If we want to speed up the transition to anarcho-capitalism quicker wouldn’t it be a much better idea to speed up the collapse of the state? I know a lot of people on here support Dr. Paul for president but I would say all he’d be able to do is save statism from itself prolonging the initial end of the state. Wouldn’t it be better to just let Obama or some neocon take office and let them spend the state into extinction?
In the meantime, we can use alternative currencies as exchange and live off our own self-reliance as the state crumbles.
Well, if someone supports Ron Paul because they think he’s going to “rescue” the State, I think they’re supporting him for the wrong reason and misunderstand his true purpose. As for “speeding” the collapse of the State, the best way to do that is to press always against the State, not “let it have its way.” However, this can only successfully be done through fully understanding that politics per se will never end the State… that is, signing up to be a player in the Grand Ripoff and try to out rip the rippers-off is not only the wrong strategy, it is simply an attempt to become the State. Almost every political action group without exception is not interested in eliminating the State - even most of those who say they are - rather, they interested in eliminating this State and implementing their own. That’s why the only credible anti-State position is the wholly anti-State position.
Maybe for people who will be born in 20, 50 or 100 years. But I have my own life to live. I’m not a martyr to some libertarian ‘cause’. For that reason, any reduction in state intervention is beneficial to me, even if in the long-term (i.e. over centuries) this prevents a collapse of centralized state power.
Carry this whole thing through though. Anarchy depends on how you enter it. Entering it in panic and collapse would be a bad thing. It would result in death and fear. Thus would anarchy evermore be known. Better to get to a minarchic state or voluntarize taxes. Going to anarchy this way will not result in anarcho-capitalism but just another state.
If one wished to advance liberty the most then one would attempt to make sure that there was as much libertarian activism as possible with as much little libertarian action as possible and as much statist action as possible in order to eventually have a huge outburst of libertarian sentiment and action, prefferably augmented by a breakdown of the state.
Almost everyone would clamour for the revival of the state - just as they support it today. What is required to prevent this is a general spirit of liberalism across society. This certainly does not exist at the moment.
You seem to think that all of America thinks that anarcho-capitalism is a desirable outcome. They don’t. The whole secure-property free-market society would not just emerge instantly from the ashes of catastrophe. It would take more time than the statist mob would permit.
Ludwig von Mises’s motto is appropriate, here: Tu Ne Cede Malis … do not yield to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it. To “give in” to the State is the wrong answer. We should never give in, we should be giving the State hell to the greatest extent we are able.
And I want to underline what Aristippus said that nobody is going to accomplish anything as some martyr to a “greater cause”. All the gains we make for freedom are what they are. It’s like a business that says it will continue to take losses because doing so will bring profits faster. This is insanity. The business ought at all times to avoid losses and seek profits. As liberals, we ought always to avoid losses of liberty and morality and always to seek their furtherance.
I agree. If people don’t have the right perception of the free market, they will just demand for statism again. In fact, the state would say that in order to prevent a grand failure from happening again, they should institute more regulation than before.
The establishment of a free society depends on education. That education would be harmed by a collapse. The turmoil would be blamed on anarchy. People would then think that anarchy should never again happen. Immediate abolition of the state is not good for anarchy. Clayton you probably know best of all how the hegelian dialectic works with social engineering. Think of what would happen should anarchy occur. If the state were re-established, which it would be, the people would clutch desperately to it forever.
Almost everyone would clamour for the revival of the state - just as they support it today. What is required to prevent this is a general spirit of liberalism across society. This certainly does not exist at the moment.
What makes you think so? Who would chose violent monopoly over peaceful voluntary markets?
I’m talking about after the state collapses. After statism is over and we’re living in a voluntary free market society WHO would want to go back to statism?
What makes you say that he’s socialist? If you really are that lazy, at least download the mises.org edition and read pp. 34-38 of Rothbard’s introduction to the work. Or is Rothbard a socialist anarchist too?
Boetie socialist, lol. There wasn’t even such a thing as “socialism” when Boetie wrote. They really couldn’t have comprehended the idea in the 16th century!
Boetie socialist, lol. There wasn’t even such a thing as “socialism” when Boetie wrote. They really couldn’t have comprehended the idea in the 16th century!
Still I don’t care what the man said. We need to look at this realistically. If Ron Paul is elected he’ll just strip the state down to its bare constitutional form not abolish it. If his small gov. plans succeed then more people will be less willing to go along w/ anarcho-capitalism since they’ll have such a rosy view of the state so as long as its small. This is a problem. I’d rather see the state spend its way to hell and watch the public demand anarcho-capitalism.