I agree Jackson. Political activism is crucial but so is trying to elect people who represent some of our views instead sitting on the sidelines while our polar opposites elect people to do things contrary to our views.
Ideological compromise is pointless and cowardly. (see what I did there?)
Ideological purity is a value. Some value it more than others. People act towards fulfilling their values. Nothing shocking in any of that.
I would argue that someone who works for an end that is compromised from the start is just chasing their tail. But those “libertarians” who want to work the electoral process, good luck to you. Forgetting ideology for a minute, the chance of your vote mattering is statistically unlikely. Perhaps going through the motions just makes people feel better, like saying “I love you” at the end of phone calls.
Voting is like buying an ideological lottery ticket. It is entertainment and not much more.
If you really want to use the political system, become a politician.
I strive for ideological “purity” so I can be consistent, because I subjectively value consistency for whatever reason. Usually zealotry only applies to the intensity of beliefs and the willingness to obsess over it and make others comply. So not sure if that makes us zealots…
Stirner would probably disagree with me
["We could seek an alliance with other anarchists(especially ’ Anarchists without Adjectives’ )who are willing to accept the illegitimacy of aggression against property and people(and willing to live in accordance with that principle) ,who reject violent methods of achieving anarchy and who are willing to work with us and come a free society, would allow co-existence.**This too would help aid our mainstream public image.-**scott f (emphasis added)"
“To the contrary, your pacifist stance would destroy your image as a viable and reliable ideological alternative.”
-
I am not a pacifist.I am not sure if I implied this but if so it was a mistake on my part.I believe strongly in self defense and punishment.
-
I am not suggested compromising principles.I oppose that strongly.
“by rejecting the utility of coercion to gain”
Again all I meant was i reject initiation of Violence( i.e. the standard violence opposed in NAP) not violence per se.
Wow.Agreed.What I’d love to see is an organization or even just a website that brings together all pro- voluntaryist anarchists to engage in dialogue and maybe even organize to protest etc against aspects of statism they agree on. Alliances with anarchists are definately one of my goals in the near future.I don’t think we can expect to go it alone-Libertarianism vs everyone.Again I repeat,to avoid any mistakes.I believe strongly in libertarian principles but alliances which do not require compromise and only require anarchists agree that everyone can co-exist voluntarily are not breaches on principle.Surely it is the essence of libertarianism and us living our principles in action.
I think we should work with anyone whenever they liberating anything, don’t let differences get in the way. Most groups are libertarian in some way. I do think the state will gradually be taken down, by freeing all of market and society piece by piece. However we always have to keep our ideas in high value. We can’t compromise our ideas.
Example: Marijuana is illegal. Some people want to legalize and tax it. Supporting this, but not forgetting the fully free position is great. This furthers freedom, it may not be totally free, but it’s better then what was there before. This is the most important thing, advancing liberty. More freedom is ALWAYS better then less. You may have to work with leftists, but it doesn’t make you a leftist.
Now if you start supporting socialism itself, or start acting like you supporting a larger role in government, you have a problem. If leftist anarchist want to legalize prostitution or stop war, let’s help them, it only opens doors for us. As long as we do not end up contradicting ourselves. Stand firm on your positions.
Like I said in my previous post, there’s leftist who will be open to voluntaryism. Some leftists may just be afraid of the connotation behind capitalism, and may ease up. They may even turn into full an caps. We don’t know the possibilities till we try, and to not to, we are giving ourselves the worst outcome automatically, self inflicted.
Agreed. Plus other anarchists are generally sound on things like opposition to imperialism, war,corporatism etc. We have a lot more in common than we often think.It just needs talking,arguing and being principled in showing them we mean what we say.
If you read various writings in the wider anarchist tradition of all the different branches ,then you come to see that themes repeat over and over: Government constantly expanding,ideological protection of statism by intellectuals,the myth of the social contract , the idea of philosophers who aided the state such as Hobbes etc. We do fit into the anarchist tradition.We can relate to other anarchists because parts of their branch have said things similiar to people in ours.
Definately.It looks we’re agreed on this.
I wonder. Maybe someone should start an all friendly, all anarchist or libertarian meet up groups, see what happens? Maybe even one without political dialogue, just to see how much people have in common.
