Politics is an immoral dead-end

[J’raxis 270145]

quote<Unfortunately, it's also a good example of how not to use political action—the end result was more laws in order to prohibit racism, and a vast expansion of government power in order to enforce those laws—which is something I'm quite cognizant of in my political involvement. I only want to see current laws repealed in their entirety, or bills passed that replace current laws with new laws of a smaller scope.>

It was the political activists who helped write the new laws.  The marchers in the street were resisting tyranny.  I agree that there was some overlap, but without the civil unrest, the politicians would not have been anymore successful in the 60's and 70's than in the 40's and 50's. 

So in other words, one fed into and bolstered the other. If our non-political members keep embarrassing the state with civil disobedience, our political members can help push laws through repealing the stupid laws the civdis crowd was agitating against. We've already seen this in action with the freestater protest against manicurist licensing. I hope something similar comes out of Lauren Canario's efforts.

I am an anarchist.  Anarchy is a lifestyle.  You have to make choices everyday, (it gets easier with practice) to achieve your ends, including safety and security, without the use of violence.  The political system is strategy, planning, marketing, and has historically almost never been a friend to liberty. 

If you're refuting the utility of politics in the cause of freedom by reminding us it has almost never worked in the past, I think you just refuted the possibility of a viable anarchist society in the future, since there's almost never been one in the past.

[J’raxis 270145]

No, I do not have to ponder what comes next.  I may, of course, and often do.  But the idea that I should have some say over what other people do with their own lives is exactly the idea I oppose.

You may not have to, but, being someone so concerned about moral purity, you certainly ought to.

Didn't he say he did?

Have implies some sort of requirement or force.
Ought implies a moral imperative to do something.
May (his word) implies a much more cavalier attitude.

[Faber]

No, I do not have to ponder what comes next.  I may, of course, and often do.  But the idea that I should have some say over what other people do with their own lives is exactly the idea I oppose.

You may not have to, but, being someone so concerned about moral purity, you certainly ought to.

Didn't he say he did?

Have implies some sort of requirement or force.
Ought implies a moral imperative to do something.
May (his word) implies a much more cavalier attitude.

"I may, of course, and often do"

[Vitruvian]

Besides working to eliminate the State here, we're also doing pretty well at setting up voluntary structures that hopefully would be what people would use and rely on after the State is gone—homeschooling, an informal economy based on precious metals and barter, bearing arms for one's own self-defense, networks of friends supporting and defending one another, and so on. Is this something you're participating in, or are you only maybe sitting around and pondering this, even?

I support all of these.  I only wanted to point out that what comes after the State crumbles is not, and should not be, up to me or any other.

So in other words, one fed into and bolstered the other. If our non-political members keep embarrassing the state with civil disobedience, our political members can help push laws through repealing the stupid laws the civdis crowd was agitating against. We've already seen this in action with the freestater protest against manicurist licensing. I hope something similar comes out of Lauren Canario's efforts.

I think you missed David's point.  After the groundwork was laid by the protesters, the political crowd passed new and equally oppressive laws.

Have implies some sort of requirement or force.
Ought implies a moral imperative to do something.
May (his word) implies a much more cavalier attitude.

I disagree that I am morally obligated to plan for a post-State society.  So I will say again that I may think of such things.

[Faber]

I mean, not that it matters.  I'm sure no one knew what all them black folks would do once slavery was ended, but I doubt we would accept that as a reason to continue slavery.

And if you're really interested in something like that, J, check out the work of Stefan Molyneux.  His first few articles (at the bottom of this page) deal with a few ideas.

[DC]

What will the slaves do once freed?!  Better keep them in chains . . . .

Good point. I don't see things just jumping into anarchy all at once because few want it or understand it. The next day would be a meeting about how to restore the government

[J’raxis 270145]

I agree: less force is preferable to more force.  But I will not be the cause of either one.

