Ye Olde Libertarian Pub

[Kurama]

It can be hard to find that information... one of the most frustrating things I have ever dealt with politically is trying to get straight answers from ANYONE...

A politician speaks in various enigmas and tongues, until you realise that he's not interested in helping you

 

[ReardenSteel]

Anarcho-capitalist checking in here. Just wanted to introduce myself and get to know everyone.

 

[abysmul]

Anarcho-capitalist checking in here. Just wanted to introduce myself and get to know everyone.

Greetings!

 

[zoink]

Anarcho-capitalist checking in here. Just wanted to introduce myself and get to know everyone.

Nice to have another ancap around.

 

[Czarcasmo]

Hi folks! I'm a Colorado-bound (three weeks) Lib that's glad to find a forum with some like-minded chaps.

 

[FreedByte]

Nice to have another ancap around.

There are a few of us

I tend to favor Konkin's class theory though, making me somewhat agorist.

 

[Motor City Christian]

I am not an ancap(there are a FEW programs I would keep), just a more "hands off my civil liberties" libertarian. I hate drones.

 

[saffron park]

I am not an ancap(there are a FEW programs I would keep), just a more "hands off my civil liberties" libertarian. I hate drones.

You mean Airplane Kill-you-from-thousands-of-feet-in-the-air drones or Democratic Corporations-are-evil-Bush-is-evil-Republicans-are-racist drones?

Or both?

 

[BakoGuy]

just a more "hands off my civil liberties" libertarian. I hate drones.

Amen to that! I think a few drones are OK, especially on the border, but not over the cities!

 

[ReardenSteel]

I've recently stumbled across Voluntaryism. I think this type of ideology is more in line with my beliefs. I agree with the idea that voting only further legitimizes the current system, and the best methods of advancing libertarian goals are through other means. It seems contradictory to me to use a coercive system to advance libertarian ideals (the non-aggression principle).

 

[Nilloc]

I've recently stumbled across Voluntaryism. I think this type of ideology is more in line with my beliefs. I agree with the idea that voting only further legitimizes the current system, and the best methods of advancing libertarian goals are through other means. It seems contradictory to me to use a coercive system to advance libertarian ideals (the non-aggression principle).

The problem with that is it would rule out any defensive force at all or doing anything with government "property," including driving on government roads, using American money, going to public schools/universities, sending a letter, getting any license of any kind, etc. One of Lysander Spooner's points in No Treason is that voting doesn't legitimatize the system, because it's self-defense. If someone throws you in a battle field, would you just lie down and do nothing? Or even worse, what if you saw someone else about to be killed?

Agorism works fine for hipsters and cult groups like Freedomain Radio, but it doesn't work well for the average person. That's why the ideals of Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul are picking up in popularity, while Stefan Molyneux and Samuel Konkin are not (nor will they ever).

Rothbard's Practical Politics - YouTube

Rothbard also makes a good point here about how the hardcore Randroids end up being nothing but statists, since they refuse to ally or have a coalition with anyone but their little cult. I fear many libertarians are in that same position.

http://youtu.be/zLj2Zxv5Kzg?t=2m43s

 

[ReardenSteel]

The problem with that is it would rule out any defensive force at all or doing anything with government "property," including driving on government roads, using American money, going to public schools/universities, sending a letter, getting any license of any kind, etc. One of Lysander Spooner's points in No Treason is that voting doesn't legitimatize the system, because it's self-defense. If someone throws you in a battle field, would you just lie down and do nothing? Or even worse, what if you saw someone else about to be killed?

Agorism works fine for hipsters and cult groups like Freedomain Radio, but it doesn't work well for the average person. That's why the ideals of Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul are picking up in popularity, while Stefan Molyneux and Samuel Konkin are not (nor will they ever).

Rothbard's Practical Politics - YouTube

Rothbard also makes a good point here about how the hardcore Randroids end up being nothing but statists, since they refuse to ally or have a coalition with anyone but their little cult. I fear many libertarians are in that same position.