“Alliances: Without suggesting that we betray principles(which was never my intent) I think we should be more open to alliances and collaborations with other groups on an issue by issue basis.”
no. have you ever seen these professional protestors or gone to any of their events. a protest against, say, raising student loans will draw crap from feminism, free palistine, legalize marijuana, end drilling, outlaw eating meat etc. do you really want to add libertarianism to this hodge-podge joke of ideas. you won’t be making a stand, you will just be out there rubbing one out with the rest of the malcontents.
“In the past Rothbard aligned with the left on war and peace and today I think we should seek to do the same.”
there’s a reason the rothbardians stopped all that nonsense.
“To clarify ,in seeking alliances we should neither be universally and unconditionally supportive nor universally and unconditionally opposed.”
if you have principes, that’ll be a difficult thing to live up to.
“Considering specifically Anarcho-Libertarianism ,this is a brilliant possibility which hasn’t really been tried before.We could seek an alliance with other anarchists”
…something tells me you haven’t talked to many non-capitalist anarchists. I’ll save you the time by telling you no, it’s a horrible idea and there is no point in the attempt.
“This too would help aid our mainstream public image.”
anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism will never, ever, ever, ever under any circumstances be popular with the public or a majority.
“Who knows we might just learn something new.”
my money is on ‘no, I won’t learn anything new.’
“We must get out of the habit of talking of the economy today and in history as though it has been laissez faire,capitalist or libertarian.”
you need to really stop bandying about that collective pronoun as a) this is not the rev left forums and b) I and most of the people who have anything to do with LvMI don’t talk of the economy as if we have a free market.
“So it is a grave error for us to talk of the glories of Capitalism in raising the average person’s living standards.Instead we should talk of the market”
if someone is so much of a simpleton that the difference between a successful or unsuccessful conversion to libertarianism is whether I use the word capitalism or speak vaguely of markets…well…that’s not somone I really feel that will contribute in any way to progressing the ideas of economic freedom.
“We have gotten into this terrible tendency to knee jerkedly defend big business any time it is criticized.”
seriously, you need to learn when the collective pronoun is appropriate and when it is not.
“we should also acknowledge that Wal-mart is involved in eminent domain,lobbying for laws which hurt smaller businesses and is also in part tax payer funded in respect to it’s infrastructure.”
hate the game, not the player. if you still target out businesses that are simply playing by the dirty rules that are given, then you are still playing into their rather childish anti-rich/anti-business sentiments. I would strongly suggest you focus mainly on the existence of an institution that allows and support such acts and not the players who have to go through these hoops to scrape out a living.
“However these critiques can at times go too far in denouncing all environmentalism as statist or socialist”
outside of arbitors making rulings on whether or not someone’s pollution has harmed another’s property, what environmental techniques are not statist or socialist?
“Whether or not you believe in AGW this cannot cloud your mind to the fact that because we live on this planet our acts on the environment affect other people.We must come to see that though typically Environmentalism is Eco-centric,misanthropic and anti-market ,that it need not be so.”
Kumbaya Save The Whales Kumbaya
“but what we don’t cover enough is how the state harms the poor. if we wish to show we are not (as some non-libertarians belief wrongly) cold hearted or “anarchists for the rich”.We need to show two sides to the coin which is how it occurs in reality,that the state both privileges and at the same time harms the poor.”
JESUS CHRIST STOP SAYING WE.
anyhow, my response is generally a big, Rothbardian ‘so what?’ what ‘progress’ can be made by pandering to flimsy emotivst &#*@s? why would you ever think convincing someone who makes a “Oh Won’t Somebody Please Think Of The Children” argument will accomplish anything?
“Those Socialists who are anarchist and willing to accept our stance on non aggression should be ,for anti-statist purposes, our allies.”
so naive it hurts.
anyhow. as I said earlier, anarcho-capitslism, libertarianism, accepting responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions, etc. will never, ever, ever, be popular ideas. you are going about things as if they are. sure, being a demagogue and yelling ‘SOLIDARITY BROTHERS’ may work when convincing the ignorant poor that they should be given things for free, but it won’t work when you’re trying to convince someone that a free society is more ethical / successful than a state society. you can’t just slap facts about the structure of production or the decivilizing effects of groups who have a high time preference on a poster or in a jon stewart segment. and as you can’t do that, you aren’t going to be able to engage the vast majority of humans on a level they find acceptable.
and what makes you think that increasing our numbers will do anything? what, are we going to have some kind of vote?
if you want a plan, do exactly what the LvMI does: educate, educate, educate. create a place where people, if interested, can come and learn about an idea. engaging people and trying to bring them into an idealogy is obviously a good idea, but you need to be a bit more precise. you can’t just spout out platitudes about hope and change or family values and be successful. you have to recognize someone who has the potential to be an ancap or libertarian (meaning they are or try to be as logically consistent as possible) and target them specifically. what you do NOT do is put up a booth in between the holistic medicine stand and the sds registration table and try to grab walk-bys.
