The Austro-Libertarian Strategy vs The Pragmatarian Strategy

[Xerographica]

In the thread on how you would allocate your taxes I mentioned that I could care less about deontological arguments...but I couldn't help but be curious when I noticed Conza88's thread on Society, State, and Liberty: The Austro-Libertarian Strategy of Social Revolution.

Strategies have substance worth considering...so I checked out the link that Conza88 supplied in his thread...What Must Be Done. After A LOT of scrolling I managed to get to the heart of the strategy. Can you guess what Conza88's hero advocates? I had to laugh when I read it...

First, what to do within these very small districts, where a pro-private property candidate and anti-majoritarian personality can win. And second, how to deal with the higher levels of government, and especially with the central federal government. First, as an initial step, and I'm referring now to what should be done on the local level, the first central plank of one's platform should be: one must attempt to restrict the right to vote on local taxes, in particular on property taxes and regulations, to property and real estate owners. Only property owners must be permitted to vote, and their vote is not equal, but in accordance with the value of the equity owned, and the amount of taxes paid. That is, similar to what Lew Rockwell already explained has happened in some places in California.

Hahaha! That sounds very similar to the pragmatarian strategy...which is basically allowing tax payers to decide which public organizations receive their individual taxes.

So Conza88...how come you didn't mention the similarity between the two strategies when you responded to my thread on allocating taxes? Did you not know what your hero's strategy was...or did you not notice the similarities...or do you disagree that a similarity exists in the first place?

Hmmm...should I use this first post to compare the two strategies? Naw, I'll let the first person to reply have the first whack at comparing the two strategies.

[Petar]

Wow, all of this seems really important, and I'm happy that it will help Ron Paul get elected.

Also, it's nice to see that you are still around Conza.

[Conza88]

So Conza88...how come you didn't mention the similarity between the two strategies when you responded to my thread on allocating taxes? Did you not know what your hero's strategy was...or did you not notice the similarities...or do you disagree that a similarity exists in the first place?

Because your "pragmatarian strategy" is completely incoherent. Hence why I asked you to elaborate about it in your thread... which you seemed to have attempted to do; and yet I still have next to no idea what you're on about. The quality of an idea is often related to it's exposition and clarity. By all means take another crack. Do you have any sources, or links that put forward the idea. Props for actually reading the thread though!

I'm really not sure a new thread was necessary.

Just understand that this isn't the strategy I hold to. There are many. The revolution is like guerrilla warfare, the more 'fronts' we have going against the state the better; be it education, politics (presidential, local), agorism, lawyers etc etc. With some more being more effective than others.

Also, it's nice to see that you are still around Conza.

Petar! Thanks

[Xerographica]

Conza88...eh, completely incoherent? Tax payers would be allowed to directly choose which government organizations received their individual taxes. I honestly have no idea what part needs clarification. I mean, it came with a practical exercise.

When I debug programs I try and isolate the various components to identify where the problem is. Let me break the definition down step by step and you tell me which part you don't understand...

tax payers: people who pay taxes
directly choose: as opposed to indirectly choosing via representatives
government organizations: as opposed to private organizations (ie non-profits, or companies)
individual taxes: their own taxes...as opposed to everybody's taxes

Links that put forward the idea? You already visited my blog. If you want more links then I suppose you can google the word "pragmatarianism". Most of the results are from me.

Yeah, I guess if you can't understand pragmatarianism then I can see why it would be hard to understand why a new thread is necessary.

[Conza88]

Shifting the chairs on the titanic. The state is still going down. There is still a monopoly, there is still aggression. Nothing fundamental has changed. How is there a step towards voluntarism?

It merely gives the camouflage that government is "we the people", when it is anything but.

[erowe1]

So Conza88...how come you didn't mention the similarity between the two strategies when you responded to my thread on allocating taxes? Did you not know what your hero's strategy was...or did you not notice the similarities...or do you disagree that a similarity exists in the first place?

When Conza88 copies and pastes something, I don't think you should ever assume that he has actually read it.

[Conza88]

When Conza88 copies and pastes something, I don't think you should ever assume that he has actually read it.

Right, you shouldn't assume that I haven't... you should accept the fact that I have.

