Politics is an immoral dead-end

[jaqeboy]

Of course. I'm criticizing him for his penchant debate instead of action. A pacifist could go either way, so that wouldn't even be a determining factor to me.

I have said previously that my particular course of action, my method to advance the cause of liberty, is to persuade those close to me (friends, family, etc.)  It is low-cost, non-violent, and has the benefit of providing immediate feedback as to its efficacy.  I don't really care what your opinion of this method is.  I have already had success in convincing my parents and my sister that the State is immoral.  My present goal is to convince as many people as possible that politics does not hold the key to freedom.

So you basically came here with the explicit intention of causing a schism in our movement.

Respectfully, J'rax, you're way out of line with that remark. The libertarian movement was hijacked by the parliamentary politicos a few short years after its hopeful and vigorous beginnings and have sucked all the air out of it for a few decades now without measurable result. For example, in 1972, the first election year there was a national LP, the presidential team, John Hospers and Tonie Nathan got 1 electoral vote - there have been none cast for an LP candidate in the ensuing 35 years, despite all the blood, sweat and tears diverted from freedom projects into the parliamentary political action drainhole. An attempt was even made in the early days to "buy" the movement - see the Kochtopus episode footnoted below. This is all chronicled in New Libertarian Manifesto and the subversion of the movement has stuck to a great extent and it has been de-fanged and kept ineffective by this diversion (or schism, if you prefer).

The schism was started by the politicos and it's dragged all who entered there into a pit of first compromise, then defeat. For someone like Vitruvian to come along and clearly state the core libertarian beliefs again is like a beacon of light and hope through the fog of rationalizations. For a pure soul to be attacked rather than be dealt with reasonably should be beneath us all.

footnotes, taken verbatim from Konkin, New Libertarian Manifesto (linked to earlier):

[12] Charles G. Koch, Wichita oil billionaire, through his relatives, foundations, institutes and centers bought or set up or "bought out" the following from 1976-1979: Murray Rothbard and his Libertarian Forum; Libertarian Review (from Robert Kephart) edited by Roy. A. Childs; Students for a Libertarian Society (SLS) run by Milton Mueller; Center for Libertarian Studies (Rothbard-leaning) and Joe Peden; Inquiry edited by Williamson Evers; Cato Institute; and various Koch Funds, Foundations and Institutes. Named the "Kochtopus" in New Libertarian 1 (February, 1978), it was first attacked in print by Edith Efron in the conservative-libertarian publication Reason, along with allegations of an "anarchist" conspiracy. The Movement of the Libertarian Left cut away from Efron's anti-anarchist ravings and rushed to support her on her key revelation of the growth of monocentrism in the Movement.

In 1979, the Kochtopus took control of the National Libertarian Party at the Los Angeles convention. David Koch, Charles' brother, openly bought the VP nomination for $500,000.

[13] Murray Rothbard broke with the Kochtopus soon after the '79 LP Convention and most of his close allies were purged such as Williamson Evers of Inquiry. CLS was cut off from Koch funding. The Libertarian Forum began attacking Koch. Rothbard and young Justin Raimondo set up a new "radical" caucus of the LP (the first one, 1972-74, was run by progenitors of NLA as a recruiting tactic and to destroy the Party from within).

Hopefully, you can realize that the freedom movement is not monocentrist and move on from attacking an ally in freedom. We all only have 24 hours / day - is it worth spending a few of those hours attacking our own ideals and idealists and taking those hours away from freedom projects?

PS: I know a lot of people who put a lot of time, money and energy into their parliamentary political pursuits and I think they are all pretty much well-meaning people (generally not evil). I do think they are generally mis-guided, though - I only wish I had the energy to convert them all back to libertarianism  . Like someone else posted, though (Russel, the evil one maybe) our best prospects might be outside the circle of those afflicted with the mind virus that "just maybe this time we'll win (at the state's rigged game)!"

[Russell Kanning]

... I only wish I had the energy to convert them all back to libertarianism  . Like someone else posted, though (Russel, the evil one maybe) our best prospects might be outside the circle of those afflicted with the mind virus that "just maybe this time we'll win (at the state's rigged game)!"

thanks for your excellent posts .... but do I really have to lose my extra "l" again for the sake of small 'l' liberitarians?

