I find it amusing that clinging to vulgar arguments somehow entails “living in the real world”, and therefore necessitates clinging to irrational (& disproven) arguments. Reminds me of pretty much every argument at The Liberty Papers, but I guess false realism has it’s uses.
Isn’t it essentially the same “argument” statists often use? That anarchists are all naive because in the real world we need leaders or rulers or whatever term they want to use.
More or less, yes; it’s in this aspect that I view Statism itself a largely conservative system, since it constantly denies all other alternatives via monopoly, coercion, puts “realism” as the reason why it’s required in the first place, & deems it absurd that rulers (in this case, oligarchies & collectives competing for the levers of power) aren’t required to keep things together.
Essentially, it seeks to perpetuate itself, and therefore, seeks to perpetuate stasis within the an inherently dynamic society, of inherently dynamic beings (humans).
I subsequently find this ironic, since that would also mean finding liberals conservative for sticking with such an out-dated* system, as well. Doubly when you consider the conservative portion of socialism (oligarchical rule) that many liberals (although not all) hold so deal.
*I say out-dated in the sense it’s been proven to not work correctly & should be abandoned in favor of more efficient means such as the market, which the internet has provided an apt model for; not out-dated in the sense that it needs to be “updated” [:P].
Of course, at this point, I think it would just be “too much work” for some to think of otherwise. The lack of accountability & responsibility bred in a society ruled by “representative democracy” sure doesn’t help that situation either.
An example of libertarians appealing to “reason” & “realism”, would be the amount of rationalizing over Bob Barr at TLP, which is mainly due to libertarians wanting to appear “reasonable” to their Statist “counter-parts” by not being consistent (and subsequently, more radical), for the sake of attracting support from the political mainstream.
If Statism is “reality”, as in, static & forever existing, incapable of not being replaced by something considerably better (but would require responsibility & accountability), as some make it out to be, then I’d rather join Major Tom in orbit, while those below snub thousands of years of biological & social evolution.
Last I recall, we eventually got out of the stone-age; eventually we will get out of Statism, whether via some critical mass of it’s own doing, or by tireless efforts at chipping away at propaganda, misconceptions of alternatives, and the fear of the unknown.
The state will fall of its own weight but to remain permanently dead we will need to educate “the public” or at least a significant number of them. That is why organizations like the LvMI and others are so vital.
I don’t participate in the cess-polls known as elections because I consider my choices and actions to be my ‘vote’! I have never desired to be ‘represented’, especially in the manner known as government which lets face it is hardly an organization set up to further MY best interests [;)] Voting in the government sense means that I put my stamp of approval onto a process and decisions that I DON’T want to see happen let alone pay for. And any one who thinks that a ‘majority’ can make positive changes is seriously delusional don’t ya think? [:P]
Jain
If you are making choices based on sending a signal, you’re doing it wrong. Nobody is listening, and even if they were, your voice would be less than a whisper at a rock concert.
The only useful consideration is whether voting does you more harm than good, not the effect it has on “the system”. I don’t vote.
It will never happen. Thinking like that is putting your life in the hands at others, leaving it subject to the whims of popularity and collective movements. The only reasonable course is to take responsibility for your own life, to make of it what you can in the given circumstances, and to protect yourself as best you can. Voting is a weak and misguided effort at that defense. There’s nothing wrong with trying to change external circumstances when there is a viable opportunity to do so, but relying on them changing in order to have what you want and need will leave you dead long before you are free. That might mean of old age, but not necessarily.
The Ron Paul campaign sent a message to me. And it was received and embraced.
You don’t. Nor can you stop it from enlarging it’s constituency. Faster or slower, it’s growth is a given.
Luckily, since there is no answer to your question, it’s the wrong question. The right question is: How do I remove myself from the welfare system? There’s no easy answer, but it’s at least answerable.
I’m betting that message was sent and recieved long before a single vote was cast, right? What message did his actual vote totals send?
There’s nothing wrong with sending messages. The problem is when the message is “please” in regards to your ability to exercise your rights, and that plea is the strategy you’re pursuing for protecting them.
Why would we care about his vote totals? I only care about his message. Votes are not, and were not his goal.
How is this relevant to the discussion?
That’s my point. Voting sent no useful message whatsoever.
Your post about Ron Paul’s message came two posts after one I made about the futility of sending messages as a strategy for protecting one’s rights. Since you didn’t provide any context, I assumed it was a response to that. Sorry if that was not the case.
How about we advocate a policy that reduces state interefence instead of one that changes the form it takes?
- Stop interefing in the movement of people across the border.
- Stop subsidizing immigration by rewarding it with citizenship.
Clearly the most anarchistic policy would be one where the government didn’t even know immigration was happening.
Funny how many “anarchists” think citizenship is a right.
You’ve just set up a straw man by conflating citezenship and migration. Nice try, but no cigar.
The most anarchistic “policy” is no immigration policy, for there to be no government and for migration to be free. Anarchism is inherently incompatible with the enforcement of the territorial dominions of states and protectionism in the labor market, which is what border security and politically enforced immigration restriction amounts to.
What immigration restrictionists tend to advocate is not less state interferance, it’s more police or paramilitary interferance and the strict enforcement of protectionistic laws in the name of combating the future growth of the welfare state. Increasing intervention in one area in reaction to the effects of intervention elsewhere. In other words, interventionism.
I’m not sure you understand the term.
Then why were they seperated into #1 and #2?
.
Relevence?
You have a habit of retreating into a lecture without addressing my point.
Great, the most anarchistic policy is anarchy. However, what I described was anarchy in immigration, which does not require a completely stateless society to exist.
Which is essentially what I’m advocating, with a minor change to your second point. I would say “Stop subsidizing immigration by rewarding it with welfare benefits.” That is no public education, no WIC, no SCHIPS, no Medicare/Medicaid – nothing. My biggest issue with “illegal” immigration is the granting of welfare to these people. Not to beat a dead horse but I wouldn’t care about “illegal” immigration if these people didn’t receive welfare benefits. Of course no one should receive welfare benefits but I don’t see that going away anytime soon.
There’s the problem with accepting part of the status quo while seeking to change another part. If the policy advocated is not thoroughly grounded in correct principles, there will be irreconcilable contradictions. Trying to reconcile them into a concrete position will inevitably lead to advocating something that goes against those principles.
There is no solution short of eliminating the state’s authority over both wealth distribution and migration, and any attempt to solve only one part of it will create policies fraught with unintended consequences, rights violations, and that will ultimately do more harm than good.
Of course a complete solution is more difficult, but that difficulty does not change what is the correct solution, nor does it support a partially incorrect solution as viable.
Nor is immigration, since welfare requires an ever larger tax base.
Indeed, why is there even a concept of “citizenship” except as a way of recognizing that one belongs to a particular nation? If rights are universal, why shouldn’t a government respect everyone’s rights, regardless of citizenship?
It would be a small step in the right direction of anti-immigrationists would at least recognize that welfare, education, health care, etc., are not rights, and therefore there’s no problem with government not offering these things to illegals. But to do that, they would have to recognize that there’s no problem with government not offering these things to citizens, too, since they’re not rights.