Anti-politics

[J’raxis 270145]

Calling me a purist implies that I'm asking people to avoid the effective approach because it's immoral, when what I'm arguing, at least at the moment, is that it's not even effective. OBVIOUSLY we disagree. I'm actually content to continue to disagree, particularly once I've repeated the same point a few times. That's why I said WAY back, go ahead and do all your Ron Paul stuff but file these thoughts away and perhaps they will be more meaningful later. Maybe later they will make more sense; maybe not.

What isn't effective?

Political freestaters have already accomplished quite a bit, and the more of our people we get into office, the more effective we'll be.

As for the Ron Paul politics specifically, even if he doesn't win, the campaign is serving as a huge educational vehicle for the liberty movement. You've seen the "Ron Paul cured my apathy" signs, I take it? Even if he loses, whereas an awful lot of people will probably be discouraged and give up their freedom activism, an awful lot of them won't. As another concrete, factual example, the people who are visiting New Hampshire as part of Operation Live Free or Die are learning about the Free State Project and some are deciding to move here.

People are disagreeing with non-politicals not only because they believe politics to be an effective strategy, but because there's ample proof to actually back this up.

[Lex]

Oh, and those of you that do pay your taxes. I can't see any possible way you can argue against political action since you're funding it. Someone running for office may or may not win, yet paying taxes is guaranteed to fund the political process (your money pays the salaries of politicians and the electrict and heating bills and the ganitor to keep the buildings clean). So, if you're paying for all of that stuff, according to Stefan, you might as well use it to get some of you freedoms back.

[Lex]

Lex: As to a non political reason for non political FSP members to move.  Reaching critical mass for getting a countereconomic system running could be a valid reason.

Don't get me wrong I have absolutely nothing against the apolitical types. They are necessary for the success of our movement. But I also think the political types are necessary. My only beef is with apoliticals who go out of their way to discredit the folks working within the political system.

My original argument was with dalebert regarding his anti-Ron Paul cartoon. Then it developed into a parallel but slightly different discussion with dysurian.

With dalebert I'm arguing why I think discrediting the Ron Paul revolution doesn't help liberty.

With dysurian I'm arguing about the virtues of needing both the political and the apolitical process working together and that there really isn't anything immoral about voting and working with people who are trying to reduce the size of government on the inside.

[Tom Sawyer]

The shortest route is often not the best.
People that say they can change the world in 5, 10, or 20 years are deluding themselves. It is probably not going to happen in your lifetime. Every 4 years we are sold on the idea that this time our ideas will prevail. The "salesmen" can be persuasive.

Well the LP tried that for 30 years... are we any closer to the goal? Politics follows, it does not lead social change.

I respect the intentions and hard work that sincere folks have expended. I wouldn't even try to disuade anyone from their chosen path to change. It's just after the party is over and the crowds have all gone home with another loss, how do we keep the enthusiasm and resources that often fade from the disappointment.

Twenty years ago I was one of the gullible enthusiastic. Where are the millions of other folks that have been burned out and lost along the way.

Live free, raise your children to be free, build the desire and methods to encourage others on this path. Don't fall for the promise of short cuts, they are chimera that waste valuable resources ie. time, money, and enthusiasm.

[dysurian]

Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency with "society," but I'm sure you'll excuse me for thinking you'd know what I meant. If you say I need to pay restitution for my past aggression against anonymous others (which we haven't necessarily established yet), then claim that it's impossible to pay that restitution to them, I'm not sure how I can comply with what you were originally looking for. I'd gladly work toward real restitution if I can identify to whom and how much. It seems like you have some insight on this. Perhaps you could help explain how I can find the path to restitution, and/or what I might owe restitution for?

I don't track your past behavior.  Nor am I responsible for finding your victims for you.  Hire a private investigator, or do it yourself.  It's certainly possible, even if it is difficult.

