Do you actively listen to FDR (Freedomain Radio, Stefan Molyneux) ?

[Christian Liberty]

@heavenlyboy34-

I'd be interested to read the whole book eventually, but just to comment on specifics:

A whole book could be written about that (and by golly, Hoppe did it! ). Fundamentally, a monarch/sovereign, as primary owner/executive of a given place, has all the incentive to make sure the place is taken care of (this includes keeping people in good condition, as they are necessary in the scheme of things).

I don't see why he has an incentive to keep the whole place in good condition. Only his own resources. The way I see it, he also has an incentive to take as much of our resources as he can, and for himself rather than to give us (naturally inferior to letting us keep the money ourselves, of course) services instead. I don't really see an incentive to let anyone else prosper.

He also has incentive to not go to war, as this puts his resources at tremendous risk.

This seems true, but does it bear out in history? Didn't kings go to war with each other all the time?

Democracies/republics, on the other hand, lack all these incentives to behave rationally and morally. Therefore, the power-holders in such societies satisfy their selfish desires at the expense of the governed and the land. They have everything to gain and shift the risk onto the governed classes.

Well, they can't personally keep the money they take from us, or at least most of it. That's a mitigating factor of sorts. They're also supposed to be accountable to the people, which sounds like a talking point but I feel like there might be some truth to it. Don't you at least sort of have to obey the will of the people if you want to remain in power? Or is that the problem? Personally, it seems to me like ruling by the will of the people at least would be better than ruling for your own selfish gain (Obviously supporting freedom regardless of what people think would be better). Am I missing something here?

Further, Total War is a product of democracy/republicanism. Before these heinous systems, soldiers fought other soldiers instead of mass murdering civilians.

I feel that was more an accident of technology. As Rothbard states, a bow and arrow, or even a rifle, can be pinpointed. A nuclear warhead cannot. Yet if one nation develops weaponry that can kill hundreds of thousands of innocents, every other state desires to do that as well. Democracy existed in ancient Greece as welll, did they really kill more innocent people than the Caesars? Again, I may be missing the point. And I don't support democracy either. I support whatever system leaves us alone the most, regardless of what that system is, and noting that I do believe we do need government to run the police, courts, and defense.

These points and others are well-developed in Hoppe's book. I agree with his methodology and conclusions.

I am definitely interested.

 

[Christian Liberty]

His target audience are liberty-type people. He tells the liberty-type people not to vote. That's dangerous when only the Big Government people vote.

Exactly...

 

[Occam's Banana]

Yet he only targets the liberty movement and tells them not to vote.

Of course he does. That's his audience. Who else is he supposed to tell?

But I'm sure he'd be delighted if any non-liberty people who heard what he had to say decided not to vote because of it, too.

Democrat/Progressives treat voting like a religious duty.

Because they worship the State. Molyneux doesn't.

 

[mczerone]

When you're talking about voting for crap over slightly worse crap, I agree.

But if you aren't voting for a real libertarian, you are part of the problem. The bottom line is that if enough people voted with conviction, Ron Paul would be President right now. I don't give a crap about his pathetic excuses for not doing so.

If you can't vote for someone on principle, that's one thing. I can understand why some people have issues with Rand Paul (Even though I would vote for him), and Ted Cruz actually is too much of a compromise for me. Everyone has their line in the sand. Its the unwillingness to vote under ANY circumstance that irks me. I'm fine with his anarcho-capitalism, I don't agree, but I can understand it. But to refuse to vote for a principled minarchist on miniscule issues or, worse, "Opportunity Cost" (The ethical system of utilitarians, not libertarians*) is just ridiculous. I can understand if you can't vote for an otherwise good candidate because of a substantial issue like foreign policy or the war on drugs, but on anarchist theory? I guess I just feel like that's ridiculous. I can't even imagine an anarcho-capitalist actually running the country any differently than Ron Paul, even if he did have a slightly different view as to the theoretical endgame.

In short, I'm sticking with my statement. If Ron Paul was the Republican candidate, and libertarians listened to this moron, Obama would be in office again. Now, I get that that sounds like the scaremongering used by Mitt drones, but a person who can't see the difference between Ron Paul and Romney in this regard isn't worth my time to begin with.

...

Let's try this argument, since you "don't buy" the personal economic reason to not vote.

Voting for liberty is either (1) unnecessary, or (2) useless.

If a "perfect liberty candidate" was running, and it looked like he would win - then we don't need him. We can all just refuse to pay allegiance to the State, personally nullify all bad laws, and successfully implement voluntary institutions to provide for social services. And since we already have the majority, we'd be successful.

OTOH, if the perfect liberty candidate wasn't likely to win on the "perfect liberty message" - then there isn't enough support/understanding/empathy in the population to make liberty work. If the candidate compromised the message or otherwise "stole" the election and tried to implement liberty solutions via politics, there would be a whole bunch of butt-hurt people that want to get their way, and see violence as a viable option (deduced from their support of the State).

Politics isn't a game for reformers by which they can affect change. Running a political campaign is at most an educational tool. Voting is at most a way to save face in your local social/business circles of Statists.

 

[green73]

I wish people would stop saying voluntaryist. It's voluntarist.

shaaadup.

 

[green73]

His target audience are liberty-type people. He tells the liberty-type people not to vote. That's dangerous when only the Big Government people vote.

