This is a blog post rendition of my 1-hr presentation at The 21 Convention in Austin, TX in August, right after I gave a 20-minute abbreviated version of same at the Ancestral Health Symposium, 2012, in Boston, at Harvard University School of Law.
Shorter Jeffrey Tucker: Anarchy Begins at Home
Introduction
Earlier this month I wrote this post: The Clamoring Over a Ruler of the Devolved. It stands at 162 comments so far, but here’s one by me (edited a bit).
“But my question is how does it work? I see a few fundamental problems with having NO government.”
Work for whom? You see fundamental problems—for unspecified whoms—at not having an agent of force commanding dominance and such. I don’t. You seem to come from this weird perspective that anarchy is just another system imposed upon people, just as some call atheism a religion.
It’s no system at all. It’s the absence of a central system. What happens in anarchy? EVERYTHING happens. So the smart people, as social beings, gravitate to social interaction that works best for them in a give & take, trade, mutual protection scenario.
Planet Earth is itself an anarchy. Point me to the one, central, world government.
This was after a number of exchanges with my interlocutor, and here’s what he said about that comment.
This is thoughtful. I still think it has limitations and holes. but to me it’s the most poignant thing you’ve said.
It got me to thinking. I’m always about one mind at a time, by which I mean: expanded thinking—i.e., no guru, no authority. Think. Really think. But I’m also about birds & stones (a Basque uncle and I once killed somewhere between 50-100 quail in one fell swoop—but not with stones—that he cooked up later). I decided to do a series. …The series is a blog post rendition of my 1-hr presentation at The 21 Convention in Austin, TX in August, right after I gave a 20-minute abbreviated version of same at AHS12 in Boston, at Harvard University School of Law.
paleo Epistemology and Sociology
Fancy, eh? That was the title. Let’s deal with the fundamentals, first. You can click on any of the slides for a larger version.
You see what’s bolded, right? Knowledge exists on a spectrum just like a lot or most things. I’m interested in quality of knowledge.
No, it’s not really all about “rugged individualism.” Rugged individualism really only exists as a sort of “ideal,” because a democratic society is so good at breeding leeches and other parasites—who goes into the cannibal pot, who gets to feast—and so it’s a push back of sorts. We are social animals. We can potentially survive on our own with our big brains, even in extreme environments, with sufficient knowledge. But who wants to do that except the outlier unsociable? …No wine bars. So the problem or issue is: how to enjoy and prosper from the best social humanity has to offer, while convincing people that such bounty is the province of individuals pursuing their own values and trading them, and not the parasitic State?
…How about if we consider epistemology (knowledge, and quality thereof) in a social context?
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Let me help. I had to look up “doxastic,” too: of or relating to belief. So, humans believe a whole lot of different things, a lot of it shit. It’s on a spectrum, a distribution. I’d say most of what they actually believe and more importantly, really act upon, must be valid with respect to the natural reality (in spite of protestations to the contrary); otherwise, you’d be confronted with a valid objection: why are we here? Other animals don’t get away with many fuck-ups.
Humans are unique in their ability to believe and proclaim one thing, whist acting in a way that belies such belief (if “heaven” is so great and you really believe you’re going there, then blow your brains out!). Then again, there’s always the cannibal pot. Some must take it as a nice Jacuzzi.
This whole presentation really began with me thinking about quality of knowledge, juxtaposing a paleo basis vs. a Neolithic basis in such. Let’s look at my take on the paleo quality of knowledge.
1,000 Words
This is the self-sufficient realm. In spite of it, humans persevered and for whatever reasons, crowded out Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal. If I had to bet, in spite of not really knowing for sure, I’d bet it’s because we developed more social interaction or, in a word or few, developed a far higher capacity to love, adore, protect, and guard our particular values. Just a speculation, but those other creatures had more time on Earth than us, and they never got beyond stone tools—while we’ve gone to the moon and back. Love and passion are non specific, while they can be wholly specific. I think that accounts for a lot. I think it’s a sort of social animal coming full circle, wringing everything possible out of that synergy…from the grandmother you adore to the wife you caress, to the children you nurture. It’s beautiful from top to bottom and wall to wall and for most, seems pretty natural. Question: dysfunctional government housing projects where the State was grandma, grandpa, mom & dad, all in one? It’s not just a failure. It was and is, to the the extent it remains, a holocaustic abomination as to the very idea—much less ideal—of humanity.
