The Mission Advancement Framework - A new site initiative!

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.
I don't think we need to skirt issues, it will come down to what we can logically develop vs. not. For example, it's not hard to develop a case around the issues of slavery. These are all good discussion points for the prerequisite goal that we'll dive into.
 
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.

I agree with this but would add: part of the value of Goal #1 would be to help drive knowledge for all interested, while that doesn't change what we choose to do it does impact how we engage with people we are trying to win over.

Dealing with resource limitations (ie: user base limitations) are good points for the prerequisite goal discussion.

Thanks!
 
Okay, but this sounds like when "Campaign For Liberty" started. Ron Paul himself started that one and although I still support him in that effort it really has limited success...

I really don't know what direction should be taken but can't we just put it off until after the convention??
 
WHY ARE YOU REINVENTING THE WHEEL.

THE FOUNDATIONAL KNOWLEDGBASE = MY BRAAIN

OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING, WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT:

MORE GOVERNMENT = LESS FREEDOM
LESS FREEDOM = LESS GOOD
LESS GOOD = AMERICAN CITIZEN'S CHOSEN CIRCUMSTANCES
 
I'm a little late to this thread, but could I suggest as a starting point for developing a definition of "liberty" Hayek's definition in the first chapter of "The Constitution of Liberty"? I just started reading it and he goes to great lengths to establish it logically, as well as the definition of "coercion" and probably more I'm only into it a few chapters). It is kind of a dry read for anyone who isn't practically infatuated with understanding the philosophy of liberty, but I'm enjoying it.
 
Okay, but this sounds like when "Campaign For Liberty" started. Ron Paul himself started that one and although I still support him in that effort it really has limited success...
Yes, it can be argued that CFL has have very limited success, some analysis on the failure of this tactic seems of value -- for another thread of course. The 3 initial goals here are not really related to CFL other than we both support a similar mission.

I really don't know what direction should be taken but can't we just put it off until after the convention??
I don't see enough justification for that - I understand some members are going to try and go the distance with the conventions but the majority is not so a new engagement can be of value.

Thank you!
 
I'm a little late to this thread, but could I suggest as a starting point for developing a definition of "liberty" Hayek's definition in the first chapter of "The Constitution of Liberty"? I just started reading it and he goes to great lengths to establish it logically, as well as the definition of "coercion" and probably more I'm only into it a few chapters). It is kind of a dry read for anyone who isn't practically infatuated with understanding the philosophy of liberty, but I'm enjoying it.
Yes, this would be a part of goal #1.

BTW, it's never too late for this thread-- more to come soon.

Thanks!
 
I was active with C4L before joining RPFs. It changed to an issues related site later. I don't have a problem with that, per se, but back in the day, I really enjoyed PM'ing people in different areas of the world. We had our own APO/FPO section that I used to send bumper stickers, etc. to some guys in Korea and mainland Japan. I corresponded with a person in the middle east ("southeast asia"). The networking was good.
 
And again.... I suppose I'll be the only one who mentions the value of prices to the liberty movement. This time I'll be lazy and try and put Hayek to good use...

Fundamentally, in a system in which the knowledge of the relevant facts is dispersed among many people, prices can act to coördinate the separate actions of different people in the same way as subjective values help the individual to coördinate the parts of his plan. It is worth contemplating for a moment a very simple and commonplace instance of the action of the price system to see what precisely it accomplishes. Assume that somewhere in the world a new opportunity for the use of some raw material, say, tin, has arisen, or that one of the sources of supply of tin has been eliminated. It does not matter for our purpose—and it is very significant that it does not matter—which of these two causes has made tin more scarce. All that the users of tin need to know is that some of the tin they used to consume is now more profitably employed elsewhere and that, in consequence, they must economize tin. There is no need for the great majority of them even to know where the more urgent need has arisen, or in favor of what other needs they ought to husband the supply. If only some of them know directly of the new demand, and switch resources over to it, and if the people who are aware of the new gap thus created in turn fill it from still other sources, the effect will rapidly spread throughout the whole economic system and influence not only all the uses of tin but also those of its substitutes and the substitutes of these substitutes, the supply of all the things made of tin, and their substitutes, and so on; and all this without the great majority of those instrumental in bringing about these substitutions knowing anything at all about the original cause of these changes. The whole acts as one market, not because any of its members survey the whole field, but because their limited individual fields of vision sufficiently overlap so that through many intermediaries the relevant information is communicated to all. The mere fact that there is one price for any commodity—or rather that local prices are connected in a manner determined by the cost of transport, etc.—brings about the solution which (it is just conceptually possible) might have been arrived at by one single mind possessing all the information which is in fact dispersed among all the people involved in the process.

