Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

New Libertarian Manifesto

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 9:49:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
New Libertarian Manifesto by SEK3

Part I - Statism: Our Condition

We are coerced by our fellow human beings. Since they have the ability to choose to do otherwise, our condition need not be this. Coercion is immoral, inefficient and unnecessary for human life and fulfillment. Those who wish to be supine as their neighbors prey on them are free to so choose; this manifesto is for those who choose otherwise: to fight back.

To combat coercion, one must understand it. More importantly, one must understand what one is fighting for as much as what one is fighting against. Blind reaction goes in all directions negative to the source of oppression and disperses opportunity; pursuit of a common goal focuses the opponents and allows formation of coherent strategy and tactics.

Diffuse coercion is optimally handled by local, immediate self-defense. Though the market may develop larger-scale businesses for protection and restoration, random threats of violence can only be dealt with roots of mysticism and delusions planted deep in the victims' thinking, requires a grand strategy and a cataclysmic point of historical singularity: Revolution.

Such an institution of coercion, centralizing immorality, directing theft and murder, and co-ordinating oppression on a scale inconceivable by random criminality exists. It is the Mob of mobs, Gang of gangs, Conspiracy of conspiracies. It has murdered more people in a few recent years than all the deaths in history before that time; it has stolen in a few recent years more than all the wealth produced in history to that time; it has deluded - for its survival - more minds in a few recent years than all the irrationality of history to that time. Our Enemy, The State. [2]

In the 20th Century alone, war has murdered more than all previous deaths; taxes and inflation have stolen more than all wealth previously produced; and the political lies, propaganda, and above all, "Education" have twisted more minds than all the superstition prior; yet through all the deliberate confusion and obfuscation, the thread of reason has developed fibers of resistance to be woven into the rope of execution for the State: Libertarianism.

Where the State divides and conquers its opposition, Libertarianism unites and liberates. Where the State beclouds, Libertarianism clarifies; where the State conceals, Libertarianism uncovers; where the State pardons, Libertarianism accuses.

Libertarianism elaborates an entire philosophy from one simple premise: initiatory violence or its threat (coercion) is wrong (immoral, evil, bad, supremely impractical, etc) and is forbidden; nothing else is. [3]

Libertarianism, as developed to this point, discovered the problem and defined the solution: the State vs the Market. The Market is the sum of all voluntary human action. [4] If one acts non-coercively, one is part of the Market. Thus did Economics become part of Libertarianism.

Libertarianism investigated the nature of man to explain his rights deriving from non-coercion. It immediately followed that man (woman, child, Martian, etc.) had an absolute right to this life and other property - and no other. Thus did Objective philosophy become part of Libertarianism.

Libertarianism asked why society was not libertarian now and found the State, its ruling class, its camouflage, and the heroic historians striving to reveal the truth. Thus did Revisionist History become part of Libertarianism.

Psychology, especially as developed by Thomas Szasz as counter-psychology, was embraced by libertarians seeking to free themselves from both state restraint and self-imprisonment.

Seeking an art form to express the horror potential of the State and extrapolate the many possibilities of liberty, Libertarianism found Science Fiction already in the field.

From the political, economic, philosophical, psychological, historical and artistic realms the partisans of liberty saw a whole, integrating their resistance with others elsewhere, and they came together as their consciousness became aware. Thus did Libertarians become a Movement. The Libertarian Movement looked around and saw the challenge: everywhere, Our Enemy, The State, from the ocean's depth past arid outposts to the lunar surface in every land, people, tribe, nation - and individual mind. Some sought immediate alliance with other opponents of the power elite to overthrow the State's present rulers. [5] Some sought immediate confrontation with the State's agents. [6] Some pursued collaboration with those in power who offered less oppression for votes. [7] And some dug in for long-term enlightenment of the populace to build and develop the Movement. [8] Everywhere, a Libertarian Alliance of activists sprang up. [9]

The State's Higher Circles were not about to yield their plunder and restore property to their victims at the first sign of opposition. The first counter- attack came from anti-principles already planted by the corrupt Intellectual Caste: Defeatism, Retreatism, Minarchy, Collaborationism, Gradualism, Monocentris and Reformism - including accepting State office to "improve" Statism! All of these anti-principles (deviations, heresies, self-destructive contradictory tenets, etc.) will be dealt with later. Worst of all is Partyarchy, the anti-concept of pursuing libertarian ends through statist means, especially political parties.

