# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  5 Reasons to Abandon Politics

## IDefendThePlatform

Saw this on reddit. 




> If youve been reading my blog for any length of time you know that Ive moved away from the political means to attain my goals. Instead of begging politicians and destroying my soul by working within the political machinery Ive decided to rely on civil disobedience and agorism. Oftentimes people still working within the political machinery ask why I cant participate in politics and perform acts of civil disobedience and participate in agorism. Well, here are five good reasons:
> It eats up a horrifying amount of time and energyIts an addictionIt doesnt change anythingIn the end, its about violencePolitics is a relic of a barbaric past
> Details about each reason is provided at the link but suffice it to say each reason is an inescapable reality of participating in politics. If I still participated in politics I wouldnt have time to perform acts of civil disobedience or participate in agorism. When I did involve myself in the political system I was constantly bombarded with demands to phone bank, drop literature, march in parades, attend meetings, donate money to candidates, and other activities I refused to do. Every campaign wanted me time and money and, in the end, they failed to change anything. Some of the candidates won, some of them lost, but the country is still a $#@! hole.
> I dont believe civil disobedience and agorism are strategies guaranteed to win but they are fun to do and radically different, which is necessary because their alternative, politics, has failed to achieve anything other than tyranny since its inception. When on strategy has failed miserably the need to do something radically different arises.


More at the link:
http://www.freemansperspective.com/s...bout-politics/

----------


## Scrapmo

Those can be true if politics is approached with tunnel vision and a gang mentality, which is what most people do. You also have to have some balance in your life. Politics can't be all that you read, do, and think about or it will drive you insane, angry and depressed. Have some hobbies, learn a skill, spend time with friends and family, read fiction. If you find yourself in a funk, quit reading, posting and talking about politics for a week. Take yourself out of the environment for a little while. You will feel much better. I myself have to do that a few times a year.

A philosophical, historical or theoretical  approach to politics can really help keep your mind sharp. It is also a great why to practice debate, logic and rhetoric. Since politics seems to be a breeding ground for the illogical it is good hunting ground to spot logical fallacies, which also helps focus your own reasoning abilities. 
Since engaging in politics, I am more principled, my mind is sharper and I am thinking more clearly then I ever had before. 

But everyone needs a break sometimes, even with a positive approach, because it can exhaust you.

----------


## PierzStyx

Abandoning politics is like abandoning economics. You can say you do it, but in the end all you do is make yourself an ignorant slave. But then ignorance is bliss, I suppose.

----------


## cajuncocoa

Activism > politics

----------


## Matt Collins

Politics is human nature, you can't escape it.

----------


## muzzled dogg

> Politics is human nature, you can't escape it.


that's what they used to say about slavery

----------


## Matt Collins

> that's what they used to say about slavery


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitor

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Abandoning politics is like abandoning economics. You can say you do it, but in the end all you do is make yourself an ignorant slave. But then ignorance is bliss, I suppose.


Incorrect. Every action you take in life is economic. The same cannot be said of politics. Not every action in life is an attempt to gain power over other people.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Activism > politics


Activism= politics.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Incorrect. Every action you take in life is economic. The same cannot be said of politics. Not every action in life is an attempt to gain power over other people.


Disagree. Every action is political. Either you are defending your freedom or submitting to someone trying to control you. Either way, its politics.

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> Activism= politics.


Politics = tacit consent to the system http://c4ss.org/content/4075
Activism like civil disobedience and agorism = withdrawing consent from an illegitimate system. More powerful.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Incorrect. Every action you take in life is economic. The same cannot be said of politics. Not every action in life is an attempt to gain power over other people.


Politics is the adjudication of power, it's how society decides who gets power and who doesn't. Every time you interact with other human beings there is politics involved in one form or another. In your school, at your church, in your club, in your family, with your significant other, etc. Politics is human nature and is inescapable. 


Also the other thing is that other people have power over you through the political system and if you don't have at least a piece of that power then you're going to get run over, taken advantage of, shafted, on the short end of the stick, etc.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Politics = tacit consent to the system http://c4ss.org/content/4075
> Activism like civil disobedience and agorism = withdrawing consent from an illegitimate system. More powerful.


That doesn't work because "the system" has more guns than you do. Doesn't make it right, but there really is no withdrawing from "the system", that concept is a farce.

----------


## talkingpointes

+1776 Ron Paul will roll in his grave if this movement ends with political means. People looking to be in politics only do so 99% of the time for power and money. Rand is no exception and our movement has a huge target on our back. 

Personally I think the entire system is completely rigged and by joining the system you are basically allowing everything it does and approving of it. 

00' rigged 04' rigged 08' rigged 12' rigged -- Why is 2016 any different. 

It's like the Einstein insanity quote. 


Let's take the easy route out and vote for Rons son who is NOTHING like him AT ALL. Then we can watch him for the next 3 years raise money for the establishment and help them regain integrity. Fantastic good thing I donated all that money and time. Yeah, $#@! that - I will never donate to Rand again.

----------


## Matt Collins

> +1776 Ron Paul will roll in his grave if this movement ends with political means.


This makes no sense. The movement has always been political because that is the nature of things. Ron was a politician who was running for office and was trying to change the political environment through his campaigns.





> People looking to be in politics only do so 99% of the time for power and money.


The only reason to go into business is to make money. The only reason to go into politics is to gain power.

Is there anything wrong with making money? No. Is there anything wrong with gaining power? No.  

If you acquire your money unfairly, or if you spend it to do bad things then that is obviously not good. Same with power. If it is ill-gotten, or if you use it to hurt others, then that obviously is bad.


Money itself is not bad. Power itself is not bad. Both are necessary if you want to survive and not be dependent upon others.






> Personally I think the entire system is completely rigged and by joining the system you are basically allowing everything it does and approving of it.


There is no "joining" or "leaving" the system. 

You are subject to laws and when the government decides to enforce those laws they will likely win because they have more guns and more resources than you do. This is why politics is important because you can stop or change these laws if you know what pressure points to put on the elected officials. I've seen this done firsthand, and I've done it myself.






> Let's take the easy route out and vote for Rons son who is NOTHING like him AT ALL.


This has been dispelled hundreds of times already, why do you keep repeating this falsity?

Ron and Rand are exactly alike, except for their approach to moving us towards a more liberty position.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

It's human nature, huh?  That's just an attempt to keep people from thinking outside of the box.

I don't want to do things for money.  I could care less for money except for the purpose of convenient exchange and long-term-store of my goods and labor.  How the hell can you "make" money (I know, the fed does and that's what devalues my store of my labor and goods)?

Power?  Power over others?  Why would I want that?  I have trouble enough wielding the power that I have over myself, and the responsibility I have for my family.

Take a look at the root of the problems.  Some persons want to extort, kill, rape and pillage.  So, now I have to "do something" that I don't want to.  I have to defend myself yes, but now I am told to give power to someone else for this reason.  Then, these people that are given the power want more of it, because they are like the ones that were supposed to be subdued but in fact now find a better way to commit extortion, kill rape and pillage by getting others in their power structure to do it for them.

Freedom?

----------


## Matt Collins

> I don't want to do things for money.  I could care less for money except for the purpose of convenient exchange and long-term-store of my goods and labor.  How the hell can you "make" money (I know, the fed does and that's what devalues my store of my labor and goods)?


When exchanges are made, each party comes away with more value than when they started. Otherwise an exchange doesn't happen. Everyone wants MORE value, not less value. 






> Power?  Power over others?  Why would I want that?  I have trouble enough wielding the power that I have over myself, and the responsibility I have for my family.


Because if you don't have power over yourself, someone else does. Not to mention, you can use power for good things, just like you can use money for good things.  If your local government is about to raise your taxes for example, the only way for you to stop it is to exercise your political power. If you don't have any power, then you can't stop it and you'll end up getting taxed more.

Again money isn't bad. And neither is power. Both exist as human nature. But how you get power and money, and what you do with it is important.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> When exchanges are made, each party comes away with more value than when they started. Otherwise an exchange doesn't happen. Everyone wants MORE value, not less value.


Bull$#@!.  I don't want more value, I want equitable exchange to gain those things that I don't or cannot create for myself.  I don't see value created by exchange, I'll give you 10 dimes for 4 quarters, or a cow for a years worth of vegetables.  I understand that there are sometimes distances and other labor involved in some types of goods, such as those coming from a distant land where some thing is grown that cannot be grown where I am.




> Because if you don't have power over yourself, someone else does. Not to mention, you can use power for good things, just like you can use money for good things.  If your local government is about to raise your taxes for example, the only way for you to stop it is to exercise your political power. If you don't have any power, then you can't stop it and you'll end up getting taxed more.
> 
> Again money isn't bad. And neither is power. Both exist as human nature. But how you get power and money, and what you do with it is important.


I said I should have power over myself and mine. 

Because there are $#@!s in the world, I and others have to pay and pay.  Pay for protection, pay for insurance, pay, pay...and what do we get for it?  Bust into my home for a plant and kill me?  Yeah, chances are that that won't happen, but it does happen to someone, an individual a person a human being a bother, son, daughter, grandfather.  I don't care for statistics, "only 1 out of 100k people are killed by cops"...bull$#@!.  *Someone* died at the hands of an out of $#@!ing control system.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

You know what?

If it's all about human nature being so $#@!ed up and dealing with lesser of evils, why not just return back to letting nature take care of it all?  Eh?  You get a disease, you might well die, instead of you being alive but $#@!-type doctors killing or causing the suffering of innocent people for money.

All we are doing is changing WHO suffers and dies, away from natural and/or accidental causes to human error and greed causes.  We fight to save a life here, but kill another over there (there being across the street or continent).  

Mankind is incapable of properly planning and controlling anything that is beyond his own survival and mutual benefit with his peers.  And that is a shame, because we are capable of so much, but our "human nature" gets in the way?  I don't buy it.  It is not in my nature to control or hate or steal.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I don't see value created by exchange,


Then you fail in your understanding of economics.






> I said I should have power over myself and mine.


I agree, but unfortunately that is not the way humanity works, at least not presently (and it isn't going to change any time soon).

So you have to work to gain power for yourself however you can, which means stopping the elected officials from running over you. That means having power to get them unelected or cause them pain. If you're not feared, then you're not respected.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Then you fail in your understanding of economics.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, but unfortunately that is not the way humanity works, at least not presently (and it isn't going to change any time soon).
> 
> So you have to work to gain power for yourself however you can, which means stopping the elected officials from running over you. That means having power to get them unelected or cause them pain. If you're not feared, then you're not respected.


Matt, value is created (not out of thin air), exchange is mutual, money is a medium.

So, what you're saying is that because there are $#@!s in the world and only the system (which employs lots of $#@!s) can kill or imprison them (that I'm to pay for) and because others have bigger guns to force me to do it, then I need to spend my time, money (more of it) and efforts to watch my back, play games, and then any remaining time, money or effort can be spent taking care of my immediate needs and those of my family. <sarc>Sounds FUN</sarc>

Oh, and what's that system for?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Good piece.  Just remember that there will always be people like Collins who live in denial.  Take care of yourself and loved ones.  The political junkies will destroy themselves and as many other as possible-just as they always have.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Matt, value is created (not out of thin air), exchange is mutual, money is a medium.


You only make an exchange if you get something more than what you give. What you are getting has to be worth more than what you are giving, otherwise you wouldn't participate in the exchange. It's called inertia. 







> So, what you're saying is that because there are $#@!s in the world and only the system (which employs lots of $#@!s) can kill or imprison them (that I'm to pay for) and because others have bigger guns to force me to do it, then I need to spend my time, money (more of it) and efforts to watch my back, play games, and then any remaining time, money or effort can be spent taking care of my immediate needs and those of my family.


Taking care of your family IS being involved in politics. Your kids are saddled with debt because the government overspent. Your kids are going to suffer because you won't have as much money because the government continues to steal it. You can stop a lot of this stuff, but you have to have acquire the power to do it.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Good piece.  Just remember that there will always be people like Collins who live in denial.


I'm not in denial about anything, people who think politics is meaningless and bury their heads in the sands are the ones who get their butts kicked. Politics is human nature, it is inseparable from humanity. The sooner that people who love liberty understand that and learn how to use it to their advantage, instead of getting taken advantage of, the quicker we can move to a more liberty-based society.

----------


## jmdrake

> Abandoning politics is like abandoning economics. You can say you do it, but in the end all you do is make yourself an ignorant slave. But then ignorance is bliss, I suppose.





> Activism > politics





> Activism= politics.


Really?  Activism = politics?  Okay.  How about a concrete example ripped from recent headlines?  Most Americans are upset about NSA spying.  Many of us have called and written our congressmen.  My own congressman, Jim Cooper, wrote back with the standard "I understand your concerns...we'll get to the bottom of this while striving to maintain a program that claims it has stopped a bunch of terrorist attacks."  Translation?  I'm not going to do jack about this except try to con you into believing I care both about your privacy and about your security.

So.....what can we do about this other than politics?  Well We could all quit pretending that the government gives a damn about our privacy and start taking matters into our own hands by encrypting all of our communications!  Sorry for shouting, but geeze, the answer to the NSA scandal is so freaking obvious and it is *NOT POLITICS!*  You are *never* going to convince the requisite number of Americans that the NSA isn't doing any good in fighting terrorism for there to be the type of change that is needed.  But you *might* convince enough Americans, based on testimony of NSA whistleblowers that fellow agents were listening to phone sex between servicemen and their wives, that maybe, just maybe the might want to encrypt their text, emails and phone conversations.  Doing that would bring the NSA system to its knees.  Someone might say "Well the NSA can decrypt anything."  That's not been proven...*but so what*?  I *want* the NSA wasting computer cycles decrypting billions of emails, texts and phone calls only to find that the vast majority of the time all they're getting are recipes, stupid jokes, spam, MLM offers etc.  But that's not going to happen as long as people concentrate on the "political solution" to the problem that's not ever going to happen.

Oh yeah.  It gets worse.  Look at how easily we inadvertently spy on each other?  Facebook now has this "feature" where it shows where you are on a given date.  How does it do that?  Well one of your dumbass "friends" just has to take a picture of you, upload it to Facebook and then "tag" you in it.  I've been "tagged" as being at an "End The Fed" rally for example.  So somebody who thinks the government is involved in a conspiracy to manipulate the financial markets for the benefit of a few has "tagged" me as being at a rally.  Great!  The government no longer needs informants.  We're so stupid we inform on our own dumb selves.  And all the time we're "politicking."

If you haven't at least started looking into how to send and receive encrypted information, if you are still "tagging" people on Farcebook, if you haven't taken even the smallest step to fight back against the NSA *legally and peacefully* through encryption and educating others about it....why are you bothering with "politics?"

/rant

----------


## amy31416

> I'm not in denial about anything, people who think politics is meaningless and bury their heads in the sands are the ones who get their butts kicked. Politics is human nature, it is inseparable from humanity. The sooner that people who love liberty understand that and learn how to use it to their advantage, instead of getting taken advantage of, the quicker we can move to a more liberty-based society.


And the more people like you keep opening your yap, the more disillusioned people become with even the "liberty" political movement. More of the same old BS.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

Opting out only allows your inferiors to rule over you.  Throughout human history and earlier hominid history there has always been a hierarchical social structure and power stems from that.  Politics is just a more sophisticated version of becoming tribal leader.  Even the anarchist seeks to become tribal leaders, whether they realize it or not, by motivating others to follow their ideology; often times coming across rather militant in the process.  Why go to the trouble of becoming a Youtube personality, as most of the prominent anarchists have done in recent years, if shifting society toward your direction isn't your goal?  It's all vanity and the lust for power in another amalgamation.  It's indicative of the human condition.

----------


## Matthew5

Politics is a natural human interaction, people are always trying to persuade people to do things. Whether it be to get donations, increase social status, create a better business deal, politics do exist. Yet these are peaceful, personal interactions; the article is speaking of the political game of governing in America. This is a game that should be shunned and focus should be shifted on how to peacefully coexist without the use of force, aggression, or violence (which is the true power of the state and the end result of all your politicking). It's time to evolve in this regard.

Seeing some statists fallacies here. Example: If men are evil, and therefore I need protection from that evil, why  would I consolidate all power and money into a group of the same men?

----------


## jmdrake

> Opting out only allows your inferiors to rule over you.  Throughout human history and earlier hominid history there has always been a hierarchical social structure and power stems from that.  Politics is just a more sophisticated version of becoming tribal leader.  Even the anarchist seeks to become tribal leaders, whether they realize it or not, by motivating others to follow their ideology; often times coming across rather militant in the process.  Why go to the trouble of becoming a Youtube personality, as most of the prominent anarchists have done in recent years, if shifting society toward your direction isn't your goal?  It's all vanity and the lust for power in another amalgamation.  It's indicative of the human condition.


Sure.  Be political and all.  The problem is when you put so much energy into politics, thinking that you're actually accomplishing something, that you don't put energy into things that might actually throw a wrench in the NWO machine.

----------


## Matthew5

> Opting out only allows your inferiors to rule over you.  Throughout human history and earlier hominid history there has always been a hierarchical social structure and power stems from that.  Politics is just a more sophisticated version of becoming tribal leader.  Even the anarchist seeks to become tribal leaders, whether they realize it or not, by motivating others to follow their ideology; often times coming across rather militant in the process.  Why go to the trouble of becoming a Youtube personality, as most of the prominent anarchists have done in recent years, if shifting society toward your direction isn't your goal?  It's all vanity and the lust for power in another amalgamation.  It's indicative of the human condition.


Tribalism is human nature. We ban together for survival, mutual aide, common goals, fellowship, and a myriad of other reasons. Politicking as a human interaction will never cease. As a means to control the lives of others through a mechanism known as government, that might be a different story...

----------


## LibertyEagle

> +1776 Ron Paul will roll in his grave if this movement ends with political means. People looking to be in politics only do so 99% of the time for power and money. Rand is no exception and our movement has a huge target on our back. 
> 
> Personally I think the entire system is completely rigged and by joining the system you are basically allowing everything it does and approving of it. 
> 
> 00' rigged 04' rigged 08' rigged 12' rigged -- Why is 2016 any different. 
> 
> It's like the Einstein insanity quote.


Don't even, TP.

“I have many friends in the libertarian movement who look down on those of us who get involved in political activity,”  he acknowledged, but “eventually, if you want to bring about changes … what you have to do is participate in political action.” -- Ron Paul
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/sep/22/00019/






> Let's take the easy route out and vote for Rons son who is NOTHING like him AT ALL. Then we can watch him for the next 3 years raise money for the establishment and help them regain integrity. Fantastic good thing I donated all that money and time. Yeah, $#@! that - I will never donate to Rand again.


So says you.  Ron Paul, however, says he and his son agree on 99% of the issues.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Sure.  Be political and all.  The problem is when you put so much energy into politics, thinking that you're actually accomplishing something, that you don't put energy into things that might actually throw a wrench in the NWO machine.


Good point.  We need to be chiseling from multiple directions.

----------


## Czolgosz

Regarding freedom: diplomacy first, then violence.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'm not in denial about anything, people who think politics is meaningless and bury their heads in the sands are the ones who get their butts kicked. Politics is human nature, it is inseparable from humanity. The sooner that people who love liberty understand that and learn how to use it to their advantage, instead of getting taken advantage of, the quicker we can move to a more liberty-based society.


State-oriented politics =/= politics generally.  In any social order (like a business), there will be politics.  Except in those instances, the goal is not for the "power-holders" of the system to lord over and exploit the other members of the system.  

Electoral politics is not reality, Collins.  It is an illusion that some people like to lie to ourselves about for comfort and to assuage cognitive dissonance.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Good point.  We need to be chiseling from multiple directions.


This^^

----------


## talkingpointes

> Good point.  We need to be chiseling from multiple directions.


No, we don't. We need to wait for this system to collapse. It might be a few more years but that's it. Rand is tied to the Neo-con brand in the publics eyes -- so it's too $#@!ing late to have him as a populist sorry. You cannot beat the media unless you want to actually fight them with weapons.

This movement took the "easy" way out and now were going to pay dearly. 

Our so called friend Rand is not a libertarian, just remember that. So when he votes for just a little less war don't complain, don't bitch.

----------


## angelatc

> that's what they used to say about slavery


Apparently they were right.  Only now we get to vote on who gets to run the plantation. Whee.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> No, we don't. We need to wait for this system to collapse. It might be a few more years but that's it. Rand is tied to the Neo-con brand in the publics eyes -- so it's too $#@!ing late to have him as a populist sorry. You cannot beat the media unless you want to actually fight them with weapons.


And then what, TP?  The globalists aren't going to just sit there and let us rebuild from the ashes.  If they would, I might agree with you, but that is not reality.  We will be wholesale ushered into full-on world government.

And the only people I have seen referring to Rand as a neocon are on "libertarian" sites.  Go figure.  




> This movement took the "easy" way out and now were going to pay dearly.


How so?




> Our so called friend Rand is not a libertarian, just remember that. So when he votes for just a little less war don't complain, don't bitch.


Well, I don't refer to myself as a libertarian, either.  Tell me, did you take Geometry in school?  Do you recall that the way to get where you are trying to go is not always the direct path?  Rand is doing what his father tried to do, but in a different way.  A way that has a much better chance of working with those people that Rand is targeting.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Rand is tied to the Neo-con brand in the publics eyes


Yeah, sure, whatever. I guess that's why the story of Liz Cheney's primary challenge for the Senate in Wyoming is being so widely interpreted in terms of neo-conservatism *VS.* explicitly "Rand Paulian" anti-establishmentarianism. (It must be a nefarious plot to trick people into thinking that Rand Paul is not really a neo-con cat's pawl!)

"Rand is tied to the Neo-con brand," my ass ...




> Our so called friend Rand is not a libertarian, just remember that. So when he votes for just a little less war don't complain, don't bitch.


Perhaps you prefer to behave like the "anti-war" Obamabots do by only expressing  approval for anti-war steps when someone you avidly support is taking  them - but not me. Being that I am anti-war in principle (rather than in convenience), when Rand (or anyone else) votes for "less war" (whether "just a little" or a whole lot), I will not only NOT "complain" or "bitch" - I will vigorously applaud and loudly cheer.

And I agree 100% with Jeffrey Tucker:



> To all people who are sending me evidence of Rand Paul’s various heresies, you can save your bandwidth. I’m not interested in saint making or witch burning. I’m interested in only one thing: progressive reductions of the role of all government power in people’s lives all the way to zero if possible. Whatever brings that about, in whatever sector it happens, and whether it happens slowly by steps or all in one fell swoop, I’m for it. I really don’t care who or what makes a contribution to this end or how it comes about, so long as it is ethical and it actually achieves the aim of human liberation, the mother of all progress, order, and higher civilization.

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> That doesn't work because "the system" has more guns than you do. Doesn't make it right, but there really is no withdrawing from "the system", that concept is a farce.


Actually it's already working right now. People are successfully evading taxes on lots of stuff, doing "illegal" drugs, trading in gold and silver, and generally preparing for the eventual downfall of violence-backed governance. 

The real "farce" is wasting your time and resources trying to convince people to vote for a little more freedom here or there. The overwhelming pattern of violence-backed democracy/republics is clear: they grow. How will they eventually be undone? By a vote? Unlikely.  


And more to the point of the article, people who get aggravated watching the politicians spew their bs and who don't like the idea of condoning violence are definitely well served to back away and find other uses for their free time.

----------


## familydog

> Politics is human nature, you can't escape it.


I must have missed the indigenous tribes who actively practice politics. I also missed the history lesson where politics plays an important role in hunter/gather societies. 

"Human nature" is not static. "Human nature" is a learned behavior. Politics is the domination of the weak and crippled by psychopaths with parental abandonment issues.

----------


## TheGrinch

Yipee, more all or nothing folks pissing on those who have different ideas on how try to bring about change.

Our efforts, whether they be politics or activism are making an influence, are working and our numbers are growing, so I'm gonna be happy with that and not try to tell people what to do. To each his own path. It's all having a positive change as more and more wake up.

----------


## Matt Collins

> State-oriented politics =/= politics generally.


 Of course it does. Politics is politics regardless if it's your family, your church, your school, your club, your government, your job, etc. That's my point.






> Electoral politics is not reality, Collins.


Maybe, but the people who get elected make the rules, and then have it enforced at the point of a gun.

----------


## Matt Collins

> We need to wait for this system to collapse.


  yeah that sounds like a plan.

Sorry, I'm going to put everything I can into making the world a better place. All that is needed for tyranny to triumph is for good people to do nothing.





> Our so called friend Rand is not a libertarian, just remember that.


LOLz... how well do you know him? How many conversations have you had with him? How many times have you sat down to lunch with him? Know his family, wife and kids? Ever been in his house?   I can say yes to all of the above, and I assure you ideologically, he's just like Ron.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I must have missed the indigenous tribes who actively practice politics.


Politics is defined as the adjudication of power. Power is defined as getting other people to do what you want them to do.

Now are you telling me the chief of the tribe had no power?   

Of course, in many cases the chief of the tribe had ultimate and full power over those in his tribe. How did he get that, how did he maintain that? Through the process of politics. 

yes it existed back then, it existed always, it's part of humanity, we should learn how to use it to our advantage instead of letting the statists win. 






> "Human nature" is a learned behavior.


No, even a 2 year old understands "mine". Since recorded history humans have sought to dominate other humans, have sought to enrich themselves, have sought pleasure, etc. It IS human nature.

----------


## Matt Collins

> the article is speaking of the political game of governing in America. This is a game that should be shunned and focus should be shifted on how to peacefully coexist without the use of force, aggression, or violence (which is the true power of the state and the end result of all your politicking). It's time to evolve in this regard.


I would agree, but those who study history know that isn't likely any time soon. Gold has always been considered money (or something of value) as far as recorded human history knows, and humans have always sought more of it. Politics is the same way, it's always been around, and it isn't changing any time soon.

I don't live in utopia, I live in the real world where decisions that affect peoples' lives are made by those who get elected.

----------


## Matt Collins

> The real "farce" is wasting your time and resources trying to convince people to vote for a little more freedom here or there.


That's not how it's done... this is how it's done:

----------


## familydog

> No, even a 2 year old understands "mine". Since recorded history humans have sought to dominate other humans, have sought to enrich themselves, have sought pleasure, etc. It IS human nature.


Yes, a two year old with parental abandonment issues. Suggesting that power and dominance are "human nature" is no different than suggesting that speaking English is "human nature."

----------


## Matt Collins

> Suggesting that power and dominance are "human nature" is no different than suggesting that speaking English is "human nature."


Can you show me a society that has never had a dominant leader?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Can you show me a society that has never had a dominant leader?


Oversight of the ignorant does not equate to dominance, Matt. That's just playing the game is all that is. You know? Like "Well....this is how we did it (whatever "it" is at the time)  before and nobody said anything so then by default there is no arguing against the further compounding of the skullduggery now".

Matt, change in the truest sense of the term will not come from politics in whole. Not this time around. You can continue to think or imply that and I know that you're trying to do good things (generally speaking) but political science is absolutely not the science of change. These are interesting times. Very delicate times.

----------


## familydog

> Can you show me a society that has never had a dominant leader?


This is not an argument. I could come back and say, show me a dominant leader that wasn't abused as a child. 

Slave owners argued that owning slaves is part of "human nature." 
"Show me a society that didn't own slaves! Even the great democracy of ancient Greece had slaves," they said. 
We teach our children that owning slaves is wrong. When we start teaching our children that dominance of any kind is wrong, politics will be an embarrassing past mistake.

----------


## Matthew5

> Yipee, more all or nothing folks pissing on those who have different ideas on how try to bring about change.
> 
> Our efforts, whether they be politics or activism are making an influence, are working and our numbers are growing, so I'm gonna be happy with that and not try to tell people what to do. To each his own path. It's all having a positive change as more and more wake up.


But you have to look at it from the perspective of the all or nothing camps.

On the political/statist side, they believe that their cause needs to involve everyone. Participation is mandatory if they are going to bring about the change they politic for, as in voting. Also, some claim that government affects all, whether they accept that fact or not, so therefore all should be involved in changing the process.

On the agro/anarchist side, they believe that all political games and government can be boiled down into one thing, violence/force. And any participation in that system makes you a participant in that violence and makes you guilty of perpetuating that cycle of violence.

Of course that's terribly simplified, but you must view the driving philosophies of these movements to understand why they are so passionate about all or nothing.

----------


## Matthew5

> I would agree, but those who study history know that isn't likely any time soon...


You know, they probably said the same thing before the discovery of fire. That's the problem with letting history inform too much of your reality.




> I don't live in utopia, I live in the real world...


Since you're a politician, let me put it in your terms. One has a limited supply of energy and time, right? So I have to choose where to invest that energy. Given all the variables of politics and the current system, what are my odds of gaining total freedom? Because we don't want to expend all our energy for just a little freedom, our goal is total. The odds aren't great. If we use history as our teacher, since this is your chosen method, we can see that politics returns microscopic yields, especially over the past 150 years. Despite all your political efforts, you (being politicians and those that run the machine) have failed. And that's with an even larger percentage of those participating in your game! Government has grown, debt is astronomical, and freedoms disappear on an annual basis. Therefore, why would one invest their precious time and energy into such a low-yield system?

Tell me, which one of us is living in a utopia?

Why is it naive to invest your energy into a new invention? All government is man-made, therefore new forms can be invented. History has shown us that using basic elements of human nature, there's a myriad of forms that we can create. Why throw rocks at those that seek to invest their energy else where?

----------


## klamath

> Tribalism is human nature. We ban together for survival, mutual aide, common goals, fellowship, and a myriad of other reasons. Politicking as a human interaction will never cease. As a means to control the lives of others through a mechanism known as government, that might be a different story...


And tribal council determines of you have to share that deer you shot with the tribe....

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> ...
> 
> No, even a 2 year old understands "mine". Since recorded history humans have sought to dominate other humans, have sought to enrich themselves, have sought pleasure, etc. It IS human nature.


Some 2 year olds understand "mine", some 5 year olds crush the heads of kittens for laughs, some 10 year olds insist that other kids candy be shared with them, some 20 year olds find ways to hijack what others have created, etc...it MAY BE the human nature of SOME, but these are not my friends and colleagues.

----------


## Matthew5

> And tribal council determines of you have to share that deer you shot with the tribe....


Does governance exist among tribes? Yes. What I was referring to is that people will always interact together. And most will choose to interact in a social format. Politicking will be involved in that social process. Yet the original topic was as it pertained to American government and political systems. It's a sham that should be avoided and local interactions should be focused on.

----------


## klamath

> Does governance exist among tribes? Yes. What I was referring to is that people will always interact together. And most will choose to interact in a social format. Politicking will be involved in that social process. Yet the original topic was as it pertained to American government and political systems. It's a sham that should be avoided and local interactions should be focused on.


Instead of trying to convince people not to be part of politics the way you are doing it post how *you personally* are free by not being part of the political process. You would win a lot more converts to the ideas. If you can live your life free DO IT and show others how it is done. Until then few people are going to believe dropping out is going to work.

----------


## Matthew5

> Instead of trying to convince people not to be part of politics the way you are doing it post how *you personally* are free by not being part of the political process. You would win a lot more converts to the ideas. If you can live your life free DO IT and show others how it is done. Until then few people are going to believe dropping out is going to work.


Because this isn't a thread about methods; rather, we're discussing the reasons why someone would want to opt out. I'm more interested in talking about ideas right now as this is the Political Philosophy sub forum.

Besides, some methods are dangerous to one's physical freedom, if you catch my drift. It's unwise to post it on a public, searchable forum. Some things you only share with close friends and family. But since you're seeking, I'll share a few...some I've done, others my friends have done.

Stop voting
Don't endorse political candidates
Don't participate in any political or civil campaign
Refuse to participate in the hero cult of police and military
Turn your TV off
Homeschool your kids or send them to a private school
Leave or don't join nationalistic organizations (e.g. Boy Scouts)
Don't give to "charities" or funds that support civic organizations (encourage private enterprise instead)
Grow your own food
Barter more
Reduce your debt

Shall I go on? There's lots of little practical steps one can take and it will begin to have a cumulative effect.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Sure.  Be political and all.  The problem is when you put so much energy into politics, thinking that you're actually accomplishing something, that you don't put energy into things that might actually throw a wrench in the NWO machine.


Electing articulate, liberty loving people into positions of power is the biggest wrench in the machine IMO.  Look what the progressives have accomplished incrementally over the past century.  Many of their policies have become second nature and a part of the American psyche.  That's why people reacted to Ron Paul and us like we're from another planet for purposing some of our free market, liberty-based ideas.  Generations have been conditioned to think and behave a certain way.  To wrestle away control we have to step up and step in at all levels (local, state, federal).  The federal offices are important because they have the benefit of a powerful microphone with which to educate others to our philosophy.  It will take some time to turn the ship around, but we're having extraordinary results after only four years.  How many forums do you belong to where they successfully elected a fellow forum member to Congress?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Tribalism is human nature. We ban together for survival, mutual aide, common goals, fellowship, and a myriad of other reasons. Politicking as a human interaction will never cease. As a means to control the lives of others through a mechanism known as government, that might be a different story...


I think we're in pretty close agreement here.  Humans are social/communal beings.  Politicking is a subtle way of controlling others, sure, whereas several millennia ago they would simply beat you over the head with a rock if you disagreed on which waterhole to use.

----------


## klamath

> Because this isn't a thread about methods; rather, we're discussing the reasons why someone would want to opt out. I'm more interested in talking about ideas right now as this is the Political Philosophy sub forum.
> 
> Besides, some methods are dangerous to one's physical freedom, if you catch my drift. It's unwise to post it on a public, searchable forum. Some things you only share with close friends and family. But since you're seeking, I'll share a few...some I've done, others my friends have done.
> 
> Stop voting
> Don't endorse political candidates
> Don't participate in any political or civil campaign
> Refuse to participate in the hero cult of police and military
> Turn your TV off
> ...


Tried it that way nearly 50 years ago and it was only through elections I was able to get some peace of mind. People that that tried your route around here are gone.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Good point.  We need to be chiseling from multiple directions.


They are not mutually exclusive endeavors.  I can donate to Greg Brannon's Senate run and Ben Swann's independent media project and be all the happier.  The problem stems from anarchists continually poking their nose into the political activism part of the movement and this forum, not to help, but to recruit followers and attempt to frame everything into an either/or proposition.  I'm not convinced they are a positive or productive group.

----------


## Matthew5

> Tried it that way nearly 50 years ago and it was only through elections I was able to get some peace of mind.


Did you previously opt out due to frustration or moral obligation?




> People that that tried your route around here are gone.


Not sure what to make of your statement. I'm assuming you mean no longer active members of RPF?

----------


## Matthew5

> They are not mutually exclusive endeavors.  I can donate to Greg Brannon's Senate run and Ben Swann's independent media project and be all the happier.  The problem stems from anarchists continually poking their nose into the political activism part of the movement and this forum, not to help, but to recruit followers and attempt to frame everything into an either/or proposition.  I'm not convinced they are a positive or productive group.


Positivity and productivity is subjective, I suppose. An anarchist might counter that living the NAP and pushing for voluntary, peaceful interactions without the state is both positive and productive. I guess it's neither though for someone who has a political agenda.

Maximizing freedom seems to be a common goal, but there is two opposing methods to achieving that goal. I still believe there's a way to work together, even if we have to strain alittle to find that path.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Matt, change in the truest sense of the term will not come from politics in whole. Not this time around. You can continue to think or imply that and I know that you're trying to do good things (generally speaking) but political science is absolutely not the science of change. These are interesting times. Very delicate times.


You fail to understand that _EVERYTHING_ is political, especially revolutions, secession, etc.

----------


## Matt Collins

> An anarchist might counter that living the NAP and pushing for voluntary, peaceful interactions without the state is both positive and productive.


I would agree with that, but the only way to move close to those goals is through politics. The people who determine policy work through the political process. This is why we need to have like-minded people elected and we need to put pressure on those who are already elected to move policies closer to our agenda.

----------


## Matt Collins

> we're discussing the reasons why someone would want to opt out.


Of course many of us would like to opt out, but we can't opt out because the government has more guns than we do.


Every law is the result of the political process. If our people aren't involved, then we're getting run over.


When taxes go up that's the result of politics.
When substances are made illegal that's the result of politics.
When people are killed or injured in senseless foreign affairs, that's the result of politics.
When they raid your house for whatever reason, that's the result of politics
etc...






> Stop voting


And let them win?   That's hardly a plan... how about running your own candidates and get them to win so that they can change policy?  Or how about putting pressure on the politicians so that they will follow your agenda instead of someone else's agenda?

----------


## Matt Collins

> post how *you personally* are free by not being part of the political process.


Ignoring the political process doesn't make anyone free, in fact just the opposite. It makes them subjects of the political process. Getting in there and fighting for your rights makes you free, if you're not feared then you're not respected. Either you have power to stop from getting run over by the government, or you get run over by the government.

----------


## Matt Collins

> people will always interact together. And most will choose to interact in a social format. Politicking will be involved in that social process. Yet the original topic was as it pertained to American government and political systems. It's a sham that should be avoided and local interactions should be focused on.


Human interaction IS political by its very nature. And governments are determined by people coming together and interacting. Commerce is very much as political as government is. Politics is the adjudication of power, and power is defined as the ability to get other people to do what you want them to do.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Since you're a politician,


lolz, epic fail, I am NOT a politician 





> One has a limited supply of energy and time, right? So I have to choose where to invest that energy. Given all the variables of politics and the current system, what are my odds of gaining total freedom? Because we don't want to expend all our energy for just a little freedom, our goal is total. The odds aren't great. If we use history as our teacher, since this is your chosen method, we can see that politics returns microscopic yields, especially over the past 150 years. Despite all your political efforts, you (being politicians and those that run the machine) have failed. And that's with an even larger percentage of those participating in your game! Government has grown, debt is astronomical, and freedoms disappear on an annual basis. Therefore, why would one invest their precious time and energy into such a low-yield system?


Things are only the way they are because our people have sat dormant and not been involved in trying to fix it. The progressives have infected the government and grown it over the last 150 years. We can do the same and shrink it.

----------


## Matt Collins

> On the agro/anarchist side, they believe that all political games and government can be boiled down into one thing, violence/force. And any participation in that system makes you a participant in that violence and makes you guilty of perpetuating that cycle of violence.


What they are missing is that they don't have a choice in whether or not to participate. If you're not doing politics, then politics is doing you.

----------


## klamath

> Did you previously opt out due to frustration or moral obligation?
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what to make of your statement. I'm assuming you mean no longer active members of RPF?


My family dropped out because we wanted to be free with total personal responsibility.
When the feds came after us and others doing the same thing we choise to fight the feds through the US laws and political action. The others condemned us and swore they had "natural" law on their side... They are gone and my family is still here.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Slave owners argued that owning slaves is part of "human nature." 
> "Show me a society that didn't own slaves! Even the great democracy of ancient Greece had slaves," they said. 
> We teach our children that owning slaves is wrong. When we start teaching our children that dominance of any kind is wrong, politics will be an embarrassing past mistake.


And it was, but fortunately a lot of humanity evolved out of that mindset and matured. Segments of humanity will do the same in regards to government, but it will be a long slow process just like ending slavery was a long slow process in most places. In the mean time I can get more freedom than I have now by pushing around elected officials through the political process.

----------


## Matthew5

> lolz, epic fail, I am NOT a politician 
> 
> 
> Things are only the way they are because our people have sat dormant and not been involved in trying to fix it. The progressives have infected the government and grown it over the last 150 years. We can do the same and shrink it.


Anyone involved in the political machine is a politician, in my opinion. Whether on your own behalf or not...I'm assuming you get paid?

And who has sat dormant? Seems to me that there's been 100s of thousands of politicians and MILLIONS of political activists in the past 150 years. The results of your efforts still bear witness. You can't blame progressives when your political ideology has had just as much game time.

----------


## Matthew5

> My family dropped out because we wanted to be free with total personal responsibility.
> When the feds came after us and others doing the same thing we choise to fight the feds through the US laws and political action. The others condemned us and swore they had "natural" law on their side... They are gone and my family is still here.


Gone in what way? Did the government end their lives or lock them up?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Of course it does. Politics is politics regardless if it's your family, your church, your school, your club, your government, your job, etc. That's my point.
> 
> 
> *
> Maybe, but the people who get elected make the rules,* and then have it enforced at the point of a gun.


Who elected Janet Napolitano?  Ben Bernanke?  Many of the rule makers are entirely unelected-but appointed or simply hired by political elites.  Nice wishful thinking, though.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Abandoning politics is like abandoning economics. You can say you do it, but in the end all you do is make yourself an ignorant slave. But then ignorance is bliss, I suppose.


Economics is necessary to prosperity.

Politics is necessary to predation.

If one goes away, our lives become become destitute and primitive, and in many cases end.  If the other goes away, there stops being an institutionalized robber-killer class committing trillions of dollars worth of horrors and abominations 24 hours a day.

I, personally, vote that politics goes away.  You want to keep it?  You're supporting the blackest evils and abominations humanity can invent.

----------


## klamath

> Gone in what way? Did the government end their lives or lock them up?


evicted them with federal marshals and burned their places.

----------


## Matthew5

> Economics is necessary to prosperity.
> 
> Politics is necessary to predation.
> 
> If one goes away, our lives become become destitute and primitive, and in many cases end.  If the other goes away, there stops being an institutionalized robber-killer class committing trillions of dollars worth of horrors and abominations 24 hours a day.
> 
> I, personally, vote that politics goes away.  You want to keep it?  You're supporting the blackest evils and abominations humanity can invent.


+rep 

Being a victim of the state shouldn't justify it's continuation.

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> In the mean time I can get more freedom than I have now by pushing around elected officials through the political process.


A year or two ago I would've agreed with this statement, but I now think its false. 

I can get more freedom in my life best by taking the time and resources I would've put into chasing politicians and using it to pursue agorism/bitcoin/gold&silver/self-defense/cyber-privacy. 

And I haven't had a chance to watch the video you posted to my earlier response but I will if I get time.

----------


## Matt Collins

> A year or two ago I would've agreed with this statement, but I now think its false. 
> 
> I can get more freedom in my life best by taking the time and resources I would've put into chasing politicians and using it to pursue agorism/bitcoin/gold&silver/self-defense/cyber-privacy.


The trick is to do both.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Who elected Janet Napolitano?  Ben Bernanke?  Many of the rule makers are entirely unelected-but appointed or simply hired by political elites.


The people who got elected put those individuals into power. That's why elections matter, they have consequences.

----------


## Matt Collins

> And who has sat dormant? Seems to me that there's been 100s of thousands of politicians and MILLIONS of political activists in the past 150 years. The results of your efforts still bear witness. You can't blame progressives when your political ideology has had just as much game time.


Most of those activists have been progressive, and not liberty people. We now have a cohesive base of liberty activists of which to do stuff.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Things are only the way they are because our people have sat dormant and not been involved in trying to fix it. The progressives have infected the government and grown it over the last 150 years. We can do the same and shrink it.


 This is such a common narrative people seem to tell themselves, yet it is so strange.  In this narrative, the libertarian movement's whole problem has been that it's been lazy and uninvolved in the political process for basically forever -- or in your version, since 1863 (BTW: huh?).  If we'd have hopped to it, and been as proactive as the "progressives", we would have a much more libertarian country/world right now.   

Let's think about actual, real history.  There was no libertarian movement until the 1960s.  Modern libertarianism was invented in the 1940s or 1950s.  Even in the 1960s, the number of known libertarians in the United States was probably under 1,000.  In the 1970s the number ballooned, and it has continued to grow and grow in all the decades since, until today we are probably up to a couple _million_ people in the US who at least loosely associate or identify with the libertarian movement!  That's tremendous growth!  That's amazing success!  We can all celebrate the enormous successful spread of the ideas of liberty which has happened.

So what about your story about we libertarians being dormant and lazy and stupid for 150 years and letting those determined, industrious, busy worker ants the Progressives out-work, out-organize, and out-politic us?  In short, it is false, because there were no libertarians back then, and certainly no libertarian movement.  A movement which _does not exist_ can hardly be faulted for failing to take over and run a continent-spanning nation.

But perhaps you will say you just mean "liberty lovers."  Surely there were millions upon millions of liberty lovers back somewhere in America's "last 150 years", right?  Wrong, I submit.  Who were these liberty lovers?  Where were they?  Not in America!  The old pre-William Jenning Bryan "Cross of Gold" Democrats, they were pretty good -- on some things -- but not mostly because they were consciously and philosophically pro-liberty.  They were mostly just supporting a status quo.  They liked America how it was, or how they remembered it a few years back, and wanted to preserve/get back to that.  And they were anything but hard core.  People who can turn from pro-freedom to solidly pro-tyranny upon the delivery of one single speech, and then remain pro-tyranny for the next 117 years, were not really strongly pro-freedom in the first place.  Nevertheless, they are still the best shining examples.  Post-Bryan, we've got ZIP.  Where were all the protests during WWI?  They nationalized the railroads!  The federal government presumed to micro-manage the eating schedule of every human in the country (no meat Thursdays, etc) and set up a vast spy network to go through people's trash and ensure they were complying.  They arrested people for reading the Constitution in public.  The federal government took over everything, period, is the bottom line.  Not a squeak of protest.  Not one peep.

The federal government took over everything again in the 1930s.  There was no real fundamental opposition, just partisan grandstanding, like the current GOP "opposition" to Obamacare.  They don't actually oppose anything meaningful, of course.  Do they oppose gov't involvement in medicine?  Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!  Get serious, of course they don't.  And virtually no one in the 1930s opposed the gov't being involved in any and all aspects of life and the economy, even those who claimed to "oppose" the New Deal.  And of course the goons deepened their total control during WWII.  Again, there was no resistance.  Americans waved their flags and swallowed their propaganda.  _Without even a slight second thought._

In this common narrative you and others seem to believe, there is this Great American Tradition of believing in liberty and freedom that a huge bulk of the people have always been a part of.  A real look at history shows that to be false.  Americans have a history of worshiping the state, and worshiping the military, and a laughably easy-to-manipulate disposition to be whipped into a war frenzy on the flimsiest of pretenses, whereupon they adopt an uber-loyal, uber-obedient, uber-state-loving posture.  Is it a surprise that such a people have gotten more and more militarism and more and more state?  No, Matt.  No it is not.

Today, though, we do have a libertarian movement.  We have people consistently speak out against the crimes of the state.  We have heroes such as Lew Rockwell who refuse to buy into state-worship even during moments of crisis such as Sept 11th, 2001, and instead courageously beat the drums of state-hate even louder.  We have a couple million people who voted for Ron Paul.  Our message is getting out there, and as Ron Paul said in the NH post-primary party: "There's no way that they are going to stop the momentum that we have started!"  But it's a new movement, a young movement, it's only been around for 50 years, and you can't blame us for all the outrages and failures that happened before we even existed.

----------


## cjm

> The trick is to do both.


I'm with Matt on this one.  Some folks find politics so off-putting that they themselves cannot participate.  That's ok.  But we shouldn't dissuade anyone from promoting liberty through politics or any other form of outreach.  Hearing the liberty message a single time might be enough for some folks, but the average person needs to hear it over and over again before they open up to it.  We need to be on the lookout for opportunities to promote liberty in all venues within our comfort zones.  Politics is just one of these.  Anyone who thinks promoting liberty exclusively within politics is the answer is just as wrong as the person who says politics should be avoided entirely.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I'm with Matt on this one.  Some folks find politics so off-putting that they themselves cannot participate.  That's ok.  But we shouldn't dissuade anyone from promoting liberty through politics or any other form of outreach.  Hearing the liberty message a single time might be enough for some folks, but the average person needs to hear it over and over again before they open up to it.  We need to be on the lookout for opportunities to promote liberty in all venues within our comfort zones.  Politics is just one of these.  Anyone who thinks promoting liberty exclusively within politics is the answer is just as wrong as the person who says politics should be avoided entirely.


 The entire Ron Paul Campaign series was essentially an exercise in agorist outreach and movement expansion.  It was a _highly effective_ exercise!

So yes, people should do whatever they want.  We all must make that choice.  Let us keep in mind, though, that contrary to the negativism on view in both the quote in the OP ("Some of the candidates won, some of them lost, but the country is still a hole.  When one strategy has failed miserably the need to do something radically different arises.") and from Matt Collins ("Things are only the way they are because our people have sat dormant and not been involved in trying to fix it."), *the things we have been doing in the libertarian movement have been highly effective.*  They are working!  We are succeeding beyond anything anyone could have predicted, and with great speed!  We are a success story!  Whatever we've been doing, we should do more of it, because we're growing by leaps and bounds!  Of course, having the truth on our side helps, too.

----------


## Theocrat

> Politics is the adjudication of power, it's how society decides who gets power and who doesn't. Every time you interact with other human beings there is politics involved in one form or another. In your school, at your church, in your club, in your family, with your significant other, etc. Politics is human nature and is inescapable. 
> 
> 
> Also the other thing is that other people have power over you through the political system and if you don't have at least a piece of that power then you're going to get run over, taken advantage of, shafted, on the short end of the stick, etc.


I have to agree with that. The main danger of distancing oneself from politics is to assume that politics is neutral. In fact, it is not. It will affect you, even if you are not involved in the process. Your rights will be infringed upon. Your property will be under scrutiny. Your earnings regulated. And the list could go on. Everyone needs to be involved politically because it is our rights (life, liberty, property, etc.) which are at stake here.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The people who got elected put those individuals into power. That's why elections matter, they have consequences.


"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I carenot who writes the laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild 

The real power in America (and the world) doesn't care about your little election shows, Collins.  But you refuse to recognize the truth before your eyes.  It seems rather pointless to explain this to you in 10,000 different ways since you aren't interested in truth.  I'll no longer debate this issue unless something substantial comes up.  You're free to do what you want, but let the rest of us be productive in different ways and don't look down on us for not playing the silly game.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'm with Matt on this one.  Some folks find politics so off-putting that they themselves cannot participate.  That's ok.  But we shouldn't dissuade anyone from promoting liberty through politics or any other form of outreach.  Hearing the liberty message a single time might be enough for some folks, but the average person needs to hear it over and over again before they open up to it.  We need to be on the lookout for opportunities to promote liberty in all venues within our comfort zones.  Politics is just one of these.  Anyone who thinks promoting liberty exclusively within politics is the answer is just as wrong as the person who says politics should be avoided entirely.


  Some common sense at last!

----------


## Matt Collins

> "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I carenot who writes the laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild


Except that the only reason they get to control the nation's money is because of the laws that are written through the political process. Again, the result of politics.







> The real power in America (and the world) doesn't care about your little election shows, Collins.


_Politicians care about 1 thing and 1 thing only: getting re-elected. If you can threaten their election then you can change their behavior and thus change policy. I know because I've done it a few times and seen it done many times.
_

----------


## Matt Collins

> I have to agree with that. The main danger of distancing oneself from politics is to assume that politics is neutral. In fact, it is not. It will affect you, even if you are not involved in the process. Your rights will be infringed upon. Your property will be under scrutiny. Your earnings regulated. And the list could go on. Everyone needs to be involved politically because it is our rights (life, liberty, property, etc.) which are at stake here.


Thanks for bringing some sanity around here  I'm glad to know that someone else "gets it".

----------


## Matt Collins

> The entire Ron Paul Campaign series was essentially an exercise in agorist outreach and movement expansion.  It was a _highly effective_ exercise!


And it was through the political system for political purposes.




> *the things we have been doing in the libertarian movement have been highly effective.*  They are working!  We are succeeding beyond anything anyone could have predicted, and with great speed!  We are a success story!  Whatever we've been doing, we should do more of it, because we're growing by leaps and bounds!  Of course, having the truth on our side helps, too.


Yes indeed we are trending upwards, but is it at the equal or faster pace than statism is trending upwards too? I don't know.

But getting people like Rand and Amash and Massie and Mike Lee, and hopefully soon to be others, elected on the federal level, and then the dozens if not hundreds of supporters elected into local and state offices will continue to turn the tide. We're still outnumbered, but a lot of times in a Senatorial body 1 person can do quite a bit to stop legislative atrocities as Rand has proven. 

We must continue to work harder and get more like-minded people into positions of power.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Politics is just one of these.  Anyone who thinks promoting liberty exclusively within politics is the answer is just as wrong as the person who says politics should be avoided entirely.


Actually, again that's not quite right. 

Laws are only brought about through the political process. Enforcement of those laws only exists through the political process. Politicians determine policy, and voters determine which politicians get to set policy. See two posts above in bold for more details, but to bring about change in the law and change in the government, politics is the only way to do it (one can try going through the courts, but that is inherently political too plus they tend to favor the government).

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Actually, again that's not quite right. 
> 
> Laws are only brought about through the political process. Enforcement of those laws only exists through the political process. Politicians determine policy, and voters determine which politicians get to set policy. See two posts above in bold for more details, but to bring about change in the law and change in the government, politics is the only way to do it (one can try going through the courts, but that is inherently political too plus they tend to favor the government).


Huh?  Didn't you forget media propaganda, schooling, etc..?

----------


## Matt Collins

> This is such a common narrative people seem to tell themselves, yet it is so strange.  In this narrative, the libertarian movement's whole problem has been that it's been lazy and uninvolved in the political process for basically forever -- or in your version, since 1863 (BTW: huh?).  If we'd have hopped to it, and been as proactive as the "progressives", we would have a much more libertarian country/world right now.


It's a little more complicated than that, but I'll elaborate... 

While not a historical expert on the liberty movement I would say that modern-day libertarianism started with the LP in the 70's although I think some of them may have simply been disaffected Goldwater guys. But they were only given mainstream recognition in 2008 when Ron ran for President. And the only reason that happened then was because the Internet allowed us to organize around the MSM and go peer-to-peer. 







> Let's think about actual, real history.  There was no libertarian movement until the 1960s.  Modern libertarianism was invented in the 1940s or 1950s.  Even in the 1960s, the number of known libertarians in the United States was probably under 1,000.  In the 1970s the number ballooned, and it has continued to grow and grow in all the decades since, until today we are probably up to a couple _million_ people in the US who at least loosely associate or identify with the libertarian movement!  That's tremendous growth!  Tfullhat's amazing success!  We can all celebrate the enormous successful spread of the ideas of liberty which has happened.


Yes, I think a couple of million people voted for Ron. The question is how many people who supported him, even if in spirit, didn't vote? And also, how many people voted for him actually support his ideas, or like the fact that he's an outsider?


Cato did a study a few years back showing that almost 35% of people have libertarian philosophies but are not actually full-on libertarians. That's a lot more than a couple of million people.


_Also, more to the point, it doesn't matter HOW many people we have who agree with us if none of them are willing to fight the government through the political process (which is pretty much the only place to fight the government)._





> So what about your story about we libertarians being dormant and lazy and stupid for 150 years and letting those determined, industrious, busy worker ants the Progressives out-work, out-organize, and out-politic us?  In short, it is false, because there were no libertarians back then, and certainly no libertarian movement.  A movement which _does not exist_ can hardly be faulted for failing to take over and run a continent-spanning nation.


I'll admit there is truth to that and being blocked from official outlets was a significant hurdle, but even without the Internet one can effectively organize their neighborhood or precinct which few liberty people have done. I think the INTJ factor comes into play too.





> In this common narrative you and others seem to believe, there is this Great American Tradition of believing in liberty and freedom that a huge bulk of the people have always been a part of.


No, not at all. Very few people fought in the secession war to leave the oppressive British government when compared to the total population.

It doesn't take majorities to prevail, but tireless and irate minorities.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Huh?  Didn't you forget media propaganda, schooling, etc..?


Thosse are factors, but the media doesn't pass laws.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Except that the only reason they get to control the nation's money is because of the laws that are written through the political process. Again, the result of politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Politicians care about 1 thing and 1 thing only: getting re-elected. If you can threaten their election then you can change their behavior and thus change policy. I know because I've done it a few times and seen it done many times.
> _


Like I told you in the first quote, the visible part of politics is irrelevant.  The elections are for show and the illusion of legitimacy-and the dazzling entertainment factor for _Boobus_.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Like I told you in the first quote, the visible part of politics is irrelevant.  The elections are for show and the illusion of legitimacy-and the dazzling entertainment factor for _Boobus_.


Maybe the horserace sports-reporting aspect of it is, but again, those who get elected are the ones who make the rules, which is why it's important for OUR people to get elected, or to at least gain enough power to be able to force the elected officials to push our agenda.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> And it was through the political system for political purposes.


 *It was actually a perfect example of an alliance and a synergy of a variety of different strategical outlooks and philosophies.*  Almost nothing the grassroots did was "political" or in the "political system".  Renting airplanes, renting a blimp, tricking out vehicles, donning V for Vendetta masks and waving signs, filling the roadways and overpasses with guerrilla marketing, making Youtube tributes, writing songs, doing Meetups and networking, Ron Paul Christmas decorations, Ron Paul jack-o-lanterns, Ron Paul painted roofs for Google Maps' benefit, running entire Ron Paul radio stations, a "Ron Paul County" project out in Texas, the list could go on and on.  We did tons of cool, inspiring, highly non-traditional and, in a short-term electoral politics sense, highly ineffective things.  The Ron Paul rEVOLution logo was certainly not calculated to get Republican votes and garner election victory, and it certainly didn't.  But it worked for us.  Like so much else that we did, it reached a certain kind of person and struck a chord with them and made them do some research and eventually brought them into the fold.

And then we had the official campaign doing their political stuff, some of which was cool, too.




> Yes indeed we are trending upwards, but is it at the equal or faster pace than statism is trending upwards too? I don't know.


 Of course!  The _reality_ of statism, the implementation, that's trending upwards, sure, that's just inertia.  But the _idea_ of statism?  No way!  We are winning the intellectual battle, at least currently.  Statism has had a 100% mindshare in the past.  But now, we have some share.  We have, say, 5% and they have only 95%.  That's huge!  The intellectual battle is fundamental.  Think of it like "logistics" in a warfare scenario, or even better, like the economic strength of the warring countries.  Without a solid intellectual fight going on at the foundation, go won't attract new young converts to your cause, and your movement will wither and die.  Without a large base of backers and believers, you will not win elections.




> But getting people like Rand and Amash and Massie and Mike Lee, and hopefully soon to be others, elected on the federal level, and then the dozens if not hundreds of supporters elected into local and state offices will continue to turn the tide. We're still outnumbered, but a lot of times in a Senatorial body 1 person can do quite a bit to stop legislative atrocities as Rand has proven. 
> 
> We must continue to work harder and get more like-minded people into positions of power.


 Well, you're a little bit putting the cart before the horse, or reversing causality, because as I say, you have to actually have people in your movement before your movement can start to be influential and then *maybe* start to win elections (though it's hard for movements representing minority points of view to win elections in a winner-take-all system like the US).  Yes, we have gotten some people elected who more or less stand for libertarianism, which is actually surprising because we are still such a small minority.  But ultimately to have more and more success we need to convert more and more people.  You can only do so much with a movement of a million people.  So we can't stay static, we must grow.

Now that said, you don't have it completely backwards.  *There's a synergy here*, as I said at the top of this post.  Ron Paul and we as his grassroots campaign brought in tons of new people to the movement.  That campaign created tens, and maybe hundreds of thousands of new libertarians by my estimation, and re-energized and activated and radicalized many others.  Rand Paul and some of the others may well do the same -- we can hope.  So being a prominent person does give one a soapbox from which to promulgate our good ideas.  And that's good.  Of course, politicians are not the only prominent people, either.  Peter Thiel and the countless libertarians and quasi-libertarians on the internet and in Silicon Valley have formed a very powerful and important culture in the computer and internet world, a culture that is profoundly libertarian.

So there's a lot of stuff we can do to further liberty, and certainly electioneering is not the most important, nor the most uplifting, nor the most satisfying item on that list.  Now for you, it clearly is.  You've decided to specialize in it, you seem to like it, it seems to bring you satisfaction, and so more power to you.  Most people are not like you and will be drained by it.  They will burn out quickly.  They will not like it, because it's conflict, it's drama, it's dirty, it's cynical, and it will eat up their life.  So most of us should avoid electioneering and focus on other movement-growing and enhancing actions.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> It's a little more complicated than that, but I'll elaborate... 
> 
> While not a historical expert on the liberty movement I would say that modern-day libertarianism started with the LP in the 70's although I think some of them may have simply been disaffected Goldwater guys. But they were only given mainstream recognition in 2008 when Ron ran for President. And the only reason that happened then was because the Internet allowed us to organize around the MSM and go peer-to-peer.


 Well, that skips a lot of stuff in between.  Certainly the 2008 Ron Paul campaign was a great leap forward, but it didn't spring out of the brow of Zeus.  Why did it go differently than the 1988 campaign of, oh yeah, the same person, Ron Paul?  Was it just some brilliant tactical details, like him running as a Republican instead of a Libertarian, or us doing individual Internet marketing?  No.  It was that *there were a lot more of us!*  Peer-to-peer don't work if there ain't no peers!  In the meantime, between 1988 and 2008, many millions of people had been exposed to and tens of thousands converted to libertarianism by the LP and their many candidates like Harry Browne, libertarian columnists like Joe Sobran and Dave Barry (I loved Dave Barry!), libertarian novelists like L. Neil Smith and F. Paul Wilson (and really a disproportionate of the good sci-fi writers out there are libertarian or are at least writing books with libertarian themes like Heinlein), John Stossel was there doing specials on libertarian ideas on prime-time national TV, and of course there's always Ayn Rand in the background, slowly converting thousands posthumously with Atlas Shrugged.  Especially in the 90s, many prominent people publicly stated that they were libertarians, such as actors Clint Eastwood, Drew Carey, and Kurt Russell, TV anchor Hugh Downs, radiomen Art Bell, Larry Elder, Howard Stern, and Neal Boortz (and Walter Williams subbing for Rush), and many others, and the LP News always liked telling me about all of them as proof that victory was just around the corner.  

*So: these things don't just happen.*  Ron Paul 2008 campaigns don't just happen.  There was a lot of ground work.  If we hadn't done all that ground work for all those decades, Ron would have once again been speaking to rooms with a dozen people each and trying desperately, and mostly unsuccessfully, to get any attention whatsoever.




> Yes, I think a couple of million people voted for Ron. The question is how many people who supported him, even if in spirit, didn't vote? And also, how many people voted for him actually support his ideas, or like the fact that he's an outsider?


 Yeah, there are other measures too, though -- how many are registered LP, how many people are members of Campaign for Liberty, how many support the Mises Institute, etc. -- which seem to me to converge on the number of one or two million, nationwide.  I could be off.





> Cato did a study a few years back showing that almost 35% of people have libertarian philosophies but are not actually full-on libertarians. That's a lot more than a couple of million people.


 Did you see the questions they asked?  There were two questions, one about are you socially liberal or socially conservative, the other are you economically conservative or economically liberal?  Is it any great surprise that 35% of people answered socially liberal and economically conservative?  That's no great endorsement for libertarianism.  There's four possible outcomes, and each one will have somewhat close to 25% of the respondents choose it.  It tells you more about the design of their survey than about the libertarianism of the nation.  Nevertheless, it does show some libertarian leanings.





> _Also, more to the point, it doesn't matter HOW many people we have who agree with us if none of them are willing to fight the government through the political process (which is pretty much the only place to fight the government)._


 The most important place to fight the government, long term, is through movement-building.  The libertarian movement is a threat to the government.  Nothing else is.  Political action can grow the movement, if it is used as a platform for someone with integrity and the ability to communicate the ideas of liberty, someone like Ron Paul.  But lots of other things can also grow the movement and make it stronger.





> I'll admit there is truth to that and being blocked from official outlets was a significant hurdle, but even without the Internet one can effectively organize their neighborhood or precinct which few liberty people have done. I think the INTJ factor comes into play too.


 You just don't know.  We've done stuff like this far out of proportion to our numbers, all through the 80s and 90s and 2000s.





> No, not at all. Very few people fought in the secession war to leave the oppressive British government when compared to the total population.
> 
> It doesn't take majorities to prevail, but tireless and irate minorities.


 Agreed it's not a majority that's the key, but numbers do matter.  The American Revolution wasn't just ten guys in Thomas Paine's living room -- they convinced huge numbers of their compatriots to join them in like mind.  Perhaps half a million were strong supporters.  That's a lot of people, Matt.

It matters who the people are, too.  Ten Steve Jobses are not the same as ten Rachel Jeantels.  Influential and worthwhile and hard-working people (like Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, and Thomas Paine) can leverage their efforts and through good leadership make themselves into leaders of large masses.

----------


## cjm

> Actually, again that's not quite right. 
> 
> Laws are only brought about through the political process. Enforcement of those laws only exists through the political process. Politicians determine policy, and voters determine which politicians get to set policy. See two posts above in bold for more details, but to bring about change in the law and change in the government, politics is the only way to do it (one can try going through the courts, but that is inherently political too plus they tend to favor the government).


I think you missed my point.  I am not disagreeing that ultimately a political process determines laws and governance.  I'm saying people do not have to participate in campaigns or parties to spread the message of liberty.  One can do that at the garden club, the PTA, or swim team meets as well.  Those informal conversations outside of a political campaign are just as important as electoral politics.  Or maybe I am misunderstanding you?  Are you suggesting that the liberty message needs to be promoted only through the political process?  If so, I disagree.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Thosse are factors, but the media doesn't pass laws.


Right, those that the media promotes and get elected do.  Do you think Ron Paul would have had a good chance of being our president right now if the media had given him fair coverage?  Pretty big impact, huh?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> And it was through the political system for political purposes.
> 
> Yes indeed we are trending upwards, but is it at the equal or faster pace than statism is trending upwards too? I don't know.
> 
> But getting people like Rand and Amash and Massie and Mike Lee, and hopefully soon to be others, elected on the federal level, and then the dozens if not hundreds of supporters elected into local and state offices will continue to turn the tide. We're still outnumbered, but a lot of times in a Senatorial body 1 person can do quite a bit to stop legislative atrocities as Rand has proven. 
> 
> We must continue to work harder and get more like-minded people into positions of power.


We have the blueprint that works right before our eyes, which you just described.  It's vexing how people cannot see the opportunity we have now.  Before Ron Paul and the internet gathering like-minded, liberty loving people in a productive manner was extremely difficult, if not impossible.  The Evangelicals and the so-called silent majority were able to do it in the 80's because they had places to gather and congregate amongst like-minded people, namely their churches and vast networks.  They turned that into real political force to be reckoned with which is still felt to this day.  We have the same opportunity now if we're smart enough to see that there's strength in numbers.  The enemies of liberty would love for all of us to drop out so they can operate like a mushroom in the dark and exploit us without hindrance.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

"Matt Collins understands the way this game is played."

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> We have the blueprint that works right before our eyes, which you just described.  It's vexing how people cannot see the opportunity we have now.  Before Ron Paul and the internet gathering like-minded, liberty loving people in a productive manner was extremely difficult, if not impossible.  The Evangelicals and the so-called silent majority were able to do it in the 80's because they had places to gather and congregate amongst like-minded people, namely their churches and vast networks.  They turned that into real political force to be reckoned with which is still felt to this day.  We have the same opportunity now if we're smart enough to see that there's strength in numbers.  The enemies of liberty would love for all of us to drop out so they can operate like a mushroom in the dark and exploit us without hindrance.


Does it matter having a blueprint if all you can build with it is a structure that doesn't work?

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> The trick is to do both.



The argument we've been having is how best to use one's limited time and resources. "Both" is an option but it siphons resources and undermines the more effective option of "agorism."  


The main problems with trying to do both have to do with sanctifying the existence of government. Once you've agreed that govt owns at least part of you, you already done 90% of what the statists need to keep pummeling you with their "laws." 


One of the major promises of agorism, as evidenced by the OP, is that it can be effective on an individual basis. People who engage in agorism can achieve much, much more freedom in their lives than they could by using that time and energy to try to influence the political process by a fraction of a percent. As more and more people realize this, more and people will engage in agorism, which will bring about freedom much more quickly and effectively than voting ever could.

