So now that I have the knowledge, now what?

Miscellaneous General
1

So I have reached a junction, and now I do not know what to do.

I am in essence an “atheist”. And now I am an anarchist. It is only fairly recently that I have become an anarchist. The tipping point for me was the realization that the “state” is simply the mafia. There is no difference, as far as I can tell, between the state, which gets its funding from unwilling participants and the mafia, which gets its funding from unwilling participants (like the movies where they intimidate local business owners to pay them a small portion of their earnings for their “protective services”).

So now the problem I have, is, do I really care? Anarchism has a major stigma attached to it. People think of anarchists as the rejects in society. Crazies if you will. Or maybe just rebels. Or just irrational.

I have come to the conclusion the problem is people do not think of the government as the mafia. They think of government employees as actually “do-gooders”. People who are looking out for our best interests. But they do not even think of the fact that the employer of government employees gets its money through theft.

I explained to my mother the other day why I am an anarchist. I just said that the government takes money from people without their consent and spends it on things they do not necessarily want, and that this is the same as theft, as far as I am concerned. Her answer was simply, hmm (she is a federal government employee).

So, I was thinking of a couple things I could do, if I really wanted to. I could go every Saturday to the state building and hold up a sign that says something like “end government theft, end government”. But I think people would just think of me as a wacko.

I could also take a video camera to government buildings and ask government employees, on camera, how they feel working for the mafia and then explain to them when they give me a blank look that their employer gets its money by taking it from people without their consent, just like mafias do. I could then put it up on youtube. But, I do not even know if they will let me into government buildings with a video camera. And for all I know it could get me killed really quick (I doubt the mafia would want to lose its power).

Or, I could just do nothing and hope humanity eventually figures out a way to get off this planet, because if we cannot, then we are all fucked in the end anyways.

2

I live about a half-mile from a major university. The University of Oklahoma, to be specific. Tens of thousands of impressionable youngsters. I would like to create pamphlets (or multipage flyers or whatever is most affordable and professional looking) to give to the impressionable kids and talk to as many as possible. Maybe it wouldn’t do much, but I’m sure it would convince some. And what if every anarchist did this everywhere? I know that “what if” statement is an age-old cliche, but still! If I can discover what the legal boundaries of using a megaphone on campus are, I might find out and just hang out there a few afternoons a week. I don’t work much, so I certainly have the time.

I think that the whole Ron Paul thing that occurred across many campuses makes this a good time to try and speak to many people of that approximate age group. Ron Paul, like it or not that he was running for a government office, laid a good foundation that many have used and will continue to use to become anarchists, and people should take advantage of this rare occurrence.

3

I think you need to trace how exactly you got to the conclusion that the government is the same as the mafia. Blurbing out this conclusion helps no one.

In fact it is absolutely true that some government employees are actual “do-gooders”. Obviously I can only speak for my own country*, the social democratic Denmark, but my experience is mostly so; government employees are actually trying to do good. No offence, but it is simply silly to think that the mindset, or the motivation, of government employees equal that of mafia gangsters. My suggestion would be to stop implying to people, who are trying to do good, that they are doing evil. Instead try to convince them how everything would be better without government. If they care about children not being molested try to think of ways how this would be better prevented on the free market; if they care about homeless people explain to them why churches would help them better without government etc. If less sensitive you could try to ask questions like: What is the best scenario - a) drug-addict robbing people on the streets because the need great amounts of money to buy drugs or b) drug-addict scraping small amounts of money home on a genuine, pitiful?, job to buy cheap drugs and robbing no one in the process? etc.

I’ve never read it myself, but Nitroadict mentioned “Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression” at one point. Perhaps that would be a good book to read and, if you like it, advice others to read it (your mother, the “do-gooders” you plan to “ridicule” on camera etc.)

The thing is… being aware of government as initiator of aggression it not the most important thing to notice, IMHO… being aware of the potential for the free market, voluntarism and cooperation to be a more effective way to do good is much more important.

*) [EDIT: Obviously I can’t speak for my own country. That would be a mind-boggling feat, but you get the picture I hope? [:$]]

4

I think trying to convince most people that the “free markets” works, is hopeless. I have tried. It does not work for the most part.

I am convinced the only way we can get rid of government is to convince people that the government gets its money immorally.

Instead of being as confrontational, I could go to government buildings and ask employees how they feel about the fact that their employer gets its money by taking it from people against their consent. A little light will probably go off in their little heads, and then all their “do-goodyness” will probably disappear.

