Free State Wyoming Forum

Prospective Free State Wyoming (FSW) Members and Interested Parties => Prospective Free State Wyoming (FSW) Members and Interested Parties => Topic started by: Boston on September 22, 2009, 12:30:35 PM

Title: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: Boston on September 22, 2009, 12:30:35 PM
The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
http://georgedonnelly.com/agorism/early-plan-peaceful-evolution

Much food for thought here, which also syncs nicely with Wyoming and FSW culture, especially:

Quote
3. Virtualize Your Organization

Open source means that we organize in a loose fashion. There are no formal leaders, there is no chain of command, there are no elections or orders handed down. Individuals work together or not as they see fit. Individuals organize for “ops”, do the job and disperse. The exact same teams may not work together more than once. Even among libertarians there are diverse interests, priorities and comfort levels.

Some areas which we could improve upon:

Quote
5. Coopetition not Competition
Everyone who opposes the state is our ally. Perhaps even those who oppose just this state are our allies (up to a point). We will work in a space where we can simultaneously grow our effort and accelerate our growth as we complete with each other. Consider the Visa card system as an analogy. Banks’ credit card offerings compete against each other while all sharing the Visa payment system. As the competing banks grow, the shared Visa platform grows, and vice versa.

6. Don’t Fork the Insurgency
We can not allow major disagreements to become more important than our shared vision. In other words, no infighting. The kind of organization contemplated here is so ephemeral, you don’t have to work with anyone you don’t want to. There are no votes to be won or lost that you can’t simply walk away from. It’s a free market; forking it is dumb because the more participants in the market the more efficient it will be. People who lack tact or common courtesy, who start pointless arguments should be ostracized.

8. Self-Replicate
Self-replication is about making more of yourself. In other words, persuade more people to abandon aggression and embrace voluntary interaction. Anything that leverages people, that multiplies a person’s productivity is also included. Videotaping your productive activism is an example of this, since it can put you on the computers of potentially millions of people. Effective use of social media can be self-replication. Pamphleting, campaigning and other face-to-face activities can also qualify. Sharing how to duplicate your ops is also self-replication

A great essay which will benefit all freedom-lovers!
 ~W~
Boston


Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: jubal on September 22, 2009, 02:38:57 PM


   Sounds good. I like it. It'll work in any place for whatever.
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: SteveM on September 23, 2009, 04:00:11 PM
It is a great essay because it works on so many levels.  It should be clear by now that we are not going to change things by voting out incumbents.  We only replace them with incumbents-in-training.  For all the excitement that Ron Paul generated and all the money he raised his vote totals were still in the Mike Gravel range throughout the primaries.  Even if we had Ron Paul as president and a supportive Congress there are many millions who would not know how to live in a libertarian country.  No welfare, no food stamps, no Medicare, no Federal "aasistance" for education, roads and the like.  Take Win Bear's problems assimilating in The Probablility Broach and multiply it by a couple hundred million and I think we get a sense of the problem.
 
This approach functions on the level of the individual without the need for organizations, political parties, government permission, or a central leader.  While you hope it might produce people like John Wayne Preston (Molon Labe for those who might not have read it) it does not depend on them to succeed.  It depends on the individual's efforts to be free.  Then self replication and connecting with others to spread freedom.  And that may be the major key to this because so many don't understand what it is to be free.   Several people I work with were/are big Obama supporters and simply could not understand the interest that Ron Paul was creating, especially the concern with freedom.  In their opinion we are already free.  Apparently the ability to go to the mall, eat cheese dogs and buy designer jeans means we are free.  Without jumping into issues around the Federal Reserve, statism, there really only be one Republicrat party, and so on, I asked how a free society should operate.  Want to get married - need a govt license for it to be legal, want to own a car - got to be licencsed by govt, want to drive the car - need another kind of license, want to hunt or fish - another license, want to own a dog or cat - another license, want to go to a gun shop and buy a gun - need govt permission, want to own a business - another license, want to build a house -  many licenses, want to add on to your house - more govt permission, and on it went.  I asked if that was their idea of a free society.  Their opinion was this is what government is supposed to do, tell you what you can and can't do.  To them that's freedom.  That kind of thinking isn't going to change at the ballot box and would wilt or worse in a revolution.  At best it may be that this is a way to reach many of them, at worst a way to connect with others of like mind and resist quietly.

Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: Boston on September 23, 2009, 06:17:44 PM
Quote
Even if we had Ron Paul as president and a supportive Congress there are many millions who would not know how to live in a libertarian country.  No welfare, no food stamps, no Medicare, no Federal "aasistance" for education, roads and the like.  Take Win Bear's problems assimilating in The Probablility Broach and multiply it by a couple hundred million and I think we get a sense of the problem.
Yes, and well put!
And they'd just vote back in all the crap.
We're outnumbered (nationally).  Always were; always will be.

Boston
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: Paul Bonneau on September 24, 2009, 07:45:45 PM
This sentence left me cold:

Quote
In traditional voluntaryist fashion, I’m convinced we need to liberate 6 billion minds worldwide simultaneously.

An obvious impossibility. The rest of the article made sense though.

Quote
Even if we had Ron Paul as president and a supportive Congress there are many millions who would not know how to live in a libertarian country.  No welfare, no food stamps, no Medicare, no Federal "aasistance" for education, roads and the like.

I have been pushing the line of thought recently, that it is not necessary to convert all these people who are supportive or dependent on the state. It's a very long row to hoe to get them to accept freedom. However, it is a much smaller job to get them to leave us alone.

Many leftists, for example (paradoxically) have the view that they are non-violent. Now, one tack would be to belittle this belief, and try to point out how absurd it is. But is that the best course? Why not instead, take advantage of this view of theirs, and use it to our advantage. Say to them, "Since you don't approve of violence, then I assume you won't get violent with me if I choose not to participate in your version of political paradise. If you let me opt out, I will then stop agitating against your views. We can live in peace. This means of course that you cannot tax me or force me to do this or that, because force implies violence. But you are non-violent so you should have no problem with that, right?"