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> Stop voting
> Don't endorse political candidates
> Don't participate in any political or civil campaign
> Refuse to participate in the hero cult of police and military
> Turn your TV off
> Homeschool your kids or send them to a private school
> Leave or don't join nationalistic organizations (e.g. Boy Scouts)
> Don't give to "charities" or funds that support civic organizations (encourage private enterprise instead)
> Grow your own food
> ...



Great list, +rep. Ill add a few that I like that might appeal to the more politically active members we have here:

Donate the money you would have sent to politicians to liberty-minded podcasters or talk radio hosts like Ian and Mark at FreeTalkLive
Buy some bitcoin 
Promote bitcoin usage at your local small businesses and with friends
Instead of handing out flyers encouraging people to vote for one or the other politician, hand out flyers on why voting is a sham 
Promote Bastiat's "The Law" (Ron Paul's favorite book) and other liberty minded philosophical literature by donating them to the local library or schools, or by writing quality, positive reviews on Amazon

----------


## helmuth_hubener

How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World is a Handbook for Personal Liberty showing you how to use libertarian principles to make your life much freer right now. It presents a unique libertarian view of morality, government, society, and human nature. Part I identifies the mental traps that are so easy to fall into  traps that prevent you from being as free as you could be. Part II provides specific techniques you can use today to obtain greater freedom from government, from societal restrictions, and from business, personal, and family problems. Part III shows how to make necessary changes to a freer life right now.

While Harry waited and hoped for a free society, he made sure that his own life was as free and happy as possible. Using the same libertarian principles that would underlie a free society, he created a successful and joyous life for himself and his family. He put these principles and techniques into his book, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World. In the book you'll find ways to obtain greater freedom from government, freedom from social restrictions, freedom from business problems, personal problems, family problems, and freedom from the treadmill.

How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World will not only put you on the path to a freer, happier life, it will inspire almost anyone to take greater responsibility for his own life to quit focusing on the shortcomings of others and use the sovereignty one does have to take control of one's own life and make the most of it. How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World can make your life much freer and happier.	

Magnet link

Get torrent file

----------


## Matthew5

> Great list, +rep. Ill add a few that I like that might appeal to the more politically active members we have here:
> 
> Donate the money you would have sent to politicians to liberty-minded podcasters or talk radio hosts like Ian and Mark at FreeTalkLive
> Buy some bitcoin 
> Promote bitcoin usage at your local small businesses and with friends
> Instead of handing out flyers encouraging people to vote for one or the other politician, hand out flyers on why voting is a sham 
> Promote Bastiat's "The Law" (Ron Paul's favorite book) and other liberty minded philosophical literature by donating them to the local library or schools, or by writing quality, positive reviews on Amazon



Good list, education of others is a big factor and is under utilized.

----------


## Matthew5

I have yet to see the politicos justify politics on a moral level, only "pragmatic" reasons. The amoral nature of our political system is clear, so how does one justify participation in it? To get the boogie man first (isn't that neocon logic)? We have a duty? It's the most effective method to achieve a goal (ends justify means)?

----------


## cjm

> The amoral nature of our political system is clear, so how does one justify participation in it?


So you didn't lift a finger for Ron Paul?  That's hard core.

----------


## familydog

> In the mean time I can get more freedom than I have now by pushing around elected officials through the political process.


Has this actually worked? The American government started out as the smallest and most decentralized government in history. It is now the largest, most abusive and destructive government in history. There is absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest that politiking will change anything.

----------


## cjm

> There is absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest that politiking will change anything.


Just a couple years ago, it was illegal in Virginia to concealed-carry in restaurants that served alcohol.  Now it is legal.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Has this actually worked?


Yes, I've done it a few times. And I've seen it done many times.

One example is that I singlehandidly killed a DNA bill in Tennessee that our Lt Governor was trying to ram through. He wanted everyone arrested for a felony to have their DNA stored in a database. I sent out his personal cell phone number to my entire e-mail list, and a few weeks later he killed the bill.







> There is absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest that politiking will change anything.


Rand has stopped a lot of crap from coming through the Senate simply by forcing a roll call vote and getting the Senators on record. And it is not hard to stop stuff on the state / local level if you are able to mobilize a few dozen or a few hundred phone calls.



It would be so nice if people would quit with their defeatist attitude, get out from behind the computer, and actually go do something to stop the government from encroaching on liberty.

----------


## Matt Collins

> The main problems with trying to do both have to do with sanctifying the existence of government.


The government doesn't need your sanctifying to exist. It is going to do bad things to you, steal your money, lock you up, take your property, etc whether you give it permission to or not.


"consent of the governed" is a myth.


They have more guns, therefore they rule. That isn't going to change any time soon, but we can have an influence on where those guns are pointed, and if/when they are used by changing the behavior of the elected officials. You do that through applying pressure and threatening their re-elections.






> One of the major promises of agorism, as evidenced by the OP, is that it can be effective on an individual basis. People who engage in agorism can achieve much, much more freedom in their lives than they could by using that time and energy to try to influence the political process by a fraction of a percent. As more and more people realize this, more and people will engage in agorism, which will bring about freedom much more quickly and effectively than voting ever could.


False premise, the government will run right over you unless you've got political power.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Right, those that the media promotes and get elected do.  Do you think Ron Paul would have had a good chance of being our president right now if the media had given him fair coverage?  Pretty big impact, huh?


No, because Ron wasn't that electable. The media obviously was doing everything they could to hurt him, but even if they had given him fair coverage, I think it would've been unlikely for him to have been able to become President. 

But there are ways to handle the media, and in many cases, you can just go around them. For most state and local races, the media is largely irrelevant and takes a back seat to precinct organizing, direct mail, and canvassing.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I'm saying people do not have to participate in campaigns or parties to spread the message of liberty.


I completely agree. But what's the point of spreading the message of liberty but then not acting on it? If everyone knows about liberty, how does that help us if no one is doing anything about a lack of liberty?

We don't need to educate people as much as we need to mobilize them. It's called the education fallacy.

This page explains why trying to educate people about liberty is a failing proposition:
http://training4liberty.org/facl2/info.htm#


Majorities are not needed, we only have to be able to put enough pressure at the right time on the right people, and we can do what we want. In most state legislatures, a dozen phone calls on a bill can change their vote.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Just a couple years ago, it was illegal in Virginia to concealed-carry in restaurants that served alcohol.  Now it is legal.


This is anecdotal, not empirical.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Well, that skips a lot of stuff in between.  Certainly the 2008 Ron Paul campaign was a great leap forward, but it didn't spring out of the brow of Zeus.  Why did it go differently than the 1988 campaign of, oh yeah, the same person, Ron Paul?  Was it just some brilliant tactical details, like him running as a Republican instead of a Libertarian, or us doing individual Internet marketing?  No.  It was that *there were a lot more of us!*  Peer-to-peer don't work if there ain't no peers!


I would say that being a Republican was the biggest part of it, the Internet being the second contributing factor.

There were a lot of people who thought like we did, but no one knew how many who who were. And I think the liberty movement was grown also because of the Internet, more people started to be able to envision a world with less government because the freedom that the Internet allowed.






> In the meantime, between 1988 and 2008, many millions of people had been exposed to and tens of thousands converted to libertarianism by the LP and their many candidates like Harry Browne, libertarian columnists like Joe Sobran and Dave Barry (I loved Dave Barry!), libertarian novelists like L. Neil Smith and F. Paul Wilson (and really a disproportionate of the good sci-fi writers out there are libertarian or are at least writing books with libertarian themes like Heinlein), John Stossel was there doing specials on libertarian ideas on prime-time national TV, and of course there's always Ayn Rand in the background, slowly converting thousands posthumously with Atlas Shrugged.  Especially in the 90s, many prominent people publicly stated that they were libertarians, such as actors Clint Eastwood, Drew Carey, and Kurt Russell, TV anchor Hugh Downs, radiomen Art Bell, Larry Elder, Howard Stern, and Neal Boortz (and Walter Williams subbing for Rush), and many others, and the LP News always liked telling me about all of them as proof that victory was just around the corner.


Yes, the good old days. I subscribed to The Advocates newsletter, and also watched Badnarik's videos and listened to Harry Browne's podcasts.


Brian Doherty has a book out out about this called Radicals for Capitalism which details the history of the liberty movement. I've got it but haven't read it yet.







> The most important place to fight the government, long term, is through movement-building.


I can agree with that. But you have to have some short term victories, and big lists. And you use that to affect policy and get your people elected.




> The libertarian movement is a threat to the government.  Nothing else is.  Political action can grow the movement, if it is used as a platform for someone with integrity and the ability to communicate the ideas of liberty, someone like Ron Paul.  But lots of other things can also grow the movement and make it stronger.


Yes, but the movement doesn't need to grow in order to affect policy now. The movement doesn't need to grow in order to get our candidates elected. If Rand becomes Prez in 2016 for example, it won't be only because of the liberty movement, we're not strong enough to get him elected. So he has to broaden his base a bit. He's still a liberty guy, but he has to market to others besides us.

----------


## cjm

> I completely agree. But what's the point of spreading the message of liberty but then not acting on it? If everyone knows about liberty, how does that help us if no one is doing anything about a lack of liberty?


That's not what I said.  I said that education and politics are both important.  I encourage those that are interested to participate in both.  If someone is disinterested in politics, they should keep spreading the message so that those working the political side will have a more receptive audience.

----------


## cjm

> This is anecdotal, not empirical.


It's both.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Almost nothing the grassroots did was "political" or in the "political system".


   Did you sleep through the last 5 years?






> Renting airplanes, renting a blimp, tricking out vehicles, donning V for Vendetta masks and waving signs, filling the roadways and overpasses with guerrilla marketing, making Youtube tributes, writing songs, doing Meetups and networking, Ron Paul Christmas decorations, Ron Paul jack-o-lanterns, Ron Paul painted roofs for Google Maps' benefit, running entire Ron Paul radio stations, a "Ron Paul County" project out in Texas, the list could go on and on.  We did tons of cool, inspiring, highly non-traditional and, in a short-term electoral politics sense, highly ineffective things.  The Ron Paul rEVOLution logo was certainly not calculated to get Republican votes and garner election victory, and it certainly didn't.  But it worked for us.  Like so much else that we did, it reached a certain kind of person and struck a chord with them and made them do some research and eventually brought them into the fold.


 yes but as you noted, it didn't really do anything to win an election which was kind of the whole point of a campaign.






> We are winning the intellectual battle, at least currently.


That doesn't win elections or change policy. Only political pressure does that.





> Statism has had a 100% mindshare in the past.  But now, we have some share.  We have, say, 5% and they have only 95%.  That's huge!  The intellectual battle is fundamental.  Think of it like "logistics" in a warfare scenario, or even better, like the economic strength of the warring countries.  Without a solid intellectual fight going on at the foundation, go won't attract new young converts to your cause, and your movement will wither and die.  Without a large base of backers and believers, you will not win elections.


No, not necessary. Elections are not about changing peoples' minds per se, they are about convincing people to vote for your guy on election day. That's a much lower threshold and easier to attain than trying to modify someone's worldview and underlying philosophy.

Elections are just marketing.






> So there's a lot of stuff we can do to further liberty, and certainly electioneering is not the most important, ...Most people are not like you and will be drained by it.  They will burn out quickly.  They will not like it, because it's conflict, it's drama, it's dirty, it's cynical, and it will eat up their life.  So most of us should avoid electioneering and focus on other movement-growing and enhancing actions.


Electioneering and political pressure on issues are the only activities that actually change the policies. I understand people dont want to get involved, yeah it can be a drag, but the only thing for big government to triumph is for good people to do nothing. _The more liberty people who do not play in the political arena, the more the statists win._

----------


## familydog

> It would be so nice if people would quit with their defeatist attitude, get out from behind the computer, and actually go do something to stop the government from encroaching on liberty.


You can fist pump and slap Rand's ass all you want, but I am not anymore free than I was twenty years ago. I am considerably less free. This is an empirical and measurable fact. Who cares about a couple of kidney punches I didn't receive? I only care about my daily whippings at the hand of your buddies.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It's both.


Fair enough.  But it's still not sufficient to prove the claim in question.

----------


## cjm

> Fair enough.  But it's still not sufficient to prove the claim in question.


The claim in question was:




> There is absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest that politiking will change anything.


I could cite more examples of law changes that have favored liberty, but one example is enough to refute this particular claim.

Now if the claim was "There is absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest that politiking will change anything _to my satisfaction_" then you are correct.  I cannot prove that political solutions will ever satisfy everyone.  But I never made that claim.  My claim is that politics is an avenue to promote liberty and make society freer.  There is plenty of evidence for this.  Some say the time and effort required to make small changes isn't worth it.  I'm ok with that.  Value is subjective.  It is worth it to other people.  I applaud those who work hard in politics for small changes as well as those that work hard in their personal lives to help their neighbors understand liberty.  Both are needed.  And if anyone disagrees with this, that's fine, we can agree to disagree.

----------


## Matthew5

> So you didn't lift a finger for Ron Paul?  That's hard core.


A quick scan of my previous posts would show that I was heavily involved in the RP '12 campaign (both officially and grassroots) and have been volunteering for campaigns since I was 18 (obviously alittle before my public RPF record). I've volunteered for local, state, and national campaigns; heck, I even considered a political office myself (had the paper work and contacts already rolling). I've met with politicians in my work life and have always been active in the grassroots for personal causes.

I've played the game, and the conclusion I have come to is that it's not worth playing.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Did you sleep through the last 5 years?
> ...
> * yes* but as you noted...


 In other words: "How could you be so wrong...yes, you're right".




> , it didn't really do anything to win an election which was kind of the whole point of a campaign.


 Was it?  You yourself said Ron couldn't win, was unelectable.  You didn't say that during the campaign, did you?  No, you didn't (I did, for the record, say he wasn't going to win right after he lost the strawpoll at the Iowa caucuses).  Was that *dishonesty*, or did you only figure this out in hindsight?  Hmm.  Anyway, in my view winning was never the only point of the campaign.  Of course, I did make sure that we won in my county.  There was one Ron Paul supporter there in the stadium in Tampa from Campbell County, Wyoming.  So I did my part.  I "know how this game is played" or whatever junk some of you guys are patting each other on the back for.  As if anyone who doesn't thrive on conflict and parliamentary machinations and power plays like you do is hopelessly clueless and ignorant.  Wrong, they're not.  They're just different.  They're normal, one might say.  And yeah, it was a thrill to win, but a far more lasting result will be the network of supporters who got to know each other in the process of winning.




> Electioneering and political pressure on issues are the only activities that actually change the policies. I understand people dont want to get involved, yeah it can be a drag, but the only thing for big government to triumph is for good people to do nothing. _The more liberty people who do not play in the political arena, the more the statists win._


 In other words, I am right about everything and you have either agreed with or been silent on every point I have made, but yet you still disagree with me.  And maybe if you put it in bigger font it will be more convincing.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Is *dishonesty* just a part of "marketing" to you, Matt Collins?  Is that what you're about?

Of course, there's no reason for you to answer that honestly either, is there?  This is all just a Machiavellian struggle for power for you, huh?

----------


## silverhandorder

Politics has not got us anywhere. I did more for my freedom by improving my economic status then anything that was done since 2007. Networking with people you agree is a good thing. Trying to seize power so you can ram down libertarianism down the throats of the rest of the country is not going to get us anywhere. If it did we would be a libertarian society. The general trend is that over time societies collapse (due to being run politically). We are at the point where we can't do anything to stop that.

----------


## green73

> Is *dishonesty* just a part of "marketing" to you, Matt Collins?  Is that what you're about?
> 
> Of course, there's no reason for you to answer that honestly either, is there?  This is all just a Machiavellian struggle for power for you, huh?


Collins is just a pathetic hanger-on with no credibility. What's sad though, is the vocal few here who are either shills or really do ascribe to Machiavellianism.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Is *dishonesty* just a part of "marketing" to you, Matt Collins?


Anyone who markets dishonestly is a fool, because it can be easily seen through and does more damage than by not marketing dishonestly. And besides, it's not moral.

----------


## LibertyEagle

So, guys, I guess you believe that Ron Paul was wrong all along, eh?




> “I have many friends in the libertarian movement who look down on those of us who get involved in political activity,” he acknowledged, but "eventually, if you want to bring about changes … what you have to do is participate in political action.” -- Ron Paul


http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/sep/22/00019/

----------


## Matt Collins

> Politics has not got us anywhere.


Actually it is what has gotten us into the place we're in now, and it's the only thing that can get us out of it too.





> Trying to seize power so you can ram down libertarianism down the throats of the rest of the country is not going to get us anywhere.


If you're not controlling the government, then someone else is. Is that what you want?

----------


## Matt Collins

> You yourself said Ron couldn't win, was unelectable.  You didn't say that during the campaign, did you?  No, you didn't (I did, for the record, say he wasn't going to win right after he lost the strawpoll at the Iowa caucuses).  Was that *dishonesty*, or did you only figure this out in hindsight?


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white




> Anyway, in my view winning was never the only point of the campaign.


Electoral victory is not the same as "winning". Ron Paul won both 08 and 12 even though he didn't achieve electoral victory.





> Of course, I did make sure that we won in my county.  There was one Ron Paul supporter there in the stadium in Tampa from Campbell County, Wyoming.  So I did my part.


That's awesome, congrats! I wish everyone in every county across the country did the same.





> And yeah, it was a thrill to win, but a far more lasting result will be the network of supporters who got to know each other in the process of winning.


I completely agree with that.

----------


## silverhandorder

> So, guys, I guess you believe that Ron Paul was wrong all along, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/sep/22/00019/


Yes he is wrong. 




> Actually it is what has gotten us into the place we're in now, and it's the only thing that can get us out of it too.


Which is Ron Paul's son with a diluted platform to fit the mind set of the majority. I like Rand, I like Ron Paul. But I also like Adam Kokesh, Peter Schiff and Stefan Moleneux. And they have a much better approach. Peter is saving people money. Adam is getting people involved in alternative economy. Stefan is teaching people how to actually raise their families and structure relationships that makes you free.




> If you're not controlling the government, then someone else is. Is that what you want?


That someone else is going to have to fight with another someone else for that power. Yes I want them to waste their time on that while "liberty" movement outgrows government in power.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

If this thread was a forum it would be called the Daily Paul.

----------


## silverhandorder

Mind blown... Daily Paul is a forum mostly about not participating in politics? Never got into following it with RPF around.

----------


## klamath

Well anarchists enjoy it while you can because I really don't think the owner of the RP forums will look to lightly on people actively condemning and promoting the idea to drop out of electoral politics on a forum set up specifically to elect people. It is perfectly fine to be personally disgusted with politics and not want to participate but when it is *counter to the objective of the forum* something is going to give when the elections roll around. 
When you are actively attempting to suppress liberty voter turnout and destroy enthusiasm for candidates Byran is actively trying to get elected don't be surprised if your freedom to use his server space doesn't get curtailed.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Well anarchists enjoy it while you can because I really don't think the owner of the RP forums will look to lightly on people actively condemning and promoting the idea to drop out of electoral politics on a forum set up specifically to elect people. It is perfectly fine to be personally disgusted with politics and not want to participate but when it is *counter to the objective of the forum* something is going to give when the elections roll around. 
> When you are actively attempting to suppress liberty voter turnout and destroy enthusiasm for candidates Byran is actively trying to get elected don't be surprised if your freedom to use his server space doesn't get curtailed.


This corner of the forest is designed especially for anti-political people.  If this had been started in GP or something, I could see why Bryan would be upset.

----------


## klamath

> This corner of the forest is designed especially for anti-political people.  If this had been started in GP or something, I could see why Bryan would be upset.


 If the intent is for a group of dyed in the wool anarchists to have a place to talk about their projects, that is fine but if the intent like this thread title is to recruit new and discourage current liberty voters then it becomes counter to the goals of the forum. 
Should Bryan set up a socialist forum that has the intention to discourage libertarian Republican  turnout and regularly have those members post negative comments about the candidates Bryan choose to support?

----------


## silverhandorder

> If the intent is for a group of dyed in the wool anarchists to have a place to talk about their projects, that is fine but if the intent like this thread title is to recruit new and discourage current liberty voters then it becomes counter to the goals of the forum. 
> Should Bryan set up a socialist forum that has the intention to discourage libertarian Republican  turnout and regularly have those members post negative comments about the candidates Bryan choose to support?


What we say will have no effect on those who have political fewer. It is for when those people get finally discouraged that what we say will look attractive to them. Honestly anti activism people generally lurk and do not interfere with the forum during elections.

edit: as far as negativity I would worry more about trolls.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If the intent is for a group of dyed in the wool anarchists to have a place to talk about their projects, that is fine but if the intent like this thread title is to recruit new and discourage current liberty voters then it becomes counter to the goals of the forum. *
> Should Bryan set up a socialist forum that has the intention to discourage libertarian Republican  turnout and regularly have those members post negative comments about the candidates Bryan choose to support?*


No, that would fall under "philosophy" as well on RPFs.  We've had our share of LVT socialists and such in the past.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> This corner of the forest is designed especially for anti-political people.  If this had been started in GP or something, I could see why Bryan would be upset.


Where did you get that idea?  No, it's not.  It's for discussions of political philosophy.

----------


## Matthew5

> So, guys, I guess you believe that Ron Paul was wrong all along, eh?


That's allowable...even on RPF.

----------


## Matthew5

> What we say will have no effect on those who have political fewer. It is for when those people get finally discouraged that what we say will look attractive to them. Honestly anti activism people generally lurk and do not interfere with the forum during elections.
> 
> edit: as far as negativity I would worry more about trolls.


I've seen the anarchists be a fairly tame bunch. This subforum seems to be an appropriate place for the message. In fact, many would credit Dr. Paul for leading them to anarchy.

----------


## Matthew5

> Well anarchists enjoy it while you can because I really don't think the owner of the RP forums will look to lightly on people actively condemning and promoting the idea to drop out of electoral politics on a forum set up specifically to elect people. It is perfectly fine to be personally disgusted with politics and not want to participate but when it is *counter to the objective of the forum* something is going to give when the elections roll around. 
> When you are actively attempting to suppress liberty voter turnout and destroy enthusiasm for candidates Byran is actively trying to get elected don't be surprised if your freedom to use his server space doesn't get curtailed.


And how is threads like "Bestest Picture Thread Evvver" and forums like Science and Hot Topics relevant to getting people elected?

They're not. It's just a space for liberty lovers to express common interests. Many fans of Dr. Paul who generally get along with other fans have congregated here. There's not a concentrated movement to undermine the candidate forums or even General Politics, it's mainly kept to the fringes of Liberty Forest. Anarchists are waking people up too...many that could be soft on anarchy views and end up voting in elections. 

It's such a small minority of the forums and countering views are a positive influence, if not to sharpen your beliefs.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Where did you get that idea?  No, it's not.  It's for discussions of political philosophy.


Well, all the anarchy stuff is dumped here when it's put in general politics and other more visible forums.  I wasn't paying much attention, but it was my impression that this sub forum was created for the anarchist topics (and others that aren't suitable for the major forums that would turn off visitors just looking for RP info/discussion).

----------


## klamath

> And how is threads like "Bestest Picture Thread Evvver" and forums like Science and Hot Topics relevant to getting people elected?
> 
> They're not. It's just a space for liberty lovers to express common interests. Many fans of Dr. Paul who generally get along with other fans have congregated here. There's not a concentrated movement to undermine the candidate forums or even General Politics, it's mainly kept to the fringes of Liberty Forest. Anarchists are waking people up too...many that could be soft on anarchy views and end up voting in elections. 
> 
> It's such a small minority of the forums and countering views are a positive influence, if not to sharpen your beliefs.


It is NOT whether it is relevant it is whether it is *actually intentionally* undermining the intent of the forums. Political activism. This thread title is intentionally aimed at undermining Bryan's intent.

----------


## Matthew5

> It is NOT whether it is relevant it is whether it is *actually intentionally* undermining the intent of the forums. Political activism. This thread title is intentionally aimed at undermining Bryan's intent.


Dissent and differing opinions forces you to think critically about what you do. Again, we're not some major force seeking to undermine the entire mission of this site; just a small voice in a sub-forum, operating within the parameters given and trying to open up discussion and debate of how politics affect liberty.

If your faith is so weak that it is shaken by criticism, then the fault isn't in the critic, it's in the believer.

----------


## cjm

> Collins is just a pathetic hanger-on with no credibility. What's sad though, is the vocal few here who are either shills or really do ascribe to Machiavellianism.


Seriously?  129 posts in this thread before your participation and you choose to jump in and call names?  That's not the best way to promote your cause.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> So, guys, I guess you believe that Ron Paul was wrong all along, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/sep/22/00019/


His entire farewell speech was in firm opposition to that quote. He either changed his mind since then, or he walked the path of least resistance in that interview.

----------


## familydog

> The claim in question was:
> 
> I could cite more examples of law changes that have favored liberty, but one example is enough to refute this particular claim.
> 
> Now if the claim was "There is absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest that politiking will change anything _to my satisfaction_" then you are correct.  I cannot prove that political solutions will ever satisfy everyone.  But I never made that claim.  My claim is that politics is an avenue to promote liberty and make society freer.  There is plenty of evidence for this.  Some say the time and effort required to make small changes isn't worth it.  I'm ok with that.  Value is subjective.  It is worth it to other people.  I applaud those who work hard in politics for small changes as well as those that work hard in their personal lives to help their neighbors understand liberty.  Both are needed.  And if anyone disagrees with this, that's fine, we can agree to disagree.


If politics can't make each and every individual's lives more free, it isn't worth doing. Your evidence fails on every level. It does nothing to prove that politics has created more freedom in my life. If you're going to promote an involuntary system, it damn well better serve the needs of each and every person. But herein lies the problem: politics and government is a win-lose system. When you win, someone else loses. There is no room for negotiating peaceful and voluntary results. 

I've made my peace with activists who wish to use the violence of government to further their agendas. I have no room in my life for begging psychopaths for little dribbles of liberty that they had no moral right to steal in the first place.

----------


## Matt Collins

> That someone else is going to have to fight with another someone else for that power. Yes I want them to waste their time on that while "liberty" movement outgrows government in power.


I'd rather win back our liberty through peaceful political methods, not through a violent conflict.

----------


## Matt Collins

> If the intent is for a group of dyed in the wool anarchists to have a place to talk about their projects, that is fine but if the intent like this thread title is to recruit new and discourage current liberty voters then it becomes counter to the goals of the forum.


No, I disagree. I think this is an important debate and discussion we are having here, and I think it should be aired out like we're doing. Even if the people who argue against me are completely wrong  they should still be able to discuss and debate their thoughts in an articulate manner.

----------


## Matthew5

> I'd rather win back our liberty through peaceful political methods, not through a violent conflict.


Do you feel that peaceful means can also exist outside of politics?

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> The government doesn't need your sanctifying to exist. It is going to do bad things to you, steal your money, lock you up, take your property, etc whether you give it permission to or not.


And it will do bad things to you whether you ask it not to through the political process or not. The point of our debate is, What is the most effective use of your time and resources to maximize liberty? 
You say:
Sending emails to politicians
Handing out flyers
Making phone calls

I say:
Withdrawing consent
Spreading the message of the illegitimacy of the state
Using the time and money you saved from not doing politics to help support the small businesses that step up to replace the role of government, like those in this story about Detroit:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/44...eaking-awesome


We would be much farther away from a free society if the entrepreneurs in that story had used their time to run for political office rather than create those businesses.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Do you feel that peaceful means can also exist outside of politics?


All human interaction is political. And at the end of the day it's all about power and force (the two are not the same thing).

----------


## Matt Collins

> And it will do bad things to you whether you ask it not to through the political process or not.


If you posses political power you are a bit more insulated from the government's actions. You're less likely to be run over the more power you have.








> The point of our debate is, What is the most effective use of your time and resources to maximize liberty? 
> You say:
> Sending emails to politicians
> Handing out flyers
> Making phone calls


Working within the political process is the only thing that slows down the government.




> I say:
> Withdrawing consent
> Spreading the message of the illegitimacy of the state


And that doesn't accomplish anything other than making us feel good.

----------


## Matthew5

> All human interaction is political. And at the end of the day it's all about power and force (the two are not the same thing).


Ok, let me rephrase it...in context of this discussion, that is the American political structure, do you see peaceful means existing outside of it?

----------


## Matthew5

> And that doesn't accomplish anything other than making us feel good.


And what you may call "feeling good", others call standing on principle (a concept very much lost on politicians  ).

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> If you posses political power you are a bit more insulated from the government's actions.


If you possess economic power you are a bit more insulated from the governments actions. Most freedom lovers would be better off googling "How to pay less taxes" than googling "How to influence politics"   They'd be better off emailing an accountant than emailing a politician.

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> And that doesn't accomplish anything other than making us feel good.



It surprises me that you would even say this. Spreading the message of individual liberty and self-ownership is paramount to the success of the freedom movement. The more people who see govt for the illegitimate, violence-based organization that it is, the closer we will be to a free society.

----------


## Matt Collins

> If you possess economic power you are a bit more insulated from the governments actions. Most freedom lovers would be better off googling "How to pay less taxes" than googling "How to influence politics"   They'd be better off emailing an accountant than emailing a politician.


I would say both.

----------


## Matt Collins

> It surprises me that you would even say this. Spreading the message of individual liberty and self-ownership is paramount to the success of the freedom movement. The more people who see govt for the illegitimate, violence-based organization that it is, the closer we will be to a free society.


But the reality is that it doesn't matter what percentage of the population agrees with us, it matters how much pressure we can put on the politicians. Which means, how many people can we mobilize?

----------


## silverhandorder

> I'd rather win back our liberty through peaceful political methods, not through a violent conflict.





> But the reality is that it doesn't matter what percentage of the population agrees with us, it matters how much pressure we can put on the politicians. Which means, how many people can we mobilize?


Which is better achieved outside the political process. When amazon and google speak up government listens. When mass disobedience occurs government listens. Eventually government will be powerless in the face of those forces. In the meantime 10 hours overtime is worth more for my freedom then 10 hours of activism.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Which is better achieved outside the political process. When amazon and google speak up government listens. When mass disobedience occurs government listens. Eventually government will be powerless in the face of those forces. In the meantime 10 hours overtime is worth more for my freedom then 10 hours of activism.


It is far easier to get 100 people to call your state legislator to stop a bill than it is to get 10 people to commit to break the law.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> All human interaction is political. And at the end of the day it's all about power and force (the two are not the same thing).


 You are making some big communications mistakes here, Matt, and this post right here is an example of a major, major problem.  You are trying to actually communicate, presumably, with the audience here.  That means using words in a way that audience will understand.  You know, or should know, perfectly well, how the words "political/politics" and "power" are used by libertarians.  Yet you are choosing to use them in a completely different way, with completely different definitions.  I do not know if it's intentional or not, because I have run into this confusion and miscommunication with you on one thread before.  Maybe you're just intentionally muddying the waters to confuse the issue.

Let's assume good faith and review again, though.

*Politics*, in the sense that everyone on this forum always, invariably uses it (except for you, Matt) means: actions associated with trying to control or influence *the state*, working within the processes which the state itself has set up for doing so (elections, referendums, signing petitions on the White House web site, etc.).  To quote Wikipedia, politics is the process whereby we "choose government officials and make decisions about public policy."

*Power*, in the sense that everyone on this forum always, invariably uses it (except for you, Matt) means: the power to push other people around aggressively.  This word, too, generally has reference to *the state*, not just random criminals or malfeasants.

So there's the normal definitions.

Do you get it now?  Are we on the same page?  Can you now use the words "power" and "politics" like a normal Ron Paul supporter, going forward?  Then we can have actual communication, see?  It'll be great!

It's not that your definitions are wrong.  All acts involving human interaction can indeed be thought of and labeled as politics.  A boss' influence over his employees can indeed be thought of as power.  So too, in fact, can a violinist's mastery over his instrument be considered power. But these are not relevant definitions.  They're not what anyone here is talking about!  My guess is you've read/listened to a whole lot of self-help books, with a particular focus on empowerment, and are now wanting to give us all a free lesson in all the marvelous things you've discovered from the _The 48 Laws of Power_ and _The Art of Seduction_.  And that's great, but it just isn't relevant to this discussion.  And no one's going to learn anything from your terse one-liners anyway.  You're just spouting tautologies... to _yourself_.  No one else is receiving your words.

When IDefendthePlatform says that he's swearing off politics, that doesn't mean he no longer wants to be able to influence his wife to do things he likes!  When LoneStarLocke explains how he, too, has given up on politics, that doesn't mean he is giving up on being admired and listened-to at work!  They are just saying they have decided to quit electioneering.  They've decided to stop fighting the state within the state's own approved processes.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

When people say all politics is evil, they are not railing against the woes of "office politics"!

----------


## silverhandorder

> It is far easier to get 100 people to call your state legislator to stop a bill than it is to get 10 people to commit to break the law.


How many hours is that to get 100 people calling? At minimum wage how much money could you make for the same amount of time investment? How about at avg wage? How about at your wage? 

Now combine an hour of those peoples time. 

You can see how the time investment explodes. All that activity can be directed towards making libertarian community more prosperous. Then there will incentive to actually cater to libertarian needs if they are such an affluent society.

----------


## Matt Collins

> How many hours is that to get 100 people calling? At minimum wage how much money could you make for the same amount of time investment? How about at avg wage? How about at your wage? 
> 
> Now combine an hour of those peoples time. 
> 
> You can see how the time investment explodes. All that activity can be directed towards making libertarian community more prosperous. Then there will incentive to actually cater to libertarian needs if they are such an affluent society.


You're right that changing things is an investment in time, and thus money, no doubt about that. But how much of your wealth will you lose if the government continues to grow like it is? In fact, can you even keep what you make if the government continues to grow?   And, then there are personal freedoms... no one can really put a price on those...

----------


## Matt Collins

> You are making some big communications mistakes here, Matt,


That's definitely not out of the realm of possibility.




> You know, or should know, perfectly well, how the words "political/politics" and "power" are used by libertarians.  Yet you are choosing to use them in a completely different way, with completely different definitions.  I do not know if it's intentional or not, because I have run into this confusion and miscommunication with you on one thread before.  Maybe you're just intentionally muddying the waters to confuse the issue.


Fair enough, but I have already defined these phrases multiple times not only on this board, but in this thread too.







> *Politics*, in the sense that everyone on this forum always, invariably uses it (except for you, Matt) means: actions associated with trying to control or influence *the state*, working within the processes which the state itself has set up for doing so (elections, referendums, signing petitions on the White House web site, etc.).  To quote Wikipedia, politics is the process whereby we "choose government officials and make decisions about public policy."


That's a correct but very narrow view of it, politics is a process by which groups of humans make decisions, whether or not it involves the government. The definition really is that politics is the adjudication of power. Power being defined as being able to get others to do what you want them to do.







> It's not that your definitions are wrong.  All acts involving human interaction can indeed be thought of and labeled as politics.  A boss' influence over his employees can indeed be thought of as power.  So too, in fact, can a violinist's mastery over his instrument be considered power. But these are not relevant definitions.


I disagree that these are not relevant definitions. 

I think that having an understanding of how power flows in our daily non-governmental interactions is indeed crucial to understanding how power flows within the government, and within our interactions of the government, and those who control the government. 

It's all a form of economics, about human motivation. Almost brushing up against praxeology. Having your parents or your boss or your friends coax you into doing something is very similar to having the government do the same. And the reverse works, understanding how power among people within society functions can lead you to be able to manipulate politicians who make policy decisions.




> They're not what anyone here is talking about!  My guess is you've read/listened to a whole lot of self-help books, with a particular focus on empowerment, and are now wanting to give us all a free lesson in all the marvelous things you've discovered from the _The 48 Laws of Power_ and _The Art of Seduction_.


lolz, no, not hardly. But I have studied political activism quite a bit in the last few years, how to kill legislation, how to push legislation, etc.





> They are just saying they have decided to quit electioneering.  They've decided to stop fighting the state within the state's own approved processes.


And when good people do nothing and don't fight for liberty, the statists win.

----------


## silverhandorder

> You're right that changing things is an investment in time, and thus money, no doubt about that. But how much of your wealth will you lose if the government continues to grow like it is? In fact, can you even keep what you make if the government continues to grow?   And, then there are personal freedoms... no one can really put a price on those...


Currently I don't have much wealth. Any wealth that I will obtain as my career grows I sure as hell will not put it anywhere where it may be in danger. There are safe heavens around the world that are rewarding towards investors and savers. 

Matt you may not be able to put a price on freedom but many people do, and so do I. However that does not mean that my approach will make me less free then yours. People with economic power can BUY political power and freedom.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Any wealth that I will obtain as my career grows I sure as hell will not put it anywhere where it may be in danger. There are safe heavens around the world that are rewarding towards investors and savers.


But you miss the fact that a great amount of your wealth is already being stolen from you even if you don't realize it.

Every time you pay rent you have to pay property taxes. Every time you buy something the government gets a cut. The government also gets a cut of your income. Your cell phone and Internet costs are heavily taxed as well as your gas and electricity, etc. Not to mention the embedded taxes that raise the cost of doing business (which always gets passed on to the consumer).

And then of course there is currency inflation....





> People with economic power can BUY political power and freedom.


Very true. But the reality is that most people will never be able to buy political power or freedom.

----------


## silverhandorder

> But you miss the fact that a great amount of your wealth is already being stolen from you even if you don't realize it.
> 
> Every time you pay rent you have to pay property taxes. Every time you buy something the government gets a cut. The government also gets a cut of your income. Your cell phone and Internet costs are heavily taxed as well as your gas and electricity, etc. Not to mention the embedded taxes that raise the cost of doing business (which always gets passed on to the consumer).
> 
> And then of course there is currency inflation....


I absolutely agree. I can always leave. If they make it hard to leave I can always hide my wealth. If they make that hard I can just stop being productive. I always have a choice. But my choice of action is realistic. Taking over federal government and convincing people who are dependent to be libertarian is not going to work. 




> Very true. But the reality is that most people will never be able to buy political power or freedom.


Same would apply to their ability to effect change as political activists.

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> And when good people do nothing and don't fight for liberty, the statists win.


You keep conflating not participating in the sham known as "politics" with "doing nothing." I don't know how many more different ways I can say it. Agorism is the *more effective* route. Political action reinforces statism and takes money and time away from building a wealthy, functioning, free society. I'll repost this list to re-make the point that what we agorists are doing, is NOT nothing:

Stop voting
Don't endorse political candidates
Don't participate in any political or civil campaign
Refuse to participate in the hero cult of police and military
Turn your TV off
Homeschool your kids or send them to a private school
Leave or don't join nationalistic organizations (e.g. Boy Scouts)
Don't give to "charities" or funds that support civic organizations (encourage private enterprise instead)
Grow your own food
Barter more
Reduce your debt
Shall I go on? There's lots of little practical steps one can take and it will begin to have a cumulative effect.
Donate the money you would have sent to politicians to liberty-minded podcasters or talk radio hosts like Ian and Mark at FreeTalkLive
Buy some bitcoin 
Promote bitcoin usage at your local small businesses and with friends
Instead of handing out flyers encouraging people to vote for one or the other politician, hand out flyers on why voting is a sham 
Promote Bastiat's "The Law" (Ron Paul's favorite book) and other liberty minded philosophical literature by donating them to the local library or schools, or by writing quality, positive reviews on Amazon
Support private institutions that fill the role of government such as private schools, private security and private mass-transit.
Take government money every chance you get (The more money you take from the government the better libertarian you are-Walter Block via FeedingTheAbscess)
Start a business: http://www.policymic.com/articles/44...eaking-awesome

----------


## Matt Collins

> Political action reinforces statism and takes money and time away from building a wealthy, functioning, free society.


It doesn't reinforce it, it doesn't need reinforcing. It exists and they have more guns whether you care to acknowledge that fact or not. So it's better to be able to manipulate those who control the guns than just simply pretend they don't exist and allow people who don't love liberty to control those guns.

----------


## Christian Liberty

If you don't want to vote, that's fine.  But trying to convince other liberty supporters not to vote is just helping the Statists win.  Which is why I detest Stephan Molineux.  If he doesn't want to vote for people like Ron Paul himself, that's one thing, but to actively try to convince other liberty minded people to do so is just hurting the cause.

The political process is one means to educate and one means to shift power.  I'm not sure it'll work but you  don't really have anything to lose by pulling the lever either.

----------


## Matthew5

> It doesn't reinforce it, it doesn't need reinforcing. It exists and they have more guns whether you care to acknowledge that fact or not. So it's better to be able to manipulate those who control the guns than just simply pretend they don't exist and allow people who don't love liberty to control those guns.


Ok, I get that you're saying that since politics exists, the American government brand is just one more arrow in the quiver of politics as a social interaction. Therefore it's a legitimate system. Am I understanding this correctly?

However, what other form of politics has so much concentrated power to affect the lives of millions through the force of violence and to be wielded by such an elite few? You won't find such at the work place, in the market, at a business conference, or at your church picnic.

Just because some strands of politics can and should exist, doesn't make the state a good tool. You keep speaking of wielding the power...we're trying to destroy the Ring here, not make sure it stays in the correct hands. Controlling the means of force and violence isn't a good goal to have, eradicating the mechanism all together would be a more noble pursuit, wouldn't you say?

----------


## Matthew5

> If you don't want to vote, that's fine.  But trying to convince other liberty supporters not to vote is just helping the Statists win.  Which is why I detest Stephan Molineux.  If he doesn't want to vote for people like Ron Paul himself, that's one thing, but to actively try to convince other liberty minded people to do so is just hurting the cause.
> 
> The political process is one means to educate and one means to shift power.  I'm not sure it'll work but you  don't really have anything to lose by pulling the lever either.


That's if you think "the cause" only exists inside the realm of politics.

Every time you pull the lever, you're legitimizing force to be used to carry out your wishes, however noble they may be. The problem is, the state-worshipping voter in the booth right next to you is legitimizing their wishes as well. And thus the cycle continues...

Other threads can explore ways to advance and educate outside such a system of force.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Every time you pull the lever, you're legitimizing force to be used to carry out your wishes, however noble they may be.


No, not at all. I don't vote for people who put forth those kind of policies, a lot of races I'll write in a candidate or turn in that specific race blank. Even though I vote, I don't vote for the "lesser of evils".





> Other threads can explore ways to advance and educate outside such a system of force.


Except that the system of force exists, always has, and likely will for the foreseeable future. I don't see human nature changing much at all in the next few decades. So it's better to manipulate that system for the cause of liberty, than to let others manipulate it for their purposes.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Ok, I get that you're saying that since politics exists, the American government brand is just one more arrow in the quiver of politics as a social interaction. Therefore it's a legitimate system. Am I understanding this correctly?


Most of what the government does isn't legitimate. 





> However, what other form of politics has so much concentrated power to affect the lives of millions through the force of violence and to be wielded by such an elite few? You won't find such at the work place, in the market, at a business conference, or at your church picnic.


And that's what makes the government unique; it has a monopoly on force.





> You keep speaking of wielding the power...we're trying to destroy the Ring here, not make sure it stays in the correct hands. Controlling the means of force and violence isn't a good goal to have, eradicating the mechanism all together would be a more noble pursuit, wouldn't you say?


Human nature will not allow that to happen any time soon. The Founders understood this, which is why they put as many roadblocks to accumulating power as possible. Unfortunately it largely failed.

The goal should be to acquire the power and then diffuse it so that it can't be concentrated. That's the only realistic approach, but its a human institution so it will never be perfect.

----------


## Matthew5

> The goal should be to acquire the power and then diffuse it so that it can't be concentrated. That's the only realistic approach, but its a human institution so it will never be perfect.


Agreed on any human institution not being perfect...anarchism, communism, socialism, fascism, monarchy, or constitutional republic. All are inventions of men and will have their limitations. But which system promotes the most liberty, peace, and non-violence?

Also, you keep speaking of "the foreseeable future" as if state-ism has a determined shelf life. Perhaps you can't see the forest through the trees, but it's not about time tables (again, a by product of political thinking). Peace and non-violence is a goal that men have been striving for since early history and may never come to humanity until the Last Judgment. That doesn't make it any less of a goal to pursue. We can't simply throw up our hands and say, "Well, we're stuck with this system for the foreseeable future, might as well use it." Again, I harken back to the example of fire or transportation.

 We have to commit to evolving and spend our energies toward that new invention, no matter the cost. Because we honestly believe that it's worth it to have a society where peace and liberty are maximized.

----------


## Matt Collins

> which system promotes the most liberty, peace, and non-violence?


A very very very small, minimal, and limited government.

The trick is to restrain something whose natural inclination is to grow.




> Also, you keep speaking of "the foreseeable future" as if state-ism has a determined shelf life. Perhaps you can't see the forest through the trees, but it's not about time tables (again, a by product of political thinking). Peace and non-violence is a goal that men have been striving for since early history and may never come to humanity


Exactly. I personally believe that a truly free society is out of reach of humanity, just based upon history and human nature as I know it. But many people said the same thing about slavery for thousands of years.




> We can't simply throw up our hands and say, "Well, we're stuck with this system for the foreseeable future, might as well use it."


That's our only choice. We can't abolish it, and we definitely can't bury our heads and pretend that it doesn't exist. Or that if we ignore it it will go away. None of those are options.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> The definition really is that politics is the adjudication of power. Power being defined as being able to get others to do what you want them to do.


