No More Marches on DC

[Deborah K]

I think a careful reading of my posts show disagreement with the anarchist position as logically inconsistent and not well thought out, despite the constant reference to articles to read that would surely convince me of the anarchist position if I only had the intellectual capacity to understand them.

The problem is that I do understand them, with your reaction taken by me as some evidence of that.

As I said, I am down with the concept of anarchy. It's trying to put it into practice that concerns me. And if you can't put a concept into practice then what is the point?

I know enough to know that anarchy is part of the cycle of government: Liberty; Complacency; Dependence; Tyranny; Revolution. Anarchy usually occurs during and after revolution. But, as the Articles of Confederation have shown us, it can't last.

 

[Primbs]

Do Marches matter?

Here are some answers.

Measuring success entails more than body counts, which every organizer
inevitably inflates.

We have brought people together who have never met. Groups have sprung up in cities, more conservatives are running for office,

http://www.randpaul2010.com/

"When marches are successful, it's because they serve a community
mobilizing function that lasts beyond the event and leads to something down
the line," said John D'Emilio, a history professor at the University of
Illinois at Chicago"

The marches on Washington have tended (it is in part inferred in the
article) to be most successful when they focus on one issue--such as gun
control. MLK's march was backed up by local actions across the country and
had specific remedies for the discrimination.

We are doing local actions.


"I think the cultural impact that such events can have and the impact they can
have on participants should not be overlooked, even though legislators and others
often down play the impact social movements and organizations have on them."

"I am, like the writer, fairly short term and legislation victory results
oriented, but the results that diffuse impacts on culture can have are
worth considering".

"Also, the argument that resources mobilized for one activity are deducted from how many resources
can be mobilized for another event implies some kind of zero-sum relationship between giving patterns
from the entire public. I think the research shows this isn't likely true, or at least, not that simple."

 

[tremendoustie]

Couldn't you say that about government?

Bingo. There will always be evil, power hungry men and women, who want to rule the lives of others. Why create a power structure ready made for them to do so?

 

[jm1776]

What pisses me off is the lack of any strategy from the Austrian wing.

Do not think liberty lovers that liberty comes from intellect. It is our compassion for our brothers and sisters, or our fear of them that brings us together and unites us under these ideals, not our ability to be clever, witty, or logical. These things are only useful for defending our ideals, rarely for spreading them. To spread them we must act in such a way that others see those ideals through our actions. [...]

Thanks for the excellent post.

This is worth exploring. In general, what type of endeavors could we engage in that would be beneficial to our communities while providing an example of our ideals in action?

 

[tremendoustie]

As I said, I am down with the concept of anarchy. It's trying to put it into practice that concerns me. And if you can't put a concept into practice then what is the point?

I know enough to know that anarchy is part of the cycle of government: Liberty; Complacency; Dependence; Tyranny; Revolution. Anarchy usually occurs during and after revolution. But, as the Articles of Confederation have shown us, it can't last.

How do you believe the Articles of Confederation show this? Also, don't you think there is a difference between the temporary lack of a government in a trasitional period, with a population supportive in general of the idea of coersive government, and a lack of government caused by a populace the majority of which by principle refuse to use or tolerate agressive force?

 

[Deborah K]

Bingo. There will always be evil, power hungry men and women, who want to rule the lives of others. Why create a power structure ready made for them to do so?

And I suppose anarchy will make evil, power hungry men and women NOT want to rule the lives of others???? Anarchy relies too heavily on good will. Love the concept though.

 

[Deborah K]

How do you believe the Articles of Confederation show this? Also, don't you think there is a difference between the temporary lack of a government in a trasitional period, with a population supportive in general of the idea of coersive government, and a lack of government caused by a populace the majority of which by principle refuse to use or tolerate agressive force?

Because the Articles of Confederation were as close to anarchy as we ever got. Even George Washington said that the near disaster at Valley Forge was due to the constitutional weakness of the Articles of Confederation.

As I stated before, I am for limited government overseen by the people it represents. When it goes wrong, it is due to complacency. The Constitution dictates that elected officials in in the employment of the people. It's the same concept as when you own a business. If you don't hold your employees accountable, they will take over.

 

[tremendoustie]

And I suppose anarchy will make evil, power hungry men and women NOT want to rule the lives of others???? Anarchy relies too heavily on good will. Love the concept though.

Well, again, I do not support aggressively coercive government, but I do support order and peace, so I'd prefer the term "voluntaryist" or "free society" if you don't mind.

In a free society, then, how will power hungry men and women be dealt with? I suppose the answer depends on how those power hungry people seek it. If they attempt to use force against their neighbors -- a traditional gang type of approach, they will be stopped by protection agencies, which would serve a similar function to that of police now. We know that they would not be as powerful as these protection agencies, because the economic power of one madman cannot come close to matching that of people who just want to be left in peace. It's the same reason the government is more powerful than street gangs now -- the government has the economic power of average people behind it.

Now, perhaps the crafty, power hungry individual will seek to rise to power in one of these protection agencies or other organization, and then use it for evil. A number of things prevent them:

1. Competition. There will be many competing protection agencies, which would quickly band together against the rogue. Also, people could easily and swiftly switch to a competitor, draining the rogue protection agency of resources, and bolstering the opposition.

This advantage does not exist with government -- government does not allow competition in protection services, nor does it obtain funding voluntarily, so there is no alternative ready to challenge a government should it become oppressive, and there is no way for people to "vote with their wallets" and remove support if the government starts to go out of control. If our power hungry individual takes over the government, they are far less easily opposed.

Monopolies always provide worse services and are far less accountable -- for forced monopolies, rather than natural ones, this is especially so.

2. No illusion of legitimacy. In a free society, no action would be considered legitimate if it uses aggressive force. By contrast, in our current situation, people believe government -- or the majority -- has the right to do what they will with the finances and lives of others. Many people who would never break into a neighbor's house, steal their TV, sell it, and use the money to help the poor, for example, will nonetheless support welfare, because of this false idea that government is somehow exempt from the moral code. This same false idea causes those with moral opposition to a government action, for example, to believe that they still must fund it with their taxes. After all, "majority rules". This illusion of legitimacy would also not exist in their "troops". Their personnel would likely desert them after their attempted takeover. There would be no "don't think, just obey orders" propaganda as there is for the military, police, etc.

3. No ready made power structure. In order to obtain taxes, government must create the necessary structure, including information on whatever is to be taxed -- trade, income, etc, and the means to enforce tax collection. In a free society, protection agencies and other services would send you a bill at the end of the month, and might eventually refuse service if the bills are not paid, but they do not have the ability to obtain information on income, etc. A potential tyrant would have to create the entire tax structure from scratch, as well as any other power structures he/she wished to obtain -- no easy feat.

This limitation does not exist in government, where the necessary structures are already in place for tyranny -- ready made for the tyrant's use, including at least taxation, but also usually secret agencies, tools for domestic espionage, border control, military, fiscal and trade controls, etc. Couple this with a populace taught that normal morality does not apply to government -- that government (police, FBI, IRS, etc) must always be obeyed, and the enforced ban on all competition, and you have a recipe for disaster. One which has occurred repeatedly through history, and continues to occur today.


This book has some good ideas regarding free market justice, although I don't necessarily agree with everything in it: http://mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf

 

[tremendoustie]

Because the Articles of Confederation were as close to anarchy as we ever got. Even George Washington said that the near disaster at Valley Forge was due to the constitutional weakness of the Articles of Confederation.

A valid solution to lack of funding is not to start extorting money from people. Nor is an appropriate response to desertion to hang people who choose to leave. In reality, the revolution would have been far more effective had Washington not focused on regulars so much, and had there been more of an emphasis on sabotage assassinations, and surprise attacks. It was citizens and volunteers with rifles, causing chaos for the British, who won the war.

As I stated before, I am for limited government overseen by the people it represents. When it goes wrong, it is due to complacency. The Constitution dictates that elected officials in in the employment of the people. It's the same concept as when you own a business. If you don't hold your employees accountable, they will take over.

Yes, and when you own a business, can you threaten to throw people in cages if they do not subscribe to your service?

 

[ShowMeLiberty]

We need both. With the age of youtube, it is important for people to see the size of the disenfrachised, so that this myth of small government types only being a small minority can be dispelled. In that very large crowd, perhaps a small minority will now be inspired to affect change at the local level, that may have been to intimidated before. It's a numbers game.

+1

Looks like we are going to have little debate.

I think Lew Rockwell's reasons for owning guns applies to having marches.

"A right exercised is a right retained."

The fact that we are organizing marches and are there is starting to change the dynamic.

" The simple act of having a gun is its own best use. Like a battleship parked off the coast its mere presence changes the dynamic of the situation without having to fire a single shot. By having a gun you become too dangerous to your predators. Criminals interviewed in jail say they don’t want anything to do with an armed civilian. That change in my human predators is exactly what I want to accomplish."

^ This.

I agree with paulitics and New York for Paul, and I think Rockwell is partially missing the point. Although he's correct that a march will not directly affect policy, a sufficiently gigantic march (like Saturday's) can and will awaken disenfranchised people to the fact that many, many others exist, and it also gets people accustomed to the idea of mass demonstrations (which is good for the safety of future participants). It's good for morale and working up the energy to get involved.

Absolutely correct, imho.

 

[tremendoustie]

+1



^ This.



Absolutely correct, imho.

Yes, I agree, marches are a good idea. Action, in general, is a good idea. Our problem IMO, if we have one, is not taking the wrong kind of action, it is not taking enough action.

 

[RoamZero]

It would be much more effective if people marched on state conventions and try to take over as much chairmanship/committee positions as possible. The only good that can come from marches such as the one on Washington is an effort to try to sway and educate the neocons that have been swept in by the people that are trying to co-opt the movement.

 

[tremendoustie]

It would be much more effective if people marched on state conventions and try to take over as much chairmanship/committee positions as possible. The only good that can come from marches such as the one on Washington is an effort to try to sway and educate the neocons that have been swept in by the people that are trying to co-opt the movement.

