My Son: Klan Reformer

[eques]

Right, that much is clear. The point I was making is that he's trying to compare Ron Paul to the son in the article but it doesn't fly. The son in the analogy story is an anarchist, which is made clear when he admits to his father that no government (comparable to lynchings in the author's eyes) is the goal. The son in the story is clearly a hypocrite, preaching things that he doesn't really believe in order to get elected, presumably in order to get less lynchings. That's not Ron Paul. Now if someone convinces Ron Paul of the anarchist position instead of a constitutionalist position and he continues to run on a position of constitutionalism, then yes, he'd be a hypocrite.

I think that's reading a bit too much into the story.  The point is, the support of Ron Paul for the Presidency is parallel to what would be the support of the Grand Wizard for the Ku Klux Klan.  If the son suddenly realizes the parallel between the Klan and the State, perhaps that's why he asks his father to drop the support.  In either case, that point is not central to the story and I'll claim ignorance by not seeing how that invalidates the distinction between reform and abolition.

In the meantime, I'm not going to assume that everyone who supports any kind of government is evil. Most of them are ignorant slash brain-washed. Trying to preach no statism to a public school indoctrinated-all-his-life socialist is practically speaking in a foreign language. I went from Democrat to Republican to Libertarian to being against all aggressive force.

I don't think that what's being said is that everybody who supports any kind of government is evil.  In light of outright evil, however, concessions to it cannot possibly be construed as a good act.  Slavery did not cease by reform--it ceased by calling for its abolition.  This point is too important to be glossed over.

My own path toward the realization that all aggressive force is wrong was one of incrementalism so I know it can work. I think that's why these arguments about the futility of incrementalism fall flat with me. I'm a living example to the contrary. This is just an emotionally charged (via the comparison to lynchings) rehash of the same tired old argument about the tactics we each choose in order to achieve true freedom.

The question is, what was it that finally convinced you to be fully against aggression?  Was it truly the "incremental" approach?  How do you convince somebody that something is slightly evil, kind of evil, really evil, and then just plain evil?  Why not call it for what it is?  It doesn't help us in the long run if everybody were to just become big-L Libertarians.

If you don't think that the state is evil, then obviously the discussion has to be knocked back a bit.

I also don't think it's an unwarranted charge to compare the actions of government, which hurt people for basically no good reason, to lynchings, which basically happen for no good reason.

[Dreepa]

I may as well mention the fact that I'm no longer a FSPer... though that shouldn't matter one bit. 

What does this mean?  Did you ask the FSP to take your name off the books or do you mean that you moved to NH so now you are a NH liberty lover?

[dalebert]

The question is, what was it that finally convinced you to be fully against aggression?  Was it truly the "incremental" approach?

Like most people, I grew up thinking an authoritative government was just a natural part of a society. It HAD to exist for people to get along. In time I was convinced that certain activities of government were more harmful than helpful like progressive taxation and welfare. Once I was convinced of the idea that less government was better than big government, I started analyzing more and more areas of society that I thought government should keeps its nose out of. It eventually took on the status of "necessary evil". Now I hate that term. It sounds quite ridiculous to me, but I wasn't able to grasp how ridiculous it was until I could dispel the thoroughly ingrained notion that it was absolutely necessary in some form and to some degree.

Until Ron Paul, I haven't seen a candidate in years that's guided by principle and puts their principles higher than their desire to be elected. I've already said that without him as an option, I refuse to just vote for the lesser of two evils of two unprincipled typical politicians. Ron Paul is reaching the people who are just at the start of the same journey I made. I'll never run for office again because that would require dishonesty on a massive scale, but SOMEONE is going to be president and is going to have a lot of power whether i'm involved or not. Even if he doesn't win or even if he can't win, Ron Paul is introducing people to ideas that have the potential to put them on the same path that I began years ago. The typical politicians and many in the media see him as a threat to the mind game they've been using to maintain their power and that's a very good thing.

How do you convince somebody that something is slightly evil, kind of evil, really evil, and then just plain evil?  Why not call it for what it is?  It doesn't help us in the long run if everybody were to just become big-L Libertarians.

The small government people DO see it as evil, but they see it as a "necessary" (try not to puke) evil. That's a big hump to get over for a lot of people and I doubt very many people get over that hump in one leap starting off from a socialist or neocon position.

[mvpel]

It should be noted that the FSP is not an anarchist movement - it posits the maximum role of government is the protection of an individual's life, liberty, and property from aggressors.  Hence, it posits that there may be, in fact, a role for government.

The effort towards abolition of slavery in England formally began in 1787, and did not succeed until 1833, after nearly 50 years of tireless legislative and persuasive effort by activists and members of parliament.  The first vote on an abolition bill in 1791 was 163 to 88 against.

To think that abolition of slavery could have succeeded more quickly by an attempt to overthrow the English Parliament, or some such, seems pretty implausible to me.

[KBCraig]

It should be noted that the FSP is not an anarchist movement - it posits the maximum role of government is the protection of an individual's life, liberty, and property from aggressors.  Hence, it posits that there may be, in fact, a role for government.

The FSP also does not set a minimum role of government, so anything below the maximum --including no government at all-- is within the FSP's goal.

[eques]

It should be noted that the FSP is not an anarchist movement - it posits the maximum role of government is the protection of an individual's life, liberty, and property from aggressors.  Hence, it posits that there may be, in fact, a role for government.

The FSP also does not set a minimum role of government, so anything below the maximum --including no government at all-- is within the FSP's goal.

mvpel is right--the FSP is not an anarchist movement, which is why I'm not part of it any longer. 

As for Kevin, that's an inappropriate use of the logic, for "zero government" is qualitatively different than "some government."  It implies that anarchism is a subset of minarchism which I really don't think is the case.

[Kat Kanning]

Start an anarchist movement in NH

[eques]

I may as well mention the fact that I'm no longer a FSPer... though that shouldn't matter one bit. 

What does this mean?  Did you ask the FSP to take your name off the books or do you mean that you moved to NH so now you are a NH liberty lover?

The former.  I didn't want to be part of the "body count," though ultimately I can't stop them from counting me, it's not important enough for me to care beyond asking for my profile to be removed (the "already in New Hampshire" counter hasn't moved for quite some time now, though, so who knows what data they're counting).

I guess it's a good thing I didn't get that one job with that pseudo-government agency! 

[eques]

Start an anarchist movement in NH

We'll see. 

[error]

Start an anarchist movement in NH

We'll see. 

There already is an anarchist movement in NH! And it's full of Free Staters!!

[eques]

Start an anarchist movement in NH

We'll see. 

There already is an anarchist movement in NH! And it's full of Free Staters!!

Oops!  Messed that one up!

[Lloyd Danforth]

It should be noted that the FSP is not an anarchist movement - it posits the maximum role of government is the protection of an individual's life, liberty, and property from aggressors.  Hence, it posits that there may be, in fact, a role for government.

The FSP also does not set a minimum role of government, so anything below the maximum --including no government at all-- is within the FSP's goal.

It could, just get lost in the shuffle

[lordmetroid]

What is said organization of anarchists full of Free Staters?

[Dreepa]

What is said organization of anarchists full of Free Staters?

James is going to start it.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Good luck organizing Anarchists