A "Libertarian" Party was the second counter-attack of the State unleased on the fledgling Libertarians, first as a ludicrous oxymoron [10], then as an invading army. [11]

The third counter-attack was an attempt by one of the ten richest capitalists in the United States to buy the major Libertarian institutions - not just the Party - and run the movement as other plutocrats run all the other political parties in capitalist states. [12]

The degree of success those statist counter-attacks had in corrupting liber- tarianism led to a splintering of the Movement's "Left" and the despairing paralyzation of others. As disillusionment grew with "Libertarianism," the disillusioned sought answers to this new problem: the State within as well as the State without. How do we avoid being used by the State and its power elite? That is, they asked, how can we avoid deviations from the path of liberty when we know there are more than one? The market has many paths to production and consumption of a product, and none are perfectly predictable. So even if one tells us how to get from here (statism) to there (liberty), how do we know that's the best way?

Already some are dredging up the old strategies of movements long dead with other goals. New paths are indeed being offered - back to the State. [13]

Betrayal, inadvertent or planned, continues. It need not.

While no one can predict the sequence of steps which will unerringly achieve a free society for free-willed individuals, one can eliminate in one slash all those which will not advance Liberty, and applying the principles of the Market unwaveringly will map out a terrain to travel. There is no One Way, one straight line graph to Liberty, to be sure. But there is a family of graphs, a Space filled with lines, which will take the libertarian to his goal of the free society, and that Space can be described.

Once the goal is fixed and the paths discovered, only the Action of the individual to go from here to there remains. Above all else, this manifesto calls for that Action. [14]

Read it all here: http://www.blackcrayon.com...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 9:50:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Footnotes
---------

[1] I am indebted to Robert LeFevre for this insight, though we draw differing conclusions.

[2] Thank you, Albert J. Nock, for that phrase.

[3] Modern Libertarianism is best explained by Murray Rothbard in For A New Liberty, which, regardless how recent the edition, is always a year or more out of date. Recommending even the best writing on libertarianism is like recommending one song to explain music in all its forms.

[4] Thank you, Ludwig Von Mises.

[5] Radical Libertarian Alliance, 1968-71

[6] Student Libertarian Action Movement, 1968-72, later revived briefly as a proto-MLL.

[7] Citizens for a Restructured Republic, 1972, made up of RLA members disillusioned with revolution.

[8] Society for Individual Liberty 1969- . Also Rampart College (now defunct) and the Foundation for Economic Education and Free Enterprise Institute all who were around before the libertarian population explosion of 1969.

[9] Most importantly, the California Libertarian Alliance, 1969-73. The name is still kept alive for sponsorship of conferences and in the United Kingdom.

[10] The first "Libertarian" Party was set up by Gabriel Aguilar and Ed Butler in California in 1970, as a hollow shell to gain media access. (Aguilar, a Galambosian, was staunchly anti-political.) Even Nolan's "L"P was mocked and scorned by such as Murray Rothbard in the first year of its existence.

[11] The "Libertarian" Party which eventually organized nationally and ran John Hospers and Toni Nathan for President and Vice-President in 1972 was first organized by David and Susan Nolan in December 1971 in Colorado. D. Nolan was a Massachusetts YAFer who had broken with YAF back in 1967 and missed the 1969 climax in St. Louis. He remained conservative and minarchist right up to this first edition.

Although the Nolans were rather innocent, and other early organizations and candidates often so, the debate on the "Party Question" began immediately. New Libertarian Notes attacked the "L"P concept in Spring of 1972 and ran a debate between Nolan and Konkin just before the election (NLN 15).

By the 1980 presidential campaign, the Nolans had broken with the "L"P leadership of Ed Crane and his candidate Ed Clark who ran a high-powered, high-financed, traditional vote-chasing and platform-trimming campaign.

[12] Charles G. Koch, Wichita oil billionaire, through his relatives, foundations, institutes and centers bought or set up or "bought out" the following from 1976-1979: Murray Rothbard and his Libertarian Forum; Libertarian Review (from Robert Kephart) edited by Roy. A. Childs; Students for a Libertarian Society (SLS) run by Milton Mueller; Center for Libertarian Studies (Rothbard-leaning) and Joe Peden; Inquiry edited by Williamson Evers; Cato Institute; and various Koch Funds, Foundations and Institutes. Named the "Kochtopus" in New Libertarian 1 (February, 1978), it was first attacked in print by Edith Efron in the conservative-libertarian publication Reason, along with allegations of an "anarchist" conspiracy. The Movement of the Libertarian Left cut away from Efron's anti-anarchist ravings and rushed to support her on her key revelation of the growth of monocentrism in the Movement.

In 1979, the Kochtopus took control of the National Libertarian Party at the Los Angeles convention. David Koch, Charles' brother, openly bought the VP nomination for $500,000.

[13] Murray Rothbard broke with the Kochtopus soon after the '79 LP Convention and most of his close allies were purged such as Williamson Evers of Inquiry. CLS was cut off from Koch funding. The Libertarian Forum began attacking Koch. Rothbard and young Justin Raimondo set up a new "radical" caucus of the LP (the first one, 1972-74, was run by progenitors of NLA as a recruiting tactic and to destroy the Party from within).