A free world would not be completely free. There will never be such a place. A free world would have pockets of different varieties of freedom, and different varieties of statism, each letting the other go its way. Then people will simply move to the kind of community that suits them.
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: Future/Now on September 25, 2009, 12:21:45 PM
I have been pushing the line of thought recently, that it is not necessary to convert all these people who are supportive or dependent on the state. It's a very long row to hoe to get them to accept freedom. However, it is a much smaller job to get them to leave us alone.

Many leftists, for example (paradoxically) have the view that they are non-violent. Now, one tack would be to belittle this belief, and try to point out how absurd it is. But is that the best course? Why not instead, take advantage of this view of theirs, and use it to our advantage. Say to them, "Since you don't approve of violence, then I assume you won't get violent with me if I choose not to participate in your version of political paradise. If you let me opt out, I will then stop agitating against your views. We can live in peace. This means of course that you cannot tax me or force me to do this or that, because force implies violence. But you are non-violent so you should have no problem with that, right?"

Well, you could certainly try that, although it's debatable how far you'd get. Lefties are generally nonviolent only as long as you "play nice" and agree with all their bullshite. Better to just leave 'em without a word, move as far away as possible and be done with it.

To them, things like logic, reason, independence, etc are unequivocally foreign concepts. In fact, the mere mention of them is a mortal threat to their way of life slavery, which they've collectively shown time and again they will defend at any cost with damn near religious zeal. Freedom lovers might as well be parasites that only want to suck away every last drop of the brainwash potion that courses through their veins. Without that vital nourishment, how could they possibly sustain themselves? :o When faced with the possibility of actually getting a clue, and having to decide (for themselves, naturally) between that and perpetual cluelessness, their heads might explode! Not that the loss would really be all that great, mind you....>:D
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: Paul Bonneau on September 26, 2009, 07:24:51 PM
Quote
Well, you could certainly try that, although it's debatable how far you'd get. Lefties are generally nonviolent only as long as you "play nice" and agree with all their bullshite
.

However far one would get with this, it is certain that one would get farther than arguing they should become free.

Anyway, it is not hopeless. On that homeschool list in Oregon I used to post on, we got into a discussion about gun control. One woman, who is a Quaker and therefore of course nonviolent, was a proponent of gun control because "guns mean violence", etc. I carefully and respectfully pointed out that her stand was a violent one, because it involved government agents attacking anyone who refused to give up their guns. She finally came around - not to the point that she wanted to be a gun owner, nor even to the point that it was OK that other people were gun owners. But she did get to the point of admitting gun control was violent, and said (in effect) she would no longer support it. And she said she would pray for the time I gave up my guns voluntarily.  :)

It helped that she and I saw eye to eye on things like homeschooling and Imperial foreign policy (i.e., constant war).

Quote
To them, things like logic, reason, independence, etc are unequivocally foreign concepts.

It's funny, I've heard "liberals" and leftists make exactly the same comment about conservatives and libertarians.  :D
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: elk on September 27, 2009, 08:22:17 AM
Quote
Quote
To them, things like logic, reason, independence, etc are unequivocally foreign concepts.

It's funny, I've heard "liberals" and leftists make exactly the same comment about conservatives and libertarians.  Cheesy

Problem is something else altogether.  Problem is that reason as a word has been bastardized, it has had its meaning subverted, modified, changed, removed and replaced...  Reason has been lobotomized by the brainwashers in politics and bureaucracy.  Reason can mean reason, or it can mean the ability to compromise out of cowardice or some other form of fear.  Indeed, "reasonable" has been changed to mean "amenable."  Interesting how the "neue sprache" has come into being as per Eric Blair's vision (some of you know him by his pen name, George Orwell.)

Rather than see reason as a cause and effect and understanding thereof, they see reason as being able to give in to the demands of bandits or thugs in order to minimize conflict.

I side with Heinlein here... "peace is overrated."  If the price of peace is eternal slavery... I'd sooner fight.  Not die, mind you, but sooner fight, suffer and then WIN.  A life lived in slavery to creatures I dearly detest with every part of my mind that I can be aware of, is not a life, but an lasting conscious death.  A life spent fighting, at least animates the mind, and the body.

Or to put it in feminine terms, "if the price of peace, is submitting to rape, on demand by the rapist, whenever, and wherever and on whatever terms the rapist desires, then no, I would rather fight, even if the penalty for failing to win is death.  Not fighting is certain death by a thousand cuts (or in this case, rapes)... no thanks to that.

-----------------------

To put it in terms one can understand... I had surgery some years back.  A fairly harmless procedure to clean up some damaged tissue, which then required a drain "fuse" (a fairly large one, and some stitches... 2 sessions worth, plus removal.)

Doc then tells me "you have to remove the fuse yourself, once it stops draining, after a few days, unless you want to pay for an extra visit, during which I will remove it, and then let it sit for another day, unhindered to dry up a little, then come in to get stitched up."

So after wandering about with a bloody bandage pouring out blood and... serum from the wound, I had to pull it out.  I tried removing it, and discovered it was a bandage in a tender area with wounded tissue... very painful.  The wound was still raw, and i had friends and family offering to help me remove it.  I cowered for days pondering how to remove it once it stopped draining.