Rothbard on Alan Greenspan - YouTube

It is a dilemma for me. On one hand I don't agree with the use of force for any reason other than self defense. One of the reasons I was drawn to libertarianism in the first place is because of its consistency. Libertarians tend to follow a set of ideals based on the non-aggression principle, as opposed to Republicans and Democrats who only follow their own personal opinions. Libertarianism seems to take personal opinion out of the equation, giving everyone the right to exercise their own beliefs as long as they don't directly infringe on the rights of others.

I don't think voting is wrong, and I agree with Spooner that it is a form of self-defense. However, I don't think it is a particularly effective form of defense. From an economic perspective voting is irrational. There is no statistically significant chance that your vote will determine the outcome of a national election.

Based on my understanding of Rothbard he was against a government monopoly of defense, including the military, police, and courts. He was also against taxation. He said that government defense and taxation were two fundamental crimes against liberty and property that even the most limited governments commit.

I do not differentiate between someone who wants to tax me to pay for defense and someone who would break into my home and steal from me at gunpoint. I would consider your everyday citizen who votes to increase taxes on me a thief as well. It is hard to build a coalition with a band of violent thieves.

 

[Nilloc]

From an economic perspective voting is irrational. There is no statistically significant chance that your vote will determine the outcome of a national election.

There’s no statistically significant chance that doing anything will advance liberty more than voting. Why post on here, why write a book or article, why have debates with others? How many people’s minds do you think you’ll change by doing that? Voting actually has reduced government intervention in some areas.

Besides, what has been the most effective conversion tool for libertarianism in the last 100 years? Ron Paul’s two presidential campaigns. Right now, Ron Paul inspired-libertarian Republicans in the federal government are fighting big government and influencing people about libertarian ideas that many would not otherwise hear.

Based on my understanding of Rothbard he was against a government monopoly of defense, including the military, police, and courts. He was also against taxation. He said that government defense and taxation were two fundamental crimes against liberty and property that even the most limited governments commit.

He was. He had also been associated with the Rand cult when he was younger, so he knew what such a mentality did to a movement. Hence why he was actively involved in politics and appealed to the common man. Hell, he even voted for George H.W. Bush in ’92.

I do not differentiate between someone who wants to tax me to pay for defense and someone who would break into my home and steal from me at gunpoint.

You don’t vote for the person, you vote for them to do specific actions. I don’t agree with anyone on anything 100%, but luckily, that doesn’t stop me from doing things with others. And there is room for debate within libertarianism. It’s because of this black and white idea that the Randroids and Molynoids are insignificant little cults, while the more practical libertarians are actually making some headway.

I would consider your everyday citizen who votes to increase taxes on me a thief as well.

A point of innocence/guilt is that the party must know what they’re doing is wrong. I see no reason to think the everyday citizen who votes to increase taxes thinks they’re doing anything wrong. The action itself might be wrong, but you can’t lay any blame on them.

It is hard to build a coalition with a band of violent thieves.

How tragic. I’d gladly sit at the table with tax collectors and sinners. Murray Rothbard believed in the legitimacy of copyright, which I consider immoral. Should I cast him aside too? How do you even make your way in the world without associating with people who do immoral things?

Rothbard didn’t have a hard time at all forming coalitions. He worked with the Old Right to try and get Robert Taft elected president; he worked with the New Left in the sixties to fight against the draft and the war; etc.

 

[ReardenSteel]

There’s no statistically significant chance that doing anything will advance liberty more than voting. Why post on here, why write a book or article, why have debates with others? How many people’s minds do you think you’ll change by doing that? Voting actually has reduced government intervention in some areas.

Besides, what has been the most effective conversion tool for libertarianism in the last 100 years? Ron Paul’s two presidential campaigns. Right now, Ron Paul inspired-libertarian Republicans in the federal government are fighting big government and influencing people about libertarian ideas that many would not otherwise hear.


He was. He had also been associated with the Rand cult when he was younger, so he knew what such a mentality did to a movement. Hence why he was actively involved in politics and appealed to the common man. Hell, he even voted for George H.W. Bush in ’92.


