| The thing is, libertarians spend all their time arguing theory. Can we make Constitutional government work, which is what you were talking about? Would David Friedman's idea of anarcho-capitalism work, or would it break down? It's all about theory, not about action. You don't solve everything with theory. You solve a lot of problems with trial-and-error. We need a trial-and-error approach to move toward libertarianism. That's the idea of forming splintered states. So you're saying we should form splintered states now? We should be aiming for that. We ought to aim to set up schools, banks, health clinics, and so on that operate without government licenses. Instead, they would have alternative trust mechanisms. We would aim to have businesses that can operate informally, so that they do not withold taxes. So, some sort of secret utopia, like in Atlas Shrugged? No, not secret at all. Completely open. In today's society, it's almost impossible to operate in secret. Secrecy means weakness. In order to be strong, you have to be open. I am thinking more like open, nonviolent defiance of laws that require licenses, paying onerous taxes, and so on. By nonviolent, you mean like Gandhi? Well, like Gandhi in the sense that we would be counting on a civilized society not to engage in severe repression. We would have the same idea. Millions of ordinary, decent Americans engaging in peaceful disobedience, making it awkward for the government to engage in repression. But you know, Gandhi wound up producing a lot of violence. Soon after he started his movement, he renounced it because of violence. And India's independence was extremely violent. Maybe that is because he was dealing with a lot of Muslims. But it also could be that there is a tendency in any revolutionary movement for some sub-group to say, "Hey, we're not getting what we want. We need to start breaking stuff and killing people." If that's the case, then it would be a bad idea to start any sort of revolutionary movement. What would be some examples of nonviolent activities? Run a small school without a license. Do some health care services without a license. Run a small part-time business without complying with the payroll tax. |
I mean, the idea of vouchers or competition among schools here is either disdained as foolishness or if someone speaks in favor, he has to apologize and insist he is not against public education.
In the end, such ideals would be viewed by most as at best overzealous and at worst dangerously cultish. No doubt a lot of people would be sympathetic to the basic idea of standing up to the government, and even more to the idea of controlling your own kid's education. But public education and the idea of taxation are ingrained in the public psyche. The cause would seem more like political grandstanding, not like the noble stands taken by Ghandi and King. In the end, I think such gestures would be neither successful in the short term nor meaningful in the long run.
I'm also a fan of vouchers, but I think schools will always have to be held to some kind of standard. Not all public schools are bad, by the way.
often i hear that parents bright students are told that thier child must not excell to not hurt the feeling of other students.
It is good to bring up Ghandi , who was the master of the non-violence method.
His people were most effective when they were most disaplined , can American Libertarians manage this sort of thing?
Was Thoreau a Libertarian in sprit?
It is good to bring up Gandhi , who was the master of the nonviolence method.
His people were most effective when they were most disciplined , can American Libertarians manage this sort of thing?
Good question. I don't know.
Thanks for saying what I couldn't find the words to say Pooch.
often i hear that parents bright students are told that thier child must not excell to not hurt the feeling of other students.
That such things are ingrained, seems to me, is exactly why something like civil disobedience might be the only means to counter such things. Certainly they won't be changed by elections.
Political grandstanding not noble stands you say. Seems to me, like what King and Ghandi led, a libertarian civil disobedience could be both. Much would depend on getting people willing to spend the time defending these efforts as not petty protests against the so-called "contributing" to society, but as actually contributing to society.
Not successful in the short term you say. The first question that comes to mind is: What civil disobedience movement is ever genuinely successful in the short term? The second question that comes to mind is: What do you mean by "successful"? (No, not to rehash previous meaning arguments, just a straightforward question asking for clarification.) Not meaningful in the long term you say. I think that will depend the commitment of those involved and how it is defended. No one is claiming this will be easy.
This is not to say your criticisms are not valid. But I would say, in my perpetual optimism, that your criticisms are reasons for caution and consideration, but not for abandonment.
Not that I wish you were at a loss for words, as you're usually very articulate, but I tried to follow your and UP's discussion on libertarianism recently, and gave up when I came to the conclusion that it was like trying to read "The Brothers Karamazov" of a message forum.
The government does not set standards for private schools, colleges and universities AT ALL.
These are set by accrediting agancies, such as SACS (Southern Association of College and Schools) There are five of these. As a rule, if a school is not approved by SACS or one of the others (Western, North Central, New England),then the feds will not loan money to students to attend said school.
