Libertarian Blog

[G. Adams]

Heya guys, I wanted to know how much interest there would be for this idea. I would like to set up a libertarian blog, with intelligent writers from around the world, so what better place to get bloggers than Volconvo?

In my experience most supposed libertarian blogs take on a distinctive conservative (I use this in the British sense...) flavour in regards to foreign policy. This seems like madness to me. They are entirely distrustful of their governments at home, but think their intentions abroad are noble, or at least generally positive. I'm thinking particularly of samizdata.net here, which continually falls in line behind Israel. It's lunacy, how can supporters of private property keep schtum while Israel bulldozers homes and allows settlers to loot anothers land because "they're not making proper use of it". Who the hell is to decide what a proper use is other than it's owner? Let me make it clear however that the website wouldn't have an automatic position on the Israeli question, or any question for that matter. If you have a controversial position please post it with your arguements.

Additionally, I find many blogs too parochial. While our immediate problems as liberty loving citizens are at home, I see no reason why we should be better educated about others. As someone who is becoming a little paranoid after watching too much Alex Jones, it seems more than coincidental that the US and UK governments are working in tandem towards the subjugation of their people. It would be good we could see what is going on daily in this struggle.

What I would like to see with this new blog is a range of libertarians, minarchists, constitutionalists, anarcho-capitalists, tin foil hatters and even an Objectivist or two contributing to produce short articles for a blog, and hopefully essays too. As a goal, I would like to see 3-4 posts per day from the entire team, though not all of them have to be hugely serious. It shouldn't be too difficult for every contributor to put forward a few hundred words every few days regarding any topic that grabs their interest relating to liberty.

One problem is that I have almost zero experience of building a website, but I have a friend who is doing a degree in the relevant stuff (and hopefully can contribute artwork) as well as another friend who used to script computer games, so hopefully I can get help if needed. I'll put up funding, however.

So, would anyone like to write for a libertarian blog if I can get a site up and running?

[Aeris]

Sounds interesting enough at the moment, but it all depends on my job and my schoolwork. I had to drop pretty much everything for my syntax and criminology papers last year.

[Capitalist Pig]

Quote by: G. Adams In my experience most supposed libertarian blogs take on a distinctive conservative (I use this in the British sense...) flavour in regards to foreign policy. This seems like madness to me. They are entirely distrustful of their governments at home, but think their intentions abroad are noble, or at least generally positive.

Sounds like libertarians in name only. Me, personally, I believe government is up to something evil 99.9% of the time, regardless of what geographical location the activity is in. Even on a fundamental basis, foreign governments are as immoral as the "civilized" Western governments. Granted, there's nobody getting persecuted for their beliefs, women aren't being stoned, and people (usually) don't disappear in the night; there are numerous other transgressions against self-ownership which people have simply grown tolerant and even accepting of (anti-drug, anti-prostitution, anti-abortion, public infrastructure, health care, taxation, etc).

The first lesson people need to learn is why democracy is a sham. Then, maybe, they'll begin to lose faith in the government's ability to protect and provide for us.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Capitalist Pig Sounds like libertarians in name only. Me, personally, I believe government is up to something evil 99.9% of the time, regardless of what geographical location the activity is in. Even on a fundamental basis, foreign governments are as immoral as the "civilized" Western governments. Granted, there's nobody getting persecuted for their beliefs, women aren't being stoned, and people (usually) don't disappear in the night; there are numerous other transgressions against self-ownership which people have simply grown tolerant and even accepting of (anti-drug, anti-prostitution, anti-abortion, public infrastructure, health care, taxation, etc). The first lesson people need to learn is why democracy is a sham. Then, maybe, they'll begin to lose faith in the government's ability to protect and provide for us.

See now that last bit would make up the nub of an ideal post. Democracy is not the goal, not the ideal, merely a tool we can use to help protect liberty. The concerns of liberty precede, and supercede, those of democracy.

Would you be interested in contributing, CP?

[Osborn F Enready]

I would be interested, and could probably make time on a somewhat regular basis.

Contact me to let me know, and I work best with more advance notice as opposed to less.

Good idea, and I see no reason why one more voice of reason could hurt anything.

[Capitalist Pig]

Hell! I go to edit my post, and in my morning daze I physically removed the entire post on accident. Oh well, round two:

Quote by: G. Adams See now that last bit would make up the nub of an ideal post. Democracy is not the goal, not the ideal, merely a tool we can use to help protect liberty. The concerns of liberty precede, and supercede, those of democracy.

Eh, with all due respect, that wasn't the sentiment I had intended to convey at all. If it's yours, then I apologize. Democracy is simply another extension of collectivism -- the very same that people often associate with socialistic politico-economic theories. "Mob rule" is not any less debauching than despotism. The individualist anarchists were on to something in the 1800s, but it wasn't until the Austrian forefathers came along -- Menger, Wieser, Böhm-Bawerk, Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard to name a few (all of whom were disciples of one or the other at some point, either directly or indirectly) -- did the individualist philosophy have an economic theory to collaborate it. The point is that the basis of my philosophy, of anarcho-capitalism, lies in individual sovereignty. Democracy does not guarantee this, there will always be a minority population dissatisfied with the result.

I like to borrow this analogy from a friend of mine, who happens to be an Objectivist: You live in a town of 100, and 51 vote in favor of raping your loved one. Does this mean rape is moral? If we take the democratic position to its logical conclusion, the answer is yes. The majority is always favored above the rest.

