This video should be studied for talking points for the next cocktail party or 'elevator speech' defense of freedom instead of --well, whatever we have now.
 

I noticed the "economist" label too. Sounds like you need an official state sponsored economist licensing program Bob. We can't have just anyone running around calling themselves an economist after all. Think of the children!
 

But Dr. Woods isn't an economists. Whether you think he's a genius or not isn't relevant, he's not an economist.
 

How many Nobel Prize winners in economics don't have degrees in economics?

Is if 4 or 5?
 

Adam Smith wasn't an economist, Ludwig von Mises wasn't an economist...etc.
 

Thomas Woods is a great economic historian though.
 

Greg (Ransom, I assume), what's really interesting is that you're now defining an economist as one with a degree!

Kidding aside, what academic work has Dr. Woods done in economics.
 

Anarchy is a very interesting topic. Do true anarchists realistically get what people generally think about it? Here's a comment from the DailyPaul.com post that showed this same video (name calling aside, the commenter nails the truth):

"On October 20th, 2009 angelatc says:

I spent 2.5 years denying and defending against accusations that the Ron Paul Republicans were actually a bunch [of] anarchists who wanted to entirely dismantle government. Looks like they were right and I was wrong. Oh well, I was politically homeless when I got here, too.....

Right when we're on the verge on a viable GOP revolution, the poison that is the anarchists decide to go all loud and proud.

You people are politically retarded. No freaking way would I ever refer anybody to that video if I wanted my candidate to win an election.

I don't care how philosophically pure the ideology is - I am never going to vote to destroy the Constitution. And if I ever decided to be an anarchist, I'd at least have the balls not to hijack somebody else's movement.

Enjoy the draft, young ones. Keep consoling yourself with the fact that they don't actually have a moral right to do that to you...."

Yup.

My own take: yes, anarchy may theoretically be the best way to live, but it is NOT a realistic ideology. Ain't gonna happen, nope! And when Mr. Casey says "America is gone...it's been replaced by the United States...which is like a skin disease...." ouch--newsflash--that does NOT attract people either.

IMHO, a choice has to be made, anarchists. You can either be pure, correct, and all alone forever, or a bit tainted and successful. So what if it's not fair. Life is messy like that.
 

Bob,

I caught that too. But Tom looked like he pooed his pants a little out of shock first, then he kinda shook the surprise off his face and nodded because he probably realized his very small window of opportunity to correct without sounding like a socially maladjusted eight-year-old with Tourette syndrome had already passed.
 

sonicninjakitty,

That's all very well and good but where do you draw the line without being a completely arbitrary, subjective-propagated-as-the-objective ass?

My understanding is that you don't because you can't. Thus, anarchists. They're people who may or may not believe that anarchy will ever be 'viable' in the sense that it will be realized as a social form on planet Earth, but who nonetheless know better than to start playing pragmatic games with people's lives and property.

I call myself an anarchist. Do I ever think anarchy will be realized? No, I don't. Does that mean I now find it acceptable, to any degree, that people be coerced by an institution calling itself government? No, I don't.

You spent a lot of time just now talking about why the two speakers did a mediocre job selling their ideas and how unappetizingly some of the ideas were presented. Well, you will never persuade an anarchist (a committed one, anyhow) with the "it'll never work" line of reasoning and then ask us to compromise our principles. We don't do that, that's why we're anarchists. We're not "in it to win it" we're not here to make it "work" we're here to stand up for what is right, regardless of the particular political or social context.

I hope that makes some sense.

And by the way, to all, was it just me or did neither Woods nor Casey actually specifically address the topic of the video "Is Limited Government an Oxymoron?" They seemed to argue that we don't have one and government sucks and anarchy is better but I don't think either one really explained why government is necessarily totalitarian in nature, thus resulting in "limited government" being an oxymoron.
 

Tom Woods is obviously an economist. He has published an article in a peer-reviewed economics journal:

http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae11_3_4.pdf

"What Austrian Economics Can Teach Historians" Vol. 11 Num. 3

Giles, you're not an economist, because all you do is post on blogs.
 

Sukrit, I'm not sure I ever claimed to be an economist. As for Woods being an economist because he's published in one (relatively obscure) economics journal, well, I suppose you could make the argument. But it's setting your standards pretty low.

