I feel the same way.
When i see videos on youtube about people becoming libertarians and talking about how the federal reserve is bad for the economy…
In the back of my mind i keep repeating to my self:
plz abct plz abct plz abct
We just need people to be more mature in their libertarianness.
The seed already has been dropped, it now must get watered and nutritioned.
If I had a dollar for every bad critique of the FED and bad explanation of ABCT I’ve seen on youtube…
I laughed it off. It was months ago…just before the election. They were going to stand on the corner of intersections with “Obamney” signs (the kind of political activity i think of as a waste of time) on election night and i was going to chill and later relax because I didn’t want Romney to win, haha. ‘If I had a dollar for every war ended by sign carryers…or every opinion turned’ We should be taking our cues from the intelligence agencies; use their subversion tactics as our political action model (minus the questionable stuff). If anything a pro liberty private intelligence network could be a new front and a really useful thing. It would only need to craft counter propaganda to their propaganda. Seriously, people, read about these sources; just look at the tables of contents and page 6 of counterdeception.
Yeah right. I’m not going to utter the Z-word in public…that fight is not mine, but the lobby is a thing.
True that. but, for what end? For what end I ask you? As my Russell quote indicates, these people grow more and more selfish the more they get involved in politics.
Who’s naivety?
Why? People used to read philosophers when they published essays (I’m thinking Rousseau, Burke, and Hume); people who were politically engaged (BEFORE DEMOCRACY) were actually pretty smart. Now people read tweets (or Harry Potter etc). We just need to shift our format from honest white propaganda (der her, libertarianism is good because…) to gray forms (???..profit). As some of you will protest to that…go hold signs in the streets =/
The goal of your group: to promote a specific political agenda.
Your goal: to promote a specific political philosophy.
If you are looking to promote a particular philosophy, college libertarian meetings are simply not the place for it. They are typically looking to push specific policy proposals through protesting, speaking at community events, campaigning for politicians, etc. They are not looking to convert people to a specific philosophy because it beside the point. People from diverse philosophical backgrounds can support the same policy proposals. IOW they are practicing the art of influencing people on the civic level. That’s the definition of politics
Why would you go to a political meeting and expect something besides politics to be discussed?
And?
@ Student
but, that isn’t what they were doing. They were promoting Ayn Rand. What policy implications does she promote that are not firmly grounded in philosophical doctrine?
How far are you willing to seperate political philosophy from political agenda. Are you familiar with the historical events known as the American (Locke, Montesquieu) and French (Rousseau, Robbespierre) revolutions? or the Russian revolution (Marx, Lenin)? I’m pretty sure there is a rather common blend of philosophy and action that results in politics. My concern is over the type of action that furthers the agenda that is developed through philosophy.
Your tone irritates me. I think your criticism (or analysis or whatever) is interprative and unworthy of real concern with issue being discussed.
also
haha, not looking to convert people, but pushing policy proposals in a democratic political arena. Do you see your error in judging their goal oriented actions?
Plus, essentially you are saying that policy proposals are short term multipartisan events and that these political alliances do not last as they are not concerned with the overall philosophy that led to the perspective that leads to the alliance. Thus my point of selling out principles…you should really think about this more.
but, that isn’t what they were doing. They were promoting Ayn Rand. What policy implications does she promote that are not firmly grounded in philosophical doctrine?
hmm.So if I said a political agenda could be advanced without requiring a uniform political philosophy, i must have meant that no one person promoting that agenda can hold a political philosophy.
Okay.
Are you familiar with the historical events known as the American (Locke, Montesquieu) and French (Rousseau, Robbespierre) revolutions? or the Russian revolution (Marx, Lenin)? I’m pretty sure there is a rather common blend of philosophy and action that results in politics.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. So if I said a political agenda could be advanced without requiring a uniform political philosophy, i must have also meant that the spread of a particular philosophy could have no impact on advancing that agenda. And who could argue with the notion that the American, French, and Russian revolutions were driven by ideas (and not the economic interests of individual participants)?
Okay.
Your tone irritates me. I think your criticism (or analysis or whatever) is interprative and unworthy of real concern with issue being discussed.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Okay.
I just can’t seem to tell if you are trolling.
I’m pretty sure that i said in my OP that I am not wishing to exclude the various alignments of political…we’ll call them ideologies that push agendas forward.
The point of the post was to point out the effects of power on people’s behavior. I think your response is indicative of an offense that you have taken to the semantics.
So.
to
reiterate
I think your criticism (or analysis or whatever) is interprative and unworthy of real concern with [the] issue being discussed. Therefore, you are the one trolling.
haha
It’s hard to say that the economic interests of the downtrodden Russians were what led them to the crushing model of political economy that developed there. “Our economics interests alone led us to the model of communism.” What a larf. (Communism, a socio-economic model, was born of dialectic scientific materialism which is a philosophy of history that leads to philosophy of economics, kid.) It’s also hard to ignore the documents and writings of the Framers in the U.S. as having no influence on the direction taken.
So, fuck off with that tone, the issue you have taken with this thread, and read my posts more carefully so I don’t have to repeat myself.