And then I had to make a choice.  Be fearful of a quick bit of pain, or let that bandage rot in there, cause me further infection and perhaps a far more invasive procedure to cut out far more meat than I had lost in that small procedure.  So I steeled myself, closed my teeth in case I might bite down and catch my tongue, and YANKED.  And it hurt like hell!  Sharp, agonizing pain.  And since there was almost 2 feet of gauze stuffed into a 2 to 3 inch hole in my muscle, I proceeded to YANK again.  After I was done pulling the bloody 'fuse' out... I was PROUD of myself.  I didn't ask for anyone else's help.  I did it myself.  Therein lies the difference, to me reason wasn't the lack of pain in the process of making myself healthy.  Reason was the ability to understand that short temporary pain, beats a permanent recurring infectious issue.  So I was willing to suffer once to not suffer repeatedly in the future.  This is what the collectivists don't get.  If there wasn't a doctor there, or if I couldn't afford the extra visit, then being able to undergo pain at my own hands to avoid reinfection or further complications is an application of reason.

Collectivists can't do that.  Pain scares them, risk scares them.  They scare all of us, but a man of reason will not run away from risk, or from pain.  Because a man of reason understands the greater implications of things.  A collectivist or "amenable" man will surrender the moment the risk for pain, or the risk for loss is implied.  He will also surrender the moment he is told to, because he is a coward.  Cowards, as one says, die every day.  A brave man only dies once.  A wise or powerful man gets to pick when and where, and the TRULY powerful one figures out what the rest of us are still struggling with... that being, the process to not dying at all, or making death inconsequential to that individual.  Not a single one of these will occur to the collectivist weakling, because he dies everyday, and yet still fears death, pain, or harm, despite subjecting himself to them every single day... willingly, out of his sheer fear of actually LIVING.

Meanwhile, I have dealt with having pain from a surgery and the process in cutting, stuffing, unstuffing, suturing and removing said sutures... and it did hurt, some parts more than others.  I'm not afraid of it any longer... that's for sure.  The collectivist cowards, afraid of a bit of minor pain, will let anyone else fight for them, and will only fight if "its safe."  They fear shedding blood, even of their food, but are ok if someone else shoulders that burden.  Collectivists of all stripes are merely the latest breed of insanity plaguing those of us having a go at being sane and living life... each his own life...
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: MamaLiberty on September 27, 2009, 01:31:45 PM
Very good, elk. Well said.
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: SteveM on October 02, 2009, 07:51:48 PM

I have been pushing the line of thought recently, that it is not necessary to convert all these people who are supportive or dependent on the state. It's a very long row to hoe to get them to accept freedom. However, it is a much smaller job to get them to leave us alone.

Many leftists, for example (paradoxically) have the view that they are non-violent. Now, one tack would be to belittle this belief, and try to point out how absurd it is. But is that the best course? Why not instead, take advantage of this view of theirs, and use it to our advantage. Say to them, "Since you don't approve of violence, then I assume you won't get violent with me if I choose not to participate in your version of political paradise. If you let me opt out, I will then stop agitating against your views. We can live in peace. This means of course that you cannot tax me or force me to do this or that, because force implies violence. But you are non-violent so you should have no problem with that, right?"

If this would work I'm all for it.  But can they leave us alone?  I wonder.  They may profess non-violence but what they mean is they are too squeamish to commit violence themselves.  So they pay others to do it for them as long as they don't actually have to witness it.  The left and the neo-cons just can't leave anyone alone who aren't like them.  It's a phobia as though the existence of anyone free is an utter repudiation of everything they believe and are.  I hope I'm wrong about this but I believe in the end they just can't.
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: Paul Bonneau on October 02, 2009, 10:33:02 PM
I didn't say it would be easy. I just say it is easier than the alternative, of making them free. What other alternative is there? Are you going to wait for the revolution and just kill them all?  ::)

The problem you state is simply their knee-jerk reaction. However there is some material to work with here, once we get past the knee-jerk. There are contradictions in their position. If you can gently point out those contradictions, you may make progress.

Look at the gun control debate. 20 years ago it looked like we were going to be disarmed, no question. Now who thinks that? I believe the point finally got across to many of them, that shame was not going to work to get us to voluntarily give up our guns, when we all thought we were being virtuous in having them. Nor was respect for law, a law we believed would be completely illegitimate and unconstitutional. That meant that we would have to be forced. Well, that didn't bother all of them, but it bothered some!

The same is true of socialism. What if we point out that we don't want anything to do with it. If they want socialism, they should go ahead and have it, but just don't include us. They should not really mind, as long as they are getting what they want. Of course, socialism depends on having a productive class to parasitize, so there is an incentive for them to want to impose it on us. But for someone of that mind, it is also an admission that socialism can't make it on its own without dragooning unwilling others. That's quite an admission, and a good percentage of them won't want to go that far.

Note, this business about them wanting to force it on us largely derives from the usual political picture, noted by Lenin, of "who does what to whom". But if we don't want to make them free, that factor is largely gone. It's like that effect I noticed with homeschoolers. Before they were homeschoolers, they were constantly battling over what curriculum was used in government schools. As soon as they pulled their kids out of those schools, they didn't much care what the curriculum was. As a result, people who previously hated each other with a passion, could relate to each other just fine on the homeschool discussion lists. They no longer had a horse in that government curriculum race, and could use any curriculum they pleased, or none at all.

Leftists in particular, believe they are tolerant (http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2009/tle523-20090614-08.html). That does not mean they appreciate what others do, but it does mean they don't mind what others do, or mind enough to use violence at any rate. Well, let's take advantage of that belief.
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: SteveM on October 03, 2009, 03:35:57 PM
You may be right Paul.  Perhaps some of these folks are smarter than I give them credit for being and I'm just older and more cynical these days.  Which brings us back to the original point of this thread.  Voluntary cooperation among like minded folks outside the mainstream system.  Many in the left talk about the "evolution" of the human race, the individual, and human culture.  Certainly it can be argued that the next step in any human evolution is toward personal freedom and responsibility, voluntary cooperation and association, and away from collectivism.  How can anything evolve without being free to make the choices necessary to grow.
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: Boston on October 05, 2009, 09:28:14 AM
Good points, Paul, thanks.