If you have to live in a small social group, how important—to you—might it be what the sun rise looks like from day to day, and what it might portend for your chances of getting more food for you and the social structure that supports you and that you support in kind?
Where are those animal tracks going? From where did they come, and why? Fire, flood, predators? You see, this is about the highest quality of of knowledge and integration possible in the Paleolithic, and why we owe them a solemn nod. They never—could not ever—deal in bullshit. Survival depended upon noticing really real things and figuring out what it meant for them in terms of potential food or potential danger in the context of survival…without universal health care, pensions, unions, affirmative action, laws, statutes or regulations. They survived, populated the globe in various mass migrations over eons—from equator to pole, sea level to high altitude—and managed it all without a “president.”
“Red sky at night, sailor’s delight. Red sky in the morning, sailors take warning.” In eight years in the Navy—roughly half spent at sea—this is probably the most bankable rule of thumb I ever learned…and in the form of a slogan, no less.
Friend, foe, trading partner…or perhaps a mate for my daughter or son?
Aliens!?
Storm clouds. Just imagine that for millions of years our ancestors never had contractor-built shelter. Yet, they survived. They never voted—at least amongst 300,000,000 other people. Most probably, in tight nit groups, everyone could tell what needed to be done to survive. They hadn’t yet conceived of the notion of “prosperity” at the expense of other people—via a 3rd party hired thief for a vote—they’d never have to face in person.
Best for last in this part.
How much can you know in Quality?
I dunno. Millions of people tuned into the presidential debates, one and two…and three just last night (I watched the SF Giants kick ass). I’d venture to say that nothing those millions heard in all three debates even comes close in terms of quality of knowledge to what can actually be known with a close, experienced analysis of those paw prints in the snow (that’s contextual and analogous, for all the morons—just to head off stupid comments…assuming you can get what this parenthetical remark means).
I’ll leave you with that. Google about tracking animals and you’ll see what you can really know in terms of quality. At AHS11, Frank Forencich did his presentation and put up animal tracks and called it the dawn of epistemology or something like that. I never forgot it.
My point in this was to give you a small sample and example of what true quality of knowledge is reality all about. We know it was pretty damn good, simply because we’re here!
In the next part, I’m going to contrast that in a similar graphic exposition—with rude commentary—about the absolutely horrific basis of most neolithic knowledge and how it is just not quality, for the most part.
…We owe our lives to outliers who pursue quality knowledge nonetheless.
~~~
- Part 1: The Quality of Paleolithic Knowledge
- Part 2: The Quality of Neolithic Knowledge
- Part 3: The Problem With Authority
- Part 4: Having One’s Cake and Eating It Too
- Part 5: The Real Hobgoblins
- Part 6: Democide
- Part 7: The Quality of Paleolithic Social Power
- Part 8: The Quality of Neolithic Social Power
- Part 9: Conclusion; How to Fix Everything
A lot of food for thought there, Richard.
But is it really fair to compare the pandering of presidential debaters to the specialized knowledge of HG trackers? Today we have an even more specialized and higher quality of knowledge in the hard sciences than has ever existed. I consider it to be a sustained and admirable continuation of that HG knowledge and capability of the human brain.
In the next part, I’m going to contrast that in a similar graphic exposition—with rude commentary—about the absolutely horrific basis of most neolithic knowledge and how it is just not quality, for the most part.
This is where it sounds like I’m going to have a big problem. The ability to storehouse knowledge and begin the long sifting of ideas that eventually led to modern civilization is entirely due to neolithic knowledge and technology. There’s nothing sacred about our paleolithic ancestors, they are just *us* in a different environment and, importantly, a much thinner base knowledge of how the world operates and the difficulty of passing that information onto succeeding generations.
Sean
Read it again, and pay most particular attention the the outliers part.
