Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

We can try to create a special place for libertarian discussion. I haven't a true objection to it. I am just doubtful that an experiment in Thought Policing will get us very far. The culture of this site is one of partisanship. I don't think a single new thread is apt to change this.

Indeed. In fact, it seems to me that 4Ts typically involve people coalescing into groups and engaging in battle -- at least ideologically if not (eventually) physically, as well. Our nation is quite divided at present and so is this forum -- and partisan battles like these are only to be expected.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Your exceptions are noted -- but I was thinking more about cultural expression and economic deregulation.

True, I don't see many people making arguments about maximizing corporate freedom these days.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Order out of chaos, if you will.

As for myself, I think that the dynamic "spontaneous order" that free people naturally create and maintain for themselves is far superior to any so-called order that's imposed upon them by some group of "expert" central planners.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Your exceptions are noted -- but I was thinking more about cultural expression and economic deregulation.

But -- as I observed, the state of the culture in the USA can hardly be described as anything but a nadir of the cultural expression conducive to freedom. The culture is more dependent on its 'leaders' down to a far more micro level than it was back in the Awakening (or so the histories and anecdotal accounts seem to have it).

Even the so-called (having experienced a qualitatively unregulated economy, I hesitate to take the narrative as more than just words) 'deregulation' was centered around legislation and the cultural devolution of increasingly more spheres into the realm of the business of politics. I can grant that the last two decades may have been a triumph of Republicanism, but there's not any more than minor, incidental overlap between that and liberty.

If what we've seen is somehow a high-water mark for liberty in America... then things are well and truly fucked.

The nice thing, though, is that only two of the last 4Ts in America ended with liberty losing out. And other places' 4Ts in their most recent cycle have also come out well, too. So I'd hesitate to call the story written quite yet.

The nice thing, though, is that only two of the last 4Ts in America ended with liberty losing out. And other places' 4Ts in their most recent cycle have also come out well, too. So I'd hesitate to call the story written quite yet.

I dunno, it would be hard for me to tell an ex-slave that "liberty lost." The problems of federal power that grew incidentally out of the conflict didn't really develop until the 2t/3t following the war.

1T National banking subsidies ->
2T Robber barons ->
2T Interlocking Directorates ->
2T Banking Cartel ->
3T Centralized & Legalized Cartel ->
3T War Machine ->
3T Introduction of Taxes on Labor ->

etc...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

If what we've seen is somehow a high-water mark for liberty in America... then things are well and truly fucked.

Yeah, that

Originally Posted by independent

I dunno, it would be hard for me to tell an ex-slave that "liberty lost."

That's not to say that there weren't some people who came out ahead. There always are, and often they are deserving (or at least weren't deserving of their position behind).

But the primary issue that was decided during that particular 4T was the same one that had been decided during the previous -- the right of a people to simply walk away from the entity claiming them as its subjects (or, in a more literal sense, to tell the entity to bug off -- though the difference is negligible). After all, there were slave states on both sides of the conflict (Maryland was with the USA from the outset; Kentucky tried to stay out of the fighting but ended up throwing its armies in with the USA shortly into the war; Missouri held a Constitutional Convention to decide which way to go and as a result elected to remain in the USA) which tends to belie the common myth that slavery was the key issue at stake.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Personally, I blame the lack of moderation on the forum for the level of discourse, not the people posting.

The people on this forum can choose to develop a consensus on what standards of discourse ought to be followed, and in fact, they are doing so right now. No moderator's heavy hand need be involved in this process, at least not so soon.

The whole point is to keep alive a climate where political discussion remains open, without having so many threads being derailed into ideological bickering. And yes, there's a widely-held impression
that it's the professed libertarians and anarchists who are mostly responsible for that.

I would view a separate thread for ideological discussion as a sort of escape valve: a place to "take it outside", as it were. Maybe if your last few posts are nothing more than a back-and-forth exchange arguing with one person, you should do the considerate thing and duke it out in private.

Or, as a 1980's PSA slogan went: "After three, pass the key".

-----

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Hey, I'm still waiting for a clear definition of blue values.

OK. 1/(Your Values)

Originally Posted by Justin '77

It seems to me that the more critical factor in what makes a person free is not how much he gets to vote in elections or how many public initiatives he is asked to weigh in on, or the content of the laws written over him. Rather freedom -- in the sense that matters; that is, as experienced in one's own life -- is a function primarily of the people immediately around you and the way they relate to each other and with the rest of society. And politics only becomes a major issue in infringing on freedom to the extent that those people around you (and you yourself) allow it to. The fixation on laws and leaders as the solution to perceived problems -- in the USA, as people here so well demonstrate, as the sole viable solution -- not only does nothing to solve problems, but in fact tends to increasingly restrict freedom as the sphere of politics occupies an increasingly key role in society.

Reminds me of this:
http://anarchism.net/forum/index.php?id=33230

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah, yeah, that's what people say. Problem is hardly any of them practice what they preach.

Personally, I blame the lack of moderation on the forum for the level of discourse, not the people posting.

Comedy goes on another thread.

Originally Posted by MJC

And yes, there's a widely-held impression that it's the professed libertarians and anarchists who are mostly responsible for that.

Really? It seems to me that any criticism of specific policies and actions results in ideological lectures from the (mostly prophet) anti-libertarians - thus putting libertarians on the defensive about ideology rather than the original policies being discussed.

Originally Posted by independent

I wouldn't say I've known any sort of liberty-loving society. The words may have been there, but little else.

The 3T I grew up in was one of preemptive war, torture, and an explosion of the domestic prison population. Police had been giving sweeping power and generous funding to fight a war on pot. Uttering something about the Bill of Rights would just earn you more hostility from authority.

So is the 3T the closest thing to freedom we're supposed to have? The horror!

It's the peak of the libertarian-right in any given saeculum. I assume some are more open than others, but have no evidence to show. So far, the economic libertarian types have dominated every one I've spent time reviewing, and their freedom is optimized when yours isn't. Why is that surprising?

Originally Posted by indie

... Then again, isn't it that libertarian left that "wins" most of the American crises? I'd say the New Deal was the only exception - and even that one fixed our prohibition problem.

I don't see 4Ts as being a libertarian time to party. Prohibition went away because it was opposed by the communal whole. The GIs hated the practice. That may happen again. This time, it will be weed, and maybe drugs in general.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

It's the peak of the libertarian-right in any given saeculum. I assume some are more open than others, but have no evidence to show. So far, the economic libertarian types have dominated every one I've spent time reviewing, and their freedom is optimized when yours isn't. Why is that surprising?

What surprises me is gullibility! The sort of economic libertarians you're talking about (probably CATO and their billions of endowment funded by politically connected uber-corps?) remind me of a variation on the theme Marx describes in feudal socialism: That is, when the old aristocracy uses the language of popular ideology for their own ends. (The alms bag in front of the feudal coat of arms)

I don't see 4Ts as being a libertarian time to party. Prohibition went away because it was opposed by the communal whole. The GIs hated the practice. That may happen again. This time, it will be weed, and maybe drugs in general.

So the Bill of Rights and Republicanism was... an aberration? Abolition is... a fluke? Tea parties, Easter Rebellions, barricades and the general destruction of inherited authority..? Heck, we're coming up on the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta Libertatum!

Is there a "common good" greater than a liberty that protects the weak and strong alike? Regardless of economic questions, is the poorest man free to control his own life? How often do those on the left use the freedom of the poorest man in their economic arguments?

