Well thats what Jesse is doing with his blogs and public demonstrations. Except he’s not spreading the word for the sake of trying to fix the system. All the hopelessness he has that I see is hoplessness for our broken, tyranical, coercive government system. I still have hope that someday in the future we (or our descendents) will live in a volunteer society. I have hope for freedom, not fixing the system. Now surely you agree that once we got to the point of having a volunteer society with all the neccessary protection, arbitration, and reputation systems in place it would work. And I understand that you are afraid of immediately abolishing the government. I am too. But I have yet to see anyone advocate that. At least none of the mosty-level headed people on this site. I haven’t heard much fom Jesse on how he plans to get to a volunteer society, but I haven’t heard him say violent aggressive revolution either. I still say counter-economics is the answer.

The only way that any of these ideas would ever be possible is if more people are converted to the side of liberty. And by more I mean a significant portion of the population.

Absolutely and my point was that there’s no reason to go to all that trouble unless you still have some hope that doing so might gain a large enough bloc to change the system as it now exists. Having a positive outlook on things is something the anarchists I’ve thus far spoken to have not had to any significant degree if at all.

It’s like by the time you get to the point of being an anarchist ala AnarchoJesse and you’re shouting “Screw it all!” and knocking the chess pieces over, you’re pretty much burned out on hope and positivity (which explains a lot of the differences between anarchists and minarchists).

Perhaps AnarchoJesse, Ian et al are just trying to be helpful and want us to get as far ahead on the cycle of hopelessness as they are so we aren’t treading water uselessly but I’m afraid if we’re all destined to end up hopeless that the system can be changed, modified, shrunk or declawed, we each need to get to that realization in our own due time.

The only way that any of these ideas would ever be possible is if more people are converted to the side of liberty. And by more I mean a significant portion of the population. I’m sorry but if New Hampshire were to seccede from the union any time soon it would end in catastrophy. Whats going to happen when a group of tax evaders take over a city? Whats going to happen when they claim to have the right to do whatever they want and claim they are not apart of the nation? They will be stamped out. Even if they were allowed to seccede without US military intervention the residents of this new society would be extremely confined and limited by surrounding governments. I’m sure the US would love to make international trade and travel nearly impossible for these people. Simply put, these ideas are impossible until the message of liberty is spread much further and we have more people on our side.

“I have yet to meet an anarchist who has any hope whatsoever. Typically they’ve reached the last straw, succumbed to desperation and in their rage and hopelessness now seek to knock all the chess pieces from the table with a sledgehammer rather than play the game.”

I honestly dont have much hope to see liberty in my lifetime, but I have hope for future generations. All I can really hope for is to be a part of the proccess.
Which for me means spreading the word, practicing counter-economics, and aiding fellow libertarians. Getting liberty activists elected into office is great, but i believe it is futile in the long run. Its really just legitimizing the system and putting someone else at the wheel of the government oppression machine. And forceful dismantling of the government would require violent aggressive revolution which is a horrible idea. Violence only begets more violence. We anarchists need a plan and need to realise that violence out of frustration when the plan advances unbearably slow will only cause more problems. In my opinion the best, non-hypocrital plan is: Step 1-Spread the word, Step 2-Gradually create a counter economy, Step 3-Defend ourselves from the state when the time comes. The states aggression will only come on a large scale when the counter economy has grown substanially and it has a means to protect itself. Basically the counter economy will be the growth of a volunteer society/true free market outside of government and after the three step plan is complete all the systems that a volunteer society needs will have already grown into place in the counter economy.

Not true. The solution is spreading the message of liberty and counter-economics.

While I agree with that solution, only those who believe there is some kind of hope, be it fixing the system (not possible IMO), reigning it in (maybe IMO) or seceding from it (best option IMO) and so on. Some goal that can be achieved by spreading the message of liberty.

I have yet to meet an anarchist who has any hope whatsoever. Typically they’ve reached the last straw, succumbed to desperation and in their rage and hopelessness now seek to knock all the chess pieces from the table with a sledgehammer rather than play the game.

I can’t say I blame them. It can be frustrating and feel like an effort in futility. Me, I’m not yet ready to give in and quit the game as long as there remains the possibility of a winning strategy.