…iow, I’m contrasting the quality of knowledge of joe average.
The Neolithic is 100% about outliers, from farm to factory to basic research.
Largely, I like first comment people. Sean shows mountain oysters in that he shows his cards and his thoughts. Maybe I just want to suck his greek livered cock.
I am very close to an anarcap. I am not sure if I care enough beyond my close circle. That should say enough. Though, I do love the million people city life. For reasons that are rarely talked about. (See Paul Stamets and his mushroom talks.)
I would like to see the quality of knowledge of average Joe. I often hear of “sheep” speak. I heard the same from M.div profs. I heard from Republicans and and and. The other leaders that talk of and for groups
Jscott I don’t know how old you are, but comments like this tell me why I pay far more attention to young people than old people. I want to know where we’re going, not laments over where we’ve been.
“Jscott I don’t know how old you are…”
Yeah, no kidding. I was a bit teary eyed when you did not send a gift nineteen days ago.
The pictures and captions are fantastic at telling the story you are writing about. Well done.
Sean, I’m not great at conveying ideas, but this is just a logic exercise I tried for myself, so I thought maybe you’d like to try it. If you do, please let me know feedback?
.
It flips on its head the idea that any benefits of civilization come from the existence of violently imposed authority, aka, states.
Given 1 : the advent a few thousand years ago of states, that is, of violently imposed organizations (ranging from small tribal states to large empires) created for the vast majority of humans a few thousand years of misery (whether wars/mass murders, slavery, serfdom etc).
Conclusion : states have not been beneficial to the majority of humans.
Given 2: throughout that time, any imposed authority (commonly, the state or church&state) fought overwhelmingly Against progress in thought, against new discovery….against knowledge (relates to Richard’s outliers).
Conclusion: progress in knowledge happened Despite the existence of oppressive States.
.
In other words, human nature, human creativity and exploration, in the last few hundred years (in parts of the world) has finally been succeeding Against and Despite the oppression of violently enforced organizations, of states.
.
Beyond that thought process,
given that prior to the advent of states, humanity explored/expanded across the globe and even to extreme conditions, maybe there’s an argument to be made that agriculture and neolithic states Diverted humanity’s progress, not aided it.
But the paleolithic is not a Necessary argument, in light of the neolithic evidence itself.
.
So to me, when I look at the evidence I see massive destruction and destitution at the hands of states and moreover it’s not a “take the good with the bad” situation because the enforced authorities fought against knowledge for the most part, as they of course needed to in order to continue their enforced authority. So it’s just “bad and bad”.
Yet, we somehow learn that it is these very same states that should be credited with ‘civilization’.
Not civilization Despite back-wards pushing, violent, oppressive states but somehow Because of them.
To me, it’s as fantastic an example as I’ve ever seen of the success of doublespeak and there’s no central conspiracy required to perpetuate it, it’s a built-in part of a forced structure.
More to add. However, within this thought…we need a them. Personally (am I the only one?) I need to push against. Is it cheap? No.
Don’t know, but it sounds like an ‘outlier’ mentality to me, yes of course you need to push against, just like they did. Not necessarily against a ‘them’ maybe, though that sure works in a system, a state.
The sad irony is, from the paleolithic expansion we learn that ‘pushing against’ must have been a pretty widespread primal driving force.
“irony is”
That.
Marie,
I think the reality is much more nuanced. It’s not a coincidence that the creation of states led to the massive and geometric (with some notable stops and starts) increase in knowledge we’ve experienced.
In my opinion, states and their systems evolve and spread as memes and these are highly based on technology. The feudal system was probably a pretty optimal one for Europe at the time it was practiced. Places like Japan adopted a similar system in similar circumstances. Probably an example of parallel evolution (evolution shouldn’t be confused with improvement).
If you look at the Enlightenment in Europe it’s a brilliant example of spontaneous order of the bottom up variety, and very little of it was state-sponsered as far as I know.
Sure states violently impose their rule, but this doesn’t negate the fact that violence was a fact of life long before states really existed. The difference between the state and the rampaging horde is that the state’s violence was mostly an implied threat held in reserve, allowing people to get on with their lives.