 And you know perfectly well that that is not what anyone was talking about except for you.  And so it is totally miscommunicating/misdirecting/lying when you say that IDefendthePlatform and LoneStarLocke and etc. are wrong to give up on politics because politics is all human interaction!  That a completely and totally invalid argument and you know it.  You must know it.  You must just be engaging in manipulation and sophistry.

IDefendthePlatform, LoneStarLocke, et. al., are not giving up on all human interaction.  They are not giving up on "being able to get others to do what they want them to do."  They still want their wives and bosses and customers and whoever to do things which they want them to do.  Is this a big revelation to you?  Do you understand and agree with this?

Then admit, please, that your entire series of one-liners in this thread revealing to us (as if we were three years old) the inevitability and universality of politics and power when used in an expansive sense, are a totally failed and irrelevant argument against giving up electioneering.  They don't even address it.

The politics everyone else is talking about = *electioneering* (and related activities to attempt to control or change the state).
The politics you are talking about = *loving your mother*.

Those quitting electioneering have said: "I am quitting electioneering, and here are my thought-out reasons why".  You have replied: "You're stupid and naive.  You can't expect all people to stop loving their mothers!"  Your reply is a non-reply.

All the arguments for quitting electioneering still stand.  They have not been addressed, much less refuted.  IDefendthePlatform in particular has done a lot of electioneering in the past for Ron Paul in Iowa.  He knows of what he speaks.  He's highly experienced.  He's not a baby to be lectured by you.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> And you know perfectly well that that is not what anyone was talking about except for you.  And so it is totally miscommunicating/misdirecting/lying when you say that IDefendthePlatform and LoneStarLocke and etc. are wrong to give up on politics because politics is all human interaction!  That a completely and totally invalid argument and you know it.  You must know it.  You must just be engaging in manipulation and sophistry.
> 
> IDefendthePlatform, LoneStarLocke, et. al., are not giving up on all human interaction.  They are not giving up on "being able to get others to do what they want them to do."  They still want their wives and bosses and customers and whoever to do things which they want them to do.  Is this a big revelation to you?  Do you understand and agree with this?
> 
> Then admit, please, that your entire series of one-liners in this thread revealing to us (as if we were three years old) the inevitability and universality of politics and power when used in an expansive sense, are a totally failed and irrelevant argument against giving up electioneering.  They don't even address it.
> 
> The politics everyone else is talking about = *electioneering* (and related activities to attempt to control or change the state).
> The politics you are talking about = *loving your mother*.
> 
> ...





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to helmuth_hubener again.


  Someone +rep helmuth for me, plz?

----------


## Matthew5

> Someone +rep helmuth for me, plz?


Got em!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> We can't abolish it


Yes, we can.  There is no logical reason why we cannot do this, why this cannot happen.  The future is unknown.  What's more, unpredictable.

----------


## Matthew5

> Yes, we can.  There is no logical reason why we cannot do this, why this cannot happen.  The future is unknown.  What's more, unpredictable.


I agree, not sure why people place government on the level of human nature, morality, spirituality, ethics...etc. Some immaterial things exist outside of our control and will always be. Government is not one of those. It's an invention by man to solve a problem. 

Government wasn't created by God. In fact, the people of Israel demanded that God give them over to a king. They saw that nations around them had invented this thing called a monarchy and they craved to have a king of their own. But before such a time, a judge settled disputes among the people, a system not too far from some proposed an-cap societies.

Such it is with us. We can throw off our request to be governed by another and choose to govern ourselves. It doesn't violate a law of nature to do so and is entirely possible. We know this because humans have recorded such societies and lived beyond one generation.

----------


## Matt Collins

> The politics everyone else is talking about = *electioneering* (and related activities to attempt to control or change the state).
> The politics you are talking about = *loving your mother*.


Actually it is the same thing, but again, electioneering (to use your phrase) does indeed work if you do it right.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Before y'all get into a 30 page debate with Collins, remember that he has a personal and financial interest in perpetuating electioneering and politics generally.  He's not just someone with a differing opinion.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Before y'all get into a 30 page debate with Collins, remember that he has a personal and financial interest in perpetuating electioneering and politics generally.  He's not just someone with a differing opinion.


HA! Are you kidding? 

Working to change the government has cost me a ton of money and other things...

----------


## Cabal

I don't see how politics is part of human nature any more than government is part of human nature, which is to say, not part of human nature at all.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I don't see how politics is part of human nature any more than government is part of human nature, which is to say, not part of human nature at all.


Politics is how people interact with each other.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Politics is how people interact with each other.


You're confusing politics with sociology.  Politics describes relationships and actions within a political context.

----------


## Cabal

> Politics is how people interact with each other.


Politics is concerned with government according to virtually every dictionary you may check.

An example of how people interact with each other would be speech. Two people speak to each other, they do not politic with each other.

----------


## Matthew5

> Politics is concerned with government according to virtually every dictionary you may check.
> 
> An example of how people interact with each other would be speech. Two people speak to each other, they do not politic with each other.


Lemme go all 8th grade book report:

"Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines politics as the art or science of government*,* the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy, or the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government..."

Yep, nothing about human nature here.

----------


## Cabal

> Yep, nothing about human nature here.


True.

----------


## Teenager For Ron Paul

I'll give you one reason: politics.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'll give you one reason: politics.


You may abandon politics, but politics will unfortunately, not abandon you.  They will keep impacting you whether you participate or not.

This is what Ron Paul had to say about it:

“I have many friends in the libertarian movement who look down on those of us who get involved in political activity,” he acknowledged, but "eventually, if you want to bring about changes … what you have to do is participate in political action.” -- Ron Paul

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/sep/22/00019/

----------


## Theocrat

> You may abandon politics, but politics will unfortunately, not abandon you.  They will keep impacting you whether you participate or not.
> 
> This is what Ron Paul had to say about it:
> 
> I have many friends in the libertarian movement who look down on those of us who get involved in political activity, he acknowledged, but "eventually, if you want to bring about changes  what you have to do is participate in political action. -- Ron Paul
> 
> http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/sep/22/00019/


Politics is not neutral, and Matt Collins is right when he says that politics involves human interaction. Some of the members of this forums can be so naive when it comes to subjects like this. We live in a constitutional republic. It affects everything in civil life, from how many jobs are available in a state to what your car payment will be per month. Non-involvement in politics is not going to change anything, especially of you have kids. What kind of world do you want them to live in when they become your age? If you don't fight the invasions of our rights by corrupt politicians today, then you're just allowing despots to rule your children tomorrow. And that is a fact.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Politics is not neutral, and Matt Collins is right when he says that politics involves human interaction. Some of the members of this forums can be so naive when it comes to subjects like this. *We live in a constitutional republic.* It affects everything in civil life, from how many jobs are available in a state to what your car payment will be per month. Non-involvement in politics is not going to change anything, especially of you have kids. What kind of world do you want them to live in when they become your age? If you don't fight the invasions of our rights by corrupt politicians today, then you're just allowing despots to rule your children tomorrow. And that is a fact.


Nominally, yes.  But in practice the checks are so few and so rarely enforced that it's just a top-down, banana sort of republic at best-Amerika Uber Alles.  That is a fact.

----------


## Cabal

> Politics is not neutral, and Matt Collins is right when he says that politics involves human interaction. Some of the members of this forums can be so naive when it comes to subjects like this. We live in a constitutional republic. It affects everything in civil life, from how many jobs are available in a state to what your car payment will be per month. Non-involvement in politics is not going to change anything, especially of you have kids. What kind of world do you want them to live in when they become your age? If you don't fight the invasions of our rights by corrupt politicians today, then you're just allowing despots to rule your children tomorrow. And that is a fact.


Naive, eh?

So, tell me something. How has political involvement been treating us so far? Consider for a moment that when the Constitution was drafted and ratified, it was by far the most radical notion of government to have ever been achieved, and it is said to have created the smallest, freest form of governance ever known to a nation. From that, despite many, many decades of passionate, dedicated minds who have fought tooth and nail to keep it small, and keep this nation as free as possible, that same government has grown into the largest, most powerful, most far-reaching government of modern times with no intention of reverting this course of growth, and with every intention of continuing its ever-expansive ways. You call others naive, yet it is you who seem to be in complete disregard of this history. So with that history, and my own experience in mind, I defer to that old saying about insanity--I'm not going to continue doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result.

By the way, non-action is still action. If I am standing still, doing nothing, I am still acting. If I am refusing to vote for the next empty suit others choose to trust, believe in, and rally behind, that is still political action. My refusal to participate is political action, it is a statement, and it is a matter of pride and principle. It is me saying that I, in any way I reasonably can, will not legitimize, condone, support, or participate in this wretched system of violence and destruction any longer. It is me saying I will not be mesmerized by the bread and circuses of shallow, meaningless partisan politics that is purposefully employed for the sake of _divide et impera_. It is me saying that I will not beg my self-proclaimed masters for table scraps of liberty that rightfully belong to me as a human being who wishes to live their life in peace. It is me saying that I don't believe that our solutions lie within the very structure and system that treats us as disposable tax livestock and cannon fodder. It is me saying that I would find it more fulfilling, and more productive to instead educate myself and affect existential, philosophical, intellectual change within and around my own personal life, because I believe that the only real, positive change we will attain from this ever-deepening grave we've found ourselves in will be generational, not electoral--rejection, not participation. It is me saying that I refuse to lobby for control of the gun in the room, thereby using their own methods of violence to get what I desire. It is me saying that I have not given up, but neither have I given in.

Now I made an exception with Ron Paul, and maybe if someone else comes along of that same caliber, I may make another such exception, though at this point it is highly doubtful. Ron Paul not only helped to further influence my own development and ideology, his political life (among other things) also helped me to realize what I have expressed above. And Ron Paul, and others who support him, may not agree with the conclusions I have reached--they are my conclusions, after all. I respect his choices, and the choices of others where political action is concerned, and I'm thankful he was involved in the way he chose to involve himself. And I wish him, and anyone else who truly pursues the philosophy of liberty the very best of luck in their pursuits. That does not mean I agree with them, or think they will ever bear the fruit we are all so hungry for.

So you can continue doing what you believe is right in the realm of politics, but your way isn't for everyone. For someone who identifies themselves with the principles and movement of liberty, which I assume you must given your participation and association here, you should know better, quite frankly. Beyond the objective realm of such things as morality, biology, physics, and so on... there is no one way for all, and that is an underlying point of liberty. So you do what you think is right, and I will do what I think is right, and others will do what they think is right. But don't patronize those who don't agree with you simply because you refuse to respect another approach that doesn't follow your own.

----------


## Matthew5

> Politics is not neutral, and Matt Collins is right when he says that politics involves human interaction. Some of the members of this forums can be so naive when it comes to subjects like this. We live in a constitutional republic. It affects everything in civil life, from how many jobs are available in a state to what your car payment will be per month. Non-involvement in politics is not going to change anything, especially of you have kids. What kind of world do you want them to live in when they become your age? If you don't fight the invasions of our rights by corrupt politicians today, then you're just allowing despots to rule your children tomorrow. And that is a fact.


Yes, and the "politics will affect you, regardless" point has been well covered. Some of us would rather focus on shutting down the plantation rather than participating in who is our owners (even at the threat of beatings from said masters). I assume someone like you can appreciate people making life decisions based on principle rather than "results". 

What kind of world do I want my kids to live in when they're my age? A peaceful, voluntary one where the threat of the state is eliminated. You sure as heck aren't going to get that world by perpetuating the system.

----------


## Matt Collins

> How has political involvement been treating us so far?


Since the liberty movement got serious about it a few years back, it's been going pretty well for us.





> Consider for a moment that when the Constitution was drafted and ratified, it was by far the most radical notion of government to have ever been achieved, and it is said to have created the smallest, freest form of governance ever known to a nation. From that, despite many, many decades of passionate, dedicated minds who have fought tooth and nail to keep it small, and keep this nation as free as possible, that same government has grown into the largest, most powerful, most far-reaching government of modern times with no intention of reverting this course of growth, and with every intention of continuing its ever-expansive ways.


That's because the Constitution itself was a coup against the Articles of Confederation and effectively usurped state power.

Yes, government always tries to expand, such is the nature of humanity. Which is why it's best to diffuse power. But in order to diffuse power you must first possesses it. 




> By the way, non-action is still action. If I am standing still, doing nothing, I am still acting.


"The only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"





> If I am refusing to vote for the next empty suit others choose to trust, believe in, and rally behind, that is still political action. My refusal to participate is political action, it is a statement, and it is a matter of pride and principle.


No it's not, it's called getting run over and letting bad people, statists, have control.


If you don't have a say in the government, then someone else will. And I can bet you that they won't have the goals of liberty in mind.





> It is me saying that I, in any way I reasonably can, will not legitimize, condone, support, or participate in this wretched system of violence and destruction any longer.


Participating in fighting the government does not equate to condoning it's actions, quite the contrary actually.

Nice logical fallacy though:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white





> It is me saying I will not be mesmerized by the bread and circuses of shallow, meaningless partisan politics that is purposefully employed for the sake of _divide et impera_. It is me saying that I will not beg my self-proclaimed masters for table scraps of liberty that rightfully belong to me as a human being who wishes to live their life in peace.


I completely agree, but you have to fight for your rights, and you don't always get to choose the time, place, or which battlefield.





> So you do what you think is right, and I will do what I think is right, and others will do what they think is right. But don't patronize those who don't agree with you simply because you refuse to respect another approach that doesn't follow your own.


Translation: "I'm going to go off an pout and stamp my feet instead of leaning how to win and putting in the effort to fight government encroachment"..... yeah, that's not going to do anyone any good.

----------


## Matt Collins

> What kind of world do I want my kids to live in when they're my age? A peaceful, voluntary one where the threat of the state is eliminated. You sure as heck aren't going to get that world by perpetuating the system.


Again, you make a logical fallacy in that assuming fighting TPTB you are somehow condoning or perpetuating their power.

----------


## Matthew5

> Yes, government always tries to expand, such is the nature of humanity. Which is why it's best to diffuse power. But in order to diffuse power you must first possesses it.


Thanks for summing up what a politician does: "Voter! Give me power and I promise I'll return it to you in a timely fashion. Because I'm trust worthy! By the way, I'll need to expend some of that power to enforce the government's will...but it's totally your will too right? I need all the power I can get to defeat these dirty commies. I promise it'll be returned to you." 

Total power is achieved and total corruption ensues. Wash, rinse, repeat.





> Translation: "I'm going to go off an pout and stamp my feet instead of leaning how to win and putting in the effort to fight government encroachment"..... yeah, that's not going to do anyone any good.


Isn't this the same line of logic neo-cons use to keep us in perpetual war? It's that macho attitude that you gotta win, be right, defeat the enemy, dog eat dog, win at all cost, kill or be killed...

That attitude stands in contrast to my faith. What does my faith tell me? Lay down your life, be a peacemaker, turn the other cheek, forgive 7 X 70, love your enemy, and principles along those lines. It's infinitely more difficult to live such principles through the violence and corruption of the state. 

The political war on my doorstep be damned, I'd rather try to live my life by the principles of my faith.

----------


## Matthew5

> Again, you make a logical fallacy in that assuming fighting TPTB you are somehow condoning or perpetuating their power.


It's not a logical fallacy. It's one that accounts for the nature of the system, the mechanisms used to employ social change, your side's (statists) track record, and the nature of power.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Yup, ladies and gentlemen, and that pretty much sums up why our country has all but fallen.  

Who was it who said something like this?  Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

And now we know why he said it.  

Disgusting is what it is.

----------


## Matthew5

> Yup, ladies and gentlemen, and that pretty much sums up why our country has all but fallen.  
> 
> Who was it who said something like this?  Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
> 
> And now we know why he said it.  
> 
> Disgusting is what it is.


I'll let you in on a dirty anarchist secret. Evil will still exist without government. And it will need to be addressed in society, some would just like to invent a new tool to deal with it other than government (i.e. the state). I'd be willing to bet evil would be reduced rather than increased when power is decentralized in a meaningful manner.

I'd just like your people to get over their Cold War, arms race mentality. Gotta bring nukes to a nuke fight, right? Keep escalating that force continuum.

Peace making is an effort, it's not "doing nothing".

----------


## Cabal

You don't get closer to god by making a deal with the devil.

And no amount of "pouting" and "stamping your feet" is going to change my mind, or the mind of anyone else.

I refuse to participate in this system of institutionalized brutality that destroys lives on a daily basis in the name of virtue. Period. You, we are little more than tax livestock with which they leverage debt upon to continue destroying said lives. This isn't anything new. Voting is not going to change anything--you don't even have a say in anything.

Some guy with a slick haircut and a nice suit promises you goodies that he'll never be able to deliver, and in most cases has no care or intention to anyhow, and you vote him into office every few years. Well, congratulations on your accomplishment. Nothing changes. It never will. Because you fail to understand that none of it matters. It's a rigged game. You're jumping into a circle-jerk that the very system you claim to be fighting has orchestrated for you. You see it every four years, without fail. Hundreds of millions of dollars and countless man-hours are spent campaigning so that some idiot can stand on a stage with several other idiots and regurgitate the same hollow talking points they did two weeks ago. Meanwhile the ignorant mob gathers in the background to cheer and boo on cue, and gather around the pathetic excuse for news media to shout their catchy chants and wave their cute little signs as if they're suddenly going to inspire some widespread epiphany in the people across from them with the same signs and chants that only have a different name printed on them in bold font. 

You're right, evil does triumph when good men do nothing, and that's exactly what voting is--not doing a damn thing. You're a hamster in a wheel, not getting anywhere. You're not going to change people's worldview or ideology with two minute soundbytes on a stage, or any number of rehearsed town-hall meetings, or bumper stickers any more than you're going to change their ideology by getting the next  clown into Congress. You're not going to defeat an ecosystem of special interests and violence that has persevered for hundreds of years at the expense of hundreds of millions of lives by checking a ballot box. There is no conceivable reason to believe you will. Not now, or ever. Even the Founders realized this and went to war because of it. Unfortunately they only ended up installing yet another State to take the place of the last one they just fought. Hubris.  

I don't need to tell you it's not sustainable. Surely you already understand at least that. The debt, the destruction, the violence, the theft, the leeching, the predation. You can see the writing on the wall just as clearly as anyone else. It's only a matter of time and no amount of voting is going to change or save it, and why would you want to save such a vile, horrid thing anyhow? You want to affect change in the world? Get out of the ballot boxes and the phone banks and go create some meaningful, peaceful relationships with people and explore the philosophy of liberty down to its very core, because once that is touched, there is no going back. That stays with a person, and affects them for the rest of their lives, and they will carry it on to the other relationships of their lives, and so on and so forth. That is change. That is substance. That is real. And helping even one single person find that truth is worth more than all the inconsequential ballot boxes you'll ever see.

So go ahead, play their game if you truly think you can beat them at it. But don't be mistaken. It's their game, their design, their deck of cards, their dealer, and their chips. Sure, you may evade HillaryCare every now and then, but a few years later you'll have ObamaCare instead because it's not about the vote, it's about the system; it's not about the window dressing, it's about the foundation. And yeah, the foundation is thoroughly disgusting, which is why I will have nothing to do with it.

----------


## Matthew5

Here's a nice visual since some still don't understand that enforcing your agenda, however noble it may seem, is still done so in a flawed system.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Here's a nice visual since some still don't understand that enforcing your agenda, however noble it may seem, is still done so in a flawed system.





Of course it's a flawed system, humans are imperfect and incapable of creating a perfect system. 

But regardless, that's the environment in which we have to work. So you can sit back and take it, or you can fight. Either way someone is going to be running the government, I'd rather have some influence and say in it than none.

----------


## Matt Collins

> You don't get closer to god by making a deal with the devil.


No one is talking about making any deals with anyone...




> I refuse to participate in this system of institutionalized brutality that destroys lives on a daily basis in the name of virtue.


You don't have a choice, it has power and you don't. Unless of course you also gain power.




> Voting is not going to change anything--you don't even have a say in anything.


That is incorrect. Voting in and of itself doesn't usually change anything, but there are cases when it does. And more specifically, it's not the act of voting as much as what you do to the elected officials before and during the election.  You can change their behavior, they are very Pavlovian, you just have to know which pressure points work, and when/how to apply them. In most cases you can get them to beg for you. In the cases where you can't, then you have to get them thrown out of office next election and replace them with someone that you put in who will do what you want them to do (restrain the government)






> It's a rigged game.


Actually it's not, and you can have control and influence if you're willing to do what it takes. But that means mobilizing people to cause political pain on the politicians. 




> You're right, evil does triumph when good men do nothing, and that's exactly what voting is--not doing a damn thing.


As I have said, you have to do more than just vote, you have to run candidates, you have to hurt bad candidates, you have to mobilize people. 




> You're a hamster in a wheel, not getting anywhere.


Not true, I have killed and passed legislation, and I have had a very large hand in getting people elected/unelected. I have no money and I don't have a political science degree. It's all about effort.




> You're not going to change people's worldview or ideology with two minute soundbytes on a stage, or any number of rehearsed town-hall meetings, or bumper stickers any more than you're going to change their ideology by getting the next clown into Congress.


And here is where many of my fellow liberty people fail in their thinking... changing the government isn't about changing anyone's minds or way of thinking or worldview, it's about convincing them to vote for your guy or against the other guy. It's much easier to do that. We don't need to change people's minds, we simply need to mobilize them for specific reasons.





> I don't need to tell you it's not sustainable. Surely you already understand at least that. The debt, the destruction, the violence, the theft, the leeching, the predation. You can see the writing on the wall just as clearly as anyone else. It's only a matter of time and no amount of voting is going to change or save it, and why would you want to save such a vile, horrid thing anyhow?


This is why state-level government should be our focus. It's easy to kill legislation there and not impossible to pass legislation, plus getting our people into state legislatures isn't impossible either.





> You want to affect change in the world? Get out of the ballot boxes and the phone banks and go create some meaningful, peaceful relationships with people and explore the philosophy of liberty down to its very core, because once that is touched, there is no going back. That stays with a person, and affects them for the rest of their lives, and they will carry it on to the other relationships of their lives, and so on and so forth. That is change. That is substance. That is real. And helping even one single person find that truth is worth more than all the inconsequential ballot boxes you'll ever see.


And it accomplishes nothing. Why take the long way to the goal when the short way will work?

----------


## jllundqu

> that's what they used to say about slavery


Anytime 2 or more people are speaking, politics is involved.... to paraphrase machiavelli

----------


## Matt Collins

> I'll let you in on a dirty anarchist secret. Evil will still exist without government. And it will need to be addressed in society, some would just like to invent a new tool to deal with it other than government (i.e. the state). I'd be willing to bet evil would be reduced rather than increased when power is decentralized in a meaningful manner.


