Hi all,
I'm attempting to raise awareness on my college campus, as well as my friends' campuses about the austro-liberatarian economic plan. I feel that, in general, an-cap is a philosophy that perfectly reflects the real opinions of my generation. So, in a most cliche fashion, I'm in the process of starting a Facebook group to virally promote the ideas amongst other college students. Although there are great groups and pages already out there, I feel that they don't attempt to reach out to students very well. They often come off as either Republican or "those wacky anarchists."
However, before I really attempt this, I want to make sure that I have the facts correct.
Here is the group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=82366596699#/group.php?gid=82366596699
All feedback of every type is needed.
thanks
I do not think you will get much support for your page from here. Austrians generally believe in a free market currency. Whether the market establishes a gold based currency or not is, well, up to the market. It should not be up to the government.
As to eliminating taxes, that will not happen until government is eliminated. So I would stress a reduction in taxes instead of their elimination, since 99.99% of people believe we need government.
Also, most here will probably disagree with a balanced budget, as outlined by you. A "balanced budget", IMO, is at worst letting the government collect no more than 1% in taxes and not letting it borrow any money. At best, a "balanced budget" means the elimination of government.
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
[ i understand that the ultimate goal is the elimination of government, but if we pursue that policy, we're no morally better than the statists.
what i mean by that is most americans want "some" government, as you said. because we are a constitutional society, by living in the united states, one must comply with this original contract. yes government is a ultimately an abusive source of aggression, but we can't take it away if they don't want us to do so, because that would be just as bad as forcing it on us. i am not saying the government is a necessary evil. i'm saying that it's a decision to be made the people, which is best done through demonstration their ability to self-regulate themselves.]
also, i agree with the free market currency, i am an austrian. but by the constitution, the us must produce it's own currency. to have a gold standard without a deficit is more of a display of the security of the economy and viability of prices. it limits economic interventionism and provides consistency for entrepreneurs. however, without taxes, the technical standard is irrelevent as the choice of exchange would have no impact on the revenue of the government. so by eliminating taxes and having a gold standard, we do not prevent a free market currency from occuring. it's only up to the government because this is what we agree to by living in the United States.
the balanced budget is also necessary if we have no taxes, this is part of why i included the taxes in the plan on monetary policy even though taxes are not monetary policy. assuming that the operations of the government are more advisory than directly interventionist, the balanced budget prevents the government from crossing this boundary. in effect, the budget and borrowing restrictions cement the government to the role of governing (in the sense of mainting order), rather than manipulating the markets. if the government cannot spend more money than it has, it is forced instead be productive independently of the people it governs, rather then reliant on the productivity of the people it governs.
so the key issue is the elimination of taxes, which is something that can be done based on interest revenue. we can do this without abrasively making the statement that we don't need government, which simply turns people off, in my experience.
Maybe change the group picture?
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
Spideynw:As to eliminating taxes, that will not happen until government is eliminated. So I would stress a reduction in taxes instead of their elimination, since 99.99% of people believe we need government.
He's starting out radical. I like it. There are no shortage of groups with watered down messages. To effectively brand, you need to differentiate your ideas.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
marcbragh:[ i understand that the ultimate goal is the elimination of government, but if we pursue that policy, we're no morally better than the statists.
Nothing is more moral than freedom.
marcbragh:what i mean by that is most americans want "some" government, as you said. because we are a constitutional society, by living in the united states, one must comply with this original contract.
That 12 people signed? How does that bind me to it?
marcbragh:yes government is a ultimately an abusive source of aggression, but we can't take it away if they don't want us to do so, because that would be just as bad as forcing it on us.
Huh?
marcbragh:i am not saying the government is a necessary evil. i'm saying that it's a decision to be made the people, which is best done through demonstration their ability to self-regulate themselves.]
How does one show that they can self-regulate while under the auspices of government?
Consider baby steps that would have the most impact and not shock the uneducated masses too much.
