[Joe Liberty]

It isn't just the libertarian end-goal that is peaceful. It is also the means chosen towards that goal.

And that, to my mind, is what separates libertarians from the rest of the political spectrum. Libertarians are as much (if not moreso) about the means. Everybody else seems quite willing if not eager to kill somebody to achieve their ends, they just find different ways to rationalize it.

[Eran]

To be fair, that's what separates us from other revolutionary ideologies.

Mainstream thinkers (liberals and conservatives) are reasonably happy to make use of current constitutional arrangements.

[Fasces]

Breaking news: Revolutionary ideologies advocate revolution.

[KurtFF8]

And that, to my mind, is what separates libertarians from the rest of the political spectrum. Libertarians are as much (if not moreso) about the means. Everybody else seems quite willing if not eager to kill somebody to achieve their ends, they just find different ways to rationalize it.

How exactly does this distinguish libertarians from anything again? All "ideologies" focus on means quite a bit. Look at how much time Lenin spent discussing revolutionary tactics and strategy that led to major splits that resulted in historically significant events.

[Rei Murasame]

Indeed, all I'm gathering from this is that libertarians seem to think that they don't need a revolution. Maybe they think that, because they think the established powers can be persuaded that it's for their own good to become libertarian, but I wouldn't call that a selling-point.

[Travesty]

Indeed, all I'm gathering from this is that libertarians seem to think that they don't need a revolution. Maybe they think that, because they think the established powers can be persuaded that it's for their own good to become libertarian, but I wouldn't call that a selling-point.

Yes, this is always a major problem with libertarians. I looked into it and it turns out they actually thought about it.

The implicit view of many libertarians is that only education is needed because everyone is an equally likely prospect for conversion. Everyone can be converted. While logically, of course, this is true, sociologically this is a feeble strategy indeed. Libertarians, of all people, should recognize that the State is a parasitic enemy of society, and that the State creates an elite of rulers who dominate the rest of us and extract their income by coercion. Convincing the ruling groups of their own iniquity, while logically possible (and perhaps even feasible in one or two instances), is almost impossible in practice. How much chance is there, for example, of convincing the executives of General Dynamics or of Lockheed that they should not take government largesse? How much likelihood is there that the President of the United States will read this book, or any other piece of libertarian literature, and then exclaim: "They're right. I've been wrong. I resign."? Clearly the chances of converting those who are waxing fat by means of State exploitation are negligible, to say the least. Our hope is to convert the mass of the people who are being victimized by State power, not those who are gaining by it.

But when we say this, we are also saying that beyond the problem of education lies the problem of power. After a substantial number of people have been converted, there will be the additional task of finding ways and means to remove State power from our society. Since the State will not gracefully convert itself out of power, other means than [p. 309] education, means of pressure, will have to be used. What particular means or what combination of means — whether by voting, alternative institutions untouched by the State or massive failure to cooperate with the State — depends on the conditions of the time and what will be found to work or not to work. In contrast to matters of theory and principle, the particular tactics to be used — so long as they are consistent with the principles and ultimate goal of a purely free society — are a matter of pragmatism, judgment, and the inexact "art" of the tactician.

- Murray Rothbard

http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

So it sounds like they could use Ghandi like non-cooperation with the state. It also sounds like they don't necessarily reject violence to attain their goals.

[The Immortal Goon]

Indeed we have. Capitalism, in fact, is responsible for the vast increase in the number of people alive in the world. Without capitalism and the technological, medical and societal innovation it brought to humanity, the world would have still been as it was in 1750 - a much smaller population, the vast majority of whom are subsistence farmers.

Thanks to capitalism, billions of people can afford standards of living previously undreamed of by royalty.

Nobody disputes this. Least of all Marxists.

But it's childish to look at all the good stuff and completely ignore why it's there and any bad stuff that may have happened.

Communism and Fascism, by contrast, are demonstrably responsible for the direct, deliberate murder of hundreds of millions of people.

1. Nobody disputes this either
2. Fascism was supported by the capitalists far more than the communists, who were in the streets fighting it from day one. In fact, your libertarian heroes were out there cheerleading the fascists from day one.

