A Modest Proposal

liberty student:

Brainpolice:

Let me present a (rather realistic) hypothetical, Ego. Suppose the presidential election comes down to Obama vs. McCaine.

 

I'm sorry, but how is that realistic?  Ego does not have to vote for either of them.  He can vote third party.  He can write in Ron Paul.

BP isn't presenting a false choice; he's suggesting a scenario in which the two largest parties' candidates are Obama and McCain. That's expressed clearly enough in his phrase, "the election comes down to," because whether or not Nader runs, the election will go to either the Deomcrat or the Republican candidate. What Ego does or doesn't do is irrelevant to that outcome.

--Len.

Len Budney:

BP isn't presenting a false choice; he's suggesting a scenario in which the two largest parties' candidates are Obama and McCain. That's expressed clearly enough in his phrase, "the election comes down to," because whether or not Nader runs, the election will go to either the Deomcrat or the Republican candidate. What Ego does or doesn't do is irrelevant to that outcome.

--Len.

We're avoiding that to Ego, there may be a difference between the Democract or Republican candidate.  And he can undermine one or both by his actions through a 3rd party.

We need to stop sitting on our hands and actually get involved in the political process! We need to begin to support electable libertarian candidates with moderate, palatable platforms (Ron Paul was still way too radical) for the major two parties.

We need to concentrate on "moderates"? I take the opposite perspective: the "moderates" are derailing the libertarian movement. Just look at what they did to the LP's platform at the Portland Purge. Ron Paul was way too radical? He was actually too moderate for my taste.

As people see the reforms working, I have faith that they will support more like-minded candidates. Out of principle and laziness, we've let the statists monopolize the process.

I would proclaim that the statists have won precisely because libertarians have involved themselves in party politics, which allows the statists to infiltrate the movement and absorb it into its own structure.

As for McCain? Delaying nationalized health care is reason enough to vote McCain into office over Obama. Leftist programs are nearly impossible to dismantle, as we've gone over before, due to the perpetual-and-ever-increasing dependents and votes they create.

Well I think that you're living in la la land if you think that voting for McCaine even remotely would be a strategy for bringing about libertarian goals. You're only speaking in terms of opposing the other guy, while the guy you end up supporting isn't conductive to your own alleged goals whatsoever. And note that your decision between the two swings on one single issue rather than any broad principle. That's the problem with democratic politics. I fail to see how electing a canidate who will continue an interventionist foreign policy and pretty much the bulk of the staus quo in general makes sense at all.

That doesn't mean we have to be paralyzed, though; just because we will be ruled by one of two statists doesn't mean we should sit on our hands and accept whichever ones the statists throw at us!

What do you think you'd be doing by voting? Selecting from a package deal that the statists throw at you. You lose either way.

We have to make value judgements and decide which candidate does the least long term damage, under which candidate would it be easier to practice agorism, etc.

You don't have to make a pragmatic decision between bads.

So you'll let someone else make it for you?

You also seemed to miss this part of my post:

I'll just say that while I absolutely support non-electoral strategies, especially education, we need to get involved in the political process. As long as the statists are able rewrite the laws at will, we'll never win.

For the record, the way libertarians have approached politics is hilariously bad.

Ego:

So you'll let someone else make it for you?

Do you mean to imply that I implicitly consent to someone else making it for me by not voting myself? If so, you've conceded to the implicit consent premise of statism.

 

 

Nope.

Ego:

We need to stop sitting on our hands and actually get involved in the political process! We need to begin to support electable libertarian candidates with moderate, palatable platforms (Ron Paul was still way too radical) for the major two parties.

You're forgetting that libertarianism is an apolitical movement. Politics is defined as "the science of government." As such, we will have nothing to do with any form of politics. We wish to abolish politics once and forever.

However, libertarianism is a socio-economic movement; its goal is a stateless society.

Agreed.

CShirk:

My immediate reply was that there is a use for reformists, but then I would think there is a difference true Reformists and "reformists."

