My Son: Klan Reformer

[eques]

Well, hey, that was merely Kat's suggestion, let's be clear on this. 

I don't mind continuing the discussion, but as a parting note for now, I will mention that one must do what one feels is right.  For me, it's not a question of efficacy, but a question of morality.  I do not think that it is moral to impose a vision of "freedom," no matter how well-intentioned.  Furthermore, I think that a universal morality exists, and part of the process is figuring out what that is.

"Freedom" isn't a destination, so whatever it is I end up doing will only be part of the journey.

I'm just this guy, you know?  I do not want to be a political leader.  The power of politics is incredibly dangerous--just look at the world we live in.

[error]

I said there was a movement, not an organization.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Well, hey, that was merely Kat's suggestion, let's be clear on this. 

Sorry, you've been drafted

[eques]

Well, hey, that was merely Kat's suggestion, let's be clear on this. 

Sorry, you've been drafted

*James burns his draft card and moves to Canada*

[mvpel]

I do not think that it is moral to impose a vision of "freedom," no matter how well-intentioned.

I think you've got things backwards.

For example, Senator Burling, Senator Hassan, and their cohorts are in the process of trying to impose their vision of "freedom" on the state - mandatory seat belts so that you can have the "freedom" to survive a car wreck.  (Senator Burling will play Ellsworth Toohey in the New Hampshire production of Atlas Shrugged - "it is only through total compulsion that you can gain total freedom!")

What we are trying to do here, working within the political process using persuasion and activism, is prevent them from succeeding in imposing their vision on everyone in New Hampshire.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Toohey will have to jump from one novel to another to pull that off



I'm thinking that, although, political systems can't bring people freedom, they aren't going away overnight.  Getting good legislators and good legislation can be enhanced by running (many)good candidates combined with non political types demonstrating  against and ignoring existing bad laws.
This can be a good combination.  It is early days.

[eques]

I do not think that it is moral to impose a vision of "freedom," no matter how well-intentioned.

I think you've got things backwards.

For example, Senator Burling, Senator Hassan, and their cohorts are in the process of trying to impose their vision of "freedom" on the state - mandatory seat belts so that you can have the "freedom" to survive a car wreck.  (Senator Burling will play Ellsworth Toohey in the New Hampshire production of Atlas Shrugged - "it is only through total compulsion that you can gain total freedom!")

What we are trying to do here, working within the political process using persuasion and activism, is prevent them from succeeding in imposing their vision on everyone in New Hampshire.

The underlying principle behind "working within the political process" is imposition.  It's not possible to dress it up as anything else.  If you think that it's moral to coerce "freedom," then I'm not sure there's anything more to discuss.

[mvpel]

I'm thinking that, although, political systems can't bring people freedom, they aren't going away overnight.

As I mentioned before, it took 50 years of activism and parliamentary work for England to abolish chattel slavery, and when they did, they further used their legendary naval might to enforce such abolition upon any other nation or individual engaged in maritime slave trade, anywhere in the world.

James - was that coercion moral in your view?  Did it bring greater freedom to humanity?

[lildog]

Good luck organizing Anarchists

I heard they were planning a meeting at the Kosher Bacon Factor.   

[eques]

I'm thinking that, although, political systems can't bring people freedom, they aren't going away overnight.

As I mentioned before, it took 50 years of activism and parliamentary work for England to abolish chattel slavery, and when they did, they further used their legendary naval might to enforce such abolition upon any other nation or individual engaged in maritime slave trade, anywhere in the world.

James - was that coercion moral in your view?  Did it bring greater freedom to humanity?

You must compare apples to apples.  In the example of slavery, only specific kinds of slavery were outlawed by the state--the more subtle slavery of a wife to her husband or children to their parents are entirely overlooked and still go on in large part today.

Furthermore, the example of a coercive act banning a coercive act does not prove anything about the elimination of coercion altogether.  After the so-called abolishment of slavery, coercion still exists, and some forms of slavery were entirely ignored.  Can you say the same thing about the abolition of socially-acceptable coercion?

Answer me how you can coerce non-coercion.  How will you, in the end, force somebody to not force others?  How can we have two moral standards in which one applies to the holder of a socially-acceptable implement of force and the other applies to everybody else?

