If the altered consciousness comes from physical inducements rather than say serious meditation, then you want personal physical sovereignty.Originally Posted by The Northbreather
In New Zealand:
The Coastguard is a Charity
Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
The DMV is a private non-profit
Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
A tax return has 4 fields
Business licenses aren't a thing
Prostitution is legal
We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care
I am going to have to disagree here. lets define our terms.
"anarchism (i.e., no state) versus minarchism (i.e., a minimal state)"
you are a smart guy. is it REALLY possible, for anarchy to stop. a "state" (government) from forming?
are the terms "state" and "government" synonyms? yes. they are.
since the "state" is in fact, the main threat to Liberty... how do anarchists propose to stop people from forming them? both now and in the future?
the answer to this question. belongs in the foundational knowledgebase. eh?
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
"for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.
This is exactly what we need to rope in. I think the An-cap theory base has huge holes, but if they want to make the federal government very very small and I want the same, then we need to be able to agree on that without the why of it blowing us apart.
However a bottom up local then state approach, which I think will be most effective, needs a more fleshed out platform, at least initially and can't pass the buck up to the Fed.
Does anybody here not support Devolution? Can we safely leave the execution of gays and babies to the states?
Second one up, does anyone not support increase representation at the state level? i.e. 1 state assembly person to 30,000 represented?
Both of these are structural reform ideas designed to decentralize power. That should make everyone here happy I hope.
Last edited by idiom; 02-20-2016 at 07:20 PM.
In New Zealand:
The Coastguard is a Charity
Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
The DMV is a private non-profit
Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
A tax return has 4 fields
Business licenses aren't a thing
Prostitution is legal
We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care
Would it be simpler to pick an existing Political Party to get behind and just adopt their platform? Just a thought this could save you time from trying to reinvent the wheel. This place could just align with the Libertarian Party or perhaps the Constitution Party.
Unless this will be about more than just backing candidates, but almost a research foundation? Or how to achieve Liberty outside of politics like going 'Off Grid'?
Maybe the problem isn't as big as one might think it is.
Why don't you post a poll and ask what ideology those remaining here have? Should be interesting to see what percentage of folks here are "anarchists."
Backing a political party is a personal decision and it's not something that can be collectively pushed for. As well, the Mission of the site does not align with providing wholesale support to any party however we certainly do support members getting involved in parties.
The wheel that is being defined here has not been invented to within anything that I have ever seen (per outlined requirements and value). Scoping out a party platform is an entirely different effort with different objectives than the stated goals of this initiative. We can certainly learn from the platforms however.
The three goals of this initiative are more about research to develop something as stated in the OP. There will be no bias to being inside or outside of politics, there is room for all sides.Unless this will be about more than just backing candidates, but almost a research foundation? Or how to achieve Liberty outside of politics like going 'Off Grid'?
Thanks! Good input.
This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.
Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.
I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.
Exactly. Establishing a linguistics basis will be critical. We'll also have to make sure we state when words have been used to have different meaning outside of our scope.
This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.
Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.
I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.
The machinery of 'democracy' in the US is heavily anti-third parties. The second problem is peoples experience getting thrashed as third party has left them burnt out, so even if it was easy a lot would not go over.
I suggest that by winning at the state level we can change the machinery a lot at the local level. Make it easy for small interests to get in and hard for big interest to corral.
1. Devolution > Power transferred to the states
2. Increased representation > target of 30-60k constituents per rep
3. De-embed party machinery. > States stop regulating primaries, remove voter party registration, ease ballot access for third parties and independents, remove Gop and Dem perks/funding
These are not platform items, they are keys to liberty. They weaken the shackles of government.
In New Zealand:
The Coastguard is a Charity
Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
The DMV is a private non-profit
Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
A tax return has 4 fields
Business licenses aren't a thing
Prostitution is legal
We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care
we are heading in a new direction. and seeking truth.
in the grand scheme of things. anarchists are a very small demographic.
"Liberty dies, when it is undefended"
HVACTech.
if anarchy cannot propose a way to defend Liberty..
then it needs to be discarded as a viable approach. it is an anachronism.
that is the reason our founders discarded it. eh?
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
"for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.
I anxiously await your POLL. I know there are others here who would like to see the results.we are heading in a new direction. and seeking truth.
in the grand scheme of things. anarchists are a very small demographic.