But now that it's out of vogue you wash your hands of it and pretend only rainbows and unicorns have come from capitalism with absolutely no negative in any way whatsoever.

You cannot consistently blame capitalism for the crimes of imperialism without blaming communism for the gulag and Fascism for the holocaust.

You cannot consistently blame capitalism for starvation of hundreds of millions without crediting it with the industrial revolution and the wealth it brought humanity.

And you certainly cannot consistently distance yourself from the failures of state communism without allowing libertarians to distance themselves from the evils of state capitalism.

I don't distance myself from what happened in the past. Libertarians insist on playing pretend so they can be moralizing philistines and hypocrites as they invent their own reality that must exist in order for their clearly crazy ideas to make any sense.

No, it isn't. It is an objective question. When you have a farmer peacefully cultivating a piece of land, and a horde of barbarians rushes in, burning his house and raping his wife, the question of aggression isn't in doubt by any reasonable standard.

And those Nez Pierce barbarians going to reclaim their holy land that was taken when the Union army came in, murdered everyone, raped all the women, and put piles of bodies of children out to rot in the sun probably won't see the farmer as so peaceful as he cultivates their land.

Again, you have this utopian idea that everyone just agrees to property rights. It was a system forced upon the vast majority at the point of a gun. Refusing to acknowledge reality doesn't make it any less real.

Nor does it become different just because the barbarian horde is made of people of the same nationality as the farmer, they aren't called "barbarian", they have been democratically elected, they only take part of the farmer's annual produce, rather than rape his wife, etc.

Are you honestly saying that taxing the land that the government cleared out, improved, built roads to, irrigated water to, regulated trade with, printed money for, and provided education for the people living on is the same as having your wife raped?

To be clear, I cannot stop people from defining "aggression" in any way they want. But given the libertarian definition, determining who the aggressor is is typically straightforward.

Yes, libertarians have a long and sordid history of just redefining words however they see fit so they can make up whatever crazy reality they want.

No, I don't. While libertarians, like most constitutional democrats, prefer the use of peaceful methods to affect change, we differ from constitutional democrats in that we consistently oppose any initiation of force, whether by government, corporations or individuals, whether technically legal or not.

No you don't. Libertarians, as has been noted many times, thought the Nazis were great for fighting the communists. Further, libertarians—as is quite clear—don't mind murdering everyone, taking their land, and executing anyone that opposes them—as long as we can white-wash this from history and pretend that everything is the same now as it always has been.

And that, to my mind, is what separates libertarians from the rest of the political spectrum. Libertarians are as much (if not moreso) about the means. Everybody else seems quite willing if not eager to kill somebody to achieve their ends, they just find different ways to rationalize it.

You're right in that libertarians tend to be completely and totally ignorant of any kind of history in anyway whatsoever and utilize Newspeak in order to erase the ability to even understand history or politics. Which is why they're always going to be regarded as a wacky cult divorced from reality.

[Husky]

In fact, your libertarian heroes were out there cheerleading the fascists from day one.

TIG, how many times have we been through this.

How many times. The fact that you bring this piece of "information" up just shows you have absolutely no desire for a discussion of any form with an opposing ideology.

*now I wait for you to bring up that Mises quote*

*and I'll give the same response to it I give every time*

[Joe Liberty]

How exactly does this distinguish libertarians from anything again? All "ideologies" focus on means quite a bit. Look at how much time Lenin spent discussing revolutionary tactics and strategy that led to major splits that resulted in historically significant events.

It seems to me that virtually all ideologies focus on the ends, then rationalize any means to get there. Maybe I've just been reading too many of Rei's posts.

Libertarians, as has been noted many times, thought the Nazis were great for fighting the communists. Further, libertarians—as is quite clear—don't mind murdering everyone, taking their land, and executing anyone that opposes them,

Wow. I never knew what I really believed until I read this. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Rei Murasame]

It seems to me that virtually all ideologies focus on the ends, then rationalize any means to get there. Maybe I've just been reading too many of Rei's posts.