The ideal state, in my minarchist utopia, would simply enforce the rule of law and defend the state against external threats and otherwise let people get on with their lives.
I don’t think it is too far off base to credit states with civilization. That being said I think the state in which Shakespeare (born 1564), Newton (born 1642), and other such geniuses bloomed had a heady mix of anarchism, random chaos along with the normal state capriciousness that helped to provide a suitable climate for their growth. I imagine that anarchy is a bit similar to why the Czech Republic feels much less constricted to me than North America.
I would sooner credit agriculture and the science and technology it ushered in, art, music, literature, and philosophy with civilization. The State was always just a parasite on all of that, offering a little protection for the privileged by means of a protection racket and also a lot of mayhem along the way. But that will be covered in a later part in the series.
Protection and arbitration or mediation of disputes is a good, just like wheat, corn and livestock. The State isn’t required to produce any of them.
And while violence has always existed, it is only the State that has been able to conduct violence on a massive global scale. That gets covered too.
Sean, “I think the reality is much more nuanced” – is it though, or is there just that much smoke and mirrors? I haven’t been able to get around the extremely simple 1-2 logic and I’m still trying, because it disturbs me.
Your point about spontaneous order is well taken, in fact that’s another reason I think civilization owes nothing to the state and is hindered by it, because spontaneous order will arise regardless. I have no problem with order, just the “threat-of-violence” imposed variety that twists and deforms the natural social traits. Anarchy of course isn’t synonymous with chaos.
That’s funny. 1-2 logic is up next, part 4.
Je t’adore…toujours.
And for you or any who’d like it, here’s a French refresher course…..or not. Eddie Izzard. Of mice and monkeys… :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUd1BhokZq4
Oh Laf. I posted to my family on Facebook: For 20 years I’ve failed to convey to you my love of the French and their language. In this video, Eddie Lzzard does it in 6 minutes.
Wonderfully funny.
“Survival depended upon noticing really real things and figuring out what it meant for them in terms of potential food or potential danger in the context of survival”
This is why I’ve never worried about calamity theories and the breakdown of civilization, I have mad protein-harvesting skills so long as I am near a body of water.
Give me a pole spear and I’ll keep 10 families supplied with protein. A cast net and we are talking 30 families.
You spend a few decades being really close to the marine environment and it pays off. I can tell you within a couple of minutes or so when a thunderstorm is going to hit. It’s all in the shift and the strength of the wind. I have skills that have been developed over four decades.
On the other hand I have 8 years of higher education that allows me to produce useless documents that people are willing to pay money for.
Well mid-life crisis over and out. But I have no fear whatsoever of anarchy.
And yet we spend 12 years teaching (or failing to teach) kids how to fill out papers, rather than getting them out in the wild and showing them how to fish (or gather berries or hunt bugs). Perhaps what is most wrong with schooling today is that it too often perpetuates an overly narrow conception of the universe (or at least the human place in it). Instead of learning to use anarchy, we are taught to fear it (and to associate it with violence, even though most of us, left to ourselves, are not going to go on killing sprees, even if we are in New Orleans when the levee bursts).
Well that is getting back to how kids are raised today, when I was a youngster all the kids in the neighborhood would get together and decide “What are we going to play today?”
It might be baseball, it might be football, it might be shooting at each other with BB guns. It might be “Let’s jump off the roof and see if we break our ankles!”
There was plenty of room for doing really stupid things. If you take a male animal, and put him in an environment where doing really stupid things is not a possibility, you wind up with an incomplete male animal, doing really stupid things is what we were born to do.
The appropriate response to
“That was a really stupid thing to do”
is
“Yeah, and so what?”
We climbed very high up into willow trees, like 40+ feet off the ground, no supervision.
Just west of Reno on the Trukee river was an old power company dam. Even by the time I knew it, the wood to make the lake behind it 3′ higher had been taken out. In the spring run off from Mt Rose and Tahoe from whence it originates created a rage. Saw people die–drown–there for the first time, after mocking my grandfather who warned them as they were approaching (60s). He owned the whole strip for 10 acres.