Complementary to less force is more liberty. As we work to decrease force from more to less, we're increasing liberty. Thus, it unfortunately seems you don't want to be the cause of more liberty, either.

[Vitruvian]

Complementary to less force is more liberty. As we work to decrease force from more to less, we're increasing liberty. Thus, it unfortunately seems you don't want to be the cause of more liberty, either.

There is a difference between advocating "greater liberty" and initiating "less force." The former may be done peacefully while the latter must involve violence.

[picaro]

Vitruvian,

What is your proposed next step to make state-run institutions obsolete?

Forget the moralizing for a minute.  After the speechifying... where is the effective action?

[Vitruvian]

What is the next step to make state-run institutions obsolete?

Civilization, or society, precedes the State.  State-run institutions, therefore, are already obsolete.  Our job is to remind people of that fact.

[CNHT]

I mean, not that it matters.  I'm sure no one knew what all them black folks would do once slavery was ended, but I doubt we would accept that as a reason to continue slavery.

And if you're really interested in something like that, J, check out the work of Stefan Molyneux.  His first few articles (at the bottom of this page) deal with a few ideas.

Those who were mistreated left the plantations. Others who were really like part of the family stayed and worked the land given to them. Other had children with or married into the white families. Not all 'slaves' were mistreated. I guess you could call all of us slaves if we work for someone else, don't like the conditions, but have to do it to earn our 'keep'.

[picaro]

Speaking in practical specifics is useful -- if you ever intend to move beyond moral indignation.

[J’raxis 270145]

So in other words, one fed into and bolstered the other. If our non-political members keep embarrassing the state with civil disobedience, our political members can help push laws through repealing the stupid laws the civdis crowd was agitating against. We've already seen this in action with the freestater protest against manicurist licensing. I hope something similar comes out of Lauren Canario's efforts.

I think you missed David's point.  After the groundwork was laid by the protesters, the political crowd passed new and equally oppressive laws.

This is only partially true. The politicians who took advantage of the movement to pass expanding government power certainly came after. But the actual activists, Martin Luther King among them, supported political action, too, which came after the civil disobedience. I'm referring to the fact that many of the racist laws of the south were repealed afterward, or forced out of existence by the courts and the federal government.

By your choice of methods, we'd all be sitting around with Jim Crow laws still on the books, until the state as a whole collapses. People would of course be free to opt out and drop out, but every now and then the State would keep coming along and crushing people with these odious laws.

Have implies some sort of requirement or force.
Ought implies a moral imperative to do something.
May (his word) implies a much more cavalier attitude.

I disagree that I am morally obligated to plan for a post-State society.  So I will say again that I may think of such things.

Hmm, I'll concede this. Although I think it's irresponsible to just up and do away with something as big as the State, without a plan on how to handle what comes after, you're right that you're not obligated to provide such a solution. I've often gotten into arguments with people who demand I have an alternative when I'm trying to suggest something is bad and shouldn't be done—sometimes the alternative is just "do nothing" or "leave well enough alone"—and what I was expecting of you is very similar to that.

[J’raxis 270145]

What is the next step to make state-run institutions obsolete?

Civilization, or society, precedes the State.  State-run institutions, therefore, are already obsolete.  Our job is to remind people of that fact.

Reminding people they're obsolete is great. How do we get rid of them?

[Faber]

How about we stick with the morality for a moment . . . there are plenty of threads on this board discussing "oh shit what do we do." 

Morality moves the world.  People don't do what they believe to be evil.  That's not an original insight of mine, but it's one a lot of people forget.  Unfortunately, the people who know that best are our enemies!  The enemies of liberty use morality all the time.  While we're here twiddling our thumbs and selling soap and buying handguns, they're out there throwing all kinds of morality at our kids!  Obey the state, patriotism is moral, obedience is moral, public education is moral.  Emotional, moral arguments are really all our enemies have -- AND THEY KICK OUR ASS!

Moral indignation is the practical specific action!