Maybe I’m just holding off the inevitable and I’ll be among their ranks at some point. It remains to be seen.

Not true. The solution is spreading the message of liberty and counter-economics.

I’m still fuzzy on the exact differences between anarcho-capitalist, volunteerist, free marketeerist, agorist, and libertarian.

I tend to imagine it as a sliding scale with Minarchist (i.e. Some Minor Governing Organization) on one end and Anarchist (Absolutely No Governing Organization Whatsoever) on the other.

Toss in “time” as a variable and all pro-freedom persons tend to inch their way from the Minarchist end toward the Anarchist end. Not everyone goes the full distance and that’s just fine. It’s those going the opposite direction on that scale you need to worry about.

I describe myself as all of the above and think they are all basically the same, altough I do observe more violent tendencies from those who call themselves anarchists as apposed to those who call themselves libertarians. Not to make generalizations, just state observed tendencies.

They also tend to be antisocial, impatient, humorless and gruff. When you no longer believe the system can be fixed or held back, there isn’t much room for options other than violence, so if your observation is true for the majority, it wouldn’t surprise me.

Well maybe I mean thats all libertarians want. I guess it depends on how you define what. I’m still fuzzy on the exact differences between anarcho-capitalist, volunteerist, free marketeerist, agorist, and libertarian. I describe myself as all of the above and think they are all basically the same, altough I do observe more violent tendencies from those who call themselves anarchists as apposed to those who call themselves libertarians. Not to make generalizations, just state observed tendencies.

…you catch more flies with honey.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Very good point. Just like the fact that laws aren’t the answer to the drug problem, education is. Not to compare flag burning with passing laws, I’m just saying you catch more flies with honey.

Anarcho-capitalists, on the other hand, are essentially just asking (or demanding) to be left alone. They ask (or demand) no more of anyone than respect for personal liberties, while the religious types preach of punishment for failure to live one’s life a certain way.

You’d think that’s the way it would be but in practice, it isn’t. Try being a minarchist and then talking to an anarchist. So far, my luck has not been so fortunate when it comes to advocating systematically planned dismantling of unnecessary pieces of government and replacing those parts with proven free market ideas.

Essentially, what I’ve gotten from Jesse and others is an attempt to convert me to the philosophy of instantaneous obliteration of all aspects of government followed by a guilt-trip on the use of force followed by accusations of statism.

One moment you’re advocating moving toward more freedom (albeit using forethought and thinking things through) or even secession and the next you’re suddenly “the enemy” as far as he and other anarchists are concerned.

Not to speak for Jesse or anyone else, but I don’t believe anyone here is advocating the immediate and abrupt descruction of government. Maybe they are, but I, a self proclaimed anarcho-capitalist, realize that such a thing would require violent revolution, which would ultimately be detrimental to the cause of Liberty and end in chaos.

Sounds like you’ve got a good head on your shoulders and have thought things through. And that’s all I’ve advocated that Jesse also do. Rather accept that for value, he preferred to rail against me with righteous fury. At one point I was waiting for the sky to turn black and the seas to run red.

As far as whether or not the flag burning demonstration was “in the right”, first and formost Jesse has the right to express himself however he pleases. As far as the PR aspect goes, the people who are irked probably weren’t going to be on board with his ideas anyways. If he got just one mind headed in the direction of liberty, it was worth it.

While I personally find flag burning useless and inflammatory and my fears about it painting all freestaters in a negative light have come true (check out the recent WKBK Talkback episode), I never told Jesse not to do it. I don’t really care, so long as you aren’t fooling yourself as to a) why you are doing it and b) what it will accomplish.

I’ve always agreed that it is indeed part of his right to free speech. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to criticize it and express my view that there are more constructive ways of getting your message across or that his own words on the matter made me feel he was doing it not to spread the message of freedom but rather out of spite because he was sick of people waving their flags in parades and whatnot.

Go ahead and burn whatever property of yours you want but keep in mind that setting a cultural symbol ablaze is inherently a destructive, violent act and is far less likely to open minds than truer, more peaceful forms of outreach and education.