Absolutely. But in order to decentralize power you must first posses it.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Thanks for summing up what a politician does: "Voter! Give me power and I promise I'll return it to you in a timely fashion. Because I'm trust worthy! By the way, I'll need to expend some of that power to enforce the government's will...but it's totally your will too right? I need all the power I can get to defeat these dirty commies. I promise it'll be returned to you."


If you control that politician, or if it's a liberty guy, then that doesn't happen.






> Isn't this the same line of logic neo-cons use to keep us in perpetual war? It's that macho attitude that you gotta win, be right, defeat the enemy, dog eat dog, win at all cost, kill or be killed...


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause


Just because neocons use that line of thinking for their agenda doesn't mean it is an invalid line of thinking in other areas.





> It's infinitely more difficult to live such principles through the violence and corruption of the state.


The government will oppose those principles on you unless you fight them. I mean your tax dollars already fund the government's activities. If you want to change that, you have to do what is necessary which means getting involved in the political process to affect the direction of government.

----------


## Theocrat

> Naive, eh?
> 
> So, tell me something. How has political involvement been treating us so far? Consider for a moment that when the Constitution was drafted and ratified, it was by far the most radical notion of government to have ever been achieved, and it is said to have created the smallest, freest form of governance ever known to a nation. From that, despite many, many decades of passionate, dedicated minds who have fought tooth and nail to keep it small, and keep this nation as free as possible, that same government has grown into the largest, most powerful, most far-reaching government of modern times with no intention of reverting this course of growth, and with every intention of continuing its ever-expansive ways. You call others naive, yet it is you who seem to be in complete disregard of this history. So with that history, and my own experience in mind, I defer to that old saying about insanity--I'm not going to continue doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result.
> 
> By the way, non-action is still action. If I am standing still, doing nothing, I am still acting. If I am refusing to vote for the next empty suit others choose to trust, believe in, and rally behind, that is still political action. My refusal to participate is political action, it is a statement, and it is a matter of pride and principle. It is me saying that I, in any way I reasonably can, will not legitimize, condone, support, or participate in this wretched system of violence and destruction any longer. It is me saying I will not be mesmerized by the bread and circuses of shallow, meaningless partisan politics that is purposefully employed for the sake of _divide et impera_. It is me saying that I will not beg my self-proclaimed masters for table scraps of liberty that rightfully belong to me as a human being who wishes to live their life in peace. It is me saying that I don't believe that our solutions lie within the very structure and system that treats us as disposable tax livestock and cannon fodder. It is me saying that I would find it more fulfilling, and more productive to instead educate myself and affect existential, philosophical, intellectual change within and around my own personal life, because I believe that the only real, positive change we will attain from this ever-deepening grave we've found ourselves in will be generational, not electoral--rejection, not participation. It is me saying that I refuse to lobby for control of the gun in the room, thereby using their own methods of violence to get what I desire. It is me saying that I have not given up, but neither have I given in.
> 
> Now I made an exception with Ron Paul, and maybe if someone else comes along of that same caliber, I may make another such exception, though at this point it is highly doubtful. Ron Paul not only helped to further influence my own development and ideology, his political life (among other things) also helped me to realize what I have expressed above. And Ron Paul, and others who support him, may not agree with the conclusions I have reached--they are my conclusions, after all. I respect his choices, and the choices of others where political action is concerned, and I'm thankful he was involved in the way he chose to involve himself. And I wish him, and anyone else who truly pursues the philosophy of liberty the very best of luck in their pursuits. That does not mean I agree with them, or think they will ever bear the fruit we are all so hungry for.
> 
> So you can continue doing what you believe is right in the realm of politics, but your way isn't for everyone. For someone who identifies themselves with the principles and movement of liberty, which I assume you must given your participation and association here, you should know better, quite frankly. Beyond the objective realm of such things as morality, biology, physics, and so on... there is no one way for all, and that is an underlying point of liberty. So you do what you think is right, and I will do what I think is right, and others will do what they think is right. But don't patronize those who don't agree with you simply because you refuse to respect another approach that doesn't follow your own.


I'll use a visual aid to help you out (special thanks to LoneStarLocke):



How has anarchism (or voluntaryism) stopped the "gun" from being "pointed" in the faces of the anarchists/voluntaryists who disagree with the system?

----------


## Cabal

> How has anarchism (or voluntaryism) stopped the "gun" from being "pointed" in the faces of the anarchists/voluntaryists who disagree with the system?


How has voting?

----------


## Matthew5

> I'll use a visual aid to help you out (special thanks to LoneStarLocke):
> 
> How has anarchism (or voluntaryism) stopped the "gun" from being "pointed" in the faces of the anarchists/voluntaryists who disagree with the system?


The point of the graphic is to show you the morality of the situation. It's lose/lose.

It won't always stop the gun from being pointed, and that's a cost a voluntarist has to be willing to bear. It's a much higher stakes game than playing Risk with a bunch of rich people.

----------


## Matthew5

> Just because neocons use that line of thinking for their agenda doesn't mean it is an invalid line of thinking in other areas.


The point was that it's a deplorable attitude in them, and so it should be in libertarians. And it's one we used to decry...shouldn't we walk the walk?




> The government will oppose those principles on you unless you fight them. I mean your tax dollars already fund the government's activities. If you want to change that, you have to do what is necessary which means getting involved in the political process to affect the direction of government.


Please show me the nearest black hole to send the government, then I'd consider getting involved. Not really interested in playing lion tamer.

----------


## Cabal

When you agree to play the game (vote), you send the message that you are accepting the system and the terms. You are saying that it's not the State apparatus and its system of violence that is the problem, it's just the hood ornament. You are saying that meaningless campaign seasons are worthwhile. And you are saying that win, lose, or draw, you accept whatever follows since you agreed to play in the first place. But then you cry foul when that same system proceeds to murder, and destroy, and enslave, and steal, as if you actually believed things would somehow be different this time around. 

And maybe all of that does describe you. It doesn't describe me. So, for me to vote would go against my principles, my sense of morality, and would make me a hypocrite as it would totally contradict the message and manner in which I live my life--by voluntary interaction. As LoneStarLocke puts it, it's walking the walk. No amount of voting is going to change the facts. The gun in the room is going to continue to be wielded and used so long as the State persists. And the State will continue to persist so long as people continue to accept its claim of legitimacy.

You can believe that voting in this manner is 'fighting', but it's not. It's participating. It's legitimizing. It's approving of. It's conceding. It's giving in. It's condoning. It's accepting. You're agreeing that it's not the violence that is wrong, it's just a matter of who is wielding it, and at whom it is directed. I fundamentally and categorically disagree. Your precious Constitution cannot help you, and neither can the next sell-out candidate. The ratchet effect proceeds and the violence gets worse. But it's okay, because at least you can still check a ballot box, right? The real rub of it is you believe yourselves to be fighting some great battle when you're not even 'fighting' in the appropriate field of battle. 

They voted in ancient Rome too.

----------


## Theocrat

> How has voting?


That's extremely simplistic. Voting is not the only cause of the problems in our political culture, Cabal. There are other factors involved, many of which are ethical in nature.

But, how does anarchism/voluntaryism stop the effects of voting (since voting is evil)?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That's extremely simplistic. Voting is not the only cause of the problems in our political culture, Cabal. There are other factors involved, many of which are ethical in nature.
> 
> But, how does anarchism/voluntaryism stop the effects of voting (since voting is evil)?


As a casual observer/non-participant of this thread (I officially checked out yesterday), it seems to me you are the one who should be presenting evidence, as you are making the positive claim.

----------


## Cabal

> That's extremely simplistic. Voting is not the only cause of the problems in our political culture, Cabal. There are other factors involved, many of which are ethical in nature.
> 
> But, how does anarchism/voluntaryism stop the effects of voting (since voting is evil)?


I never said voting was the cause of any problem, let alone the only cause of any problem. I said, basically, voting is ultimately pointless.

My response of turning your question around on itself was to demonstrate the absurdity of the question being asked. Your question carries with it the implication that voting has, or could be a way of, "stopping the gun" in a way that non-voting could not. As I have already pointed out, history is clearly at odds with such an implication since voting has been around for a very long time, and the State has done nothing but grow, and grow, and as a result become more, and more capable of carrying out its oppressive, and violent nature--there's a wealth of data and analysis to support this if it's not already plainly apparent.

I never made the assertion voting was evil. Voting, among other things, is the bread and circuses orchestrated by the system to delude the masses. It's entirely impotent and divisive by design. I did say the institution of the State is evil based on its necessary reliance on monopolized violence, and that the act of voting is, in a sense, a way of legitimizing this illegitimate institution of violence, which is why I refuse to participate in it.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> This is what Ron Paul had to say about it:


This is what Ron Paul actually had to say about it:

"Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing. Let not those who love the power of the welfare/warfare state label the dissenters of authoritarianism as unpatriotic or uncaring. Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty."

A state, by the way, by definition, is not respectful of individual liberty.  That's what makes it a state.  It's an institution which _refuses_ to respect individual liberty regarding choosing a dispute resolution provider, and _refuses_ to respect individual liberty regarding allowing men to keep the fruits of their labors.

----------


## Matt Collins

> The point of the graphic is to show you the morality of the situation. It's lose/lose.


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

----------


## Matthew5

> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white



Your argument for politics: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

See, two can play at this game.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white


And yours (you've used this a few times in this thread alone): https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy*the fallacy fallacy**You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.*It is entirely possible to make a claim that is false yet argue with logical coherency for that claim, just as is possible to make a claim that is true and justify it with various fallacies and poor arguments.
Example: Recognising that Amanda had committed a fallacy in arguing that we should eat healthy food because a nutritionist said it was popular, Alyse said we should therefore eat bacon double cheeseburgers every day.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Your argument for politics: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature
> 
> See, two can play at this game.


I'm not arguing that it is a good thing, I'm merely pointing out that it exists, always has, and until human nature changes, it always will. That is not debatable. Whether people acknowledge it or not doesn't matter, it's a fact of life.

----------


## Matt Collins

> When you agree to play the game (vote), you send the message that you are accepting the system and the terms. You are saying that it's not the State apparatus and its system of violence that is the problem, it's just the hood ornament.


Not at all actually. But it isn't good enough just to vote, you have to do other things too, including running candidates and causing political pain, and working on getting legislation passed/killed.






> You are saying that meaningless campaign seasons are worthwhile. And you are saying that win, lose, or draw, you accept whatever follows since you agreed to play in the first place. But then you cry foul when that same system proceeds to murder, and destroy, and enslave, and steal, as if you actually believed things would somehow be different this time around.


If more of our people get elected there will be a lot less of that sort of thing. 

But even if our people don't get elected, we can run serious candidates who force the establishment to deplete their funds that is still considered winning. Electoral victory is not needed to change the behavior of elected officials. Causing them severe political pain will be enough in most cases.

That of course involves organizing your neighborhood and district and getting to know the players, seeking out other-like-minded individuals, and mobilizing them when the time comes. It's almost like being in a "political militia" 




> in which I live my life--by voluntary interaction.


If you think you live your life by voluntary interaction then you are delusional because the government controls much of your life, whether you acknowledge that or not.




> No amount of voting is going to change the facts.


Incorrect. 50%+1 _DOES_ indeed change the facts. And in many cases, it's much less than that.




> The gun in the room is going to continue to be wielded and used so long as the State persists. And the State will continue to persist so long as people continue to accept its claim of legitimacy.


No, it'll exist through force, the question is who controls it. It's either going to be people like us who believe that less government is best, or it's going to be people who are statists. I'm not going to just sit back, do nothing, whine, and let the government run over me. I'm going to stand up and fight, which I have been doing for the last few years.




> You can believe that voting in this manner is 'fighting', but it's not. It's participating. It's legitimizing. It's approving of. It's conceding. It's giving in. It's condoning. It's accepting. You're agreeing that it's not the violence that is wrong, it's just a matter of who is wielding it, and at whom it is directed.


No, not at all. You are making assumptions here.

First off as I've explained dozens of times, the act of voting itself, is only a small sliver of the actual fight. It's a significant part of it, but it's small. And just because I vote doesn't mean I approve of what the government does. And no, violence isn't right, although it can be justified in some circumstances (such as upholding justice, enforcing contracts, self-defense, etc). 





> Your precious Constitution cannot help you, and neither can the next sell-out candidate.


I don't disagree, but there is much more to it than just a single election or a single candidate.

----------


## Matthew5

> No, it'll exist through force, the question is who controls it. It's either going to be people like us who believe that less government is best, or it's going to be people who are statists.


Actually, all those who believe in government, however limited, would be a statist. There's simply varying degrees of severity within that realm. Some view it as a tool while others view it as a god or moral force.




> I'm not going to just sit back, do nothing, whine, and let the government run over me. I'm going to stand up and fight, which I have been doing for the last few years.


Why do you keep repeating this line?

----------


## Matt Collins

> Actually, all those who believe in government, however limited, would be a statist. There's simply varying degrees of severity within that realm. Some view it as a tool while others view it as a god or moral force.


No, government isn't a belief, it's a fact. And just because one wants to limit the government doesn't make them a statist. Nice try though... 






> Why do you keep repeating this line?


Because it obviously hasn't been understood by many in this thread.

----------


## Cabal

> And just because one wants to limit the government doesn't make them a statist. Nice try though...


That's not what makes you, or anyone else a statist. But then your response was a straw man anyway, so w/e.




Anyway, I found it convenient that this video was published today. I think it has bearing on what's been taking place here. 




6:48 to jump to relevant subject matter.

----------


## Matthew5

> Because it obviously hasn't been understood by many in this thread.


That you feel that a large swath of the liberty movement are nothing but a bunch of whiny ne'er-do-wells who are reduced to tank fodder?

----------


## Matt Collins

> That you feel that a large swath of the liberty movement are nothing but a bunch of whiny ne'er-do-wells who are reduced to tank fodder?


No, not at all, but it's endemic of society that most people don't fight for their rights, even among people realize they are not as plentiful as they should be.

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> If you don't fight the invasions of our rights by corrupt politicians today, then you're just allowing despots to rule your children tomorrow. And that is a fact.



[QUOTE=Matt Collins;5158698]


"The only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."





> Who was it who said something like this? Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. 
> 
> 
> Disgusting is what it is.






> So you can sit back and take it, or you can fight.






> No, not at all, but it's endemic of society that most people don't fight for their rights, even among people realize they are not as plentiful as they should be.





Its interesting that a forum that prides itself on seeing through the bs of the MSM can so thoroughly buy into the mainstream's best ever canard, that "If you're not voting and emailing politicians, then you're doing nothing!"


Ill keep pining for some debate on relative effectiveness of agorism vs politics, and re-repost this list of agorist actions:




Stop voting
Don't endorse political candidates
Don't participate in any political or civil campaign
Refuse to participate in the hero cult of police and military
Turn your TV off
Homeschool your kids or send them to a private school
Leave or don't join nationalistic organizations (e.g. Boy Scouts)
Don't give to "charities" or funds that support civic organizations (encourage private enterprise instead)
Grow your own food
Barter more
Reduce your debt
Shall I go on? There's lots of little practical steps one can take and it will begin to have a cumulative effect.
Donate the money you would have sent to politicians to liberty-minded podcasters or talk radio hosts like Ian and Mark at FreeTalkLive
Buy some bitcoin 
Promote bitcoin usage at your local small businesses and with friends
Instead of handing out flyers encouraging people to vote for one or the other politician, hand out flyers on why voting is a sham 
Promote Bastiat's "The Law" (Ron Paul's favorite book) and other liberty minded philosophical literature by donating them to the local library or schools, or by writing quality, positive reviews on Amazon
Buy some Gold/Silver/Shire Silver
Take the time to research and support agorist owned businesses
Support private institutions that fill the roles currently usurped by government such as private schools, private security and private mass-transit.
Take government money every chance you get (The more money you take from the government the better libertarian you are-Walter Block via FeedingTheAbscess)
Start a business: http://www.policymic.com/articles/44...eaking-awesome
Email an accountant
Hold fewer FRNs

----------


## Matt Collins

> Its interesting that a forum that prides itself on seeing through the bs of the MSM can so thoroughly buy into the mainstream's best ever canard, that "If you're not voting and emailing politicians, then you're doing nothing!"


No, the MSM just wants people to vote. But there is a lot more to the fight than just voting, that's only one tiny sliver of the battle.... in case you missed it the previous 10 times I've explained it.

----------


## Matthew5

> No, not at all, but it's endemic of society that most people don't fight for their rights, even among people realize they are not as plentiful as they should be.


Again, that's the bias in devaluing the efforts of agorist and saying that only politicians can save us.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Again, that's the bias in devaluing the efforts of agorist and saying that only politicians can save us.


I never said that "politicians can save us", don't put words in my mouth, and don't jump to conclusions. Only us can make us more free, but to do that means fighting them at their level which is the political arena.

----------


## Matthew5

> I never said that "politicians can save us", don't put words in my mouth, and don't jump to conclusions. Only us can make us more free, but to do that means fighting them at their level which is the political arena.


...which is run by politicians.

There has also been several agorist methods brought up and you keep repeating this line of "whiny do-nothings". Which means that you have little faith or respect for methods outside of politics. You have also stated that government participation is the only method to ensure freedom. Therefore, one could logically conclude that you place your trust in a system that is designed by and run by politicians. Which means you have faith they can save us, otherwise you wouldn't have put so much time, money, and effort into your particular gladiator.

How is that inaccurate?

----------


## Matt Collins

> ...which is run by politicians.


But we can control the politicians if we put pressure on them by mobilizing people.




> Which means that you have little faith or respect for methods outside of politics.


You keep assuming that politics is optional, it's not. You can't escape it, politics is how humans interact, and it's how the government makes decisions about what you are allowed to do with your property.




> You have also stated that government participation is the only method to ensure freedom. Therefore, one could logically conclude that you place your trust in a system that is designed by and run by politicians. Which means you have faith they can save us, otherwise you wouldn't have put so much time, money, and effort into your particular gladiator.


No, government's job is to uphold rights, enforce contracts, and provide justice. It doesn't do any very well at all, but there has to be a system in place to do those sort of things. Government unfortunately is a necessary evil that can't be avoided as long as human nature continues to exist the way it has.

----------


## Matthew5

> But we can control the politicians if we put pressure on them by mobilizing people.
> 
> You keep assuming that politics is optional, it's not. You can't escape it, politics is how humans interact, and it's how the government makes decisions about what you are allowed to do with your property.
> 
> No, government's job is to uphold rights, enforce contracts, and provide justice. It doesn't do any very well at all, but there has to be a system in place to do those sort of things. Government unfortunately is a necessary evil that can't be avoided as long as human nature continues to exist the way it has.


And we're right back to where we started. Well, good luck with your system of perpetual violence and corruption. 

I'd like to see how many of your political friends stick around during the collapse of the American empire. Agorist will fare better, methinks.

----------


## Matt Collins

> And we're right back to where we started. Well, good luck with your system of perpetual violence and corruption.


It's not _MY_ system, it's simply how society works because of the way humans operate. 




> I'd like to see how many of your political friends stick around during the collapse of the American empire.


If it happens things will revert back to more localized government, where it should be to begin with. This is why getting a good foothold in the state level is imperative.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You keep assuming that politics is optional, it's not. You can't escape it, politics is how humans interact, and it's how the government makes decisions about what you are allowed to do with your property.


Matt, you are being totally disingenuous, as I have pointed out repeatedly.  I do not think your IQ is that low that you could possibly be sincere and just confused any more.  You are insistently muddying the waters by writing things which you _know_ are not communicating on-the-level.

I will point out the problem, once again.  Everything in this list is *political*:




> Homeschool your kids or send them to a private school
> Don't give to "charities" or funds that support civic organizations (encourage private enterprise instead)
> Grow your own food
> Barter more
> Reduce your debt
> Donate the money you would have sent to politicians to liberty-minded podcasters or talk radio hosts like Ian and Mark at FreeTalkLive
> Buy some bitcoin 
> Promote bitcoin usage at your local small businesses and with friends
> Instead of handing out flyers encouraging people to vote for one or the other politician, hand out flyers on why voting is a sham 
> ...


Every single thing on the list above is a *proactive political action* (according to your obfuscating usage of the word "political").  Every single one is a way to fight the government and strike a blow for liberty.  Every single one is a legitimate way to engage in politics and to take power away from the tyrants.  Every single one can be a way to put pressure on politicians, to mobilize against them, and to take away their power.

In short, every single thing that IDefendThePlatform has said he's decided to do is going along with _your_ recommendations, 100%.  You are shadow-boxing.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Here's some more insight as to how we might formulate a correct strategy to get where we want to go: freedom.

ROCKWELL:  Hans, when we think of thinkers like de la Boetie, Hume, Mises, Rothbard, they all pointed out that as impregnable as the state seems, with all its armies and its vast numbers of employees and that vast propaganda apparatus, that it actually is vulnerable because the state, as a minority parasite depending on the majority, depends on the consent of the governed.  And to the extent that people withdraw their consent, even the most powerful state, as we saw in the Soviet Union, as we saw under the Shah in Iran, British rule in India, and other instances, even the most powerful state can crumble.  So is that also a hope of ours?

HOPPE:  Of course.  Again, the point here is that the president can give an order, but the order must be taken up and executed by a general.  The general can give an order, but the order has to be executed by some officer.  The officer can give an order, but the soldiers ultimately have to do the shooting.  And if they don’t shoot, then whatever the president says, what the highest commander says has absolutely no effect.

In this sense, states can only execute their policies if people lend them their voluntary consent.  They might not agree with everything that the state does and orders them to do, but they are obviously, as long as they cooperate, of the opinion that somehow the state itself is a necessary institution.  And the few mistakes that they perceive are the necessary price that must be paid in order to maintain the overall goodness that the state produces.  Once this illusion disappears, once people recognize that the state is nothing else but a parasitic institution, and no longer obey the orders that are issued, then all the powers, even of the most mighty despot, will immediately disappear.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/n...led-the-state/

----------


## Matt Collins

> Here's some more insight as to how we might formulate a correct strategy to get where we want to go: freedom.
> 
> ROCKWELL:  Hans, when we think of thinkers like de la Boetie, Hume, Mises, Rothbard, they all pointed out that as impregnable as the state seems, with all its armies and its vast numbers of employees and that vast propaganda apparatus, that it actually is vulnerable because the state, as a minority parasite depending on the majority, depends on the consent of the governed.  And to the extent that people withdraw their consent, even the most powerful state, as we saw in the Soviet Union, as we saw under the Shah in Iran, British rule in India, and other instances, even the most powerful state can crumble.  So is that also a hope of ours?
> 
> HOPPE:  Of course.  Again, the point here is that the president can give an order, but the order must be taken up and executed by a general.  The general can give an order, but the order has to be executed by some officer.  The officer can give an order, but the soldiers ultimately have to do the shooting.  And if they dont shoot, then whatever the president says, what the highest commander says has absolutely no effect.
> 
> In this sense, states can only execute their policies if people lend them their voluntary consent.  They might not agree with everything that the state does and orders them to do, but they are obviously, as long as they cooperate, of the opinion that somehow the state itself is a necessary institution.  And the few mistakes that they perceive are the necessary price that must be paid in order to maintain the overall goodness that the state produces.  Once this illusion disappears, once people recognize that the state is nothing else but a parasitic institution, and no longer obey the orders that are issued, then all the powers, even of the most mighty despot, will immediately disappear.
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/n...led-the-state/


This can be summed up as "power is defined as the ability to get others to do what you want them to do". Whether that power is social pressure, financial leverage, or back up by arms.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> This can be summed up as "power is defined as the ability to get others to do what you want them to do". Whether that power is social pressure, financial leverage, or back up by arms.


social pressure= 

financial leverage = 

back up by arms (aggressively) =

----------


## Matt Collins

> social pressure= 
> 
> financial leverage = 
> 
> back up by arms (aggressively) =


I agree, but it happens whether we like it or not. So it's important to try and have some sort of say in it, otherwise the guns get turned on us.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I agree, but it happens whether we like it or not. So it's important to try and have some sort of say in it, otherwise the guns get turned on us.


