“Also I would be a hypocrite to go around preaching ideals of freedom and not using the freedoms that i have toward bettering my life and that of those around me.”

This is one reason why I’ve recently thought that the ‘argument from effect’ is still very useful by itself. Going around telling people that “taxation is theft” and there are no “positive rights” can actually be hard to do, simply because we’re all so enmeshed in the state. No matter what I do, government subsidizes my life in certain ways, and this is ultimately reflected as “do as I say, not as I do”.

On the other hand, I now think arguing on a utilitarian basis is reasonable, especially when you happen to live in a socialist jurisdiction. If others want to bring up morality, that would be the time to negate it with ironclad libertarian ethics. Your use of ethics would be more convincing, since you’ve done more ‘walking’ than ‘talking’.

“Being that I truly believe what i have said, I can no longer take the time to preach or engage in once conversation that leads right back to square one. You squash one difference and another rears its ugly head. Unlike a short youtube video, it takes hours of meaningful discussion with someone who actually cares to make any headway.”

The trouble is that people are so bitterly invested in their beliefs about politics, and given that it is the tool for intruding into other people’s lives, this should be expected. It is one thing to put down other people’s beliefs, but it is another thing entirely to convince people of anarchism. But I think libertarians can make a lot of impact simply by shaming other people’s arguments to the point where they stop using them. That doesn’t mean they join the opposition, but it does silence them to some extent. The more that statist arguments are silenced, the more that libertarianism will eventually get heard.

Also I would be a hypocrite to go around preaching ideals of freedom and not using the freedoms that i have toward bettering my life and that of those around me. Being that I truly believe what i have said, I can no longer take the time to preach or engage in once conversation that leads right back to square one. You squash one difference and another rears its ugly head. Unlike a short youtube video, it takes hours of meaningful discussion with someone who actually cares to make any headway. This is time i sorely lack.

Finally, I don’t really belong here. I have always believed and still do that mass movements can only go so far before they lose their meaning. As such, I will belong to a movement only for so long though before i need to break away. Besides, this civil disobedience thing – works great for awhile, but engaging in it has become a war of attrition = one that i can no longer engage in given the curent situation.

So it comes down to me doing what i do best – preparing for the real deal knowing full well what the result will most likely be when this game plays out. I am sorry that I can no longer waving a set of ideals, but the ideals have not entirely fit out in the real world either. So its time to do things my way that i know works for me and mine – which is probably different than what works for you and yours.

Good luck and God’s speed.

My previous messages might have had an annoying, paternalistic twang, but I don’t see how that can be avoided when giving constructive criticism. They weren’t intended solely for you, but also for anyone interested in having these kinds of debates. I assumed you were, given what you had posted.

It’s interesting that you feel giving your two cents has not been very productive overall. I’ve seen and heard this kind of thing a lot before in other camps. It seems a more productive way forward might be to get into the business of exchanging goods/services with other libertarians. I might add a video to my YouTube profile (Voluntaryist72) later about this.

I have little time to address your points as they deserve. For years I have been writing my say or two cents, and frankly i am tired of it – heck – people do not need my two cents anyway. It does not benefit me in the slightest to continue on writing about ‘what i know’ – such has never changed a thing. it does not benefit them either.

People are going to do what they want to do to the best of their knowledge, as will I. Being that I receive no benefit from any entity other than my employer, I say let the best man win. For over 12 years now I have been contending with other ideals, and I am weary of it.

Finally, the breakdown has started, and I have no more reason to write any more – I have spoken my peace. What happens now is actually of very little consequence to me personally and mine. My only goal now is to avoid painting a target on myself for the moment.

May peace, freedom, and prosperity find you and yours.

1.
So why risk uncrony capitalism when regulated capitalism can always provide more equal living standards? Unfortunately, theft is good for the thief in the short-term.

“Where do you find this? Henry Ford paid his workers a great wage for the time to maintain skilled labor…I am wondering – what exploitation are you referring to?”

Everyone has heard of the “dark, Satanic mills” or “sweating” that was common throughout the era, and is now manifested in third world sweatshops. Those of OWS believe this is what laissez-faire capitalism represents… are they correct?

2.
“Somalia is not an anarchy – it is a country that for the past 30+ years has been in tribal turmoil due to foreign intervening – typically foreign aid creates even more imbalancing thus ensuring Somalia can never regain stability.”

Indeed, but my point here is that it is bad practice to use ‘like it or leave it’ arguments, like telling the socialists to go and live in China or Russia, because anarchists are always told this sort of thing.

