One thing which seems really strange to me is how many supposed libertarians put faith in government documentation.
Whether it's constitutions, driver's licenses, or permission to pass between tax farms.
If you believe there's legitimacy in government paperwork, any legitimacy at all, why pretend to believe in anything other than government opinions?
Liberty or privileges? Your choice.
_______________
Reminder: I could really use some help.
Might there be a difference between "putting faith in" gov-docs, and using them for want of any practical alternative?
ReplyDeletePassports are a despicable interference with freedom to travel. But if you want to visit another tax farm, your alternatives are very costly, risky and expensive.
Once government has evaporated in the US, there will be nobody to issue passports. For a while, foreign governments may turn back tourists from the Former USA. But not, I think, for long; the FUSA society will become so wealthy that foreigners will fall over each other to win our business.
Yes, there's a HUGE difference.
DeleteA person who gets a passport because there's no practical alternative (to still be able to do what he wants) is very different from the person who demands that anyone crossing from one tax farm to the next must either have a passport or be caged or sent back.
Now I see your point, sorry. Yes, some libertarians oppose free travel across government borders. Hans-Herman Hoppe put the case succinctly: there is never a right to trespass on somebody's land, and all land in the US is owned by the taxpayers who paid for it.
DeleteIf the premise is correct (that taxpayers own it) then so is the conclusion. In 2015 I showed why the premise is false; see TinyURL.com/ZGBlog/15A044.htm
At one end of the spectrum of possibilities is "FUSA" . Of course "mandatory" micro chipping is another possibility that may become the norm until (if?) FUSA happens. The forest could get a lot darker before humanity reaches OZ. I should probably rein in my pessimism with a cup of coffee though.
ReplyDelete"FUSA" will certainly come about, IF some simple action is taken. Like a growing avalanche, there is nothing that can stop it. But if that simple action is not taken, yes things will get a very great deal worse.
DeleteThe needed action is described on the home page at tolfa.us
I call those supposed libertarians statists.
ReplyDeleteAlmost everyone is a mix of statism and libertarian beliefs, depending on the topic.
DeletePerhaps more full-on statists than full-on ancaps, though, at the far ends of the spectrum.
Libertarianism and statism mix like oil and water. They are completely antithetical. What a lot of people refer to as libertarianism is really statism-lite. But it's not Libertarianism by any definition because coercion/violence is included.
DeleteAt the core of Libertarianism is the value of life. ...and not just mortality, but the actual experience of living. In valuing life, you value rights, and therefore the concept of liberty and respecting rights of everyone.
Statism is based in violating rights. It is a system of violence, an antithesis of liberty. It claims ownership of everything and everyone within a territory and criminalizes self determination, or anything other than what it says is reality.
You're either a libertarian or not. If you advocate for any form or degree of statism, you aren't Libertarian.
how do Libertarians defend against large groups of murderous aggressive slavers; MS-13, soviet union, china, dea, irs?
ReplyDeletebitching online does not affect aggressors: what specific libertarian methods can help Uigher individuals against china?
purists ignore harsh reality. from time to time, limited enumerated associations are necessary for survival.
the problem is always institutional creep, when the children have some measure of safety and are no longer willing to undertake the burden of limiting the association.
ask the uighers.
ask people of east europe.
reality requires association for defense against others (not of your culture), or your way of life is determined by groups/gangs of violent aggressors (slavery).
free men, act.
sheep, bleat.
anarchy= ignores gang reality
Deleteminarchy= possible if men act, instead of bleat.
The solution is always individual defense. And yes, individuals can join together-- under unanimous consent-- to defend each other. But robbing some to pay for "defense" isn't that.
DeleteNeither is violating property rights and the right of association of everyone based on the violations of others. Feel free to keep anyone off your own property for any reason, but don't pretend you have any right to tell me who I am or am not allowed to have on my property.
I could probably be OK with a minarchy in the very early stages-- until it made up a "law" or tried to "tax" me. But see how quickly it goes from something I could tolerate to something I would oppose?
my experience in east europe, china, africa, with islam, and reading the entire history of humanity- has never shown a single instance of an individual surviving violent aggression from gangs/states. the options are to lick their boots, move away, or be killed.
ReplyDeletemoral philosophy is important- but downstream from continuing to breath, imho. trade space.
ask the Uighers and eastern europeans how effective an individual is.
in the real world, it's
"minarchy or death".
i may be wrong.
but there doesnt seem to be a choice.
[wish there was a forum to seriously discuss this.]
"...has never shown a single instance of an individual surviving violent aggression from gangs/states"
DeleteThen why encourage the establishment of one by supporting minarchy?
To me, this is like the people who blame victims of cops by saying they should have complied faster and harder. Yes, cops can kill you, but that doesn't justify them or their behavior. You may choose to comply, but I'll never fault those who don't, whether they die or become "cop killers".
why? because
ReplyDelete(b) the "do nothing" alternative is slavery.
(b) minarchy= freedom we sustain (or get lazy and don't)
ask an uigher, a korean, and east european- if minarchy beats slavery.
Solzhenitsyn had an informed opinion about individuals vs gangs of statist
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward."
ReplyDelete-Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn , "The Gulag Archipelago"
"Join, or Die."
Delete-AmRev 1.0, reality
Minarchy, with the burden of maintaining it.
-OR-
"We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward."
And it will be a former minarchy rounding up the people and putting them in those camps.
Deleteit seems to me, that with current info tracking systems: loners just get rounded up later.
ReplyDelete"minarchy and action" is a pain; trade-offs and less than ideal.
but the alternative is uigher camps.
"We must all hang together; or or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."
ReplyDelete-Benjamin Franklin
AmRev 1.0
I agree, but to "hang together" doesn't necessarily mean to form an aggressive, thieving gang (state). You can do better.
Deleteminarchy is life; which is better than slavery and death.
ReplyDeleteask uighers, soviets.
anarchy is a death sentence.
many buddist monks are destroyed by china. they die confident that they are "pure" and on the enlightened path.
ReplyDeletebut, they are dead.
and evil prevails.
same with libertarian anarchists. when faced with aggressive gangs, they succumb.
minarchy acknowledges the neccessity to survive.
And if the Buddhist monks stop being Buddhist monks to stay alive, Buddhism still dies out. The state still wins.
Deleteor choose minarchy, group action - and LIVE. less pure, but most live, and your way of life survives. ANd importantly, the bad guys LOSE, their tactics are not rewarded.
ReplyDeleteWhy choose a futile path that rewards the enemy tactics? To "feel good" as you die?
Rather- Choose to LIVE, and then return to pre-war civilization, buddhism, whatever.
you have to LIVE first. or the state/gangs win.
Solzhenitsyn understood:
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward."
-Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
If the "religiously pure" won't help, then the rest will do the heavy lifting without the "religiously pure"- and also remember not to shield them later. When gangs get violent, the choice is (a) to reward the gang/states tactics bt staying an impotent loner, or (b) to join minarchy and mount effective group defense.
Ben understood:
"Join, or Die"
-Ben Franklin
AmRev 1.0 woodcutting, flag, and slogan
btw- The snake in the "Time's Up" flag / "Gadsden" Flag, is alluding to the Ben Franklin woodcutting "Join, or Die". That joined snake of minarchists is necessary, from "time to time", to fight of the aggressive gang trying to enslave you.
DeleteThank you for contributing to the continuing legacy of the "Join, or Die" woodcutting and the minarchist lore it represents.
re:"Why choose a futile path that rewards the enemy tactics? To "feel good" as you die?
DeleteRather- Choose to LIVE, and then return to pre-war civilization, buddhism, whatever."
getting a drivers license and paying taxes are "impure" choices. choosing to live another day.
with aggressive gang/states, choosing has consequences; as our founders knew, and solzhenitsyn knew. the buddhists and uighers know. as we are finding out.
when "time's up"; it's "minarchy, or death".
"Joining together" isn't necessarily a minarchy, which is a government/State. One is OK and can contribute to living. The other is a path to tyranny and death. Minarchies never stay minarchy. States are always cancer. They always grow out of control and get out of hand. But joining together, without forming a state, is how you can help each other survive without trapping each other (and yourself) in a losing game. Once you allow "taxation" and "laws" you've gone too far, and without those things a "joining together" isn't a State, and therefore isn't minarchy. The problem is the "-archy" part.