I don't know why people are taking this so personally, I'm not saying that Woods is an idiot a crank or whatever else, I'm just saying that he's not an economist.
 

By the way, for what it's worth, a quick Wikipedia check reveals that Chicago has a higher GDP than Austria!

GDP of Chicago: $ 460 Billion
GDP of Austria: $330 Billion
 

Hi Taylor,

Thanks for responding to my comment. You make very valid points that, yes, do make sense. I'm not really trying to convince any anarchists to change their ideology--LOL--I'd have to be certifiably crazy to take on the specialists around here! (I also watched the entire video and think both guests presented excellent points--not mediocre by any stretch.)

I'm just saying that MAYBE if you want to apply your ideology to social life, you have to make practical adjustments. What good is it to have an fantastic idea if it only remains in your head and never gets applied to benefit the world? Answer me that, please. Seriously, you can award a Nobel prize to yourself in your own head for your awesome ideas, but in the meantime Krugman and Obama are getting the ones here in the outside world where the rest of us live!!

No compromising--why do anarchists draw this line at their political ideology? There are tens of compromises we make to our other "pure" principles every day. (I won't list any here as they would be tangential to my point. Suffice it to say I don't think making these compromises automatically makes one an "arbitrary...ass". That's pretty harsh, LOL!) Why be stubborn on this one, anarchists? Does it make you a higher level intellect or soul or whatever you are striving for? Good for you. It does zero for society.
 

sonicninjakitty,

I've read a few of your other comments so I know you're a fairly sophisticated thinker on other topics but on this one ('practical political solutions') you are sounding like your typical amateur armchair theorist here. I don't mean to call names or try to insult, rather I'd offer you to consider trying to answer your own questions and see if you can anticipate the anarchist response. But, since I am not Silas Barta, the sociopathic mind-torturer, I'll try to give you an idea of at least how I would respond to your concerns. I can't claim to speak for all anarchists but I'll give it a try nonetheless.


To begin with, this is a difficult conversation to have because you're speaking in undefined terms. You speak of making 'practical adjustments' to ideology but you don't explain what, specifically, those practical adjustments might be, how you define/judge what is practical vs. impractical and why it should even be necessary to do so. You also act as if a currently incomplete application of anarchist social principles to "social life" is equivalent to a complete non-application of those same principles.

For instance, anarchists are against property crime in general, murder and theft specifically. For the most part (ignoring many people and their view of government), murder and theft are prohibited as a part of "social life". What kind of "practical adjustment" need be made here, then? Would you prefer murder and theft be acceptable?

You are committing a logical error in striving for the practical, because you can not objectively declare what is practical and what is not. It is a question which will always be settled in your own mind according to your own judgment and will. What is impractical to you is perfectly feasible to the next person... but you would ask this man to ignore his own principles and judgment in favor of yours. Why is your ego so grand?

You sound very much like the people I am sure you otherwise have little respect for, and I am thinking here of Obama and his administration. You will often hear Obama extol the need for doing what is practical in any given situation by contextualizing the debate in such a way that there is no "choice" for him, only an action he must take. He has no choice to bailout the banks, no choice but to fight wars, no choice but to provide healthcare for all... silly libertarian principles have no bearing in his mind, he must do what is PRACTICAL. Somehow, the practical always winds up giving him more power and control over things.

Do you believe that, sonicninjakitty? Do you believe that Obama has no choice between not aggressing, not stealing, not murdering, and doing those things? Do you believe that the only practical action he can take given who he is and what his responsibilities are, is to further those great evils in the world?

I don't. I think every man has a choice in such matters and a moral person would either not make those decisions (to coerce) or would step down from their position of power if they felt they "had to" because of the political pressures on him. Obama doesn't have to be president, does he?

There's nothing inevitable, in that sense, about such decisions. And there is nothing inevitable about other things deemed to be practical.

I'm not out to win a Nobel or any other accolade. And I'm not out to benefit "society" (which I should think I am a part of, but maybe in your mind I am not). The goal I am striving for is to preserve the integrity of the shell of the egg, not crack it open and make an omelette. My personal tactic is education and outreach on this subject. I don't see how I can avoid being a hypocrite in spreading the word if I do it by force of gun or force of the ballot box.