As long as we have alternatives to go to (as with homeschooling),
the tensions won't mount too extremely.  However, take away those
peaceable alternatives . . .

Boston
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: SunDog on October 05, 2009, 12:49:01 PM

Of course, socialism depends on having a productive class to parasitize, so there is an incentive for them to want to impose it on us.


This offers another means to bring the socialist system down. The socialist system depends on taking from the productive to give to the unproductive, with the lie that the "gift" will be available to all. Unless there are enough "givers" to provide for the "takers" the system fails. If enough people refuse to give and insist on taking, the system fails. Since the leftist system is married to income taxes, then people can stop "giving" by reducing their "taxable" (i.e., traceable) income to a low enough level. And they can sign up for all the benefits, to maximize their "take." They can encourage others to sign up, perhaps even "Chicago voters." Sooner or later the system collapses - though the problem then becomes how to establish a freer state to replace it, rather than a more oppressive one.
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: MamaLiberty on October 05, 2009, 01:34:13 PM
And they can sign up for all the benefits, to maximize their "take." They can encourage others to sign up, perhaps even "Chicago voters."

Do you really want to become one of the thieves? Theft is not justified, regardless of who is being robbed - or why.

Refuse to be robbed, by all means. But it is unethical to encourage anyone to become a receiver of stolen goods.
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: SteveM on October 05, 2009, 03:31:16 PM
Do you really want to become one of the thieves? Theft is not justified, regardless of who is being robbed - or why.

Refuse to be robbed, by all means. But it is unethical to encourage anyone to become a receiver of stolen goods.

Agreed.  Opting out as much as possible and living independent of they system.  Establishing a network of barter, services and goods that operate outside the mainstream.  The current system will collapse under it's own weight without encouraging others to take from it, and I think the key is to be in a position where it doesn't matter because you are not a part of it.  Even social security.  I want mine back because they took it from me by threat of force, spent it, and refuse to give it back with interest.  But in the end depending on it just ties you into the whole mess.  So I plan to live in a way that I can get along without if need be.
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: SunDog on October 07, 2009, 10:27:38 AM
Do you really want to become one of the thieves? Theft is not justified, regardless of who is being robbed - or why.

Refuse to be robbed, by all means. But it is unethical to encourage anyone to become a receiver of stolen goods.

Taking what is given by a lawful owner is not stealing. Under the law, it's the Government's to give. (Of course if you wish to go beyond law to the greater ethics, you may have a point. But if you check the title to your home, I'll bet you find it traces to a Government "patent" under which they took it from the native American inhabitants, who by the way migrated from the east and took it from the previous native American inhabitants, etc.)

So if they wish to give, then take, to bring it down and bring about (we hope) a more just Government.

In the years before moving to Wyoming (Sheridan County, BTW) my wife and I worked. Together we've been taxed more than a quarter of a million dollars for "social security" and in the 16 years we spent in California, when we were both employed, we "contributed" more than a half million dollars in Federal and State income taxes. Of course, we were part of the unwilling dupes who the parasites were feeding on.  Now that we've rejected that, we will take as much back as we can.
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: MamaLiberty on October 07, 2009, 03:33:42 PM
None of the "taxes" I ever paid was in any way, shape or form voluntary or considered by me a "contribution." It was all theft.  I worked for nearly 50 years, and never even tried to count how much was stolen from me.

Unfortunately, all the money stolen from me and you was spent at the time of the theft. There is nothing left for you to "get back." Any money you get from the government now is being stolen from other workers currently, or "borrowed" (actually or through inflation") so it will be stolen from you, YOUR children and grandchildren now and in the future through higher taxes and prices.

Sorry Sundog, your scheme most certainly has no appeal to me. If you can live with yourself that way, so be it. I can only hope you will come to understand the truth one day.
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: Big Ugly on October 07, 2009, 04:45:04 PM

Quote
None of the "taxes" I ever paid was in any way, shape or form voluntary or considered by me a "contribution." It was all theft.  I worked for nearly 50 years, and never even tried to count how much was stolen from me.


If you did not refuse, then you did consent - that makes it voluntary, like it or not.
It may have been 'voluntary' under protest, or under duress, but voluntary none the less.

Quote
Unfortunately, all the money stolen from me and you was spent at the time of the theft. There is nothing left for you to "get back." Any money you get from the government now is being stolen from other workers currently, or "borrowed" (actually or through inflation") so it will be stolen from you, YOUR children and grandchildren now and in the future through higher taxes and prices.

In other words ..... anyone on disability, who has ever drawn disability, or any other type of 'government' support - is a thief? This would, by necessity, include anyone (military, government, etc.) employed by the 'government' ... since ALL government monies are obtained by theft.

Right?

Please remember that one person's truth is another person's myth.
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: kylben on October 07, 2009, 05:15:25 PM
Quote
anyone on disability, who has ever drawn disability, or any other type of 'government' support - is a thief? This would, by necessity, include anyone (military, government, etc.) employed by the 'government' ... since ALL government monies are obtained by theft.

I've always said that one of the problems with any acceptance of immoral behavior (even by others) is that it often leaves a moral man without any moral course of action.  Is it moral to take disability payments taken from others by taxes?  I think it is not.  Is it moral - after the government has taken your money and run all the voluntary alternatives out - to not take the money and just die?  Of course not.

The hardcore, "don't do anything that relies on government money or services no matter what" leads to obvious absurdities.  Under that rule, you can't live in your own house, nor can you leave it, nor can you die in it.

I posted, earlier on the same blog this OP links to, the rules that I follow.  They are not absolutes, none are possible in this moral environment.  They are guidelines to balance one set of immoral choices against another set of immoral choices, against my goals and values in life:

Government assets are unowned - unless they can be traced back to an individual owner - and thus are subject to homesteading and/or casual use. I have a right to camp out in a national park and claim that portion of it which I make use of as my property. I do not have the power to defend that right, so I won’t be homesteading Yellowstone if I move to Wyoming.

Beyond that, I won’t use services that are themselves immoral, such as calling the police on my neighbor for his using drugs.

I won’t use government goods or services that I can reasonably acquire elsewhere, or reasonably do without, on the basis that it is too easy for that to become a habit which undermines my independence.

I will seek to increase my ability to acquire goods and services outside the mechanism of government, on the basis that doing so increases my independence.

I will never promote or support the creation of such resources beforehand, on the basis of the Non-Aggression Principle.

I will seek always to minimize the effect my consumption of them has on incentivizing the further creation of them.

I will never sacrifice my life or my well-being to any of the above rules.

In each concrete case, I have to apply reason to the concrete contextual facts, measured against these contextual rules, the absolute principle of the NAP, and those absolute principles underlying it.
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: MamaLiberty on October 08, 2009, 05:19:27 AM
If you did not refuse, then you did consent - that makes it voluntary, like it or not.
It may have been 'voluntary' under protest, or under duress, but voluntary none the less.

If the robber has a gun to your head and will kill you if you do not give him your wallet, have you then "consented" to his taking the wallet if you surrender? That is not the same thing as consent, by any means. Being robbed in fear of your life is not "voluntary." No rational tribunal in the world would judge otherwise.

And theft is not a myth.

Of course the application of non-aggression is not easy or clean in our current situation. But that does not in the least justify theft. You merely have to decide what level of theft you will tolerate before you fight to the death.
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: SunDog on October 08, 2009, 05:56:48 AM
Sorry Sundog, your scheme most certainly has no appeal to me. If you can live with yourself that way, so be it. I can only hope you will come to understand the truth one day.

I understand the truth is not easy. I can live this way, and will do so. I do not make either the laws or the taxes, so if I can use one to offset what was taken by the other, I will, "lawfully." I have never subscribed to "all taxation is theft," by the way, so I suppose I am not libertarian. But I do think that wasteful taxation is foolish, and taxation that primarily benefits politicians is primarily theft.

I wish you a peaceful life lived by the truth as you perceive it. But don't think that careful scrutiny won't reveal flaws in your version of the truth, too. You are "in Wyoming" and so are living on land seized from those who possessed it, by the Government, by force. If the theft occurred before you were born, is it still "right" to benefit from it?
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: Paul Bonneau on October 08, 2009, 12:44:15 PM
I think Kyle has the right take on it. Don't be a hermit, but do if possible minimize your dependence on and feeding of the state.

I've heard Sundog's plan called "draining the swamp". The problem with it is that it degrades one. You are no better than all the other parasites, even if you convince yourself that your motives are pure. I'm sure all the other parasites have plausible rationalizations as well.

Susan is right. Your money is already pissed away. You can't get your money back by stealing that of others.

Big Ugly, I think you need to rethink your definition of "consent".  :)  It's not consent, even if there are possible different levels of resistance, or even non-resistance (in the face of threats of violence).

Quote
In other words ..... anyone on disability, who has ever drawn disability, or any other type of 'government' support - is a thief? This would, by necessity, include anyone (military, government, etc.) employed by the 'government' ... since ALL government monies are obtained by theft.

Technically, yes. However I believe there are different levels of fault here. Is some kid, indoctrinated his whole life in government schools, at the same level of fault for receiving stolen funds, as some corporate welfare case? Or someone who games the system to get tax funds? I hardly think so.

I took money from the government when I was in the Marines. I now regret it, but I don't think I was particularly a bad person. Just misguided and in a sense, victimized by that same government, myself. Fortunately I never was put in the position of killing someone defending his country from the empire.
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: Big Ugly on October 08, 2009, 01:14:25 PM
I disagree, Paul, consent - no matter the impetus, is still consent.
Some are willing to resist to the death and others value their lives above absolute honour.
Where is the point where one will sacrifice honor in lieu of life. Don't know! Depends on the time, circumstance, and person.

Anyone may tell me they disagree - no one may tell me I'm wrong without showing me what IS right.
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: Vince on October 08, 2009, 02:08:55 PM
Back in 1972 I went to work for a large company.  I started in their labor pool for $4.00 per hour.  Eighteen years old and making four bucks an hour!!  HOT DAMN!  Still living at home back then I sat down at the dining room table with pencil and paper.  I meant to organize the moola right and proper.

Mom came by and looked over my shoulder.  I looked up at her and grinned.  "Remember when I was little I promised to buy you a new washer?  And you just smiled and said, 'Uh huh'?  Well now I can afford to do it."  She did smile sweetly and thank me for the sentiment (and one of the first things I DID do with my pay was exactly that).  However she went on to say I was overlooking something in all my calculations.  I was budgeting things using $160 per 40 hour week.

"You're forgetting your silent partner.  If you don't pay him he gets noisy."

That was when it first came home to me what direct taxation meant.  Of course I'd heard of income taxes and social security was a known bankruptcy in the making, even then.

If I wanted to keep my newfound employment, I had to pay up.  And I've continued to "pay the shot" every two weeks going on for 37 years and a few months.

I guess it was consent Big Ugly my friend because I could always have worked under the table painting houses and selling water ice in the summer and fixing cars (all things I had done already at that time).  And I could also have lost a lot of sleep wondering when I would have to explain how I got the house I was sleeping in, the car I was driving, and everything else.  They called you in to explain discrepancies back then (and still do, if they don't shoot you).  So I've worked overtime to make up what I would get straight time if they didn't rob me at gunpoint.

I consented but damn if it didn't feel just like a mugging.  I have thought a lot over the years about what one man can do when he is obviously out gunned.  I could have "withheld consent" by the strictest definition way back when and lived a life of desperation.  Because that is what it is when you sleep lightly expecting the door to fall in on you.  Ask Irwin Schiff.

