it seems to me that the best way to transform society along Rothbardian lines would be to demonstrate empirically that anarcho-capitalism works, and that it is superior system to today's statism.
The best way to do this, I would say, would be to run anarcho-capitalists in a local election in one moderate-sized city. I don't think there's any reason to segregate ourselves. Local elections aren't that competitive, and if the Rothbardians in that area work hard, our candidates can win, and then reform away the state over the course of a year or so.
You might argue that that would be implicitly supporting the statist system, but the reason who people do support the state is because the vast majority of Americans believe that it is necessary. By working in a moderate sized American city, we would prove that the state is not necessary, and even harmful.
I know you've dismissed seasteading, but the very issues that have come up in this thread are exactly why it could be so effective. There is a mountain of historical precedent and public opinion to climb in order to live freely on land, but the sea even now offers a generally unrestrictive environment (e.g., flags of convenience). Logistics are very challenging, of course, but there are many people working on the issue coming up with surprisingly realistic ideas.
josephbwarren: it seems to me that the best way to transform society along Rothbardian lines would be to demonstrate empirically that anarcho-capitalism works, and that it is superior system to today's statism. The best way to do this, I would say, would be to run anarcho-capitalists in a local election in one moderate-sized city. I don't think there's any reason to segregate ourselves. Local elections aren't that competitive, and if the Rothbardians in that area work hard, our candidates can win, and then reform away the state over the course of a year or so. You might argue that that would be implicitly supporting the statist system, but the reason who people do support the state is because the vast majority of Americans believe that it is necessary. By working in a moderate sized American city, we would prove that the state is not necessary, and even harmful.
At first I completely supported your post, because I believe educating the masses is the most effective way to eventually live free. But then you moved to politics, where I can only point out how the "Audit the Fed" bill was ignominiously gutted. Education must come first on an a priori, non-empirical basis or else every effort will end up like that. Further, when enough people are educated and convinced, there will be no need for politicking.
the end the fed bill was gutted because all bills move towards the position of the median voter (look at the health bill moving towards Olympia Snowe and the blue dogs), but in a local election, a well-run, populist campaign can win without the candidates advertising the complete radicalism of their positions.
a candidate can speak of small, commonsense reforms. for example, a city might be contracting out their trash industry, it makes sense on a non-ideological level for the city to simply stop contracting out the service, and allow citizens to pay the money themselves instead of through taxpayer dollars. A candidate for local office can talk about this and gain the support of most citizens in the municipality if the campaign is run correctly.
I would assert that as the situation stands right now it would take decades and decades to educate the public regarding an-cap. but if there is an American city where no one pays taxes, why, no one can ignore that.
So let me get this right. We can prove that politics is not the way to create change, by using politics to create change.
I dunno about others, but I don't associate liberty with voting, democracy or government, local or otherwise.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Bleicke: Where is your neighborhood? My problem with just forming an enclave in an existing (western) state is: they'll just shoot us down as tax protestors/criminals. Like they did with Ed Brown or at Waco. If we do this, we'll have to be able to withstand any attacks. And we won't be able to withstand the US Military, at least not in the first 10 years ;-)
Where is your neighborhood? My problem with just forming an enclave in an existing (western) state is: they'll just shoot us down as tax protestors/criminals. Like they did with Ed Brown or at Waco. If we do this, we'll have to be able to withstand any attacks. And we won't be able to withstand the US Military, at least not in the first 10 years ;-)
Perhaps we should get our cue from the Maoists. Wars are fought over people, not land. Land can be reclaimed.
If you are attacked, withdraw.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Here's a fun idea of some real-world examples of the tiniest indepedent places (and how messed up they are )
http://www.cracked.com/article_15821_fun-size-countries-insane-histories-worlds-6-tiniest-nations.html
"It's on America's tortured brow that Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow" - David Bowie, Life on Mars.
@Hard Rain:
You want to hear some of the insane histories of big countries, and how messed up they are?
Waco
WW1
WW2
Iraq
Afghanistan
Darfur
Soviet Russia
I'm not sure who are the crackpots here. Firing a shot at offending military (Sealand) seems pretty sane compared to some of this shit.
I wasn't implying that larger countries don't also have their share of messes. I just find it amusing that even the tiniest ones can have some insane issues, such as the "Kingdom" of Redonda with its 3 competing "monarchs" fighting over, essentially, a feces-covered rock in the middle of the ocean.
Ok, so nobody else is interested in really DOING this? That's a disappointment. I'm aware it won't be easy and things might go wrong, but we should at least try it!
There are better ways to go about it than this.
Sea-based and space-based solutions would seem to be the most supportive of getting a free society set up with minimal state intervention.
Both solutions have engineering challenges, but also provide some advantages in terms of trade.