Don't get me wrong.  I understand the desire to do something, and to do it now.  But if we're going to talk about efficacy, I think that incrementalism only serves to legitimize coercive processes already in effect.

Of course, if you do not think that the ultimate goal ought to be the elimination of socially-accepted coercion, then, again, there's not much more to discuss here.  I hold that coercion is immoral no matter what form it takes.

[Dreepa]

James what steps are you taking towards your ends?

[eques]

James what steps are you taking towards your ends?

I can't promise it'll be satisfying!  I also can't predict how long it will take.

The first thing I'm trying to work towards is to formulate (along with others) a universal morality which is empirically verifiable.  This sounds pretty pie-in-the-sky, but it has very real consequences.  It involves how I treat others around me and how I respond to them.  I think that the basis of the state, for example, is due to the indoctrination of the acceptance of arbitrary authority.  It's not rational, not in the slightest, and this can be seen if you challenge the legitimacy of the state.  I wouldn't say that this characterizes absolutely everybody, but I've definitely come across some people who get upset, use non sequiturs, and never address the points I've made in a logical, rational manner.

This formulation really cannot be done in isolation, so the second part is to discuss the ideas with others, obtain criticism, respond, hone my arguments and adjust my stance if need be.  It is that discussion which, disseminated through society, will eventually bring the downfall of the state.

Now... if, somehow, the use of state power eliminates the existence of the state, that would be fantastic!  If there's a consistent way in which this proves my efforts to be wrong, then I'd love to hear about it, because not only do I have to be consistent and rational, but I have to make sure that whatever it is I spout off conforms to what is observable.

This doesn't mean that everything will be intuitive.  Free-market economics, for example, aren't intuitive, but they sure seem to be true.  The earth looks flat.  Saying it's a sphere is non-intuitive.

So, truly, it's a journey.  I don't have a 12-step plan for achieving freedom, because "freedom" is not a destination any more than "free will" is a destination, to borrow from Stefan Molyneux.  There is most certainly a long way to go, and I won't try to stop others from doing what they feel is right, but I'm not willing to back down if I think they're wrong.

Étienne de La Boétie had an incredible insight when he discussed the toppling of the tyrant over 450 years ago, and I'm sure you've seen this around the board:

Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed.  I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.

[Raineyrocks]

I wouldn't say that this characterizes absolutely everybody, but I've definitely come across some people who get upset, use non sequiturs, and never address the points I've made in a logical, rational manner.

I wish I was smart enough to understand your points let alone address them in a logical, rational manner!

Honestly this whole thread has pretty much confused the heck out of me.   

[mvpel]

You must compare apples to apples.  In the example of slavery, only specific kinds of slavery were outlawed by the state--the more subtle slavery of a wife to her husband or children to their parents are entirely overlooked and still go on in large part today.

Okay, I'm not even going to go down that rathole.

Answer me how you can coerce non-coercion.  How will you, in the end, force somebody to not force others?

By using defensive force against anyone who attempts to force others.

How can we have two moral standards in which one applies to the holder of a socially-acceptable implement of force and the other applies to everybody else?

By having a moral standard that defensive force is always, and always will be, acceptable, as a first law of nature.

[eques]

I wouldn't say that this characterizes absolutely everybody, but I've definitely come across some people who get upset, use non sequiturs, and never address the points I've made in a logical, rational manner.

I wish I was smart enough to understand your points let alone address them in a logical, rational manner!

Honestly this whole thread has pretty much confused the heck out of me.   

I bet that you're much smarter than you think.  One thing that really gets to me is when people say about themselves, "I'm not smart enough."  You've already set the tone by which you'll evaluate the discussion.  It's like cutting yourself off at the knees before a footrace.

I think the reason this really bothers me is because I got that vibe from my parents even though I knew I was smart.  I think I was especially sensitive to this because I remember a significant moment when my father assumed that he knew what I was thinking and proceeded to lie to me outright.  What an insult to my intelligence, even as a young child!  (I used to fall into the same "duhhh" patterns with my father until recently... it's almost like a display of intelligence makes him feel threatened somehow, and the tension is palpable.)

So I encourage you to examine why you say that... I mean, I've seen you say it a number of times, and while you don't need to tell me why, I think it would be beneficial if you were able to figure that out.