Are we reverting to Socialism again?

[20000miles]

....

What you should be doing is directing all those energies towards the goal of expanding the actual frontiers out there, where that energy will do good rather than butting heads with those satisfied with a more sedentary lifestyle. We live in a wild, wide, and extremely dangerous universe, thats where the frontier spirit is needed.

I'll refrain from arguing this post, as it was probably one of your best and balanced efforts so far.

[Dios]

I'll refrain from arguing this post, as it was probably one of your best and balanced efforts so far.

Eh I wasn't looking for an argument with that one, open discussion wouldn't go amiss though! So am I close to the mark would you say?

[20000miles]

I don't think all libertarians are the trailblazing type. The king of the Austrians, Hans Hoppe, has repeatedly said that there's a tendancy for libertarianism to attract "wasters".

For me it's not a cry out against the dehumanising forces of the State, after all there are countless dehumanising and uniform forces. For me it's an attempt to live by my principles, namely the non aggression axiom. All my ideas are ones that everyone implicitly beleives, however they don't take it seriously.

A lot of the people on this site have had trouble accepting that many of the goods that have traditionally been provided by government were once the domain of volunntary association.

Also, I don't want to "impose" anything on anyone - that would make me just as bad as the people in power right now. All the government has to do is crawl away and die.

[Dios]

I don't think all libertarians are the trailblazing type. The king of the Austrians, Hans Hoppe, has repeatedly said that there's a tendancy for libertarianism to attract "wasters".

It is however the archetypical Libertarian, no? Not that there's anything wrong with that, as I said there's a time and place for it.

For me it's not a cry out against the dehumanising forces of the State, after all there are countless dehumanising and uniform forces. For me it's an attempt to live by my principles, namely the non aggression axiom.

But most as in the overwhelming majority of people accept that the weapons of the state serve their best interests, and if those weapons are used to enforce the collection of taxes in order to better serve the public good, as expressed by consensually elected governments, all the better. This is the foundation of our western civilisation, attempting to remove this democratic structure is at best doomed to failure. Nobody is saying its perfect, but its not half bad.

I mean you have to admit that in order for your ideas to be properly enacted, democracy would have to crumble, wouldn't it?

All my ideas are ones that everyone implicitly beleives, however they don't take it seriously.

I think you might be surprised how few people believe that social welfare should be reduced to a voluntary charity.

A lot of the people on this site have had trouble accepting that many of the goods that have traditionally been provided by government were once the domain of volunntary association.

The appropriate comeback would be that the services currently supplied by doctors were once the domain of inverterbrate parasites.

Also, I don't want to "impose" anything on anyone - that would make me just as bad as the people in power right now. All the government has to do is crawl away and die.

Not much of a difference there in fairness. You can't force the concept of democratic representation to go away, it will just keep coming back once populations reach a certain level of wealth and size, this is the middle class in action- I no longer have to fight for my daily bread and a roof over my head, I have a little free time, so now I want a say in how the affairs of government are organised.

Your best bet is to focus on the expansion of those places the governments have no real enforceable authority over, stay ahead of the reach of this particular brand of civilisation. Its not counterproductive or cowardly, its actually an extremely valuable contribution to the betterment of mankind. I'm not trying to be smart here, just trying to fit what I see as your philosophy (and correct me if I'm wrong) into the world as it actually is.

[20000miles]

It is however the archetypical Libertarian, no? Not that there's anything wrong with that, as I said there's a time and place for it.

Perhaps.

But most as in the overwhelming majority of people accept that the weapons of the state serve their best interests, and if those weapons are used to enforce the collection of taxes in order to better serve the public good, as expressed by consensually elected governments, all the better. This is the foundation of our western civilisation, attempting to remove this democratic structure is at best doomed to failure. Nobody is saying its perfect, but its not half bad.

I mean you have to admit that in order for your ideas to be properly enacted, democracy would have to crumble, wouldn't it?

And as I pointed out before, that overwhelming majority will find that the guns of the State are always first and foremost pointed at them.

As for democracy, I don't think it would have to go away. It could remain in a sort of Misesian form of government. A government "held in check by the threat of succession." In which case you wouldn't have a government, but rather a club of sorts.

Democracy is all well and good, it's just it doesn't include an option to sit out.

I think you might be surprised how few people believe that social welfare should be reduced to a voluntary charity.

Most people beleive that the friends they choose and the spouses they marry should be chosen, you know, voluntarily.

Whenever people ask about the non-aggression axiom I tell them it's basically an idea that says you should not infringe upon the rights of others. Many people would then say "well I'm obviously a libertarian". The difference is I actually mean it.

The appropriate comeback would be that the services currently supplied by doctors were once the domain of inverterbrate parasites.

That's a pretty weak comeback.

Not much of a difference there in fairness. You can't force the concept of democratic representation to go away, it will just keep coming back once populations reach a certain level of wealth and size, this is the middle class in action- I no longer have to fight for my daily bread and a roof over my head, I have a little free time, so now I want a say in how the affairs of government are organised.

So I shouldn't even resist enslavement?

ed: not democracy per se, but forced association and forced payment?

Your best bet is to focus on the expansion of those places the governments have no real enforceable authority over, stay ahead of the reach of this particular brand of civilisation. Its not counterproductive or cowardly, its actually an extremely valuable contribution to the betterment of mankind. I'm not trying to be smart here, just trying to fit what I see as your philosophy (and correct me if I'm wrong) into the world as it actually is.

Tu Ne Cede Malis Sed Contra Audentor Ito.