Or maybe you haven't been reading my posts properly, since I frequently talk about what I think the best methods are and argue with other fascists on how to get what we want. Just you libertarians perceive it all as 'villains vs. other villains' anyway, which might be why you don't see it as a thing that happens, even though there are whole threads about it. The means are actually important because the means shape the environment in which the ends will be realised.

I think that most of my posts about revolution involve telling people how the means of attaining power is directly connected to what kind of government will emerge from it.

There is such a thing as 'preferred means'. The course that we'd prefer to take to get to a place. It's just that we don't bind ourselves to that.

[Husky]

Reading your "socially liberal" positions Rei, while at the same time knowing you're a self-described fascist, is just so baffling/amusing/etc.

[Rei Murasame]

It's possible to perceive me as 'socially liberal' on issues of gender and sexuality and my approach to media and marketing rules, but as soon as you get outside of that sphere then the difference is clearly visible.

If you are wanting to have power get diffused (compared to how it is now) in just those areas, then it makes some sense that libertarians might like what I say. Just it's on everything else that you probably disagree.

[Husky]

You see, I always thought of fascists as most hostile to the issues you are 'socially liberal' on...

[Rei Murasame]

Well, fascism is basically a fusion of [1]national syndicalism and corporatism, [2]ethnic ultra-nationalism, and [3]indigenous religion.

Those are the three core issues, anything else is an expression of the environment it arose in.

If someone wants to have a movement that is socially dedicated to attacking women and gays in all times and places while ignoring those three key issues I just named, that niche has been filled by Al-Qaeda, the American Republican Party, Fianna Fáil, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

[The Immortal Goon]

TIG, how many times have we been through this.

How many times. The fact that you bring this piece of "information" up just shows you have absolutely no desire for a discussion of any form with an opposing ideology.

I don't remember every going through it with you. Really, the fact that this supposedly keeps coming up means I do have a desire for discussion about the ridiculous platitudes of libertarian hypocrisy.

I really have no idea what response you supposedly keep giving for the slavish devotion to fascism at the time, then churning the word and trying to make communists fascists, while at the same time licking the hands of Pinochet as he set up his concentration camps. But hey, as has been the theme this last page, libertarians are wonderful at being delusional and just changing the meaning of whatever words they want so long as they don't have to actually do any thinking.

Wow. I never knew what I really believed until I read this. Thanks for clearing that up.

Seeing as how libertarians seem to deliberately hide anything that isn't theoretically wonderful about everything capitalism does, it's no surprise that you needed to learn context in history. You're welcome.

You see, I always thought of fascists as most hostile to the issues you are 'socially liberal' on...

I, for one, would be stunned if a libertarian turned out not to know what he was talking about.

[Rei Murasame]

I will also add, that libertarians still haven't actually explained why they supported Pinochet, given what his methods were. They are just all like, "I cannot believe that people are accusing us of this!"

[KurtFF8]

It seems to me that virtually all ideologies focus on the ends, then rationalize any means to get there. Maybe I've just been reading too many of Rei's posts.

This is quite facile way of categorizing ideologies and making libertarianism "distinct." Libertarians focus on an "end" as much as any other ideology, I'm not sure what point you're driving at here.

[Eran]

Breaking news: Revolutionary ideologies advocate revolution.

Semantics. I meant "revolutionary ideologies" in the sense of ideologies calling for a revolutionary (i.e. radical) change in society. The means towards that end need not involve a rapid, not to mention violent "revolution".

How exactly does this distinguish libertarians from anything again?

All ideologies fantasise about a peaceful, prosperous society as their end-goal. Lenin didn't motivate people by describing his goal as a permanently-violent, strife-ridden, secret-police-controlled, poverty-stricken, war-like society.

Libertarians are unique in being consistent - our means match our ends.

Indeed, all I'm gathering from this is that libertarians seem to think that they don't need a revolution. Maybe they think that, because they think the established powers can be persuaded that it's for their own good to become libertarian, but I wouldn't call that a selling-point.

Libertarians recognise that in the field of violent force, governments will always have a competitive advantage. We can observe historically how established powers change in response to changes in societal norms. We are aiming to change the norms (as well as rational understanding) of members in society. This change would force changes in established powers.

