I’ve thought about that. I personally identity myself as an American (my avatar probably tipped you off to that). I don’t think we need an American government to make us Americans. In fact, given our historical fascination with freedom, individualism, and rebellion, I think getting rid of the government would make us even more “American”.
People choose amongst the choices available to them. If you tell them to go vote between democrats and republicans, they will vote between democrats and republicans and make the choice that is best for themselves. Of course the real power here is not the voters but the people who are setting up the rules of the election - they are determining what the choices are going to be.
If you offer people a new choice, the choice to give up on the state and join some different organization for their protection, then most of them will make this choice if it is in their best interest to do so.
So you’re saying you’re irrational about mankind’s irrationality? This is a virtue?
A
Roads are the best example of this, government has almost always taken care of the roads (albeit badly), so people are very sceptical about privately owned roads when in fact it should be rather easy.
But as Block says 40,000 people die on American roads every year, how much worse can it get.
???
What’s there to be confused about? Apart from a few examples I’ve seen mentioned by DiLorenzo and Block government has always provided roads, hence people are unable to conceptualize privately owned roads.
I don’t believe you are correct. The government has not almost always taken care of roads. Merchants and private citizens have.
In the modern American experience, perhaps you can make the case.
Government has been interventing in roads longer than any other industry, and in America and most other countries its by far one of the most socialised.
As Hoppe pointed out, governments needed to take care of making the roads because they needed them to extract taxes from people.
Does your almost always extend back only 200 years? Because for most of history landlords made roads, not governments.
To my knowledge there’s nobody living who is over 200 years old, so it might as well be always.
My point is though is that not only are roads far more socialised now, but they have been for longer than most other industries.
I think what you are hinting at is the nature of man. Either a) the majority of mankind is good or b) the majority of mankind is bad. If a) is true then no form of social orginzation be it democracy, monarchy, anarchy, etc can save us. It is a scary thought to think of being brought down with an evil majority. I don’t think a) is true though. Even if it is, it still doesn’t imply you should go quietly. I think there is some evidence supporting b) as well because if the majority of mankind was the ruler type, in other words complete frauds, then modern day government couldn’t even last 100 years. You have to have a large productive class to fleece for a government to stay afloat so I think there is reason to be hopeful.
Very well said JC. I believe people all want freedom but it is not easy. There are benefits to forming groups and humans naturally form them. If people have a choice they always choose the most liberated society possible that provides a safe environment. We in the freedom movement if we really want change have to provide an alternative. We can not expect the masses to create the change, it never works that way. This is why the education route is doomed to failure.
Perhaps an education only approach. But I would say it is very important that education continue, or people like you and I would not be here…
Imo, no one approach should be embraced.
Agorism should be utilized for it’s counter-economic activity backed by an ideology that encourages the re-use of black& grey market activity, rather than using those markets to bolster the pink market (i.e. the mafia) & the fact that it is a relatively new tactic historically speaking (no, I’m not going to debate on it’s merits since I am not saying it’s superior to any other approach).
Secession should be utilized for obvious reasons, especially since newer technologies will make self-sustaining lifestyles easier to operate (thus making the possibility of a sustainable, alternate society possible, as well as the challenge of territorial monopoly more viable).
The operation within the current system, however limited that may be (political reformism, various business, organizational & educational ventures, etc.), direct action, alternative uses of currencies such as local silver currencies (NH is doing this, I believe), use of labour notes, bartering & gift economy, etc.
PDA’s & other ideas for security against The State are a given, & would probably start out small on the local level via grassroot beginnings & eventually achieve viral growth for increasingly bigger roles & bigger uses. If minarchism managed to do anything concerning free association, allowing alternative currencies, eliminating the FEd etc. , that would certainly help somewhat.
Despite the merit of the argument of not wasting the movement’s resources, I counter that the movement (and those within it) may burn itself out if it’s focus is too narrow. The State retains it’s monopoly on the services of everyday life on more fronts than political, more fronts than local, more fronts than financial, etc.
Besides, so many already disagree with approaches; it appears the real waste of resources if bickering over which approach is correct or wrong, & proxy, whether those who advocate such an approach, are correct or wrong (resulting in the maligned personal feuds that drive many discussions into the Forest of Punditry & the Valley of Semantics)
I think the question is more so, “Would a majority ever voluntarily participate in anarchism, whether they know it as anarchism or not.”. It would be contradictory to speak of forcing anarchistic activity upon those who are ignorant of it.
I think if alternative services, currencies, organizations etc. proved profitable / worthwhile, those who hear good things through the grapevine would participate in it regardless if they are for anarchism or not. That is, if the incentive (saying, during a possibly nasty depression in the future) is strong enough for them to consider it.
Imo, for some, if it works, they will look closer as to why; for others, they just want it to work & get on with their lives. If The State is further perceived as not working (as well as inefficient & illegitimate by proxy), I think this would help to get more of a majority at least interested.
A recent example, I think, would be the RNC debacle over the over-zealous & excessive police shown to counter protesters (many being charged or billed as domestic terrorists, or at least a few words short of).
What’s the alternative?
Forcing freedom upon them?
Although I’m an exponent of the Education strategy, I think Maxliberty’s point is that concrete examples of liberty are much more likely to succede that attempts at education. You might convence some of the population, but it won’t lead to anything constructive in his view.
I view Education and broad agorism (that is participation in state-undermining activity via alternative ((not nessesarily all black)) channels). However, I can sympathize with the Gault’s Glutch types.
Goodness that post was terribly written.
I think a good number of people would simply go along to get along. What I would really like to see is people themselves actively–but only voluntarily–setting up and participating in the type of system or framework they believe in. That would mean every person has to be informed, but of course that’s never going to happen.
For that reason, I think I’d favor a strategy of us anarchists trying to exist outside the influence of the state to whatever extent possible, while hoping more of the deluded would be swayed by our example, even if they lacked the intellectual fortitude to be persuaded by our arguments. Sometimes seeing results will penetrate a dense cranium much more effectively than the most eloquent words. Meanwhile, at least we wouldn’t be just idly waiting and hoping futilely for things to change.
If you define the goal of educating people to be to spread the word enough so that some people will become aware AND will take action on the knowledge then I would agree. If you define the goal of education this way then the obvious question becomes what action do you advocate upon receiving the education? Education for education sake has no purpose.