~
You misread his quote. [:)]
You are correct. There are anarchists, though, who believe that any anarchist who attempts to reform the system from within is doomed, sooner or later, to renounce anarchy. The reasoning is that while working within the state, one’s self-interest (partially) coincides with the state’s (for example, because you need a paycheck to live). Therefore your self-interest and your ideology come into conflict, and in the long run libertarians always bet on self-interest.
It’s fallacious to make the leap from “everyone who cooperates with the state is corrupted sooner or later,” to “Ron Paul is presently corrupted.” Since he’s a minarchist, not an anarchist, his conduct is consistent with his principles–amazingly so. If you described RP to me, I’d invoke the above reasoning and suggest that you’re probably nuts. I took quite a bit of convincing that he’s for real.
–Len
I think part of the problem is that you’re trying to monopolize “gradualism” when quite clearly the political process does not necessarily equate to “gradualism” so much as “utilitarianism”. Part of the problem with the political process in representative democracies is that it forces the voter to act as a utilitarian, and thereby compromising principles in the process. The range and nature of the choices that one is presented with in representative democracy is very narrow and a matter of package deals. The nature of the political process is not “gradual” so much as possessing its own in-built incentives and warped incentives that would force one to passively accept a wrong in the name of trying to defend and perpetuate a right.
The functionality of the “anarchist” who votes for conservatives/republicans is as a conservative in practise. The functionality of the “anarchist” who supports state-socialists is a state-socialist or left-liberal in practise.
BP, consider for a moment the anarchist who always votes for the worst possible candidate (this time around, McCain) in hopes of monkey-wrenching the state by hastening its collapse. The American Empire has (very probably) collapsed, but it won’t lie down yet. McCain invading Iran, Syria and anyone else who looks at him funny will hasten that day. Is the anarchist a “Republican in practise,” or simply a saboteur? It’s less direct sabotage than derailing trains, but surely you can concede that intent colors the interpretation of his actions?
–Len
I find that approach kind of amusing, but I couldn’t imagine putting myself in a position where I would actually support something that is blatantly opposed to a principle in the name of achieving a principle. I’d want to find a way to hasten the state’s collapse without endorsing a violation of a principle as a means.
As I’ve said all along, I agree it’s impossible to win using purely political means. On the same taken, it’s impossible to win using purely non-political means; if you let everyone else decide who runs the state and how it’s run, it will run all over you and your agorist paradise.
In the past (I’m not sure whether you still agree with this position), you stated that it’s hypocritical to participate in elections if you are opposed to democracy; no it’s not; it’s self-defense.
As I’ve said all along, political means have historically and empirically proven to enable, perpetuate and expand the state. For the state is entirely defined and dependant on political means. It is the economic or social means that are the true counterweight to the state. Competition, direct action and social evolution tends to make the state more obsolete over time, reducing the effectiveness of its enforcement arm. Only competition from within civil society itself brews the true seeds of meaningful change.
The beauty of agorism is that it’s based precisely in those areas where the state has most failed to prohibit things: black or grey markets. Prohibition is a miserable failure by its very nature, whether that be drugs or immigration or guns or anything. Furthermore, the moment that the state does rely on such naked force, it’s violent nature becomes much more readily obvious in the eyes of the lay public and hence it is likely to ideologically delegitimize itself.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, the political process is not an efficient or consistant means of self-defense. Participation in political democracy nonethless effects 3rd parties of people or innocent bystanders relative to the individual voter. The incentives are skewed in political democracy. Abolishing political democracy by using it is just as illogical as abolishing slavery by enslaving oneself or becoming a slave owner yourself.
We’re beating a dead horse.
Brainy, don’t fall into what I’ll term the “Nicky” fallacy, that is, thinking that your personal definition of a word is THE definition of the word. At least for Americans, what most people mean by “conservative” the political philosophy wants less regulation, lower taxes, parental and gun rights, some unfortunately moralistic laws, few government programs and a strong military. Liberals, on the other hand, want higher taxes, especially on “the rich” (aka middle class and up), more welfare, more social controls, and business and environmental regulations. Neither is particularly “forward-looking”, but given that, at least in the US, we were in most ways more free in the past than we are now, conservatism, I believe, is closer than liberalism to anarchism. In any case, it isn’t it’s polar opposite.
The cliche that conservatives favor less government and laissez-faire is largely a myth. Conservatives have co-opted quasi-libertarian rhetoric to obscure a blatantly corporatist, neo-fascist, neo-mercantalist, theocratic, nationalist, militarist position. A few measly tax cuts means nothing when they merely look towards massive borrowing and monetrary inflation as another source of revenue, create massive “national security” bureaucracies, involve us in expensive wars, establish military bases all around the world, strengthen police and executive powers, pimp corporate welfare, and so on. The conservative’s intervention is merely on the behalf of somewhat different interests than that of the left-liberal. Not a significant difference in either nature or degree.
Also, I was comparing anarchists and conservatives, not contemporary left-liberals. And I was using the term conservative in the classical and most broad sense of the term. Left-liberals would actually count as conservatives under such an analysis.
Then you’re in for a treat. This is the man, the myth, the legend, writing back to you. [:)]
I think that the real problem is the newer co-option of the term “conservative” by modern neocon Republicans, which is more recent but just as bad as the co-option of the term “liberal” by Democrats. In a sense, I must confess to making the same mistake I accuse you of; to the degree that these truly have become the ways these terms are used, I am overriding popular perception by my own antiquated ideas. Still, I don’t think that the neocons have quite succeeded yet in co-opting “conservative” to the degree “liberal” has been corrupted, and indeed, I think the candidacy of Ron Paul has pushed it some back the other way.
