What road should we take to achieve the voluntary society? I don’t know myself, but this young, and might I add handsome, fellow has an idea:
I didn’t know you were doing videos.
You know my answer already. I’m not with the reformists, even though many fellow anarcho-capitalists are reformists in practise. I think the reformist route has already been proven to be a failure, as evidenced by a few hundred years of attempts by classical liberals to dismantle the state from within, only for the state to keep growing anyways. It also ends up discrediting the cause in the eyes of the lay public, who then associate it with just another political movement.
I don’t see revolution and reformation as being all that different. The goal, of course, is to remove the ability for some men to wield political power over others. I see three ways of accomplishing this:
-
Persuading the ones in power to give up their power,
-
Using defensive violence to incapacitate the ability of those men to wield political power,
-
A combination of 1 and 2 (I believe this has generally been what was done throughout history).
In all likelihood, some amount of defensive violence would have to be used. As politics is the means to control state violence, I don’t see how it is necessarily any worse to use politics to supply that defense as it would be to do so personally and physically (via picking up guns). The counter-economy may be able to weaken the state, but it will never go down without a fight.
Also, I think the counter-economy should include legal entrepreneurial activities which can lead to more voluntary solutions for society’s problems which might otherwise be attempted by governments (such as education).
I regard most government employees as simply being the result of a bad meme, and I certainly don’t wish any violence or harm to come to them. For this reason, I hope the democratic process can be successfully wielded to weaken the government (although I don’t think Ron Paul will be the one to do it).
Reformists have never been in the majority. If the majority cannot be pursuaded to become political libertarians, how could one hope to eliminate the state? When nearly all governments in history collapsed, they were replaced by others. This will always be true as long as the vast majority support the existence of governments. For reform to work, a majority is needed. For revolution to work and stick, a majority is also needed. I don’t see the means the majority uses as being so important or really even worth arguing over.
Yeah, I’m doing videos now. This was my first, I was a little nervous and psyched up. The next will hopefully be more coherent.
I think the reformist route is a weak route, and that if we want to succeed as a group then we need to appear strong.
I’m planning on doing another video on the ridiculousness of teenage “Anarchists” and how they give us bad names. The ones that chant in the streets about how the “street is theirs” and how “the people united will never be defeated,” yeah, complete pussies, idiots, weaklings, and poor excuses for Anarchists.
The days when Anarchists were not afraid to have real fights with the police in the streets, when Anarchists were not afraid to fire bomb police stations, those were the days.
No, it won’t, and that’s, war is imminent. So let’s not dance around the issue any longer, let’s not waste our time with the Ron Pauls and the Libertarian Parties, start now, fight now, win now!
Then you’re in good company! So did SEK3!
Neither do I, but understand, I am perfectly willing to make those that would force the violent state upon me to cease that course of action… by any means necessary.
The democratic process can only strengthen the state. Again, you’re trying to use an organization to attack the organization’s constituents. It’s NOT going to happen, ever.
I addressed this.
The “majority” (I hate when people use the cliche “vast majority”) will go with whoever is strongest.
So we don’t need the majority, we don’t need to compromise, we need to appear strong, confident, and willing to do whatever it takes.
Most people in a democracy are stealing from and regulating others, and being stolen from and regulated themselves. There really aren’t very many people who directly benefit from a democracy, in my opinion. Besides, if a democratic majority vote for liberty and never get it, then a revolution would be that much easier. If they do get some of it, then again a revolution would be that much easier. There are of course plenty of examples of those who directly benefit from power (i.e., politicians) peacefully stepping down after the democratic process has removed them (although I’d certainly not say this would always occur).
My main disagreement with you is over the means to remove the state. We all know force, power, would be required to some extent. Whether that power is political or personal, it must not be misused in order for liberty to remain. If a minority is “strong” enough, as you say, that minority must also be ethical enough not to use its power for coercive ends. The same is true of any politician elected. Either way we are trying to use power to attack power. Maybe I’m too cynical, but I can’t see it working unless the majority is motivated enough to toss out those who abuse their power; the majority must accept a libertarian ethic.