The point of the post was to point out the effects of power on people’s behavior.
and my point was that you were reading too much into the exchange. The guy telling you that YAL isn’t a book club might not have been doing it to silence dissent, but making a legit point. The point of these political groups isn’t to have “deep conversations about political philosophy”. So you were expecting something you shouldn’t have. But, hey, I wasn’t there. Maybe the guy honestly deserves to be compared to Goebbels because he dissed your sweat shirt.
It’s hard to say that the economic interests of the downtrodden Russians were what led them to the crushing model of political economy that developed there. “Our economics interests alone led us to the model of communism.”
Yikes. Too much to really unpack here. I’ll just say it sounds like you’re assuming that Russian revolution was started with the single goal of installing a communist regime. Simply not true. It was a long road from the Feburary Revolution of 1917 to the creation of the USSR in 1922. It wasn’t at all clear what would replace the Tsar and in the end it took years of civil war to decide. History is much more messy than “Marx had an idea, Lennin took it and ran, and everyone else followed”.
So, fuck off with that tone
Okay.
Reducing the power of the state.
Firstly, it sounds like you’re making an inference about the motives of these people you met on the basis of pretty scanty evidence, little more than your own intuitive reading of the situation. Secondly, and more importantly, you’re turning this questionable inference into a generalization about all politically engaged libertarians.
That of (1) the libertarians who shun political action altogether, and believe that the power of the state can be reduced by some other means, and also (2) the libertarians who, while favoring political participation in principle, can’t stomach and/or don’t understand the realities of practical politics, such that no libertarian candidate with any chance of success is ever pure enough to win their support.
Which people? A relatively well-educated minority? Yes. The masses? No. The mass understanding of political philosophy has always been superficial, and so it will remain I predict.
how the fuck do you know? We spent like 3 days going over Friedman and Rand. All three days I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt. They were discussing philosophy you know nothing.
I compared him to Goebbels for silencing “dissent” when it was related to projecting perception, dumbass. You know, Goebbels speciality?
The sweatshirt was a comment in front of people (about where I had obtained a LvMI sweatshirt…) and was meant to denigrate me in front of them. This is ABOUT PERCEPTION. I feel like you are just a door and I don’t know how you became animate.
Excellent strawman on the Rusasia thing, but it is too far off the topic of the thread to address.
Thanks!
There is a balance to be struck here.
On one hand, let’s be completely honest here, we aren’t going to get anywhere if we sit on our asses and refuse to do anything politically, or hang out in echo chambers telling each other how righteous our beliefs are. Even if we convince a sizable amount of people that libertarian principles are correct, that’s useless if we have nothing to do with the political process. In the event the government collapses then MAYBE this will work, but I’d much rather try to avoid a Russian Revolution scenario, where one of the nastiest groups of the bunch played its enemies against each other and came out on top.
On the other, compromise and pragmatism are useless if they lose sight of the goal. I’m fine with siding with conservatives, liberals, Maoists, Marxists, what have you so long as they have common goals with us that they put above those that oppose us. When the liberals put anti-interventionism and pro-civil liberties first, then I support them in that, just as I support conservatives when they support limiting the size and scope of government. However, I’m not going to “sit down and shut up” when they turn around and fuck us over, even if they’re “mostly right”.
This tendency towards promoting “respectability” to gain political influence over actually getting ideas spread and opposing the real problems is annoyingly becoming more common now that Rand Paul has taken over from Ron. So many “Ron Paul supporters” basically demand that we forget that we’re libertarians and ask that we bend over backwards for the war-hungry fascists, ignorant religious social crusaders, and inconsistent establishment cowards because “Hey! Maybe they’ll audit the Fed at some point in the next ten years or push through a few million dollars in cuts!” So we slowly lose what distinguishes us from the same old morons, and our “end goal” becomes trivial and effectively irrelevant. Yes, it’s okay to have short term, realistic goals like “auditing the Fed”, “cutting taxes” and “legalized marijuana”, but we’re not going to seriously change anything anywhere if we don’t keep the long term goal, severely limiting if not removing the state outright, in mind.
its too bad that the partyarch/beltarian leading the group felt threatened by you. and I agree with whoever else who said “thats basically par for the course.” thats why Konkin eschewed party politics, the quest for political power turns people into politicians. even ron paul voted to invade afghanistan.
if it was my school I would probably try to start an entirely different libertarian group while maintaining ties with yal. “yal isnt a book club (even though you guys promote a novelist as though she was a philosopher and make reference to the content of her doorstop as if it were a book) so I started a “media analysis club” where we discuss books, articles, lectures, and videos that are germane to liberty and politics.” I always liked howard roarke better than galt ANYWAY
its funny that people will denigrate non-political activism, when they should already know that the political method is flawed. perhaps they just havent considered the problem in detail. I wouldnt mind seeing a credible libertarian presidential campaign, but I think its kind of impossible, youd have to violate libertarian principles to get elected.
