Back when I was more moderate in my political views I remember I someone telling me that the reason (right wing)libertarians in the United States have such a hard time spreading their message is because they often spend their time fighting amongst themselves as well as being critized from by the mainstream. I considered this a virtue since I had an aversion to the movement, but now I really see what that person meant.
This seems to be a really big issue on the forums today and quite frankly it reminds me of that “more libertarian than thou” caricature from that political cartoon a few months back. In real life when I meet libertarians they are generally of the moderate variety so there isn’t a lot of criticism about views going on. I have yet to meet a anarchists though several of my friends have at Porcupine Fest.
Has anyone had any experiences with this either here or in real life?
And there are a lot of lurkers here I presume, but I would like for them to add some of their thoughts as well.
Well I guess we are kind of split. Most anarcho-capitalists dislike minarchists because it is claimed that they aren’t consistent. There are disagreements in the more technical aspects of libertarianism as well, but overall the main message is fairly consistent, in my opinion.
On the Mises boards, this is a generally anarchist / political-philosophy-oriented group, so there are disagreements over perfunctory and/or definitional matters and stuff like that. But it’s such a small group that it’s not really a hinderance to the movement at-large.
Have you seen the left wing libertarians? Man, they got problems even worse!
The discussion in the other thread is that for words to have any value in discussion, they must have a clear meaning. It’s not going to be fruitful to debate when people are applying two definitions (and possibly contrasting ones) to the same term. That should be obvious.
But what’s sort of sad, is that you pick on what you consider to be the “holier than thou” stance, when I clearly explained that the people who disagreed with me, were applying the exact same argument in reverse. The logic of their argument was just as sound as mine, and yet somehow I got painted as an extremist by the drive by readership.
This is not real life?
Most (not all) of the people involved with LvMI are anarchists. You’re basically knee deep in them right now. And we look and talk and walk and act just like most other people. We don’t support the use force to bully people to satisfy our desires or to compensate for our personal failings.
Seriously, if I had a nickel for every moderate or minarchist who came on here and was a flaming anarchist 6 or 12 months later, I could probably buy a Senator.
Have you seen the left wing libertarians? Man, they got problems even worse!
I’ve talked to a few, but don’t really enjoy it since it generally results to them saying property and capitalism should be abolished, but I can’t even imagine what other problems they have since they still haven’t settled the debate over how socialism and communism are different lol.
The discussion in the other thread is that for words to have any value in discussion, they must have a clear meaning. It’s not going to be fruitful to debate when people are applying two definitions (and possibly contrasting ones) to the same term. That should be obvious.
But what’s sort of sad, is that you pick on what you consider to be the “holier than thou” stance, when I clearly explained that the people who disagreed with me, were applying the exact same argument in reverse. The logic of their argument was just as sound as mine, and yet somehow I got painted as an extremist by the drive by readership.
I understand the definition reason and if that’s the reason then I apologize for jumping to a hasty conclusion. And I was inspired from earlier from what you said to make this thread, but i’ve stated the claim once in the past since I thought it was odd when I first came here that even minarchist weren’t regarded as equals here
It’s one of my biggest complaints against my fellow (For they are my fellows. Even if, sadly, I am not considered theirs) libertarians. Many of them, encompassing all sides of various debates seem to care much more about being the holders of The One True libertarianism than they do about actually advancing the cause of freedom from institutionalized coercion. Whether it be pro-IP/anti-IP, minarchist/anarchist, Rothbardian/Miseian or one of the numerous other internal debates personally for me these differences should and do take a back seat to the beating back of institutionalized coercion. Sometimes I feel quite alone (though I know I’m not) in this subjective valuation and it can be a tad depressing. On the other hand it is (to me anyway) an intellectual movement not a political one so adopting a “big tent” strategy is not as important as it would be if it was a political movement. Still, I suspect we may turn quite a few potential allies off when they first discover an interest in the philosophy but are then immediately exposed to endless internal, and offer bitter conflict.
