Politics is an immoral dead-end

[J’raxis 270145]

And J'Raxis, if an elected official doesn't do what they said they would do when you voted for them, are you going to act surprised? You knew full well that you were granting them a position of power over other people and that they could (and probably will based on experience) ignore whatever promises they made to do what you voted for them to do. If you start a fire and someone throws gasoline on it, you're BOTH freaking arsonists!

If I start a fire—a campfire, or a cooking fire, or some other legitimate use of fire—and someone else comes along and turns it into an uncontrollable blaze, I'm not responsible for the resulting arson at all. I had a reasonable belief that the fire wasn't going to cause any damage, and I did nothing myself to turn the fire into one that causes damage.

By that token, if I elect a candidate who promises to vote in a pro-freedom manner, and I believe him, and then he turns against the cause of freedom, I'm not responsible for the resulting aggression at all. I had a reasonable belief that the politician wasn't going to cause any aggression, and I did nothing myself to turn him toward causing aggression.

[MaineShark]

I am starting to wonder if you engage in these petty personal attacks in order to cover up the fact that you are ignorant.

That's amusing, from the one who claims to know all there is to know, while admitting to never researching the subject in any way...

State is synonymous with government.  They are used interchangeably all the time.

Only by Statists and the ignorant.

It isn't a result of some conspiracy or intentional distortion by statists to manipulate the public.  That is just silly.

Why, precisely?  It happens all the time.

It is also funny since the term is used in the same way by statists and libertarians alike.

So?

You aren't going to get to a free society by using unfree methods, i.e. force.

There's nothing "unfree" about force.  There's a lot "unfree" about initiated force, but that's a different critter.

not ignorant .... unwilling to strike the root

Willing to strike the root, and the head, and the body.

Joe

[Eli]

And J'Raxis, if an elected official doesn't do what they said they would do when you voted for them, are you going to act surprised? You knew full well that you were granting them a position of power over other people and that they could (and probably will based on experience) ignore whatever promises they made to do what you voted for them to do. If you start a fire and someone throws gasoline on it, you're BOTH freaking arsonists!

If I start a fire—a campfire, or a cooking fire, or some other legitimate use of fire—and someone else comes along and turns it into an uncontrollable blaze, I'm not responsible for the resulting arson at all. I had a reasonable belief that the fire wasn't going to cause any damage, and I did nothing myself to turn the fire into one that causes damage.

By that token, if I elect a candidate who promises to vote in a pro-freedom manner, and I believe him, and then he turns against the cause of freedom, I'm not responsible for the resulting aggression at all. I had a reasonable belief that the politician wasn't going to cause any aggression, and I did nothing myself to turn him toward causing aggression.

Only there is no such candidate.  Not even Ron Paul.  Maybe in NH local elections where porcs are running... but I can't say this really improves our side of the argument.

[Eli]

Russell.  You say 'strike the root' a lot.  What is your particular strategy for this.  What would you suggest (have suggested, I'll gladly read another thread) for this.  Voting doesn't do.  But what would, how would it work.  Your path from here (RW) to ther (ideal world) seems so....faith based.

[dalebert]

I had a reasonable belief that the politician wasn't going to cause any aggression...

Oh Jeremy.  And I take it you have a reasonable belief that Ron Paul isn't going to aggress against any perfectly innocent immigrants.

[youtube=425,350]O90je0Vfr20[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O90je0Vfr20

[Eli]

Now, here's something to think about. Maybe you disagree with him. That's fine. Maybe you strongly disagree with him, but could you be wrong? Of course you might be wrong. You MAY be responsible for hurting the cause of liberty. Maybe a Ron Paul win isn't a good thing. It's certainly a possibility. Who really knows for certain? Not only are you choosing who dies, but you may actually contribute to more net harm being done by the state. Again, this is at the heart of libertarianism. We each think we know what's best and how people should live their lives, but using force to impose that on others undermines reason. A punch puts an end to any rational discussion. Force puts an end to reason.
[youtube=425,350]McNo62gpw6M[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McNo62gpw6M

The state is an ecosystem of wildly invested self interest groups.  This guy is pretty smart but I can't understand what he is saying when he names his radio show.  Can you link his site?

[Vitruvian]

This guy is pretty smart but I can't understand what he is saying when he names his radio show.  Can you link his site?

Eli, Stefan Molyneux's podcast is called Freedomain Radio.  Here's the link: www.freedomainradio.com.

[SethCohn]

So far, the newspaper, civil disobedience, and demonstrations are ways we've tried of showing people that big government isn't the way to go.  I think civil disobenience is the most effective of those.

I think the most effective is the newspaper, then demonstrations, and then least, the civil disobedience.

Without the newspaper (and videos, etc etc), your message doesn't get out.  Depending on the mainstream media doesn't work.  I gladly support and encourage the KFP/Underground.  Connected to this, I'd say the forum and wiki, etc, as less effective media in the same vein.

Next the Demonstrations, with the most effective ones being the ones with political support, like the REALID one, and the least effective being the ones with 3 people and a match.  The folks standing in front of the NH State House for Peace who are out there all the time are as effective, being not very, since the folks at the State House don't control the war effort.