So the most dumbest thing we did was to hoist ourselves up on the 3′ wide and 12′ high concrete borders for the dam in the summer and dive off head first right above the dam, into 3′ most of water. The trick was to arch your back so that your chest hit bottom and not your head.
Funny how we all knew that instinctively.
….oh, btw, the dam was docile in the summer flow and we had tons of fun sliding down it.
“Well that is getting back to how kids are raised today”
Not everyone raises their children to fear everything and look to someone else (i.e. ‘authorities’) to solve their problems. I make sure that my kids have plenty of opportunity to do stupid things – scratch that – “stupid things”=test their environment, and I think that works in their favor. Once you’ve fallen out of a few trees, you either get better at staying in the tree, or you stop climbing them and find another form of entertainment. This is poisonous, that is edible, this makes you itch, that stops the itching, dirt won’t hurt you, and oh, that is totally disgusting…figure it out for yourself firsthand or ask someone who knows.
Still, the kids will do stupids things, and the response to that is #1 “Wow, that was stupid,-what were you thinking?” #2 “Are you hurt or just embarrassed?” #3 “What did you learn from that?”
Yes, many, many kids are coddled and/or dumbed down compared to many of us – but those kids and their parents aren’t any of my concern. Just guessing, but I tend to think that most of the commenters here go out of their way to allow their kids to ‘test their environment’.
Rob, oh the lies we could tell each other over drinks. My experience in such matters is decades old, but you never forget.
It occurs to me that mistakes are important. You need to make mistakes to live well. Your mistakes cannot be fatal, but one of them needs to be (or at least seem) serious, such that you step back and say, “Shit! I almost killed myself (or ruined something really significant)!” The biggest problem with expert failure in modern contexts is that people have become callous (casual?) toward failure, pushing it off on other people (whether workers in another country, faceless taxpayers in one’s own, or generations yet unborn): “I don’t have to worry about the consequences of my actions: somebody else will pick up the tab! Vote for me, and I’ll give you free beer on them!” Many people don’t know how to say, “I screwed up. I’m sorry. I am going to learn from this experience.” Those who do know how to say this too often think that learning means never making another mistake (which is impossible: we have to learn how to fail without dying prematurely, not how to succeed without failing–the latter is impossible).
Even when civilization thrives, it is because it responds to anarchy well, becoming antifragile (which historically means less authoritarian: the most brittle regimes politically are those most fanatically devoted to preserving a fixed order; historically, maintaining such unnatural fixation requires violence, which ends the regime in a bloody revolution). The antifragile society has many ways of dealing with anarchy productively before it invokes violence. Its citizens find ways to look out for one another that don’t involve theft or murder or the maintenance of an overly complicated social hierarchy at all cost.
Thanks for the post.
You must know about NNT’s new book. He quotes me a bit in it, at least in the draft he sent me.
I have enjoyed reading all the little bits and pieces NNT has posted on Facebook. Beyond that, I don’t have any knowledge, and nobody should read my rambling here (or elsewhere) as speaking for NNT. I think his ideas are very interesting, coinciding in many respects with my own (though I am not old enough or experienced enough to state them as well or definitively), so I find myself parroting, embellishing, and (no doubt) corrupting them rather often. But I expect he wouldn’t care, since that is precisely what I (and other minds) exist to do (i.e. process information, repeat and embellish and tinker with lies so that they move closer to the truth that they will never contain).
“Its citizens find ways to look out for one another that don’t involve theft or murder or the maintenance of an overly complicated social hierarchy at all cost.”
+1
But is that the case in large population centers?
Cities historically tend to be more fragile, particularly when they become metropolises (like ancient Rome, modern London, or New York). The immense urban population creates (and/or maximizes exposure to) negative and positive Black Swans: people see the positive Swans in anecdotes (e.g. “my cousin moved to the city and became a millionaire!”), move in to take advantage of them, and wind up running scared when the levee breaks (in New Orleans) or the barbarians invade (in Rome).