But if you want to waste your time trying to convince others that the “free market” can work, go for it. It is a long, drawn-out process, and probably not possible to do with many people.

5

He explained that both the government and the mafia get their funding from unwilling participants. Besides, anarchists already know what he is talking about.

I would say that the moral arguments and the practical arguments have largely the same importance. Some days I feel that the argument from morality is more powerful, and others I feel that it is the impracticality of government that is more overwhelming. Now I conclude that we should promote both arguments fairly equally, but with changes as to strategy.

For example, talking with state-socialists about the evils of taxation and monopoly might not do so well when they don’t even understand how a free market functions; in this case it’s probably better to focus on practicality. Or, when you’re talking with minarchists, you would do best to emphasize the moral arguments; in my case, it was the argument from morality that converted me from minarchism to anarchism.

6

For me, the path to anarchism started with seed that grew, and not an overwhelming blast of a fundamental truth. It started in a public policy class at UC Berkeley of all places. The professor taught the class with the premise that the market can do SOME things better than the state, so the job of public policy was to figure out what are the things the state can do better. It was such a reasonable proposition, it got in under my lefty radar. From that standpoint, all state action required SOME scrutiny. Fortunately, over a long period of time, I found that, in honesty, NO state actions could bear that scrutiny.

But then again, some people get there with a single Ayn Rand book or Ron Paul speech.

7

Ron Paul is no Anarchist or even leaning in that fashion. He aggranizes a tyrannical document (The Constitution) and believes that State level government should legislation morality.If you want to say he is creating a bigger Libertarian base then by all means do so but to state he is bring people towards Anarchism, you are stating a falsehood.

8

Spidey,

First, don’t go protesting. What this movement needs is not sign-waving, but rational debate and discourse.

Second, read Konkin and Hoppe (esp. the last section). Other ideas to check out are secession and seasteading.

Like I wrote above, I think we need to emphasize both morality and practicality. I definitely agree that teaching others about practicality is difficult - damn economic ignorance - but it is an integral part of anarchism.

One project I’m working on is compiling, condensing, simplifying all of the arguments for anarchism. With such an argument databank it will be much easier to spread our ideas and speed up conversions. As Hoppe noted: “states, as powerful and invincible as they might seem, ultimately owe their existence to ideas and, since ideas can in principle change instantaneously, states can be brought down and crumble practically overnight.”

Now that you’re an anarchist, the battle has just begun. This is not the time for pessimism, but for glorious action!

9

Well, I tried having a discussion with someone I work with, and it is pretty freaking hard to even get them to agree that taxation is theft, because the government lets us vote! And he cannot get it throug his head that just because the mafia lets you vote in their boss does not legitimize the theft.

10

Two things : 1) you don’t really know if they are well-intentioned or not. 2) Even if they are, government as a whole, and many of its members, are willing to use force against dissidents, so the claim that they are misguided altruists is hard to be taken seriously…

11

Totally agree. Having discussions with people is damn frustrating, especially if there are no formal rules. That’s why another of my projects is building a debating website where debates are founded on three rules: 1- Define all terms 2- Answer all questions 3- Standardize all arguments.

If you can’t get someone into a formal debate, then try getting them to write down their arguments. I find that having the arguments down on paper makes the debate so much more effective. The objectivity that comes from having something on paper also helps statists see the lunacy of their ideas.

And if debating doesn’t go so well, then take some time off to work on making your arguments as simple and as potent as possible.

12

You seem to be under the wrong impression, i.e. that I don’t share spideynw’s and your own market anarchistic views. Well I do, I already knew what spideynw was talking about when I read the OP. I did so because I have read my fair share of Rothbard, Hoppe, Block etc. And because I know the arguments for market anarchism I am willing to accept spideynw’s conclusion that government = mafia. But outsiders do not know the arguments leading to this conclusion, which is why it helps no one to blurb out such a conclusion. It doesn’t help market anarchism and it doesn’t help the people you try to convince.

Well, as it happens I believe the moral, or ethical, questions are far more important than practical ones. I am not in favor of free markets because they are “practical”. The free market is the only moral/ethical way to allocate ressources because everyone benefits to the extent they cooperate. In the case of minarchists I would certainly hope they already knew how markets work, how else could they defend such a view? Now, how many government employees are minarchists, I wonder?