And last and least, the CivDis.  It gets lots of media, and while usually negative PR, sometimes any PR is good.  You've attracted new eyeballs to the FSP, and new movers, perhaps at the cost of hundreds or thousands of potential supporters.  I've personally seen multiple emails saying that Russell was the reason that someone _wasn't_ willing to move to NH.  Stupid, and I don't think that sort of person would be a good activist anyway... but it's still a result of the negative press.  But at the end of the day, did the CivDis accomplish it's goal?  No.  Not once, in any of the NH cases so far... And we can point out times it's hurt the cause.

I don't expect this will change Kat's mind... or Russell, or Lauren, or Dave, etc... This argument is as old as the FSP.  And I've come to terms with that...  I like Kat and Russell and I know they are as much a part of the fight for freedom as the rest of us, despite our vast differences in approach.  I'm not fighting them, since I know I cannot change them.  Freedom means letting them do their thing, even if I wish at times they wouldn't... But I honor their right to do it their way.

[Eli]

This guy is pretty smart but I can't understand what he is saying when he names his radio show.  Can you link his site?

Eli, Stefan Molyneux's podcast is called Freedomain Radio.  Here's the link: www.freedomainradio.com.

Ah... I was hearing freedom maine radio. 

[srqrebel]

Does it really matter?  The meaning of words change.  If the meaning of a word changed, would it not be reasonable to use the modern usage instead of the traditional?  For example.  The traditional meaning of gay is happy.  and the traditional meaning of the word faggot is a bundle of sticks.  They still mean those but does anyone use them in that way?  If the modern meaning of state is different from the traditional meaning than I will use the modern meaning since it will result in being understood by most people.

It certainly does not matter from a moral perspective.

Definitions do matter enormously if you wish to effectively interact with others, because communication is vital to effective interaction.  If the terms you use are not clearly understood by your audience, you are not actually communicating, no matter how correct your usage -- you are just sowing misunderstandings, and that is what you will reap.

I agree that if the meaning of a word changes fairly universally, it is generally reasonable to use it in the modern sense -- especially if there is a new term being used for the old definition (i.e. liberal vs. libertarian).  Some words, though, change in popular usage without a sufficient alternative for the traditional usage.  In these cases, one has to either make an effort to reclaim the traditional meaning, or coin a new word -- either way, one is faced with the tough job of educating the audience as to one's usage of the term.  I submit that this is the case with the term "State".  This is especially true, considering that so many people still use the word in its traditional sense, and there is no need for a synonym to "government".  Also, knowing the traditional usage of the term "State" is vital to understanding important older writings and documents that use this term, such as the Declaration of Independence.

[srqrebel]

How can it be right to force people to have less government, if it's big government they want?  Seems to me that the only options we have, if we want a free, voluntary society, are to convince people that big government is not desirable, or to separate ourselves from those who want big government.  So far, the newspaper, civil disobedience, and demonstrations are ways we've tried of showing people that big government isn't the way to go.  I think civil disobenience is the most effective of those.  Thank goodness we have brave people like Lauren on our side!

Bingo!  Very well stated.

[srqrebel]

I had another question for the nonpoliticals.  Do you believe in the use of force for self defense?  This may have been discussed in a thread I never saw, if so please direct me there.  I grew up in the Church of the Brethren which demands, doctrinally, pacifism.  I feel like you guys may be coming from the same direction.  Is that accurate?  Would you, morally or tactically, eschew violence even in defense of your own life? 

I do believe that the use of force in self-defense is the moral right of every individual (even though I was raised by strictly non-resistant Christian parents).

That said, in most cases the use of force in self-defense would result in more harm than good -- especially when acting alone against a more powerful enemy, or when winning the hearts of the public is vital to achieving one's goals.

[J’raxis 270145]

Does anyone have any actual metrics on the effectiveness of the various strategies we employ? Or is this going to neverendingly be a "my strategy is better than yours" argument with nothing but people's opinions, hopes, fears, and anecdotes to back it up?

[Eli]

"They would keep going to a stateless society..."  This is where that video derails.  How do they...donkeys elephants and fellow travelers, get their.  They aren't on that road.  Ron Paul isn't the last exit for people on the road to a stateless society, he is the on ramp.  I hope that you non political folks will start looking at this in a new way.  A way to find people who want liberty, all gathered together in RP meetups, and preach your anarchist gospel, because the harsh reality is that people on the road to a stateless society are statistically insignificant.  Libertarians are inside the margin of error.  The thousands supporting Ron Paul are a new and receptive audience.  And arrogant puritanism isn't likely to win any of them.   Folks come to an idea over time, and because the see some real hope in it.  Not because it claims the right most consistently.

[Eli]

Does anyone have any actual metrics on the effectiveness of the various strategies we employ? Or is this going to neverendingly be a "my strategy is better than yours" argument with nothing but people's opinions, hopes, fears, and anecdotes to back it up?

Nope.   Just faith and self righteousness on all sides.