The Mission Advancement Framework - A new site initiative!

[r3volution 3.0]

is it REALLY possible, for anarchy to stop. a "state" (government) from forming?

Nope, the state's inevitable.

the answer to this question. belongs in the foundational knowledgebase. eh?

Yup, both sides of the argument should be included (just like both sides on abortion, intellectual property, etc, etc).

 

[ProIndividual]

I don't agree the state is inevitable. No bad idea is inevitable. It is only through mass acceptance do things like chattel slavery and the state exist. So, the answer to the question of how to keep it from forming is largely to change hearts and minds to the position extortion (taxation) is never acceptable and mass murder (non-defensive killing on a mass scale, i.e. most wars) is never acceptable, and further limiting competition and tort liability in the markets by threatening non-consenting others with violence is never acceptable. Those things are what create the state to begin with. Order-followers aren't robots...you change enough hearts and minds, their minds also change in sufficient number to make the state impossible to maintain or recreate.

 

[TNforPaul45]

An ambitious initiative!

I would be careful when weighing what "other campaigns" did and how it led to success vs. what "we" did and how it led to failure. The posited idea is that the cause -> effect phenomenon in most of politics is largely unknowable, and real effects are due to behind-doors alliances, discussions, and non-public activities. That doesn't mean that all political actions are ineffective nor does it mean that we should attempt to primarily act behind-the-scenes. But the Framework Knowledge-base should include a discussion and evaluation on this topic, and understand the effects that this phenomenon's mere existence would have on political actions.

Since we primarily act from the grassroots anyway, the above is a minor but substantive concern to at least be aware of and study to some extent. Our ultimate goal is to pull American politics out of the hands of the few and back into the hands of the many!

 

[The Northbreather]

If the altered consciousness comes from physical inducements rather than say serious meditation, then you want personal physical sovereignty.

Ok both then but I would say that sovereignty over consciousness takes precedence and should be recognized as a "self evident truth" in as much as anything else is....

 

[idiom]

I don't agree the state is inevitable. No bad idea is inevitable. It is only through mass acceptance do things like chattel slavery and the state exist. So, the answer to the question of how to keep it from forming is largely to change hearts and minds to the position extortion (taxation) is never acceptable and mass murder (non-defensive killing on a mass scale, i.e. most wars) is never acceptable, and further limiting competition and tort liability in the markets by threatening non-consenting others with violence is never acceptable. Those things are what create the state to begin with. Order-followers aren't robots...you change enough hearts and minds, their minds also change in sufficient number to make the state impossible to maintain or recreate.

That's going to get really really into the weeds.

Some people are just anti-tax and a self funding state wouldn't be a problem. For other people its implict consent that they can't accept and want to have to sign the constitution at 18 or be exiled, then nobody would be in the country without explicit voluntary consent.

It could walk and talk just like a government, but tweak it a little bit and suddenly its not violating the NAP at all.

There are even lots of disagreements about whether slavery or passive infanticide violates the NAP. This is a thing, Walter block got up at a rally and legit started talking about evictionalism like if enough people just heard about how kicking kids out was a moral thing to do then everyone would realize that Ron Paul should be elected.

 

[CaptUSA]

A few random thoughts...

People seem to be really hung up on labels, so it would seem instructive to present all of the "labels" that cross paths with the over-arching liberty movement. Then, it would seem wise to somehow allow strategic alliances amongst these factions on differing issues. In other words, let's focus on our agreements instead of our disagreements. (I think this has been a major problem with the LP and the liberty movement in general.) My naive hope would be that people would learn to ignore the labels altogether, but as long as we could learn to stop the infighting. (In all honesty, I struggle with this as well.)

Next, I think we could use a dose or two of optimism. It's very easy to post about things that are going wrong, but there are many things that go right. Advances in education, technology, and individual liberty generally get short shrift, in favor of the things that piss us off. But if we have liberty lovers who turn to this site for optimism and hope, perhaps it will trigger a new idea in them about how to reduce the influence of the State.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

we are heading in a new direction. and seeking truth.
in the grand scheme of things. anarchists are a very small demographic.