Your failure of imagination and willpower is not the resounding critical undermining of my principles that you believe it to be, just as the police officer's adoption of the state-issued costume, badge and gun is not the refutation of my understanding of justice he believes it to be.

Does that answer any of your questions?
 

Dear Taylor,

I do not feel the slightest bit insulted by your reply. Rather, I appreciate your wonderful insights. I've read your profile and some of your blog and gather you don't suffer fools gladly. On the flip side, I don't need any pats on the back, but thanks anyway. It was kind of you. But, hey, back off of Silas! Have you SEEN his new kitty? Incredible cuteness! (And he has another,too.) I don't care how a person appears on the outside; one's regard for the lesser beings reveals one's true heart. So how many kitties and puppies do YOU have, Taylor? Hmmm? Hmmm?? ;)

As for your argument, I must admit you have me chasing my tail with your good logic. I'm a bit dizzy, but will attempt to walk away in a straight line: please name for me ONE activity aside from educating others in which an anarchist engages that actualizes his/her ideology. I'm not interested in principles or negative actions here, just regular, concrete actions. Got nothing else beside education? Suit yourself. Just watch the world go by while you educate people on your precious, proverbial, perfect egg. Congratulations on your excellent imagination and willpower. In the meantime, my kids' futures are becoming more and more oppressed by the actors of this world. We do not live in a vacuum. They are my skin in this game, and I will not be pushed without pushing back on their behalf. If you want to try and demean this paradigm by referring to it as my "ego", so be it. Stick and stones concern me a lot more than names.
 

sonicninjakitty,

Here is what I believe (and I think this belief was shared by Mises and Rand, not that that gives weight to my belief, simply to point out it's not an entirely original philosophy): the world is ruled by ideas. The thing that separates man from beast is man is rational and man has ideas about how to fulfill his desires. In other words, he has alternatives, choices. Man is hungry, but what should man eat? An idea plays a role here. etc. etc.

So, the world is shaped by man's ideas. Where does man get his ideas? Some he gets from himself. Some he gets from nature and its study. Some he gets from others. That's education.

You sound dismayed with the current state of the world, the political process, what is going on. Why is it the way it is? Because it is a representation of the dominant, ruling men's ideas about how the world is and how it should be. These people were in large part educated and informed of this world view, convinced of it, by other people.

If we want to change the way the world is, we must change the way people see it, understand it, and choose to operate within it. We must offer them alternatives to what we have now. We must be firm in showing how "the moral is the practical", how there is nothing practical about politics as usual, war, welfare, bailouts, taxes and regulation, how these things work to accumulate the degeneracy (social, economic, political, psychological, physiological and otherwise) we're witnessing and everyone, in their own way, seems to be working so diligently to stop and put and end to it all.

Education is a concrete action. Since you haven't spared me the tired cliches ("We do not live in a vacuum" oh come on, PLEASE... that's a cliched response to a strawman of your creation) I won't spare you-- life doesn't happen all at once, it takes time. You can't point your finger at someone like me and say "Well, you haven't changed the world yet and I'm tired of waiting for you to do so so you've failed." Changing people's minds takes time, patience and disciplined consistency.

It's indicative of your lack of imagination about these topics that you continue to set perfection as the standard to which you believe I cling and which you think I have failed to meet in my efforts to effect change. Meanwhile, you, the 'practical' realist I am sure fall back on your "But, I'm only human" when you take a practical misstep that perhaps leads to more tyranny, not less.

"Oops, I made a mistake, but at least I am trying." Right, and so am I, but at least I never actively contribute to the furtherance of the very coercion and destitution I stand against.

But to me the relativity game is a pointless one to play. I don't stand here to convince you or anyone else that I am somehow in some way doing a better job than you.

I stand here to ask you this:

please name ONE activity that YOU have engaged in which actualizes your ideology.

If it's not education, and it's not coercion, what is it, voting? How's that working for you? Or is that a slow process, too?

Let me know when you've blown away a cop or slain a politician, then I'll know you're serious about this whole drawing a line and starting a revolution business (for the/your kids, of course!). Until then, aren't you just blowing the same verbal smoke you seem to be so frustrated with me for?
 

Dear Taylor,

I admire your resolve but still doubt it changes the world much. You may be taking the world two steps forward, but, meantime, the opposition has moved us five steps back. (That equals -3. I know that's correct because I used my adder-calculator-thingy.)

