The following is a list of the problems I see with the myriad of different philosophies trying to operate under a common banner.
Different End Goals:
Many of the people in this movement have very different end goals.
Fundamentally there are two types of ideologues when it comes to interaction with the world relative to their ideas.
(1) There are those who want to enforce, spread, or enlighten everyone in the world to see the beauty and supremacy of their way of life, and (2) there are those who want to practice their way of life and be left alone.
Sadly, it seems to me that most of the so called freedom movement is in the first camp. These people believe that they will be able to somehow gain control of power and force everyone to be free. They have delusions that some day the whole world will elevate in consciousness and decide to be free from rule. They literally write and talk about some day in the future when people will look back and be happy that somehow the state has vanished.
These people ignore the fact that institutions such as communism, monarchies, and churches are still very alive and well after thousands of years.
They spend all of their time plotting about how to get more people to believe their views. They use all methods of propaganda in order to grow their movement as large as possible by any means necessary. If/when they do get people ready to convert, when asked what to do about it they suggest the same old tired techniques. Some even tell people that acheiving freedom is impossible in our lifetimes. Great way to boost morale!
So yeah, live your life as a slave… but don’t worry, in the future…they will thank us and that makes it all worth it…you’re welcome for being awakened to the truth by the way.
I am too practical to fall into that change the world bullshit. For one to succeed in any goal, one needs very well defined and realistic goals that are finite and measurable, and within ones capabilities.
“The State” isn’t going anywhere, definitely not in our lifetime. I choose to try to live a life of freedom rather than try to impose freedom on those who love to be ruled. It can difficult to do this effectively when you are isolated and therefore some kind of group activity is necessary for those who are not loners. The best strategy, in my opinion, is to seek out and collaborate with those who have like minds in order to acheive common goals.
As I rule, I try not to fraternize with people who want to take over the world.
A lack of Ideological Sameness:
There are so few people in the movement that anyone with vaguely the same ideas can be mistaken for a friend. This is an error. In desperation for socialization, peoples’ principles are compromised.
For any group to be cohesive and fluid, it needs to have a unifying ideology that supercedes all others or that is compatible with the other ideologies the group members have.
You can imagine my shock when I went to my first libertarian function only to find that there were socialists, yes, self described, open, and proud no less, who considered themselves libertarian. It definitely challenged my understanding of the meaning of the word, and is likely one of the reasons why I no longer call myself libertarian.
Furthermore there were:
- radicals (a very small number. This “movement” is sickeningly non-violent)
- anarchists of all stripes
- conservative republicans parading as libertarians
- many devout christians
- tea party republicans who were openly republican
- conspiracy theorists :lizard men type shit.
- the devoutly religious
- racists or “race realists” as they call themselves nowadays
- meritocracy endorsers
Now, to the deeper thinkers in the bunch, there are glaring and irreconcilable differences with many of the ideologies I just listed. Many of these ideologies are not only not on the same side, but diametrically opposed to one another. Yet, many people seem to believe they are all on the same side fighting some kind of common foe for freedom. Many of these people have ideologies that DEFINE EACH OTHER AS ENEMIES.
Either these people are ignorant of what their stated ideologies entail or they are not very serious about the positions they hold, or both. This is similar to how someone can claim to be a cultural catholic that doesn’t practice . They can have friends from many denominations, and even gay friends without thinking it is a conflict even though they call themselves catholic.
A true catholic who takes the bible and the catholic churches positions seriously cannot be friends with a muslim if they beleive they are evil hethens and are going to burn in hellfire. Osama bin laden didn’t have any gay friends. He was serious about his shit!
How can you say you are for total freedom from the government because they have baseless authority, but then preach to me about god and hellfire and about how I have to follow your invisible savior who has baseless authority.
