Libertarian Purists: Libertarian on Everything - Except Liberty

[Cabal]

Oh God. REALITY!!!!!!! Ill simplify:
-----------------------------------------
You live in a state? Yes. No.
if yes:
If you try not to pay taxes state will imprison you? Yes. No.
if yes:
If you try to righteously defend your self state will kill you? Yes. No.

You can choose to live in a state or you can choose to die (STATE WILL KILL YOU).

THIS IS REALITY.
------------------------------------------
Did you not read about philosophical debates and rhetoric versus reality in my comment? You live in a dream world. Your version of free world will come true when unicorns come true. I am talking about reality and not esoteric debates. I got very little use from them. There will always be people who want to rule over other... and in liberty movement there will be dreamers who will just dream about free society and those who will work to achieve it. I got very little use from dreamers. I dont hate them (until they start sabotaging those who work to achieve free society) but I consider workers better than dreamers (in article referred as "purists").

Others get it, if +reps are any indicator.

Imagine if people who envisioned and dreamed of a society that rejected slavery had instead conformed to your logic, and thus ceased dreaming up a potential society that rejected slavery. You may find comfort with your so-called realities, and choose to limit your imagination according to them. Others look to improving future realities wherever possible. You have your way, and they have theirs. I would submit that a world without dreamers would surely stagnate and dwindle, just as the 'liberty movement' will if the dreamers don't continue to challenge these so-called realities that most others are so willing to bend over and accept. In any case, dreamers and doers are not mutually exclusive--yet another false dilemma.

 

[ProIndividual]

You fucking liar. First I am Bush and Murrica something (even tho I am not Murrican) and now this. Just because I acknowledge existence of state does not mean that I approve of it. I do not approve of it. What the hell is your problem?
You are so far in your dream world and "what if" debates that word reality doesnt even exist in your vocabulary. Please read again my posts because you obviously didnt understand any of it.... I thought that it is because I am not native English speaker but like I said + reps tell me that others understood it.

I sighted the fucking definition of statist, under which minarchists fall, and yet you call me a liar? Delusional.

I wasn't insulting you by using the word statist...I was remarking that your claim that we can only live in a state or die is only to be taken with a grain of salt because its the opinion of a STATIST (an advocate, in this case, for minimalist state socialism in roads, police, courts, law, defense, etc.).

If you don't like being called what you are, then stop being one. It's that simple.

And you did use Bush-type (il)logic when trying to sow fear as a reason to reject anarchism. And that is exactly what you did. And who started being an asshole first? You did...by talking about fantasy and dreams, and all that bullshit minarchists constantly bring up (as do all other statists, BTW) when speaking to anarchists about our logical summations and ideals. You just couldn't resist trying to belittle our ideas, because that's the only way you can debate us. If you used logic consistently, you wouldn't be debating against us at all.

You were condescending first...and that's really obvious. The fact other minarchists are a majority here, and that they agree with your condescension, has no relevance to the chronology of asshole-ism in this thread.

You don't simply acknowledge the existence of the state - you advocate for it. HUGE fucking difference. If you don't approve of it, then why are you even debating me? Just admit it's fucking criminality legalized and should be abolished, no matter how long that takes. All this condescension and self righteous garbage is totally unnecessary. But what started this debate?

The idea that anarchists are wrong to discuss, assert, and use logic to prove the state cannot be fixed, but instead must be abolished. That somehow political action within the electoral system is the best way to change the system for the better (despite all historical evidence to the contrary). I don't mind running candidates...to sow truth and educate and convert people, not with the primary goal of winning power because they actually believe the nonsense that it isn't the power that is the problem, but that the power itself is the problem. If they win sowing truth, that's a happy coincidence, and it signals those voters are ready for drastic changes necessary to avoid the usual end to the state's life cycle (collapse, democide, and bloody revolution to stop the democide or lesser atrocities of the state).

+reps mean fuck all in logic...this needed to be repeated apparently. You're just appealing to the majority opinion there, a total informal logical fallacy.

If you are against the legitimacy of the state, then you are an anarchist. If you are an anarchist, why the fuck are trying to debate me and belittle me and my beliefs (and my activism history)? What is logical about that? Why would any self respecting anarchist think education of the masses isn't a larger part of the strategy in achieving a free society than winning elections? Think about it.

 

[ProIndividual]

Imagine if people who envisioned and dreamed of a society that rejected slavery had instead conformed to your logic, and thus ceased dreaming up a potential society that rejected slavery. You may find comfort with your so-called realities, and choose to limit your imagination according to them. Others look to improving future realities wherever possible. You have your way, and they have theirs. I would submit that a world without dreamers would surely stagnate and dwindle, just as the 'liberty movement' will if the dreamers don't continue to challenge these so-called realities that most others are so willing to bend over and accept. In any case, dreamers and doers are not mutually exclusive--yet another false dilemma.

You said it better than I did. Good post. If I had seen this post before I responded to his last two posts, I would have just ignored his posts and let your response do the work for me. But alas, I'm a bit of an asshole, and have no problem needling those who try to needle me first. But, I also have no problem making up and moving on. I'm sorry he took offense to me calling him a statist, but I'm not going to stop using the word correctly to describe minarchists just because they get pissed. It's not my fault they use the word pejoratively when referring to statists who want more authoritarianism than they do, but then ignore the denotative meaning of the word includes them in it. I honestly wasn't trying to insult him by using the word...but also don't think it's bad minarchists get insulted by its correct use. Maybe it'll be one of the many little pieces that wake them up to what they really are, and what they really advocate.

And when I said "so says the statist", what I was doing was not referring to him even individually...I was saying "so says any person who advocates for the legitimacy of the state". It was a general use of the word, although I can see how he thought it was meant to call him a name. After all, I was quoting him when I used it, and the entire body of the rest of that post was directed at him.

In the end, he's still an ally until we get to a small govt...then we can be enemies.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I find this most intriguing. Prithee elaborate.

It's a simple concept, really. Here you go... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking_horse

You just have to understand the concept of the stalking horse before placing fascism into relevance with it in the presence of libertarianism.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Good luck with that - but I doubt you'll be much edified by any response you might get.

Edified or not, the fact is that more people should come to know and understand that this phenomenon exists from within mainstream libertarianism (or any other political philosophy or demographic). But it's predominant in the realm of libertarianism where fascist reason is able to blend in and perhaps redirect, or, in many cases, hijack the terms of controversy completely and in a manner that would guide a prospective voter or libertarian thinker more toward one of the fascist model. Of course, we define fascism as the merge of corporation and state. We define it this way because that its what it is.

You want to know the true divide in the libertarian movement? I just gave it to you.

 

[Barrex]

You want me to respond to lies you spew about me. You pretend that you want debate but you invent positions I never took. I dont feel like writing few pages correcting your lies but here are few free samples:

You lie that i advocate, in this case, for minimalist state socialism in roads, police, courts, law, defense, etc.
I do not advocate it. I recognize current existence of socialism in social security, monetary policy, roads, police, etc. For me getting government out of some of those things one at the time is better than waiting and dreaming that some miracle happens and abolishes state all together. Once there, "in evil miniarchist society"(according to you) we can work on abolishing other branches of government.

You lie that I to sow fear as a reason to reject anarchism.
I recognize existence of state. I support anarchism.

You lie that I am spreading the idea that anarchists are wrong to discuss, assert, and use logic to prove the state cannot be fixed, but instead must be abolished. I am saying that "purists" (ALL AT ONCE OR YOU ARE TRAITOR) do despicable thing when they sabotage and turn on those who try to advance liberty one step at the time. Same thing is written in the article, if you read it at all.

I could keep pointing your lies about me but then you would simply invent new ones...

Also:

Reality is what we make it.

What the hell? Could you make unicorns reality?

Advocating for evil isn't going to abolish evil in reality, now is it?

Shrinking government is advocating for evil? This is exactly what is wrong with "purists". You are not getting me liberty right now therefore you are advocating evil.

You keep lying that I am for the government simply because I recognize reality that government exists.

Please read my posts again because obviously you didnt understand what I wrote.

 

[Cabal]

Edified or not, the fact is that more people should come to know and understand that this phenomenon exists from within mainstream libertarianism (or any other political philosophy or demographic). But it's predominant in the realm of libertarianism where fascist reason is able to blend in and perhaps redirect, or, in many cases, hijack the terms of controversy completely and in a manner that would guide a prospective voter or libertarian thinker more toward one of the fascist model. Of course, we define fascism as the merge of corporation and state. We define it this way because that its what it is.

You want to know the true divide in the libertarian movement? I just gave it to you.

Are you talking about fascism, or fascist tendencies co-opting libertarianism?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Are you talking about fascism, or fascist tendencies co-opting libertarianism?

Well, fascist tendencies lead a person to fascism.But they have to be introduced to those tendencies and fooled into thinking that's what they want to do. What I'm saying is that , like the paper in the op, we often see the wrong model pawned off as the true divide.

I'll tell you, Cabal, one of the biggest setbacks for me has always been to just say something outright. I don't know why but it is just the way that it is and so I'll try to be clear and to the point.

Fascist thinkers who support and strive for a fascist model of representation are more likely to solicit support (while creating the illusion that this is not what they are doing...even if they are) for that preferred model from within the libertarian community because it's far easier to blend in as if one is a libertarian or supportive of the right of genuine people to elect government representative of genuine people..except not. Does that make sense?

I almost want to compare it with the way Frank Luntz operates with his brand of word spin. Do you know what I mean by that? But then these entites or those representatives of these entities continue to get a free pass and the phenomenon is not realized because we have bullshit papers like the op selling a different message on why there is divide or where it comes from.

 

[ProIndividual]

You want me to respond to lies you spew about me. You pretend that you want debate but you invent positions I never took. I dont feel like writing few pages correcting your lies but here are few free samples:

You lie that i advocate, in this case, for minimalist state socialism in roads, police, courts, law, defense, etc.
I do not advocate it. I recognize current existence of socialism in social security, monetary policy, roads, police, etc. For me getting government out of some of those things one at the time is better than waiting and dreaming that some miracle happens and abolishes state all together. Once there, "in evil miniarchist society"(according to you) we can work on abolishing other branches of government.

You lie that I to sow fear as a reason to reject anarchism.
I recognize existence of state. I support anarchism.

You lie that I am spreading the idea that anarchists are wrong to discuss, assert, and use logic to prove the state cannot be fixed, but instead must be abolished. I am saying that "purists" (ALL AT ONCE OR YOU ARE TRAITOR) do despicable thing when they sabotage and turn on those who try to advance liberty one step at the time. Same thing is written in the article, if you read it at all.

I could keep pointing your lies about me but then you would simply invent new ones...

Also:


What the hell? Could you make unicorns reality?


Shrinking government is advocating for evil? This is exactly what is wrong with "purists". You are not getting me liberty right now therefore you are advocating evil.

You keep lying that I am for the government simply because I recognize reality that government exists.

Please read my posts again because obviously you didnt understand what I wrote.

I have a hard time accepting an anarchist actually believes this:

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.

I clearly explained why this is illogical (Post #22).

Nothing I said was a lie. You said things that clearly conflict with your claim of being an anarchist. You may like to use the term because it's fashionable or something, but you clearly haven't thought it through very far.

You also said this:

You can choose to live in a state or you can choose to die.

Which of course assumes you can choose to live in a state and somehow it won't murder you anyways (hint, hint, democide).

Since democide (being murdered by your own state for racial, political, etc. reasons, not while engaged in war) is the leading cause of unnatural death for humans over the last 100 years, you think that might, maybe, possibly, bend your point over and fuck it up the ass?

You sound like a minarchist who's in the statist closet to me. Try thinking more deeply about anarchism before claiming to be an anarchist.

You also said:

Too many of you never experienced totalitarian regimes and are content in dreaming about theoretical libertarian dream world.