There is a subjective line between education and coercion. You and I would obviously draw the line very differently. I'm not going to "slay" anyone, though. Sheesh!

P.S.--I'm a little weary of you saying I lack imagination. It smacks of elitism.
 

sonicninjakitty,

Is this your second or third dodge? I've lost count.

You have yet to respond to my asking you what are YOU doing that's so incredibly revolutionary? Voting? Something else? And how is that working for you?

I assume you just missed that I keep asking that and that your failure to respond is not some tactic you're using to avoid addressing your own hypocrisy?
 

Education and outreach. I guess that makes me just as revolutionary as you. If I say anything else, even something as seemingly innocuous as "voting", you are going to pillory me, duh.

This conversation is fast approaching humorlessness, which is unfortunate. Thanks anyway. It was interesting.
 

sonicninjakitty,

I have to say I'm speechless. After lambasting anarchists for their 'unrealistic' ideology that according to you is not practical and takes us no closer to freedom because we're too prissy about getting our hands dirty and doing the heavy political lifting you prefer, I was expecting you to have something that was a.) non-coercive and b.) not education/outreach that you prefer as your tactic for changing the world. I assumed voting was some part of it but I was trying to figure out what the other part was but apparently it's a state secret or something as you have yet to divulge your dark, magical freedom arts.

I also assumed it was "working" and we were on the verge of a libertarian revolution because of the way you scolded anarchists over and over for being unrealistic and not doing anything for society.

But I see no freedom revolution and I see no voting changing the world, now or anytime soon. So, unless I've missed something, you are looking like a big old... how do you say it, hypocrite, right now?

Or was that the "GOP revolution" you so proudly and agreeingly quoted the earlier poster on that you had in mind? If you really believe in freedom, and not winning a two-party gang war, I'd love to know why you picked the GOP to carry your freedom banner? Just don't like the sound of the word "Democrat" or is their lack of princple and insufferable hypocrisy somehow more palatable to you than the bluedogs?
 

Dear Taylor,

Your reply made me laugh again. It must've been the "dark, magical freedom arts" part. You ARE funny!

May I consider you my new nemesis? Just for kicks, you know. ;)

As for the party thing, I am just one out of millions caught in the sweeping current that is our political system. Whenever the river forks, I choose the calmest looking option and paddle like heck towards it, no matter the label. I guess anarchists don't paddle--that's way too sisyphean. They simply "educate" people about the process of evaporation. That's it! We must patiently await the river's disappearance! Gurgle, gurgle.
 

sonicninjakitty,

sonicninjakitty,

So, would you say you are or are not a hypocrite?

Your previous posts, which I challenged you on, all decried the 'unrealistic' and 'impractical' anarchist who supposedly stands idly by while history is made and political currents turn into tyrannical torrents. You accused the poor anarchist of not benefiting society by clinging to his childishly vain hoping-for-heaven-on-earth ideology. You ridicule the anarchist for engaging in education and outreach, which seems to be a boring, uneventful and entirely pointless chore to you.

When asked, repeatedly, to explain what you've done differently than the anarchist to bring REVOLUTION NOW! to the forefront of the public's mind, all you can muster is an approving quote of some other simpleton who can't get over how much fun it was to be a hated Republican during his youthful college days and holds out hope that one day he can turn the GOP around (as if it's all one big accident, a simple confusion, that lead it to where it is now) and... win some elections, for HIS candidate (go team!). This person said they'd "never... vote to destroy the Constitution" but seem to forget that the Constitution was destroyed a long time ago and whatever scraps of the ragged paper are left are simply continually pissed upon by all comers, "right" and "left."

So, then, what are our options, we freedom-loving few? What munificent, magnanimous, majestic and multiplicity of messages can be sent with a vote at the ballot box? Is a vote for a Republican or a Democrat ever a protest vote against the system? Surely not, for it's a vote FOR a candidate and it's a vote FOR someone whose platform is so multifaceted and overly methodical that it'd be impossible to get a clear message across in terms of just what that vote FOR the person is... FOR. Is a vote for a third-party ever a protest vote against the system? Again, no... not in the least because they're all socialists anyway. No, once again, you're voting FOR some lunatic to be in charge of the lunatic system, you're not saying NO, I don't want some, ma'am.