My point here is that I'm not sure it's possible to follow through on your example, and even if it was I'm not sure it's morally necesasary. Criteria were not provided to prove or disprove whether I need to reciprocate anyone I might have messed up before knowing about the non-aggression principal. In fact, it hasn't even been established that I hurt anybody. I could play the game and ask how I might have hurt people (I'll have to assume I didn't until I or others can think of what a specific example might be) but I don't see the point. Because this demand has impossible premises to satisfy, I'm skeptical of it, which led me to examine it further. The basic premise of it is that I can't be moral if I've been immoral in the past and not made an attempt to fix it. I'm not sure that works out logically at all. Nobody says, "I may have been a jerk in the past, and I should continue to be a jerk until I can fix all the damage I've done in the past," just like nobody says, "I may have been immoral in the past, and I should continue to be immoral until I can fix all the moral damage I've done." No. You just start being moral, and if there's any terrible trauma you caused (beating on kids, for example) you should recognize that and genuinely try to make good on it.

Also, I want to be clear that I didn't ever say voting was legitimate because the government says so. I'm not sure who said this. Government power works because they have guns, not because anybody believes in the voting process.

So there's nothing immoral about voting, if that's the case, right?

I think I'm going to have to back off on "voting is immoral," for right now. I'm not sure whether it was originally part of my position, or whether I just responded to being accused of saying that without thinking of it first. Either way, I need to think about it more before shooting off my mouth about it. It definitely at least feels different from taxation in the sense that you can vote or not vote without being tossed into jail or shot. I need a way better philosophical argument before I'd feel comfortable saying it's immoral, because that carries a lot of weight.

Oh, and those of you that do pay your taxes. I can't see any possible way you can argue against political action since you're funding it. Someone running for office may or may not win, yet paying taxes is guaranteed to fund the political process (your money pays the salaries of politicians and the electrict and heating bills and the ganitor to keep the buildings clean). So, if you're paying for all of that stuff, according to Stefan, you might as well use it to get some of you freedoms back.

There's nothing immoral about giving an armed robber your wallet. The huge difference between paying taxes and involving oneself in the government is that one is voluntary and one is coerced. This is where my reluctance to participate in government activity comes from in part. In other part, I feel like talking to people is a more effective means for me. I can write, podcast, and chat up folks at bars far better than I can protest, run a campaign, or start a free stater business. In other other part, I feel like government solutions won't work toward the future I hope for and that the talking stuff I mentioned above will. The FSP statement of intent says we'll change society such that the maximum role of government is protection of life, liberty, etc. My focus is to help change society. I believe the most effective way to do that is to take the philosophy directly to as many people as possible, and in as simple and clear a manner as possible. I don't think libertarianism/anarchism/etc. can be implemented into the minds of people through public policy, but that it works the other way around.

I can recognize that libertarian mindsets have made actual governmental changes in NH. I agree that it'll work easily for things like outlaw maincurists (not to discount the hours of work that must have gone into doing just that). There are people who are "harmed" by getting rid of licensing fees--the existing businesses in that field. Those people will oppose changes, but can only cause minimal change, so little ruckus will be raised at that level. My concern is that when you try to phase out entrenched social institutions like public education, farm subsidies, and welfare, that there are way more people who stand to lose something. That's when you'll need a lot more of New Hampshireite opinion behind your ideas. It's free, but from what I hear, not "let's get rid of public education"-free. I think we agree on this point. I'm just not someone folks should count on to campaign, wave signs, or vote, necessarily.

Dysurian: I want to turn your mafia example back on you for a moment.  You argued that one couldn't really change the mafia by infiltrating it.  That is exactly how police have diassembled most of organized crime.  Further if you are the don you can run a very different mafia, within certain systemic restrictions, than another don.  Your hands wouldn't be clean, certainly, but you could have a system that was different, even better, though not 'good' in the absolutist sense that you seem to demand.  So I can see that there could be marginal improvements or successes through infiltration. 

Now try your method on the same example.  Talk at the mafia.  Tell them they're wrong.  Tell the shopkeepers paying protection that it is wrong.  Ignore the don.  Don't pay your 'rent.'  You won't convince the mafia.  You will get your friends and family who are convinced by your argument shot.  You will get yourself a nice pair of cement shoes.

