tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post677031517193511840..comments2024-03-28T09:59:13.754-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: Decentralizationianismbionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-42909726126137413092018-02-14T15:52:46.315-08:002018-02-14T15:52:46.315-08:00"In all seriousness, she has her head up her ..."In all seriousness, she has her head up her (you know what)."<br /><br />I almost spewed out my drink as I read this, bm. And no, I do not want to know what.<br /><br />-MAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-38199989393864896292018-02-14T12:29:04.516-08:002018-02-14T12:29:04.516-08:00I don't know. I will get back to you after my...I don't know. I will get back to you after my Ritalin kicks in.<br /><br />In all seriousness, she has her head up her (you know what).bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-62752520091208157252018-02-14T10:59:42.824-08:002018-02-14T10:59:42.824-08:00https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/13/democracy-in-ch...https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/13/democracy-in-chains-author-nancy-maclean<br /><br />Is she right?Unhappy Conservative (2.0)https://www.blogger.com/profile/05647440445427537430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-880786365116840972018-02-14T09:58:44.559-08:002018-02-14T09:58:44.559-08:00Tahn
I have never advocated force. I do know tha...Tahn<br /><br />I have never advocated force. I do know that if the government stayed out of property matters, the means of forming communities around common cultures would happen voluntarily.<br /><br />Further, unless this topic - the intersection of liberty and culture - is discussed...well, it won't be discussed.<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-7587334952732410742018-02-14T09:56:19.680-08:002018-02-14T09:56:19.680-08:00"It starts with each one of us, living our li..."It starts with each one of us, living our lives in accordance with our best principles."<br /><br />I agree. Talk the talk and walk the walk (to the extent walking the walk is possible in a world of mud).<br /><br />And raise healthy children.<br /><br />Beyond this, it is in God's hands.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-53745332216568581122018-02-14T04:48:08.497-08:002018-02-14T04:48:08.497-08:00Bionic,
I can understand your desire for a compa...Bionic,<br /><br /> I can understand your desire for a compatible community and agree it would probably be easier to have a harmonious relationship with your neighbors if all are of a similar lifestyle, philosophy or religion. IF you started with this concept and restricted the people joining or buying property, such as a HOA or a gated community, I think this would be wonderful and whatever rules you establish, Christian, libertine or Moslem would be voluntary and acceptable to the libertarian concept.<br /><br />If you attempt to expand this protected area against those who disagree and aggression is used to facilitate this expansion, then you have violated the NAP and would of course violate libertarian principles, IMO.<br /><br />Of course the current state would make this difficult or impossible, regardless of what rules you applied internally and the dangerous areas would be those areas that are contiguous with an opposing lifestyle.<br /><br /> Your concept is not totally different from those areas in Europe where I understand there are some “no go” areas for non Moslems. Still, if they own the property, so be it. Same with your desired community.<br /><br />A side note on your sex pervert neighbors. Maybe some areas need to be “open range” and some “closed range” as relates to the view shed. The responsibility to “fence in” or “fence out” the activities would depend upon the previous agreement of the community.<br /><br />Decentralizationianism is a concept I can buy, if it’s voluntary. Good luck and again, thanks for the mind expanding dialog.<br /><br />Tahn<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-79032046688067985532018-02-13T15:38:48.710-08:002018-02-13T15:38:48.710-08:00Greetings! I have been following your blog for at...Greetings! I have been following your blog for at least a year now with great interest. I learned of it through LRC, which I have been reading since the turn of the century.<br /><br />I find your open musings on practical libertarianism (that word, by the way, does not exist in Firefox's spellchecker dictionary by default -- something interesting on its own) / decentralizationism / disestablishmentarianism to be valuable and worth thinking about on my own -- and sharing with others similarly-minded. <br /><br />I think that those of us who are similarly liberty-minded have two major conundrums to wrestle with: How do we get to "there" from here (and for the purposes of this comment I'm going to define "there" as "genuine liberty for all"), and how do we stay "there".<br /><br />I think that your observation that, however we get "there", we will not be able to stay "there" without a common culture, is one with merit and needs to be considered.<br /><br />As for how we get "there" in the first place, I think that the answer is: "we" do not. Not as a group. Not as a nation, or a state, or a county, or a city, or a neighborhood. It starts with each one of us, living our lives in accordance with our best principles. "To thine own self be true," in other words.