 Matt, everyone completely agrees with this, and has, every disingenuous time you have stupidly repeated it.  You are just stupidly repeating the same obviously true thing over and over, perhaps in order to give the impression that others in this thread disagree with you, to give the impression that I and others are stupid because we must be blind to the obvious facts you keep repeating.  I'm not.  No one here is.

It's just a difference of tactics.  Tactics are things reasonable people can disagree about.  We can even agree 100% and yet take different actions, due to our different talents.  There are many different methods one might use to "try and have some sort of say in it".  Many different ways to take action against aggression.  One man might homeschool.  Another might sign-wave.  One might rent a blimp.  Another might start his own channel.  One might write letters to a legislator to pressure him.  Another might egg his house and slash his tires to do the same.  One might become a city councilman.  Another might work to become rich enough to buy his own city.

These are all different actions, some of which may be effective, others less effective.  If you believe, as you seem to, that some or any or all of the tactics chosen by IDefendthePlatform are less effective, then you should make a case against them.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> This can be summed up as


  And by the way, no, it can't be summed up that way at all.

Perhaps it could be summed up thusly: if we destroy the illusion that the state produces overall goodness, then at that instant we win.

Understanding this truth -- the truth that we win once people recognize that the state is nothing else but a parasitic institution -- could lead to certain strategy and tactical decisions in our fight against the state.  Notably, we should focus on helping as many people recognize as quickly as possible and as thoroughly as possible that the state should be abolished.  This widespread recognition is essential to, in fact for all practical purposes is synonymous with, our goal.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Perhaps it could be summed up thusly: if we destroy the illusion that the state produces overall goodness, then at that instant we win.


No not at all, because moods, atmoshpheres, and attitudes don't make public policy. Only specific pressure on politicians makes policy.






> Understanding this truth -- the truth that we win once people recognize that the state is nothing else but a parasitic institution -- could lead to certain strategy and tactical decisions in our fight against the state.


Nope, you're still trying to take the long approach (which is easily subverted) when you could instead take the short approach. It's much easier to mobilize people to apply specific pressure on specific politicians for a specific time on a specific issue, than it is to change people's entire worldview.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Many different ways to take action against aggression.  One man might homeschool.  Another might sign-wave.  One might rent a blimp.  Another might start his own channel.  One might write letters to a legislator to pressure him.  Another might egg his house and slash his tires to do the same.  One might become a city councilman.  Another might work to become rich enough to buy his own city.


Only putting direct pressure on politicians has any real and tangible effect.

----------


## Cabal

The State welcomes your obedience.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Only putting direct pressure on politicians has any real and tangible effect. ... attitudes don't make public policy.


 In my own life, I have seen real and tangible effects from many other things.  So I will have to disagree with you.  I find your prediction that massive policy changes can take place in the absence of massive ideological changes to be delusional.  I cannot think of any time such a thing has happened in history.  So empirically, it would be unprecedented.  And also logically it seems untenable.

----------


## Matt Collins

> In my own life, I have seen real and tangible effects from many other things.  So I will have to disagree with you.


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal





> I find your prediction that massive policy changes can take place in the absence of massive ideological changes to be delusional.  I cannot think of any time such a thing has happened in history.  So empirically, it would be unprecedented.  And also logically it seems untenable.


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

----------


## Matthew5

Larken Rose breaks it down for you. Don't play the game any more.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> In my own life, I have seen real and tangible effects from many other things.  So I will have to disagree with you.  I find your prediction that massive policy changes can take place in the absence of massive ideological changes to be delusional.  I cannot think of any time such a thing has happened in history.  So empirically, it would be unprecedented.  And also logically it seems untenable.


People did not  become more opposed to racial discrimination because the Civil Rights  Act was passed.
The Civil Rights Act was passed because people had  become more opposed to racial discrimination.

Electorial politics is a lagging indicator, not a leading one.
Education (for lack of a better word) necessarily precedes legislation.
Legislative politics is the rearguard - NOT the vanguard - of any ideological movement.

None of which is to say that electoral/legislative politics is irrelevant or unimportant. It is not.
But it is also NOT the _sine qua non_ that some wish to make it out to be.

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal



Actually its not a logical fallacy at all. He directly refuted your obviously false statement of "Only politics has any real and tangible effect." Agorism has had a real, tangible effect on his life, making your "only politics" statement clearly false.

I could make an equally false opposite statement "Only agorism has any real and tangible effect." 


Since we've just shown that neither side is 100% ineffective, this might be a nice time to actually start debating the relative effectiveness of agorism vs politics. I'll post this agorist action list again, but since its been posted at least half a dozen times without so much as a mild attempt to refute it, I won't hold my breath. 

Stop voting
Don't endorse political candidates
Don't participate in any political or civil campaign
Refuse to participate in the hero cult of police and military
Turn your TV off
Homeschool your kids or send them to a private school
Leave or don't join nationalistic organizations (e.g. Boy Scouts)
Don't give to "charities" or funds that support civic organizations (encourage private enterprise instead)
Grow your own food
Barter more
Reduce your debt
Shall I go on? There's lots of little practical steps one can take and it will begin to have a cumulative effect.
Donate the money you would have sent to politicians to liberty-minded podcasters or talk radio hosts like Ian and Mark at FreeTalkLive
Buy some bitcoin 
Promote bitcoin usage at your local small businesses and with friends
Instead of handing out flyers encouraging people to vote for one or the other politician, hand out flyers on why voting is a sham 
Promote Bastiat's "The Law" (Ron Paul's favorite book) and other liberty minded philosophical literature by donating them to the local library or schools, or by writing quality, positive reviews on Amazon
Buy some Gold/Silver/Shire Silver
Take the time to research and support agorist owned businesses ( ShieldMutual.com ShireSilver.com etc) 
Support private institutions that fill the roles currently usurped by government such as private schools, private security and private mass-transit.
Take government money every chance you get (The more money you take from the government the better libertarian you are-Walter Block via FeedingTheAbscess)
Start a business: http://www.policymic.com/articles/44...eaking-awesome
Email an accountant
Hold fewer FRNs

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> Understanding this truth -- the truth that we win once people recognize that the state is nothing else but a parasitic institution -- could lead to certain strategy and tactical decisions in our fight against the state.  Notably, we should focus on helping as many people recognize as quickly as possible and as thoroughly as possible that the state should be abolished.  This widespread recognition is essential to, in fact for all practical purposes is synonymous with, our goal.


I owe you a +rep.

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

RPF forum member George Donnelly outlines one potential agorist path to a free society:

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> In my own life, I have seen real and tangible effects from many other things. So I will have to disagree with you.
> 			
> 		
> 
> You are falling into the fallacy of basing a conclusion on anecdotal evidence.


 You said: *Only* putting direct pressure on politicians has any real and tangible effect.  In order to buttress this claim, by the way, the only evidence you have given in this thread is experience from your own life wherein you have put pressure on a politician and seen just such real and tangible effects (that is: anecdotal evidence).

Now in my own life, I have indeed seen real and tangible effects occur from many things other than putting direct pressure on politicians.  That is a fact.  Even if my life experience is woefully statistically insignificant, highly unusual, etc., you said "*only*".  That is, you claim that *nothing but* putting direct pressure on politicians ever has a real and tangible effect.  But I have seen things which have.  Just one incidence of contradiction is sufficient to show the theory wrong in this case, due to the type of claim that it makes.  I have experienced not just one, but many such incidences.  So clearly the theory is wrong.   Perhaps you should refine it.





> You are falling into the fallacy of basing a conclusion on your personal incredulity.


 I explicitly stated the bases of my incredulity: complete lack of historical precedent (that is, empirical falsification of your predicted outcome) and the logical dubiousness of even a _theoretical_ causal pathway to an outcome in reality wherein the secular power is able, for extended periods of time, to successfully foist policies on their host population to which the population is overwhelmingly opposed to.

In short: politicans are not the only people who matter in politics.  Other people matter, too.  This would seem elementary.  But, apparently, it must be stated, since you bizarrely hold the alternative view.

----------


## Cabal



----------


## Matt Collins

0


> Agorism has had a real, tangible effect on his life, making your "only politics" statement clearly false.


Really?

He still has to pay taxes. He still doesn't own his own land. He still has his rights diminished when he flies. The value of his money decreases. He can't ingest certain things into his body. Only working through the political process can change those things.

----------


## familydog

> 0Really?
> 
> He still has to pay taxes. He still doesn't own his own land. He still has his rights diminished when he flies. The value of his money decreases. He can't ingest certain things into his body. Only working through the political process can change those things.


Matt, come on. You can't solve the manifestation of violent and dominant behavior (taxes, prohibition and harassment) by also initiating violence. You don't smack a toddler across his face in an effort to teach him that hitting other children is wrong. Violence begets violence. Until the majority realize this very simple concept, the cycle of violence and rule will only spread.

----------


## Cabal

> 0Really?
> 
> He still has to pay taxes. He still doesn't own his own land. He still has his rights diminished when he flies. The value of his money decreases. He can't ingest certain things into his body. Only working through the political process can change those things.


The fact that you don't, or can't realize the absurdity of this post is kinda bizarre.

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> 0Really?
> 
> He still has to pay taxes. He still doesn't own his own land. He still has his rights diminished when he flies. The value of his money decreases. He can't ingest certain things into his body. Only working through the political process can change those things.


I think you're missing some of the more obvious successes of agorism. 
For Helmuth specifically I don't know, maybe he has been able to avoid some taxes and pay for a trip he wanted to go on. Or bought some drugs through the black market. Or employed an "illegal immigrant". 

You say "Only politics" but clearly people have created the ability to do things against the govt's demands rather than just campaigning for permission. Silk road and bitcoin are just the latest examples in an old, old fight. 

13 million "illegal" immigrants are better off today working and living in Amerika because people used agorism rather than politics and worked to find ways past the border patrol.
Same for 
-recreational drug users
-prostitutes
-tax evaders
etc

People see ways to carve out more freedom for themselves and they do it, and little by little we are gaining ground. Its an exciting time with bitcoin, tor, 3-d printing and other technologies it seems more possible than ever that we might actually get to some semblance of liberty in our lifetimes. Politics is just not nearly as effective IMO.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Matt, come on. You can't solve the manifestation of violent and dominant behavior (taxes, prohibition and harassment) by also initiating violence.


I never said anything about initiating violence. 





> You don't smack a toddler across his face in an effort to teach him that hitting other children is wrong. Violence begets violence. Until the majority realize this very simple concept, the cycle of violence and rule will only spread.


Actually paddling a toddler on the butt works quite well.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I don't know, maybe he has been able to avoid some taxes and pay for a trip he wanted to go on. Or bought some drugs through the black market. Or employed an "illegal immigrant".


The fact that he has to avoid taxes, or go to the black market, or hire someone underground is because of politics, not inspite of it.









> People see ways to carve out more freedom for themselves and they do it, and little by little we are gaining ground. Its an exciting time with bitcoin, tor, 3-d printing and other technologies it seems more possible than ever that we might actually get to some semblance of liberty in our lifetimes. Politics is just not nearly as effective IMO.


No, not at all. Technology can press the issue and make some laws irrelevant or unenforceable but you can still be prosecuted and your liberty/property taken away. The only way to fix that is through the political process.

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> The fact that he has to avoid taxes, or go to the black market, or hire someone underground is because of politics, not inspite of it..



You're missing the point. We are discussing the best tactics for acheiving freedom. 


Govt thugs made a tyrannical law; *in response* we can either
1) spend our time petitioning politicians to change the law through the political process, or
2) spend our time working on ways to subvert the illigimate law and enjoy the freedom to do drugs/prostitution/immigration/etc RIGHT NOW.  The potential for aggression from state thugs in the form of arrest is a consideration, but obviously not the only one since people risk arrest and often death to subvert immigration laws, for one example. 




As far as the eventual endgame, a quick summary of what agorism is and how it aims to achieve freedomfrom agorism.info)


In a market anarchist society, law and security would be provided by market actors instead of political institutions. Agorists recognize that situation can not develop through political reform. Instead, it will arise as a result of market processes.


As the state is banditry, revolution culminates in the suppression of the criminal state by market providers of security and law. Market demand for such service providers is what will lead to their emergence. Development of that demand will come from economic growth in the sector of the economy that explicitly shuns state involvement (and thus can not turn to the state in its role as monopoly provider of security and law). That sector of the economy is the counter-economy -- black and grey markets.




building the counter economy >>> electioneering/politics

----------


## familydog

> Actually paddling a toddler on the butt works quite well.


Paddling? Why not just be honest and call it hitting? The fact that you advocate violence towards defenseless children speaks volumes.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Paddling? Why not just be honest and call it hitting? The fact that you advocate violence towards defenseless children speaks volumes.


Humans are Pavlovian and their behavior is changed according to pain and pleasure. There is nothing wrong with causing a small amount of pain to a child in order to shape their behavior. In many cases the pain is actually negligible.

----------


## Cabal

Oh look, a statist advocating and rationalizing violence... against children. Surprise, surprise.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Oh look, a statist advocating and rationalizing violence... against children. Surprise, surprise.


1- I am not a statist
2- Physically disciplining a child is not violence


Nice try though

----------


## Cabal

What's next, "3- taxation is not theft?", "4- war is peace," etc.

Lol. Sure thing there, Collins. Whatever you say.

Edit: I also like how you're talking about 'physical discipline' now instead of 'hitting' or 'paddling'.

----------


## Matt Collins

> What's next, "3- taxation is not theft?"


Of course taxation is theft, duh

----------


## Matt Collins

> Govt thugs made a tyrannical law; *in response* we can either
> 1) spend our time petitioning politicians to change the law through the political process, or


#FAIL

I don't think you've read anything I have written..

I am not talking about "petitioning" politicians, I'm talking about inflicting severe political pain upon politicians to change their behavior, with the idea being that you get them unelected and like-minded liberty people put into their place.


And you're also running into this:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white





> 2) spend our time working on ways to subvert the illigimate law and enjoy the freedom to do drugs/prostitution/immigration/etc RIGHT NOW.


And that's a very quick way to end up in prison, or have all of your property confiscated. I want real freedom, I want not to have to hide from the government. The only way to get the government off of our backs is to have bully the politicians into submission.





> building the counter economy >>> electioneering/politics


You fail to understand that economics and law are intertwined... 

http://www.law.gmu.edu/library/guides/research/lawecon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_economics

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> #FAIL
> 
> I don't think you've read anything I have written..
> 
> I am not talking about "petitioning" politicians, I'm talking about inflicting severe political pain upon politicians to change their behavior, with the idea being that you get them unelected and like-minded liberty people put into their place.



Using phrases like "inflicting political pain" doesn't change the nature of what you're doing. It's electioneering, and everyone on this board knows what politics is. Notice I didn't write out every agorist action in that short 1 vs 2 summary either. 
Feel free to make whatever list you want of political actions(in fact it would be nice to actually compare lists head-to-head), but absolutely everyone on this board knows the basics of what trying to influence politics entails (voting, emailing, donating, calling, etc). The options I'm interested in debating are:
1) Politics 
vs.
2) Agorism

I won't be writing out every available action within each of these 2 categories every time I want to compare these 2 options.

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> And you're also running into this:
> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white


What I posted isn't even remotely close to a logical fallacy. If you think there are more options feel free to bring them up but what I'm discussing is politics vs agorism. Working through the political process or working through counter-economics, which is more effective? It's pretty clear you don't fully understand those "logical fallacy" links you've been posting: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5165590

We all have limited time and resources in which to pursue the cause of liberty. Should we use them in political action, or in counter economics? Should I run for political office or start an agorist business? Which is more effective?




I'll respond to the rest of your post later, but its basically already been addressed in the part you didn't quote where I said people take the possibility of arrest into consideration in trying to maximize their own freedom. 

There IS another option besides politics. And it could very well be more effective both immediately and in the long-run.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Using phrases like "inflicting political pain" doesn't change the nature of what you're doing. It's electioneering,


Not always, no. Causing political pain doesn't have to involve electoral activity. It can simply be embarrassing the politician, or annoying them, or making their lives harder.

----------


## BetterCallSaul

Politics is a crappy avenue to affect change, in general.

While it is true that "everything is political," this does not mean that everything need be aimed at being an electoral or legislative process.

Defying laws is political, but is obviously not what the OP's article refers to as "politics."  

In the officially-sanctioned, partisan edifice sense of the word politics, politics does just suck.  It is literally a game wherein the players compete to better organize the lowest common-denominators in a given cultural block.  How to mobilize the most idiots using the most effective methods of control and suggestion; it necessarily omits the real purposes of the players, because most in the crowd that are activated by the game's many tricks are incapable of understanding any of that at all- they respond to emotional calls to rally around jesus or children or victims or foreigners or war or peace or prison or policemen; it's all just emotional manipulation of deadened, ignorant and unintelligent dupes.  

So, how does one participate in such a process and remain clean?  How does one EXCEL in such a process and earn the trust of any good and decent and intelligent people?

----------


## BetterCallSaul

The guys from whom I buy weed are doing more every day for freedom than anyone campaigning for anything.

----------


## Matt Collins

> In the officially-sanctioned, partisan edifice sense of the word politics, politics does just suck.  It is literally a game wherein the players compete to better organize the lowest common-denominators in a given cultural block.  How to mobilize the most idiots using the most effective methods of control and suggestion; it necessarily omits the real purposes of the players, because most in the crowd that are activated by the game's many tricks are incapable of understanding any of that at all- they respond to emotional calls to rally around jesus or children or victims or foreigners or war or peace or prison or policemen; it's all just emotional manipulation of deadened, ignorant and unintelligent dupes.


Maybe so, but that's how law is made. And if you want laws to be stopped or made for liberty then you have to mobilize people too, otherwise you lose.

----------


## BetterCallSaul

That isn't true though, because the percent of the population that is composed of total dumbasses always necessarily overwhelms the population that practices critical thought and engages in open discussion and debate.  Numerically speaking, it is literally impossible to engage the political process without first conscripting the energy and participation of the most mediocre and gullible of human society.

None of whom are participating for any reasons that they are even capable of understanding.  

Which is to say, the next guy who more effectively uses emotional control mechanisms on such people wins their loyalty, regardless of his policy.

----------


## BetterCallSaul

And law is made in corporate board-rooms that cyber-chat with Lobbyists, who then hit PRINT and deliver it to the idiots that represent the ignorant thralls who support them, who then rubber stamp it and tell these thralls whatever can be twisted into an emotional argument that makes them feel validated.

----------


## Matt Collins

> That isn't true though, because the percent of the population that is composed of total dumbasses always necessarily overwhelms the population that practices critical thought and engages in open discussion and debate.  Numerically speaking, it is literally impossible to engage the political process without first conscripting the energy and participation of the most mediocre and gullible of human society.


Not true, here is why:









> And law is made in corporate board-rooms that cyber-chat with Lobbyists, who then hit PRINT and deliver it to the idiots that represent the ignorant thralls who support them, who then rubber stamp it and tell these thralls whatever can be twisted into an emotional argument that makes them feel validated.


Unless there is serious and LOUD opposition (which is our job).

----------


## BetterCallSaul

So you are saying that the ignorant crowds who are necessary for political action can be retained as "your" idiots, IF, your better minds are spending their talent and energy and time on keeping them your idiots, by way of emotionally manipulating their insecurities and ignorance?

Yeah that sounds like a flawless plan for national revival... lol

----------


## Matt Collins

> So you are saying that the ignorant crowds who are necessary for political action can be retained as "your" idiots, IF, your better minds are spending their talent and energy and time on keeping them your idiots, by way of emotionally manipulating their insecurities and ignorance?
> 
> Yeah that sounds like a flawless plan for national revival... lol


It's not exactly quite that harsh, there are many people out there who care about the same issues that we do, but don't have the time, knowledge, or inclination to organize around an issue. That's our job. Organize people around issues in which we agree, and then activate them to put pressure on the politicians.

----------


## BetterCallSaul

Of these people that you have "activated," how many have needed the message dumbed down, or else otherwise altered, or else delivered while omitting more serious or connected agendas?

----------


## BetterCallSaul

the fact that you are admitting that often it is only one issue that organizes people is evidence of what I am talking about, actually.  You are saying, in so many words- a lot of people are vulnerable to ideological incursion based on their prejudice about this or that single talking point- our job is to identify those talking points, and then make them identify us as the guys who will fight for it.  

as in, dupe idiots to make our crowd look bigger

----------


## Matt Collins

> the fact that you are admitting that often it is only one issue that organizes people is evidence of what I am talking about, actually.  You are saying, in so many words- a lot of people are vulnerable to ideological incursion based on their prejudice about this or that single talking point- our job is to identify those talking points, and then make them identify us as the guys who will fight for it.  
> 
> as in, dupe idiots to make our crowd look bigger


You're getting closer.... but a lot of issues do run parallel... people who are against abortion, tend to also be against taxes, and for guns. So once you can identify one issue there is a good chance there will be a lot of crossover.

----------


## BetterCallSaul

But the fact that they have this issue means that they are participating because _they have issues_ and not because they want their neighbor to be free.  

and answer my question from the post before that one!  It's always such a sickening feeling to me.

----------


## Matt Collins

> But the fact that they have this issue means that they are participating because _they have issues_ and not because they want their neighbor to be free.


So? Who cares?  If they are against taxes or gun-grabbing, or whatever, and I happen to agree, then their reasons or motives don't matter as much.

----------


## BetterCallSaul

But since they are not animated by an understanding of or yearning for freedom, then any other charlatan will have their support as soon as he upstages you, or employs more effective means of manipulating their psychological issues.

also 




> Of these people that you have "activated," how many have needed the  message dumbed down, or else otherwise altered, or else delivered while  omitting more serious or connected agendas?

----------