"Liberty dies, when it is undefended"
HVACTech.

if anarchy cannot propose a way to defend Liberty..
then it needs to be discarded as a viable approach. it is an anachronism.
that is the reason our founders discarded it. eh?

Undefended is quite different than unable to defend. The coercive state suffers from the same possibility.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

Regarding 10th amendment/devolution issue, without trying to touch on the veracity it is a political tool that could potentially help us defeat the tyranny that is before us today. But this being a foundation of knowledge we should not look to skirt the issues we may solve with such tactics today. It is either right or wrong to have an abortion, kill gays, regulate substances, regulate what otherwise would be voluntary contracts and associations in all it's different forms, so forth and so on. Obviously decentralization is a big issue, but I don't think using it to justify moral relativism is the right approach.

 

[The Northbreather]

A few random thoughts...

People seem to be really hung up on labels, so it would seem instructive to present all of the "labels" that cross paths with the over-arching liberty movement. Then, it would seem wise to somehow allow strategic alliances amongst these factions on differing issues. In other words, let's focus on our agreements instead of our disagreements. (I think this has been a major problem with the LP and the liberty movement in general.) My naive hope would be that people would learn to ignore the labels altogether, but as long as we could learn to stop the infighting. (In all honesty, I struggle with this as well.)

Next, I think we could use a dose or two of optimism. It's very easy to post about things that are going wrong, but there are many things that go right. Advances in education, technology, and individual liberty generally get short shrift, in favor of the things that piss us off. But if we have liberty lovers who turn to this site for optimism and hope, perhaps it will trigger a new idea in them about how to reduce the influence of the State.

Agree on the label issue, the label "conservative" comes to mind as far as being unclear and having many meanings to separate people.

When talk to some, I often get "what, are you a conservative or something?", to which I have to explain that yes, fiscally I am, and I also don't morally agree that terminating the life of an unborn child is a good thing, but as far as everything else goes I don't have a problem as long as it's not aggression against me or my family.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

People seem to be really hung up on labels, so it would seem instructive to present all of the "labels" that cross paths with the over-arching liberty movement. Then, it would seem wise to somehow allow strategic alliances amongst these factions on differing issues. In other words, let's focus on our agreements instead of our disagreements.

I'd like to see some kind of graphic showing the overlap between different groups: Venn diagrams, network map, something like that.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Regarding 10th amendment/devolution issue, without trying to touch on the veracity it is a political tool that could potentially help us defeat the tyranny that is before us today. But this being a foundation of knowledge we should not look to skirt the issues we may solve with such tactics today. It is either right or wrong to have an abortion, kill gays, regulate substances, regulate what otherwise would be voluntary contracts and associations in all it's different forms, so forth and so on. Obviously decentralization is a big issue, but I don't think using it to justify moral relativism is the right approach.

We should present each strain of libertarianism separately, rather than trying to produce a single milquetoast compromise that pleases nobody.

Seems to me we're pretty good at setting aside our differences to achieve common goals.

Where we get into the weeds is in debating who the "true" libertarians are.

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

On the surface this article (from 2014) seems to be quite tangential, but it offers some useful nuggets. I snipped some parts in the interest of conciseness. https://c4ss.org/content/27365

In a post at the Students For Liberty (SFL) blog, (“Between Radicalism and Revolution: The Cautionary Tale of Students for a Democratic Society,” May 6), Clark Ruper uses the example of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) as a warning against factionalism and division within the libertarian movement. The libertarian movement, he says, should be united on a broad common agenda that appeals to as many people as possible — one that focuses on the “most important” issues like fighting corporatism and foreign interventionism and protecting civil liberties. [...]

Some argue that “real” libertarianism or an improved libertarianism must also include anarchism, or progressivism, or critical race theory, or any number of perspectives….

For us today, it often seems that libertarianism is not enough; what we really need is left-anarchism or thick libertarianism or non-brutalist libertarianism or any number of camps out there.

In response Jeff Ricketson at the Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS) (“Radicalism as Revolution: A Call for a Fractal Libertarianism,” May 18) has challenged Ruper’s call for monolithic unity and instead praised fractalism as a positive good:

What he should have called for is a libertarianism united under the common banner of freedom, with passionate, friendly discussion on the issues therein, and a fractal nesting of smaller, more specialized groups.

