FDR's latest.

Promise not to get too mad here.

The part that strikes me here is the part where they bring up Walter Block's article (Walter Block is the man, by the way). They misrepresent his position as one that says that the state legitimately owns stolen property. They also claim that he doesn't have reasoned arguments and mostly brings up names of anarchists who vote.

Stuff and nonsense. Block's argument is this: Anti-voting people say that it is wrong to use politics because this gives sanction to the state. So why is it not also wrong to use the fruits of politics (state roads, corporate products)? If you are giving sanction to the state by saying that you'd rather have a smaller state than a larger one, why are you not sanctioning state theft when you use roads or products or currency that are paid for by state theft? They don't really discuss this, as far as I heard.

Stef almost never addresses the actual points people make, but rather creates a convenient straw man to kick around. If continually pressed, he'll offer to "do a video" to clear things up, which will further distort the issue, since it'll be one sided. I listened, and I was not impressed by the arguments, and it was rather irritating that Brad Spangler sounded so terrible and spoke so little, as I'm usually interested in his ideas (though not often in agreement with them) and the way he presents them. I like McElroy, she's bright and articulate, but still doesn't sell me on the "voting is force" argument. I've read her essays to that effect before, and I think it's absurd to suggest that using the one chance you are afforded by the state to make your desires heard, let alone heeded, is anything other than a reasonable and low-cost act of self defense. But hey, I'm just a "cultist" for Ron Paul... what the fuck do I know?

Yeah, Wendy did say that you can make a case for supporting Paul in self-defense in that podcast, just not a case for long-term social change. I say, even if there is no chance for long-term social change (which may be false), so what? I'm not a friggin' altruist. I just want the government off my back, or failing that, mostly off my back.

I don't know where they get this bullshit idea that Paul's campaign is turning people in the wrong direction. Like it or lump it, to get to anarchist town, you have to go through minarchistville. He's not turning anyone from anarchists to minarchists, except in the deluded mindset of anti-political libertarians. If it wasn't for the evil statist Libertarian Party, I very well may not have even made it to minarchistville and would probably be stuck in Democrat City right now.

The idea that local politics affects me more is equally absurd. I get way more money extorted out of me from the Feds than from my state. Sure, the state has cops that won't let me speed or do drugs, but I don't do that anyway.

One of the big things that the non-voting folks say (especially Stef) is that the libertarian political movement has failed for a long time. Well, excuuuuuuse me for thinking that you actually have to get a libertarian elected to get some real change done.

Wendy was actually making a case that Ron Paul was as dishonest as all the other folks in the race! Anyone who actually follows him can see that while he might have changed positions on a couple issues, he's remained honest about his intentions. But I guess he is a big time opportunist, huh? That's why all those lobbyists are knocking on his door... oh wait.

The idea that the only reason he's against the war is because it wasn't declared by Congress is also garbage. He's talked about blowback, excessive spending, and other reasons the war was a shitty idea. He's against WWI, too, which was declared by Congress.

I think LM should have their own roundtable discussion about Paul's campaign and maybe actually invite some folks who disagree for some balance...

I listened to the first 5 minutes and I heard Wendy state politics are so personal etc. and Ron Paul is a cult figure and Stef's reply - no beat missed- "yes he is".

Um, sure. I'll talk about anything though . Thing is, I'm pretty ignorant on the issues here. I'll listen to the podcast though and see if I have something to say. But as far as LM'ers, maybe it'd be best if I stayed on the sidelines. It seems most have strong things to say.

Hell yeah, I'm up for it. But I gotta figure out how to work Skype and get a mic. That's easy, but the tough thing will be setting up a time, what with the work schedules and time zone differences. Just to let you know, Conrad, you're 6 hours faster than me.

cool. this Sunday may be best then re time difference?

here's a very good post on FDR by PrismPaul (somebody else to ask for the roundtable perhaps. it would be cool to have 'anti-political action' people as well though)

Re: Ron Paul - Why Stefan's wrong about his Train Analogy (and why the Ron Paul effort deserves enthusiastic support)



Reply Quote

Here! Here! theodorelogan! You speak the truth when you say "it is not IMMORAL to try to lessen the violence against you" and I would add "to others" as well. Everyone else in this forum knows this is true and, I would wager, live their daily lives this way, whatever grand notions of complete self-freedom they like to talk about. Maybe I'm wrong though... Any of you amazingly self-liberated folks take a moral stand against paying gas taxes, for example? I can't believe you would lower yourselves to the indignity of buying gasoline from people who are simply agents for those that would put you in jail for not supporting their policies! Where is your self-respect? Come on, now everyone, let's face facts. Not a single one of us is free, and the idea that total disengagement from politics (not to mention family) will lead to freedom, while delivered quite passionately and effectively by the big guy, has little rational basis and no historical precedent whatsoever. We are all slaves to some degree, and any one of us that really revolts and really refuses to play along and really follows Stefan's admonitions to not cooperate with those that would jail us or worse, is well on their way to being dead. Fortunately, nobody really follows these admonitions so that's not much of a problem. And personally, with this one life that I have, I prefer this fairly comfortable form of limited slavery to death by a long shot. And I see using the freedom we do have to work within the bounds of our reality to push back the slavery and open up more freedom for ourselves and for future generations as a good thing to do. Stefan says that this cannot work because it hasn't happened yet. That is a logical fallacy of Sweeping Generalization (a favorite if Stefan's). Things are very different now than at any time in history, and that will always be the case. It is good to take lessons from history, but not to assume that if something hasn't worked X number of times, it can't work on try X+1, especially when conditions are constantly changing. I hesitate to add: duh. The Ron Paul "movement" has more people questioning the wisdom of relying on the state than any other movement in our lifetimes. The longer we can keep that going, the better. Obviously. Supporting this movement with money, votes, and activism is a smart move for anyone that would like to see more freedom in ours or our children's lifetimes. It doesn't look like he's going to win anything. But for Greg to say "Sorry folks, but at this point, Ron Paul is not going to be helping you with anything" just because he's only got 8-10% results in a 6-way race with the most radical freedom messagein decades is just bizarre. The Ron Paul phenomenon should be celebrated by anyone who wants to see smaller government. And it should be supported as long as it is capable of being visible and audible. No other use of resources can reach as many with this potential wake-up call that is so sorely needed.

Verra cool post.

anyway, isn't blaming the libertarian voter blaming the victim?

also, I invited PrismPaul and just saw that he has registered: PrismPaul is in the building!

I think there are some legitimate reasons to take the no-vote position. Long's article mentions several such approaches.

One such would be to de-legitimize the state by setting up a parallel economy and ignoring the state wherever feasible. Also, an anarchist movement could try to get people to not vote in such numbers that anyone elected would be so minimally represented as to be further ignored by the people. We could also try to campaign for someone on this ticket (my idea): "Don't vote for me. Don't vote at all! Cast your vote for no state".

So, there are a few gradualist, and a few 'revolution' type methods behind the madness of not voting. I've not followed up Long's references beyond the Wiki, but I don't think its necessarily as simple as "Either voting is violence, or its legitimate defense". There is strategery too.

One thing is for sure, I will be voting for the people who don't want to create a survilance big brother.

When such an apparatus is setup, my life is in danger due to merely not wanting a state and I can't continue educate people and in the long run the cause is lost.

This brings up a big problem too. If less and less people vote, and the state then becomes more and more fascist, to back up its minority position with guns, the pressure to vote will increase, if 'self-defense' is a legitimate response, which I agree it is.

Is there no way then to actually dissolve a corrupt and illegitimate organization without an X factor?