People care about having roads.

In Borodog's world where there will be a seamless transition from the state to anarchy, you'll keep have to be reminding people to say "DRO" and not "police" because they don't care who picks up when they dial 911.

Do you see the difference?

You were talking about state failure? I'm confused then why you used the wording "in the unlikely event", since state failure is not rare through history.

Anyways, I was actually talking about a situation where anarchy lasts (not merely where a particular state breaks down). If this happened, clearly the average person would not want a state, right?

This is probably true, but I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

Why this and not the other way around?

Yes, on historical time scales, states fail all the time. But on human time scales, states do a good job of self-preservation.

Even in these cases, I'd guess that the most likely scenario is that the average person doesn't care. Thus I would agree that after one or two generations the average person would not want a state.

If you already agree, I don't feel the need to continue convincing you.

For the same reason that some AC here still call them police when discussing an AC hypothetical.

People are lazy: same concept, same identifier. In the event of a seamless transition, the DRO would be so much like the police that no one accustomed to that word would feel compelled to change his or her usage.

Still, when you talk about things like this the point isn't that it's gonna happen imminently, so I don't really see why "human time scales" as you call it is the right frame. But OK.

OK, so now that you know I was talking about a lasting anarchist society, you don't really disagree with my post, right?

Well presumably there was a connection to something relevant, which I'm not seeing.

So someone who wants a state would also have to run around reminding people to use the word he wants, right?

In fact, people must be doing that today, right?

(havent read any of the thread)

When outsiders like Rand and Schiff run, the payoff of them winning is not what they could accomplish as legislators, but they way their success affects political discourse and what viewpoints are up for serious consideration. Both of them winning would have virtually no effect on what laws are made, even 10 republicans like them winning would probably be inconsequential.

Obviously Ron Paul never had any chance of winning even the republican nomination for president, but that was not the point of his campaign at all. The point was to present an alternative to the two major parties (which people are increasingly dissatisfied with, a trend which is only going to continue), and he definitely succeeded. It's not an exaggeration to say that millions of people heard his platform and said "Wait a minute... there are conservative politicians who are anti-war and opposed the war in Iraq with more vigor than most democrats? I didn't know that was possible, I thought I was stuck with these bozos by default."

I remember saying during his run "He won't win, and what % of the vote he gets is irrelevant. But what is important is that it you will see more republican candidates along these lines." Then Schiff came along, and I said the same thing. Now you have someone like Rand. How these candidates do in elections or whether they would have a chance of influencing policy is besides the point, but they are having the very real impact of changing what ideas people are exposed to, and developing an alternative to the traditional GOP.

vr, to opine to your question (which is maybe in stark contrast to what I thought in '07 and maybe posted about ITT ), I think it is NOT good to support Ron Paul.

Ron Paul, even if unknowingly, functions as a sort of safety net for statism. In their perfect world, no one would worry about perpetual war or growing debt, but since naturally people will have these concerns, those in power would rather have some control on how the information gets out. It's better to tease that sort of energy into the state structure than let it galvanize outside. (So in a time like this, we get Ron Paul.)

You can look at how the Ron Paul movement has sort of tangled into the "Tea Party" movement, which altogether is a pretty watered down version of the way RP was speaking at the debates. Or look right at Rand Paul, who is a pretty mild version of Ron. And it all seems pretty deliberate. IMO this is clearly an effort to "tame" dissident energy, and it's best for anarchists to ignore it (and/or laugh about it).

He seems like a really nice, principled, and sincere guy. But then again, that's the point. It's just like supporting joe shmoe politician, but on a higher level. Maybe when the dust settles history will look back at "the Ron Paul deception" as one of statism's last measures. Or maybe I'm just crazy. But without all this jazz I tend to think it's way more likely that we'd already be in a real revolution.

And some people will say Ron Paul (et al.) is good because it's practical. A small difference would at least make things less bad, whereas a fully principled approach might make sense in theory but would do nothing tangible. Well, I don't think even that much is true.

Think about the campaign process. There is probably some amount of reality that has to be presented (lest people lose confidence in the whole thing). Fox and CNN can't get on the air and say "the war is going great they love us over there, the debt is not a problem everyone is rich". Because at one point it just clearly doesn't match reality. So they have to work with what's true and bend it.

The Republican side is traditionally where you need to involve some regard for fiscal responsibility and deficit concerns, so without RP on stage you probably need McCain and the others to work different things into their rhetoric (so that you don't totally lose the interest of anyone who is aware of these things). Instead that stuff gets isolated into its own little corner, and the other candidates can be more oblivious to it (or even gang up on it).

This in turn allows Obama to run against someone who won't hold his feet to the fire to any degree on the fiscal side, which in turn allows him to maintain his dogma and gives us a more obtuse winning ticket. So I would say Ron Paul's inclusion in the charade even hurts on a short-term/practical level.

You can look at Ron Paul and like him because he often says things that are true. It's also very interesting to see the media adapt to rising awareness and to observe the role he plays in it. But that's different than supporting him in the political sense or thinking that's how you advance liberty.

Anyone who supports Ron Paul is not an anarchist. Anarchists don't have anything to do with electoral politics, instead they look for ways that ordinary people can have direct power over their lives by joining together to take on bosses and politicians (short term), and, working up from there, overthrowing the government and creating a free society (long term).

I support Ron Paul. I believe there should be no state.

Yes, that's one theory as to how to achieve greater liberty. It's certainly not the only one.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

This.

I agree with you up until the first comma. I can sit on my couch and eat potato chips and be an anarchist, right?

doing that you could be a Communist to.

alaw, stop breathing, because communists do that.

you missed the point

Unless you are being held against your will, I don't see how voting can be seen as a weapon or the act of imposing anything.

You are willingly subjugating yourself to the rules of which ever society you reside within, and unless you are taking active measures to leave the society or have already left it is you that is imposing your arbitrary preferences upon yourself simply because they do not align with the majority choice of the society you have the freedom to reside or leave.

?

I was saying that if you are totally unproductive it does not matter what political view you have.

ya, it's just a belief.

this is wrong. Lack of resistance is not the same as consent.

I just don't see how you can reconcile willingly living in a free society where everyone knows voting is a central role in decision making, then in turn have the audacity to call this voting an act imposition.


If someone sells you a car "as is", and you're dumb enough to buy it as is, you obv have no recourse.

Beliefs have killed people

but yes
-
stop using that popcorn smiley in that context

it is condescending

When did I "buy it"?

I'm referring to the abstract known as choice. Choice to remain a US citizen, choice to not be a US citizen, choice to buy a car with conditions (ie: as is), choice to not buy a car because of its conditions.

Don't be so literal..

OIC.

I have a hot dog club that might interest you. I've gone ahead and signed you up. If you don't want to be a member, you can resign simply by moving to siberia.

http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/show...45&page=0&vc=1