I grew up in the country and just don’t feel “safe” in cities (even when I am perfectly at ease: I feel like NNT sleeping on the railway in New York and observing that he did not get run over). I think cities are generally more fragile than country towns and villages, and that large populations are generally more fragile (with more fragile forms of order) than small ones. Riots happen in Chicago with some regularity. Riots never happen when my family meets for Thanksgiving (not even when we disagree profoundly over politics or religion or whatever: we argue, but we don’t fight).
Good observation, Joseph.
I’ve been saying for decades that metropolises breed blue zones (politically) because they are far more social. But it’s an illusion, really. Out in the country if you need help with some shit you can easily have every neighbor within 10 miles there on a Saturday morning, expecting breakfast. Try that in the city.
Having lived in downtown lofts I can attest to the intoxication of having friends around virtually 24/7. But, I also cooked and entertained my ass off. Still fun, but not the same.
I’ll rwad this more thoroughyl later, interesting but quick correction Cro Magnon was/is H.sapiens.
read thoroughly…….
This strikes close to much of what I’ve been thinking about lately. Anarchy is not valuable merely as a negative, that is, merely because it is the *absence* of force (thus, it is not valuable merely insofar as it represents the removal of *evil*). It is also valuable – fundamentally valuable – because of its positive contribution to human life. Anarchy alone provides the conditions necessary for the development of virtue, for the development of the habits and skills necessary for flourishing. Anarchy is an environment making the development of practical knowledge valuable.
Aside from moral objections to force and authority, authority robs the individual of his natural environment, rendering him dissociated from reality. He is robbed of the *opportunity* to thrive. Perhaps most fundamentally, he is robbed of the possibility of self-knowledge – he responds to a world of social metaphysics, not a world of metaphysics. Anarchy and self-knowledge are intimately connected; self-knowledge is at the base of all human success. The hunter isn’t able to kill because he is told to kill (or: because he is told he can kill). Rather: he is able to kill because he knows he can kill, and because he knows the value of killing.
So really, to say that anarchy is valuable, and is responsible for so much of our success, is really just to say that self-knowledge and connection to reality are valuable, i.e. that the absence of mediated consciousness is valuable, that mediated consciousness is *the greatest threat to human success*.
+1 Gordon
Richard,
I just caught up on the other posts. Nothing wrong with short order cooks, brother. I did some of that along the way.
I get the self determination aspect of the whole thing. But is government always a hindrance? To earn a dollar, the government had to print it. It has to be recognized as a dollar. -US mint! If you can live in relative peace under a rule of law, aren’t you now free to pursue your interests and expand your mind. If that is to blog, walk in the woods, hunt, start a software company, open a deli, invest in pork bellies, go to medical school, juggle coconuts in the subway for spare change, so be it because you can do what you want.
I hear you talk about a spectrum related to paleo food, good and better,etc. why not a spectrum related to a federal government? Limited government would be better than the ever expanding mass that we have now.
couldn’t you find common ground with these guys:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz
“To earn a dollar, the government had to print it. It has to be recognized as a dollar.”
Google ‘private currency’. Here’s a general take:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_currency
“A private currency is a currency issued by a private organization, be it a commercial business or a nonprofit enterprise. It is often contrasted with fiat currency issued by governments or central banks. In many countries, the issue of private paper currencies is severely restricted by law.
“Today, there are over four-thousand privately issued currencies in more than 35 countries. These include commercial trade exchanges that use barter credits as units of exchange, private gold and silver exchanges, local paper money, computerized systems of credits and debits, and electronic currencies in circulation, such as digital gold currency and Bitcoin.”
Going back to the original point, where’s the one world currency? It’s merely a medium of exchange two trading partners both value, facilitating trade and exchange. Could be paper clips. Even pretty rocks. So long as everyone in the exchange sphere really values the medium, you’re “golden” (har har). Precious metals were great because they are difficult and costly to obtain.
“If you can live in relative peace under a rule of law, aren’t you now free to pursue your interests and expand your mind.”
Only in part, and this goes to the experience of building a small company (30 employees) and watching myself being bled dry constantly with State regulation, investigation and the list goes on. At one point, for a smalll company doing about $3-3.5 mil in annual revenue, I was spending $250K on lawyers for various crap along these lines. That’s 8% right off the top. Many, many business operate on profit margins between 5-10% of gross revenue.