When you vote you consent to the result.

 

[purplechoe]

When I first heard the guy I disliked him because of his "don't bother voting" stance. I have warmed up to him since and find him to be a valuable voice in the liberty movement. I don't actively listen to his show but do catch up every few months on his youtube channel...

 

[HigherVision]

Do you understand why people take such a position?

Narcissism, they think that government will actually stop just because they stopped voting.

I do like that he's against male genital mutilation ("circumcision") though.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Narcissism, they think that government will actually stop just because they stopped voting.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

@ FFanatic-sorry I ran out of time to address your last post. I was short on time and didn't want to give a poor quality reply. I'll get back to you ASAP. For now, I'll leave you with this classic Hoppe piece to peruse at your leisure. (not that below is only a discussion of the book by Hoppe , not the entire book)
[h=1][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Democracy: The God That Failed[/FONT][/FONT][/h]

 

[bolil]

Isn't any form of 'government' democratic? Even a monarch must appease most of its people. Then again, anyone with royal pretensions can go ahead and... fucking die.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Isn't any form of 'government' democratic? Even a monarch must appease most of its people. Then again, anyone with royal pretensions can go ahead and... fucking die.

No. Democratic government, by definition, gives at least some part of the population a vote WRT certain policies and/or representatives.

 

[bolil]

No. Democratic government, by definition, gives at least some part of the population a vote WRT certain policies and/or representatives.

Yes, I understand that, but even a monarchy is implicitly democratic. That is what I was trying to say.

I guess the real hinge, the true pin, the honest truth is that any government that monopolizes the use of force is tyrannical, no matter their favored vernacular.

A king can be, and they have been, deposed. Such events are not entirely insulated to royal pretenders, rather the impetus lay with the people.

People, taken one at a time ever surprizing. Taken in groups... I'd rather talk to ants

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes, I understand that, but even a monarchy is implicitly democratic. That is what I was trying to say.

How so? I am speaking of a traditional monarchy, not parliamentary monarchy.

I guess the real hinge, the true pin, the honest truth is that any government that monopolizes the use of force is tyrannical, no matter their favored vernacular.

A king can be, and they have been, deposed. Such events are not entirely insulated to royal pretenders, rather the impetus lay with the people.

And there you have it! Unlike the presidents and prime ministers of the world, kings can and have been overthrown. This is how it has to be done. Going through the motions of the democratic process doesn't change anything fundamentally, as we all know-and which RP acknowledged in a recording he made after the last election.

People, taken one at a time ever surprizing. Taken in groups... I'd rather talk to ants

Indeed.

 

[bolil]

How so? I am speaking of a traditional monarchy, not parliamentary monarchy.


And there you have it! Unlike the presidents and prime ministers of the world, kings can and have been overthrown. This is how it has to be done. Going through the motions of the democratic process doesn't change anything fundamentally, as we all know-and which RP acknowledged in a recording he made after the last election.


Indeed.

First point: Even an absolute traditional monarchy requires the consent of the governed. If a king loses favor with the masses it wont be long before he loses his head.

Second point: Violent civil war, so I believe, is a bad thing... too many innocent people would get killed. Violent revolution is by no means peculiar to monarchies of any kind.

Third point: indeed indeed!

 

[Sola_Fide]

I've listened to a few of his videos, but he does not have a sound philosophy. Way too many errors to take seriously.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

First point: Even an absolute traditional monarchy requires the consent of the governed. If a king loses favor with the masses it wont be long before he loses his head.

Indeed. This is one of the virtues of monarchy. The monarch has genuine reason to fear the wrath of pissed off subjects

Second point: Violent civil war, so I believe, is a bad thing... too many innocent people would get killed. Violent revolution is by no means peculiar to monarchies of any kind.

Yes, violent revolution is not pleasant, and should be a last resort should the king refuse to step down.

Third point: indeed indeed!

 

[bolil]

Indeed. This is one of the virtues of monarchy. The monarch has genuine reason to fear the wrath of pissed off subjects


Yes, violent revolution is not pleasant, and should be a last resort should the king refuse to step down.

I agree with you, and will take the liberty of introducing a new point. Any monarchy, indeed any -archy, must consider the issue of succession, and this is where it falls apart. For two main reasons. A. Their is no guarantee a son or daughter will be anything like their father or mother (history is replete with examples of this) and B. (I can only say for myself) I will NEVER bow to blood.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

First point: Even an absolute traditional monarchy requires the consent of the governed. If a king loses favor with the masses it wont be long before he loses his head.

Second point: Violent civil war, so I believe, is a bad thing... too many innocent people would get killed. Violent revolution is by no means peculiar to monarchies of any kind.

Third point: indeed indeed!

Consent of the governed is not the same thing as democracy. Democracy is an attempt to equalize political power through a voting mechanism.

Just because all governmental intstitutions require a level of consent to function doesn't make them all democratic in a similar sense that it also doesn't make them necessarily voluntary.

 

[bolil]

Consent of the governed is not the same thing as democracy. Democracy is an attempt to equalize political power through a voting mechanism.

Just because all governmental intstitutions require a level of consent to function doesn't make them all democratic in a similar sense that it also doesn't make them necessarily voluntary.

The differences between a monarchy and a democracy are specious. Then, I hold fast to my definition of government as a monopoly on the use of sanctioned force.