"Liberty dies, when it is undefended"
HVACTech.
if anarchy cannot propose a way to defend Liberty..
then it needs to be discarded as a viable approach. it is an anachronism.
that is the reason our founders discarded it. eh?
Nope, the state's inevitable.
Yup, both sides of the argument should be included (just like both sides on abortion, intellectual property, etc, etc).the answer to this question. belongs in the foundational knowledgebase. eh?
I don't agree the state is inevitable. No bad idea is inevitable. It is only through mass acceptance do things like chattel slavery and the state exist. So, the answer to the question of how to keep it from forming is largely to change hearts and minds to the position extortion (taxation) is never acceptable and mass murder (non-defensive killing on a mass scale, i.e. most wars) is never acceptable, and further limiting competition and tort liability in the markets by threatening non-consenting others with violence is never acceptable. Those things are what create the state to begin with. Order-followers aren't robots...you change enough hearts and minds, their minds also change in sufficient number to make the state impossible to maintain or recreate.
Last edited by ProIndividual; 02-20-2016 at 09:22 PM.
^Minimalist state socialism (minarchy) taken to its logical conclusions; communism.
An ambitious initiative!
I would be careful when weighing what "other campaigns" did and how it led to success vs. what "we" did and how it led to failure. The posited idea is that the cause -> effect phenomenon in most of politics is largely unknowable, and real effects are due to behind-doors alliances, discussions, and non-public activities. That doesn't mean that all political actions are ineffective nor does it mean that we should attempt to primarily act behind-the-scenes. But the Framework Knowledge-base should include a discussion and evaluation on this topic, and understand the effects that this phenomenon's mere existence would have on political actions.
Since we primarily act from the grassroots anyway, the above is a minor but substantive concern to at least be aware of and study to some extent. Our ultimate goal is to pull American politics out of the hands of the few and back into the hands of the many!
Our greatest happiness does not depend on the condition of life in which chance has placed us, but is always the result of a good conscience, good health, occupation, and freedom in all just pursuits.
--Thomas Jefferson
Ok both then but I would say that sovereignty over consciousness takes precedence and should be recognized as a "self evident truth" in as much as anything else is....
Last edited by The Northbreather; 02-20-2016 at 10:36 PM.
That's going to get really really into the weeds.
Some people are just anti-tax and a self funding state wouldn't be a problem. For other people its implict consent that they can't accept and want to have to sign the constitution at 18 or be exiled, then nobody would be in the country without explicit voluntary consent.
It could walk and talk just like a government, but tweak it a little bit and suddenly its not violating the NAP at all.
There are even lots of disagreements about whether slavery or passive infanticide violates the NAP. This is a thing, Walter block got up at a rally and legit started talking about evictionalism like if enough people just heard about how kicking kids out was a moral thing to do then everyone would realize that Ron Paul should be elected.
In New Zealand:
The Coastguard is a Charity
Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
The DMV is a private non-profit
Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
A tax return has 4 fields
Business licenses aren't a thing
Prostitution is legal
We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care
A few random thoughts...
People seem to be really hung up on labels, so it would seem instructive to present all of the "labels" that cross paths with the over-arching liberty movement. Then, it would seem wise to somehow allow strategic alliances amongst these factions on differing issues. In other words, let's focus on our agreements instead of our disagreements. (I think this has been a major problem with the LP and the liberty movement in general.) My naive hope would be that people would learn to ignore the labels altogether, but as long as we could learn to stop the infighting. (In all honesty, I struggle with this as well.)
Next, I think we could use a dose or two of optimism. It's very easy to post about things that are going wrong, but there are many things that go right. Advances in education, technology, and individual liberty generally get short shrift, in favor of the things that piss us off. But if we have liberty lovers who turn to this site for optimism and hope, perhaps it will trigger a new idea in them about how to reduce the influence of the State.
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
Undefended is quite different than unable to defend. The coercive state suffers from the same possibility.we are heading in a new direction. and seeking truth.
in the grand scheme of things. anarchists are a very small demographic.
"Liberty dies, when it is undefended"
HVACTech.
if anarchy cannot propose a way to defend Liberty..
then it needs to be discarded as a viable approach. it is an anachronism.
that is the reason our founders discarded it. eh?
Regarding 10th amendment/devolution issue, without trying to touch on the veracity it is a political tool that could potentially help us defeat the tyranny that is before us today. But this being a foundation of knowledge we should not look to skirt the issues we may solve with such tactics today. It is either right or wrong to have an abortion, kill gays, regulate substances, regulate what otherwise would be voluntary contracts and associations in all it's different forms, so forth and so on. Obviously decentralization is a big issue, but I don't think using it to justify moral relativism is the right approach.
Agree on the label issue, the label "conservative" comes to mind as far as being unclear and having many meanings to separate people.
When talk to some, I often get "what, are you a conservative or something?", to which I have to explain that yes, fiscally I am, and I also don't morally agree that terminating the life of an unborn child is a good thing, but as far as everything else goes I don't have a problem as long as it's not aggression against me or my family.
I'd like to see some kind of graphic showing the overlap between different groups: Venn diagrams, network map, something like that.
We should present each strain of libertarianism separately, rather than trying to produce a single milquetoast compromise that pleases nobody.
Seems to me we're pretty good at setting aside our differences to achieve common goals.
Where we get into the weeds is in debating who the "true" libertarians are.
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 02-20-2016 at 11:42 PM.
On the surface this article (from 2014) seems to be quite tangential, but it offers some useful nuggets. I snipped some parts in the interest of conciseness. https://c4ss.org/content/27365
In a post at the Students For Liberty (SFL) blog, (“Between Radicalism and Revolution: The Cautionary Tale of Students for a Democratic Society,” May 6), Clark Ruper uses the example of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) as a warning against factionalism and division within the libertarian movement. The libertarian movement, he says, should be united on a broad common agenda that appeals to as many people as possible — one that focuses on the “most important” issues like fighting corporatism and foreign interventionism and protecting civil liberties. [...]
Some argue that “real” libertarianism or an improved libertarianism must also include anarchism, or progressivism, or critical race theory, or any number of perspectives….
For us today, it often seems that libertarianism is not enough; what we really need is left-anarchism or thick libertarianism or non-brutalist libertarianism or any number of camps out there.
In response Jeff Ricketson at the Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS) (“Radicalism as Revolution: A Call for a Fractal Libertarianism,” May 18) has challenged Ruper’s call for monolithic unity and instead praised fractalism as a positive good:
What he should have called for is a libertarianism united under the common banner of freedom, with passionate, friendly discussion on the issues therein, and a fractal nesting of smaller, more specialized groups.
Fractalism and specialization, he says, are good because they increase the agility, resilience and adaptability of the larger movement in the face of change.
And this is quite true. It’s hard for libertarian activists working in specific communities to relate basic libertarian values to the particular needs and life situations of the people they’re working with, if they have to clear everything with the agenda approval authorities at Party Central Headquarters.
[...]
In any case, calls for One Big Movement, united around a simple common platform with the broadest possible appeal, are fundamentally wrong-headed. This is essentially the same argument that the old establishment Left — some of whom proudly call themselves “verticalists” — have made against the horizontalist direction the Occupy movement has taken. It’s the standard patronizing criticism from managerial-centrists in the liberal and “Progressive” community:
Appoint leaders and adopt a platform!
The thing is, Occupy came very close to doing that. The people from Adbusters and New Yorkers Against Budget Cuts who showed up at the early planning gatherings were all set to agree on One Big Demand for their common agenda, appoint public spokespersons, and all the rest. Had they done so, Occupy would have been another flash-in-the-pan movement that disappeared from the news in a few days. But David Graeber and a handful of other horizontalists — Wobblies and veterans of the Seattle movement — coalesced into an opposition group that quickly replaced the establishment people as the dominant culture within Occupy.
Instead of adopting an official leadership and agenda, Graeber and the horizontalists chose to follow the loosely networked model of the M15 movement in Spain. Instead of one common demand, or a short platform with a few key points, they decided to center their message on the “We are the 99%” meme — in loose opposition to things like the power of corporations and banks over the state, neoliberalism, imperialism, etc. — and let the various subgroups, communities and individuals that made up the broader movement set their own agendas relating their particular needs and concerns to that broader theme.
In other words, Occupy didn’t have a platform — it was a platform. It was a ready-made toolkit, brand and library of imagery and slogans to be used and adapted to the specific needs and agenda of any group that shared the general opposition to neoliberalism and the power of finance-capital.
[...]