[CNHT]

He's a religious zealot and a statist.

Actually I am an atheist and an anarchist.  You're 0 for 2.

converting everyone to a collectivist mindset

Who's the collectivist?  You are the one supporting the democratic process, a thoroughly anti-individualist idea.  But seriously, name-calling gets old very quickly.

And so does demanding we 'explain' ourselves for being 'immoral' get old very quickly. Since when do 'libertarians' care about morality and being judgmental?

I take serious umbrage at the accusation that my work is 'immoral' since in the course of my work, every single day, 24/7 I literally put my LIFE AND PROPERTY ON THE LINE, as a woman, who works with over 50 groups and has to take the blowback from all their enemies combined. (But it's worth it to get corrupt people fired...and we've had quite a few successes even in other states).

I've been stalked, threatened to have my fingers cut off, my car has been tampered with, and my internet cables cut. I have 22 police reports filed to prove it and it continues.

Yes I really feel sorry for you and how we all tick you off by what we do. Boo hoo.

Please. Go whine about your libertarian purity elsewhere.

[Fragilityh14]

beyond which, the options which exist for lowering government interference in your life outside of making use of the political process are pretty damn limited...but hey, you could be the next unibomber...he was an effective advocate of freedom.

All you [vitruvian] are doing now is trying to prevent other people [of apparently weak conviction] through faulty logic, to stop fighting for freedom. (That is to say, anyone who has been or would be convinced of anything by this thread)

I would still like to see any intellectual basis for your (vitruvian) beliefs, and name a single champion of liberty you find both "moral" and effective.

[CNHT]

didn't you bring it up, because people were wondering why you are not active politically?

Yes.  Moreover, seeing/hearing "libertarians" defending the State political apparatus turns my stomach and sets my blood boiling.

I feel for you.

[MaineShark]

If you need to set up a support group, Joe, I think everyone here will understand...

Yeah, somehow I think I'll survive...

Maineshark, your little games of semantics to attempt to make V out to be a statist are pretty transparent. You've repeated it like four or five times now. I don't have you on ignore, but I stopped reading the rest of your posts each time I saw the same tedious mind game starting back up.

Vitruvian's inability to address even simple questions regarding his accusations (recall, he started accusing people of immoral actions; no one jumped on him out of the blue), such as his claim that there is some mystical difference between paying taxes on voluntary purchases of products and voting, vindicate what I've been saying.

The only "games" are his, trying to pretend that the ZAP means things it simply does not mean.  Yes, we have to go into semantics to address that, because he is playing semantic games with the words.

And, to repeat, you'll note that he has never addressed the issue of voluntarily paying taxes, has he?  If he had honest philosophy backing him up, he would be able to do that easily, right?  Why hasn't he?

Discussing the actual topic of that, the number of people who supported those dictators was extremely small, in most cases.  More just went along for the ride out of apathy or an unwillingness to stand up to authority....

A little history-challenged, are we?

THE GERMAN NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS MARCH 29th 1936
TOTAL QUALIFIED VOTES    45,453,691    
TOTAL VOTES CAST    45,001,489    99.0%
VOTES 'NO' OR INVALID    540,211    
VOTES FOR HITLER'S NSDAP    44,461,278    98.8%

Uh, no.  I have this amusing trait where I don't take Adolf Hitler's word for the outcome of elections.  Silly, I know...

That's why I used the Communists as an example, because there was actually a relatively-free election before they seized power, which demonstrated a lack of support.  The Nazis already had power at the time of the 1936 elections...

The schism was started by the politicos and it's dragged all who entered there into a pit of first compromise, then defeat. For someone like Vitruvian to come along and clearly state the core libertarian beliefs again is like a beacon of light and hope through the fog of rationalizations. For a pure soul to be attacked rather than be dealt with reasonably should be beneath us all.