Etienne de la Boetie (and Henry David Thoreau) said, you must withdraw your consent if you ever hope to make little waves in a big pond. You must withdraw and renounce the system and let it be known you don't support it, not any part of it. Lysander Spooner said that any vote you cast is necessarily a secret vote for a secret band of murderers and thieves, because that's what the vote is necessarily about, who will get murdered and how the plunder will be divided up. And von Mises said that middle of the road policy (that is, compromise) leads to socialism, each and every time. It's not too much of a stretch to see that logic applies to taking as acceptable any level of coercion and political intervention in a given social system to be the kind of compromise that will lead to the same thing. And wise men long ago said that the path to hell is paved with good intentions and nice tries and 'practical', 'realistic' best effort choices between lesser evils.

It's like exposing yourself to violent entertainment. One minute it's funny seeing someone punched in the face, the next minute you find it all boring if things aren't blowing up and people aren't being shot. And then, before you know it, you're beating your kids and wearing yellow "SUPPORT THE HEROES" ribbons on your mass-manufactured POS American rustbucket as you drive around town trying to make your voice heard at the local polling station on the Officially Sanctioned Day To Address The State With Your Grievances By Choosing Between One Of Two State-Approved Candidates For Change. Of course, I am talking about everyone else in America here, not you, you'd never beat your kids, you love them too much (though not enough to not vote for some a-hole who will burden them with a mountain of debt and conscript them to invade some foreign backwater for the glory of L'Empire).
 

sonicninjakitty, (pt. deuce)

...say, what were we talking about, again?

Oh yeah. You're a hypocrite. And you've got nothing, because if you had something you would've shut me up with it by now.

Anyway, I've got some idealistic dreaming about how to educate people to enjoy the idea of a perfect world we'll never live in (please note: your strawman version of how I spend my time and how I envision the likelihood of anarchy being realized anywhere on the globe, not an accurate representation of any honest position I hold) to do. Have a nice night!
 

My Dearest New Nemesis Friend Taylor,

So you can choose not to vote. In case you haven't noticed, everyone else in kingdom come IS voting, so a lot of good your choice does. It's sort-of a Nash equilibrium, isn't it, but with lots of messy emotion and greed mixed in? You should join the fun.

And, yeah, OK--I'm a hypocrite. Um....

{crickets chirping}

So what do I do now?

P.S.--I have the distinct impression that nothing would ever shut you up--but I wouldn't have it any other way! Ciao!
 

snj,

In case you haven't noticed, everyone else in kingdom come IS voting, so a lot of good your choice does

So, a lot of good YOUR choice does. Or do you not understand how a wider range of numbers tends to affect the distribution of the average?

But that's really beside the point anyway. The discussion wasn't about voting vs. not voting, it was originally about what it is that you do that's so much more 'practical' and actionable and meaningful to affect change, that the principled anarchist won't. And so far, all you seem to be able to come up with is voting.

Voting? I mean I have asked you now four or five times, is that it? If all you do differently from anarchists is vote, I really think you'd do well to save the "you're all a bunch of political retards/you'll never get what you want you unrealistic puritans" snark for a more simple-minded group.

And, yeah, OK--I'm a hypocrite. Um....

{crickets chirping}

So what do I do now?

Well, I suppose if you realize you're a hypocrite you maybe won't be so quick to disparage anarchist 'activism' any longer, since you aren't much of a world-changer yourself? That was your whole beef, wasn't it?

In other words, do nothing (like the anarchists do, according to you). Glad you are becoming more self-aware on this.
 

Dear Taylor,

I didn't say I do nothing, I'm just not telling you what I do. It's a secret dark freedom art! Or maybe I just fear your impending criticism. You guess.

As for the admission of hypocrisy, I thought you'd be able to give me some kind of anarchist penance ritual to perform. There must be a website on that somewhere.

The original point was that anarchists are no fun to invite to parties, or that the public perception is that they are slightly scary, or something to that effect. I'm still pretty sure these things are true. But I would invite YOU to one of MY parties. You're bucket loads of fun!
 

SNK,

Well I guess I am the one who lacks imagination then because I can't think of what options are available to a person besides: education, voting, assassination/violence and withdrawal.