So it sounds like they could use Ghandi like non-cooperation with the state. It also sounds like they don't necessarily reject violence to attain their goals.

Once we have sufficient numbers, non-cooperation would be very effective. Violence would not likely be necessary, except defensively, once the legitimacy of the state has melted away.

But it's childish to look at all the good stuff and completely ignore why it's there and any bad stuff that may have happened.

I agree. It is childish to paint an entire historic period with a single colour, ignoring nuances and the interplay between different forces within capitalist societies.

Fascism was supported by the capitalists far more than the communists, who were in the streets fighting it from day one.

With the notable exception of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

But now that it's out of vogue you wash your hands of it and pretend only rainbows and unicorns have come from capitalism with absolutely no negative in any way whatsoever.

Not at all. Remember your comment about being childish?

Here is an adult perspective. Capitalist societies, in the past, have been responsible for both great good (as you acknowledged) and great evil (as I acknowledge here).

But in an adult spirit, and seeing how both of us are advocating societies which have never existed in the past, we ought to carefully analysis the internal working of those capitalist societies.

My claim is that all the evils of those societies can be traced to the intervention of governments. Most people on the left either (1) argue that government intervention is inherently inseparable from capitalist economies, or (2) that a capitalist economy without government interference would still fall short of an alternative economic form.

I am happy to argue either (or both) forms of criticism. But from you, all I see is insistence that the negative aspects of historic capitalism are enough to foreclose any further discussions of the potential merits of a society that shares some similarities to, but is in important ways different, from those historic experiences.

Again, you have this utopian idea that everyone just agrees to property rights.

I have no illusion that everybody agrees to property rights. I made the point that aggression can be objectively ascertained - it isn't a matter of subjective perspective. Clearly, not everybody agrees with me. Yet.

Are you honestly saying that taxing the land that the government cleared out, improved, built roads to, irrigated water to, regulated trade with, printed money for, and provided education for the people living on is the same as having your wife raped?

I am saying that taxing the land that an individual (not government) cleared out, improved, built roads to, irrigated water to, etc. shares with wife-raping the attribute of being a form of aggression. The severity of the aggression is clearly different, but its character as such isn't.

Further, libertarians—as is quite clear—don't mind murdering everyone, taking their land, and executing anyone that opposes them—as long as we can white-wash this from history and pretend that everything is the same now as it always has been.

I object to murdering anyone and taking anybody's land. So does every libertarian I know of.

The question over which we may differ isn't whether such actions are legitimate or not - all libertarians agree they aren't - but rather what should be done about criminal actions that took place centuries ago.

The means are actually important because the means shape the environment in which the ends will be realised.

I whole-heartedly agree.

I will also add, that libertarians still haven't actually explained why they supported Pinochet, given what his methods were. They are just all like, "I cannot believe that people are accusing us of this!"

If libertarians are anything, they are individualistic.

I, Eran, have not supported Pinochet. Nor do I feel the need to justify the positions of other people with whom I partially (but only partially) agree.

Murray Rothbard, whose image is my avatar, is probably closer than most to my views. Yet I still disagree with his views on some important issues.

You really ought to address the views that libertarians here express, rather than those of others who may or may not have characterised themselves as libertarians.

This is quite facile way of categorizing ideologies and making libertarianism "distinct." Libertarians focus on an "end" as much as any other ideology, I'm not sure what point you're driving at here.

I think the point is that libertarians are unique in being consistent - advocating for a peaceful end, while also calling for exclusively peaceful means of getting to that end.

[The Immortal Goon]

Semantics. I meant "revolutionary ideologies" in the sense...

So is often the problems with libertarians making up new definitions for words.

With the notable exception of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

This is, and was at the time, considered a way for both countries to prepare for war with each other. After all, even Joe Stalin was fighting the fascists in Spain and paranoid enough to see fascists that needed to be exterminated in every place he was.

Not at all. Remember your comment about being childish?

Here is an adult perspective. Capitalist societies, in the past, have been responsible for both great good (as you acknowledged) and great evil (as I acknowledge here).