<br /><br />I honestly do not see the current world order making it another 100 years. Not even 50. It actually is not my intention to introduce "doom porn" into this discussion, and I could very easily be wrong on this point. But I do believe that it is not going to be possible for "us" to get "there" until after that has occurred. And in the meantime, each one of us ought, IMO, to stay true to our own selves. To be in the world, but not of it. To bring comfort to the afflicted. And to do our very best -- within *reason* -- to be in a position to survive the coming SHTF scenario, IF it comes within our lifetimes. And if it does not, to continue to live our lives such that we are the best people that we can be. This may mean that one or more of us may feel the same call that Ron Paul did, to try to change the system from within, however small or great that change may be. It is certainly not my calling, but I would not dissuade anyone else who I thought exhibited the same own-self-truthfulness as did Ron Paul.<br /><br />Keep the faith, exhibit the faith, be a shining city on a hill for all around you. Agree to disagree when disagreements arise, and try to settle those disagreements as civilly as possible. Work ever towards the end goal of civilization. And just to be clear, I see "the state" as being the antithesis of civilization, of humanity, and of life itself.<br /><br />I don't see "getting there" happening anytime within the lifetime of anyone reading these words, but I do think it is eventually possible. But only if we make as positive an impact on our fellow man as we can.<br /><br />MordrulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-58971024868615413452018-02-13T14:33:58.771-08:002018-02-13T14:33:58.771-08:00ATL, I truly appreciate your comments and our dial...ATL, I truly appreciate your comments and our dialogue.<br /><br />I am working through a post that may end up walking through this field of the NAP vs (and I don't mean "vs" in an adversarial way) Christianity.<br /><br />Then again, the post may not end up there - I never know for sure when I start writing exactly where I will end up...Jordan Peterson says that you can't really know what you think without writing and talking and getting feedback. Before I started writing regularly I wouldn't have understood this.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-81857210881854990812018-02-13T12:36:27.648-08:002018-02-13T12:36:27.648-08:00Ha! I was just making it abundantly clear that peo...Ha! I was just making it abundantly clear that people would be free to segregate if they chose to. I think living in a libertarian society would end up being more or less how it is now in that you would work around and do business with people of diverse beliefs, but then you could go home to and raise up your kids in a community of like minded people. The main difference being you wouldn't have to suffer under the laws and expropriations of others. Cities would probably still have extreme heterogeneity, while surrounding communities would be, at least to some degree, more homogeneous.A Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-17592798410348374632018-02-13T12:24:13.504-08:002018-02-13T12:24:13.504-08:00BM,
I see you've chosen the name! I like it. ...BM,<br /><br />I see you've chosen the name! I like it. Let me just say that aside from being a Texas libertarian, I am also (now) a Texas decentralizationist! For a few years I've come to believe that secession from DC is the only hope for the future of Texas liberty and culture. I'd love to see Texas as a mutual defense confederation of city-states like ancient Greece, but without the despotism and slavery.<br /><br />"There is no libertarian “thou shalt” because there can be no libertarian “thou shalt.""<br /><br />I'm not so sure you are correct with your criticisms of negative liberty. There are plenty of libertarian "thou shalts" that are derived from the principal "thou shalt not." For instance, thou shalt abide: self ownership, private property rights, peace, free trade, and free association (to name a few); these are all things a libertarian should be for.<br /><br />Besides Christianity can be defined largely in the negative as well. Most of the ten commandments are negative (thou shalt not: steal, kill, bear false witness, covet your neighbor's wife, covet your neighbor's possessions, etc.), and yet Christian institutions built quite long lasting and prosperous civilizations. =)<br /><br />Now I'm not saying libertarianism has the same life and civilization building capacities as Christianity. Christianity gives people meaning beyond death. Liberty cannot compete on this level as a means of bringing people together in the face of the uncertainties of life and death, but it can, in my consideration, complement the 'good news' and help keep it inoculated against the corrupting influence of monopolized human law and order.<br /><br />"sometimes a good punch in the nose is the best means by which a libertarian society can stay “libertarian.”"<br /><br />Most punches in the nose don't concern the authorities in today's America. It would be the same in a libertarian society. As a man, you learn to measure your words with a bit of respect around other men due to the disutility of getting decked in the face. I believe a libertarian order would do nothing to harm the effectiveness or prevalence of 'guy codes' like this.A Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-25705922317613031132018-02-13T10:57:55.218-08:002018-02-13T10:57:55.218-08:00Ooh! I like Polyarchist!Ooh! I like Polyarchist!Woody Barretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07174366266746908252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-43565181006092316252018-02-13T10:56:12.851-08:002018-02-13T10:56:12.851-08:00"Woody, you get the prize…almost ..."