Apparently part of your strategy for freedom is to keep people like me in the dark about your strategy, so we won't mimic it. Don't want it to be too successful. Might be hard to handle all that freedom all at once, right?

You can quote people who say anarchists are "political retards" and you can criticize us for being impractical and social parasites, but apparently if someone criticizes YOUR philosophy you become a shirking daisy.

Good luck with all of that, and I mean it... you make no sense to me but at the end of the day you claim to be a freedom-lover so in some strange sense we're all in this together (even though by your reckoning I'm a Do-Nothing).
 

Dear Taylor,

The commenter I quoted said her fellow DailyPaulers, not the anarchists, were politically retarded, ostensibly for thinking that this angle could be worked into the libertarian platform.

In all seriousness, I don't mean to disparage your convictions; they are truly admirable. I apologize for implying otherwise.

I know minarchy is imperfect and hypocritical. I just think it's at least slightly more attainable than anarchy, and therefore worth the ethical trade-off. Not a very rousing cheer, eh? No matter. We're both chasing pipe dreams anyway.
 

SNK,

We're both chasing pipe dreams anyway.

To quote a detestable mainstream politician, "There you go again."

What "pipe dream" am I chasing? Is it the pipe dream of not believing anarchy will actually be realized, wholesale, on planet Earth, ever? Is it the "pipe dream" of insisting that coercion is always coercion, murder always murder and theft always theft, regardless of who does it or what they choose to call themselves or what historical myths they choose to weave to try to justify their lack of inhibition when it comes to taking the product of my labor without my consent?

I'm engaging in "pipe dreams" just by defining my terms this way? And then, who would you be, again, to tell me I am wrong to do so?

It is wrong to initiate coercion.

What is your big beef with that (I thought simple) concept? That's essentially all the anarchist believes and all he stands for. I 'detailed' that idea here: http://n-k-1.blogspot.com/2009/09/anarchy-is-logically-consistent.html

You keep telling me I am chasing perfection and that I am impractical for doing so. I am doing NEITHER but you can't seem to find it in you to give me credit for this minor feat.

As an anarchist, I believe that it is wrong to initiate the use of force no matter who does it. As a minarchist, you believe it's sometimes okay to initiate the use of force, so long as the person doing it says "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

This is just wrong. It's that simple. It's wrong. You will never see me robbed or coerced by a government employee, minarchy or not, and allow that as a "just" outcome. It might happen, sure, but it won't ever be just.

That's the difference between me and you. I don't make excuses for evil but rather "proceed ever more boldy against it." You make excuses for your arbitrarily preferable level of coercion and pretend that everyone's doing the best they can.

You're free to be a minarchist... unfortunately minarchy doesn't permit me to be free to be an anarchist. And you say you love freedom?

So far off the beaten trail here but I still can't get you to divulge your (patented?) Liberty Action Plan so this is the point then where I assume you don't have one and your whole original comment deriding anarchists for their childish ways under cover of some thoughtful, well-intentioned statement was really nothing more than a naive, emotional outburst that you hadn't really thought through much.

By the way, whether anarchy is realistic or not, you do realize that every person I convince of its merits (the number is sizeable and growing, I am so charming and witty, of course, how can they resist!) is one less person who will join the state, shill for it or otherwise aggress you and your loved ones via the government, don't you? Nothing noble there, I take it? Ah, nevermind, I'm not after knighthood anyway.
 

Hey Taylor,

I would LOVE to see your intellect, charm and whit do a workover of this guy: http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/10/26/truth-and-consequences/#more-35186

While we quibble, people like this are out there doing real damage. I'm such a small fish--he's a veritable WHOPPER. Come on--let's tag team!
 

SNK,

You're right that a guy like that is doing real damage. There's just one problem: he won't change his mind. Probably never.

The problem is that he's spent his entire life violating the NAP (worked for CIA, consults the govt on terrorism) so he's got a lot to apologize for/come to terms with. He also bases his reputation/view of his own self-worth, on his skills and experiences in this area. That's an enormous psychological barrier to overcome. Then you've got the fact that he depends on all of this for his income and livelihood. There's a financial incentive to not think honestly about these issues. Then there's the fact that he is very likely an idiot and doesn't and can't realize it. You have to have a very confused brain to wrap your head around the multiple self-contradictory idiocies he spouted in that one post alone. It's a tangled fishnet of logic one square mile in size... even if you tried to start untangling it he probably couldn't follow along.