You don’t vote for the person, you vote for them to do specific actions. I don’t agree with anyone on anything 100%, but luckily, that doesn’t stop me from doing things with others. And there is room for debate within libertarianism. It’s because of this black and white idea that the Randroids and Molynoids are insignificant little cults, while the more practical libertarians are actually making some headway.


A point of innocence/guilt is that the party must know what they’re doing is wrong. I see no reason to think the everyday citizen who votes to increase taxes thinks they’re doing anything wrong. The action itself might be wrong, but you can’t lay any blame on them.


How tragic. I’d gladly sit at the table with tax collectors and sinners. Murray Rothbard believed in the legitimacy of copyright, which I consider immoral. Should I cast him aside too? How do you even make your way in the world without associating with people who do immoral things?

Rothbard didn’t have a hard time at all forming coalitions. He worked with the Old Right to try and get Robert Taft elected president; he worked with the New Left in the sixties to fight against the draft and the war; etc.

I'm not talking about voting in general, I'm talking about one specific vote. There is no chance that MY vote specifically will change anything. At least I get some sort of enjoyment about discussing these topics, but I get no enjoyment from voting. Voting is not worth the opportunity cost for me. It may be for you if you get a substantial amount of satisfaction from voting.

Ron Paul's campaigns have done a lot as far as getting the ideas out there, but has there been any real progress? Are we any more free? At this rate I can't expect to gain much freedom at all in my lifetime, and I'm relatively young.

Everyone knows that voting to increase taxes means people have to pay more against their will. They may not think much of it, but they do know what they are doing.

I have no problem working with others I disagree with. The problem is working with those who are currently violating my rights. Would you try to cooperate with a thief who has just broken into your house or would you kill him?

 

[Nilloc]

There is no chance that MY vote specifically will change anything.

There’s no chance writing one libertarian book or article will change anything either.

At least I get some sort of enjoyment about discussing these topics, but I get no enjoyment from voting.

Voting is just a smaller part of campaigning and campaigning is the best way to get ideas out there. There isn’t a sharp distinction between education and voting. Rothbard recognized this when he said the best time to promote liberty is election season, when the whole country turns their eyes on the issues.

Ron Paul's campaigns have done a lot as far as getting the ideas out there, but has there been any real progress?

Having more libertarian Republicans in the federal government sounds like progress. Having someone like Chris Christie criticize libertarians by name sounds like progress (do you think anyone was worrying about those darn libertarians back in, say, 2005?). Weed legalization sounds like progress. Greater awareness of drones and civil liberties sounds like progress. The Amash amendment nearly passing (which was unthinkable to everyone) sounds like progress. State governments trying to nullify Obamacare sounds like progress. Etc.

Everyone knows that voting to increase taxes means people have to pay more against their will. They may not think much of it, but they do know what they are doing.

No they don’t. I don’t know if you noticed, but most people don’t think that taxes are paid against people’s wills.

I have no problem working with others I disagree with. The problem is working with those who are currently violating my rights.

So you wouldn’t work with anyone who votes to violate your rights. By my calculations, that’d be about everyone who votes.

Would you try to cooperate with a thief who has just broken into your house or would you kill him?

So you wanna go kill everyone who votes against you now (since you want to use that analogy)? Sheesh. I would work with someone who violated my rights on some things if they’d help me fight against those who violate my rights even more.

Maybe there’s a school bully that’s always hitting me and taking my money, but if a murderer comes in the school and starts shooting the place up, **staff edit** I’d team up with the bully to take him down. But unlike the bully, I don't think other potential allies know what they're doing is wrong. And calling them thieves and such is probably the worst way to attract anyone to any movement.

 

[saffron park]

I've recently stumbled across Voluntaryism. I think this type of ideology is more in line with my beliefs. I agree with the idea that voting only further legitimizes the current system, and the best methods of advancing libertarian goals are through other means. It seems contradictory to me to use a coercive system to advance libertarian ideals (the non-aggression principle).