I don't think this gives enough credit to my metaphor. It just proves that you need to be the federal government to effectively infiltrate and disband the mafia. Government has ludicrous amounts of money, weaponry, information, and other resources to take down mafia families. My suggestion was that our peaceful, nonviolent revolutionaries do it. Since they're the same people who would plan to take down the government, they're the people I was suggesting practice on the mafia first. If anybody can manage to become the don in the mafia, they'd have to do some pretty terrible shit before they had enough mob credibility to get there. The mob and government are similar in that to be effective organizations there have to be lots of nasty people in them. Even if the don (Ron Paul, for example) were the nicest dude in the world, the rest of the mob guys would still be nasty.

In your second example you make the point that telling people the mafia is morally wrong wouldn't work. I'd say that this is actually a difference between the mafia and the government. People already know the mafia is morally deplorable and should go away, and don't (generally) think the government is deplorable and should go away. One reason the mob is way smaller than the government is that people know it's immoral. One huge reason the mob exists in the first place is because the government exists to make black markets more appealing. People don't make government go away by ignoring it and not paying taxes and defying its orders. People make government go away by knowing it's immoral and saying so to everyone they can.

[MaineShark]

My point here is that I'm not sure it's possible to follow through on your example, and even if it was I'm not sure it's morally necesasary. Criteria were not provided to prove or disprove whether I need to reciprocate anyone I might have messed up before knowing about the non-aggression principal. In fact, it hasn't even been established that I hurt anybody. I could play the game and ask how I might have hurt people (I'll have to assume I didn't until I or others can think of what a specific example might be) but I don't see the point. Because this demand has impossible premises to satisfy, I'm skeptical of it, which led me to examine it further. The basic premise of it is that I can't be moral if I've been immoral in the past and not made an attempt to fix it. I'm not sure that works out logically at all. Nobody says, "I may have been a jerk in the past, and I should continue to be a jerk until I can fix all the damage I've done in the past," just like nobody says, "I may have been immoral in the past, and I should continue to be immoral until I can fix all the moral damage I've done." No. You just start being moral, and if there's any terrible trauma you caused (beating on kids, for example) you should recognize that and genuinely try to make good on it.

My point wasn't that you should act immorally, because you've done so in the past.  My point was that most of those calling others immoral are immoral, themselves, and are not in possession of moral high ground from which they are entitled to cast aspersions.  I believe there was someone who made a comment about "those who are without sin" and the casting of stones...

There's nothing immoral about giving an armed robber your wallet. The huge difference between paying taxes and involving oneself in the government is that one is voluntary and one is coerced. This is where my reluctance to participate in government activity comes from in part.

You aren't coerced to pay taxes.  Just pack up and live like a hermit in the woods, not interacting with modern society or using any manufactured goods.  No taxes.

Clearly, you are "voluntarily" paying taxes by choosing to lead a normal life, eh?

People don't make government go away by ignoring it and not paying taxes and defying its orders. People make government go away by knowing it's immoral and saying so to everyone they can.

Saying "government is immoral" isn't some sort of magic spell that will cause it to evaporate.  When it is small and atrophied enough, it might work, but it won't get to that point except by political activism or mass executions.  Personally, I think we should try the political activism thing, but that's just me...

Joe

[dalebert]

Political freestaters have already accomplished quite a bit, and the more of our people we get into office, the more effective we'll be.

But none of that was achieved by getting the "right" people into office. That's the one thing I unambiguously have no faith in. Most of the rest is just campaigning against expansions of government. I'm cool with that. I'm a shitty liar so I suck at arguing things I don't really believe, like that so-and-so should be the next mayor/governor/president/whatever, but if I'm speaking sincerely I think I'm a lot more convincing. I can feel good about educating people about how some new expansion of government is a bad idea.

You can probably find plenty of anecdotes where someone's pet issue was addressed in some way by their guy/gal but what new laws did they create or expand in other areas? Who lost in that game? It's massively complex but the one thing that's clear is the trend- growth of government.

I don't feel like I can play that game and win. It's like a casino. You have little wins that encourage you to keep playing, but the longer you play, eventually the house always wins. The house favor is built into the game.

[dalebert]

Oh, and those of you that do pay your taxes. I can't see any possible way you can argue against political action since you're funding it.

