A politician speaks in various enigmas and tongues, until you realise that he's not interested in helping you
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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...
Nice to have another ancap around.Anarcho-capitalist checking in here. Just wanted to introduce myself and get to know everyone.
Nice to have another ancap around.
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.
just a more "hands off my civil liberties" libertarian. I hate drones.
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?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.
Rothbard on Alan Greenspan - YouTube
Theres 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 peoples minds do you think youll change by doing that? Voting actually has reduced government intervention in some areas.From an economic perspective voting is irrational. There is no statistically significant chance that your vote will determine the outcome of a national election.
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.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.
You dont vote for the person, you vote for them to do specific actions. I dont agree with anyone on anything 100%, but luckily, that doesnt stop me from doing things with others. And there is room for debate within libertarianism. Its 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 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.
A point of innocence/guilt is that the party must know what theyre doing is wrong. I see no reason to think the everyday citizen who votes to increase taxes thinks theyre doing anything wrong. The action itself might be wrong, but you cant lay any blame on them.I would consider your everyday citizen who votes to increase taxes on me a thief as well.
How tragic. Id 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?It is hard to build a coalition with a band of violent thieves.
Theres 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 peoples minds do you think youll 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 Pauls 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 dont vote for the person, you vote for them to do specific actions. I dont agree with anyone on anything 100%, but luckily, that doesnt stop me from doing things with others. And there is room for debate within libertarianism. Its 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 theyre doing is wrong. I see no reason to think the everyday citizen who votes to increase taxes thinks theyre doing anything wrong. The action itself might be wrong, but you cant lay any blame on them.
How tragic. Id 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 didnt 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.
There’s no chance writing one libertarian book or article will change anything either.There is no chance that MY vote specifically will change anything.
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.At least I get some sort of enjoyment about discussing these topics, but I get no enjoyment from voting.
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.Ron Paul's campaigns have done a lot as far as getting the ideas out there, but has there been any real progress?
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.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.
So you wouldn’t work with anyone who votes to violate your rights. By my calculations, that’d be about everyone who votes.I have no problem working with others I disagree with. The problem is working with those who are currently violating my rights.
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.Would you try to cooperate with a thief who has just broken into your house or would you kill him?
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).
Voting is supporting the coercive institution of government.I don't see how voting is a coercive system.
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.
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.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.
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.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 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: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.
Would you please make up your mind? First you said:Voting is supporting the coercive institution of government.
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).
I don't think voting is wrong, and I agree with Spooner that it is a form of self-defense.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?