There is however something that I can certainly do now that I've reached the other end of the working life equation.  And I can know for a certainty that it is not only within principle but won't get my head bashed in.  I can refuse to RECEIVE their stolen money.  I can refuse to rob my children to pad my golden years.  When you ask what IS right, that is the answer.

And, while I agree with your standards regarding consent I would point out that the powers that be hold all the trumps and have used them to good effect.  Forced indoctrination from the age of six (and even younger now, kindergarten wasn't mandatory back then), television and really, our entire cultural milleau have all shaped us and it is going to take generations to re-awaken the stiff spine needed to back the government down at every turn.

In short, we may indeed have the courage to stand and fire under immediate threat to life and limb, to jump under the bus or run into the burning house for our children but that is different from the courage needed to face a crushed lifetime.  Thirty seven years in prison may have even made Patrick Henry do a double take.

Forgive the rant, but I tried to get this all out as it ran through me.

Vince
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: MamaLiberty on October 08, 2009, 02:29:48 PM
Excellent, Vince...  Bravo.

It's sort of like the woman being raped. If she is armed, she can fight of course. But if she's been disarmed by her benevolent government, or family, or upbringing, she has two choices if she's all alone: submit or die. And sometimes she doesn't get a choice at all... she just has to die.

So, no... I won't buy it. We've been disarmed in many ways for a very long time. We're being raped, constantly, and fighting it all alone only gets you dead. Not that I'm afraid to fight it directly, by any means. When the time comes, I will no doubt die that way.

But in the meantime, no - I do not consent to being raped.
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: Vince on October 08, 2009, 02:48:45 PM
Thanks Susan, pre shade it (to quote the famous redneck comedian) ;D

Someone on these boards, Paul Bonneau perhaps? pointed out that there are different types of courage.  Cyrano wrote anonymous poetry for a man who could easily expose his chest to bullets yet couldn't bring himself to tell the woman he loved how he felt.

We've all seen these aspects of our nature, knowing how to channel them has traditionally made the leaders among us.
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: Paul Bonneau on October 08, 2009, 03:04:20 PM
This may be a bit of a semantic argument. Or it may be that the word "consent" has taken on other meanings, meanings the government wants it to have, just like when they talk about our "voluntary" tax compliance system. Still, when people do go into things like contractual arrangements, they do make the point of stating there is no compulsion in the agreement. That way the agreement can stand up in the courtroom. An agreement with coercion added, couldn't (unless government is the beneficiary in that court, of course - there is always that exception, since the courts belong to government).

Maybe a better word would be "acquiescence"? It does not so much imply we are going along voluntarily.
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: SunDog on October 08, 2009, 03:48:59 PM

There is however something that I can certainly do now that I've reached the other end of the working life equation.  And I can know for a certainty that it is not only within principle but won't get my head bashed in.  I can refuse to RECEIVE their stolen money.  I can refuse to rob my children to pad my golden years.  When you ask what IS right, that is the answer.


There is more to theft than receiving stolen money, Vince. Do you drive on a public road? Then you are receiving stolen goods by your definition that taxes equal theft. The road was paved with tax funds. And public sidewalks - in my area, the landowners are "extorted" to provide them for  public use, by law, at the landowners expense. If you walk on them, you are receiving the benefit of that extortion. And if you live anywhere in the U.S., you are very likely to be living on land that, somewhere along the chain of title, was taken by force from the possessor of the moment.

Considering how much scorn the "FRN" receives in libertarian circles as "not really money," I am surprised at how resolved they are not to receive it at the hands of the government that prints it. And yet, they willingly partake of so many of the little benefits that government provides.

I certainly do. And I don't feel bad about it. But I do feel the government has placed unsustainable demands on the producers in society. I want to help them see the mistake, and I want to reverse the trend. But Vince, people like you who give (under duress, I admit) and refuse to take are just the kind of people the government needs to make the current system go on and on.

Chris
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: MamaLiberty on October 08, 2009, 03:49:29 PM
Nope, I don't "acquiesce" either.  And I've got about 55 years of heel drag prints in the sand to prove it.  >:D

I so what must be done to survive, but certainly no more.

Why else do you think so many people consider me contrary and ornery?  :P
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: MamaLiberty on October 08, 2009, 03:58:02 PM
That's apples and oranges, Sundog. None of us had any choice, or power over how the roads got built, or the land was acquired from others... It may well still be wrong in some ways, but we don't have the power to change it now.

We DO, however, have the direct power to decide not to steal ourselves, or participate in that current theft. We also have the choice to do everything possible NOT to be stolen from. I gave up a very good career/job and retired early for that very reason.

You very much sound as if you are grasping at straws to justify your acceptance of stolen goods. You can certainly do that if it pleases you, but I don't think you'll get too many here to agree that it is any part of liberty and justice.
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: kylben on October 08, 2009, 04:19:23 PM
I don't think you'll get too many here to agree that it is any part of liberty and justice.

I lean towards the moral acceptability of the "drain the swamp" tactic, though perhaps on different grounds than Sundog is basing it on.  However, as Paul pointed out, it is a dangerous game vis a vis one's own independence and integrity, and has other drawbacks as well. 

Ultimately, the way out of the moral dilemmas posed by widespread moral depravity is to isolate one's self from it to such an extent that those moral dilemmas are no longer forced. For that reason, I prefer tactics that work the supply side (ala Galt's Gulch) rather than the demand side (draining the swamp). The no-magical-motor-or-invisible-force-field version of the supply-side approach is Agorism.

Either way, along the lines of my previous post about the current moral climate, I'm pretty reluctant to criticize where other honest people draw their own lines.
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: jubal on October 08, 2009, 06:31:14 PM


   Not only are you contrary and ornery, your generous sweet and kind. Thats a good mix.
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: Rich on October 08, 2009, 06:41:56 PM
Not only are you contrary and ornery, your generous sweet and kind. Thats a good mix.


