The Movimiento Libertario and gardening

Hi, Jorge! The term "leashitarian" was coined right here, by co-conspirator Cat Farmer in response to Skeptical Man's best post.
Oh, wait ... it's his only post. :O Anyway, I liked the term and have been using it ever since.

Sorry to hear about your roses!

Google turned up 3 hits. The welcome post and this one will make five. Four here and one on Salty Pig's blog.

I like the term as well, just hope it isn't being applied to all who use political action as a tool.

I promise you will get more than one post from me.

--jorge

"political action as a tool"

that's an interesting phrase. but let's cut through it. what "political action as a tool" means is purely the use of coercion. you say that part of the movimiento libertario pledge is that one "will never act to increase state power". but what of sanctioning and using state power? have the movimiento libertario adherents stopped to consider the long-term problems of such a position?

i unequivocally reject "movimiento libertario", FSP, and all other attempts to "work with" the evil of the state. and yes, to be frank, from what i've read here i consider you to be a leashitarian, jorge.

the state is evil. becoming the state, regardless of intentions, is not something i believe moral people can ever do. the proper way for the state to function, if one must exist, is to know that it will get its nuts blown off when it crosses the line. that's how this country was supposed to operate, but the line was crossed slowly enough that it never seemed the "right" time to most people. it seemed that wiping out the groping sort of tyrant was "overreaction". it's not. we know that now.

john acton wrote the book on the death of all such movements which look too long into the abyss.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

all politicians should consider themselves to have nooses around their necks. it is only through force that the jewel of liberty may be preserved -- lofty intentions be damned. government should be considered a high-risk occupation, in which case it wouldn't matter how "libertarian" the latest would-be tyrant might be. no, i say to hell with "movimiento libertario". it is individual people, not the state, who decide their levels of slavery.

Well, Salty, tell us what you really think! ;)

I'm wondering if you're conflating "political action" and electoral political action. You and I agree in our views of electoral political action (as far as I understand yours); yet I have a strong interest in what ML is attempting to do. I'm not at all convinced it can, or will, work, but 'tis a fascinating experiment all the same. And it's not as if the 42 ancaps in this country are having much success at swinging it to liberty ...

You got some ideas on how to accomplish that? I don't mean that as sarcasm, or a belligerent challenge. I'm genuinely curious as to smart, thinking individuals' responses to that question. How can a pro-freedom movement successfully bring down a full-fledged tyrannical government? Charley, if you'd like conspirator privileges to post your answer here, I'll do it. If others want to chime in, please say so here, or email me, and we'll talk about the possibilities.

right. when i say "political action" up there, i'm talking about the ML brand. and thanks for the post priv offer, but i'm fine in the comments.

the answer is simple yet painful. there is only one way a pro-freedom movement can successfully bring down a full-fledged tyrannical government: spread seeds of liberty. it's damned slow, but it's what lew rockwell has done and is doing, despite all the people with no better ideas pissing on him. a tyrannical government can only survive with the weight of public approval. that approval must be removed first, and it cannot be done with, through, or by force. frankly, we're in a slow race to collapse the government before it finishes itself (and probably us) first. given the stupidity out there, i don't give our method much hope. nothing else comes close though.

if one hears me say that, and also examines what i've said about heading always in the right direction, it might seem then that i agree with ML. i do not. i will never agree with anybody who says, "electing Libertarians to office is not enough."

that base acceptance of libertarians in "office" is a deadly flaw, and must be fought as such, despite whatever sense it's sprinkled in. if one is going to accept ML, then he must also accept tim mcveigh, a mostly pure ideologue with a similarly fatal flaw, albeit one that was more direct and obvious. mcveigh's beliefs are often pissed on, even by the liberty community, because of his horrible blunder. however, his ideology was pretty much inarguable. at worst he was the equal of your standard govgoon, but that's only theoretical, since most govgoons don't have the balls to kill directly. almost sorry to bring this up here, because it requires at least a separate article.

a better example, perhaps: i long ago dropped out of the NRA. you can send thousands to the NRA, or you can spend hundreds taking your newbie neighbors and acquaintances shooting. working through "the system" only glorifies that system. using it to purportedly spread the message of liberty is such a catastrophic blunder, it makes mcveigh seem like a master tactician. reminds me of the local "Libertarian" fools who practically creamed their pants at the chance to have an "adopt-a-highway" sign erected with the LP name on it. but how could you ever look a convert in the eye after reaching him through such means? you violated your core tenet to further your core tenet?

