Freedomain Radio

This is actually the only area in which I disagree with you, Stefan. I don't say that lightly because I think you're kind of a badass. But because of the RP campaign, I started reading minarchist writings. Eventually, I came upon Rothbard. And then my head was filled with an intellectual flashlight and I became an anarchist.

I think sometimes there are far reaching effects that are quite real, and quite powerful. And if there are other individuals like myself (and there are) who, because of the campaign eventually snuggle up to anarcho-capitalism, then that counts as awesomeness.

That's officially my two cents. Ten bucks after inflation! Woo-hoo!

Speaking of inflation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_LWQQrpSc4

This is an argument from anectdote, though.  Certainly some people have actually progressed, but it certainly doesn't seem that the massive outpouring of money wouldn't have been more useful on libertarian websites, meetings, periodicals, books etc.  I mean, you actually yourself learned of real libertarianism through reading.  Ron Paul in this case seems to be merely something that sparked your attention.  But this does not in any way demonstrate that this is typical or strategically superior to other allocations of resources.  And I think there is a strong prima facie argument that nothing encouraging the political is a sound strategic move.

That's a totally good point, Vichy.

On the other hand, I can only really speak from personal experience, and I really don't think I would have been receptive at all if it hadn't been for the RP campaign.

Prior to RP, I was pretty much an anti-Bush statist. Sure, I'd vote 3rd party, but I was still a devout statist. You're right, though, that all that money could've been better spent on other things, but with the state of things and the leviathin that is the state, we kinda have to apprciate what we have, and again, for me it all started with RP.

Even though I can't support RP, or politicians at all anymore,  I am still thankful for the campaign as a starting point for me.

Peace.

Beez, what would you say is most important to you: your anarchism as a part of your identity, or knowledge of the truth as a value toward happiness?

If it is the former, then the fact that you are here is nice in the sense that its nice to see the listenership grow, but its sort of irrelevant, because here isn't really a place for anarchists, as-such, but for people who are interested in the truth (and thus, their own happiness).

If it is the latter, then the fact that Ron Paul led you here is sort of irrelevant also, because it could have been anything that led you here. In other words, Ron Paul is just an accidental catalyst, not a necessary step, toward your own search for the truth (and thus, happiness).

 yea beeztown i agree i came here from Ron Paul, because he valued the truth a little more then other politicians but when he statrted saying things that seemed to contradict each other, it kinda made sense to look for the truth outside convetional new stations.

I'd have to say both, Greg. Identity is important, and having a worldview not littered with notions of aggression is something I am happy to assimilate into who I am.

However, "knowledge of the truth as a value toward happiness" is also fundementally important as the embrace of truth makes me feel, well, happier.

It's true anything could have brought me here, and if something else did, then I would give that props as my guiding post. But that kind of perspective is kind of moot, because there are a lot of possibilities in life that often lead to the same end, and in my case it was RP and not the "anything else" you referenced.

And I would say this is, in fact, a place for anarchists because, well, the dude who runs it has written books like Everyday Anarchy and what-not.

Anarchy is a philosophical framework of truth, which is the road we pave toward happiness. So maybe it's an issue of both/and.

Beeztown:

On the other hand, I can only really speak from personal experience, and I really don't think I would have been receptive at all if it hadn't been for the RP campaign.

If you have been reading up on economics, I'm sure you have come around the broken window fallacy from Bastiat. It states that you have to be careful with the positive things you see happening and you should not forget the positive things that are not happening because of it.

So the glazier is fixing the broken window which is great business for him, but you can't see the new suit the baker can not buy because he had to spend the money on a new window. You have to imagine the suit maker sitting sad at home because he can not make a new suit for the baker, since his window is broken and he had to buy a new one.

You can see that you got to the truth because of RP, but you can not see what could have happened with those resources if e.g. Stef had gotten them. Don't count out the invisible use that these libertarian dollars could have had and their influence on you and maybe 10 others.