Still, these are debatable issues, and ultimately irrelevant matters of semantics. One of the strangest things about the liberty-minded is that we have come to very near places by what are conventionally seen as opposite paths, and I think that many of us see the worst evils in the path we do not know, and are more comfortable with language which demonizes the philosophies which we are actually both against in those terms.
Fine, but not relevant to what I was stating.
“reformists will argue”, assumes reformists all share the same approach, understanding and tactics. They/we don’t. Of course, there seems to be an arrogance around here assumes reformists are bigger enemies than statists, and that anything less than a complete commitment to anarchy is failure. Which I think any rational person who has been out and about in the world knows better than to believe.
Not really. And why I asked Nicky. You see, in the agora, I would refuse to deal with someone like him. If he behaved like that, I doubt he would have many trade partners, employers, employees or friends. People will avoid trading with people who are difficult, undesirable or mean. That he hasn’t realized that already, leads me to believe that he hasn’t yet been in a position, or has been sheltered from situations where he would have to make his own trades for survival and profit.
Building coalitions, making friend and allies, establishing trust and respect, are not statist activities. They are the foundations for peaceful and productive interaction in a society.
That’s cool then. Because when I use Ad Hominem, it’s usually very obvious.
“You see, in the agora, I would refuse to deal with someone like him. If he behaved like that, I doubt he would have many trade partners, employers, employees or friends. People will avoid trading with people who are difficult, undesirable or mean. That he hasn’t realized that already, leads me to believe that he hasn’t yet been in a position, or has been sheltered from situations where he would have to make his own trades for survival and profit.”
Maybe, but that doesn’t necessarily make it so; unless Niccolo himself wants to change his attitude & behavior, frankly there’s not a thing anyone else can do about it. Seems a bit superficial to argue about such, imo.
It’s not arrogant in seeing that despite differing tactics amid those who utilize political means, there is the core principle of reformism in every tactic, and that is using the state as a means to decrease the state, or for some, to eventually distinguish it.
The fact that gradualism occurs while pursuing political means (as reformism is not radical) gives more risk at the objectives being watered-down, lost, and give way to more utilitarian saving face maneuvers; getting the best possible deal amid (aforementioned by BP) package deals that can be rationalized as the “lesser of evils”, and the cycle begins anew, nothing much changes.
Political means & reformism just doesn’t seem logicially consistient to me anymore.
However, gradualism is seen in Agorism’s strategy, but it succeeds where Reforism will fail in that it goes outside of the state (thereof, there is no risk of libertarianism slipping into utilitarianism; the classical liberals made this mistake in the past…), decreases it’s legitimacy while increasing the legitimacy of black & grey (and eventually the concept of free) markets.
I hardly see how holding those views, and that political means of reform within the state ends up legitimizing the state in the process & is counter-productive towards an anarchist society, as arrogant, but as a matter of a different opinion. It would be arrogant (not to mention wrong) for me to impose my viewpoint coercively, and doubly if I just responded: “…because I said so.” or “…it’s common sense truth.”, however.
Admittedly, if I ever got into a shouting match & starting using caps an bolded letters, I may have to eat humble pie concerning arrogance, as would others, I’d think. I don’t think I would though seeing as the time spent on other internet forums, I’ve seen where that usually leads to, lol.
I didn’t mean for that be as long as a post, as it was, with my little diatribe on agorism, though, sorry.
To what?
I’m curious; do you really believe that Paul is anything less than a nationalist? Do you really believe he doesn’t adhere to simply “reducing” government to its Constitutional levels - minus the slavery?
I don’t know who wrote this, but I don’t know how they can juxtapose trade and debate for strategy coming with the conclusion that if one acts in a manner in the one he must also act in a similar manner when in the situation of the other.
Apparently the quoted person here has never read anything by Rothbard or Justin Raimondo (two of the most caustic writers I know of) and is not familiar with their lives.
Also, in the past few pages, I think, I have used a bear minimum of ad hominems, but have seen in its place such friendly terms as “boor” and “childish” used by others as they sit comfortably in their glass homes.
The current political strategy for libertarians is entirely wrong. No one is advancing the idea that we continue it.
Yes, let’s look at the drug war! Drug trafficking is a huge business, at least a million times larger in dollars than any libertarian-minded agorist activity. See what it’s done to the size of government? It’s grown it. The right-wing (and the left-wing too, let’s be honest) has used that sort of underground activity as an excuse to increase government’s power for ages; don’t think that the government would’t crack down the moment it notices your agorist tax evasion. It always does.
Yes, elections clearly affect other people against their will (that’s why democracy is evil), but you have to keep in mind that one side is going to win, regardless of whether you vote.
I also agree that voting for the lesser of two similar evils is essentially useless; you can’t really tell which one would be worse aftter he/she would be in office. However, there’s nothing wrong with voting against a local ballot initiative to raise taxes or increase spending, voting for a local ballot initiative to cut taxes or decrease spending, or even voting for an incumbent like Ron Paul over clearly more statist candidates.
Yes. On the Mises Institute website, you can buy Bob Murphy’s home study course. There are two packages: one is just the books and papers, together with a study guide. The other is that, plus access to an online classroom and regular discussions with Dr. Murphy.
Ego, I think you are correct when saying that there is nothing wrong per se with voting against these things, especially in a referendum, but the bredth of political action does not come from mere votes - it comes form real resources being wasted in the political arena when they could have been utilized in the market, the free-market, the counter-economy!