QuoteIt is good to bring up Gandhi , who was the master of the nonviolence method.
His people were most effective when they were most disciplined , can American Libertarians manage this sort of thing?QuoteGood question. I don't know.
That is not optional , it is the key .
Many TAG (Talented and Gifted) programs have been dissolved because school officials thought that other kids would feel inferior to those in the programs.
Again, not surprised really, but I confess I don't understand. I mean, understand the reason given, but the reason seems, well, bass ackawards. How can students be encouraged to excel at learning if any hint of excellence is tamped down from the top?
QuoteIt is good to bring up Gandhi , who was the master of the nonviolence method.
His people were most effective when they were most disciplined , can American Libertarians manage this sort of thing?QuoteGood question. I don't know.
That is not optional , it is the key .
I don't know if discipline is so much the key as a leader and spokesperson. In India, there was Ghandi. Here, there was Martin Luther King, Jr. The civil rights movement had a face in King, more so than any of the other notables involved. He spoke for the movement, and when some folks tried to violently protest, he said, no, that is not the way. Who would do this for libertarians? I have no idea.
As a rule, if a school is not approved by SACS or one of the others (Western, North Central, New England),then the feds will not loan money to students to attend said school.
Again, not surprised really, but I confess I don't understand. I mean, understand the reason given, but the reason seems, well, bass ackawards. How can students be encouraged to excel at learning if any hint of excellence is tamped down from the top?
Children are more likely to succeed if they feel good about themselves. Having poor self-esteem leads to failure.
I agree, I'm just not sure that you can muster as much support as a more widely-accept concept of injustice would.
Actually, I was talking about getting immediate sympathy and eventual results. King's actions did that. People noticed him quickly. The bus boycott got results within about a year. That's pretty good short-term return.
Libertarianism doesn't seem to lend itself to acceptance of a leader on a white horse , who they will obey , lacking this quality what sort of quality does Libertarianism have that can motiveat large numbers of people to disciplined action?
Anarchists of the World, Unite! doesn't quite make it as a slogan.
KIng and the bus boycott worked as a valid protest because no one can claim that anyone lacks the right to not take the bus, or that everyone who does ride the bus and pays the same fare should have the right to select their seat.
Libertarianism has none of that. Refusal to pay taxes?
It just won't work.
Not that I wish you were at a loss for words, as you're usually very articulate, but I tried to follow your and UP's discussion on libertarianism recently, and gave up when I came to the conclusion that it was like trying to read "The Brothers Karamazov" of a message forum.
It was a tournament of two damn fine minds (if I do say so myself) beating the hell out of a particular horse.
Oh yeah? What's that supposed to mean?
The theory goes something like this:
Imagine the worlds most intelligent and charming leader , hearding cats.
The quality of the croud that follows is important.
I don't know. I haven't heard your counterargument yet. :D
Imagine the worlds most intelligent and charming leader , hearding cats.
The quality of the croud that follows is important.
I get that, but libertarians are not cats, contrary to popular opinion. And as I said earlier, a leader for this would not have to get every last libertarian minded person to agree with him 100%. Ron Paul is in disagreement with many libertarians regarding immigration, but he still had a lot of support even among those libertarians. Many libertarians who normally advocate not supporting a broken system with voting were arguing this campaign season that people should vote for Ron Paul. I'm not advocating for trying to make Ron Paul the leader of a civil disobedience movement, just trying to point out that leading such a movement might not be as difficult as you seem to think.
I am not saying it can't be done , I am saying it can't be done small.
I get the theory, I just think the theory is wrong. I understand that the people who support it mean well, but it seems obviously counterproductive to me.
I know you were kidding Prince, I'm just trying to reword my original better.
Oh so now you're changing your meaning? >:(
Hey, hey now, that's my argument, poseur.
Hey, that's a compliment, I like The Brothers Karamazov.
Curses! Caught up in plagiarism. I feel so Obama-nable.
OW! Sharp, shooting pain just went through my head. I saw stars and then everything went white for a second. I'm okay now.
Holy crap, warn a guy, will ya? Sheesh.
I shall have the standard "HORRIFICALLY BAD PUN WARNING" indicator installed with all due haste.
My apologies.
Maybe that's why I'm in a bank vault with all these books. Now if only I hadn't broken my glasses.
Give it another go UP, I was only in my early 20's when I did the Brothers Karamazov. I'll admit though, that I prefer Dostoyevsky to Tolstoy.