You’re so right—truth lives outside the Overton window.
You should check out “The Machiavellians” by James Burnham.
Written in 1943, the book outlines all the ways that government is essentially an immoral infringement on human autonomy. Then, surprisingly, he defends this as a necessary evil.
The argument is essentially this: There has never been a human society that has not been organized into groups of oppressors and oppressed, and there’s no reason to believe that one should exist. It’s just human nature—there will always be some people who want power, and, in the strange case of a society in which no corrupt ‘alpha’ already exists, one will eventually impose himself. It’s why all revolutions fail.
Therefore, Burnham asserts that a society’s practical solution is to collectively understand and accept the cutthroat, sleazy nature of politicians, and thus force them to act honestly and transparently.
He has a point—imagine a world where politicians can’t say they’re acting in your ‘best interest’ and instead have to admit they’re acting in theirs. There’s not as much they can ‘get over on’ us.
Unfortunately, as long as people remain ‘blue-pilled’ and ‘red-pilled,’ there does not seem to be much of a chance of that happening.
But it’s an interesting thought, and, in my opinion, the most desirable result of becoming ‘free-pilled’ and realizing all the ways you’ve been lied to.
Very interesting thoughts. I occasionally wonder if we are able to escape the dominance-hierarchy paradigm to which you allude. It seems so prevalent in everything. Heck, these days, one of the most prevalent dominance hierarchies are the various virtue hierarchies—with people scrambling to out virtue-signal each other to climb to the top. (And maligning others as racist/sexist/xenophobe/Nazi/fascist monsters—standing on their cancelled corpses to climb just a few rungs higher!)
I get that these hierarchies serve an important function, and they certainly are an essential aspect of our mammalian nature. But they can manifest in so many dark and unproductive ways. It would be better if we could move past the unproductive aspects—focus on hierarchies of competence rather than all this other nonsense.
I guess that is one more reason why I am an "anarchist" (for lack of a better term). In the absence of systems that claim the automatic authority to impose force on everyone, there would have to be more of a focus on competence. Market providers of security and justice services would have to demonstrate superior efficacy. Pharmaceutical CEOs couldn't just use government to take tax money to pay for "free" vaccines that we were basically forced to take and become billionaires in the process. They would have to convince each individual person. No more easy route for sociopaths to become politicians, police with qualified immunity, etc. Even the creepy Davos crowd uses government as the power vector for their creepy ideas.
Needless to say, no scenario is perfect. There would be problems. I just believe it would be an improvement. I cannot agree with Burnham's conclusion as you describe it. I need to see anarchism completely fail before I will believe that it cannot work; I can't take that view ex ante.
You are right that the red-blue paradigm is somewhat distracting. But I think we should take heart. More people are becoming free-pilled every day. I see it all around. The 100th-monkey experiment may be apocryphal, but I think there is a truth to it. Once we hit some sort of critical mass, things could change very quickly. And in the meantime, I am content to do what I believe to be right, and to work on the project even if I don't get to see it come to fruition in my lifetime. You are very right—even just seeing the truth and escaping the web of lies has liberating value!
Thanks for the comments—I will always reply to you. And thank you for the subscription!
You make an interesting point about what the world could look like in the absence of the systems that you describe. I guess it is theoretically possible—the problem seems to be that our societies have gotten too big, and that the capabilities of communications technology and government surveillance have gotten too advanced.
If you look at history, the reach of any ruling group has always been as vast as their means would allow. Once firearms were invented, for example, they were used for conquest (hence the worldwide colonization of places with more primitive, 'anarchic' systems). The 'ruling class,' therefore, will simply be whoever has preferential access to this type of technology. I don't really see any way around that.
Now, governments have the means to collect data, police, and distribute mass propaganda on a scale that we have never seen before in history. And the world is so connected that there is basically no inch of the world that has gone unnoticed.
So, while an anarchist experiment may be possible (and preferable) in short-term, how would it keep the rest of the world out? I doubt such a system could stand up to a highly advanced military born from a more 'organized' nation. The only option, therefore, would be a worldwide anarchist society, and such a society would be so large that it would seem to necessitate the very systems that it would be trying to abolish.
Of course, I'm no expert—I might be wrong. And your perspective is definitely a compelling one, if it turns out to be possible. (In fact, as a reaction to all the insanity that's been going on in the world, we might get to find out the result whether anyone likes it or not.) Thanks for the reply!
One thing is for sure—we definitely do not want to do what the Marxists/communists did and claim that "This can only work of the entire world does it with us." Somehow, it has to be viable without that.
The apologetics for how it might work are out there, but it is not a quick case to make. (Are you open to reading any books on the subject? :-)
The rough gist is that anarchism would replace one or more entities claiming a monopoly of authority over a given territory and people (governments) with a circumstance in which security, justice, and roads are provided by various private entities.
These might be agencies operating in a free market (call it anarchocapitalism). They might be competing voluntary governance agencies with overlapping jurisdictions (usually called 'panarchy'). It might be private entities that form various different types of self-governing polities. These could take on any character, from communes to the way the Amish operate now to a sovereign joint stock company creating a for-profit 'country,' to anything else. In all likelihood, it would be a combination.
Hoppe, D. Friedman, Rothbard, and the Tannehills all provide decent explanations for how internal security and justice could be handled. I am substantially convinced that their visions would work at least as well as what we have now.
External defense is trickier. D. Friedman actually worries that it is not possible, though he does offer some vague possibilities. Hoppe, though, I think does a pretty good job of describing how it could work.
Hoppe's version is too long to lay out quickly, but I will say this—I think that his vision won't be able to work for one tiny polity that goes anarchic in a sea of states. Once there is a large enough area, though (and it would not at all require the whole world) there would be enough "multinational" "providers of aggression insurance" "with large capital holdings" to make it work. (I know, I am just offering teasers there—Hoppe is heavier going than, say, the Tannehills, but he does a superb job of laying out how it could all work.)
What will need to happen between then and now is a bunch of transitional phenomena. Hybrids like Prospéra and Cuidad Morazan in Honduras, for example. Little polities that make agreements with states. Then more, and more. Devolution of powers. Coalitions. Little by little, we will transition to more instances in which a voluntary order is rising and involuntary governance is waning. I do not expect the project to be anywhere near complete in my lifetime. But I would rather move the ball ten yards down field in the right direction than to keep on in the endless slog we've been in. (See this piece for color commentary on what I mean by that, if you are interested: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/should-you-vote)
I know all that is not enough of an explanation. Keep reading and I will keep writing about it and it will start coming together. Or I can send you four book titles and you will be completely #freepilled halfway through 'em!
Hoppe seems to have a compelling argument (although I'd, of course, like to read the entire thing before making a final judgment).
It's definitely an idea worth fighting for. George Orwell writes in his essay "The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius" that the predominant opinions of a nation determine how much they will tolerate, and thus what is allowed to happen to them. Of course, he was arguing for a socialist revolution (which has been proved over and over again to be a terrible idea), but the principle nevertheless stuck with me. It is the prevailing attitude of a group of people that determine how they are treated, and these attitudes vary widely.
By that logic, it could be possible for enough groups to adopt a free mindset that such a group of "multinational" "providers of aggression insurance" "with large capital holdings" could occur. I'm not entirely convinced that this could transcend the 'human nature' issue (that there will always be power-hungry people, and that they are typically the most ruthless people out there). But, even if the result isn't exactly like anarchism's 'textbook definition,' it seems like it would be a much better world to live in than the one we have now.
Interestingly, we've come full circle—this sounds a lot like the argument from "The Machiavellians" which started this discussion. I think there are a lot of assumptions tied to the term 'anarchism' that make it seem a lot more radical (for lack of a better word) than it actually is.
I'd be willing to read some books on the issue, and I will definitely read more of your articles!
Hoppe is my favorite, but one caveat is that he is very blunt and makes no effort at all to be politically correct. He can come off as a bit harsh at times. But in terms of theoretics, he's the best, IMO.
I have not yet finished "The Market for Liberty," (https://archive.org/details/TheMarketForLiberty2) but thus far it is obviously a good gateway drug—its style is light. It's got a Randian vibe—not sure if that works for you or not. But the way I look at these things is that I am gleaning something from each of them and it is all coming together into a bigger picture.
"The Machinery of Freedom" is a classic. Friedman is lighthearted (like his dad) and easy to read, and he comes up with a lot of good possibilities. (https://archive.org/details/TheMachineryOfFreedom) The book is a bit older, but he has made several updates.
Interesting thought re: the prevailing attitude of a people. It's probably true. I can see the Japanese, for example, who are very group- and honor-focused, being willing to accept more collectivism than we would. Then again, I did not expect us to lay down the way we did in 2020-21, either!
As far as power-hungry people go…they will indeed always be with us. But right now, government gives them an easy vector to impose their ideas upon us. All they have to do is get governments to do their bidding, and the governments use their monopoly on the "legitimate" use of force in a given territory to impose that will on all of us. (Indeed, this seems like it may have happened with covid, and maybe be happening now with 15-minute cities, etc.) In the brochure version of government, they protect us from billionaire weirdos and James Bond villains. In reality, they are working WITH the weirdos and villains. They would still exist in the absence of government, but they would have to do their own dirty work, and that is a lot more challenging than simply using government to do it for them. VERY few people get rich enough to deploy sustained force against anyone. Only government, with its ability to externalize all its costs through taxation, can do that on a large scale and indefinitely. (here are a few quick thoughts on that vis-a-vis war, too: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/without-government-wars-would-be-tiny)
And finally, YES, there are a lot of assumptions out there on anarchism that make it sound way more radical than it is.
Now I must go figure out what to make my wife for dinner. Cheers!
I am fairly new to the countryside on this side of anarchist bridge, but it seems to me that the ideas are starting to spread further than ever before. (Though perhaps that is the Bader-Meinhof phenomena at work.) What do you think?
Sep 1, 2023·edited Sep 1, 2023Liked by Christopher Cook
yea I think can agree with that mostly, although there is also that opposite phenomenon of former libertarians/anarchists who are on some weird neo-reactionary, crypto-fascist type thing, after covid, as if fight tyranny with tyranny has ever worked out for anybody. But even among the so-called normies and other inclined to vote, the corruption and other crimes are just too obvious these days. They may still do their thing, but at least they got a peek behind the curtain. Definitely a long way to go, but yea I would honestly say on a net balance, more took the chance to cross the bridge than those that returned to the plantation
Sounds about right. Tom Woods has a lot of things to say about blue-pilled libertarians, beltway libertarians, and "mediocrities" in the libertarian camp. Ideologically I have been moving further down the line for a long time, but in terms of the libertarian movement, personalities, etc., I am pretty new. So I had no idea, nor would I have ever expected, that a lot of libertarians would actually go along with covid tyranny. That is simply appalling.
Even though I have considered myself an anarchist since high school (being in the hardcore/punk scene, its there) but had no foundational grounding and back then, wouldnt have even known where to begin, and as a young and dumb maniac, I really wasn't interested in reading anything. And while I had read Lew Rockwell's blog for many years (and that lead me to Mises Institute), I still didn't really get that deep into it. It was actually a clip of Woods' nullification speech (THE nullification one I would you have seen) that I saw late 2020 that got me to look further. Woods lead me Michael Malice and he just had a way of presenting anarchism that made me interested in actually learning more about something I've claimed for few decades but was truly clueless about. So all that said, I wouldn't have expected the lack of push back either, but after hearing more and more about the 'beltway' branch and the so-called lolberts (the ones who appear to be autistically dogmatic), it actual began to surprise me less. As for the national LP, after hearing Gary Johnson's moronic claim that vaccine mandates are just fine and don't violate anyone's rights (this was one of the years he was running) it became clear that the LP is no different than the other two, at least national level. And as for the compliance with covid madness, appalling is right. And bad enough to be a complete cuck for the state through that compliance, but the viciousness from those types directed as anyone and everyone who didn't hide out in the basement is what really surprised me. I'll give some the benefit of the doubt that they were truly worried. Fine. Its whatever. But to attack those who weren't scared or didnt care, acting like mouthpieces for the state, was just a sad sad display. I've long suspected that many who claim to be libertarians are really just typical Dems or Repubs but are disillusioned with the parties, and since libertarian is 'cool' sounding name, they latch on like its a trend.
Earlier this year I decided to go all in. Mises has a podcast feed of a bunch of their audiobooks and decided to do at least one a day, every day for a month. It was tough at times, especially the few that were 6+ hrs ( a few were over 12 but those I split into two days) but learned a lot obviously.
Excellent concept, Chris! When I was in high school, I was invited to participate in the school oratorical event. I chose to write and deliver a speech arguing how society would be improved by the elimination of government (it was more or less a summary of Murray Rothbard's basic ideas). Your description of how people view libertarians reminded me of the audience's reaction. Free pill indeed!
Ah, interesting story. Were they actually rude, or just quiet and weirded out?
Conservatives, sadly, stand almost as much in the way as lefties do. Their reverence for the Founders and our founding documents and the years they spent defending them against the left + plus their temperamental conservatism (low in openness to new ideas) = a tough sell. I was, a while back, treated to the most appalling display of rudeness by people who are supposed to be friends or at least allies/colleagues. It's fine to disagree on which monkey gets to rule the monkey cage, but as soon as one suggests that the is a world outside the cage, the reaction is slavering rage.
You’re so right—truth lives outside the Overton window.
You should check out “The Machiavellians” by James Burnham.
Written in 1943, the book outlines all the ways that government is essentially an immoral infringement on human autonomy. Then, surprisingly, he defends this as a necessary evil.
The argument is essentially this: There has never been a human society that has not been organized into groups of oppressors and oppressed, and there’s no reason to believe that one should exist. It’s just human nature—there will always be some people who want power, and, in the strange case of a society in which no corrupt ‘alpha’ already exists, one will eventually impose himself. It’s why all revolutions fail.
Therefore, Burnham asserts that a society’s practical solution is to collectively understand and accept the cutthroat, sleazy nature of politicians, and thus force them to act honestly and transparently.
He has a point—imagine a world where politicians can’t say they’re acting in your ‘best interest’ and instead have to admit they’re acting in theirs. There’s not as much they can ‘get over on’ us.
Unfortunately, as long as people remain ‘blue-pilled’ and ‘red-pilled,’ there does not seem to be much of a chance of that happening.
But it’s an interesting thought, and, in my opinion, the most desirable result of becoming ‘free-pilled’ and realizing all the ways you’ve been lied to.
Very interesting thoughts. I occasionally wonder if we are able to escape the dominance-hierarchy paradigm to which you allude. It seems so prevalent in everything. Heck, these days, one of the most prevalent dominance hierarchies are the various virtue hierarchies—with people scrambling to out virtue-signal each other to climb to the top. (And maligning others as racist/sexist/xenophobe/Nazi/fascist monsters—standing on their cancelled corpses to climb just a few rungs higher!)
I get that these hierarchies serve an important function, and they certainly are an essential aspect of our mammalian nature. But they can manifest in so many dark and unproductive ways. It would be better if we could move past the unproductive aspects—focus on hierarchies of competence rather than all this other nonsense.
I guess that is one more reason why I am an "anarchist" (for lack of a better term). In the absence of systems that claim the automatic authority to impose force on everyone, there would have to be more of a focus on competence. Market providers of security and justice services would have to demonstrate superior efficacy. Pharmaceutical CEOs couldn't just use government to take tax money to pay for "free" vaccines that we were basically forced to take and become billionaires in the process. They would have to convince each individual person. No more easy route for sociopaths to become politicians, police with qualified immunity, etc. Even the creepy Davos crowd uses government as the power vector for their creepy ideas.