Take for instance the example of my own mother. She is a social worker and sometimes deem it necessary to remove children from their parents because the children are molested in some way. From a rothbardian viewpoint: They are neglecting their role of guardianship. In a governmental world it is quite difficult to “remove” children from their home eventhough they want to be. From my viewpoint, in a market anarchistic world, it would be a lot less difficult to “remove” children if they wanted to be removed, yet a lot more difficult to remove them if they would not. Now, when I say “remove” in the context of a market anarchistic world I simply mean an adult offering a molested child sanctuary or guardianship so that it is possible for them to run away from home, at least until the parents promise to stop the molestation, but possibly until they a grownups themselves. This could be done more effectively both morally and practically, i.e. child molestation could be minimized without employing coercion nor bureaucracy. Now the chain of arguments are of course greater than what I have just written, but in any case I can say that I, during intensive discussions, have begun to convince my mother.

I clearly stated I spoke for Denmark and later added that of course I could not speak for the whole of Denmark. In any case, living in a social democratic country, it is very hard not to have a lot of friends who are not government employees. Why would I not know if they are well-intentioned? And knowing that they are I think it is intellectual dishonesty to generalize or extrapolate to all government employees and disregard this knowledge. Also I would claim that the reason most people are willing to use force against dissidents is quite possibly because they are misguided “altruists”*.

I subscribe to the notion: “The way to Hell is paved with good intentions” (or, however the saying goes). So, naturally I try to change their view, but to have a starting point saying government employees are either ignorant initiators of aggression or plain evil is to give them the moral high ground right off the bat. In such a situation you have already lost.

*)Bearing in mind altruisme is impossible using e.g. Brainpolice’s exposition of the concept.

13

So what? He uses the constitution as a rhetorical device for attack the federal government.

Seriously, these attacks on RP are getting tiring. He’s done more work for the libertarian movement than all the leftist videos on Youtube put together have.

14

He brought me, AND I was a socialist, lol. He’s the only politician who refers to Rothbard, Spooner and Mises. He’s a minarchist, but I’m pretty sure he would accept anarchism.

15

Why be confrontational? That won’t get us anywhere. Either these individuals know full well where their money comes from or they think they good enough good that it doesn’t matter. Seriously, anarchists have no notion of the idea of public relations. Most people think anarchists are those people “that carry skateboards and do graffiti”.

If this movement is going anywhere it needs to start taking itself seriously, unless we do that nobody else will. This means moving on from rants on Youtube to other more influencial, respectable positions elsewhere. I never bothered to finish the New Libertarian Manifesto but it simply isn’t an effective means to undermine the state, a few kids practising counter economics won’t do anything. By the time people have children they’re not going to put their families safety at risk for the sake of agorism.

Libertarians and anarchists make it all to easy to be smeared.

16

I’ve always thought that it was a silly thing to claim RP is an anarchist. But come to think of it I don’t necessarily think it’s so ridiculous. He worked with Rothbard, he is a associate of Rockwell. It’s almost certain that he knows the idea. I’m not by any means saying he’s an anarchist. But for the public a constitutionalist is far more palatable than an anarchist. Not to mention, the constitution is means to attack the state that many Americans will find common ground on. The truth of the matter is that nobody is more pro government now than before, as a result of his campaign.

17

I think you or me or anybody else can do nothing more than keep trying to spread the knowledge further.

Furthermore, I don’t think that it can be the aim of someone’s life to spread the knowledge without any expectaion of rewards.

Against an established and popular system of thinking, the innovators always find great restrictions.

World still needs many more Ayn Rand’ Mises and Hazlitt.

18

Yes I was wondering the same thing also, where do I go now that I am an anarchist. I mean I’m new here and have much to learn. The most important thing, in my opinion, is how to apply our theories in a practical and effective manner. I would appreciate if anybody knew of any anarcho-capitalist organizations, particulary in of the Rothbardian persuasion, in the North Eastern area of the U.S. I believe just sitting on our butts waiting for the state to collaspse is the worst possible thing to do and, while education is a significant part of reaching our goal, it is in the broader scheme of things, just simply not enough.

19

Yeah, someone who understands.

And I completely agree that we need to start getting organized. I have not been able to find any anarchist organizations yet.

We need to get the minarchists to become anarchists. A major problem with minarchists is that they have so many differing opinions on how much government is too much government or the best form of government.

20

First of all, I said “instead of being confrontational”. Second of all, I am just trying to get ideas on what to do now.