How can you despise the government because they steal your property and then buddy buddy with people who don’t think your property is legitimate?! FUCK property, they don’t even think you own your self! YOUR OWN fucking flesh blood and bones! To me these were glaring problems and I was stupefied to see them being almost completely ignored. HOW CAN YOU BE FRIENDS WITH PEOPLE WHO WANT TO STEAL YOUR STUFF?
Not only should these people never talk to each other and not even know each other, but many of these schools of thought, if they had their way, would be shooting at each other.
Stage of Life:
People in different stages of life weigh risk differently and therefore will be disagreeing on the coarses of action that need to be taken.
This doesn’t mean the young and old cannot work together, what matters is ideological sameness. However, don’t expect the older folks to take risks or pick up an ak-47. Usually defense and offense is left to the youth. I don’t wanna see the guys at the mises institute with bandannas and rpgs. It is the fear of loss that allows tyrants to rule. The man with a new wife or with kids and a house realizes he has a lot to lose for expressing dissent.
Level of Activity:
An ideology doesn’t mean anything if you don’t do anything about it. EFFECTIVE action. And of course, the change world camp will never be effective in anything they do. Not only do they have a track record, but they are competing with people who literally have an endless supply of money and credit, hundred thousand man armies, killer drones and nukes. If these people haven’t convinced the world to follow their ideals yet YOU GOT A LOT OF WORK AHEAD OF YOU.
If you are around arm chair philosophers who are happy just sitting around with a cocktails talking about what ifs all day you won’t get much done in the way of improving your physical conditions.
If all you wanna do is write post cards and letters toy our senator all day then stay with the knitting group. Find other people who accept your course of action as the most effective one. A soldier shouldn’t join a picketing line and expect them to start making bombs. People who are not radical can still play roles, maybe paper work or something, but since they are not willing to risk as much naturally their role must be limited in terms of power and reward.
Marching and voting and all that shit is a nice hobby but it doesn’t put the butter on the bread. One who practices a way of life outside of the mainstream faces the following. Some day men with guns will give you a choice: obey or die. What you do when that day comes determines your radicalness.
If you submit, and allow them to destroy or steal your property and kill or imprison your people, everything you did was meaningless. To me, anything worth building is worth defending. Yes with violence. Everyone will naturally attempt to avoid violence at great cost because violence tends to lead to lose-lose situations. If violence is not lose lose when you are attacked you are doing it wrong. If violence is lose lose when you attack you are doing it wrong.While violence should not be a first resort, to take it off the table is asinine.
Look, if even in self defense, someone is going to have to shoot or kill someone eventually. Killing is a real part of life.
Just because someone breaks the law does not mean they do so for ideological reasons.
There are shady characters who lurk in the shadows. Just because someone is a drug dealer or some kind of black market entrepreneur does not mean they are principled, in my experience, it usually indicates the opposite.
The people you surround yourself with should adhere to whatever etiquette is beneficial to your group. They probably shouldn’t run around telling everyone they are anarchists and part of an anarchist group. They probably shouldn’t be running around starting fights and causing mischief either. Find people who can behave themselves and have discipline.
In my opinion, all of these factors including some not mentioned, are what prevent the “freedom movement” from gaining any traction. Look at the freedom movement and compare it to other organizations that have been active for comparable periods of time. For example: The church of Scientology.
I have no problem with the church or its members, they have never tried to convert me and have never written me a parking ticket. Still, based on what I know about their ideology I would have to say they are a UFO cult scam. However, their ideology aside, one must admire the furor of their members: they stick together and protect their own, they have a unifying ideology, they have church wide assets, plenty of money and a clear organizational structure. They probably have more political influence than the entire freedom movement. If the church of Scientology wanted to it could form its own army and found some micro nation somewhere. They have money assets, leadership, and RADICALS. And where are the libertarians? Still struggling to pay rent huh? A quick glance at Scientology’s Wikipedia page indicates a myriad of businesses, multi-story buildings in major cities all over the world, and about 500 million a year in income.
The freedom movement has been beaten by a fucking UFO cult…REALLY? Embarrassing.