Some of us have families who fled fascist Italy and came here. Some of us can read a fucking history book too. Some of us are willing to die for what we believe.

We're Americans, buddy...we may not have experienced a totalitarian regime personally, but we are also unlikely to let one last very long. We'll die trying to destroy it...whether that is through violent revolution (which I think bears no fruit for anarchists), or by undermining it intellectually and through counter-economics.

Are you seriously telling the most rebellious asshole culture the world has ever seen that they need to take lessons on spreading liberty from Eastern Europeans who sat back and let shit happen right before them? Please.

Your fuzzy feelings for incrementalism and gray areas aren't tasting good to our American pallets, lets alone our anarchist American palates. None of us think we could, or should, wave a magic wand and make the state disappear...it would cause more chaos than spontaneous order. It's a really fucked up knot, and needs to be carefully untied. That said, shooting for minarchy is a waste of time. The unwinding of this knot of statism can only hurt the least, and be done the fastest, if we shoot for anarchy, PERIOD. This is simple logic. Shooting for minarchy will leave us with minarchy at best...and that will always devolve into what you and I both hate/fear. So why play rhetorical or political games? Just tell the truth about anarchism and the uncompromising nature of liberty...or face the fact you are not aiming for liberty, but some form of soft tyranny.

I, and others here, are not simply concerned for our lifetimes. We see the long view...and our great grandchildren have no chance at true liberty if we don't start advocating and working toward anarchy right fucking now.

You also earlier thought I called you "'Merican"...I didn't. Go back and read what I said. I said you used logic like Bush, and then fake quoted the essence of Bush-ism.

PS. When you use minarchist/statist buzzwords like "unicorns", "free beer", etc. to talk about ideas people are expressing, you sure sound like a minarchist/ statist. That is a TAD fucking confusing, don't you think?

I do not think we'll see minarchy OR anarchy in our lifetimes...but the only way to see anarchy is to convince people of it, not play bullshit political incrementalist games with gray areas of minarchism. The idea we should NOT shoot for ONLY pure liberty is to logically say we are shooting for minimal state socialism, aka minimal tyranny. You aren't going to escape that fact by saying you're an anarchist while deriding those fighting for it, trying to start the "brushfire in the minds of men".

If you really want statelessness (pure liberty) for future generations, stop pissing on our goddamn brushfire.

To answer you question:

Shrinking government is advocating for evil?

Advocating for any state is advocacy for evil, logically. Shrinking evil is not abolishing evil. This is just the lesser of two evils argument. It's illogical and gets us nowhere. You have to advocate for no state if you want to advocate for no evil. Shrinking govt is only a step to no evil, not evil-less unto itself.

It's like saying shrinking a tumor is equivalent to being cancer-free. Not hardly.

And BTW, since you think of yourself as a realist and people like me as "unicorn" advocates...what are the fucking chances the state will shrink and keep shrinking? How many times in history has a state gone from a minarchy to a Leviathan, and then back to minarchy (without a violent revolution or being conquered by another state)?

States grow and collapse. That's their lifecycle. Imho, it's unrealistic to believe the state will ever shrink and stay shrunk. The war is with logic and ideas, not shrinking the state. The state will grow until it collapses. The ebb and flow is there, so it may shrink a little, before growing back larger than ever, rinse, wash, repeat...but in the end, we have to convince the masses of the idea of NOT setting up another minarchy when the fucking Leviathan collapses us into a failed state. That's how anarchy comes about, not by shrinking the state. That never happens, and in terms of game theory and chaos theory (mathematics) CANNOT happen. The best you can hope for via your ideas is a nonviolent revolution. The odds of that are very low.

If you want to shrink the state to get to anarchy, have at it...but don't think of yourself as a realist and pragmatist then, because it makes little sense. You'll have a better chance if you get people to embrace anarchism over minarchism, so when the state finally collapses (a 99.99+% likelihood), we can NOT set another minarchy up that is doomed to become another Leviathan.

As my father would've said, "capisce?" (it means, "understand?")