Prospective Free State Wyoming (FSW) Members and Interested Parties > Prospective Free State Wyoming (FSW) Members and Interested Parties
The 11 Principles of Open Source Peaceful Evolution
Boston:
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.
--- End quote ---
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
--- End quote ---
A great essay which will benefit all freedom-lovers!
~W~
Boston
jubal:
Sounds good. I like it. It'll work in any place for whatever.
SteveM:
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.
Boston:
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
Yes, and well put!
And they'd just vote back in all the crap.
We're outnumbered (nationally). Always were; always will be.
Boston
Paul Bonneau:
This sentence left me cold:
--- Quote ---In traditional voluntaryist fashion, I’m convinced we need to liberate 6 billion minds worldwide simultaneously.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version