"Emancipation from the bondage of the soil is no freedom for the tree."
— Rabindranath Tagore
Consent
As of recently I’ve noticed a trend that I quite enjoy. It seems more and more that anarchists are understanding that people have good intentions. The reason I enjoy this is because it’s quite a bit easier to have a discussion with someone when, upon initiation, you don’t instantly view them as evil. And, by not viewing them initially as evil, you treat them in more humane fashions, being willing to listen and explain rather than being close-minded or argumentative.
The assumption that politicians/governments/statists all have good intentions allows for the anarchist to reveal that even with good intentions the problems we’re facing are inherent in the contemporary institutional structures of society, as problems with governances have historically been. Anarchists, in a similar vein to any true liberal, advocates for different societal structuring to combat some of the flaws that are perceived in society. Classical Liberals advocated for what was perceived to be a better structuring. Leninists advocated for what was perceived to be a better structuring. However, the primary difference between Anarchists and other forms of liberalism is the degree of consent in the societal system.
"A government that was genuinely responsible to the people would hardly be a parasite—but debating the merits of a government genuinely responsible to the people is purely academic, because such a government, whatever its merits or demerits, is impossible; you cannot make a monopoly responsive to the people. Other than the market itself, no political system has ever been devised or discovered that would subordinate the influence of concentrated interests to that of dispersed interests. Monopoly cannot be “reformed”; it has to be abolished."
"Thus Vice nurs’d Ingenuity,
Which joined with Time and Industry,
had carry’d Life’s conveniencies,
It’s real Pleasures, Comforts, Ease,
To such a Height, the very Poor
Liv’d better than the Rich before."
Which joined with Time and Industry,
had carry’d Life’s conveniencies,
It’s real Pleasures, Comforts, Ease,
To such a Height, the very Poor
Liv’d better than the Rich before."
— Bernard de Mandeville
[Y]outh is the incarnation of reason pitted against the rigidity of tradition; youth puts the remorseless questions to everything that is old and established—Why? What is this thing good for? And when it gets the mumbled, evasive answers of the defenders it applies its own fresh, clean spirit of reason to institutions, customs and ideas and finding them stupid, inane or poisonous, turns instinctively to overthrow them and build in their place the things with which its visions teem …
Youth is the leaven that keeps all these questioning, testing attitudes fermenting in the world. If it were not for this troublesome activity of youth, with its hatred of sophisms and glosses, its insistence on things as they are, society would die from sheer decay. It is the policy of the older generation as it gets adjusted to the world to hide away the unpleasant things where it can, or preserve a conspiracy of silence and an elaborate pretense that they do not exist. But meanwhile the sores go on festering just the same. Youth is the drastic antiseptic … It drags skeletons from closets and insists that they be explained. No wonder the older generation fears and distrusts the younger. Youth is the avenging Nemesis on its trail …
Our elders are always optimistic in their views of the present, pessimistic in their views of the future; youth is pessimistic toward the present and gloriously hopeful for the future. And it is this hope which is the lever of progress—one might say, the only lever of progress …
The secret of life is then that this fine youthful spirit shall never be lost. Out of the turbulence of youth should come this fine precipitate—a sane, strong, aggressive spirit of daring and doing. It must be a flexible, growing spirit, with a hospitality to new ideas and a keen insight into experience. To keep one’s reactions warm and true is to have found the secret of perpetual youth, and perpetual youth is salvation.
—Randolph Bourne
(Source: mises.org)
The DOJ has rejected a Freedom of Information Act request from the New York Timesthat asked the agency to reveal the legal basis for the newly unveiled American program of strategic drone-attack assassinations of American citizens off the field of battle.
(Source: azspot)
Economics is a Social Science; it is a Social Issue
If you care about “Social Issues,” you ought to learn about economics and the dire effects of “economic policies” on society.
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
—
Thomas Jefferson (via i-am-john-galt)
I really dislike this train of thought. Seriously? To some this reads “you can either have freedom or security.” But that’s not the case. There’s an abundant amount of literature on the private provision of security, how it would function being able to provide even greater security for a greater amount of people. So, it’s not the case that you can have simply one or the other. But then again, at that time there wasn’t even Gustave de Molinari (PDF).
(Source: lulitics, via materialpossibilities)
"Nineteenth-century liberalism rested its defense of liberty not on natural rights or moral principle, but on social utility and—in the case of the classical economist—economic efficiency. The classical liberal defense of liberty tended to be based not on the perception of freedom as essential to the true nature of man, but on universal ignorance of the truth."
— Murray Rothbard
"If old truths are to retain their hold on men’s minds, they must be restated in the language and concepts of successive generations. What at one time are their most effective expressions gradually become so worn with use that they cease to carry a definite meaning. The underlying ideas may be as valid as ever, but the words, even when they refer to problems that are still with us, no longer convey the same conviction; the arguments do not move in a context familiar to us; and they rarely give direct answers to the questions we are asking."
—
Friedrich von Hayek
Democracy, Statism, and Theories
This is a discussion I had on Facebook a couple weeks ago using somewhat a different argument than I commonly use against the State. In this argument I state that the State is incapable of looking at individual benefits within society, and thus focuses on a macro perception of society. Please, give me your input into the success and legitimacy of this argument.
Of course you’ll also read hints of snarkiness and humor. Enjoy.
Lori:
Democracy, Doing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. I think we have forgotten this.
Cameron:
Democracy, where 51% tell 49% how things are going to be done. No, we haven’t forgotten this.
Lori:
I am reminding you of the original reason democracy was chosen. I guess you could go live in China or somewhere where you have no choice. Where your religion and the number of children you can have is decided for you. When we remember the truth and stop responding from adolescence we can make a difference.
Henry:
It’s fallacious assuming that the only alternative to democracy is totalitarianism, especially since democracy can still result in totalitarianism, as it had for Nazi Germany and the U.S.
"The State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion"
— Murray Rothbard (via baseballlibertarian)
(via self-ownership)
