Tim Moen:
You've given me some interesting things think about Victor. What would a more legitimate first step at dissolving government be? You seem to imply that by simply living honestly and exuding joy we can bring down government and I don't necessarily disagree.... but this strategy it seems would take hundreds of years. I'm also not sure that pacifism is a morally defensible position when one is being coerced, threatened, or attacked. A libertarian constitution in my mind would not break UPB, because, it would allow people the maximum freedom to do what they want despite what someone in government might say. The only way to break the constitution would be by acting violently against another human, since I believe that self defense is a UPB, I believe that constitutionally allowing an individual this right, especially against government, is the first step to political freedom. So yes you must comply or risk being shot.
I agree with you about the likely futility of this strategy, but, it still seems slightly less futile than being honest, curious, reasonable, joyful and skeptical... because I could be all those things in a political office. Fear not, I continue to listen to the podcasts, maybe I'll have an epiphany and understand what you are talking about.
Tim. I want to say that I'm enjoing this interaction. I find you open and reasonable and like the clarity with which you put foward your arguments.
And you're right to an extent. This strategy takes a long time to bring down government and you're also right in saying that we are being coerced, thus alowing for self-defense or extreme measures.
But what we don't want to do is beging swinging in the dark here. We don't want to produce a weak strategy that has us spending time, money and effort when it is not going where we want to go.
Certainly no person or group or movement has ever proposed to dismantle the state to substitute it by nothing else. At least in this the anarco-capitalist movement is different. But this fundamental difference of the movement comes out of realizing the inmorality of the initiation of the use of force. This alone, the argument from morality, produces the biggest shift in political thinking in the history of humanity.
With that in mind, we should consider then methods for bringing about this change, that are in-line with the core believes of the movement. You don't want to propose capitalism in a comunist country and beging your plan by setting government farms. You would end up alienating those people who are truly after a change in the system, and would atract those who want to fake that they are doing something when in fact they are just keeping the status quo.
In the same way, if we believe that the NAP is fundamental, then we cannot advocate to institute non-violonce through violent means.
THere are many podcasts that go into this topic, and rich literature in the series on anarchy that Stef has written.
I personaly, at the moment at least, prefer to discus things about personal freedom and happiness. I think that the state of things in the world and in your country causes anxiety in you and you feel like you have to take action. In my life I passed through a similar stage. I then realized that the urgency I felt was misplaced, as I realized that it was my life that was under coercion, manipulation, falseness and abuse. It is impossible that I be more affected by the distant and generalized abuse of a state than by the inmediate and much more humiliating abuse of my FOO and other relationships.
Plus, when you set out to free the world before you free your personal life, you kind of are setting yourself for failure from the start.
I've seen people who do that; people who choose exactly the wrong method or futile attempt at something, with the unconcious aim of failing, so that they later have the option to say, well I tried and it didn't work, so leave me alone; I've done my part. Like they are chasing closure, not effectiveness.
Trully, if you want to be effective, then you must realize that the plan to take control of government to try and make it smaller has been tried countless times and has never even slowed down it's growth, much less stop or reduce it. In fact, there is evidence that points out that this may have in fact accelerated the growth of goverment. I'm sure you don't want your choices to end up producing a larger state.
There is a lot of info on this in the podcasts, but I'm sure you will eventually find more powerful and interesting the arguments of how to improve our lives and our relationships.
I wanted to ask you something. You said that your children were smart and rational, and that you were certain that they would eventually figure out the falseness of the religious indoctrination they were receiving.
From your earlier post I got the feeling that you agree with some of the things Stef talks about religion being inflicted upon children, and it being a kind of mental abuse. Please don't take this as an accusation, but my question is, are you confortable knowing that your children are subject to this abuse, and that they are left on their own to try and rescue their sanity, not knowing that their father is an atheist and could be there for them to help them out?
I won't let go of past me, but rather invite him to chill at my birthday.