[erowe1]

Right, you shouldn't assume that I haven't... you should accept the fact that I have.

Or better yet, just ignore you until you write something yourself.

[heavenlyboy34]

Or better yet, just ignore you until you write something yourself.

So, we should also ignore citations of the Constitution or the Federalist papers because no one on these boards wrote them?

[Sola_Fide]

So, we should also ignore citations of the Constitution or the Federalist papers because no one on these boards wrote them?

Well, what if someone asked me a question about theology, and then I cited a Bible verse and called the guy an idiot for not understanding it?

It might be an effective strategy to appear like you have won a debate on the internet, but it doesn't further the discussion and it would be rude of me to do it.

Besides, Conza skips over things he can't handle. For instance, I showed that atheistic libertarians like Hoppe have the same metaphysic as totalitarian Communists (Hoppe himself began his academic career as a Communist and never really changed his metaphysic even after championing ownership).

When I point out these things, I just get an eyeroll from Conza....never a discussion about the deeper philosophical things. I don't think he is deep enough for these discussions. Sorry, Jus sayin.


One thing I give Sentient Void is that he is deep enough to discuss these things.

[Xerographica]

Conza88, just to clarify...are you criticizing the pragmatarian strategy or the first step of your hero's strategy?

[erowe1]

So, we should also ignore citations of the Constitution or the Federalist papers because no one on these boards wrote them?

My philosophy with links is this.

You shouldn't expect people to spend more time reading your post than you spent writing it. So if you want to save yourself time by copying and pasting something someone else wrote as a proxy for your own answer to a question, you're in no place to expect other people not to save their own time by not reading it.

[Conza88]

Besides, Conza skips over things he can't handle. For instance, I showed that atheistic libertarians like Hoppe have the same metaphysic as totalitarian Communists (Hoppe himself began his academic career as a Communist and never really changed his metaphysic even after championing ownership).

When I point out these things, I just get an eyeroll from Conza....never a discussion about the deeper philosophical things. I don't think he is deep enough for these discussions. Sorry, Jus sayin.

Besides the baseless insults... what a joke. LOL. Hoppe, an atheist? Please provide evidence. (Good luck).


"Hoppe have the same metaphysic as totalitarian Communists" Hahaha! I'm sorry, but you'll actually need to back up your baseless assertions and elaborate on such a claim, to what you actually mean. If you're talking about their historical material dialectic, no he doesn't still accept that.

Alleviate your ignorance thanks. A re-reading of an Austrian Class Analysis by Hoppe would be a good start.

[Xerographica]

Shifting the chairs on the titanic. The state is still going down. There is still a monopoly, there is still aggression. Nothing fundamental has changed. How is there a step towards voluntarism?

It merely gives the camouflage that government is "we the people", when it is anything but.

In case you missed my question...let me ask again. Is this a criticism of the pragmatarian strategy or a criticism of the first step of your hero's strategy?

[heavenlyboy34]

Well, what if someone asked me a question about theology, and then I cited a Bible verse and called the guy an idiot for not understanding it?

It might be an effective strategy to appear like you have won a debate on the internet, but it doesn't further the discussion and it would be rude of me to do it.

Besides, Conza skips over things he can't handle. For instance, I showed that atheistic libertarians like Hoppe have the same metaphysic as totalitarian Communists (Hoppe himself began his academic career as a Communist and never really changed his metaphysic even after championing ownership).

When I point out these things, I just get an eyeroll from Conza....never a discussion about the deeper philosophical things. I don't think he is deep enough for these discussions. Sorry, Jus sayin.


One thing I give Sentient Void is that he is deep enough to discuss these things.