You are a small fish. He'll never listen to you... on his blog. The best you can do is target him on YOUR blog where you control the debate more than he does and generate your own audience and believers.

You're also best, in my mind, to avoid explaining to him "what went wrong" and instead simply challenge him on the definitions he employs in his thinking (that seemed to be part of your response, which was good, but then you went off into "what went wrong and how to fix it" and you'll completely lose him there since he doesn't agree with your definitions). You have to just be a pricker in his foot about it... everytime he fouls up a situation by employing faulty definitions ask him to define his terms and then argue those terms until he proves he's too stubborn to be clear or accepts a redefining of his terms.

That's the best you can do with a person like that, I'm afraid. He doesn't know a thing about economics because if he did he wouldn't have spent his life working for the government in the CIA. Yet he feels the need to spout off about it despite saying on his own website that his area of expertise is terrorism consulting. That's really all you need to know about that guy.
 

Dear Taylor,

Thank you very much for the advice on strategy. To focus on defining terms is an excellent angle. I do recognize it, too :)

In his previous post (to which he referred the reader) I had tried extensively to argue what the free market is/isn't. I'm not sure why I get all insane about these people--I don't even know them--it just bugs me that they think we are all OK with increasing degrees of serfdom. It compels me to squeak out.

My real irritant is a Keynesian econ student front pager over at The Confluence. Talk about steaming my veggies! Oh--and then she comes up with the 'you don't care about human beings' angle and you have to untangle another stupid knot. Pure lunacy.

So an anarchist would not even vote for Ron Paul if given the option? I mean, is it not OK to take steps toward freedom, or must one have it all or nothing? What's wrong with steps in the right direction?

Tell you what, I'm changing my own blog's tag line to "...minarchist considering anarchism...". I'm just too chicken to ever become an anarchist--it'd be like drifting in the river without floaties and I cannot do that. It's a character flaw, ha ha.
 

SNK,

Econ students are usually (hopefully) not so fully up their own intellectual ass that they can be "gotten to" so keep trying, and be patient. If you stick to principle and force the definition discussion to take place, you will make headway with any honest opponent. Even the "you don't care about people" schtick is a confusion about definitions-- that is something a person might say who doesn't define govt welfare as coercion. If you can make it obvious that welfare has (violent) costs you might get them to realize the anti-sociability of their own 'conscientious' viewpoint.

I can't speak for all anarchists on the voting for RP one. But I can speak for myself. Voting for RP MAY be a 'practical' step toward freedom, MAY BE, relative to the alternatives, but the man is not the beacon of truth and libertarian light he is always extolled as. I say this again making no apologia for how libertarian he is relative to any other alternative in a given election but the man had some stinky war vet welfare schtuff in his presidential platform that rubbed me the wrong way. Why should taxes be used to reward/take care of vets who made a poor personal choice to join the war machine and rain death and destruction down on strange people in foreign lands? How is that free again? And then there is the whole living off a Congressman's salary bit. I don't think working to reduce cost of government to you and me logically entails allowing one to dip into that trough oneself for living expenses. This is maybe another 'practical reality' problem with libertarians in government in the first place... how does a libertarian live off of tax money and not be a hypocrite, and what entitles him to do so? It's much the same as, "Okay, so you let the government handle the police and the courts... but what do they charge, and how do they police and judge?" These are calculation debates that can't be solved voluntarily in the marketplace because the market has been abolished in this situation. The answer will have to be arbitrary and rely on force, and that's a libertarian no-no and economically inefficient as well.

Then again, "we all drive on the roads" so who am I to make a stink?

P-U!


To answer your question more broadly, of course it is okay to take steps towards freedom and to take steps "in the right direction" but don't assume that because you want to take a step in the right direction that it's the objectively right direction to take steps. If someone makes a good case for why voting for RP is actually not supporting freedom, you can't fall back on some emotional desire to do so and overlook the fact that you're just making another arbitrary distinction between "Republicrats and Democans", if you follow. In other words, you might decide FOR YOURSELF that voting for RP is the 'lesser of two evils' and the best strategy for freedom in an imperfect world, but that doesn't automatically excuse you from contending with situations and arguments against that belief.

