsh.

Regarding your question, I would recommend: The Case for Radical Idealism by Murray N. Rothbard

9

Nobody “drags down” anyone. We just make arguments. In the real world, it’s conservatives trying to take over and sabotage radicals.

10

well yeah, i don’t mean everyone. I think when you get the conservative that points to the wonders of the capitalism we have today, i almost feel more sympathetic to the socialist/anarchist - almost. actually i still have some reading to do with the left anarchists. so far i’ve read R. Rocker’s ‘anarcho syndacalism’ and a few of chomsky’s works, but i’m not convinced, not after reading rothbard, hayek and the rest.

btw, after reading my first post again, i think i sound way too pretentious lol.

11

Occuptional hazard of being a thread starter.