“…why not a spectrum related to a federal government?”
Oh, I do, and I’ll actually get to that in about Part 5 of this project. Things could be far worse. No argument. But I’m about better and better.
I’ve known about the smallest political quiz forever, since it first came on the scene. Of course, in the context of the quiz itself, I agree with every question, putting me on the extreme end. But I go far, far further.
“Going back to the original point, where’s the one world currency?” there isn’t, but I like ease of using dollars. there could be trade and barter in some other form. But its easy with the dollar. I don’t have to figure out what is of value to any particular vendor. I can drive from Philly up to Boston, stop along the way and never have to change currency. It could be done a different way… but do you want that? The simplicity adds value to most transactions, to me anyway. True, if I leave the country I need to exchange currency. So some other system could work.
“Only in part, and this goes to the experience of building a small company (30 employees) and watching myself being bled dry constantly with State regulation, investigation and the list goes on.” I think that sucks. I’m not the organizing type. But do you think some of that could be reversed if libertarian, or anarchist minded people organized and looked for candidates that wanted to roll the government back? Libertarians put a presidential candidate every four years and they get 1% of the vote, How much money goes into that? But what if they looked for governors, and congressmen, state senators, etc. and started a real grass roots movement. I think there would be an appeal for that. I suppose it would never go far enough for you. I look forward to part 5.
“but I like ease of using dollars”
Of course. The whole point of currency is that it’s widely accepted as a medium of exchange. Hell, there are places all over the world, especially 2nd & 3rd world countries where most shops & restaurants will take dollars—even prefer them over the local currency.
On the other hand, using foreign exchange is no big deal, and very easy if you use a credit card. I lived and travelled all over the world from ’85-’92 and never had a problem. When I lived in France, the Euro had no come into being yet so every trip to Italy, Greece, etc., required exchanging money. I’d usually just exchange enough for pocket money, and use a CC mostly. That way the exchange is transparent.
But that’s not really the issue. It’s fiat currency vs. private currency, private currency almost always being backed by something of tangible value. Fiat currency is just another means of taxation (inflation—a hidden tax). Hell, even when the State minted real gold and silver coins the State found a way to steal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_coin_debasement
With competing private currencies, you always have the option of whether to trade in that currency or not and that decision is going to rest on two factors:
1. how widely accepted
2. how stable in value
One must wonder. Why are private currencies either illegal or severely restricted by the State? Theives don’t like competition.
“But do you think some of that could be reversed if libertarian, or anarchist minded people organized and looked for candidates that wanted to roll the government back?”
Nope. You’re not going to vote your way out of this mess. Change could happen in a number or combination of ways:
1. People just gradually lose interest in politics and generally disregard it (Anarchy begins at home).
2. Civil Disobedience on mass scales (see Thoreau, Ghandi, MLK)
3. Technological leap frogging that changes everything very quickly, like say some huge breakthrough in energy production
4. Total economic collapse, massive depression, even starvation.
5. Bloody civil war / revolution
I’m hoping it never gets to #4 or 5.
“Nope. You’re not going to vote your way out of this mess.”
This is where we diverge. I like our system even with the flaws. I like our country, the right to vote, freedom of speech, etc. You served in the Navy. You don’t feel any of that? I’ve spent time overseas as well. I’m glad and grateful I was born and raised here. We’re constantly being told all is lost, we’re doomed, etc. We have problems no doubt. But what the fuck? We had a civil war, two world wars, great depression, all kinds of other hardships. We’re still here.
We even survived 13 years of the Volstead act. And then they repealed it. Shows you some good can come out of politics and the system can correct its self.
Its Friday, have a drink, and cheer the fuck up, will ya.
“I like […] the right to vote”
Regardless, you’re never going to vote your way out of this mess.
[BTW, for some reason I have no idea of, your comments post, but the email notifications go to spam (the only one). That’s why the delay, because I don’t always remember to check]
Brad Smith thinks otherwise. See the oct 28th entry
http://divisionoflabour.com/