ML might make short-term inroads against tyranny. however, in the long term it gives credence and mass acceptance to a system that must, at best, be tolerated with a gun to its head. the liberty lovers must remain outside of "government". and yes, i include ron paul in that statement.

So, Charley, are moles out of the question in your approach?

i think that in a correctly bold approach, moles would be a waste of energy.

if the penalty for not signing a traffic ticket is kidnapping and extortion, imagine what the penalty for those who hold and enact such beliefs should be! i'm for removing the timidity from our eyes, and telling these jackals that their hostility will be returned in at least equal measure, but with an intensity only truth can provide.

going to take a lot of work to get to that stage, but it starts with recognizing and exposing what nasty folks they are, not joining forces with them.

Ah, while I was off helping to convince the hapless people of Costa Rica that the state is a good thing I see my nefarious plot to give moral sanction to government was uncovered. Curses, Curses, I say!

But seriously folks:

People like charley and I will never agree. Just like people who believe that government program X is a good thing and I will never agree. A long time ago I decided that it was pointless to argue, because, at least when I did it, no one changed their minds. I want to change the world, not feel morally superior to anyone. I have found that if I found common ground I could build from there. With people who are working actively for change, I try to find the things we agree with and work together on them. If I can't find anything we agree on, then I leave them in peace, and hope they will grant me the same courtesy. I just do not have the time to waste fighting anyone other than the state.

If charley thinks that people like myself, Ron Paul, the US LP, the LDP in Australia, the Movimiento Libertario in Costa Rica, and countless others are evil, well, that is up to him. If he thinks that the "damned slow" approach is better than "short-term inroads against tyranny", then by all means, he should work on that "damned slow" approach.

I think this approach will end up with the government finishing us long before it is even marginally successful. Which is why I do not choose it. If someone has a different assessment, they should follow the dictates of their own reason. I do not spend my time "pissing" on Lew Rockwell. No one in the ML does. The few who know of him, like his stuff. In any event we are far too busy engaging a real enemy on a day to day basis, to start creating imaginary ones.

I think the short term inroads will turn into permanent ones. I think people's thinking can shift from seeing the state as the only provider of a "good" to thinking "why is government doing that at all?" In fact I know it can happen because I see it in Costa Rica all the time.

I was thinking today of giving a bit of the ML's history and talking about the impact it has had in Costa Rica. Now I will definitely do it. It will probably not happen until Thursday.

charley, I wish you the best of luck with your approach and hope that you can achieve Liberty with it. My assessment, more years ago than I care to remember, was that it will not work. I will be happy to be proven wrong.

Hola and welcome, Jorge.

Circumstances may present an entirely different set of options to individual people in various places, times and cultures. I may share Charley's feeling that it seems pointless to work with or within the US government, but I'd still applaud any honest efforts towards achieving the goal of individual liberty. If there was one fool-proof way to do that effectively, I suppose someone would have patented the process by now. ;)

However inconsistent or strange it may seem of me, I admire Ron Paul - I like those people who prove themselves exceptional in breaking rules, and lend credibility to the concept of rule of law in taking it seriously instead of treating it an insider's joke.

Your shoes would probably look funny on me, and my feet might start to hurt if I walked very far in them... but if you find them fitting and comfortable I'd be glad to see them get you to where you're trying to go. :)

A long time ago I decided that it was pointless to argue, because, at least when I did it, no one changed their minds. I want to change the world, not feel morally superior to anyone.

...more years ago than I care to remember...

man, does that sound eerily and recently familiar on this blog. that and more.

you want to "change the world" through disguised force, jorge. your language (much more than quoted above) is that of a drugstore politician, and it sure isn't fooling me nor my years -- all of which i do care to remember.

here's a training snippet for you, though you've done quite well without it: "Konkel also said she doesn't think the council would be open to modifying the ban. 'Many of us are happy to put this to rest and move on to other issues,' Konkel said."

there are those who know how to get along with others, and those who don't. funny how sometimes those people are flipped 180 degrees from immediate perceptions.