Fair points. That's one of my problems with Conza as well. But, in regards to Hoppe, he wasn't a Marxist for very long, so I wouldn't hold that against him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-He...cademic_career
Born in Peine, West Germany, he attended the Universität des Saarlandes in Saarbrücken, and the Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, studying philosophy, sociology, history, and economics. His doctoral studies began with Marxist thought, under Jürgen Habermas as his Ph.D advisor.^[1] However he quickly became disillusioned in this pursuit. He earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy from the Goethe-Universität in 1974. He was then a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor from 1976 to 1978. He earned his Habilitation in Foundations of Sociology and Economics from the Goethe-Universität in 1981. He taught at several German universities as well as at the Johns Hopkins University Bologna Center for Advanced International Studies, Bologna, Italy.^{[citation needed]} In 1986, he moved from Germany to the United States, to study under Murray Rothbard.^{[citation needed]} He remained a close associate until Rothbard's death in January 1995. Hoppe was then Professor of Economics at University of Nevada, Las Vegas until retirement in 2008.

[Conza88]

In case you missed my question...let me ask again. Is this a criticism of the pragmatarian strategy or a criticism of the first step of your hero's strategy?

The former. Go make clear the similarities between the two, then make clear their differences. Key focus on differences.

In case you missed my question...let me ask again. The state is still going down. There is still a monopoly, there is still aggression. Nothing fundamental has changed. How is there a step towards voluntarism?

[Xerographica]

The former. Go make clear the similarities between the two, then make clear their differences. Key focus on differences.

In case you missed my question...let me ask again. The state is still going down. There is still a monopoly, there is still aggression. Nothing fundamental has changed. How is there a step towards voluntarism?

Errrrr...first you criticize either pragmatarianism or Hoppism (still not sure which one). Now you're asking me to clarify the differences between the two strategies...but then again you're making the same criticism of one of the strategies...and I'm still not sure which one.

Since you're asking me to clarify the differences between the two strategies it would stand to reason that you're not clear on at least one of the strategies. If we go with the premise that it's unreasonable to criticize something you don't understand then there are two possibilities...

1. You're criticizing pragmatarianism. Therefore you're not clear on your hero's strategy.

2. You're criticizing your hero's strategy. Therefore you're not clear on pragmatarianism.

So either you're not clear on your hero's strategy...or your criticizing his strategy. Ummm...I'd offer you the link to your hero's strategy but...you're the one that provided it in the first place.

[Conza88]

Errrrr...first you criticize either pragmatarianism or Hoppism (still not sure which one). Now you're asking me to clarify the differences between the two strategies...but then again you're making the same criticism of one of the strategies...and I'm still not sure which one.

Since you're asking me to clarify the differences between the two strategies it would stand to reason that you're not clear on at least one of the strategies. If we go with the premise that it's unreasonable to criticize something you don't understand then there are two possibilities...

1. You're criticizing pragmatarianism. Therefore you're not clear on your hero's strategy.

2. You're criticizing your hero's strategy. Therefore you're not clear on pragmatarianism.

So either you're not clear on your hero's strategy...or your criticizing his strategy. Ummm...I'd offer you the link to your hero's strategy but...you're the one that provided it in the first place.

"But what then? Everything else falls almost automatically from the ultimate goal, which must be kept permanently in mind, in all of one's activities: the restoration from the bottom-up of private property and the right to property protection; the right to self-defense, to exclude or include, and to freedom of contract. And the answer can be broken down into two parts.

First, what to do within these very small districts, where a pro-private property candidate and anti-majoritarian personality can win. And second, how to deal with the higher levels of government, and especially with the central federal government. First, as an initial step, and I'm referring now to what should be done on the local level, the first central plank of one's platform should be: one must attempt to restrict the right to vote on local taxes, in particular on property taxes and regulations, to property and real estate owners. Only property owners must be permitted to vote, and their vote is not equal, but in accordance with the value of the equity owned, and the amount of taxes paid. That is, similar to what Lew Rockwell already explained has happened in some places in California." - What Must Be Done, HHH

I'm sorry, how is that similar to what you propose?

I asked you to clarify the differences for your own benefit. It would stand to reason, I'm not one to bother doing things for others you should find out for yourself. You're the one who has taken issue to compare the two. So YOU go to it. Your the one 'challenging' the more prevalent strategy here, YOU go to it.

In case you missed my question...let me ask again. The state is still going down. There is still a monopoly, there is still aggression. Nothing fundamental has changed. How is there a step towards voluntarism?

[Xerographica]

Conza88, hah, too funny. To try and understand your hero's strategy...search for the word "mob" in his paper...

Now, from an Austro-libertarian point of view, matters look somewhat different. Under highly centralized democracy, or let me call it highly centralized mob rule, the security of private property has almost completely disappeared. The price of protection is enormous, and the quality of justice dispensed has gone downhill constantly.

Instead of protecting us, then, the State has delivered us and our property to the mob and mob instincts. Instead of safeguarding us, it impoverishes us, it destroys our families, local organizations, private foundations, clubs and associations, by drawing all of them increasingly into its own orbit. And as a result of all of this, the State has perverted the public sense of justice and of personal responsibility, and bred and attracted an increasing number of moral and economic monsters and monstrosities.

The third basic insight is that a democratic protection monopoly in particular must be rejected as a moral and economic perversity. Majority rule and private property protection are incompatible. The idea of democracy must be ridiculed: it is nothing else but mob rule parading as justice. To be labeled a democrat must be considered the worst of all possible compliments!

Because nowadays it is a given that everyone, including the mob, does participate in politics, and it is inconceivable, that the mob should ever, in its majority or even in its entirety, should renounce or abstain from exercising its right to vote, which is nothing else than exercising the opportunity to loot the property of others.

In contrast, democratic politicians are generally held in contempt, even by their own mob constituency. But then there is also no one else to whom one might turn for protection.

In this government funding crisis which breaks out once the right to vote has been taken away from the mob, as a way out of this crisis, all local government assets must be privatized.

Mob, mob, mob, mob, mob....mob...mob. Hmmm...I really don't want to spoon feed you. So...speaking of mob rule...can you tell me the name of the author who, nearly 200 years ago, wrote a book on democracy in America? This author coined a term that is synonymous with "mob rule"...can you tell me what the term is?

[heavenlyboy34]

Conza88, hah, too funny. To try and understand your hero's strategy...search for the word "mob" in his paper...













Mob, mob, mob, mob, mob....mob...mob. Hmmm...I really don't want to spoon feed you. So...speaking of mob rule...can you tell me the name of the author who, nearly 200 years ago, wrote a book on democracy in America? This author coined a term that is synonymous with "mob rule"...can you tell me what the term is?

I assume you're speaking of de Toqueville...the term you're thinking of is "tyranny of the majority".

[Xerographica]

heavenlyboy! That's a pretty good assumption...especially since I included the name of his book..."Democracy in America"...in the question.

So, uh, now what. I didn't want to spoon feed Conza88 but evidently you did...for whatever reasons. Heck, it doesn't really have to be me trying to help Conza88 see the parallels between his hero's strategy and the pragmatarian strategy. Do you want to give it a try? Maybe the blog entry I wrote last year on Power and Control might help.

[Conza88]

LOL. I'm sorry, but did you have a legitimate point to make? Because quoting what I've already read and referring to mob rule didn't make it. What's your point? Do you even have one?

Notice you ignored my questions; again. Spoon feed me? I'm sorry, did you think that question was a hard one? WOW. LMAO! You didn't think I'd know about one of the most famous political commentators about america? Someone whose book is on RP reading list? That is actually on MY must read books thread here at RPF.

Get a grip on reality thanks. Your attempt at an insult or challenge was comical.

[Xerographica]

Go make clear the similarities between the two, then make clear their differences. Key focus on differences. - Conza88

I'm sorry, how is that similar to what you propose? - Conza88

You continue to fail to recognize the similarities between the two strategies when both obviously depend on tax payers to check and balance the "tyranny of the majority". Except your hero's strategy takes an additional, and completely unnecessary, step by disenfranchising anybody that does not pay taxes.

The state is still going down. There is still a monopoly, there is still aggression. Nothing fundamental has changed. How is there a step towards voluntarism?

That you're asking this question clearly indicates that you have no idea how the invisible hand works. Uh, really? Is the Wealth of Nations on your "must read" list as well? Oh wait, when you say "must read" I guess you must be referring to yourself.

Again...if you assume that all private organizations can produce all public goods better than all government organizations...then if we give tax payers a choice...their choices will completely shrink the scope of government. Either that or the invisible hand is entirely wrong and tax payers wouldn't make choices that reflect their self interest.

The video that YOU provided in the thread on how people would allocate their taxes helps breaks this concept down...

...generally speaking if you're spending your own money on yourself you're going to do it very carefully. If you're spending somebody else's money on yourself you're also going to be reasonably careful about it. However, if you're spending somebody else's money on somebody else, which is what is the case with governments, then you have no real incentive to use that money effectively or efficiently.

Of course, when I posted my response to your video you didn't respond to it either. What's comical is that you have yet to intentionally contribute anything of substance to this discussion. It's also comical that you don't have the faintest idea that criticizing pragmatarianism is the same thing as criticizing the invisible hand.

[heavenlyboy34]

heavenlyboy! That's a pretty good assumption...especially since I included the name of his book..."Democracy in America"...in the question.

So, uh, now what. I didn't want to spoon feed Conza88 but evidently you did...for whatever reasons. Heck, it doesn't really have to be me trying to help Conza88 see the parallels between his hero's strategy and the pragmatarian strategy. Do you want to give it a try? Maybe the blog entry I wrote last year on Power and Control might help.

Not particularly. Conza has his own opinions and approach to things, and I have mine. We can both do our respective things and not necessarily interfere with each other. He understands the NAP, and I don't foresee him being a problem from my experience.

ETA: I reviewed your blog post. It's quite good overall. In your "Power and Control" piece, you're operating on some poor premises, though. You say, "Would tax payers make more informed allocation decisions than congress? In a pragmatarian system every tax payer would ask themselves that question. If they answered "no" then they would give all or some of their taxes to congress. If they answered "yes" then they would allocate their taxes themselves.", but this assumes that taxes are legitimate, which you did not establish. Another nitpick is that if people are allocating money to congress voluntarily, it is just a donation, not a tax. It's not significantly different than the "patriotic donation" program the IRS has in place.

Nice talking to you again, as always.

[Conza88]

You continue to fail to recognize the similarities between the two strategies when both obviously depend on tax payers to check and balance the "tyranny of the majority". Except your hero's strategy takes an additional, and completely unnecessary, step by disenfranchising anybody that does not pay taxes.

Oh no, I completely understand the differences. Hoppe's is locally focused in districts where the majority, isn't tyrannical. Or did you miss that part? And no, that last part is completely necessary. LOL why should non tax payers be 'enfranchised'?

That you're asking this question clearly indicates that you have no idea how the invisible hand works. Uh, really? Is the Wealth of Nations on your "must read" list as well? Oh wait, when you say "must read" I guess you must be referring to yourself.

Again...if you assume that all private organizations can produce all public goods better than all government organizations...then if we give tax payers a choice...their choices will completely shrink the scope of government. Either that or the invisible hand is entirely wrong and tax payers wouldn't make choices that reflect their self interest.

You're not giving them a choice between PAY or DON'T. It's not a valid comparison to the market at all. You offer a false dichotomy. You didn't answer how it is a step towards voluntarism at all. I do understand 'the invisible hand', more than you do champ.. so save the abysmal rhetoric. How will giving them a choice, completely shrink the scope of government? People want minimum wage laws, social security, militarism overseas.

Only if people are allowed to completely opt out will they be given a real choice. If the amount of theft remains the same, just diverted to different sectors - what has changed?

What's comical is that you have yet to intentionally contribute anything of substance to this discussion.

What's comical is you think anything of substance has actually been contributed.

[Xerographica]

Conza88, you say that you completely understand the differences...yet you assume that pragmatarianism wouldn't be equally applicable on the local level. You say that you completely understand tyranny of the majority...yet you assume that you'll be able to find a district where the majority won't impose its interests on the minority. Let me guess...you completely understand democracy as well?

You say you completely understand the invisible hand...yet you you need me to explain to you how pragmatarianism can lead to voluntarism. I thought I already did that. Let me try again. To arrive at voluntarism we have to make two assumptions...1. that private organizations will always produce all goods more efficiently (at lower cost) than public organizations...and 2. that if you give people a choice they will always choose the organization that offers a good at the lowest cost...aka the invisible hand.