For a corrupt child like Viturvian to come here and mis-represent the core libertarian beliefs for purposes of self-aggrandizement is an offense against all who actually care about liberty, regardless of whether they personally choose political means, apolitical means, or some combination of those.  His megalomaniacal insistence that those things which he finds easy must be the "right path" and that those things which it would be difficult for him to avoid doing are somehow "different" (even though no difference can be demonstrated) easily demonstrates his stake in this, which has nothing to do with supporting liberty, and everything to do with his enjoyment of being a "rebel."

He reminds me of a certain Communist that was always posting on the FSP boards (and maybe still is - I don't have time for that forum right now), who was nearly orgasmic at the thought of being arrested.  Not because he hoped to achieve anything by non-compliance or something, but just because he enjoyed feeling "oppressed."

Joe

[CNHT]

For a corrupt child like Viturvian to come here and mis-represent the core libertarian beliefs for purposes of self-aggrandizement is an offense against all who actually care about liberty, regardless of whether they personally choose political means, apolitical means, or some combination of those.  His megalomaniacal insistence that those things which he finds easy must be the "right path" and that those things which it would be difficult for him to avoid doing are somehow "different" (even though no difference can be demonstrated) easily demonstrates his stake in this, which has nothing to do with supporting liberty, and everything to do with his enjoyment of being a "rebel."

He reminds me of a certain Communist that was always posting on the FSP boards (and maybe still is - I don't have time for that forum right now), who was nearly orgasmic at the thought of being arrested.  Not because he hoped to achieve anything by non-compliance or something, but just because he enjoyed feeling "oppressed."

Joe

Ah someone who had to go out of his way to make sure they'd been oppressed so they could justify their actions...

Hey Joe - are you sure you did not live during the late 60s? Because that's what you are describing. 

[Russell Kanning]

For a corrupt child like Viturvian to come here and mis-represent the core libertarian beliefs for purposes of self-aggrandizement is an offense against all who actually care about liberty ...  His megalomaniacal insistence that ....
Joe

those sure are strong words ... I don't think any of them fit.

[MaineShark]

For a corrupt child like Viturvian to come here and mis-represent the core libertarian beliefs for purposes of self-aggrandizement is an offense against all who actually care about liberty ...  His megalomaniacal insistence that ....

those sure are strong words ... I don't think any of them fit.

Well, I do.  And I think I've pretty well proved that they do, based upon his reactions to simply questions.

He's displayed all the signs I described.  He insists that his way (which just happens to be the easiest and most beneficial course for him) is the "right way" and that anyone who doesn't do things that way is "immoral," and further that things are the way he says, just because he said them.  Sounds like a megalomaniac to me.

Joe

[Eli]

I read his book once.  A good read.  Advocated guns if you didn't have the courage for nonviolent direct action.  And in the end india was free of england without violent revolution, and the government they were saddled with wasn't much better than the colonial one they got rid of.  I dunno that I have a better path than yours Russell.  Maybe voting and incremental change are the cowards way.  I just value my life too highly, and the lives of those I hold dear too much, to ever accept pacifism as a world view.  I think pacifism may require faith as a component, which cuts me right out. Although nonviolent direct action as a tactic, even a strategy has always appealed to me aesthetically.

No, India did not become free "without violent revolution."  In fact, they had a very great deal of violence spread out over many years.  The first wave was only stopped after the incarceration of over 100,000 activists to help bring a temporary peace. 

Gandhi's ideas were eventually attractive to the colonial occupation government only because they stood in contrast to the bloodbaths advocated by every other major political faction.  Ditto ML King.  So long as the Black Panthers et al stood in the background, King seemed like a man worth tolerating.  But pacifistic non-violence as the sole means of social change is - and always has been - a dead end.

Fair point.  I over simplified.  MLK Jr. and his movement also benefitted from being the better option when considered against Malcolm X and other more radical elements.  The Nonviolent movements are complimented by ones willing to utilize force for self defence.  Nonviolent movements depend on the fact that folk can be convinced.  I'm not sure they always can, or that people always merit convincing.