But in an adult spirit, and seeing how both of us are advocating societies which have never existed in the past, we ought to carefully analysis the internal working of those capitalist societies.

Capitalism has, and still, exists.

an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Adam Smith was describing a system that already existed, as was Marx, Ricardo, Mill, Veblen, Keynes, Owen, George, Fourier, Schumpeter, Saint-Simon, Malthus, and others. At best, they proposed adaptations to the system—but none of them denied that a capitalist system existed.

Unless you're redefining capitalism to mean something other than it does, in which case you need to explain this or it makes no sense.

My claim is that all the evils of those societies can be traced to the intervention of governments.

Those that are trying to define and isolate "evil," find only mumbo-jumbo, and saying that you found the cure for this mumbo-jumbo is childish.

Most people on the left either (1) argue that government intervention is inherently inseparable from capitalist economies, or (2) that a capitalist economy without government interference would still fall short of an alternative economic form.

Since the actual definition of capitalism asserts option two, and since capitalism has a government active in every single incarnation—asserting one—I think that it's fair to say it's not just "people one the left," but people that have dictionaries that assert both of these things.

I am happy to argue either (or both) forms of criticism. But from you, all I see is insistence that the negative aspects of historic capitalism are enough to foreclose any further discussions of the potential merits of a society that shares some similarities to, but is in important ways different, from those historic experiences.

I offer no apology in looking at "aspects of historic capitalism," in order to understand capitalism. I'm not going to engage in la-la-land imaginings of reality that separate an arbitrary notion of, "good," and, "evil," that can be used to justify an argument where words have no specific meaning beyond what you feel like mean at the moment.

This is all so much feel-good garbage that has absolutely no bearing in reality.

I have no illusion that everybody agrees to property rights. I made the point that aggression can be objectively ascertained - it isn't a matter of subjective perspective. Clearly, not everybody agrees with me. Yet.

Mostly because it's an absolute that you're inventing to work with an abstraction in your own mind that people don't agree with. It's craziness to try and build a system, even if theoretical, on such sand.

I am saying that taxing the land that an individual (not government) cleared out, improved, built roads to, irrigated water to, etc. shares with wife-raping the attribute of being a form of aggression.

Again, this is an imaginary situation that does not exist because of the very notion of property. The first is that there is some kind of land that nobody disputes that an individual owned. Then that the individual built roads himself to...where? Another thing he absolutely owns? Irrigated water that nobody wanted or needed access to that this individual owned? The farm across the way owned by an individual might have something to say about his irrigation going to rot when this imaginary farmer siphons the river water into his land instead. But even in this ridiculousness, we're supposed to reduce the individual's wife to a possession he has in order to draw a parallel for what it would feel like for the individual to pay taxes. It would be like his property being defiled. It's actually a great analogy for this ridiculous utopian libertarianism. Imagining a completely absurd situation that could never exist, then imagine John Galt sitting there ruling his possessions and everyone else like slaves. Don't concern yourself with the fact it's absurd and even in the imaginary situation Galt basically owns someone as a possession, but what a great ideal as long as you ignore reality and any bad things in the thought experiment!

I object to murdering anyone and taking anybody's land. So does every libertarian I know of.

But you don't object to profiting from it, and thus endorsing the action in reality.

The question over which we may differ isn't whether such actions are legitimate or not - all libertarians agree they aren't - but rather what should be done about criminal actions that took place centuries ago.

Maybe that's the reason libertarians are so wacky, at heart. Most people would look at such actions, attempt to understand the reasons they happened, and then get a better understanding of what material conditions occur and why. From there, an analysis can follow based upon how the present works. Libertarians, apparently, throw their hands in the air and dismiss it as if it never happened.

[KurtFF8]

I think the point is that libertarians are unique in being consistent - advocating for a peaceful end, while also calling for exclusively peaceful means of getting to that end.

give me a break. Libertarians are far from consistent. For example as TIG has pointed out multiple times, prominent libertarians have supported regimes like Pinochet's which demonstrates their inconsistency in opposing "big government."

It's really a weak point and I don't see why you're trying to defend it.