Topic: DIY Libertarianism (Read 3180 times)
Politics doesn’t change things, technology does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_determinism
Simplifying your lifestyle is a great start.
The free market's great. But, government aligns with business through corporatism. Society is however in a technological revolution. Every economic revolution in mankind has lead to a change in political and social roles. Wheat brought an agricultural revolution 11,000 years ago that produced the idea of property. The industrial revolution was kind of mislead by Marxism but I think libertarianism is the outcome of technology. People can talk easier, see through the lies of ideology easier and self-govern better through social networking. The rarest thing in the world is someone motivated sincerely to tell the truth, almost everything comes with something to benefit the one talking. Agorism is ethical, Bitcoin is great because through crypto-currency individuals have an out from Keynesian economists. I just think everyone that agrees with less government should work together but the ring of power will make some power-lusters try to institutionalize libertarianism to their benefit.
DIY can be inefficient, but that's not the question: Do you really think it is less efficient than the US government???
You wouldn't need to 'fly under the radar' or hide your revenues, etc if everything was done legally.
I'm not familiar with Konkin, but I'm familiar with David Friedman, are you? Reasons you don't need to break the law to out-compete old-style govts:
-seasteading
-cryptoanarchy
Here's another thought: US is innocent until proven guilty! It's not a crime if u don't get caught as we say
You wouldn't need to 'fly under the radar' or hide your revenues, etc if everything was done legally.
I'm not familiar with Konkin, but I'm familiar with David Friedman, are you? Reasons you don't need to break the law to out-compete old-style govts:
-seasteading
-cryptoanarchy
Here's another thought: US is innocent until proven guilty! It's not a crime if u don't get caught as we say
I think this is the basics how most libertarian do it (notice that quite many of them have their own business, even if just a small one). The problem is, if you grow big enough for the current power-holders to fear you, but not enough to be able to defend yourself agaist them.
Out-competing political organisation is a really interesting thought. I guess the open source software movement is a similar model. To make it a success you need a critical mass of people attracted to a particular cause prepared to give their time freely without consideration for personal reward or their own ego and without any personal agenda. That's easier in some areas of life than in others. Open Source Politics anyone?
I've always believed that the problem with politics is the people attracted to it. We all know the types: the passionate shallow-thinkers and self-appointed prefects for whom the world would be an infinitely better place if only they were the one-in-charge telling everyone else how to live their lives. Ego-driven, pettily proscriptive, pedagogic, controlling, dependency fostering and resented - you find them in most workplaces too.
I saw an interesting YouTube interview recently with Harry Markopolos [the guy who attempted to expose Bernie Madoff and was totally ignored by the US authorities]. Don't know what his politics are but he comes across as a really together guy who'd be fascinating to spend a few hours picking his brains. America has lots of these types of people - incredibly well educated, articulate and thoughtful. And almost none of them are in politics! Markopolos proposed an interesting idea which is to make politics like jury service. People are chosen at random to serve for a fixed term, say 2 years. Can't be worse than the present system. As Markpolos put it: the average citizen can balance a monthly check book; that puts them ahead of most of Congress. To make it work, you'd probably need an 'expert' permanent staff of genuinely impartial advisers - something like a cross between the British Civil Service and the Brookings Institute.
Just my thougths...
I've always believed that the problem with politics is the people attracted to it. We all know the types: the passionate shallow-thinkers and self-appointed prefects for whom the world would be an infinitely better place if only they were the one-in-charge telling everyone else how to live their lives. Ego-driven, pettily proscriptive, pedagogic, controlling, dependency fostering and resented - you find them in most workplaces too.
I saw an interesting YouTube interview recently with Harry Markopolos [the guy who attempted to expose Bernie Madoff and was totally ignored by the US authorities]. Don't know what his politics are but he comes across as a really together guy who'd be fascinating to spend a few hours picking his brains. America has lots of these types of people - incredibly well educated, articulate and thoughtful. And almost none of them are in politics! Markopolos proposed an interesting idea which is to make politics like jury service. People are chosen at random to serve for a fixed term, say 2 years. Can't be worse than the present system. As Markpolos put it: the average citizen can balance a monthly check book; that puts them ahead of most of Congress. To make it work, you'd probably need an 'expert' permanent staff of genuinely impartial advisers - something like a cross between the British Civil Service and the Brookings Institute.
Just my thougths...
Great story, but DIY liberitarianism is not about giving your time for free, rather sell it on the unconstrained market.
I also agree with the previous poster, you need capital probably owned by companies, and that is more difficult to keep under the radar of the state.
Out-competing political organisation is a really interesting thought. I guess the open source software movement is a similar model. To make it a success you need a critical mass of people attracted to a particular cause prepared to give their time freely without consideration for personal reward or their own ego and without any personal agenda. That's easier in some areas of life than in others. Open Source Politics anyone?