Voting can therefore be construed as an initiation of force. You are forcing your will on those who do not agree, by electing certain individuals or groups, or in (dis)favor of certain legislation. You could use the democratic system to your advantage, however it will only work to a point. The government will not hold a vote -- to borrow from The Clash -- over whether it should stay or it should go. The only thing to do is to stop participating in the system and cheat them out of as much money as reasonably possible. People must be persuaded through the free flow of ideas and information, through reason. I know it seems like a daunting and futile endeavor, but it is the only way to peacefully and noncoercively convince people they can be better off.

Quote by: G. Adams Would you be interested in contributing, CP?

I would absolutely love to, but my "real life" has been fairly busy with wrapping things up following my mother's passing. If I do ever manage to find the time, I'll write an article draft or two and see what you think. One of my online acquaintances is an Italian economics major and geolibertarian, he's been wanting to do some blog-style writing as of late. I'll see if he's interested.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Capitalist Pig Hell! I go to edit my post, and in my morning daze I physically removed the entire post on accident. Oh well, round two: Eh, with all due respect, that wasn't the sentiment I had intended to convey at all. If it's yours, then I apologize. Democracy is simply another extension of collectivism -- the very same that people often associate with socialistic politico-economic theories. "Mob rule" is not any less debauching than despotism. The individualist anarchists were on to something in the 1800s, but it wasn't until the Austrian forefathers came along -- Menger, Wieser, Böhm-Bawerk, Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard to name a few (all of whom were disciples of one or the other at some point, either directly or indirectly) -- did the individualist philosophy have an economic theory to collaborate it. The point is that the basis of my philosophy, of anarcho-capitalism, lies in individual sovereignty. Democracy does not guarantee this, there will always be a minority population dissatisfied with the result. I like to borrow this analogy from a friend of mine, who happens to be an Objectivist: You live in a town of 100, and 51 vote in favor of raping your loved one. Does this mean rape is moral? If we take the democratic position to its logical conclusion, the answer is yes. The majority is always favored above the rest. Voting can therefore be construed as an initiation of force. You are forcing your will on those who do not agree, by electing certain individuals or groups, or in (dis)favor of certain legislation. You could use the democratic system to your advantage, however it will only work to a point. The government will not hold a vote -- to borrow from The Clash -- over whether it should stay or it should go. The only thing to do is to stop participating in the system and cheat them out of as much money as reasonably possible. People must be persuaded through the free flow of ideas and information, through reason. I know it seems like a daunting and futile endeavor, but it is the only way to peacefully and noncoercively convince people they can be better off. I would absolutely love to, but my "real life" has been fairly busy with wrapping things up following my mother's passing. If I do ever manage to find the time, I'll write an article draft or two and see what you think. One of my online acquaintances is an Italian economics major and geolibertarian, he's been wanting to do some blog-style writing as of late. I'll see if he's interested.

I'm afraid I can't have made myself clear, not ideal for an aspiring blogger. I do not support democracy in terms of 50+1 rule, or even 90% majority rule. My only concern for democracy is to use it peaceful mechanism for ousting the corrupt. I'm not supporting it as a mechanism to impose various policies that catch the publics eye.

In practice, constitutional arrangements would prevent tyranny of the majority, by limiting what any government can do. Thus the only concerns left for the voter would be who is best in that role.

Any contribution you or your friend could make would be most welcome.

[Capitalist Pig]

Ok, I figured you knew democracy probably wasn't all that it's cracked up to be. Though I also seem unable to make myself clear. My opinion that democracy is immoral is not just because evil people can or have used it for evil things, even good intentions executed through the democratic apparatus are evil simply because you will still have people that do not particularly like whoever (or whatever) the majority favor. To force an elected representative onto the minority that voted for someone else, or did not vote at all, is where the initiation of force occurs, and where democracy turns face. The same could apply for, say, water conservation or seatbelt laws. Good ideas, perhaps, but isn't that for you, yourself to assess the associated risks and costs?

In theory constitutional limits would restrict tyranny by majority and government. We have witnessed the practice here in the United States, it apparently hasn't helped shit.

Anyway, I've forwarded the MSN address you have in your profile to my friend. He'll probably contact you sometime in the future.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Capitalist Pig Ok, I figured you knew democracy probably wasn't all that it's cracked up to be. Though I also seem unable to make myself clear. My opinion that democracy is immoral is not just because evil people can or have used it for evil things, even good intentions executed through the democratic apparatus are evil simply because you will still have people that do not particularly like whoever (or whatever) the majority favor. To force an elected representative onto the minority that voted for someone else, or did not vote at all, is where the initiation of force occurs, and where democracy turns face. The same could apply for, say, water conservation or seatbelt laws. Good ideas, perhaps, but isn't that for you, yourself to assess the associated risks and costs? In theory constitutional limits would restrict tyranny by majority and government. We have witnessed the practice here in the United States, it apparently hasn't helped shit. Anyway, I've forwarded the MSN address you have in your profile to my friend. He'll probably contact you sometime in the future.

Lacking a democratic means to remove a public figure, how would you deal with such corrupt people?

That is all on the presumption of course that there are any public offices to be held at all.

[Capitalist Pig]

Quote by: G. Adams Lacking a democratic means to remove a public figure, how would you deal with such corrupt people? That is all on the presumption of course that there are any public offices to be held at all.

Well, ideally, there wouldn't be. Since, as I said earlier, ". . . the basis of my philosophy, of anarcho-capitalism, lies in individual sovereignty" [Emphasis added]. There's not a single government I can think of which respects this sovereignty in full. Unless there was a government that operated solely on a voluntary basis -- with regards to citizenship, services, laws, etc -- I could never consider government as anything but a legitimized form of organized crime. Pure and simple, it is an institution funded by extortion and seeks only the consolidation of power through monopolizing the use of force. Even minarchists, or "minimal statists", fail to see the point: No government, however limited, remains that way for long. Robert LeFevre argued this very point in "The Nature of Man and His Government" (1959).