Seemingly practical behavior and ideology are often at odds. More heaven’s gate cyano-pudding?
Here’s an article about how voting is essentially pointless.
I could understand that, and I’m not much of a voter either. But if it’s like dondoolee’s example, I could see why one might try it, rather than roll over for moral reasons.
I would completely agree. Of course, direct action is tough against the juggernaut. If representation is all I have, I will utilize it as much as I can to realize my desires.
Ideology: “…is a set of aims and ideas that directs one’s goals, expectations, and actions…systems of abstract thought…a comprehensive vision.”
I do not see how thinking realistically is completely at odds with ideology.
It’s realistic for me to oppose the state via non-coercive & voluntary market actions that coincide with others, but it’s un-realistic for me to oppose the state mano-a-mano in a physical confrontation, even if I was only doing so against physical manifestations of the state (i.e. like say, at Waco).
It’s realistic for me to oppose ever taking unemployment benefits, but it’s not entirely realistic for me to expect myself be never unemployed, despite doing my best to stay employed.
It’s also realistic for me to not spend hours of time online talking about ideology in a forum or a blog post, & enacting the do-able parts offline. I only recently took that step a few months ago.
Others more could step away from their comfortable philosopher keyboards & focus on goals, instead of social realities, but to expect immediate results would be idealistic.
I like the boots on the ground mentality. (Boy, this going to sound ironic), but we should maybe start some regional boards, to try to concentrate our efforts, maybe share some info about local events, to try to form, or augment a current movement.
I think there are only two ways to eliminate the state. One is through Hans Hermann Hoppe’s proposal of long-term continuous secession triggered by localized groups of libertarian radicals. I know most people here are familiar with it so I won’t go deep into that. The second one is very interesting.
The internet philosophy show FreedomainRadio has a comprehensive anarchist worldview, similar to that of Ayn Rand’s but is more open minded and grounded on Austrian School economics. It starts with esoteric topics like politics and economics but moves towards psychology and analysis of the power structure of the family. It argues that the start of statism is the family and concludes in the mantra of ‘political liberty comes from personal liberty’ or an inside-outside approach to libertarianism. I would like to call it philosophical libertarianism as opposed to political libertarianism. After nearly a thousand podcasts discussing libertarian issues the host of the show talks about more personal topics like relationships and the family and how talking about personal matters is the foundation for philosophical libertarianism. So in podcast 910 entitled ‘Outgrowing the State’ Stefan Molyneux(the host) finally talks about how to eliminate the state. I found it shocking even though it’s so simple. Basically, libertarians just have to provide services better than government WITH EMPHASIS ON EXPOSING THE STATE AS INEFFICIENT AND PATHETIC. So libertarians have to provide free education for the poor, free healthcare, and other services the state loves to control. We do not participate in a violent circus of elections because it implies that we accept what the majority does if we the minority lose. Ask yourself the question… How can a slave be most happy while still being a slave? … because I’d rather have 50% taxation and a happy marriage than 0% taxation and a miserable life. We only have to treat each other like dignified, independent, responsible human beings to get rid of the horizontal dictatorship and then we’ll see police men quitting their jobs and masses stop voting. The funny thing is, freedomainradio preaches atheism yet it recommends the same solution as libertarian christians.
I highly recommend the book “Real Time Relationships” it is a must read!!!
And the videos http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-YMMd1xKIM “Practical Politics” and podcast 910 in www.Freedomainradio.com
That second one is very similar to what I want to do. Is to get people not to rely on government. Business do this a lot for good will, like “Tides of hope” and Target’s Education are examples I can immediately recall. Some business partner with Untied Way. Participation in a dress-down Friday by donating to United Way.
But exactly like you Bolded, EMPHASIS ON EXPOSING THE STATE. Do it by scholarships. You don’t have to be in an organization to offer a scholarship. If you know people or get to know people who can’t afford private education, offer to help pay for it. Doesn’t have to be in cash, you offer it by check or money order and make it payable to the school.
The same with healthcare. there was someone on facebook who couldn’t afford to pay for medication for son. A donor helped out with that. Providing medical assistance may be difficult due to STATE licencing restrictions.
I guess what I want to say, is that don’t demonize the necessity of regulation or any other government involved rule or association, but governments involvement in it.