Needless to say, no scenario is perfect. There would be problems. I just believe it would be an improvement. I cannot agree with Burnham's conclusion as you describe it. I need to see anarchism completely fail before I will believe that it cannot work; I can't take that view ex ante.
You are right that the red-blue paradigm is somewhat distracting. But I think we should take heart. More people are becoming free-pilled every day. I see it all around. The 100th-monkey experiment may be apocryphal, but I think there is a truth to it. Once we hit some sort of critical mass, things could change very quickly. And in the meantime, I am content to do what I believe to be right, and to work on the project even if I don't get to see it come to fruition in my lifetime. You are very right—even just seeing the truth and escaping the web of lies has liberating value!
Thanks for the comments—I will always reply to you. And thank you for the subscription!
You make an interesting point about what the world could look like in the absence of the systems that you describe. I guess it is theoretically possible—the problem seems to be that our societies have gotten too big, and that the capabilities of communications technology and government surveillance have gotten too advanced.
If you look at history, the reach of any ruling group has always been as vast as their means would allow. Once firearms were invented, for example, they were used for conquest (hence the worldwide colonization of places with more primitive, 'anarchic' systems). The 'ruling class,' therefore, will simply be whoever has preferential access to this type of technology. I don't really see any way around that.
Now, governments have the means to collect data, police, and distribute mass propaganda on a scale that we have never seen before in history. And the world is so connected that there is basically no inch of the world that has gone unnoticed.
So, while an anarchist experiment may be possible (and preferable) in short-term, how would it keep the rest of the world out? I doubt such a system could stand up to a highly advanced military born from a more 'organized' nation. The only option, therefore, would be a worldwide anarchist society, and such a society would be so large that it would seem to necessitate the very systems that it would be trying to abolish.
Of course, I'm no expert—I might be wrong. And your perspective is definitely a compelling one, if it turns out to be possible. (In fact, as a reaction to all the insanity that's been going on in the world, we might get to find out the result whether anyone likes it or not.) Thanks for the reply!
All good points and questions.
One thing is for sure—we definitely do not want to do what the Marxists/communists did and claim that "This can only work of the entire world does it with us." Somehow, it has to be viable without that.
The apologetics for how it might work are out there, but it is not a quick case to make. (Are you open to reading any books on the subject? :-)
The rough gist is that anarchism would replace one or more entities claiming a monopoly of authority over a given territory and people (governments) with a circumstance in which security, justice, and roads are provided by various private entities.
These might be agencies operating in a free market (call it anarchocapitalism). They might be competing voluntary governance agencies with overlapping jurisdictions (usually called 'panarchy'). It might be private entities that form various different types of self-governing polities. These could take on any character, from communes to the way the Amish operate now to a sovereign joint stock company creating a for-profit 'country,' to anything else. In all likelihood, it would be a combination.
Hoppe, D. Friedman, Rothbard, and the Tannehills all provide decent explanations for how internal security and justice could be handled. I am substantially convinced that their visions would work at least as well as what we have now.
External defense is trickier. D. Friedman actually worries that it is not possible, though he does offer some vague possibilities. Hoppe, though, I think does a pretty good job of describing how it could work.
Hoppe's version is too long to lay out quickly, but I will say this—I think that his vision won't be able to work for one tiny polity that goes anarchic in a sea of states. Once there is a large enough area, though (and it would not at all require the whole world) there would be enough "multinational" "providers of aggression insurance" "with large capital holdings" to make it work. (I know, I am just offering teasers there—Hoppe is heavier going than, say, the Tannehills, but he does a superb job of laying out how it could all work.)
What will need to happen between then and now is a bunch of transitional phenomena. Hybrids like Prospéra and Cuidad Morazan in Honduras, for example. Little polities that make agreements with states. Then more, and more. Devolution of powers. Coalitions. Little by little, we will transition to more instances in which a voluntary order is rising and involuntary governance is waning. I do not expect the project to be anywhere near complete in my lifetime. But I would rather move the ball ten yards down field in the right direction than to keep on in the endless slog we've been in. (See this piece for color commentary on what I mean by that, if you are interested: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/should-you-vote)
I know all that is not enough of an explanation. Keep reading and I will keep writing about it and it will start coming together. Or I can send you four book titles and you will be completely #freepilled halfway through 'em!
