Setting Goals, Determining Means

Submitted by LoganFerree on Mon, 2007-02-19 21:06.
I believe that it is more effective to focus my efforts on repealing statist laws that interfer with my life.
29% (4 votes)
I believe that it is more effective to focus my efforts on undermining statist laws that interfer with my life.
71% (10 votes)
Total votes: 14

close call: policy vs lifestyle

#3234 On Tue, 2007 02 20 18:36 adam ricketson said,

I believe that attitudes are the most important factor--once a libertarian attitude has been cultivated among the general population, it just takes a bit of organization to transform that into (some degree) of policy changes.

I believe that focusing on policy is worthless except as a way to generate interest in the libertarian attitude. Regular people have infinitesimal influence on policy--the only people with meaningful influence are political professionals (politicians, campaign workers, major columnists, etc) and the independently wealthy (that means that you don't have to work a real job, right).

Undermining the law depends on circumstances. Anytime we evade a law, we undermine that law--and this is a benefit-risk calculation for each individual. So for medical marijuana, it is probably worthwhile to evade the law (thereby undermining it). Also, I think that people are generally more capable of evading laws if they have more economic independence...and I think that is a worthwhile goal in itself. In the end, if a law is undermined by constant evasion, it is more likely to be repealed.

Lifestyle Laws

#3235 On Tue, 2007 02 20 18:48 LoganFerree said,

The main problem with the debate between lobbying for political reform and trying to create change through your lifestyle is the nature of the laws that you can work to oppose/change. Ending the War on Iraq is a big issue, aside from not entering the military how does one live their lifestyle in opposition to the war? But drinking unpasteurized milk? Well that's a more direct way of undermining the law. This means that the set of laws that can be undermined by personal action are smaller, more personal issues. Does that make them less important though?

war

#3238 On Wed, 2007 02 21 20:55 adam ricketson said,

War's a tough one to undermine by direct action...basically, it would require a program to undermine the state itself. Don't pay taxes. Interfere with armaments production or shipment. Serious stuff. Only the most fanatical anti-war activists take part in these activities.

Fortunately, I the Iraq war is one of those big issues where voting can have an effect. The issue has a substantial influence on how many people vote, and there may be a growing consensus on the issue.

Basically, my view is that voting only matters for "big issues"--that fall above some threshold in terms of importance in terms of the number of people whose votes are substantially influenced by the issue. The threshold is determined by the "divisive issues" -- which many people consider important, but on which the voting public is pretty evenly divided. If an issue is less important than a divisive issue, then very few voters will base their vote on that issue, and the politicians can do pretty much whatever they want without consequence--even if there is a general consensus against the actions of the politicians.

Big Issues

#3245 On Wed, 2007 02 21 23:49 LoganFerree said,

So, if we're looking at voting based on big issues, what are some examples?

War & Peace specifically, with Foreign Policy generally, seem to be very important.

Domestic issues are more concentrated. I think it's easier to undermine the state by ignoring regulatory issues, like selling unpasteurized milk, than tax evasion. With social issues it's easy to ignore laws that may limit your free speech, but I also feel like political action to overturn those laws in the first place are important because they allow you to spread your message of subversion in other areas.

Another Way

#3249 On Thu, 2007 02 22 16:23 James Leroy Wilson said,

Undermining statist laws will normally just put each individual law-breaker at risk of jail. After all, millions "undermine" our marijuana laws, but that seems to make the Drug Warriors even more determined and fanatical. People are unlikely to break a law for the sake of principle, unless they were part of a movement in which tens of millions of others were mobilized to engage in the same act of civil disobedience. Undermining unjust laws requires a strategy; random acts, even if performed by lots of people, won't succeed. On the other hand, electoral politics hardly leads anywhere. If the last election didn't encourage the Democratic Congress to take a bold stand against the war, then what difference does it really make which party is in power?

That said, I in no way wish to discourage anyone engaged in undermining laws or partisan politics. But those aren't the only two options. Members of Congress do look at the polls. They are concerned about what their constituents think. They do sit up and take notice when they receive message after message from constituents expressing their views on a particular issue. (Special-interest money is most influential when people don't have a strong opinion on the issue.)

Contacting one's representatives, then, can go a long way toward policy change - if and when enough people get involved. No longer do people have to write addresses and stamp envelopes. Many activist organizations, such as the one I'm involved with, Downsize DC, provide easy and convenient means to contact one's representatives about an issue. It only takes a minute - maybe longer if one chooses to add their own thoughts to the message. Persistent and increased pressure on Congress can and will lead to changes in policy. This strategy has succeeded for groups that want to increase government, now we must use it to decrease government.

public meetings

#3276 On Sun, 2007 02 25 17:35 adam ricketson said,

Public meetings can also be good -- they focus on organizing the people, but can have considerable visibility and get the attention of lawmakers. I know a lot of religious groups use this strategy. This is similar to protests...but more in line with my style (I think).

On top of that, there's also blogs and letters to the editor. Think of them as "open letters" to politicians.