This is why I'm frustrated when people call me a purist. I have a driver's license, my car is registered, and I pay taxes because I don't have it in me to go to jail right now. I also don't have it in me to live like a hermit. But I do think that not paying taxes is a great idea if you can manage it. It absolutely is a good thing to support the government as little you can possibly manage. I don't know how big of a bite it will take out of the beast but it certainly doesn't seem completely ass-backwards to me as a tactic. Difficult, yes, but the less support we give the crooks, the better. Speaking out against their games is just the tip of the iceberg, though it is a start.

If you're willing to go to prison for not paying taxes, that's just one tactic and I certainly admire people who do. I'd say if you do, contemplate how you can get the most benefit out of it in terms of media attention and sending the right message. Keeping your money out of the beast takes a bite out, but convincing others to takes a lot of bites out! If you can come up with ways to safely hide your money, displace as much of the coercive economy to an underground economy as you can, that's great too. If you can use the legal loopholes to pay as little taxes as possible, that's another tactic that seems reasonable to me. Making them send you to jail for a while instead of paying a ticket makes you a burden on government when they were hoping to make income off you. That's another tactic. If enough people started doing that, I think it might even affect a significant culture shift. If it stops being an effective looting/enslavement tactic to hand out a lot of tickets, it may reduce that behavior. I don't know, but it seems worth trying. It certainly hasn't been tried as much as politics has. The cops don't even seem to want to hassle with Russell anymore. He and Lauren gum things up so much and create such a media buzz. I can't help but wonder what 10 more of them would do, 100 more... Of course we don't know how much of an impact it would make, if any, but at least it's something that hasn't been tried. I'm writing a sci-fi comic that explores that what-if scenario.

[Russell Kanning]

For me, as someone currently outside NH it's looking more attractive for philosophical revolution simply because there is a nice concentration of FSP anarchists.

This is the main thing that Kat and I are trying to accomplish.

[John Edward Mercier]

Which is important in many regards for any change to stick. Voting can make changes, but without the philosophical change... they'll change right back.
The problem being one must know the present system and how it came about to make the argument for change successful.

Its like the argument that home schoolers should not pay the school portion of their property tax.
Logical. They're not using the resource, and in essence saving other taxpayers money as the resource cost much more than their portion of school taxes.
But the system design is such that this route is blocked, so I think about coming at it from the opposite direction.

[Eli]

I can't help but wonder what 10 more of them would do, 100 more... Of course we don't know how much of an impact it would make, if any, but at least it's something that hasn't been tried. I'm writing a sci-fi comic that explores that what-if scenario.

Since this thread needs a little derailing.... ooo tell me more!

[J’raxis 270145]

Political freestaters have already accomplished quite a bit, and the more of our people we get into office, the more effective we'll be.

But none of that was achieved by getting the "right" people into office.

Getting and keeping people like Don Gorman, Joel Winters, Dan Itse, Dick Marple, &c., in office, is pretty important—probably necessary—for some of those victories.

[John Edward Mercier]

True somewhat. Victories are largely socially engineered.

[dalebert]

Getting and keeping people like Don Gorman, Joel Winters, Dan Itse, Dick Marple, &c., in office, is pretty important—probably necessary—for some of those victories.

But you're crediting the FSP with those victories, and I'm saying perhaps the FSP persuaded for less government, but are you crediting the FSP with getting the right people in office to make those victories possible? And then even if you say "yes", we're back to this:

You can probably find plenty of anecdotes where someone's pet issue was addressed in some way by their guy/gal but what new laws did they create or expand in other areas? Who lost in that game? It's massively complex but the one thing that's clear is the trend- growth of government.

which I'm sure is the premise behind the libertarian party's pledge for candidates to only ever vote in the direction of more liberty and why many of them who vote will only vote for someone who's taken the pledge.

[dalebert]

I'm writing a sci-fi comic that explores that what-if scenario.

Since this thread needs a little derailing.... ooo tell me more!
[/quote]

I can't talk about it yet. It would be a spoiler for an existing comic book. That one has to get to a certain point in its own storyline before I can go there.