That is actually the opposite argument to Hoppe’s, who claims that the state grows to destroy sources of natural authority (such as the family) and make the individual more isolated and more dependent on the state for protection.
It’s also a hopeless, biologically impossible idea. At least Hoppe doesn’t deny the requirements for an individual to be uh, born.
I don’t see how it necessarily goes against Hoppe’s argument. Just because government undermines the family doesn’t mean family is libertarian or opposes government. Family is of course a more natural authority and less dictatorial than government but the argument can still be made that it is the source of hierarchy, violence and therefore of statism.
Hey, I never said we should abolish family. The recommendation of Freedomainradio is that aside from talking about politics and other esoteric topics, we have to eventually talk about more personal topics like family and the ‘statism’ within it so that we can relate more to people. Concrete action can be made by reforming parenting habits not by abolishing family or running away from it.
This is very helpful in understanding Molyneux’s views on the family
I think Rothbard even states that one has no legal responsibility to care for a child.
No positive obligation on anyone else. He does however, talk about guardianship / trustee rights.
just wanted to say to the person that says libertarians can start providing “free” education and so on - uh…yeah, i don’t see that happening, and I don’t think it should either. However, in a free market, they would be far less expensive, especially with today’s technology. Think of how easy it would be to educate kids by using the internet or by ordering textbooks, or simply how inexpensive knowledge in general would be without copyright. More generally, counter-economics is something that has been proposed, and i do see some merits in it, but i don’t know if it would be the only way to go. I actually think black markets are prone to becoming red markets (violent black markets) because one would face the violence of the state but could also have to defend from violence being used by the mafia or other groups that happen to specialize in illegal market activities.
It is really hard to do but doing that works much better than voting. And it’s actually the way slavery ended in most countries, people just lost interest in owning slaves and started respecting the sovereignty of other people. Likewise, people are just going to not care about the state and with that realize that it’s useless anyway. Voting is playing by the rules of your enemy. It is undignified for a principled anarchist. Read FreedomainRadio book ‘Real Time Relationships’ for more on this. FreedomainRadio solutions have brought more freedom to libertarians by teaching them to work to achieve anarchy in their personal lives than politics ever has. Political liberty comes from personal liberty
Stefan Molyneux is wrong on this. Going through life nullifying options based on what most people think is the purpose of an activity is not liberty in your personal life. Making your own reasons for doing things is.
LOL![:P][N]!!! Ever used a road before? UNPRINCIPLED!!! Ever go to public school? UNPRINCIPLED!!! Ever go to a park? UNPRINCIPLED!!! You can keep you fixed ideas about “proper” methods to attain anarchy. I’ll be at the polls, gaining freedoms from the masters.
Agreed, that’s just nonsense. First of all, from a pragmatic standpoint, it’s not like the market where boycotting hurts the producer. In state programs, not using the programs just means their costs are lowered. Furthermore, if you don’t take that money or service, it won’t stop them from providing it. It just means someone else will get it (problem of the commons, where a marginal cost to each consumer is effectively zero because they can’t perceive the costs as individuals, but they gain benefits). That’s why I take financial aid for school. If I don’t take it, someone else will get it. It’s better for that money to be in my hands that in the state’s hands.
Also, even from a principled view, the way I see it, the state has NO legitimate ownership of anything, unless it was something that was donated to it(though if you take into account its vast array of violations of people’s property rights, I’m sure the case could easily be made that it owes people far more than anything that may have been donated to it in the past). It’s like the “love it or leave it” argument. This applies to private property, but not to the government. It can’t homestead anythign and therefore has no legitimate ownership (ruling out donations here) of anything. WE have legitimate ownership, so why should WE be the ones that have to change OUR lives and leave OUR property? Doing so wouldn’t just leave us with fewer resources with which to live freely and possibly undermine the state, but would also - from my view - be unprincipled because we’d be letting the state expropriate all the property it wants.
There’s a difference between voting and using the roads or public school. Roads, public school and public health have nothing directly to do with social change or ending the state. But voting has everything to do with ending(or not ending) the state. Stefan Molyneux has a video entitled “Freeing yourself from politics” and “The Truth about Voting” for more info on this.
Why?
If no one used them, the state would run out of reasons to legitimize itself.
I don’t see the difference.
Haven’t seen the specific videos you are referring to, but Molyneaux has not impressed me so far.