The dominant economic and organizational paradigm today is networked, horizontal — stigmergic. It’s the organizational model of movements ranging from Wikipedia and the file-sharing movement to Anonymous and Al Qaeda. In this model, everything is done by individuals or small self-selected affinity groups united around many different agendas. Everything is done by the individual or small group most interested and motivated to do it, most qualified to do it, without waiting for anyone’s permission. And rather than “detracting” from some common mission, the contributions of the individuals and affinity groups are synergistic and mutually reinforcing. In file-sharing networks, when anyone cracks the DRM in a song or movie, it immediately becomes the common property of the whole network. When a new and improved IED is developed by a cell in Al Qaeda Iraq, it can be immediately adopted by any other cell that finds it useful — or left alone by any cell that does not. A stigmergic network is the ultimate in Hayekian distributed knowledge.
We no longer need to aggregate ourselves into large institutions in order to accomplishing anything, or get everybody together on the same page before anyone is allowed to take a step. The activists are already doing it themselves. What they need is simple: support and solidarity. They can decide for themselves what is important to the communities they are part of and work with, and how the broader libertarian agenda relates specifically to them. And meanwhile any of the rest of us can do the same with our own local concerns, while wishing our comrades well in the other sub-movements and offering them solidarity and support whenever we are in a position to do so.
[...]
Last edited by Rothbardian Girl; 02-20-2016 at 11:37 PM.
Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that his justice cannot sleep forever. Thomas Jefferson
I think that is plenty agreeable. I think ways highlighted to deal with this have been good. A 'subjective' section (we will of course *know* that it is not subjective, and that one side is actually right and the other wrong) sounds like a good cure. I'm just saying when it comes to these issues the information given should not be 'States rights'. And further, we need to make sure there is room for advocates of liberty in their different forms, but we should not act like we don't have brains to ensure minimal butthurtness either. I have no segment in mind, just speaking in general.
What did Occupy achieve? They made a lot of noise... but?Had they done so, Occupy would have been another flash-in-the-pan movement that disappeared from the news in a few days.
Starting to sound like an Objectivist.
Where the $#@! have all the Randians gone to anyways? This place used to be crawling with them.
Last edited by idiom; 02-21-2016 at 12:37 AM.
In New Zealand:
The Coastguard is a Charity
Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
The DMV is a private non-profit
Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
A tax return has 4 fields
Business licenses aren't a thing
Prostitution is legal
We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care
I do think Carson was being too charitable by using Occupy as a specific example; however, I don't think the point is really Occupy's success or failure (also, Occupy was in the media for quite a while; not just a few days), but rather the fact that it was a symbolic movement. Different factions that at first didn't appear to have much in common could pick and choose elements of Occupy's imagery/brand in order to signal their shared opposition to the structure of the US economy. Carson does give other, arguably more successful examples (Wikipedia, Al Qaeda) in order to suggest that adopting a common political platform (in other words, a compromise) is not always the best strategy.
If we as a forum are going to undertake this project, Carson is suggesting that it isn't even necessary (though it may be useful and interesting) to hash out the differences between minarchists and anarchists, pro- vs anti-abortionists, strict individualists vs. identity politics strategizers, etc. We can all coexist and collaborate on some things without trying to convince others of the superiority of a particular strain of libertarianism. Of course, the only issue I can foresee is that this forum's active member base just isn't large enough and thus doesn't incorporate enough possible perspectives.
Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that his justice cannot sleep forever. Thomas Jefferson
Liberty is a lady. why have you NOT noticed this depiction sir?
have you EVER seen her depicted otherwise?
why would you not want to protect her?
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
"for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.
Excellent points and post, which go to the operating parameters of the effort. These will be hashed out more as part of the prerequisite goal, so we'll address this again soon.
Thanks!
This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.
Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.
I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.
Do you mean "human psychology"?...marketing and human physiology.
This is pretty exciting stuff. Maybe if everyone offering their "two cents" here would go up to the top, click on "Contribute" and help Bryan get this project off the ground...? (Oh, man, I just flashed back to The Blimp.)
Good point on the optimism, that's something that we can all take to heart.
While there are arguments that there is value in alliances, this effort will not attempt to build collations to support specific issues.
Thanks!
This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.
Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.
I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.
LOL. Good catch. Fixed. Thanks!!Do you mean "human psychology"?
This is pretty exciting stuff. Maybe if everyone offering their "two cents" here would go up to the top, click on "Contribute" and help Bryan get this project off the ground...? (Oh, man, I just flashed back to The Blimp.
This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.
Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.
I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us