PDA

View Full Version : secret society?




JosephTheLibertarian
04-14-2008, 09:21 PM
How about we create a secret society that pushes libertarian ideals? We can all help each other and meet with each other. How about it? Infiltrate the world! The ideal end result would be either a proper minarchy or even a world without statism. Voluntaryism. The ends of this group would be purely trivial beyond the agreement of basic liberatarian principles

pcosmar
04-15-2008, 08:03 AM
There already is one but it's not a secret.
Freedom Force International
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/


THE CREED OF FREEDOM

INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS
I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty.
I believe that a just government derives its power solely from the governed. Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society.

SUPREMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
I believe that one of the greatest threats to freedom is to allow any group, no matter its numeric superiority, to deny the rights of the minority; and that one of the primary functions of just government is to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the majority.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE
I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving of one's own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people's money through coercion of law.

EQUALITY UNDER LAW
I believe that all citizens should be equal under law, regardless of their national origin, race, religion, gender, education, economic status, life style, or political opinion. Likewise, no class should be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or popularity of its cause. To favor one class over another is not equality under law.

PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
I believe that the proper role of government is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and once that power is granted, there are those who will seek it for their advantage. It always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If government is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it is also powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of government is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens; nothing more. That government is best which governs least.

yongrel
04-15-2008, 08:03 AM
Can we have decoder rings and secret handshakes?

NathanTurner
04-15-2008, 09:04 AM
Not to mention regular membership dues for the privilege of considering yourself part of the collective. We'll no doubt have to hand out cyanide capsules to every member in the event that they're captured by the rogue forces of Haliburton.

AutoDas
04-15-2008, 02:32 PM
Now no one will know of liberty!

Theocrat
04-15-2008, 03:22 PM
How about we create a secret society that pushes libertarian ideals? We can all help each other and meet with each other. How about it? Infiltrate the world! The ideal end result would be either a proper minarchy or even a world without statism. Voluntaryism. The ends of this group would be purely trivial beyond the agreement of basic liberatarian principles

A libertarian secret society? Isn't that an oxymoron?

ItsTime
04-15-2008, 03:24 PM
we already have one you are just not part of it :(

JosephTheLibertarian
04-15-2008, 05:21 PM
A libertarian secret society? Isn't that an oxymoron?

private organizations are anti-libertarian? interesting :rolleyes:

nate895
04-15-2008, 05:25 PM
Like it. The anti-anything secret crowd won't though. Sometimes you must fight fire with fire, especially when the government that makes the fire doesn't let you use water without being labeled "village nut."

MS0453
04-15-2008, 05:43 PM
Like it. The anti-anything secret crowd won't though. Sometimes you must fight fire with fire, especially when the government that makes the fire doesn't let you use water without being labeled "village nut."

Of course. It's why Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty planned everything they did in secret. It's what reform groups do.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/csl0628l.jpg

Carbonari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonari) ftw

On the other hand, posting threads about starting secret societies on a public messageboard might defeat the purpose.

Banana
04-15-2008, 06:03 PM
Meh.

I am opposed to any secret societies on principle; it always seems to me that they have a tendency to corrupt and fester faster than a mound of putrid flesh. Not that I would stop anyone from wanting to do so; it's entirely within their rights to do so.

I'd much rather be a part of a group that has a open membership to collaborate on stuff.

nate895
04-15-2008, 06:15 PM
Meh.

I am opposed to any secret societies on principle; it always seems to me that they have a tendency to corrupt and fester faster than a mound of putrid flesh. Not that I would stop anyone from wanting to do so; it's entirely within their rights to do so.

I'd much rather be a part of a group that has a open membership to collaborate on stuff.

As the above poster mentioned, do you think the Sons of Liberty were corrupted?

Just because you are secret society doesn't mean you must be corrupt.

Banana
04-15-2008, 06:19 PM
As I noted, they are perfectly free to form a secret society. That's their business.

Furthermore, secrecy doesn't lead to corruption, but corruption *does* flourish in secrecy and thus lies the problem with secret society; it's too easy to get corrupted.

Geronimo
04-15-2008, 06:24 PM
The internet is the last place to start a secret society.

Good luck.

MS0453
04-16-2008, 09:40 PM
As I noted, they are perfectly free to form a secret society. That's their business.

Furthermore, secrecy doesn't lead to corruption, but corruption *does* flourish in secrecy and thus lies the problem with secret society; it's too easy to get corrupted.

You seem to be confusing openness/secrecy in government with privacy in all things. How could corruption possibly flourish in secrecy in private matters?

If you've got 20/50/100 people, who come together in secret, to accomplish a certain goal, why/how would it be corrupted?

Banana
04-17-2008, 08:30 AM
There's several ways for this to happen.

You know the saying about rotten apple in barrel? Also, consider the 'groupthink' phenomenon.

A secret society implies that membership is awarded only to those with approval of the current member body. It would only take at least one bad apple to gain control over the entire society and this is a positive feedback mechanism; corruption leads to more corruption. Actually, it may not be corruption per se at first but more like compromise which had unintended effects.

Also, secret society suggests that there is kind of a goal for it to attain by influencing the environment. This requires power to do so, and power does corrupt. It's easier to corrupt a group of people who want to lead a country, even if they started out with good intention than a group who just want to help the poor. This is partially why privacy doesn't imply corruption, but secrecy in matters not confined to oneself or the group.... likely to be worse off, IMO.