Although Rothbard was moved to ask "Is Sam Konkin right?" in his July 1980 speech to a RC dinner in Orange County, the RC strategy is to reform the LP using New Left and neo-Marxist tactics.

[14] I hope subsequent editions may omit this note, but in the present historical context it is vital to point out that Libertarianism is not specifically for the most "advanced" or enlightened elements in North America, perhaps typified by the young, white, highly-read computer consultant, equally feminist mate (and 1/2 children).

Only the freest market can raise the "Second" and "Third World" from grinding poverty and self-destructive superstition. Compulsory attempts to critically raise production standards and associated cultural understanding have caused backlash and regression: e.g. Iran and Afghanistan. Mostly, the State has engaged in deliberate repression of self-improvement.

Quasi-free markets, such as the free ports of Hong Kong, Singapore, and Shanghai (earlier), attracted floods of upwardly-mobile, highly motivated entrepreneurs. The incredibly highly developed black market of Burma already runs the entire economy and needs only a libertarian awareness to oust Ne Win and the Army and accelerated trade to annihilate poverty almost overnight.

Similar observations are possible about developed black markets and tolerated semi-free markets in the "Second World" of Soviet occupation such as Armenia, Georgia and the Russian counter-economy.

[15] Note to Second Edition: The above note is still, sadly enough, needed.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 6:26:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think Anarchy would indeed be one of or the most economically efficient system possible. But I have recently considered that perhaps economic efficiency isn't the only thing that should go into describing the condition of living within a certain area. Perhaps a minimum standard of living would be nice.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 6:28:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 6:26:51 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I think Anarchy would indeed be one of or the most economically efficient system possible. But I have recently considered that perhaps economic efficiency isn't the only thing that should go into describing the condition of living within a certain area. Perhaps a minimum standard of living would be nice.

Sure, if not funded by violent coercion and theft.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2010 1:13:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Poorly written, meandering, confused and childish.

Also it appears to be preaching Anarchism not Libertarianism.

If the relevant ideologues can tell me how something approaching modern society can function without hierachy, laws, punishment, obligations and dispute resolution then I will climb on board.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2010 1:39:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/1/2010 1:13:38 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Poorly written, meandering, confused and childish.

Also it appears to be preaching Anarchism not Libertarianism.

If the relevant ideologues can tell me how something approaching modern society can function without hierachy, laws, punishment, obligations and dispute resolution then I will climb on board.

Only Anarcho-Syndicalism thinks it can get rid of all hierarchies.
In Free-Market Anarchism there are voluntary hierarchies, laws do exist and there is punishment. It just funds them in a way which doesn't abuse property rights.
Think of it this way, on it's most basic level it is like every individual property acting as it's own individual nation with the land-owner as it's ruler.
These laws are enforced by voluntary contract with a private defense agency.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2010 3:00:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/1/2010 1:39:39 AM, FREEDO wrote:

Think of it this way, on it's most basic level it is like every individual property acting as it's own individual nation with the land-owner as it's ruler.
These laws are enforced by voluntary contract with a private defense agency.

Laws enforced by voluntary contract... they are enforced or voluntary. If enforced then this system offers nothing new, if voluntary then they have no value, a private defense agency implies force as well. What occurs when multiple agencies have a jurisdiction dispute... or right.. in the real world dont we call that a war between countries?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2010 8:56:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/1/2010 3:00:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Laws enforced by voluntary contract... they are enforced or voluntary. If enforced then this system offers nothing new, if voluntary then they have no value, a private defense agency implies force as well. What occurs when multiple agencies have a jurisdiction dispute... or right.. in the real world dont we call that a war between countries?

A finds property missing and reports it to the insurance company IA. IA either through another division or through a separate detective agency (D) investigates. IA promptly replaces the object to A so that loss of use of good is minimized. D Now may fail to discover the missing property. In that case, the loss to IA is covered by the premiums paid for the insurance. Note well that in order to keep premiums low and competitive, IA has a strong incentive to maximize retrieval of stolen or lost goods. (One could wax eloquent for volumes on the lack of such incentive for monopoly detection systems such as State police forces, and their horrendous social cost.)

IF D does discover the goods, say in B's possession, and B freely returns them (perhaps induced by reward), the case is closed. Only if B claims property right in the object also claimed by A does conflict arise.

B has insurance company IB which may perform its own independent investigation and convince IA that D erred. Failing that, IA and IB are now in conflict. At this point, the standard objections to market anarchy have been brought up that the "war" between A and B has been enlarged to include large insurance companies which may have sizeable protection divisions or contracts with protection companies (PA and PB). But wherein lies the incentive for IA and IB to use violence and destroy not only its competitor's assets but surely at least some of its own? They have even less incentive in a market society long established; the companies have specialists and capital tied up in defense. Any company investigating in offense would become highly suspect and surely lose customers in a predominantly Libertarian society (which is what is under discussion).