In terms of your blog tag... I don't think you have to "become an anarchist." All you have to do is accept, in your own mind, that initiate coercion is unacceptable. Maybe you still prefer "voluntary govt" (an oxymoron, but still), maybe you don't dream or hope for a world without borders and social institutions like government, but if your principles are in order and you fully reject the use of violence to solve social problems then you've really taken the most important step in your own intellectual development, consistency and honesty and there is nothing more to worry yourself with. No one can ever accuse you of being a hypocrite because you won't be one-- you won't be making arbitrary excuses and exceptions with no logical, objective basis.
 

SNK (numero dos),

Minarchy is a tricky-dicky word in the first place and I am surprised more libertarians don't take issue with it from the definitional contradiction it presumes. The "min" implies a valuation... that minarchy is a system whereby the "minimal government necessary for X" is allowed. But the minimal government necessary for X is always 0 (less you're talking about having socialism, fighting a bloody war, giving welfare handouts, etc.)

Minarchists can never explain why it's okay for their minarchy to violate NAP and how their minarchy will calculate economically efficient outcomes compared to markets operating free of institutionalized coercion.

"Define minimum." :)
 

Dear Taylor,

An "honest opponent"? Oh geeze--you don't know her! She IS too far gone then, I think. I enjoy spending time with edifying conversations such as this one, but I should probably quit other discussions when the wheels are spinning.

Isn't it true that even if we were to live under anarchy we would be interacting in many social structures that we ourselves had no hand in developing? One person has only so much time and our lives are complex. What is so inherently different between this and a small government?

"Minimum" to me is half of what it presently is--ha ha--how is that? A moving target! I know--not fair :)
 

SNK,

You've missed the point, on anarchy and minarchy.

Anarchy isn't about no structure, not using structures, etc. It's what you have when there is no compulsory violence monopolist, aka govt. It's what happens when there is no individual (king/dictator) or group of individuals (govt such as oligarchy, aristocracy, democracy, republicanism, etc.) who are granted an exemption from the NAP, who can initiate coercion against others and not be considered criminals/anti-social for doing so.

So, the difference between anarchy (the private property society) and small govt is that the first society does not respect the use of violence to settle social issues, while the second does. One actually respects private property (especially self-ownership), the other just pretends to, and does a more convincing job than your average totalitarian outfit, but still doesn't REALLY respect private property because if it did it wouldn't come around to collect it, against its owners' will, to support itself.

As for minarchy, I say you missed the point because you say minarchy would be "half" of what govt is now. My point was-- how do you calculate that this is the minimum "necessary"? That is what "MINarchy" implies, the minimum government necessary to.... X. Where X is normally "have a functioning society without butchering axe-murderers ruling the roost". But then I ask you, "Why is it more just to have the butchering axe-murderers call themselves govt before they go about their butchering?" and then I also ask you, "How did you economically calculate this minimum so that you are sure that the cost of operating it is less than the benefits gained by doing so?" And of course, you will never, ever arrive at an honest calculation this way because after all, the Austrians have taught us that value is subjective.
 

Dear Taylor,

No to belabor this (as if!) but aren't there private social contracts where one party uses coercion/force? Not the theoretical ones--the actual ones....
 

SNK,

Why don't you give me a specific example of the type of contract you're talking about and then I can respond to it. That saves me a potential strawman accusation down the road when I don't guess correctly.
 

Good point. It was just a 'what if'. Perhaps I will think of something specific when I see you in another thread.

Thank you very much for this interesting discussion. You are awesome, Taylor!
 

SNK,

Okay, I figured you had something specific from the way you left off. The best I could guess as far as what you might've been thinking of would be a contract that states that someone can assess a fine/freeze your account or something if you back out of the deal. Like if you sign a lease on a car and stop paying, the lease company's contract says they will repo it which, if you resist, would entail the use of force to follow through. But in a situation like that, you have committed fraud by accepting their property on particular terms which you now renege on, yet are trying to maintain control over their property which they loaned to you under other conditions.

You can use force to stop the initiation of force (in this case, you defrauded them and initiated force)... you just can't initiate force yourself. Anarchists are not (necessarily) pacifists.

As for your remark about how awesome I am, I am sure you can tell from my spiffy, elitist attitude that I am well aware of that fact.

See you in another thread
 

:) !