The space-based society would be easiest to defend since the cost of aggression would be much higher. Options would be a satellite colony, planetary ground-based colony (surface/subsurface), planetary atmospheric-based colony or combinations thereof. Areas of concern for a space-based colony are radiation, composition of resources, and access to required resources. Of all options, in my opinion the most viable is an atmospheric colony on the planet Venus - cities in the clouds. Provided the selected materials can withstand the atmosphere (a matter for materials science), you'd have bouyancy in the form of oxygen and nitrogen (consistent with Earth's atmosphere), a gravitation closer to Earth's than any other in the solar system, and other potential resources for exploitation. A terraforming process could be initiated (this would take hundreds of years to complete). The colony would be suitable for a massive fleet of ships and trade vessels, which would travel anywhere from the sun to the Mars-Jupiter asteroid belt. Mining operations on Mercury would be quite lucrative, and harvesting materials from even the sun could produce the energy requirements necessary to provide unlimited power (limited only by the life of the sun). A free space would outpace the state-run Earth and offer hope to people who seek liberty. Eventually, Earth could be reclaimed after the states consume one another and collapse due to their own inefficiency.
Sounds like science fiction, right? As I've said there are many engineering challenges involved, but this is not an impossible idea - at least no more impossible than having the free society we seek.
Bleicke: Ok, so nobody else is interested in really DOING this? That's a disappointment. I'm aware it won't be easy and things might go wrong, but we should at least try it!
If you were interested in the past history of these forums, you would find out that such plans have been discussed in depth.
@stranger
So show me these plans or projects. I want to work with them.
@venus plan
It really does sound like science fiction. I want to live in a free society in my lifetime, not "several hundred years after we reach venus".
There are, of course, the Free State Project (NH) and the Free Wyoming Project; as for an overseas an-cap society, I have read about a "Laissez-Faire City" that was established some years ago in Costa Rica.
Theoretically, if you can get enough people to migrate into a smaller country, then have them acquire citizenship and vote the state out of existence, then you have achieved your objectives peacefully and within the law. I'm just starting to read "Human Action", though, and am seeing that getting people to work in tandem toward such a grand goal would be like herding cats into a bath. The Free State Project was unable to get 20,000 people to move to New Hampshire, which seems to me a project much more likely to succeed than having a large group of people migrate overseas.
Nevertheless, might I suggest that if most of the migrants will be from America, then choosing an area already using English would be preferred? Australia (which was picked as the #3 "freest economy in the world" by the Heritage Foundation) would be a good choice, I think. I don't know beans about Australia, but I have the notion that there are large uninhabited portions of the continent that might, with work, be made suitable for living.
British Guyana would have the advantages of being near a large trading partner, of being (officially, at least) an English-speaking country, and having a population of around 800,000 or so (making it much easier for a smaller group of migrants to, once established, make changes to the government).
My real hope with all the political turmoil we are experiencing, is that the central government collapses under its own weight, and the individual states take the opportunity to secede.
liberty student: So let me get this right. We can prove that politics is not the way to create change, by using politics to create change. I dunno about others, but I don't associate liberty with voting, democracy or government, local or otherwise.
If some group of people truly were to use the current political system in order to completely dismantle the entire political system, I do not understand how or why such an outcome of such action would, from our perspective, be undesirable. For it would not fuel the fire of the political system because, indeed, the political system would be gone.
It seems to me to be a very dogmatic stance, the stance which you seem to hold with respect to this issue. If we were to "us[e] politics to create change", we, indeed, would not thereby "prove that politics is not the way to create change". But, when one proves to oneself that a belief which one previously held is false, is that not, if you are a genuine truth-seeker, a desirable occurrence?
(Note: If some group of people truly were to use the current political system in order to completely dismantle the entire political system, such a situation would prove only that the previously existent political system, when existent in such conditions, is able to commit suicide, not also that its previous existence was somehow desirable or that its possible future existence would be somehow desirable. In fact, such a situation would convey to us no information concerning that important question.)
I am aware of the FSP, but that is certainly not the kind of project mentioned that I would have known if I were interested in the history of this forum. For the FSP is something very different from what I was outlining in my first post.
I think it's great if people want to use the system to dismantle itself. But I'm not one of those people. I think you can't beat the game if you play by its rules. Prove me wrong and I'm happy, but until then I just won't believe it.
Australia has the disadvantage of being a very developed, strong state with a huge standing military force. This is exactly the kind of country I don't want to secede from.
Come on, anyone? Anyone want to help build a free society?
dude, I think that the most logical next step for Rothbardians to take would be to take political control of a moderately-sized U.S. city, de-monopolize city functions, attempt to gain autonomy from federal/state authorities, and demonstrate empirically to the rest of the nation that anarcho-capitalism works. Local elections are notorious for low turnout. All we got to do is speak to voters and convince enough people that the status quo is insufficient, even if we are purposely vague on our ultimate ideal polity. If we put in the time and develop a strong organization, this is very possible.
josephbwarren: dude, I think that the most logical next step for Rothbardians to take would be to take political control of a moderately-sized U.S. city, de-monopolize city functions, attempt to gain autonomy from federal/state authorities, and demonstrate empirically to the rest of the nation that anarcho-capitalism works. Local elections are notorious for low turnout. All we got to do is speak to voters and convince enough people that the status quo is insufficient, even if we are purposely vague on our ultimate ideal polity. If we put in the time and develop a strong organization, this is very possible.
There are cities in New Hampshire... where people are setting up the infrastructure...
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap