Free Talk Live 2017-10-18
Oct 18, 2017 at 23:14 · 2:01:06
Roy Moore Claims NFL Players Violating US Code by Kneeling :: Rand Paul Endorses Roy Moore :: Man Attacked Physically By Supporter of Business Competitor :: Collectivizing Libertarians :: Nationalism and Socialism :: Music Radio :: Ralph and the NFL :: Antifa Mass Protests Planned for Nov 4th :: Defending Others and Stand Your Ground :: Bed Bugs :: HOSTS - Ian, Mark, Mike
link: https://soundcloud.com/freetalklive/free-talk-live-2017-10-18
One could make a good argument that a true libertarian could never hold a political office.
Government being the “legitimate use of violence in a given landmass”, it would be impossible, in my opinion, to hold fast to the non-aggression principle.
Because they don’t play the “negotiating favors with special interests” game, principled people will always be losers in the political arena anyway.
And those “libertarians” that run as Democrats or Republicans are using the “people are too fuckin’ stupid to notice” tactic, whether they know it or not.
2 Likes
While I am ideally ancap, I am not a purist in practical application to reality. There’s a long road between here and ancapistan, there is no teleport booth. Trying to apply “ought” arguments to “is” issues is intellectually dishonest and unproductive, often completely counterproductive and alienating to making actual progress in the right direction.
I see voting as much of an act of self defense against statist aggression (as long as you are voting against those trying to expand government or maintain the status quo) as carrying a gun in a dark alley. Not all violence is aggressive, nor are all votes aggression either. So the argument that “voting is initiating aggression” is fallacious.
Since for there to be self defensive votes there need to be defenders to vote for, people who are committed to downsizing and dismantling the state, law by law, regulation by regulation, tax by tax, bureaucrat by bureaucrat are necessary to the cause of libertarianism, else all you are doing is engaging in mental masturbation about a never will be fantasy. If you aren’t willing to participate in the political process in some way to further the cause of liberty, and the mental masturbation isn’t satiating you, then what you are really arguing for is armed revolution.
I think we have a LOT of politicking to do before anyone can justify the idea that armed revolution is preferable to the political process.
1 Like