There are two groups of people in society: the rulers and the ruled. If the rulers can rule just enough so that they are not replaced, but not too much to where the ruled are overall unhappy and better off revolting, they can greatly benefit. So I ask, what is the point of the ruled spending time and money trying to reform a system that is controlled by those that benefit from controlling the system? After all, the rulers have the weapons; the ruled are at their mercy.
It just seems to me that no matter what economic system actually works the best, it is practically useless and unimplementable if it means that the rulers would lose power if adopted.
The point is, that line which decides if someone feels oppressed or not is derived subjectively. Just because your neighbor is willing to submit doesn’t mean you will be. To some of us freedom is paramount.
Your assumption is that society can equally agree where the line can/will be drawn. Thats simply not reality my friend.
Well, there is no incentive for the rulers to change anything towards reform. The incentives are for the rulers to continue to change things away from reform and towards more power.
And the incentives for the ruled, as you mentioned, eventually become to act against the rulers when they have become too oppressive. The ruled only rule by consent. They are always a small group, and they rely on ideological support of the many in order to maintain the status quo.
I would say that those willing to fight back either have nothing else to lose, or are completely irrational. Do you actually think they would have a chance?
That is exactly my concern. As long as they aren’t oppressive enough so that it is dangerous for themselves unless they tone it down, who is going to do anything?
Well, that is the point of education. I didn’t understand 3 years ago what I understand today. Today I understand that all coercion is unnecessary and not in my interest unless I am free riding, in which case, someone else is being coerced for my benefit.
Now that I have an understanding of political economy, I see that the state provides nothing, it only acts as a middleman manager, and because it is a monopoly, I have no way of knowing if it is efficient, even when its responsibilities are kept simple like the nightwatchman state of classic liberalism and objectivism.
I’m quite excited about voluntarism. I realize 99.9% of people don’t understand it as I do, but I feel like that will change over time. The stars are aligned for that number to grow rapidly over the next 5 or 10 years.
I see. So is your plan of action is to educate masses and then plan a non-violent “attack” towards government? That seems like it could work to some degree. Maybe not get rid of it completely, but at least keep them in line.
No. My plan is to live as free as I can, and spread ideas of economic freedom. I haven’t decided the best way for this yet. Do I write? Do I speak? Do I fund education? Do I engage in private enterprise with a voluntarist bent?
I don’t intend to confront government. On the contrary, I want as little to do with government as possible. The solution is to withdraw consent peacefully. If we have to confront government, then it means not enough people are willing to withdraw consent.
It’s ok. I don’t think you were necessarily misrepresenting me. I just want tobe very clear that I am only interested in peaceful tactics with peaceful outcomes. I don’t think conflict resolves the sort of issues that I am concerned about. As the American revolution showed, you end up with one group of aristocrats battling another group of aristocrats for who gets to rule, not necessarily for a radical makeover of rulership.