Makes any sense ?

Beeztown:

Anarchy is a philosophical framework of truth,

Anarchy is not a philosophical framework. It is merely the effect of - the consequence of - a philosophical framework.

Hmmmmm, I can't say I agree with you on that. But I think we may start to drown in semantics soon, so I'll opt out of that, and in any case I think we likely agree on stuff anyway, lol.

We thinkers just can't help ourselves can we?

Beeztown:

Hmmmmm, I can't say I agree with you on that. But I think we may start to drown in semantics soon, so I'll opt out of that, and in any case I think we likely agree on stuff anyway, lol.

We thinkers just can't help ourselves can we?

 Greg makes a good point. Are you interested in having a political position or are you interested in examining the world from first principles?

Coming to a political position like anarchy is inconsequential if the proccess cannot be replicated for others. But that a fundamental examination of the world brings you to anarchy, among other things, that can be reproduced and studied in others.

The fact that we al examine the arguments from morality and effect, debate them, realize the value of voluntarism in our lives and no unchosen positive obligations, plus the NAP, and after all that we realize that the only social aggregation system should be anarchy, that says a lot more than just saying I was for Ron Paul and I'm now an anarchist.

What do you think?

Victor, you guys both make great points, and all I was saying in the first place in relation to RP was that, in my case, it is a correct assertion that I arrived to this way of knowing with the RP campaign as the starting point. While it is true that it could have been anything, that is a relative statement, and in my case it is what it is.

I believe in peace, voluntary transactions, and competitive markets unhindered by violence. Anarchy is the only way of knowing that is truly peaceful at its core.

As I told Greg, we all hunger for a position that is in line with who we are, something that helps us interact with community and not feel angry and dirty. So, yes, selfishly enough I love having a political position that values life, liberty, and love.

I am also quite interested in examining the world throught the lens of life, liberty, and love, and therefore embrace both, because no matter who you are, we are our choices and decisions are what help define us as individuals and thats ok because it's natural law.

I feel like I'm being boxed into an either/or philosophical conundrum, and as a very holisitc person I reject it. So in answer to your thoughtful post, Victor, I say both.

Beeztown:

I feel like I'm being boxed into an either/or philosophical conundrum, and as a very holisitc person I reject it. So in answer to your thoughtful post, Victor, I say both.

Your original post was on the lines that we should not think that the Ron Paul campaing was a disaster, because it was a step taken by many on the way towards the truth. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

What I, and I'm sure others including Stef, argue is that in fact this campaing was desastrous to the truth being brought out to people.

But on your point, I guess you are trying to look at things on the bright side. Like it's not so bad we lost because we are wiser now. Just remember that while one looses, others win. I don't think we should rescue these lost causes battles from the abyss of oblivion. We should rid ourselves of these bad habits of on mass procrastination.

What do you think?

I can see what your saying, man. And what stings even more is that minarchy can seem really attractive. But, alas, it's still the state, and therefore will STILL be wrought with the rotten core. 

A giant movement supporting that is kind of moot in terms of freedom, lol.

So let me put it in other words: the RP campaign was not a disaster for ME, just one dude in Oregon, because it was my starting point and here I am.

I'm being pretty selfish about the whole thing, really, because if we think about it in the over all big picture, yeah, just more violence masked in minarchy. I guess what's so scary about minarchy is that it's so much EASIER to accept the violence. Smaller state, less violence, no problem!

Cheers.

Minarchism is very tempting, for a wide variety of reasons -- it hooks into existing concepts of how society should be run, it does not alarm and alienate people in quite the way that anarchism does, it has a wide network of socially acceptable groups, and it does not preclude the anxiety relief of political action...

But there is a huge difference between "small" government and "no" government - it is the greatest divide of all, I think sometimes. There is I think no greater difference than the gap between the minarchist and the anarchist, just as there is no greater difference between the atheist biologist and the biologist who says that God plays only a "small hand" in the development of life...