I don't see how voting is a coercive system.

 

[ReardenSteel]

I don't see how voting is a coercive system.

Voting is supporting the coercive institution of government.

 

[ReardenSteel]

There’s no chance writing one libertarian book or article will change anything either.


Voting is just a smaller part of campaigning and campaigning is the best way to get ideas out there. There isn’t a sharp distinction between education and voting. Rothbard recognized this when he said the best time to promote liberty is election season, when the whole country turns their eyes on the issues.


Having more libertarian Republicans in the federal government sounds like progress. Having someone like Chris Christie criticize libertarians by name sounds like progress (do you think anyone was worrying about those darn libertarians back in, say, 2005?). Weed legalization sounds like progress. Greater awareness of drones and civil liberties sounds like progress. The Amash amendment nearly passing (which was unthinkable to everyone) sounds like progress. State governments trying to nullify Obamacare sounds like progress. Etc.


No they don’t. I don’t know if you noticed, but most people don’t think that taxes are paid against people’s wills.


So you wouldn’t work with anyone who votes to violate your rights. By my calculations, that’d be about everyone who votes.


So you wanna go kill everyone who votes against you now (since you want to use that analogy)? Sheesh. I would work with someone who violated my rights on some things if they’d help me fight against those who violate my rights even more.

Maybe there’s a school bully that’s always hitting me and taking my money, but if a murderer comes in the school and starts shooting the place up, **staff edit** I’d team up with the bully to take him down. But unlike the bully, I don't think other potential allies know what they're doing is wrong. And calling them thieves and such is probably the worst way to attract anyone to any movement.

I'm skeptical that any of this "progress" is going to lead to any real increase in liberty. So far all we have is a few close losses.

You think people enjoy paying taxes? I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that people think everyone is just thrilled to pay taxes.

I wouldn't "team up" with the bully to take down the murderer. I would rely solely on myself to take down the murderer in your scenario.

 

[Nilloc]

I'm skeptical that any of this "progress" is going to lead to any real increase in liberty. So far all we have is a few close losses.

So what will increase liberty? How many more books do we have to write before we see any progress? Murray Rothbard wrote countless works in his lifetime, but there was never any libertarian revolution. Ron Paul ran for president and the liberty movement exploded. Between voting and not voting, the empirical evidence is clear on what works better.

You think people enjoy paying taxes? I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that people think everyone is just thrilled to pay taxes.

I didn't say they were thrilled with it, I said they didn't view taxation is wrong. I'm not thrilled with having to attend school or work, but I don't view it as wrong.

I wouldn't "team up" with the bully to take down the murderer. I would rely solely on myself to take down the murderer in your scenario.

I highly doubt that, and I'd question the wisdom of such an action. This ideological purity nonsense reminds me so much of the Pharisees and it's an attitude I can't stand:

To all people who are sending me evidence of Rand Paul’s various heresies, you can save your bandwidth. I’m not interested in saint making or witch burning. I’m only interested in one thing: progressive reductions of the role of all government power in people’s lives all the way to zero if possible. Whatever brings that about, in whatever sector it happens, and whether it happens slowly by steps or all in one fell swoop, I’m for it. I really don’t care who or what makes a contribution to this end or how it comes about, so long as it is ethical and it actually achieves the aim of human liberation, the mother of all progress, order, and higher civilization. (source)
​

We should realize that people are neither saints nor witches and accept their imperfects. Treating everyone who's less than a saint as a witch is no way to act.

Btw why is right-violating behavior your cut off line? Why isn't other immoral activity enough to stop you from working with people?

 

[Nilloc]

Voting is supporting the coercive institution of government.

Would you please make up your mind? First you said:

I agree with the idea that voting only further legitimizes the current system . . . It seems contradictory to me to use a coercive system to advance libertarian ideals (the non-aggression principle).

Then you changed your mind:

I don't think voting is wrong, and I agree with Spooner that it is a form of self-defense.

Now you're back to the first position again. Which is it?