I don’t know how many times I have to link this, but read it: http://www.mrsdutoit.com/right/Isaiah.pdf
if any of us are ever lucky enough to see a meaningful shift towards liberty in our times it will not be because of majority support. it will not be because of a grassroots movement. it will not be because of sundry alliances with malcontents. it will be because the existing state eventually fell on its face and wealthy, entrepenurial, principled men (the kind of men who molded america out of a stagnating britain or brought about the italian city states from a muddy europe) were in a position and possessed the intelligence to create it. in other words, you need to brace the remnant and you need to brace them well so that if they ever find themselves in a potent position, they can act appropriately.
“Yeah but leftists and their anti establishment stance by default makes them potential capitalists. I mean, there’s plenty of people here who come from the left, we should be reaching out.”
yeah, nothing makes a better capitalist than a constant adolescent defiance of anything in a suit.
true, there are many of us who come from the left. but that is not the same as saying there are plenty from the left who come to us.
People meet anarchically without discussing politics all the time. That’s our challenge. Pointing out the obvious. Almost everyone is an anarchist in some domain, we just have to help them overcome the reasons why they can’t see anarchy as being suitable for all domains. This in particular is the issue with minarchists, who believe that government should abrogate the market sometimes.
I have never met a minarchist who was familiar with Molinari’s work, which is why the educational work done at LvMI, by books, conferences, speaking tours, rich media and the web at large is truly the front line of social evolution towards a more peaceful civilization.
What does it mean to be in an alliance with someone in this context? How will we know that we have allied with someone?
If they hate the government, they are already half way there. Overall I think word of mouth will change things much more then people think. You can’t consider ideas you’ve never heard of.
“As long as that rejection is in terms of rejecting it morally and not in the sense of suppressing it with force then they are allies.”
yeah, leftist are not known for letting their emotions guide where they think the axe should be dropped. those guys seem legit.
"A while ago I talked to an anarchosyndicalist friend of mine about the idea of voluntaryism , and unity among anarchists. I told him as long as it’s voluntary, all anarchists would be free to use whatever system they like, and how we have more in common with each other then statists. He liked the idea of voluntaryism, and we concurred that there should be unity. "
Kumbaya, Save The Whales, Kumbaya.
and when that anarcho-syndacalist co-op can’t figure out how to make steel for the tracks for their eco-friendly handcars and they get upset that you aren’t willing to trade your ancap steel for their co-op treatre’s production of ‘waiting for lefty’, let’s see how long they respect your property rights in your voluntaryist society.
“What does it mean to be in an alliance with someone in this context? How will we know that we have allied with someone?”
it’ll look like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0vP48pUkb4
The people who really want to try this can try this. I mean if anarcho-capitalists are individuals, we wouldn’t be forcing others to, instead just individual ancaps who wanted to ally or work together.
You’re so jaded Jackson. It’s ok I’m still willing to work with you silly righties
We share a common bond; the desire for liberty/self-governance. We have radically different ideas of what that means, but a lot of issues are concurrent.
I would much rather a society where it’s your side vs mine, than what we have now. Obama/Bush, or Paul/Kucinich? I’m going to have to pick the latter.
^Your a lefty? What are you a mutualist, syndicalist, marxist?
I am a… libertarian socialist, techno-anarchist, free market, progressive, chomskyite, labor friendly, anti-establshment, democratic (not will of majority, but more anti-plutocracy of any kind), peace monger…?
I am truly an anarchist, no rulers, no styles, no schools. If it works, and gets us a step closer to a truly free and fair society, and also to colonizing space, I’m with it.
In short, I believe in self-determination as the truest path to true freedom, and I find institutionalized violence as destructive of that end.