Yes, it would be better for state governments to start extracting themselves from the clutches of Washington. I think Washington may be beyond hope -- not that I don't support efforts at reform -- but I think efforts at reform in the state level, and especially civdis and agorist approaches are more likely to be effective. That said, education is also a vital goal, and national efforts are often more visible.

 

[Deborah K]

A valid solution to lack of funding is not to start extorting money from people. Nor is an appropriate response to desertion to hang people who choose to leave. In reality, the revolution would have been far more effective had Washington not focused on regulars so much, and had there been more of an emphasis on sabotage assassinations, and surprise attacks. It was citizens and volunteers with rifles, causing chaos for the British, who won the war.



Yes, and when you own a business, can you threaten to throw people in cages if they do not subscribe to your service?

Don't mix apples with oranges. You need money to win a fight against tyranny. How would you have done it differently and had the same outcome - that being independence from England.

No, when you own a business you can't throw people in cages and you are mixing up the roles here. Government isn't the business owner - the people are.

 

[Primbs]

Yes, it would be better for state governments to start extracting themselves from the clutches of Washington. I think Washington may be beyond hope -- not that I don't support efforts at reform -- but I think efforts at reform in the state level, and especially civdis and agorist approaches are more likely to be effective. That said, education is also a vital goal, and national efforts are often more visible.

There might be hope to change washington.

"the possible elevation of a movement that two years ago was insufficient to nominate its preferred candidate to a position of being able to change the policy debate and cow the very same Republican elites who lined up, almost to a person, behind other Republican presidential contenders."

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/ron-paul-rallies-v2009.html

We are doing better.

 

[Bossobass]

Lew Rockwell's a pussy.

Bosso

 

[brandon]

Agree with Rockwell. These types of demonstrations don't accomplish anything.

Build your own personal power and take back control of your life then same way they took control of your life. The ruling elite did not take control of this country by marching in the streets and waving signs. Maybe everyone should watch "An Idea Whose Time Has Come" again...

 

[Primbs]

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washing...silver-sees-major-gains-for-gop-in-2010.html#

Liberals predicting possible GOP takeover of the house in 2010 with a 50 seat democrat loss.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/likely-voters-and-unlikely-scenarios.html

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/looking-forward-to-2010.html


We have many Ron Paul republican running. There is a big wave coming. Now is the time for people to run for office.

The march is but one indicator, but a good one.

The liberals are very much paying attention to Ron Paul republicans now.

http://www.democraticwarrior.com/forum/showthread.php?p=351922

 

[puppetmaster]

I would love to see an armed march on Washington. That may open some eyes.....

Lew is a good man.

 

[tremendoustie]

Don't mix apples with oranges. You need money to win a fight against tyranny. How would you have done it differently and had the same outcome - that being independence from England.

Were my goal to forcefully oppose the British, I would have worked to organize free people and their resources to that end, so, people who have money for rifles, etc, could be connected to those who want to volunteer, volunteers in need of homes could be connected with sympathetic homeowners nearby, etc. I would also donate my own resources, and perhaps, if events warranted, pick up a rifle myself.

There was plenty of willing money and resources to fund a resistance. If those resources did not exist, I would either do what I could with what I had, or would seek another method of resistance, more commensurate with my means.

Taking a rifle around and extorting money from people to pay for my resistance, or forcing them to fight, would not be an option, I would, I hope, sooner die than become such a thug, and tyrant, myself.

No, when you own a business you can't throw people in cages and you are mixing up the roles here. Government isn't the business owner - the people are.

Who are "the people"? The majority? How exactly does a majority have a right to extort money from a minority by threatening violence against them? You use the analogy of a business here, but it is not appropriate, because the government does not act on the basis of voluntary transactions, nor does it it permit competition. Nor, indeed, is "the people" a single unit, with a single will. In reality, the government is a tool used by some people, against other people. It is more like an attack dog than a business.

What if a person does not support the government, or wish to subscribe to it? Would you use this attack dog against them, to take their money, despite their protests, because "the people" (the majority) want it? What then, when the majority clamor for socialized medicine, a police state, the draft, and your very life, and the now giant dog is on your doorstep? Will you then complain when it bites you? Too bad, they will say, as you once did -- the majority want it!

No! Just let people be free with their lives and finances. Put the rabid dog down.

I'd like your opinion on this, if you don't mind: suppose at the creation of the world I find myself living near two other people. Now, suppose myself, and my first neighbor, wish to steal from the other. My second neighbor simply wishes to live in peace. My first neighbor and I hold a "constitutional convention", and determine by two thirds majority, that we will have a democracy. We then vote to steal from our neighbor, and the motion passes by two thirds majority, which of course is binding. It's now the law that we shall take the property of our neighbor, and since there are two of us and one of him, overwhelm him by force and do so immediately. Or, of course, we could give him a chance to leave, at which point we get his farm anyway.

Do you believe this scenario is any different, or more moral, than common theft?