“Where do you find a historical example of this? If the majority of voters can elect a leader to involuntarily rule over the majority of society as a whole without their consent – what else do you call it?”

There is a big difference between government by 51% and government by 0.1%. However, liberals are generally unable to see that a democracy is a ‘dictatorship’ of the majority. When they see it, they dismiss it as a necessary EVIL. Tackling this depends on the perspective they try to take.

If it is argued that the poor quality of government programs provided by regimes results from “a lack of participation” by the citizens, this can be logically extended; Western government programs would still be of poor quality compared to their private sector alternatives, due to the lack of participation that voting provides relative to direct, individual payments.

If it is argued that citizens have “no say” in government programs provided by regimes, this too can be logically extended; the democratic minority would be better off if everyone directed their own finances where their own say is a direct contractual agreement.

3.
“I was one of them. I have worked since i was 15 and left home when I was 18 with the clothes on my back. Never once did I ever ask the government for a handout or anything else. it took me 12 years of scratching and clawing, but I am finally stable and happy. The moral of the story is that by giving a person who gets dealt a bad hand a living means prevents them from learning how to do so on their own.”

Perhaps I could have put this better. Do you have a pre-existing medical condition and no health insurance? Were you sexually abused as a child, and need expensive psychiatric sessions to cope in the world? How can the *really* needy be *guaranteed* to get the help they need?

5.
“yes and no. Some of the swaps were legal. Thing is, people are to trusting when investing their life savings and were all to willing to go along with it. As much as I hate to say it, it is their fault for investing their money into something that seemed to good to be true. Actually, I dont feel sorry for them one bit.”

This is why libertarians don’t get very far. “Well, it’s probably your fault for being in your position, so deal with it.” Whenever people get themselves into sticky situations that government regulation could have prevented, libertarians resort more or less to the Darwinian argument: “those people would die off and be replaced by smarter people.”

Its not that this argument isn’t logical, but if you’re not at the top of the gene pool, you view this as a threat, and government as a tool for your survival. It’s a good argument for arousing smugness amongst libertarians, but it hasn’t worked well at converting people to the cause of freedom.
Pointing out the gun in the room is better for the latter.

“True = and the more regulated the industry, the more expensive and dependent on government it becomes.”

It can be hard for people to see past the storefront and connect the dots of government regulation behind the scenes. So perhaps it would be good to exemplify an entirely government-controlled industry, e.g. the law courts; the fees are ridiculously expensive, the rules are a nightmare to navigate, and those who can afford to go to court end up waiting years for justice. Then people just need to recognize that under a coercive monopoly, the courts are always the best they can be. I personally place a lot of importance on changing the argument to suit the opposing perception.

7.
“Really? I am not overly familiar with Sweden – nor France of Today. Historically speaking however France has a long history of heavy regulation and taxes, and the people have never shown a benefit from out. Go outside of the main cities and tell me again how well such things work.”

France is frequently rated as one of the best places in the world to live. You can literally get the government to do your laundry there. The rich have been put in their place.

8.
“In a free market, government regulations would not allow for only big companies to flourish as they would be the only ones who could afford armies of lawyers and compliance officers. Minus that, smaller companies would be able to compete on a much more level field. Also, large corperations have a much greater tax advantage than a small mom pop shops.”

Sure, but income inequality will always be an aspect of the free market (even the DA personally agrees). Some people just produce more than others, sometimes a lot more. If they are allowed to keep all they produce, CHILDREN born into poverty while other children are born into manors. The lottery of life is so disgustingly unfair that we HAVE to do something about it. If people are in a bad position, that is mostly because of their environment and upbringing.

10.
“You seem to follow this mantra that if the government makes something illegal, that it will stop. Let me ask you – when in hostory has that ever actually happened outside of the cataletic converter changes on cars in the 80′s?”

Tax evasion is illegal, but the fact that government exists, demonstrates that it has a reasonable power to stop some things.

Other than that, the DA would reluctantly agree with your arguments if they were explained in detail and presented well, of course – this is not necessary amongst libertarians.

Hopefully sometimes soon I will be able to raise a glass in James honor. It was in 2008 that Mike introduced me to James, and James gave me the chance to write for PFP. Though we do not agree on absolutely everything, I find that the few differences we do have are minor at best. The funny thing was when he was trying to explain to me the meaning of anarchy etc. Ask him – I fought him tooth and toe nail. Still at the end of the day, when I had finally dug deep enough, I found that he was in that matter correct.

So a drink to him is the least i could do – anyone who has that kind of patience to put up with me is quite a guy lol.