Fractalism and specialization, he says, are good because they increase the agility, resilience and adaptability of the larger movement in the face of change.

And this is quite true. It’s hard for libertarian activists working in specific communities to relate basic libertarian values to the particular needs and life situations of the people they’re working with, if they have to clear everything with the agenda approval authorities at Party Central Headquarters.

[...]

In any case, calls for One Big Movement, united around a simple common platform with the broadest possible appeal, are fundamentally wrong-headed. This is essentially the same argument that the old establishment Left — some of whom proudly call themselves “verticalists” — have made against the horizontalist direction the Occupy movement has taken. It’s the standard patronizing criticism from managerial-centrists in the liberal and “Progressive” community:

Appoint leaders and adopt a platform!

The thing is, Occupy came very close to doing that. The people from Adbusters and New Yorkers Against Budget Cuts who showed up at the early planning gatherings were all set to agree on One Big Demand for their common agenda, appoint public spokespersons, and all the rest. Had they done so, Occupy would have been another flash-in-the-pan movement that disappeared from the news in a few days. But David Graeber and a handful of other horizontalists — Wobblies and veterans of the Seattle movement — coalesced into an opposition group that quickly replaced the establishment people as the dominant culture within Occupy.

Instead of adopting an official leadership and agenda, Graeber and the horizontalists chose to follow the loosely networked model of the M15 movement in Spain. Instead of one common demand, or a short platform with a few key points, they decided to center their message on the “We are the 99%” meme — in loose opposition to things like the power of corporations and banks over the state, neoliberalism, imperialism, etc. — and let the various subgroups, communities and individuals that made up the broader movement set their own agendas relating their particular needs and concerns to that broader theme.

In other words, Occupy didn’t have a platform — it was a platform. It was a ready-made toolkit, brand and library of imagery and slogans to be used and adapted to the specific needs and agenda of any group that shared the general opposition to neoliberalism and the power of finance-capital.

[...]

The dominant economic and organizational paradigm today is networked, horizontal — stigmergic. It’s the organizational model of movements ranging from Wikipedia and the file-sharing movement to Anonymous and Al Qaeda. In this model, everything is done by individuals or small self-selected affinity groups united around many different agendas. Everything is done by the individual or small group most interested and motivated to do it, most qualified to do it, without waiting for anyone’s permission. And rather than “detracting” from some common mission, the contributions of the individuals and affinity groups are synergistic and mutually reinforcing. In file-sharing networks, when anyone cracks the DRM in a song or movie, it immediately becomes the common property of the whole network. When a new and improved IED is developed by a cell in Al Qaeda Iraq, it can be immediately adopted by any other cell that finds it useful — or left alone by any cell that does not. A stigmergic network is the ultimate in Hayekian distributed knowledge.


We no longer need to aggregate ourselves into large institutions in order to accomplishing anything, or get everybody together on the same page before anyone is allowed to take a step. The activists are already doing it themselves. What they need is simple: support and solidarity. They can decide for themselves what is important to the communities they are part of and work with, and how the broader libertarian agenda relates specifically to them. And meanwhile any of the rest of us can do the same with our own local concerns, while wishing our comrades well in the other sub-movements and offering them solidarity and support whenever we are in a position to do so.

[...]

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

We should present each strain of libertarianism separately, rather than trying to produce a single milquetoast compromise that pleases nobody.

Seems to me we're pretty good at setting aside our differences to achieve common goals.

Where we get into the weeds is in debating who the "true" libertarians are.

I think that is plenty agreeable. I think ways highlighted to deal with this have been good. A 'subjective' section (we will of course *know* that it is not subjective, and that one side is actually right and the other wrong) sounds like a good cure. I'm just saying when it comes to these issues the information given should not be 'States rights'. And further, we need to make sure there is room for advocates of liberty in their different forms, but we should not act like we don't have brains to ensure minimal butthurtness either. I have no segment in mind, just speaking in general.

 

[idiom]

On the surface this article (from 2014) seems to be quite tangential, but it offers some useful nuggets. I snipped some parts in the interest of conciseness. https://c4ss.org/content/27365

Had they done so, Occupy would have been another flash-in-the-pan movement that disappeared from the news in a few days.