DeleteI'm curious which part of the State is so important to you. Is it the part you believe will protect you from migrants? Or is it some other part? Which government program are you defending, or is it just government in general?
Deleteminarchist, against ms13 and state entities
ReplyDeleteother than moving, being a slave,or dieing: what specific practical stratrgy and tactics should archists take to defeat these two types of violent aggressors: ms13 and china (specific examples, for the sake of discussion).
how do anarchists not lose?
how do they mskr aggressors lose/leave?
[example: minarchists may choose to form groups with limited and enumerated agreements, with the specific intent of killing the enemy. articles of confederation, for example]
re: "I'm curious which part of the State is so important to you."
Deletenot the state. but rather the reality that when confronted by a gang/state- that anarchy is death, while minarchy is chance to retain life,liberty, property.
anarchy seems naive, since it cannot work against an actual gang/state of aggressors. anarchy is only possible when others do the hard work of keeping the aggressors away, to give space to allow pointless religions like anarchy to blossom.
the buddhists monks are dead. china state tactics rewarded.
as individuals, uighers are ineffective. china winning.
there is no hope in anarachy.
only minarchy seems to offer a realistic chance for liberty.
I think the problem here is that we are using different words for the same concept. We seem to both be talking about joining with others for collective defense against gangs of archators. Maybe?
Delete"joining" a minarchy, with the limited and enumerated goal of ending/defending against groups of 'others' trying to enslave 'our kind'
ReplyDelete(examples: pay tithe to your overlords or die, get permission to use or modify the kings land (all the land), do not speak of things that hurt your overlords feelings- or suffer injury pain death, etc)
minarchy is a necessary strategy to survive aggression by groups of 'others'.
anarchy is fantasy, not realizable. it presumes minarchists have created safe space away from the most heinous aggressors (eg, china vs uighers)
We all live anarchy every single day. I wouldn't call that "fantasy". Yes, you can live in anarchy while surrounded by thugs who try to rule you-- as long as you don't pretend the thugs are anything other than what they are. Once you start believing their lies that they are somehow legitimate or have "authority" you have given up on anarchy (yet you'll still live anarchy the vast majority of your life even at that). Anarchy is reality, even when someone tries to avoid it. There simply is no way for someone else-- even a bunch of someones-- to rule over every aspect of your life. No matter how much they crave that power.
Deleteso monks, uighers, anarchists- just die, or lick boots.
Deletemaybe, in the real world, rewarding the aggressor with what he wants, is a bad thing.
solzenitsyn and pals "burned in the camps later", wishing they had banded together a confederation to resist.
with minarchy, defeating aggressive gangs/states becomes possible.
even anarchy is possible, when anarchists are within the protective envelope created by minarchists. exposed directly to gangs/states, anarchist just comply or die, in compliance with the wishes of the gang/state.
anarchy= no drivers license, no property tax, no local state federal tax or forms.
ReplyDeletehaving papers and paying sales tax are fake anarchists, or "practical minarchists".
rather than standing up for anarchy against state intrusion, they choose to accept the protective cover of minarchy against external gangs/states.
minarchy= drivers license, paying property tax, local state federal tax; enjoying some benefits while WORKING to minimize the burden to limited and enumerated burdens of a minimal state.
real world: for uigher in china, tell me specifics of how anarchist lives...
ReplyDeleteactual anarchists die under chinese communism, or accept slavery. lose-lose.
ReplyDeleteor become a minimalist confederation, just enough to defeat enemy= minarchists
joining...
ReplyDeletewhat are anarchists joining?
Many things. Here's just one example: The Covenant of Unanimous Consent.
Deleteminarchy !
ReplyDeletelimited enumerated organization that minimally provides defense against 'others'
ReplyDeleteGo ahead. If you believe you can establish such an archy without it violating natural human rights I won't try to stop you.
DeleteBut I can't personally join that until I see that it doesn't violate anyone's rights in any way. Just like even if I believe I'll die without sex, I don't believe that justifies me committing rape. No matter how pragmatic, utilitarian, or necessary it may be. I just can't. I wouldn't be me-- I might as well be dead for all the good I'll do.