Hoppe seems to have a compelling argument (although I'd, of course, like to read the entire thing before making a final judgment).
It's definitely an idea worth fighting for. George Orwell writes in his essay "The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius" that the predominant opinions of a nation determine how much they will tolerate, and thus what is allowed to happen to them. Of course, he was arguing for a socialist revolution (which has been proved over and over again to be a terrible idea), but the principle nevertheless stuck with me. It is the prevailing attitude of a group of people that determine how they are treated, and these attitudes vary widely.
By that logic, it could be possible for enough groups to adopt a free mindset that such a group of "multinational" "providers of aggression insurance" "with large capital holdings" could occur. I'm not entirely convinced that this could transcend the 'human nature' issue (that there will always be power-hungry people, and that they are typically the most ruthless people out there). But, even if the result isn't exactly like anarchism's 'textbook definition,' it seems like it would be a much better world to live in than the one we have now.
Interestingly, we've come full circle—this sounds a lot like the argument from "The Machiavellians" which started this discussion. I think there are a lot of assumptions tied to the term 'anarchism' that make it seem a lot more radical (for lack of a better word) than it actually is.
I'd be willing to read some books on the issue, and I will definitely read more of your articles!
Chapter 12 (beginning on pg. 239 here: https://ia804707.us.archive.org/21/items/HoppeDemocracyTheGodThatFailed/Hoppe_Democracy_The_God_That_Failed.pdf) is money! Obviously he lays a fair amount of groundwork earlier, but just reading 12 is more than an appetite whetter.
Hoppe is my favorite, but one caveat is that he is very blunt and makes no effort at all to be politically correct. He can come off as a bit harsh at times. But in terms of theoretics, he's the best, IMO.
I have not yet finished "The Market for Liberty," (https://archive.org/details/TheMarketForLiberty2) but thus far it is obviously a good gateway drug—its style is light. It's got a Randian vibe—not sure if that works for you or not. But the way I look at these things is that I am gleaning something from each of them and it is all coming together into a bigger picture.
"The Machinery of Freedom" is a classic. Friedman is lighthearted (like his dad) and easy to read, and he comes up with a lot of good possibilities. (https://archive.org/details/TheMachineryOfFreedom) The book is a bit older, but he has made several updates.
Rothbard, of course, is classic: https://cdn.mises.org/For%20a%20New%20Liberty%20The%20Libertarian%20Manifesto_3.pdf
I have not read this yet, but it is standalone essays, which is nice: https://ia802504.us.archive.org/10/items/the-voluntaryist-handbook-a-collection-of-essays-excerpts-and-quotes/The%20Voluntaryist%20Handbook.pdf
Interesting thought re: the prevailing attitude of a people. It's probably true. I can see the Japanese, for example, who are very group- and honor-focused, being willing to accept more collectivism than we would. Then again, I did not expect us to lay down the way we did in 2020-21, either!
As far as power-hungry people go…they will indeed always be with us. But right now, government gives them an easy vector to impose their ideas upon us. All they have to do is get governments to do their bidding, and the governments use their monopoly on the "legitimate" use of force in a given territory to impose that will on all of us. (Indeed, this seems like it may have happened with covid, and maybe be happening now with 15-minute cities, etc.) In the brochure version of government, they protect us from billionaire weirdos and James Bond villains. In reality, they are working WITH the weirdos and villains. They would still exist in the absence of government, but they would have to do their own dirty work, and that is a lot more challenging than simply using government to do it for them. VERY few people get rich enough to deploy sustained force against anyone. Only government, with its ability to externalize all its costs through taxation, can do that on a large scale and indefinitely. (here are a few quick thoughts on that vis-a-vis war, too: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/without-government-wars-would-be-tiny)
And finally, YES, there are a lot of assumptions out there on anarchism that make it sound way more radical than it is.
Now I must go figure out what to make my wife for dinner. Cheers!