Heh, I suppose I owe you a nickel, don’t I? The intellectual rigor and resources of this forum dragged me kicking and screaming from “My country tis of thee” flag-waving Constitution-loving minarchism to full-blown anarcho-capitalism within a few months of really becoming active on here. As new as I am at this, I’ve already seen a few people come in here minarchists and later go anarchist.
Regarding the divisiveness of libertarians, I have seen a bit of it. Amongst anarchists we mainly tend to butt heads around specifics–IP and natural law mostly–but remain largely united in overall goals. It’s getting minarchists and anarchists to really work together that’s the trouble. I’m not even sure if it’s WORTH working with minarchists. This video is rather interesting, though:
I can think of a lot of people who came here minarchist and ended up anarchist. And a lot of people who ended up good friends. A few minarchists who didnt like it and moved on though, but I have seen them around on other sites, and they were a lot more radical as minarchists than when they first popped in here.
I’m certaintly sympathetic to the movement and I even considered it when I first came here. I also agree with the philosohphy behind it, but my main reason for not being on board is that I have no faith in the ability of PDAs to not become a monopoly or coercive. So it’s a matter of practicality for me and I can’t prove or disaprove my claim.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the explanation you give for not being ‘on board’. Is it that a reason to suffer the state is if you succeed in sending it away for a while, it may come back later ?
My reasons for being a minarchist aren’t based on deontological reasons. I don’t fear the state or care about it’s legitimacy. Rather that when the state has privatized services that were once provided by the state they end up being efficient in terms of cost cutting,I can’t speak for quality yet though having looked a case study for prisons the results were that prisoner treatment experienced a drop. Privatization among states is a relatively young movement among many states so the results aren’t conclusive.
OK, so I’m still in the dark about your minarchist position, but thats ok, I don’t need to know.
as for :a case study for prisons the results were that prisoner treatment experienced a drop
I would just caution to distinguish between true privatisation and a cessation of state interventionism on the one side and corporatism/fascism on the other. If a state spends tax payer money on ‘private’ jails which it ‘regulates’ according to its monopoly legal system, its more the latter than the former.
My position mainly revolves around private industry being more efficient than public and that government intervention nets you a rigged market where there can be unexpected outcomes.
I’m aware. That’s often they route they go when they first start the privatizing process.
This is entirely proper and it serves to explain a perfectly reasonable bias you may have towards prefering smaller states to bigger ones( Your upper bound for state toleration is lower than many others). But it doesn’t explain the lower bound (why you may philosophically opposed the notion of ‘no-state’)
If one believes a State is inevitable, then wrecking the current one, dealing with the ensuing chaos, and suffering the transition to a new State (that might be worse) seems a heavy burden.
Strangeloop, I wasn’t asking about pushing buttons and eliminating states without regard for other facts (i.e. ‘institutional’ facts, and ideologies etc.). I was asking about principled reasons, about the desirability of states verses anarchy, ya know, a comparative institutional analysis.
But it doesn’t explain the lower bound (why you may philosophically opposed the notion of ‘no-state’)
I’m not opposed to anarchy since I think it makes sense logically and could work. Prior to liberal democracy becoming the norm, people probably thought such a system was absurd. A nightwatchman state is essentially the same, but it has a monopoly on the industry that uses force. Prior to us becoming a hegemon spending in the US from our government was drastically low(i’m envious). And the size of military remained low until after the second world war.
Though that’s not to say that that period was a golden age of liberty, though if we reduced spending to a low level like that we could experience something where government is small enough that political positions are there for decoration like in Europe with monarchs. Anarchy would be in a position to come into existent without resistance and violence in a period like this.
You said you worry about PDAs becoming states, so that is why you endorse the state.
But isn’t that sort of like accepting the state instead of trying for something better?
I’m more worried about how PDA’s would act if they became a state. Even though ours isn’t perfect, we still have some protections against the state via our constitution. If a PDA seized control then there’s no guarantee of a social contract to protect us against them.