Aristophanes is also correct that all of you (us) need to educate yourselves on the espionage/intelligence/information warfare field of study. I will add to his above recommendation with my own: http://www.amazon.com/Thwarting-Enemies-Abroad-Counterintelligence-ebook/dp/B002HMBWQU/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top/176-0137025-8176069
see agorism. also, see the current federal government, collapse is inevitable. we need to prepare for that event, getting elected to office is the useless process. ron paul got less airtime than any other presidential candidate.
Ron Paul still received more airtime than any other libertarian before or since, though. In turn, he brought far more people to the libertarian way of thinking than anyone else, really. Before his presidential run in '08, calling yourself a “libertarian” would get lots of blank stares. Now, we’re sufficiently important for conservatives and nuts to try to co-opt our message and for liberals to attack us, which is quite an improvement.
Agorism is all well and good, but it’s effectiveness is… limited unless you have a lot of people already involved. The State really doesn’t care if you have some clever arrangement with Farmer Bob for radishes, and unless you have a very widespread net of Agorists in a given area from many walks of life you aren’t achieving much through it. So that limits it’s use to New Hampshire and MAYBE certain parts of the US during a disaster situation. It’s also basically useless for bringing anyone else over, since everyone involved in only really interacting with everyone else who’s already involved.
“see agorism. also, see the current federal government, collapse is inevitable. we need to prepare for that event, getting elected to office is the useless process. ron paul got less airtime than any other presidential candidate.”
^^^ Correct. I maintain that our only realistic option is to build our own free region, probably a seastead, and develop it while the collapses continue around us and pick up the pieces of civilization from there.
Seasteading because only it has the potential for a mass society of billions of members, and because ocean-travel is the cheapest way to facilitate trade.
Because there’s no existing jurisdictions on the sea to ‘overthrow,’ and because there’s lots of room to grow. And because there’s at least two major industries coming that will rely on the sea: fish-farming in the open ocean to replace wild-caught fishing–with fish stocks down nearly 90% and fish consumption only increasing, there’s about to be an inflection point in seafood consumption. We will have to start fish farming everything, and the easiest way to do that is on the open ocean in floating cages.S
Secondly, biodiesel can be grown via algae or seaweed using the massive space and free water available on the sea to replace oil. Estimates are, about 100 square kilometers of algae growing would replace current world consumption, and we could do it with robotic floating rigs.
There’s definitely challenges to ocean-living but they aren’t insurmountable. And it’s the best shot we’ve got for short-term gaining our own jurisdiction without waiting for a nation-state to fail first, which we know won’t likely result in a rise in libertarian governance ideas.
Thanks! I’m glad someone noticed that. The intelligence is a lot of stuff that we “already know,” but it doesn’t hurt to have academic sources to back the claims we sometimes need to make.
Select quotes from the HoIS:
I chickened out; copyright; the nature of the subject, you know how it is. I typed them up though so if you want them PM me.
Well, here is one. I don’t think they’ll sue me for it… =/
I’ve been calling myself a libertarian for a long time, and prior to '07 you would have gotten more blank stares at the mention of “Ron Paul” than by mentioning “libertarian” even though people tended to conflate the political philosophy with the political party of the same name. conservatives co-opting libertarian ideas and rhetoric is also nothing new. I’m a ron paul supporter, and I believe in the “many roads to liberty” strategy. that said, its easy to overstate his influence. a lot of ron paul supporters arent even real libertarians.
estimated 1.8 billion jobs worldwide. how many libertarians are there in the us? lets say about 4 non-voters for every gary johnson voter…about 5 million libertarians. the black market in the us is estimated to turn over between $1 trillion and $2 trillion annually. I’d say that agorism is already ahead of political libertarianism. all of that aside, your comment falls flat anyway because we have to start somewhere. additionally, political libertarianism is a performative contradiction. you say your argument against the state is economic in nature? then why not employ economic means to solve the problem? you say your argument against the state is moral in nature? how can it then be moral to run for office, or encourage people to vote? you say your argument against the state is based on legitimacy and consent, or the lack thereof? then why confer legitimacy upon the state by associating yourself with it, and why consent to the political process by filing paperwork with the state to participate in politics?
all of that being said, I return to the original argument: there are more counter-economicists than libertarians.
the state absolutely cares about unregulated markets, thats why they have things like atf, dea, fda, and the ftc in order to enforce the prohibitions on economic freedom. but I dont participate in free markets “because the state doesnt like it” I participate in free markets because they have goods and services that I prefer, and I am not a slave so I have no incentive to purchase those goods and services in a slave market (where those goods and services carry a premium anyway). what I am achieving is catallactic trade, meanwhile you can wait for the next ron paul to convince 535 criminals to agree that its ok for you to do what I already do.
finally, its laughable for you to imply that unregulated markets dont have potential for growth in the presence of criminal aggressors who continually extend their regulation of markets that they do control. theres natural incentive for participation, its called “profit.”
as I said before, I support the “many roads” strategy. but my main problem with seasteading is that youre extremely vulnerable to one of the things that governments specialize in, mass murder. that said, I’m all for seasteading as it relates to anyone who wants to join/start a seastead. I think floating power plants that use the thermal gradient between the surface and the deep have a lot of potential, especially since they can produce desalinated water and hydrogen fuel depending on the design.