Very cheaply and profitably, IA and IB can simply pay and arbitration company to settle the dispute, presenting their respective claims and evidence. If B has rightful claim, IA drops the case, taking its small loss (compared to war!) and has excellent incentive to improve its investigation. If A has rightful claim, the reverse is now true for IB.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2010 9:20:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/1/2010 8:56:17 AM, Reasoning wrote:
But wherein lies the incentive for IA and IB to use violence and destroy not only its competitor's assets but surely at least some of its own?

The same incentive that justifies most violence, if the perceived benefits of victory greatly outweigh the risk of defeat individuals, states and corporations will resort to war. You can simply assume that as profit would be the made objective of these companies they would not resort to violence.

They have even less incentive in a market society long established; the companies have specialists and capital tied up in defense. Any company investigating in offense would become highly suspect and surely lose customers in a predominantly Libertarian society (which is what is under discussion).

That sounds like you are waving a magic wand to smooth over the glaring problems. It can not be assumed that the consumers would turn against a company after it reaches a mystical watershed of military spending. How many people have boycotted Coca-Cola or Shell for their military branches.


Very cheaply and profitably, IA and IB can simply pay and arbitration company to settle the dispute, presenting their respective claims and evidence. If B has rightful claim, IA drops the case, taking its small loss (compared to war!) and has excellent incentive to improve its investigation. If A has rightful claim, the reverse is now true for IB.

What if they can not mutually decide on an arbitration company, what if one party rejects the terms of the arbitration. Like all radical or utopian philiosophies it is just assumed that people will behave differently after the 'revolution'.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2010 11:13:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/1/2010 9:20:17 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/1/2010 8:56:17 AM, Reasoning wrote:
But wherein lies the incentive for IA and IB to use violence and destroy not only its competitor's assets but surely at least some of its own?

The same incentive that justifies most violence, if the perceived benefits of victory greatly outweigh the risk of defeat individuals, states and corporations will resort to war. You can simply assume that as profit would be the made objective of these companies they would not resort to violence.

Sure.

They have even less incentive in a market society long established; the companies have specialists and capital tied up in defense. Any company investigating in offense would become highly suspect and surely lose customers in a predominantly Libertarian society (which is what is under discussion).

That sounds like you are waving a magic wand to smooth over the glaring problems. It can not be assumed that the consumers would turn against a company after it reaches a mystical watershed of military spending. How many people have boycotted Coca-Cola or Shell for their military branches.

We are speaking of a market society "long established". Surely a company that has something to lose from an aggressive agency would want to publicize such danger. Besides, this is a relatively minor irrelevant point.

Very cheaply and profitably, IA and IB can simply pay and arbitration company to settle the dispute, presenting their respective claims and evidence. If B has rightful claim, IA drops the case, taking its small loss (compared to war!) and has excellent incentive to improve its investigation. If A has rightful claim, the reverse is now true for IB.

What if they can not mutually decide on an arbitration company, what if one party rejects the terms of the arbitration.

Then they reject the terms of arbitration and the other side will weigh the costs and benefits of further action.

Like all radical or utopian philiosophies it is just assumed that people will behave differently after the 'revolution'.

On the contrary, we do not expect the creation of "libertarian man" who never engages in initiatory coercion. Anarchism is simply the most economically efficient and most moral (lack of a) system.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2010 2:25:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/1/2010 1:19:25 PM, Volkov wrote:
The "New Libertaran Manifesto" seems an awful lot like the old one.

The New Libertarian Manifesto and TEOL are very different documents.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2010 2:28:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/1/2010 2:25:19 PM, Reasoning wrote:
The New Libertarian Manifesto and TEOL are very different documents.

I don't know what the TEOL is; my point was that the statements made do not seem to be any different from anything any libertarian or anarchists - or pseudo-anarchists - have said since my time on this site or in the wide world of political ideologies. Glad you're defining things for yourselves, but this stuff isn't "new" by any standard.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2010 7:23:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 6:26:51 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I think Anarchy would indeed be one of or the most economically efficient system possible. But I have recently considered that perhaps economic efficiency isn't the only thing that should go into describing the condition of living within a certain area. Perhaps a minimum standard of living would be nice.

I think both are equally bad ideas.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 3:46:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/2/2010 8:13:18 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 2/28/2010 6:26:51 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Perhaps a minimum standard of living would be nice.

It's called "being alive."

Yea... so a shortage of food, drinking water, healthcare, education and permanent civil war... so long as someone is alive the anarchist set up will be deemed a grand success!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.