What did Occupy achieve? They made a lot of noise... but?

A 'subjective' section (we will of course *know* that it is not subjective, and that one side is actually right and the other wrong) sounds like a good cure.

Starting to sound like an Objectivist.

Where the fuck have all the Randians gone to anyways? This place used to be crawling with them.

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

What did Occupy achieve? They made a lot of noise... but?

I do think Carson was being too charitable by using Occupy as a specific example; however, I don't think the point is really Occupy's success or failure (also, Occupy was in the media for quite a while; not just a few days), but rather the fact that it was a symbolic movement. Different factions that at first didn't appear to have much in common could pick and choose elements of Occupy's imagery/brand in order to signal their shared opposition to the structure of the US economy. Carson does give other, arguably more successful examples (Wikipedia, Al Qaeda) in order to suggest that adopting a common political platform (in other words, a compromise) is not always the best strategy.

If we as a forum are going to undertake this project, Carson is suggesting that it isn't even necessary (though it may be useful and interesting) to hash out the differences between minarchists and anarchists, pro- vs anti-abortionists, strict individualists vs. identity politics strategizers, etc. We can all coexist and collaborate on some things without trying to convince others of the superiority of a particular strain of libertarianism. Of course, the only issue I can foresee is that this forum's active member base just isn't large enough and thus doesn't incorporate enough possible perspectives.

 

[HVACTech]

Undefended is quite different than unable to defend. The coercive state suffers from the same possibility.

Liberty is a lady. why have you NOT noticed this depiction sir?
have you EVER seen her depicted otherwise?

why would you not want to protect her?

 

[Bryan]

An ambitious initiative!

I would be careful when weighing what "other campaigns" did and how it led to success vs. what "we" did and how it led to failure. The posited idea is that the cause -> effect phenomenon in most of politics is largely unknowable, and real effects are due to behind-doors alliances, discussions, and non-public activities. That doesn't mean that all political actions are ineffective nor does it mean that we should attempt to primarily act behind-the-scenes. But the Framework Knowledge-base should include a discussion and evaluation on this topic, and understand the effects that this phenomenon's mere existence would have on political actions.

Since we primarily act from the grassroots anyway, the above is a minor but substantive concern to at least be aware of and study to some extent. Our ultimate goal is to pull American politics out of the hands of the few and back into the hands of the many!

Excellent points and post, which go to the operating parameters of the effort. These will be hashed out more as part of the prerequisite goal, so we'll address this again soon.

Thanks!

 

[Tinnuhana]

...marketing and human physiology.

Do you mean "human psychology"?
This is pretty exciting stuff. Maybe if everyone offering their "two cents" here would go up to the top, click on "Contribute" and help Bryan get this project off the ground...? (Oh, man, I just flashed back to The Blimp. )

 

[Bryan]

A few random thoughts...

People seem to be really hung up on labels, so it would seem instructive to present all of the "labels" that cross paths with the over-arching liberty movement. Then, it would seem wise to somehow allow strategic alliances amongst these factions on differing issues. In other words, let's focus on our agreements instead of our disagreements. (I think this has been a major problem with the LP and the liberty movement in general.) My naive hope would be that people would learn to ignore the labels altogether, but as long as we could learn to stop the infighting. (In all honesty, I struggle with this as well.)

Next, I think we could use a dose or two of optimism. It's very easy to post about things that are going wrong, but there are many things that go right. Advances in education, technology, and individual liberty generally get short shrift, in favor of the things that piss us off. But if we have liberty lovers who turn to this site for optimism and hope, perhaps it will trigger a new idea in them about how to reduce the influence of the State.

Good point on the optimism, that's something that we can all take to heart.

While there are arguments that there is value in alliances, this effort will not attempt to build collations to support specific issues.

Thanks!

 

[Bryan]

Do you mean "human psychology"?
This is pretty exciting stuff. Maybe if everyone offering their "two cents" here would go up to the top, click on "Contribute" and help Bryan get this project off the ground...? (Oh, man, I just flashed back to The Blimp. )

LOL. Good catch. Fixed. Thanks!!