5 Reasons to Abandon Politics

[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
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
Email an accountant
Hold fewer FRNs

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/no_author/the-scam-called-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/no_author/the-scam-called-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: