FREEDOM FORUM: Discussion

Make a Comment

Comments in Response

Comment by Morpheus
Entered on:

As usual you knocked it out of the park man!  I put your banner on my site http://www.offthegridguy.com and http://www.musicians4freedom.com

Comment by KittyAntonikWakfer
Entered on:

Quite right, Larken, the smallest minority is the individual and *everyone* is one - a fact of reality that those people who vote (and otherwise take part in the trappings of the State) fail to keep in mind. Plus, as you have pointed out, there is a categorization in which any person is in the majority (even vast majority) and another one in which that same person is in the minority (even vast minority).

At some point (very often immediately) everyone in a democracy finds (him/her) hirself doing something that s/he does not assess to be in hir own best interest, *only* as a result of actual or threat of legalized physical force by government enforcers. While politicians and bureaucrats create and administer the laws/rules/directives/edicts/mandates/etc, it is those enforcers who make them more than just words on paper (or other recorded medium). Without the enforcers, none of the laws/rules/directives/edicts/mandates/etc, whether approved by the majority or not, would proceed past the government archives. Very few if any elected or appointed legislators, executives (President included) and judges would actually get out in the field and enforce any of the laws/rules/directives/edicts/mandates/etc that they brought into being. They depend on the enforcers - aka thugs - to do the "dirty work" or, as you put it, do the "enslaving".

So in addition to not voting, those who want to see an end to the State, would best openly and strongly negatively social preference towards those government enforcers who choose to remain in that position after having been shown "the error of their ways" - how the State is not in their wide view, long range best interest. Having *nothing* voluntarily to do with an enforcer - and making it clear to hir and others why that is being done - can, when practiced by a large number of individuals, have a strong motivating influence towards that person changing hir choice of work (finding something truly productive to do). And with this same practice in place by large numbers in a geographical area, replacements for former enforcers will be few, thereby beginning the withering away of the State.

While many (if not actually most) individuals in current society think that an orderly society requires the existence of government and its enforcers, there is nothing in the nature of human beings that automatically leads to the conclusion that individuals must be ruled by others in order that there be orderly interactions between them. Society, just like any other natural system can be naturally self-regulating by means of interactions between its members, if only humans seek to discover and are allowed to implement the methods by which such self-regulation can be effective, rather than continuing to embrace social systems that need to be constantly held in an unnatural (and very unoptimal) state of balance by the operations of their rulers and other influencers. Individual self-order without rule by others is the social system whose members are fully adult (particularly meaning self-responsible) humans. Just as people can become physical adults, so can they become psychological and social adults - if only they are allowed (and even required in the sense that they will not achieve their desires unless they do) to socially mature sufficiently.

Once they understand and agree with these points (as a start), those who denounce government tyranny in this or any other part of the world will be doing far more than merely crying out to their fellows in the dark.


**Kitty Antonik Wakfer

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting

 

Comment by Darren Wolfe
Entered on:

Larken,

You da man!

Kitty,

Long time no hear, I hope all is going well for you.

Here's a thought about your comment. At this point the advocates of liberty are so few that trying to ostracize the statists will backfire. We will only succeed at isolating ourselves. Maybe at this stage it would be better to engage them more patiently. When there are more of us then we'll cut them off.


Comment by Eric -
Entered on:

So well written - best article I've read in some time. 

Democracy, indeed. "The god that failed."

 

Comment by KittyAntonikWakfer
Entered on:

Not checking back at this location until today, Darren, is the reason for my delayed response to you. How I am (and Paul too) is public record - just check http://morelife.org/personal/  Very good, in 2 words - but we'd be far better if progress were actually being made towards a truly free and optimal society.

As for your comments....
"At this point the advocates of liberty are so few that trying to ostracize the statists will backfire."

Well, simply "engaging" the Statists hasn't moved society any closer to a truly free and optimal society, so I have no concerns about a "backfire". But please keep in mind what I *actually* wrote earlier here and elsewhere on this subject of negative Social Preferencing.
"[T]hose who want to see an end to the State, would best openly and strongly negatively social preference towards those government enforcers who choose to remain in that position after having been shown "the error of their ways" - how the State is not in their wide view, long range best interest. Having *nothing* voluntarily to do with an enforcer - and making it clear to hir and others why that is being done - can, when practiced by a large number of individuals, have a strong motivating influence towards that person changing hir choice of work (finding something truly productive to do)."
Note that I am referring to **government enforcers** - those who, as agents of any of numerous state/provincial/local and federal agencies, carry the guns (and other weapons) and threaten and actually initiate physical force to get the occupants of (and visitors to) a particular geographical area to obey some law/directive/regulation/mandate/etc, and *without whom* the rest of the Statists, specifically the legislators, executives (President included) and judges, would be totally impotent!
----

"We will only succeed at isolating ourselves."
I don't think so since the number of actual government *enforcers* at all levels of government is far smaller than the remaining portion of the population - even smaller than the number of "advocates of liberty". It is the entrenched enforcers at whom the strong negative Social Preferencing - ostracism - is recommended. And while much of the population is Statist in a great deal of their thinking, many of them are not fond of many of the measures taken by and even the purposes of numerous law enforcement agencies.
----

 "Maybe at this stage it would be better to engage them more patiently."
The strong negative Social Preferencing (ostracism) is urged only *after* these government enforcers have refused to positively respond to idea "engagements". In addition, I think that many of the Statists-in-thinking (different from the government enforcers) can be engaged in discussion to show how negative Social Preferencing can be a very strong influential tool for persuading those whose actions (or even ideas) are not in either the persuader's *or* the enforcer's long range wide viewed best interest. Think back - or do some research - on Ghandi and also Gene Sharp's writings on actual uses in the past of social ostracism, as well as other non-violent protest methods.
----

"When there are more of us then we'll cut them off."
There is no good reason for continuing to treat someone as a "friend" whose job it is to threaten to and actually initiate physical force to ensure that individuals adhere to some law/directive/regulation/mandate after you have made concerted attempts to persuade hir of hir errors. It is actually philosophical contradictory to demonstrate in actions that such a person is a value - a friend - to you. It tells everyone else that you do not actually mean what you say - that you will be friends with anyone, no matter how horrendous are their ideas and actions.

So do not wait. Be consistent in your Social Preferencing, both positive and negative, with all those with whom you come in contact - giving each person the benefit of the doubt the first time as you engage them in a positive manner.

**Kitty Antonik Wakfer

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting

 

Make a Comment