I just don't see the liberty paradigm as a right left thing, the modern right is an obsession with corporatism and the corporation is an invention of monarchs exchanging wealth & social status for services rendered. The whole idea of limited liability seems to me as an offshoot of the sovereign's immunity and the fact that a charter was legally-binding proof that the corporation was working for the sovereign's will and enjoyed a share in that immunity.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Brian simply has pointed out where anarchism fails. Justin and I had this same discussion at least once. Mob action is arbitrary, random, and tends to be reactionary and emotional. Mobs often string up innocent people. A system of laws allows more objective parties to look at the situation and then pass judgment away from the heat of the moment.

Well clearly no one wants a mob. But anarchism doesn't appear to be any more conducive to mob action than democracy; both would necessarily have institutions designed to deal with legal judgment.

Yeah, anarchy is specifically about being "without leaders"

A jury of one's peers may exercise a form of public authority without becoming a protected "leader" class themselves

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I doubt it was his intended goal, but that seems to be part of the intent. Isolate something he doesn't like into a contained area?

I don't mind discussion of libertarianism and anarchism on these forums. True, I think most charges are highly misguided, but discussion and education are good nonetheless. There have been several complaints about some exchanges (see the 'Swine Flu' thread) moving away from the topic-at-hand and focusing on libertarianism/anarchism, so I figured it might be useful to have a thread set up where people could direct their responses to a more appropriate topic.

Originally Posted by independent

Yeah, anarchy is specifically about being "without leaders"

A jury of one's peers may exercise a form of public authority without becoming a protected "leader" class themselves

I think the term 'rulers' offers a more accurate connotation.

Probably, leadership is too broad a concept. It can be hard to draw a line between leaders and rulers in a practical sense, though.. Many people do like to follow

Originally Posted by Justin '77

That's not to say that there weren't some people who came out ahead. There always are, and often they are deserving (or at least weren't deserving of their position behind).

But the primary issue that was decided during that particular 4T was the same one that had been decided during the previous -- the right of a people to simply walk away from the entity claiming them as its subjects (or, in a more literal sense, to tell the entity to bug off -- though the difference is negligible). After all, there were slave states on both sides of the conflict (Maryland was with the USA from the outset; Kentucky tried to stay out of the fighting but ended up throwing its armies in with the USA shortly into the war; Missouri held a Constitutional Convention to decide which way to go and as a result elected to remain in the USA) which tends to belie the common myth that slavery was the key issue at stake.

You forgot about Delaware. But then of course, most people do. Also don't forget that Western Virginia became West Virginia.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Well clearly no one wants a mob. But anarchism doesn't appear to be any more conducive to mob action than democracy; both would necessarily have institutions designed to deal with legal judgment.

Wrong on that last count. Institutions are no more than tools to achieve a certain ends. As such, they can not (okay, should not, at least if our standard is coming as close as possible to the immortality of successors to our line (be it biological, social, memetic, what have you (specifics here are absolutely unimportant to the point)))* be ends unto themselves. What a society has, rather, is norms. Those, too, change as circumstances will, but within a particular context they provide the fundament on which understanding can be based and on which actions and reactions can be taken in accord with that understanding.


*Awesome. I've never done double nested parentheticals before.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Wrong on that last count. Institutions are no more than tools to achieve a certain ends. As such, they can not (okay, should not, at least if our standard is coming as close as possible to the immortality of successors to our line (be it biological, social, memetic, what have you -- specifics here are absolutely unimportant to the point)))* be ends unto themselves. What a society has, rather, is norms. Those, too, change as circumstances will, but within a particular context they provide the fundament on which understanding can be based and on which actions and reactions can be taken in accord with that understanding.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, but I'll take a stab anyway. The point of a legal institution (in anarchy, presumably), would be to ensure just norms. There is no guarantee that a society is going to produce a set of norms that are conducive to our political ends (be they eudaimonia or liberty, or whatever.); spontaneous order is an important theory in the libertarian canon, but I don't think it's enough for achieving a beautifully-functioning society.* Now it may be argued that cultivating a society that doesn't tolerate rape, murder, bigotry, etc., and produces a healthy society, is a purely educational matter, and the people will have to take it among themselves to ensure this.