SMOOCH... >:D
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: kylben on October 08, 2009, 07:08:16 PM


   Not only are you contrary and ornery, your generous sweet and kind. Thats a good mix.

I take it that was aimed at MamaLiberty?  I agree.
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: SunDog on October 08, 2009, 09:51:52 PM
We DO, however, have the direct power to decide not to steal ourselves, or participate in that current theft. We also have the choice to do everything possible NOT to be stolen from. I gave up a very good career/job and retired early for that very reason.

You very much sound as if you are grasping at straws to justify your acceptance of stolen goods. You can certainly do that if it pleases you, but I don't think you'll get too many here to agree that it is any part of liberty and justice.

I guess we will disagree, then, and that's OK too. I am not grasping at straws, as I perceive it, I am being rational. I don't think a limited government, supported by taxes on those receiving the benefits of government, contradict "liberty and justice." I do think our present government has strayed too far from the ideal, and needs to be turned in a new direction, by whatever means that work. But I do not advocate anarchy, though some here may. They're free to do so.

I wonder, if you do everything possible not to be "stolen from," how you avoid property tax, gas tax, and sales tax? You must have figured out a way to live that eludes me.
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: kylben on October 09, 2009, 06:44:07 AM
if you do everything possible not to be "stolen from," how you avoid property tax, gas tax, and sales tax? You must have figured out a way to live that eludes me.

Aside from some small amount of sales taxes, those aren't part of "everything possible"... yet. Workin' on it.
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: MamaLiberty on October 09, 2009, 06:57:30 AM
Quote
how you avoid property tax, gas tax, and sales tax?

Let's see... I moved to Wyoming.
My property tax fell from several thousand to a few hundred a year. check
I drive about 100 miles a month since I retired - or less - instead of 300 miles a day when I was working. I drive a car that gets 36 MPG. Less gas, less tax. check
I use barter, buy used, make my own and so forth as much as possible. Oh, and Wyoming has much lower sales tax. check

And, as kylben says, we're working hard to reduce all those. Our mutual aid community here helps a lot.
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: Vince on October 09, 2009, 07:03:01 AM
Quote
I guess we will disagree, then, and that's OK too. I am not grasping at straws, as I perceive it, I am being rational. I don't think a limited government, supported by taxes on those receiving the benefits of government, contradict "liberty and justice." I do think our present government has strayed too far from the ideal, and needs to be turned in a new direction, by whatever means that work. But I do not advocate anarchy, though some here may. They're free to do so.

I hope Rod Whitaker's ghost will forgive me here but you draw shades of distinction which, I confess, are lost on me.  They are only benefits if they are voluntary choices.  Taxes are not voluntary no matter what arbitrary good you assign them to do.  Those property taxes we pay on land stolen from whomever (and lets face it, we can dive back a LONG way in history to play that game; Angles, Saxons, and Jutes pushed Celts and Welsh back to find their space just as Normans did to those same Anglo-Saxons generations later) also support the same corrupt institutions we are discussing.  I do not believe in racial guilt.  I had no hand in the theft of lands before my time, I can only live a moral life of my own since it is the only one rightfully under my control.

Quote
Considering how much scorn the "FRN" receives in libertarian circles as "not really money," I am surprised at how resolved they are not to receive it at the hands of the government that prints it. And yet, they willingly partake of so many of the little benefits that government provides.

What would you have us do my friend?  Levitate and fly our way across this land?  If that were possible I would certainly do so and deny the extra support they get from the tolls.  Are you telling me you've never heard of alternative ways of managing roads?  They do not have to be government owned any more than our money must be the exclusive domain of government.

Unless I am misreading you Chris, you seem to be catching a whiff of hypocrisy where none exists.  We have, all of us, found ourselves in the place and time we are born in.  It does no good to blame grandpop for not shooting the bastards back when they had a chance to put 'em down good and proper.  That was tried in 1861 and to our greater distress today, it failed.

So?  We choose not to give up.  We have six thousand years of control freaks and sickos with no other idea but to make their way in the world on somebody's back not their own and oh, by the way, the power wielded felt so good too.

The entire six thousand year history has been one huge campaign for and against personal liberty.  Speaking only for myself I see no benefit derived from the institution of the state that could not be better provided and cheaper by the open market.  Freedom does not frighten me and I'm not ashamed to admit I've made mistakes.
Quote
But Vince, people like you who give (under duress, I admit) and refuse to take are just the kind of people the government needs to make the current system go on and on.

I disagree here in the strongest terms.  I have known people all my life who see nothing wrong with collecting all the various government welfare available (under whatever term it is being called) because they paid in and are collecting "what's theirs".  Finally, some of us are awakening to different possibilities and following a principle like non aggression (in this case, refusing to accept stolen goods) in never an incorrect position to take.  In the process of this journey we must unfortunately learn from mistakes but this too can be a good thing.

As long as we learn.

Vince
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: SunDog on October 09, 2009, 11:42:12 AM
I had no hand in the theft of lands before my time, I can only live a moral life of my own since it is the only one rightfully under my control.

I quite agree. That's why I don't worry about it. I just don't live under an illusion that I don't benefit from "receiving stolen goods."

Quote
What would you have us do my friend?  Levitate and fly our way across this land?  If that were possible I would certainly do so and deny the extra support they get from the tolls.  

Well it is possible, just difficult. Get an ultralight (non-licensed) aircraft and some off-road (non-taxed) gas.... As much fun as that would be, I won't bother because I don't mind paying gas taxes for the roads I use.

Quote
Are you telling me you've never heard of alternative ways of managing roads?  They do not have to be government owned any more than our money must be the exclusive domain of government.

No, I've never heard of alternative ways of managing roads - at least until after the government uses its muscle to seize the lands they're built on. It kind of reminds me of the new Denver ball stadium. They bought all the land to build it, until one guy held out (for a lot of money) with one small piece of land near home plate. Then they brought in the big guns of government to seize it and compensate the former owner for a much smaller price. What would "libertarian" roads look like, if they had to divert around every patch of ground that a recalcitrant owner refused to sell?

BTW, in Wyoming, the government grants private interests the right to use eminent domain. Check out http://www.wyominglandowners.org/help/index.php. You'll see that if a commercial interest needs your land to make their business interest go, they can take with the help of the government. Wyoming is a great place to live, but it isn't perfect.

Quote
Unless I am misreading you Chris, you seem to be catching a whiff of hypocrisy where none exists.  

Well, no, I won't go that far. It isn't hypocrisy. Perhaps it's not thinking through the matter all the way. Or maybe you've thought it through so much farther than I have that you've attained a new state of enlightenment.

Quote
The entire six thousand year history has been one huge campaign for and against personal liberty.  Speaking only for myself I see no benefit derived from the institution of the state that could not be better provided and cheaper by the open market.  Freedom does not frighten me and I'm not ashamed to admit I've made mistakes.

Freedom doesn't frighten me, and neither does the prospect of a properly limited government. Let's define terms here - I mean government that has the right to use force for certain strictly defined (and limited) goals. For example, executing a murderer (after due process, of course). Or seizing land for certain purposes (like straight roads) after full public discourse, consideration of alternatives, and full just compensation (for the land and the inconvenience).

Quote
Finally, some of us are awakening to different possibilities and following a principle like non aggression (in this case, refusing to accept stolen goods) in never an incorrect position to take.
You mean "refusing to accept stolen good as long as it's not too inconvenient," don't you? Or do you accept the fact that you must pay tax when you buy gas for your vehicle, so you might as well drive on the roads? (I do.) I see no difference in deciding that I paid in to Social Security, so I might as well take it. And I'll take energy credits for my home improvements, etc.

Would I vote to eliminate Social Security? Yes I would. But I would expect the government to print up some more FRNs and reimburse me for what I put in, less what I took out. That shouldn't bother most libertarians. They would only pay me in FRNs, not real money like gold.

So obviously we disagree in philosophy, by a good bit. But what of tactics? Do you expect your tactic of minimal tax payments with refusal to accept government money to work well? I think "drain the swamp" - a variation of "bring it all down" - will work better.

Chris

Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: Vince on October 09, 2009, 02:38:00 PM
Quote
I had no hand in the theft of lands before my time, I can only live a moral life of my own since it is the only one rightfully under my control.

I quite agree. That's why I don't worry about it. I just don't live under an illusion that I don't benefit from "receiving stolen goods."

How very convenient for you.

Quote
Wyoming is a great place to live, but it isn't perfect.

I don't recall saying that it was.

Quote
No, I've never heard of alternative ways of managing roads - at least until after the government uses its muscle to seize the lands they're built on.

Well then, I envy the educational road ahead of you; you've a lot of reading to catch up on.  Roads have been privately managed quite effectively throughout history but then you will discover that in your own time.

Quote
Well, no, I won't go that far. It isn't hypocrisy. Perhaps it's not thinking through the matter all the way. Or maybe you've thought it through so much farther than I have that you've attained a new state of enlightenment.

And I have no idea what that means except it's a suspiciously glib tone of voice I haven't used with you.  In fact you've been using that tone since you joined this discussion and not just with me.

So you've convinced yourself that your not delusional about all these wonderful benefits.  Bully for you Chris.  Personally I think you're sounding more and more like a troll and I'm finished with feeding you fuel for your broadsides.
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: rhodges on October 09, 2009, 03:05:41 PM
It seems to me that this is turning into a "I'm more libertarian than you!" debate.

I remember that the original Yahoo groups mailing list for FSW specifically mentioned this (no "I'm more libertarian than you") but a search on the current forum comes up empty.  Well, at least until this message is posted  :)

Can't we stay focused on the real enemy?  ("The People's Front of Judea?" Or was it the "Judean People's Front"?)

Even if we don't agree on the long-term wish list, can we at least agree on the short term goals of reducing government and improving our individual freedoms where possible?

Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: Vince on October 09, 2009, 04:35:35 PM
Quote
Even if we don't agree on the long-term wish list, can we at least agree on the short term goals of reducing government and improving our individual freedoms where possible?

I'll go along with that. ~W~
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: SunDog on October 09, 2009, 04:54:21 PM
Sorry if I riled people up. I wasn't sure what was meant by "troll" so I looked it up:

"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." - Wikipedia

It wasn't my intent to be inflammatory or off-topic. I started by suggest the "drain the swamp" tactic as one that works against a socialist state. It was MamaLiberty that suggested I was advocating thievery, and I reacted to that.

I accept the statement from rhodges that we agree on the short term goals of reducing government and improving our individual freedoms.
Title: Re: The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Post by: Boston on October 10, 2009, 12:38:39 PM
Really, that's quite enough of this topic drift and sawdust sawing.

I quote 11 Principles obviously meant as general advice, and they're argued to bits.
Then ensued a battle of personalities.
Just great. 

Rich rightfully used this thread as an example of what frustrates him:
http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fswforum/index.php?topic=8378.msg71374#msg71374

Rhodges, thanks for your intervening post of wisdom.  It's a good place to end this thread.
Now, some folks will have more time to work for freedom.

What I may do is create a new board (stuck in a dank corner) entitled:

                       "Pointless Arguments Between Strangers, for Those Who Have The Time"

. . . and just start shoveling certain posts/threads into that.

I'm really getting tired of endless philosophical bitch sessions, especially with newbies of
single digit posts. 

Boston