I ..."Woody, you get the prize…almost ..."<br />I am honored!<br /><br />"... maybe this is just a point of clarification and not a disagreement; specifically to your comment: '…who controls coercion within a parcel of property if not the property owner?'"<br /><br />I did clarify this in your "Libertarian Movement" post for ATL, Bionic but I will paraphrase here. <br /><br />My own interpretation of the NAP is simply this - since the NAP's purpose is to place a limit on violence and aggression, a more positive addendum would be that we should discipline ourselves to limit aggression and violence to the minimum necessary to rectify the situation.<br /><br />In the classic "Child steals an apple" thought experiment, we have a plethora of choices much less violent than death - the action is only limited by the imagination. Certainly we should take into account the consequences of our action, such as possible retribution from the parents, when choosing our actions.<br /><br />All of this goes back to a point I made in my "Libertarian Movement" post: self-discipline is necessary to acquire and keep a free society and some of the points raised in "Defending the Undefendable" would tend to lessen self-discipline.<br /><br />Self-discipline is a requirement for the free man if he expects to remain and maximize his freedom. Simply fulfilling every gratification - such as taking an apple because you want one - is not conducive to avoiding consequences that will curtail one's freedom. An extreme example of such a consequence would be the removal of a hand for theft as is practiced in traditional Muslim culture. While that may be over the top for most of us here, it is certainly within the Walter Block interpretation of the NAP. <br /><br />We must understand though, that some of those "Undefendable" things are better left alone, since the consequences of their restriction would tend to increase violence in society. Depression-era Prohibition, for example, greatly increased violence even though the use of liquor (or any addictive or mind-altering substance) is not conducive to self-discipline.<br /><br />Therefore, each thing must be examined not only in the light of how it would affect our self-discipline but also in regards to the consequences that allowing or disallowing that thing would have on society in general - which I suppose would be something that a decentralized societal unit could best accomplish.<br /><br />But, in decentralization, we encounter another problem: how do we come together to defend ourselves from outside aggression? I have proposed one solution in an earlier post - there may be others that are better.Woody Barretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07174366266746908252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-29226690822597754502018-02-13T08:32:57.483-08:002018-02-13T08:32:57.483-08:00Hi BM,
I am all for decentralization, but the quo...Hi BM,<br /><br />I am all for decentralization, but the quote from ATL sounds more like segregation to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-84140742110366804932018-02-13T08:30:22.241-08:002018-02-13T08:30:22.241-08:00I love these musings bionic. Historian Brion McCla...I love these musings bionic. Historian Brion McClanahan has stated that Jefferson considered the first part of the Declaration of Independence as a kind of throw away line, grabbed on by the Jaffaites. <br />https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/why-the-jaffaites-lie-about-american-history/<br /><br />The most important part of the document was the last paragraph:<br /><br />"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."SBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699554522289335818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-72116610965495102012018-02-13T08:16:38.535-08:002018-02-13T08:16:38.535-08:00http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/cate...http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c2a1.htm<br /><br />The person and society from the Papists!<br /><br />I do disagree that the “state” is necessary, but governance through some more formal means is, unless as Mises taught the “state” can be dismembered voluntarily—Decentralizationism through Subsidiarity.<br /><br />Eric<br />Veterans for Peace Indianapolishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15927156876347502654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-82665167430436320112018-02-13T08:15:01.914-08:002018-02-13T08:15:01.914-08:00Great discussion. I believe it is abundantly clear...Great discussion. I believe it is abundantly clear that libertarianism in principle is decentralization in practice.<br /><br />How about the Decentralist Movement, instead of -izationism? Polyarchy, polyarchism? The Polyarchist Movement.EMPnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-50411695224064461442018-02-13T06:28:57.358-08:002018-02-13T06:28:57.358-08:00Excellent follow-ups, bm. Thank you.
-MExcellent follow-ups, bm. Thank you.<br />-MAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-14136226390049041242018-02-13T05:47:21.293-08:002018-02-13T05:47:21.293-08:00"You know, it’s is also likely that had Rothb..."You know, it’s is also likely that had Rothbard done this we would not have the same Mises Institute that we have today – maybe none at all. So, sorry to disagree – I am glad Rothbard went his own way. "<br /><br />It's ok, we can disagree and still be friends.<br /><br />:)<br /><br />I disagree with your assessment that the left and right libertarian only share 5% in common goals, but it's a somewhat subjective metric and in the big scheme I'm not sure that important.<br /><br />For the record, if Rothbard maintaing any kind of relationship with Cato was an "either/or" proposition as far as the Mises Institute went, I'd always pick the existence of the Mises Institute, but I don't see it that way.<br /><br />In the big picture, I fit in with the right libertarians(and you) culturally speaking despite the minor differences of opinion on the above and I'm glad to see you champion decentralization as the solution to to cultural differences.<br /><br />Let the leftists learn the hard way what a predominantly libertine society yields once again- as long as we don't have to suffer for it.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com