Anti-politics

[dysurian]

Use the government to tear down the government? But I think that's like saying we should use the Chicago Cubs power as a baseball team to make sure the Chicago Cubs are disempowered as a baseball team and lose their division this year (something I know Cubs fans can agree is actually happening )

That's a pretty good example of what we're trying to do, actually—ever heard of someone paying off athletes to throw a game?

Hehehe. I was really hoping when I originally wrote it that nobody would come up with this counterexample.  That said, I certainly see that that's exactly what's going on with the political types around these parts. My point is that I think there are a lot more people willing to "pay off" the government to get bigger than those willing to "pay off" the government to get smaller. That's why I see cultural revolution as more important.

I think it was Joe (and possibly others) who said that it's necessary for both heavily involved political and heavily involved social action to see the ultimate (in my opinion) transition away from government altogether. I absolutely and sincerely hope this is what will work best, because that's how it sounds like its going to have to happen. It's pretty clear that I'm not changing my position anytime soon, as it is clear from 10 pages of this thread that political folk aren't changing their minds either. No matter what else, it's heartening to know that people this passionate are after the same goal. Maybe we won't see freedom in our lifetimes, or even make an impact in the long run, but it's pretty clear that we're making one of the best runs at in in a few hundred years. 

[J’raxis 270145]

Use the government to tear down the government? But I think that's like saying we should use the Chicago Cubs power as a baseball team to make sure the Chicago Cubs are disempowered as a baseball team and lose their division this year (something I know Cubs fans can agree is actually happening )

That's a pretty good example of what we're trying to do, actually—ever heard of someone paying off athletes to throw a game?

Hehehe. I was really hoping when I originally wrote it that nobody would come up with this counterexample.  That said, I certainly see that that's exactly what's going on with the political types around these parts. My point is that I think there are a lot more people willing to "pay off" the government to get bigger than those willing to "pay off" the government to get smaller. That's why I see cultural revolution as more important.

For the most part, we're not really trying to "pay off" currently elected officials (although there has been efforts in Manchester to organize freestaters into a liberty voting bloc, in order to reward or punish candidates who support or oppose our beliefs), but get people into office who will downsize the system from within.

A more accurate comparison would've been something like a rival team infiltrating the Cubs with their own players, but I don't think such things have ever happened, so I used the bribery example of throwing a game.

I think it was Joe (and possibly others) who said that it's necessary for both heavily involved political and heavily involved social action to see the ultimate (in my opinion) transition away from government altogether. I absolutely and sincerely hope this is what will work best, because that's how it sounds like its going to have to happen. It's pretty clear that I'm not changing my position anytime soon, as it is clear from 10 pages of this thread that political folk aren't changing their minds either. No matter what else, it's heartening to know that people this passionate are after the same goal. Maybe we won't see freedom in our lifetimes, or even make an impact in the long run, but it's pretty clear that we're making one of the best runs at in in a few hundred years. 

Exactly. The political action that many of are engaging in is complementary to the outside-the-system activism and not its enemy. If someone wants to only engage in one or the other, that's fine; what's harmful to our movement is people on one side attacking the other.

[Auntie Republicrat]

Lots of theory...BUT..

..One would bet a bundle of federal reserve tokens ('dollars' to most/all 'anarchists'..p.s. for more on this $ubject see Auntie's thread over in general discussion!) that the staunchest of 'anarchists' here would be, VERY QUICKLY, calling 'the government cops' were they robbed, assaulted, trespassed upon, etc., by their BIG, stinking drunk, ex-con, Republicrat neighbor!..for one of MANY MANY examples..

(I await those 'anarchists' who've maybe been hitting the Clint Eastwood dvd's a little too hard!) 

[John Edward Mercier]

To be fair, the Anarchist understand that the system... regardless of how small will still entail restrictions on some freedom. The problem I see is that Anarchy, when defined as voluntary order, suffers a real world disconnect. History has shown that competition, and the use of force in some format, is a dominant trait.

[MaineShark]

If someone wants to only engage in one or the other, that's fine; what's harmful to our movement is people on one side attacking the other.

Exactly.

Lots of theory...BUT..

..One would bet a bundle of federal reserve tokens ('dollars' to most/all 'anarchists'..p.s. for more on this $ubject see Auntie's thread over in general discussion!) that the staunchest of 'anarchists' here would be, VERY QUICKLY, calling 'the government cops' were they robbed, assaulted, trespassed upon, etc., by their BIG, stinking drunk, ex-con, Republicrat neighbor!..for one of MANY MANY examples..

(I await those 'anarchists' who've maybe been hitting the Clint Eastwood dvd's a little too hard!) 

A good quote a friend just reminded me of:

When seconds count, just remember, the cops are only minutes away!

Most anarchists tend to be heavily-armed, and perfectly willing to defend themselves.

Joe

[Jacobus]

Lots of theory...BUT..

..One would bet a bundle of federal reserve tokens ('dollars' to most/all 'anarchists'..p.s. for more on this $ubject see Auntie's thread over in general discussion!) that the staunchest of 'anarchists' here would be, VERY QUICKLY, calling 'the government cops' were they robbed, assaulted, trespassed upon, etc., by their BIG, stinking drunk, ex-con, Republicrat neighbor!..for one of MANY MANY examples..

(I await those 'anarchists' who've maybe been hitting the Clint Eastwood dvd's a little too hard!) 

Do you think it's inconsistent to advocate for the government discontinuing its monopoly on a service, and yet use that service in the meantime? 

Do you understand that if the government was not monopolizing a service that people want and value, that individuals in a free market would be providing it instead? 

I suspect there will always be a demand for quick-response security services, and I believe that it could be provided without the government, and in such a scenario it could be provided more efficiently and in such a way so that people are not coerced against their will for funding it.

[John Edward Mercier]

There is no security monopoly. Many companies, gated communities, and even individuals use private security services.

[Tom Sawyer]

There is no security monopoly. Many companies, gated communities, and even individuals use private security services.

Yeah well just like government education, you are forced to pay for the governments "services" even if you don't use it. So if you choose to have private security, you pay twice.

[Jacobus]

There is no security monopoly. Many companies, gated communities, and even individuals use private security services.

I agree, but "security" is very broad and includes many things.  I'm thinking, as in the example, of a company offering services that are more inline with what we think of from the police.  They'd have a commercial like:

"Tired of the slow response of 911?  Want a professional quick-response security team that protects you from the bad guys but also respects your rights?  Then next time there's an intruder in your house, call 555!  We guarantee we'll be on-scene in under 5 minutes* and assist you in protecting your family and property."

* Certain restrictions do apply.

The government doesn't like competition. 

[John Edward Mercier]

Maybe where your from, but around here it is all about competition. We actually had a Selectman make the suggestion that the local PD was unnecessary. On a recent zoning action, our Town Admin when questioned what the cost would be stated that increased regulation means increased staffing and cost. The zoning action (aquifer protection) is now DOA.

When direct taxing occurs... price and thus competition becomes a priority to the voters.
The problem is our system allows a minority of possible voters (majority present) to control the purse strings.

[MaineShark]

Maybe where your from, but around here it is all about competition. We actually had a Selectman make the suggestion that the local PD was unnecessary.

Competition with whom?  The Sheriff's office?  That's not exactly free-market competition, now is it?

Joe

[Lex]

dysurian, your reason for paying taxes is that you do not want to make your life more difficult and that it is not a free choice on whether to pay taxes. but here is why this doesn't make sense to me:

By not voting against government spending and laws you are increasing your financial burden and personal freedom burden. Within a relatively short period of time (if you convince most of the other voters to do the same) this would result in a prison like lifestyle where all of your money is taken and you can't leave your house.

Taking this reality into consideration you have two choice:

1) Choose to pay your taxes, but not vote, and end up in a prison like environment.

2) Choose not to pay your taxes and end up in prison (where you conveniently can't vote anyways).

In choice one you are empowering the state by working to fund it. In choice two you are not funding it and in fact draining it each day you spend in jail.

It seems me that choosing to pay your taxes because you do not want to be more oppressed is an inconsistent choice with the rest of your philosphy. So, by picking option one you are automatically inconsistent (since you pay taxes) yet you disagree with voting?

On the other hand, I noticed you have stated several times that you aren't sure yet if voting is immoral. Can you elaborate more on this? Maybe we can help you be more sure once you can explain your dillema?

[(V)]

Why are there only 2 choices.

Here is another choice, not pay taxes and not go to jail. I've not payed as long as Lex has been alive. 

[Russell Kanning]

how old is v anyways?

I do agree with you lex .... if you will always pay taxes to avoid jail .... then you are a slave of sorts.
How high do the taxes have to go before you say .... enough!

[dalebert]

that the staunchest of 'anarchists' here would be, VERY QUICKLY, calling 'the government cops' were they robbed, assaulted, trespassed upon, etc., by their BIG, stinking drunk, ex-con, Republicrat neighbor!..for one of MANY MANY examples..

Why? So they can write up a report and make a pretense of looking busy? I can't speak for other anarchists, but the only time you'll see me calling the cops is if I'm required to by their laws to keep them from locking me up. For instance, after I've shot someone in self defense, I'm pretty sure I could get in quite a lot of trouble if I don't allow them to come write up a report and send their clean up crews. I would never call them with any sort of delusion that their services are actually to help me in any way.