Basically, tax payers would still have to pay taxes...so they would be forced to fund the most efficient public organizations. As the least efficient public organizations lost funding and went extinct the scope of government would narrow accordingly. As the scope of government narrowed so too would the tax rate...aka the amount of "theft". This process would continue until there were no more government organizations left.

[Conza88]

Conza88, you say that you completely understand the differences...yet you assume that pragmatarianism wouldn't be equally applicable on the local level. You say that you completely understand tyranny of the majority...yet you assume that you'll be able to find a district where the majority won't impose its interests on the minority. Let me guess...you completely understand democracy as well?

"Worse, subject to mass elections, those members of society with little or no inhibitions against taking another man's property, that is, habitual a-moralists who are most talented in assembling majorities from a multitude of morally uninhibited and mutually incompatible popular demands (efficient demagogues) will tend to gain entrance in and rise to the top of government. Hence, a bad situation becomes even worse." (Why Bad Men Rule - http://tinyurl.com/3hlxbvw).

Not assume mate, they already exist... as made clear earlier by reference to Lew Rockwell, in some minor parts in California. Now you go find it, it ain't my job to enlighten you.

To arrive at voluntarism we have to make two assumptions...1. that private organizations will always produce all goods more efficiently (at lower cost) than public organizations...and 2. that if you give people a choice they will always choose the organization that offers a good at the lowest cost...aka the invisible hand.

And yet government produces bads.

However, this argument in favor of democracy is fatally flawed. Free entry is not always good. Free entry and competition in the production of goods is good, but free competition in the production of bads is not. Free entry into the business of torturing and killing innocents, or free competition in counterfeiting or swindling, for instance, is not good; it is worse than bad. So what sort of "business" is government? Answer: it is not a customary producer of goods sold to voluntary consumers. Rather, it is a "business" engaged in theft and expropriation - by means of taxes and counterfeiting - and the fencing of stolen goods. Hence, free entry into government does not improve something good. Indeed, it makes matters worse than bad, i.e., it improves evil.

Basically, tax payers would still have to pay taxes...so they would be forced to fund the most efficient public organizations. As the least efficient public organizations lost funding and went extinct the scope of government would narrow accordingly. As the scope of government narrowed so too would the tax rate...aka the amount of "theft". This process would continue until there were no more government organizations left.

Nope, not a priori. And you require a change in the nature of the state; UTOPIAN.

[Becker]

Get a grip on reality thanks. Your attempt at an insult or challenge was comical.

your attempt at saving your face and laugh off embarassment when faced with reality is comical. pretending that somebody you can't debate doesn't exist won't make them go away, keep dodging. (I'm honored you put my name on your signature as a person you fear)

[Becker]

Not assume mate, they already exist... as made clear earlier by reference to Lew Rockwell, in some minor parts in California. Now you go find it, it ain't my job to enlighten you.

it aint my job to back up my claims, I win just because I can pull a claim out of my ass.

And yet government produces bads.

as if you never, and the market never.

However, this argument in favor of democracy is fatally flawed. Free entry is not always good.

I agree.

Free entry and competition in the production of goods is good, but free competition in the production of bads is not.

I got a better idea. How about infiltration of bads in the name of competiting for good?

Free entry into the business of torturing and killing innocents, or free competition in counterfeiting or swindling, for instance, is not good;

how do you prevent this?

it is worse than bad. So what sort of "business" is government? Answer: it is not a customary producer of goods sold to voluntary consumers.

and if it was, what would you call it? WalMart?

Rather, it is a "business" engaged in theft and expropriation

by some, against others. Just ,make sure you're on the right side. This is no different than you being happy to be on the side of punishing and torturing criminals against their will

- by means of taxes and counterfeiting - and the fencing of stolen goods. Hence, free entry into government does not improve something good. Indeed, it makes matters worse than bad, i.e., it improves evil.

what's wrong with counterfeiting? and what you say about government is exactly what a communist can say about greed and property. Competition of greed leads to worse, not better.

Nope, not a priori. And you require a change in the nature of the state; UTOPIAN.

yes, glad you know your own problem. Ancient Ireland lasted 1000 years where you don't even know what year to what year nor are you willing to go back to live such a life, coming from a person who admitted it's not a better life.