[MaineShark]

Fair point.  I over simplified.  MLK Jr. and his movement also benefitted from being the better option when considered against Malcolm X and other more radical elements.  The Nonviolent movements are complimented by ones willing to utilize force for self defence.  Nonviolent movements depend on the fact that folk can be convinced.  I'm not sure they always can, or that people always merit convincing.

Indeed.  To expand a bit (getting into the topic of whether voting/political activism is useful, rather than the pretty well-killed topic of its morality...

I don't think either stands a chance of winning, alone.  The public is conditioned to accept the legitimacy of the State.  In this case, the State claims its legitimacy comes from voting, but the same can be applied, with appropriate modifications, no matter where they claim their legitimacy comes from.

Because of their current conditioning, the public sees the political process as "legitimate," and dismisses (for the most part) apolitical activism.  So let's imagine that we put some "insiders" within the system.  Then when those insiders, being "legitimate" in the eyes of the public, offer up an issue for consideration, that consideration is not going to be ignored.  Of course, when they start talking about the "police state" and such, the public will find its eyes glazing over.

So, then the "insider" points to Russell and Lauren and says, "look, I'm not making this up: these thugs are harassing decent people who are decidedly less violent than even you, the average person - if this can happen to them, imagine what might happen to you!"

Without the "object lesson" offered by the apolitical activists, change isn't going to happen.  And without someone "inside the box" with the public to tell them to look out the window and see what's happening in the world, the apolitical acvitism will never "reach" the general public.

Joe

[jaqeboy]

For a corrupt child like Viturvian to come here and mis-represent the core libertarian beliefs for purposes of self-aggrandizement is an offense against all who actually care about liberty ...  His megalomaniacal insistence that ....

those sure are strong words ... I don't think any of them fit.

Well, I do.  And I think I've pretty well proved that they do, based upon his reactions to simply questions.

He's displayed all the signs I described.  He insists that his way (which just happens to be the easiest and most beneficial course for him) is the "right way" and that anyone who doesn't do things that way is "immoral," and further that things are the way he says, just because he said them.  Sounds like a megalomaniac to me.

Joe

[sound] loud obnoxious buzzer [/sound] WRONG!

megalomania: A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.

ref: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/megalomaniac

Intellectual discussions are about ideas - name-calling, however, is more of a power trip. Your choice.

[MaineShark]

[sound] loud obnoxious buzzer [/sound] WRONG!

megalomania: A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.

ref: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/megalomaniac

Sigh...

"Megalomania" is the colloquial term for Narcissistic Personality Disorder:

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
(3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
(4) requires excessive admiration
(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
(6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
(7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
( is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

Yes, he qualifies, both clinically and under the more lay definitions of megalomania ("a delusional mental disorder that is marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur" - specifying "wealth, power, or omnipotence" is needlessly restrictive, and does not reflect the actual meaning of the word).  He certainly imagines himself to have some omnipotent power to define morality as suits him, and clearly projects a "savior complex" in which he imagines he will personally change history by convincing others that the State is illegitimate, and because he did that, the State will just disappear.  This is quite blatant in his writings, here.

And, as stated, he clearly qualifies under the diagnostic criteria (you don't even have to go past the required five, counting down the list), if his posting here is in any way representative of his character.

Intellectual discussions are about ideas - name-calling, however, is more of a power trip. Your choice.

I'm not the one who started a thread about how everyone who doesn't agree with my tactics is immoral...

And I was more than fair in politely discussing the issues, was I not?  I'm plenty willing to apply labels when the fit.  If someone came in here and posted about how the government isn't doing enough to repress dissent, would you call it "name-calling" if I labelled him a statist?

"Name-calling" is applying labels for sensationalism, without cause, and to stifle debate.  Viturvian has already demonstrated that he has no interest in debating issues, and I've demonstrated that there is more than enough cause to consider him a megalomaniac.  As for sensationalism, well, I think I could come up with much more colorful descriptors if I were inclined towards sensationalism...

Joe

[Russell Kanning]

You are clinically diagnosing one of my friends as a megalomaniac? Do you need a license for that?

[Eli]

That's the second megalomaniac diagnosed on this site in a month.  Maybe you should start charging $100 an hour!