[Dios]

And as I pointed out before, that overwhelming majority will find that the guns of the State are always first and foremost pointed at them.

Is that not reason for celebration? If they were pointed outwards, war must surely follow. Not to mention that most people never find any guns pointed at them at all, so counter to your point the overwhelming majority do not live under the perception of threat. Now you can say thats because most people pay their taxes, but then again, most people view the tradeoff as being worth it, and that contributing to society does not constitute an excessive burden.

As for democracy, I don't think it would have to go away. It could remain in a sort of Misesian form of government. A government "held in check by the threat of succession." In which case you wouldn't have a government, but rather a club of sorts.

I'm assuming you mean seccession here, and the thing of it is, forces of the archetypical trailblazers will always lose against the forces of consensual democracies. One group is thinking "we stand together forever", and the other group is thinking "we stand together until we beat these lads then we're off on our own seperate ways". This holds true whether you are talking about political decisions or military actions. Individualists will come out second best in a combined action against a unified group.

Whenever people ask about the non-aggression axiom I tell them it's basically an idea that says you should not infringe upon the rights of others. Many people would then say "well I'm obviously a libertarian". The difference is I actually mean it.

No, they mean it too, they just have a different concept of rights than you. And who is to say they are wrong, by your own philosophy they are entitled to act as they see fit. See the problem?

That's a pretty weak comeback.

Eppur si muove!

So I shouldn't even resist enslavement?

ed: not democracy per se, but forced association and forced payment?

You can resist if you like, but you'll be branded a loon at best for making comments like that social welfare deal above. As I mentioned, you need to consider questions of scale. After a while, the best that can be hoped for is a society that allows people to do their best to fulfill their own aspirations in life without being held back by reason of standing or station. And most people think that's enough.

Tu Ne Cede Malis Sed Contra Audentor Ito.

Well to paraphrase the indomitable Pratchett, never start an arse kicking match with a porcupine, see above for details.

The overall point I'm making is that your ideals are incompatible with the functioning of a large modern society. You without a doubt have no desire to see that point, but the reality is what it is. You aren't just opposing the government, you are opposing the people it represents. A far better use for your energies would be to maintain a presence at the real frontiers, where these ideas are needed. Ultimately civilisation catches up, but there's always further to go. Always.

[20000miles]

Is that not reason for celebration? If they were pointed outwards, war must surely follow. Not to mention that most people never find any guns pointed at them at all, so counter to your point the overwhelming majority do not live under the perception of threat. Now you can say thats because most people pay their taxes, but then again, most people view the tradeoff as being worth it, and that contributing to society does not constitute an excessive burden.

None of this indicates to me that we are in fact free. Just becuase you have never been arrested does not make you a free man. As taxes are levied coersively claiming this "trade-off" is "worth it" is complete nonsense. People may in fact act differently if the coersive mechanism is removed.

And obviously, any benefit does not justify the coersion itself.

I'm assuming you mean seccession here, and the thing of it is, forces of the archetypical trailblazers will always lose against the forces of consensual democracies. One group is thinking "we stand together forever", and the other group is thinking "we stand together until we beat these lads then we're off on our own seperate ways". This holds true whether you are talking about political decisions or military actions. Individualists will come out second best in a combined action against a unified group.

What is a consentual democracy? A club? Groups, aggregates and societies do not think. Individuals do. I really don't get what you are saying here either. Democracies will are good at enslaving people who don't wish to be part of the democracy?

No, they mean it too, they just have a different concept of rights than you. And who is to say they are wrong, by your own philosophy they are entitled to act as they see fit. See the problem?

Sure they are entitled to act as they see fit. But why does that action have to include unwilling humans?

You can resist if you like, but you'll be branded a loon at best for making comments like that social welfare deal above. As I mentioned, you need to consider questions of scale. After a while, the best that can be hoped for is a society that allows people to do their best to fulfill their own aspirations in life without being held back by reason of standing or station. And most people think that's enough.

Well to paraphrase the indomitable Pratchett, never start an arse kicking match with a porcupine, see above for details.

The overall point I'm making is that your ideals are incompatible with the functioning of a large modern society. You without a doubt have no desire to see that point, but the reality is what it is. You aren't just opposing the government, you are opposing the people it represents. A far better use for your energies would be to maintain a presence at the real frontiers, where these ideas are needed. Ultimately civilisation catches up, but there's always further to go. Always.

I assume that by "represents" you meant "rules", after all representatives can't have any more power than those they are representing. In any case, I disagree that I oppose the humans that are ruled by the government.

[Dios]

Eh rather than respond to your points which will only cause this to descend into some sort of horrible regressive loop, I'll just say the following:

You can choose to ignore the reality of the situation, and end your days either as an embittered individual with a lifetime of rebuttals you have a ready answer for, a smug old person surrounded by fat grandchildren who is a stranger to the truth to the very end, or you can carpe diem, baby, and make the parts of the world, present and future, best suited to people who think along the same lines as yourself a better place, on your own terms.

Recognise that the vast majority of people will never share your ideals of freedom, recognise that this is their right (as my old and well fed arnisador was kilt out telling me, it is a good thing to have a simple life), and focus on the places where you are both appreciated and respected. Theres no shortage of frontier if you know where and when to look.

[20000miles]

I'm pretty sure there'll be someone waiting to take the frontier away from me as soon as I reach it, Dios.

[Dios]

I'm pretty sure there'll be someone waiting to take the frontier away from me as soon as I reach it, Dios.

They're just making more frontier!