I've always believed that the problem with politics is the people attracted to it. We all know the types: the passionate shallow-thinkers and self-appointed prefects for whom the world would be an infinitely better place if only they were the one-in-charge telling everyone else how to live their lives. Ego-driven, pettily proscriptive, pedagogic, controlling, dependency fostering and resented - you find them in most workplaces too.
I saw an interesting YouTube interview recently with Harry Markopolos [the guy who attempted to expose Bernie Madoff and was totally ignored by the US authorities]. Don't know what his politics are but he comes across as a really together guy who'd be fascinating to spend a few hours picking his brains. America has lots of these types of people - incredibly well educated, articulate and thoughtful. And almost none of them are in politics! Markopolos proposed an interesting idea which is to make politics like jury service. People are chosen at random to serve for a fixed term, say 2 years. Can't be worse than the present system. As Markpolos put it: the average citizen can balance a monthly check book; that puts them ahead of most of Congress. To make it work, you'd probably need an 'expert' permanent staff of genuinely impartial advisers - something like a cross between the British Civil Service and the Brookings Institute.
Just my thougths...
I've always believed that the problem with politics is the people attracted to it. We all know the types: the passionate shallow-thinkers and self-appointed prefects for whom the world would be an infinitely better place if only they were the one-in-charge telling everyone else how to live their lives. Ego-driven, pettily proscriptive, pedagogic, controlling, dependency fostering and resented - you find them in most workplaces too.
I saw an interesting YouTube interview recently with Harry Markopolos [the guy who attempted to expose Bernie Madoff and was totally ignored by the US authorities]. Don't know what his politics are but he comes across as a really together guy who'd be fascinating to spend a few hours picking his brains. America has lots of these types of people - incredibly well educated, articulate and thoughtful. And almost none of them are in politics! Markopolos proposed an interesting idea which is to make politics like jury service. People are chosen at random to serve for a fixed term, say 2 years. Can't be worse than the present system. As Markpolos put it: the average citizen can balance a monthly check book; that puts them ahead of most of Congress. To make it work, you'd probably need an 'expert' permanent staff of genuinely impartial advisers - something like a cross between the British Civil Service and the Brookings Institute.
Just my thougths...
Resilience vs efficiency
DIY is very resilient but mostly not efficient.
Well, most big ass corporations are not efficient either and only sustain on their army of lawyers and the state, but still, factories, division of labor etc is more efficient than DIY.
DIY is very resilient but mostly not efficient.
Well, most big ass corporations are not efficient either and only sustain on their army of lawyers and the state, but still, factories, division of labor etc is more efficient than DIY.
From my eposure to austrian economy, libertarianism and bitcoin lately, I have come to the conclusion that counter-economy is fully ethical and truly positive for everybody. For people who does not like to climb onto a chair and argue with low knowledge individuals and risking retaliation from the guys with the guns, parttaking in counter-economy is perfect.
The idea of do-it-yourself libertarianism is a good one but it shouldn't be a total strategy, more like one tactic involving several others incorporating a total strategy to reach a more libertarian world. You don't believe people should break the law? There's no way that DIYL will succeed if people aren't willing to break the law. The government will try to stop anything that gets too successful if they don't control it.
Are you familiar with Konkin's idea of counter-economics? Basically he claims that a free society will evolve out of the black market. I don't agree that this is the solution either because black marketeers profit off of their good/service being scarce. Nothing against agorists, voluntarist or anarchists. I just think every strategy needs to work with one another.
Are you familiar with Konkin's idea of counter-economics? Basically he claims that a free society will evolve out of the black market. I don't agree that this is the solution either because black marketeers profit off of their good/service being scarce. Nothing against agorists, voluntarist or anarchists. I just think every strategy needs to work with one another.
Let's discuss a topic called "Do it yourself" Libertarianism. In essence, instead of seeking to reform political and legal structures we simply out-compete them. Bitcoin, food trucks and home schooling would be examples of this.
What does DIYL mean to you? Do you agree with my definition?
Do you support DIY Libertarianism or other strategies of political reform?
Why?
If you choose DIY, how should we go about engaging in it?
Lastly, have two related articles to chew on as you think:
http://caeconomics.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/do-it-yourself-libertarianism/
http://caeconomics.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/frederick-hayek-supports-do-it-yourself-libertarianism/
What does DIYL mean to you? Do you agree with my definition?
Do you support DIY Libertarianism or other strategies of political reform?
Why?
If you choose DIY, how should we go about engaging in it?
Lastly, have two related articles to chew on as you think:
http://caeconomics.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/do-it-yourself-libertarianism/
http://caeconomics.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/frederick-hayek-supports-do-it-yourself-libertarianism/
Jump to: