Yes, that’s what I meant. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
Of course it’s another semantics issue. Semantics is incredibly important, if you ask me.
At the risk of going further off-topic, why do you support the ideas?
That’s a question for another thread.
The reason I even posted what I posted is because I was asking myself “what makes a statist: ideas or actions?”
Imo, If we talk about “the state” in a way that diminishes the role or presence of human involvement in its operation, we make the discussion meaningless in the context of this thread.
We are, after all, asking what it means to be a libertarian and buildings cannot be libertarians (at least I don’t think they can be.)
Fair enough.
So do you fall more on the side of ideas or more on the side of actions?
I have a long list of things to read before August Comte.
I think the reports of its successes are vastly exaggerated. Even at its deadliest, the State has only managed to murder a miniscule percentage of the population. Enough to strike terror into the hearts of the rest of the population (the true purpose of war) but not enough to really regiment society. The Soviet Union is definitely the closest the Elites have ever come to achieving their wet dream of a SimCity society.
As for eugenics, this is also overstated. I have no doubt they’d like to breed a more compliant citizenry. The problem never was the technology because they’ve had the technology all along (selective breeding). The trouble is that the State simply can’t do a lot of what people - in particular, the State itself - imagine that it can do. In at least 5,000 years of existence, the State has not yet managed to create its own separate breed apart from the rest of us. They can dream on, that’s the last of my worries.
Clayton -
Are you an anarchist?
Ideas. Specifically, the idea that the government has a legitimate claim on our property, and legitimately monopolizes law, security and everything else that it touches.
Clayton -
By “legitimate” you mean logically justifiable right?
This conversation is interesting to me because you guys talk about “the state” like it’s some amorphous blob or something. Like a monster lurking out there sending people bills for building roads. You talk about “the state” like it has a single consciousness, a single will.
But what is “the state” in reality?
What comprises “the state?”
Am I “the state?”
I think so. Or at least part of it. Because the state is just made up of people. Lots of people who all accept similar ideas. We work together to achieve common ends.
The State is the group of individuals who control or serve the institutions of legalized coercion in society. The rulers are those who control these institutions, and have only peers, no superiors. All the rest are servants. To some extent, I suppose, we are all servants, more or less willing - and so in that sense, we are all part of the State. But usually, when someone is inveighing against the State, I assume they’re referring only to the rulers, or at least only to the rulers and the higher-level (willing) servants.
Are you an anarchist?
I’m for a stateless society, but I don’t much care for the word anarchist.
That said, how much empirical observation have you personally made here? You certainly haven’t been around for all time. So I also challenge your assertion that “the masses” have never understood any political ideology in the past.
No, I haven’t, but I have read history: i.e. second-hand (or third or fourth…) empirical observation. Can I claim with certainty that there has never existed a society where the masses were ideological? No, of course not - even if I knew all existing history (which I don’t), history is always incomplete. Who knows what may have existed of which no records have been preserved. However, I can say with confidence that to my knowledge there neither is nor ever was any society where the masses were ideological. And anyway, I think it’s just common sense that most people don’t think that deeply. Look around. This is not really such a controversial claim, is it? Now maybe you want to argue that the masses are not lacking in intelligence, but only education, and so it’s possible for them to become ideological if they were ever to receive the proper education. That’s plausible - I don’t happen to agree, but it’s a reasonable argument.
Not to interrupt, but this article is relevant to the conversation at hand. In the section “A Practical Strategy”, I think Gary North lays out a nice framework. Libertarianism definitely starts with ideas, but we must then translate those ideas into action. We must work with what we have (democracy/republic). Voting and activism at the local level is a must. Attempts at change through the federal level are futile, unless you support certain policy groups. As much as I hate lobbying (bribery), without the NRA and its generous supporters, we’d have nowhere near the gun freedoms we have today. I think Ron Paul uses his bully pulpit very effeciently in spreading the message of liberty, free markets, etc. From there, people must take that knowledge and apply it at a local level, where things are more accountable, and will actually get done. Not paying your taxes, smoking pot in front of a police station and dodging a draft are all valiant actions of freedom, but without working within the system we have, eventually something like SOPA or PIPA will be passed. I’m definitely an anarchist, and hope for a stateless society in my lifetime, but I also find it silly not to use the system you’re given to try to improve your conditions in the mean time.