I liked this article very much.
Would you have Hitler(authoritarian) as your president or Rand Paul (lets call it "Liberty compromised")?
Would you jump from 1 foot height or 1000000000 feets (legs?)?
It is NOT one or the other.
You would be correct if things are changed with a flip of a switch. They are not.
Why should we choose our masters? I would choose neither...as the entire position of authority they hold should be abolished. The only choices aren't rule by one (dictator) or rule by all (democracy - or its watered down cousin, republicanism)...you can choose to not be ruled by anyone (or to rule yourself - anarchism/autarchism).
Hitler or Paul? Of course one would rather have Paul IF that's your only choice...but it isn't. There is another choice: fuck them both and abolish the office altogether.
It's not WHO is in power that's the problem (hence electoral politics don't work long term) - the problem is the power itself. No one should rule another. Simply hoping for, or
choosing (if that's what you call elections), a less abusive master is not the same thing as not being a slave. Not having master at all makes you not a slave.
And why do you need to jump from any height at all? I could take the elevator or the stairs (although at one foot, I can probably just ease down).
It IS logically one or the other....liberty or authority. Any compromise of libertarian ethics will lead to authoritarianism of various degrees. There's no arguing otherwise...it's simple Aristotelian Logic.
But of course, that's why minarchists aren't anarchists...they refuse to take their ideas to their logical conclusions, which of course leads to inconsistent logic and therefore inconsistent ethics.
It's ethically wrong to be ruled by others against your will, provided you have not victimized another first, and have the ability to consent. So, logically, Rand Paul being President doesn't mean his position is moral. In fact, it is immoral. Hitler may be MORE immoral, but that's a matter of degree, not principle. The principle is the first sentence in this paragraph. Hitler is MORE authoritarian than Rand, but that doesn't mean Rand is logically lacking any authoritarianism if he's the ruler.
You cannot say logically there is a gray area. Liberty is the negation of illegitimate authority (and all authority over the non-victimizer against their consent, assuming they can consent, is logically illegitimate). Illegitimate authority is the negation of liberty. Any move toward one negates the other to the degree of that move proportionally.
Some are just comfortable with being slaves, provided it's a more comfortable slavery than they are used to complaining about. Others simply say fuck being a slave of any kind. You are either totally free and not a slave, or you are a slave to some degree...there's no gray area.
Lesser of two evils is a shit argument, imo.
And no one needs things to change with a flip of switch...not your way or ours. Both depend on the masses being gradually enlightened. You see the goal as winning elections and being the ones to wield power (and therefore wielding it less, and more judicially, than the alternatives). We see the goal as abolishing that very power in the minimalist state socialized (the tiny state with a capitalist economy) system...so we see the masses being enlightened as the actual goal (as their enlightenment would lead to ignoring, subverting, and finally abolishing the state by making it illegal to extort and murder, even if the state does it). Minarchists tend to think A) we can't or shouldn't abolish the state, so we can't enlighten the masses that far or they'll want no state (hence, they try to distance anarchists from themselves, often by claiming we aren't even libertarians - which is utterly ridiculous and ahistorical), B) since winning elections is all that matters, we MUST choose our masters, and C) the state is not in of itself an immoral construct, so anarchists themselves are pursuing an immoral goal if they seek to abolish the state.
They also tend to think the state isn't the problem per se, but instead who is in power within the state.
Gradual enlightenment is needed for both of our plans...but for the minarchist plan you not only need an extra step (winning elections - whether or not this is done honestly or by bullshitting voters via the usual lying politician half-truths), but you also need to thwart enlightenment that goes "too far" from your perspective (the people should be enlightened, but only to the point they agree with your minarchism). Minarchists view anarchists as dangerous to winning elections, and anarchists view minarchists as somewhat illogical, and therefore somewhat unethical (as ethics are derived via logic...HOPEFULLY). Minarchists view elections as the goal, while anarchists view elections as opportunities to educate the masses (not water down the message of liberty to win elections in a yet unenlightened populace), if they view them as part of the solution at all. For anarchists, like myself, that view elections as simply ways to educate and convert through that education, we realize that if we keep the message at least as pure as Ron Paul did, not watered down like Rand's message, then we'll win elections as a byproduct of enlightening the masses, and those accidental wins will show the masses are ready to start massively scaling back or abolishing the state. The minarchist/Rand stealth strategy is not only dishonest and not geared to abolishing the state, but it also means you have to betray many voters when in office in order to shrink the state in any meaningful way (as you'll promise not to in order to get elected). This will make libertarians look like every other lying asshole political parasite.
Rand's message may win, but in the long run it is unsustainable. Not only is he talking about barely regressing the Leviathan (as opposed to massive changes we need), but he's either telling the truth (which would be bad for libertarians), or he's lying (which will be bad for our movement to convince others in the long run).
We need more Ron Paul messages (or even more radical)...not LESS radical messages. Our elections should be less about winning than education and conversion...which would, when successful, lead to a sustainable set of electoral wins (and these wins will signal a populace ready for massive changes, not nibbling at the edges of the drug war, foreign policy, etc.). Running to win, and win now, means lying, talking in circles, and not spreading the truthful radical message. That is a short-sighted strategy...and as someone who uses game theory mathematics on a daily basis for my job, I can tell you, it's going to slow us down in the long run. It's a momentum killer. I explained why in my super long post, previous to this one, in this same thread (the bubble effect in electoral politics).
The more patient, more honest, and more sustainable long term strategy is the anarchist/radical strategy. The ones trying to "flip the switch" too fast are the minarchists/gray area folks.