Anyway, welcome aboard my friend – it is always nice to read what others have to say :-)

I feel sorry for the scumbag who says they have a right to such things because they were ‘dealt a bad hand’. Such people had better never try to take from my son or me while I am still drawing breath.

1. “Why go back to the laissez-fairre exploitation of the industrial revolution?”
Where do you find this? Henry Ford paid his workers a great wage for the time to maintain skilled labor…I am wondering – what exploitation are you referring to?

2. “Likewise, if you want to live under anarchy, I hear Somalia is nice this time of year.”
Somalia is not an anarchy – it is a country that for the past 30+ years has been in tribal turmoil due to foreign intervening – typically foreign aid creates even more imbalancing thus ensuring Somalia can never regain stability. Sorry – you have to do better than that.

“Democratic socialism is not the same as dictator-led socialism.”
Where do you find a historical example of this? If the majority of voters can elect a leader to involuntarily rule over the majority of society as a whole without their consent – what else do you call it?

3. “Other people are merely dealt poor hands in life, and you could have been one of them.”
I was one of them. I have worked since i was 15 and left home when I was 18 with the clothes on my back. Never once did I ever ask the government for a handout or anything else. it took me 12 years of scratching and clawing, but I am finally stable and happy. The moral of the story is that by giving a person who gets dealt a bad hand a living means prevents them from learning how to do so on their own.

4. “Regulations could have stopped banks from making credit default swaps.”
yes and no. Some of the swaps were legal. Thing is, people are to trusting when investing their life savings and were all to willing to go along with it. As much as I hate to say it, it is their fault for investing their money into something that seemed to good to be true. Actually, I dont feel sorry for them one bit.

“Although there are many regulations, they usually only pertain to particular industries, which you must follow if you work in such an industry.”
True = and the more regulated the industry, the more expensive and dependent on government it becomes.

“Problems are created by people not following the rules, or a lack of rules.”
Problems are created by people allowing themselves to be taken advantage of out of fear. Also they cannot compete with their employers due to lack of funds, and lack of knowledge on the regulations – both of which would not be that big of a problem in a free market. All to often, people dont start a business to compete with their former employers because they know there is no way to with the current regulatory and monetary policies.

5. “This is all just speculation. Anyway, if only a few people are born into wealth, then we only need to tax a few people.”
The more you tax the wealthy, the less the spend. Also, people born into wealth typically lose it pretty quickly. The common exceptions to this are the uber rich power brokers who utilize tax shelters etc to avoid the costs here at home. Plus, you can tax the uber rich at a 50% rate and still not even come close to paying for the rest of society, so that argument fails there too – dont believe me, check out the IRS tables on what was collected from whom. Also, why should they be taxed? Why should they allow their ideas and work to be taken from them to pay for things they know don’t work? It is also important to note that most of the people claiming to want to pay more taxes (the really rich ones) do not actually do so. it is all a dog and pony show to look good to appeal to more people.

6. In your analogy, “if I sell the corn first or second, one farmer will always end up going hungry.”
When did I say that? Most people eat corn, and there is never a shortage of buyers for it – how on earth do you think one farmer will go hungry because another sold their corn first?

“Musical chairs is not a fun game to play in real life.”
Nonsense, I loved the game.

“Sometimes it is necessary out of fairness and equality to redistribute the wealth in society.”
Citation please. If person x does not appreciate or understand what they given, where it comes from, and what makes it tick, then they will inherently make poor use of it and squander it. Also, if what you say is true, then Russia, China, and a myriad of other countries would be booming right now…Funny how even Denmark is running into serious problems with this. In the end, you have people like me. We produce, and love to give to charities that really need it. I cannot however abide having money taken from me to give to causes and people I dont know, and when i come to know them, hate them.
Seriously though – when in history as taking money from the produucers and giving it the ‘less fortunate’ ever worked?

7. “But there ARE rich people, and all we have to do is redistribute their wealth to provide everyone with the necessities they need.”
We do not have to do anything. If you believed in helping the poor so much, then you would either teach them your trade so that they to can produce, or you would give your own money to feed them. If you are willing to do neither in an amount that would work, then it wrong to ask someone else to do so. I dont know how man y rich people you know personally but I have met quite a few in my life, and they work their butts off from sunup to sundown to get it. Meanwhile I drive anywhere in an inner city or walk around, and see people just ‘hanging around’. I would stop by a local library and such areas and guess what – its empty! Point is, it is wrong to steal from the hard working to pay for those who continuously make poor descisions.

“The rich are not empowered by the big governments in Sweden and France.”
Really? I am not overly familiar with Sweden – nor France of Today. Historically speaking however France has a long history of heavy regulation and taxes, and the people have never shown a benefit from out. Go outside of the main cities and tell me again how well such things work.

8. “Democracy is not brilliant, but it is when compared to the alternatives: Somalia or China.”
Somalia as stated earlier is the result of foreign meddling in an already short fused situation. Tired of hearing it as an example of a ‘non-democratic failure’. We have a democracy here that has voted to interven in countries like Somalia for a very long time now, and wonder why it never works…blind leading the blind….
As fo China, yes, its no real democracy. Yet look at any major nation on the planet who adopts democracy and you tell me how free and happy they end up. Democracy is not brilliant – it is a long term disaster in which people x can puch around people y with the backing of their government.

9.”I don’t remember us saying such things, except that great disparities in wealth should not be tolerated.”
In a free market, government regulations would not allow for only big companies to flourish as they would be the only ones who could afford armies of lawyers and compliance officers. Minus that, smaller companies would be able to compete on a much more level field. Also, large corperations have a much greater tax advantage than a small mom pop shops.

10.”Anyone who wants to legalize racial discrimination is racially discriminant.”
So let me get this straight. Anyone who wants to legalize free speech is a racist? I gotta tell man, the racism game is alive and well, and on ALL sides. One thing I have learned in life is that people who are racist will be that way no matter what the law says. Furthermore I have seen people lose their jobs simply by saying the wrong thing at the wrong time – their words were overheard by a third party, taken out of context, and viola. Also, lets talk about EO for a moment. Companies get massive tax breaks etc for going above the EO requirements – and as a result, you end up with hiring managers getting fat bonuses for hiring ethincity over productivity.
You seem to follow this mantra that if the government makes something illegal, that it will stop. Let me ask you – when in hostory has that ever actually happened outside of the cataletic converter changes on cars in the 80′s? The truth is that despite drivers licences, cops still got shot on pull overs, people still get into accidents just as much as they did before hand, and criminals are not often dumb enough to drive theior own cars…who knew? Thighter gun and drug laws have only made things worse. Financial laws and regulations only serve the power brokers.

What else have you got?

1. Why go back to the laissez-fairre exploitation of the industrial revolution?

2. Likewise, if you want to live under anarchy, I hear Somalia is nice this time of year.

Democratic socialism is not the same as dictator-led socialism.

3. Other people are merely dealt poor hands in life, and you could have been one of them.

4. Regulations could have stopped banks from making credit default swaps. Although there are many regulations, they usually only pertain to particular industries, which you must follow if you work in such an industry. Problems are created by people not following the rules, or a lack of rules.

5. This is all just speculation. Anyway, if only a few people are born into wealth, then we only need to tax a few people.

6. In your analogy, if I sell the corn first or second, one farmer will always end up going hungry. Musical chairs is not a fun game to play in real life. Sometimes it is necessary out of fairness and equality to redistribute the wealth in society.

7. But there ARE rich people, and all we have to do is redistribute their wealth to provide everyone with the necessities they need.

The rich are not empowered by the big governments in Sweden and France. 

8. Democracy is not brilliant, but it is when compared to the alternatives: Somalia or China.

9. I don’t remember us saying such things, except that great disparities in wealth should not be tolerated.

10. Anyone who wants to legalize racial discrimination is racially discriminant.

Well, I am being a DA.

I think it is important to always point out the gun in the room at least initially, and then talk about things like the fairness of voluntary exchange later (otherwise it becomes a fairness contest between the systems). 

It is also useful to point out the incentives, i.e. how do the incentives of redistributing the wealth in society differ from stealing the wealth in society? If mafia extortionists held elections, wouldn’t the incentives of shopkeepers be exactly the same as voters for a government?  

While I completely understand your reservations, I think you miss out on how this system is much more palatable and conveyable to the average American than volumes of histories and philosophies.

I can talk to any average Joe or Jane about voluntary contributions and sum up the principle in about 1 minute. The average Joe or Jane is more ready to accept this concept because “government” still exists in the picture, which allows the individual to process the transition.

The greatest failure of the liberty movement is that they cannot articulate a policy which genuinely moves America toward voluntarism while placating the average voter.

Again, this model is not starting from the beginning of time without government. It’s entire focus is the current state of people in America with the systems that be.

If one can articulate a policy which more swiftly and effectively convinces and moves the mainstream toward voluntary living I would love to hear it.

Until then, liberty uprising is still only a psychology and the people are still subject to taxation. ( :