Educate them to how the communist have taken over our country and how 'free' we really are - http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/TenPlanks.html
Educate them about how to stand up for what rights we have left - http://www.fija.org/
Encourage them to support liberty minded politicians - http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
Encourage education of real economics - http://fee.org/
Have them prepare for increased tyranny - http://www.kel-tec-cnc.com/
You've had all night and day toConsider and prayYou've brought fire on my head andNow you must pay.
Babylon makes the rules where my people suffer
Spideynw: marcbragh:[ i understand that the ultimate goal is the elimination of government, but if we pursue that policy, we're no morally better than the statists. Nothing is more moral than freedom.
You are absolutely right.
Spideynw: marcbragh:what i mean by that is most americans want "some" government, as you said. because we are a constitutional society, by living in the united states, one must comply with this original contract. That 12 people signed? How does that bind me to it?
Because it is the accepted supreme law of the land that your state ratified and that your representatives protect (claim to protect*). that your living in the united states is evidence enough. it's similiar to a "by clicking the following link, you hereby agree the the terms and conditions" scenario.
Spideynw: marcbragh:yes government is a ultimately an abusive source of aggression, but we can't take it away if they don't want us to do so, because that would be just as bad as forcing it on us. Huh?
i'm saying that freedom of choice to have government must exist for it to be a truly free society. similiar to a "you must be tolerant of the intolerant" statement.
Spideynw: marcbragh:i am not saying the government is a necessary evil. i'm saying that it's a decision to be made the people, which is best done through demonstration their ability to self-regulate themselves.] How does one show that they can self-regulate while under the auspices of government?
this is done by empowering the individual. example: how does one learn to ride a bike with training wheels?
marcbragh:Because it is the accepted supreme law of the land that your state ratified
I did not accept it and I do not have a state. If I did, I would change a lot of things.
marcbragh:that your living in the united states is evidence enough.
It is my property, not the state's property. As such, they are infringing on my self.
To claim that staying here is consent is just like saying if a thief keeps stealing from your house when you are gone, and you do not move, that you are consenting to it.
marcbragh:t's similiar to a "by clicking the following link, you hereby agree the the terms and conditions" scenario.
Clicking is proactive. Not moving is not. So no, it is not the same.
marcbragh:i'm saying that freedom of choice to have government must exist for it to be a truly free society.
No, because a government means ruling over people without their consent.
marcbragh:this is done by empowering the individual. example: how does one learn to ride a bike with training wheels?
Poor analogy. People get rid of training wheels fairly quickly. No one can get rid of government. Second of all, training wheels do help people learn to ride. There is no reason to believe, as far as I can tell, that government helps people learn how to live.
marcbragh:Because it is the accepted supreme law of the land that your state ratified and that your representatives protect (claim to protect*). that your living in the united states is evidence enough. it's similiar to a "by clicking the following link, you hereby agree the the terms and conditions" scenario.
Lysander Spooner - Constitution of No Authority
Spideynw: marcbragh:Because it is the accepted supreme law of the land that your state ratified I did not accept it and I do not have a state. If I did, I would change a lot of things. marcbragh:that your living in the united states is evidence enough. It is my property, not the state's property. As such, they are infringing on my self. To claim that staying here is consent is just like saying if a thief keeps stealing from your house when you are gone that you are consenting to it by not moving.
To claim that staying here is consent is just like saying if a thief keeps stealing from your house when you are gone that you are consenting to it by not moving.
Yes it is your property, that's why the plan is to prevent the state from taking it through inflation and taxes. I am not saying it is right that the state claims the authority at all. I'm saying that they do, so we have to deal with it. And by deal with it, I mean get rid of the state. This is done through action, not by simply pushing the "government off" button. The solution is to get rid of the government, but the plan is how to do this. Agorism is more than a statement about government, it's work. It is your property, but they have the talking stick, so you're right but you lose anyway. That's what we must first focus on changing.
Spideynw: marcbragh:t's similiar to a "by clicking the following link, you hereby agree the the terms and conditions" scenario. Clicking is proactive. Not moving is not. So no, it is not the same..