Looks like I have my work cut out for me. Thanks so much for the resources and the discussion! Looking forward to reading.
Free Pill for the win. The last Pill anyone should ever have to take.
Yes! After the free pill, no other pills are possible. Keep using #freepill—let's spread it!
The #freepill contagion. One pandemic I can gladly support
I am fairly new to the countryside on this side of anarchist bridge, but it seems to me that the ideas are starting to spread further than ever before. (Though perhaps that is the Bader-Meinhof phenomena at work.) What do you think?
yea I think can agree with that mostly, although there is also that opposite phenomenon of former libertarians/anarchists who are on some weird neo-reactionary, crypto-fascist type thing, after covid, as if fight tyranny with tyranny has ever worked out for anybody. But even among the so-called normies and other inclined to vote, the corruption and other crimes are just too obvious these days. They may still do their thing, but at least they got a peek behind the curtain. Definitely a long way to go, but yea I would honestly say on a net balance, more took the chance to cross the bridge than those that returned to the plantation
Sounds about right. Tom Woods has a lot of things to say about blue-pilled libertarians, beltway libertarians, and "mediocrities" in the libertarian camp. Ideologically I have been moving further down the line for a long time, but in terms of the libertarian movement, personalities, etc., I am pretty new. So I had no idea, nor would I have ever expected, that a lot of libertarians would actually go along with covid tyranny. That is simply appalling.
Even though I have considered myself an anarchist since high school (being in the hardcore/punk scene, its there) but had no foundational grounding and back then, wouldnt have even known where to begin, and as a young and dumb maniac, I really wasn't interested in reading anything. And while I had read Lew Rockwell's blog for many years (and that lead me to Mises Institute), I still didn't really get that deep into it. It was actually a clip of Woods' nullification speech (THE nullification one I would you have seen) that I saw late 2020 that got me to look further. Woods lead me Michael Malice and he just had a way of presenting anarchism that made me interested in actually learning more about something I've claimed for few decades but was truly clueless about. So all that said, I wouldn't have expected the lack of push back either, but after hearing more and more about the 'beltway' branch and the so-called lolberts (the ones who appear to be autistically dogmatic), it actual began to surprise me less. As for the national LP, after hearing Gary Johnson's moronic claim that vaccine mandates are just fine and don't violate anyone's rights (this was one of the years he was running) it became clear that the LP is no different than the other two, at least national level. And as for the compliance with covid madness, appalling is right. And bad enough to be a complete cuck for the state through that compliance, but the viciousness from those types directed as anyone and everyone who didn't hide out in the basement is what really surprised me. I'll give some the benefit of the doubt that they were truly worried. Fine. Its whatever. But to attack those who weren't scared or didnt care, acting like mouthpieces for the state, was just a sad sad display. I've long suspected that many who claim to be libertarians are really just typical Dems or Repubs but are disillusioned with the parties, and since libertarian is 'cool' sounding name, they latch on like its a trend.
Earlier this year I decided to go all in. Mises has a podcast feed of a bunch of their audiobooks and decided to do at least one a day, every day for a month. It was tough at times, especially the few that were 6+ hrs ( a few were over 12 but those I split into two days) but learned a lot obviously.
Excellent concept, Chris! When I was in high school, I was invited to participate in the school oratorical event. I chose to write and deliver a speech arguing how society would be improved by the elimination of government (it was more or less a summary of Murray Rothbard's basic ideas). Your description of how people view libertarians reminded me of the audience's reaction. Free pill indeed!
Ah, interesting story. Were they actually rude, or just quiet and weirded out?
Conservatives, sadly, stand almost as much in the way as lefties do. Their reverence for the Founders and our founding documents and the years they spent defending them against the left + plus their temperamental conservatism (low in openness to new ideas) = a tough sell. I was, a while back, treated to the most appalling display of rudeness by people who are supposed to be friends or at least allies/colleagues. It's fine to disagree on which monkey gets to rule the monkey cage, but as soon as one suggests that the is a world outside the cage, the reaction is slavering rage.