We must look at the price system as such a mechanism for communicating information if we want to understand its real function—a function which, of course, it fulfils less perfectly as prices grow more rigid. (Even when quoted prices have become quite rigid, however, the forces which would operate through changes in price still operate to a considerable extent through changes in the other terms of the contract.) The most significant fact about this system is the economy of knowledge with which it operates, or how little the individual participants need to know in order to be able to take the right action. In abbreviated form, by a kind of symbol, only the most essential information is passed on and passed on only to those concerned. It is more than a metaphor to describe the price system as a kind of machinery for registering change, or a system of telecommunications which enables individual producers to watch merely the movement of a few pointers, as an engineer might watch the hands of a few dials, in order to adjust their activities to changes of which they may never know more than is reflected in the price movement. - Friedrich Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society

For those of you who don't realize this... Hayek's Nobel prize essay was the inspiration for Wikipedia. Except.... Wikipedia's founder clearly missed the real point of Hayek's essay. As you can tell in the quote that I shared... the real point of Hayek's essay was about the essential role that prices play in the rapid and widespread transmission/dissemination of the most relevant information. Wikipedia obviously doesn't have prices. Here's the Wikipedia article on Friedrich Hayek. Do you see a price tag on that page? Nope. Can you discern, at a quick glance, just how much that article is worth to society? Nope. This is because you are not given the opportunity to spend your money on that article. Nobody is. Yet... editors are somehow supposed to efficiently allocate their time/effort to improving Wikipedia pages without actually knowing how much the pages are worth to society.

It's all kinds of super painful irony that the liberty movement has completely failed to take advantage of Hayek's brilliant insight. As I mentioned in the previous thread... one way to take advantage of Hayek's insight would be to make a list of pro-liberty websites and allow members to use their cash to help determine how the websites are ordered. Right now we don't know which pro-liberty website is most valuable to the liberty movement. Of course there are plenty of other ways to utilize Hayek's insight to our advantage.

If the liberty movement fails to take advantage of Hayek's insight... then nothing that we do will ever be substantially better than what our opponents do.
 
Straw man. In fact, many who promote non-participation or who simply do not promote the electoral process do not make this argument at all, and even discredit this as a valid argument against voting.

But if you want to alienate anti-statists over your own biases, feel free. I'm sure that helped Rand tons, too.
I have been told that before by anarchists. That may not be the only point of view, but it seems to be a very strong minority or even majority. One anarchist told me on DP that voting for Ron Paul was violence, but that he was justified in doing so because it was violence in self-defense. It is absolutely not a straw man.
 
Last edited:
And again.... I suppose I'll be the only one who mentions the value of prices to the liberty movement. This time I'll be lazy and try and put Hayek to good use...



For those of you who don't realize this... Hayek's Nobel prize essay was the inspiration for Wikipedia. Except.... Wikipedia's founder clearly missed the real point of Hayek's essay. As you can tell in the quote that I shared... the real point of Hayek's essay was about the essential role that prices play in the rapid and widespread transmission/dissemination of the most relevant information. Wikipedia obviously doesn't have prices. Here's the Wikipedia article on Friedrich Hayek. Do you see a price tag on that page? Nope. Can you discern, at a quick glance, just how much that article is worth to society? Nope. This is because you are not given the opportunity to spend your money on that article. Nobody is. Yet... editors are somehow supposed to efficiently allocate their time/effort to improving Wikipedia pages without actually knowing how much the pages are worth to society.

It's all kinds of super painful irony that the liberty movement has completely failed to take advantage of Hayek's brilliant insight. As I mentioned in the previous thread... one way to take advantage of Hayek's insight would be to make a list of pro-liberty websites and allow members to use their cash to help determine how the websites are ordered. Right now we don't know which pro-liberty website is most valuable to the liberty movement. Of course there are plenty of other ways to utilize Hayek's insight to our advantage.

If the liberty movement fails to take advantage of Hayek's insight... then nothing that we do will ever be substantially better than what our opponents do.

This is an interesting idea. Since there is no method in place for $$$ to transfer to the best liberty web sites or activists, maybe a "liberty fund" of some sort that we can all donate to or pay dues to that will give "grants" to liberty projects. Just a thought...
 
