Right Libertarianism

Yes, you are advocating the same failed strategy that libertarians and classical liberals have tried for centuries now: the trojan horse, reform from within, the electoral process, alliances with conservatism, and so on.

You have it in reverse, sir. Surely you are aware of prohibition theory? Drug trafficking has increased on the black market precisely because of drug prohibition. The black market itself exists precisely because of such prohibitions. It is a product of state failure. And it is an agorist activity, among other possibilities. Prohibition theory demonstrates that it is impossible to truly get rid of such things. In some ways, prohibition actually increases such things. Your view that the government grows because of black markets totally ignores that the black markets exist only because of government intervention in the first place.

Also, this comes into the territory of what SEK3 already explained in the NLM,

Sure. But my only point is that it would be inappropriate to call such a person “not a real libertarian.” Tactics are an in-house debate.

–Len

Interesting analogy, Len. However, I don’t think that reformists can be called “not real libertarians,” they must only be called reformists - if I’ve ever stated otherwise, I would like to retract it.

The problem is that reformism doesn’t work - though when speaking of reformism, remember I am talking about political activism in general, and not merely voting which I think is fairly harmless to the movement.

That’s a valid opinion, and I even mostly agree with it. But I don’t think it justifies all the aspersions being cast. If a “reformist” sells out and betrays liberty itself, like the “pro-war libertarians,” then I say it’s open season: cast aspersions till they slink away in shame.

Meanwhile, reformism has many moral hazards, but it’s not helpful to accuse them prematurely of being snared by them.

–Len

There are thousands of ways to approach the political process; I could easily say that you are advocating the same failed strategy that has been tried for centuries: the black market. There is more than one way to go about doing things.

I know that black markets exist due to government; that doesn’t invalidate my point whatsoever.

Governments participate in, and corner, black markets.

Len, I think it largely depends upon the accusation itselfl. Is a reformist libertarian still a libertarian? Yes, I will argue that case. However, is he actively helping the movement or harming it indirectly through both sucking resources away from better alternatives and linking libertarianism to philosophies and groups that have no interest in liberty - or at least none that is radical?

I would argue that they are harmful to the libertarian movement, generally.

I believe Paul personally believes in the right to secession. I have heard Paul say that he doesn’t really favor democracy. I believe that the Ron Paul we see most often doing interviews and populist speeches, is a far more complex gentleman than many might be willing to admit.

Trade requires co-operation. Dealing with a beliggerent trader might increase my prices, as I would rather voluntarily trade with someone more pleasant and easy to transact with. There is a reason why pretty/handsome people get jobs in sales, and those of us of more modest appearance push pencils and sit behind computers.

I don’t think Rothbard was a great communicator from what I have heard of him speak. Jittery might be too kind. Raimondo on the other hand is excellent, but he is not mindlessly insulting. Ironic enough, both have their roots in the “old right” of American conservatism.

As far as glass homes, the Ad Homs span several pages and threads. You’ve admitted that they are a deliberate tactic. I’d rather move past them and into productive debate, but it’s not entirely up to me. I need your help.

Thank you. This is very true. And as mentioned before, not everyone goes from coerced ignorant state actor directly to counter-economic anarchist.

conservatism

  1. The disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.

  2. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.

  3. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.

  4. a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes (hahaha)

  5. A general preference for the existing order of society, and an opposition to efforts to bring about sharp change.

Check out this gem! No wonder we are not conservatives.

This is the definition of conservatism that I tend to use. The conservative, by definition, resists the kind of changes that the libertarian advocates. The conservative views the libertarian as a hopeless utopian. The conservative tries to claim the mantle of “realism”, although their version of “realism” is merely closed-mindedness and inflexibility. The conservative supports tradition for its own sake, divorced from rationality and context. When the conservative is not romanticizing the past, they are defending the present as some sort of inevitable “natural order”. While the libertarian places emphasis on liberty, in contrast the conservative places emphasis on tradition, law and order.

I believe Rothbard was correct when he proclaimed that the libertarian must try to maintain long-term optimism, while the conservative maintains short-term optimism and tends to be a pessemist about everything else. One is a future-oriented outlook, the other is a back-ward looking outlook or a reactionary one. The time preferances of the two are very different.

In this article, the following is stated:

“Whatever the difficulties of conservatism, surely one can improve upon the typical performance of those who take it upon themselves to explain it. In place of the conventional accounts, try this one: Conservatism is the defense of legitimacy wherever it happens to exist. “Legitimacy” here is defined in the empirical, Weberian sense: that is, an institution is legitimate if and only if the opinion has become widespread that it is right (for whatever reason or lack thereof) to obey it. The conservative, in short, cultivates obedience to existing institutions. This definition, I submit, has all the advantages of the conventional definitions, none of their defects, and some important advantages of its own.”

I can immediately see some huge defects with this way of viewing things. For one thing, it defines “legitimacy” in terms of majority or public opinion, which can often be dead wrong. Social convention in and of itself is not necessarily rational or true. Something is not legitimate just because a mob of people think it is. With this method of viewing the world, literally any institution or norm that currently exists can be defended. This attitude is one of stagnation; it tries to legitimize currently existing conditions and keep them static. If this were applied to the 18th or 19th century, chattel slavery would have to be defended.

In contrast, libertarians question legitimacy based upon an independant standard of justice. If currently existing conditions and institutions contradict such an independant standard, then to that extent the libertarian opposes them and advocates changes. The libertarian does not believe that you have an unchosen positive obligation to obey existing institutions just because they are percieved as being legitimate or have been there for a long time. The libertarian has some concept of civil disobedience. The libertarian believes in progress and evolution. Society is not static, nor should we attempt to make it so.

For the rest of the article, the guy goes on to deny the very implications of his own definition of conservatism.

The entire point is to eliminate having ballots and whatnot in 30 languages.

That reduces spending, which is a good thing.

The point of Agorism, eggy, is to evade the state in the first place. You can say that the guvment is going to get much bigger if Ron Paul and Bob Barr aren’t on their knees begging it not to - while simultaneously pushing through a war on drugs and immigrants - but the fact is that we as Agorists simply don’t care. Agorists will evade the state whether it is big or small. We will ignore it and if it comes to our door steps, we will shoot it - together.

Your problem is that you’re accepting the system implicitly.

Weigh the smallest fraction of retaining a dozen or so translators (maybe adding to an annual of one million a year - IF THAT) to translate these documents to monopolizing one culture over another by force and the libertarian answer is clear.

Paul favors a republic. Paul defends secession only because of the 10th amendmant.

I’ve seen all the evidence in the world to suggest he, the individual, is a conservative statist and absolutely no evidence to contradict it. I will admit that the sheeple of his cult are convertable, but the man himself is a state worshipping pagan, through and through.

Hunh? Paul doesn’t defend the entire Constitution. I think you’re way off base judging him the way you do. His rhetoric is his vehicle to educate and attack the government from within.

I doubt you have seen all of the evidence in the world. I’m probably quite sure I’ve got dozens of hours of debate and interviews on you, not to mention books and speeches. And I don’t think I have seen all of the evidence in the world.

Back to being condescending. “Sheeple”, and then cheap rhetoric about being a pagan (he’s a Protestant). [8-)]