SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TimF who wrote (5545)10/6/2003 6:54:28 PM
From: Wildstar  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 13056
 
Politics is the only way to change the state other then brute force (revolutions, coups, foreign invasions...) Personally I'd prefer the Democratic process. I think he makes some good points about the difficulties of getting this thing to work and about the temptation politicians have to try to do more, but that's not enough to mean that any other way would be better. If we are going to use "bottom up" methods, those methods would be mainly more or better targeted efforts and convincing people to support libertarian ideas. If too many people try to hard to move "away from and around the state at the individual level." Without libertarian ideas also getting more traction in the political realm then the state will just chase harder after those people and even others who aren't trying to avoid it. The politicians will argue that new powers are needed to deal with the new techniques and technologies that are allowing people to do something illegal or something they wish to bash as very undesirable.

I agree - it's just as important if not more important to spread ideas as it is to use the political machinery.

However, I think that the long term best strategy might be in moving away from the state.

Let me explain -

Whether or not intellectual property is property and ought to be protected, it is impossible to protect it. It is too costly; the price of enforcement is astronomical and is only becoming exponentially higher.

Suppose that similarly the cost of tracing monetary transactions becomes similarly high such that no government can afford it. Trillions of voluntary exchanges would happen digitally without the government being able to tax them. Sure they might respond by a few lawsuits here and there like they recently did with Kazaa, but in the end, there would be no way to actually enforce taxation on these transactions.

A technology like that would be infinitely more potent in advancing liberty than any political victory - which can be overturned with the next election, relies on politicians, and is collective in nature.

The point the author of that post was making is that libertarians ought to concentrate their efforts on technologies such as cryptography, aerospace, and nanotechnology that have the potential to simply make the state irrelevant in many areas of our lives.