I have been told that before by anarchists. That may not be the only point of view, but it seems to be a very strong minority or even majority. One anarchist told me on DP that voting for Ron Paul was violence, but that he was justified in doing so because it was violence in self-defense. It is absolutely not a straw man.

It is a straw man because it's not a principle, it's a preference.
 
This is an interesting idea. Since there is no method in place for $$$ to transfer to the best liberty web sites or activists, maybe a "liberty fund" of some sort that we can all donate to or pay dues to that will give "grants" to liberty projects. Just a thought...

Yeah... I like that. The goal would be to make it as easy as possible to donate money to the most valuable activities/activists. Amazon, for example, makes it stupid easy to spend your money. Patreon is a possible model to consider. But you can't use Patreon to give money to an activist that isn't on Patreon.

Here's a subreddit that I created on Reddit before I was shadowbanned...

https://www.reddit.com/r/InvisibleHand/

Anybody can submit links and vote the links up or down. It's basically a democracy. The more upvotes a link receives... the more popular it is... the higher up it's displayed on the page. It would be infinitely better if spending, rather than voting, was used to determine a link's ranking. So the more money a link receives... the more valuable it is... the higher up it's displayed on the page.

Imagine a website just like Reddit but created by Bryan and the liberty movement. You could submit a link to Cafe Hayek...

http://cafehayek.com/

I value Cafe Hayek! So rather than simply upvoting the link... I would be able to spend money, say a dollar, to improve its rank. Bryan would take a reasonable percentage of my dollar and give the rest to Cafe Hayek.

Members of the liberty movement would essentially be able to use their money to...

1. bring valuable websites to the attention of other members and the general public
2. help support valuable websites
 
What else is there to do between now and the convention (other than throw things at the television)?

Forget the Presidency.

What other races can we be working on right now? You have a local race that could benefit from a Senator coming to visit?
 
It is a straw man because it's not a principle, it's a preference.
I'm not sure what this sentence means. What is preferential about saying "Voting is violence," "Either voting is violence or it's meaningless," and "Voting is always violence"?
 
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.)
I couldn't agree with this more. We need to find the areas we can get broad support for so we can move forward at least some.
 
And again.... I suppose I'll be the only one who mentions the value of prices to the liberty movement. This time I'll be lazy and try and put Hayek to good use...



For those of you who don't realize this... Hayek's Nobel prize essay was the inspiration for Wikipedia. Except.... Wikipedia's founder clearly missed the real point of Hayek's essay. As you can tell in the quote that I shared... the real point of Hayek's essay was about the essential role that prices play in the rapid and widespread transmission/dissemination of the most relevant information. Wikipedia obviously doesn't have prices. Here's the Wikipedia article on Friedrich Hayek. Do you see a price tag on that page? Nope. Can you discern, at a quick glance, just how much that article is worth to society? Nope. This is because you are not given the opportunity to spend your money on that article. Nobody is. Yet... editors are somehow supposed to efficiently allocate their time/effort to improving Wikipedia pages without actually knowing how much the pages are worth to society.

It's all kinds of super painful irony that the liberty movement has completely failed to take advantage of Hayek's brilliant insight. As I mentioned in the previous thread... one way to take advantage of Hayek's insight would be to make a list of pro-liberty websites and allow members to use their cash to help determine how the websites are ordered. Right now we don't know which pro-liberty website is most valuable to the liberty movement. Of course there are plenty of other ways to utilize Hayek's insight to our advantage.

If the liberty movement fails to take advantage of Hayek's insight... then nothing that we do will ever be substantially better than what our opponents do.
Thanks. Hayek is spot on, of course, but this focus in just on a commercial / business perspective. This scope does not consider elements such as charity in which exchanges of goods and information are done without a tangible market price consideration. Wikipedia operates on a different model, editors allocate their time/effort to improve Wikipedia pages because they see value in what the platform offers. No one is “supposed to” do this work for Wikipedia, people voluntarily choose to do so because of the value of doing so. The same would apply to this effort, people may choose to provide value to it or not based on the value it offers. It’s really not much different than the message you just posted, you chose to voluntarily do it since it provided value but there was no price involved just the like millions of other messages posted here. What this project does is just offer a vehicle to better structure information to make it more usable.

To be certain, there is no obligation for anyone to participate in this effort.

Thank you for the post!
 
Back
Top