Fine; that will certainly be the driving force. But I see nothing wrong with deliberating over which laws will best serve the community, provided they are based on consensual agreement and voluntary association, i.e. a libertarian legal code designed to protect peoples' rights. Disputes are going to arise -- this is inevitable -- and some orderly pre-determined mechanism will undoubtedly assist in resolution. I think some explicitness in the matter (which would thus resemble an institution) is not at all inconsistent with anarchism.

Does this address what you're trying to say?

*One may contend, not incorrectly IMO, that the State itself is a product of spontaneous order.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Trying to respond on the appropriate thread ...



I do understand what you're saying, and it's the same principle currently used to deny animals "rights." Once the difference between person and non-person is established, the liberal/libertarian position is to respect the needs/wants of the person, while tromping all over those of the non-person.

"Epic fail" my ass.

I know there has been a couple of times that I wished the deer had insurance.

Stop calling Obama a socialist

-excerpt-

The political reality is that calling Obama a socialist sets one up as a Strangelovian buffoon psychologically mired in outdated Cold War paranoia. It doesn’t politically suit the rhetorical needs of those who have an intelligent critique of the status quo that demands serious attention. Furthermore, it ignores the statist side of “capitalism” as it has actually existed as well as the long neglected anti-statist tradition within socialism that radical free market libertarians rightfully belong to...

As anarchists, revolution is a necessarily very different business for us than it is for statists like minarchists and Bolsheviks. We don’t want to seize state power, but rather make the populace ungovernable by anybody — perhaps especially not by us! We have to delegitimize the state, building a revolutionary class consciousness in order to build the will to defend against the state. We have to offer our ideas for how society can regulate itself as an alternative to violence-based government. We have to get behind building disobedience and alternative, quasi-insurrectionary civil society. It means “coming out of the closet” and being anarchists.

That, and that alone, is how we can pose a radical challenge to the status quo.

We come then to a fourth point of terminology and strategy: we are socialists! More specifically, we are both free market libertarians and libertarian socialists — and there is no fundamental conflict between the two in their most radical and principled forms. There are differences over theory that could be better addressed if free market libertarians were to shed reformist cultural baggage (e.g. internalization of conservative narratives that flatter the oppressor state) that makes us reluctant to apply our own theory more stringently, such as the understanding that (particularly in the context of Konkin’s agorist theory of revolution) we support the revolutionary redistribution of property!


It’s relatively non-controversial to recognize that classical liberalism was the original left. It’s also widely recognized among libertarians that Rothbard placed free market libertarianism on the far left opposite statist conservatism with Marxism in the confused middle. And that Konkin expanded on that point that we are the real left.


To drive the point that we are the real left home, though, we must reclaim our socialist heritage. Great socialist thinkers like Warren, Proudhon and Tucker all examined “the social question” of what was wrong with classical liberalism. They proposed continuing classical liberal theory to its most consistent form — the abolition of the state and the end of monopoly exploitation through complete laissez faire and resulting unbridled competition. Forget the labor theory of value. Forget everything else we’ve moved past in terms of refining economic theory. By the standards of the great libertarian socialists, we ARE libertarian socialists wanting to end the statist privilege of subsidies and monopoly for all time and achieve justice in property. Marx, by comparison, was the first Cato-ite — offering a ludicrously statist “transition program” to anarchy.

(more at the link)

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

I know there has been a couple of times that I wished the deer had insurance.

My Aunt would heartily agree with you.

~Chas'88

A little libertarian prog rock to liven the mood. Very appropriate in our envious and eco-obsessed times:

Rush - The Trees

Dramatizing the socialist impulse.

"...the trees are all kept equal, by hatchet, axe and saw..."

Rush - Red Barchetta

A futuristic world where sports cars have been banned.

"...tires spitting gravel, I commit my weekly crime..."

Enjoy.