Clicking is proactive. Not moving is not. So no, it is not the same..
That's more of a concern of language. If you're conciously choosing to live in their country, then it is your choice. In this sense, action is a product of choice, so by not moving, you are accepting the terms and conditions, which in this case is the constitution. It is false that consent requires one to be proactive. If you see a car coming at you and you stand there and wait for 3 minutes until it hits you, you're committing suicide, yes?
Spideynw: marcbragh:i'm saying that freedom of choice to have government must exist for it to be a truly free society. No, because a government means ruling over people without their consent.
Again, this is another philosophy of language issue. Who does the government rule over? Does Mexico having a government without my consent matter to me if I don't live in Mexico? No it does not. It's my job to mind my own business and I must let Mexico have a government if they want to have one. So if another American would like a government, must I be a part of it? Not necessarily.
Spideynw: marcbragh:this is done by empowering the individual. example: how does one learn to ride a bike with training wheels? Poor analogy. People get rid of training wheels fairly quickly. No one can get rid of government. Second of all, training wheels do help people learn to ride. There is no reason that government helps people learn how to live.
Poor analogy. People get rid of training wheels fairly quickly. No one can get rid of government. Second of all, training wheels do help people learn to ride. There is no reason that government helps people learn how to live.
You didn't recognize the correct metaphors. First, I'm assuming your saying that it's relatively easier to learn to ride a bike without training wheels than to be rid of government. That sounds true. I hope you're not suggesting that it is impossible to be rid of government. If that's the case, I'd have to ask you to provide a structured argument. My argument is that 1. government is a choice of the people, 2. the people can change their minds, therfore: the people can choose not to have government. this is illustrated by hypothetically saying the entire world were just you and i. as the only two people, we would choose not to have a government. since increasing the number of people doesn't necessarily have to effect the consensus, it seems possible to have 300 million americans choose to live without government. If you're saying it's improbable to overcome the government, I would refer you to the American revolution. If you're saying it's improbable to get rid of the government with peace, my argument is: 1. getting rid of the government is a decision, 2. the people have decided to change the government before in a peaceful way with a consensus (we've amended the constitution numerous times, notably in the direct election of senators which, though not austrian, was a significant alteration in government), therfore: it seems possible that given a consensus, the people could decide to change the nature of government to where it is negligable, and ultimately -- non existent.
Also, training wheels make it easier to learn to ride, hence the term "training." In the same way, the liberty-educated would guide the current slaves into living without government by self-direction. You can't just skip to "and then no more government." That's the solution, not the plan.
liberty student: marcbragh:Because it is the accepted supreme law of the land that your state ratified and that your representatives protect (claim to protect*). that your living in the united states is evidence enough. it's similiar to a "by clicking the following link, you hereby agree the the terms and conditions" scenario. Lysander Spooner - Constitution of No Authority
Good point. I am an austrian, I agree with the general notion. It's just that it's bad logic to go from my beliefs to reality so I'm attempting to work in that direction. I'd love to be able to say "i don't accept the constitution, therefore don't tax me or inflate the monetary supply." However, they'd jail me.
marcbragh: I'd love to be able to say "i don't accept the constitution, therefore don't tax me or inflate the monetary supply." However, they'd jail me.
They jailed Gandhi too.
It all comes down to how bad you want it. I'm not ready to go to jail either, but every day I become less afraid of what non-compliance will earn me.
They can only jail you if your resistance is disorganized.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
liberty student: marcbragh: I'd love to be able to say "i don't accept the constitution, therefore don't tax me or inflate the monetary supply." However, they'd jail me. They jailed Gandhi too. It all comes down to how bad you want it. I'm not ready to go to jail either, but every day I become less afraid of what non-compliance will earn me.
I know what you mean. I'm sure that I can't be the first jerk to try to work through the system. I'm sure it's just a phase
marcbragh:I know what you mean. I'm sure that I can't be the first jerk to try to work through the system. I'm sure it's just a phase
Thanks for the chuckle. It's soooooo true.
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