The Reformist wishes to maintain a minimalized government that is limited in its scope to a judiciary judging violations of (for lack of better words) fundamental laws -  contract (if you signed it you signed it and you're stuck with it, read the fine print next time), theft, burglary, trespassing, robbery, rape, and murder.  I would remind you of the blood feuds that result in any system where there is no ability to seek honest, unbiased, objective, third party justice. I, personally, would prefer such a system with basic laws, agreed upon, set in stone, and immuteable - although also unable to be added to...those are the laws, and they are the only laws, any further laws are simply unnatural trappings. However, I think that even though those basic concepts go without saying with the ideal people suited to an Anarchist society, most people are not ideal. Most people will need the ability to call upon (groups of?) people to examine cases of such violations and to rule on them. Now, I could be wrong, but I would think that a system lacking at least this means would totally break down into blood feuds and then all your hard work and the blood shead for your revolution comes to nothing. Even then, though, I realize that such a skeletonized and limited system would be extremely radical, indeed, especially by today's standards.

[Off-Topic Point] Which brings me to a point that has kept me on the "minarchist" side of things instead of moving more completely towards anarcho-capitalism or agorism: what would an anarchist system propose to do to prevent the blood feuds

It's been done.

 

Niccolò:

It's been done.

 

 

I'll be honest...that has just given me a lot to think about.

Dammit, when do we get to eat poor people?

Well, we'll have to eat the poor once the evil free-market monopoly (the one that bought every company in the world) stops producing food.

I'm going to finish High School soon and have been deebating about what to persue in the rest of my education. I have grown an affinity towards economics in the last six months, but I've also been thinking about electrical engineering or computer science. Which of those choices would be more beneficial towards counter-economics assuming I dont opt to double major?

 

I remember reading story (on Wired, I think) about an engineer in NY who offered people on the streets a more or less free class on electrical engineering at some almost run down building, so I'd imagine you could easily do something akin to that.

Engineering would also be a very valuable skill to teach to people, especially with regards in counter-economics (enable people to build things, dissemble things, which would allow more people involved in Agora to be in a position to build infrastructure).

Computer-Science could also be valuable, in terms of being able to build web-sites (if you're doing web design), or programming, as you could be an asset (or teach others) to be able to build virtual infrastructure, as opposed to prior mentioned physical infrastructure.

It really seems like a trade-off on which you prefer, imo.

banned:

I'm going to finish High School soon and have been deebating about what to persue in the rest of my education. I have grown an affinity towards economics in the last six months, but I've also been thinking about electrical engineering or computer science. Which of those choices would be more beneficial towards counter-economics assuming I dont opt to double major?

 

The Agorist movement is such that the best thing for counter-economists and counter-economics is not so much what helps the counter-economy, so much as it is what helps the counter-economist thus delivering a great fortune to the counter-economy.

 

Agorism is a philosophy that encourages Agorists to do what they want, but to do it Agorically; it is also one that aims primarily to act as a support for those Agorists doing so.

 

Spread your wings to whatever field you wish to work in and you'll profit. Counter-Economics is a truly, by the people, movement with no central authority looking to gain from the sacrifices of its constituents.

 

 

....With respect to the http://all-left.net/ website....

I'm a bit surprised by some of the pictures there...I see Proudhon and Henry George but Spencer, Bastiat and Molinari are missing ? - That's a bit weird.

I'm not sure, but I get the impression that there's some anti-industrial, anti-bussiness slant to it. Also, I'm rather convinced that Proudhon was an anarcho-comunist, not a libertarian.

Juan:

....With respect to the http://all-left.net/ website....

I'm a bit surprised by some of the pictures there...I see Proudhon and Henry George but Spencer, Bastiat and Molinari are missing ? - That's a bit weird.

I'm not sure, but I get the impression that there's some anti-industrial, anti-bussiness slant to it. Also, I'm rather convinced that Proudhon was an anarcho-comunist, not a libertarian.

 

Proudhon was essentially the first