Its my belief that people should help where and how they can. Maybe thats in politics, maybe its not.
What does this have to do with anything? Please don’t tell me you’re making the mistake of including the “voters” in the state organization. That’s something that should have been established for you a while ago.
Again, I address this issue. The problem is not so much with “making it easier” it’s the capital-success ratio. You’re malinvesting the resources! Anarchist potential correlates so strongly with Anarchist mentality that dilluting it even a little bit completely negates any worth it may have possessed. Your methods are not allocatively efficient, in fact they are so allocatively inefficient that they deter libertarianisms progression.
The acceptance of political means for revolutionary ends is similar to the acceptance of cheap lending policies to attain real economic growth.
They deserve a kinder assassination then, but still an assassination. In any case, it can not be said that politicians step down from power, but rather they merely step down from one position of power.
I’m almost certain you’re referring to Calvin Coolidge. Yes, he “stepped down” from the presidency, but he attained many new positions of power that would not have otherwise been possible as president.
If you’re referring to George Washington, may the man rest in hell. He was used by Hamilton as a symbol to advance any statist policy he wanted. Washington, though not technically in any party was most definitely a Federalist.
OK, I’m just going to quote things that I previously responded to. I shouldn’t have to type new sentences that say the same old things.
All I’d ment was that I don’t trust any sort of “strong” revolutionary group to voluntarily give up their power after they’ve ousted oppressors any more than I trust a politician to do the same. If the majority follows this group because of their strength, then I’m sure you can see where that could lead.
Of course, the two approaches are not mutually exclusive at all, but I for one don’t want to have anything to do with bombing anyone as long as peaceful options are viable (and yeah, I understand that by paying taxes I am supporting bombing, but I make it a point not to pay many taxes…). There are of course areas where the state does not allow competition, so a counter-economy is difficult. Using the political process to remove these barriers would be beneficial to everyone, and its been done before (e.g., the strong recent trend towards privatization around the world in everything but health care).
Nic, my Catholic friend, why’d you say, ‘F Youtube!’? What’s the problem w/ Youtube?
Good video Niccolo, and I agree. I was expecting you to sound way more Italian though. [:O]
Those were also not Anarcho-Capitalists. Those were non-marxian communists who thought socialism could be achieved by destroying the state.
apart from the fact that in celebrating this sort of violent response, you lose a lot of people who might be sympathetic to your cause, i’d ask to cite any time in history where your approach has worked.
as far as reforming the state using the political process, i’d refer to the repeal of the corn law in 1846 under sir thomas peel (conservative pm of britain) as a classic example. took aristocratic power away from the whigs and enabled the formation of an extensive middle class. can’t knock that.
the fact that fabianism has succeeded in shaping the public consciousness where communism failed, demonstrates the sense of promoting reform, not revolution. even the word revolution will alienate the average punter. reforms are achievable where the ideas have been promulgated and have taken root.
politics is the art of compromise, and the hard-and-pure condemn themselves to remain marginal players.
i’m not american, but from here in australia, ron paul appears to be an unbelievable stroke of good fortune. none of our politicians has any clue about monetary policy, and our conservative party is about as “small government” as your republican party!
Yes, given the intended ends. If the institution involves the permanent erection of a monopolistic hegemony, then certainly it will be corrupt, which is why the point is so stressed that the group is aimed at revolution against the state and not reformation of the state.
So, you don’t pay “many taxes” and you (possibly?) “vote Ron Paul,” I see… anything else being contributed lately?
Peace? PEACE?!? You think there can be peace?!!?!?!? Well, you’re wrong. You think there can be cooperation with these people, but how can there be any peace when they take away your dignity? When they strip you of basic, human decency?
The state lives and dies on misery; they thrive on making men live like animals, only so that they can kill them like animals. I’ve had enough of that, I’ve filled myself with so much hate for members of the state, I’ve seen so much misery caused by their sins; I don’t plan on living like an animal, and I sure as hell don’t plan on dying like one either. For thousands of years these people have roamed the Earth pillaging and raping everything they could get their claws around, but now it’s their turn to live like animals; I promise one day they’re going to live like animals and they’re going to die like animals too.
First of all, it’s not “a counter-economy,” it’s the counter-economy, there exists no specifications for what we Anarchists want to purge the state from, nothing is exempt, nothing is excluded. Is it hard? Yes. Is it painful? I can give you pictures showing you that it is. Is it worth it? Worth every second I spend living as Agorist as I can.
Privatization? You call giving the sons and daughters of congressmen the cushy, and expropriated, jobs of corporate big-wigs, dominating the entrepreneurial class, sucking out the life-blood of the market economy a trend towards legitimate private enterprise?
This is a huge thing for us Market Anarchists and why we don’t call ourselves “Anarcho-Capitalists,” you’re just conflating “capitalist” with entrepreneur and free-marketeer.
Because, Youtube would not allow me to put anything above 10 minutes up, and that video was 11 minutes. [:P]
My family came here before I was really in any type of language development. I think by the age of 8, you really start to develop your accent.
While speaking Italian, however, I blend right in with my father.
No, they weren’t, they were individualist Anarchists, capable of seeing with their own eyes the things “Anarcho-Capitalists” have a tendency to push under the rug with convenient ignorance.
Do you know what they meant by “Socialism?”
You’re speaking on two different levels with these people. You neither acknowledge, nor respect, fellow Market Anarchists that are completely willing to live by non-aggression axioms and within the absolute freest of economies, only under a different mode of production than the classic, Anglo-Saxon concept of business as usual.
**
Good. I don’t want, nor do I need, paper-tigers and straw men, reformists. I need soldiers, I don’t need anyone else, but soldiers.
**
1776 is kind of a good example. We came close in the Ukraine against the State-Socialists, also close in Hungary, and before that with Wang Xianzhi and Huang Chao. There are other revolutions that were successful, just not leading to this direct application of the free market, obviously.
**
Wait one second. It took power from the whigs, yes, to do what? Give power to the Peelites?
Even so, look at the results over the years. How much freer are the British people now? What government continued to exist? Was there exponential growth or decay in social welfare afterwards?
Sure, you’ll mask the intents of the state behind some one liners and a few policy reversals in a year or two, but when it comes to substance, count on the reformists to be your proverbial minutemen in the bed of change.
**
Whose consciousness? [^o)]
**
Marginal in the eyes of the weak for the time of their relative peace, sure. When our time comes, however, we will not hide behind the trivialities of political society.
**
Oh boy, Ron Paul knows that you can’t get price stabilization through fed manipulation! He’ll surely save the cheerleader, and then the world!
what? are you garibaldi marching on rome with the thousand volunteers? best of luck! 1776 is a bit of a stretch.
a brief, british history recap:
peel, in repealing the corn laws which had allowed the landed aristocrats (whigs) to gauge the poor through high food prices, was reviled by his very own conservative party colleagues. bottom line: the poor enjoyed rising disposible income, and britain started its march towards becoming a middle-class nation. or as socialists used to sneeringly say “a nation of shopkeepers”. what’s bad about this? the welfare state in britain followed a similar time-line to america, ie only exploded after the great depression.
as for fabianism, look at the penetration of public schooling, public housing, public medicine, public pensions, and the list goes on. sadly, it’s hard to recognise the america of yore.
regarding history’s near-misses (hungary, ukraine, etc) - well, historians will agonise over what might have been, but those only those who actually succeed shape the world. know nothing about huang chao or wang xianzhi, so can’t comment.
perhaps your video will change the world where ron paul doesn’t.
as a postscript: this is in wikipedia’s entry for huang chao -
“Although Huang Chao invited many Tang officials to his new court, it was established by criminal, anarchist organization and thus had no real agenda about how to govern the nation effectively.”
not a very impressive report card, perhaps you should bring them up to speed.