Great post. I don’t think a revolution has to be violent to be successful. There was no more impactful revolution in human history like the third century conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity, which altered the course of Western and world history profoundly. No one overthrew the state, there was no bloodbath (apart from the normal run of politics at the time). The Church had just become such a significant parallel institution that the state either had to destroy it, as Diocletian and Galerius attempted, or embrace it, as did Constantine and Theodosius.
OK boomer, I'm sure blabbering on about "freedom",an ideology almost nobody claims to believe in, is going to get you the ~100 million votes required for peaceful revolution. Good luck with that!
It test marketed well 20 years ago. Things have gotten a bit ugly now.
Unlike 20 years ago, a new party is no longer needed. Trump has pushed the Republican Party partway into the populist quadrant. Just need to recruit people willing to do the work to finish the job.
While assisted ballot filling was a factor in 2020, Trump's abrasive personality was also a very big factor. Millions of people hate him based on personality, not policy.
Separating populism from a single personality is very US American. Personality based movements are very South American.
20 years ago was a demographically different universe than today, let alone the future. "Freedom" is only viable in a White society, nobody else cares about that. Prepare yourself for a more South American future and a less "US American" one.
And I would note that your statement about white society is measurably incorrect. The Reddest states in this country are also the Blackest. When things get too White you get...Vermont and Oregon.
It's hard to enforce bullshit Lawn Police laws when you have a substantial Black population.
They are red in spite of the Blacks voting 90%+ democract you ignorant buffoon. White yankees voting just as bad as browns doesn't disprove what I said, that's just another ethnic group that makes your politics totally delusional.
Big plans and complicated theories make me nervous. I don't understand why we can't focus on simple actions that everyone can do *today*. The problem isn't a lack of a unified ideology, it's a lack of *getting off the couch*.
Some people need a Narrative, a philosophical framework.
Evidence: this monstrously bloated post has generated a lot more engagement than my simpler posts calling for simple actions. And some of my simple actions are truly simple, such as buying kids DVDs of classic kid friendly sitcoms to let them know that there was once a time when this country had high trust zones, gun ownership was taken for granted, and dads weren't complete idiots.
Another example: Karl Marx gets taught in philosophy departments because he is hard to read. Finding the errors in a thinker like Ayn Rand is just too easy.
And, alas, electoral politics does require getting a large group of people on the same page. The fact that the Republican Party is deeply divided is a problem. And the fact that we have no coherent faction to run viable candidates in deep Blue zones is a really serious problem.
Evidence: this monstrously bloated post has generated a lot more engagement than my simpler posts calling for simple actions.
Come on, man! You can't measure success like that. People love to run their mouths, especially on substack, because it makes them feel smart. But that's not going to win this war. In the immortal words of the great poet Frank Klepacki -- we are going to have to *act* if we want to live in a different world.
Engagement can lead to action. The most effective Libertarian group that I was associated with was built by having weekly bull sessions at a cheap restaurant. That group ran active candidates, got on the news regularly, networked with interest groups, etc. Socializing, arguing, and drinking beer beats official meetings bigly.
And there is a rational reason for this. Solo action is a pointless drop in the bucket unless many others are doing likewise. Evidence that others are active is motivating. Positive feedback loop. Political rallies exist for a reason.
And individual action doesn't carry near the gravitas as acting as part of a group. Reading books and spouting off makes you Just this guy. Being active in a campaign or party arouses considerably more interest among friends, family, and coworkers. Even in a party as lame as the LP.
A movement which has ideas which are potentially salable has potential to generate far more heft.
Great essay. The distinction you make between liberty and freedom is important. It reminds me of the debate between classical liberals and classical republicans in their conception of liberty. There's also the concept of aristocratic freedom as well (e.g. we can be slaves to our own base appetites).
Excessive wealth gaps can entrap the rich as well as the poor. Having bodyguards and worrying constantly about being kidnapped place some significant constraints on freedom as well.
(But we do benefit from having some super rich people who can do what NASA cannot. The goal is not to eliminate all aristocracy, but dial it back a bit and realize that many mundane products can be produced by smaller business entities.)
Hope you do not mind, found you via @neofeudalism.
Well said & I could not find fault with your position(s). I have said it before and will say it again: Believe Them When They Tell You They Hate You https://shorturl.at/qAFLX
“Treason doth never prosper. What’s the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.” So you tried to herd the libertarian cats eh? They might as well be satanists as far as electability goes. I have seen arguments on twitter where they argued that you have no obligation to defend or help a starving orphan baby. A lot of them subscribe to the children as property idea.
Regarding orphans, that's more an abstract objectivist reasoning thing than libertarian behavior in general. As private individuals, I'd say that active Libertarians are more charitable than the average person. Back when I lived in a hippie town the progressives were mouthing off about low cost housing while my Libertarian friends were actually providing it -- and having to continually battle the government in order to do so.
Yes I see your point. I live in San Francisco and it’s so expensive and the city government is so corrupt that it’s damn near impossible to build anything here and very few people in need ever get the subsidized housing. The political climate here is pretty far left progressive but when it comes down to it most people just want the poor, and especially the homeless to go away!
Enjoyed the article, but something I want to mention is that the competition between governments that you called for is usually called War. Might have been an acceptable price to pay for the innovation and cultural flourishing it produced in the days of hoplites. In the age of hydrogen bombs and bio-weapons, not so much. We have to find a way to keep intergovernmental competition relatively non-violent (which is a big reason we have a national government to begin with)
Great post. I don’t think a revolution has to be violent to be successful. There was no more impactful revolution in human history like the third century conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity, which altered the course of Western and world history profoundly. No one overthrew the state, there was no bloodbath (apart from the normal run of politics at the time). The Church had just become such a significant parallel institution that the state either had to destroy it, as Diocletian and Galerius attempted, or embrace it, as did Constantine and Theodosius.
OK boomer, I'm sure blabbering on about "freedom",an ideology almost nobody claims to believe in, is going to get you the ~100 million votes required for peaceful revolution. Good luck with that!
It test marketed well 20 years ago. Things have gotten a bit ugly now.
Unlike 20 years ago, a new party is no longer needed. Trump has pushed the Republican Party partway into the populist quadrant. Just need to recruit people willing to do the work to finish the job.
While assisted ballot filling was a factor in 2020, Trump's abrasive personality was also a very big factor. Millions of people hate him based on personality, not policy.
Separating populism from a single personality is very US American. Personality based movements are very South American.
20 years ago was a demographically different universe than today, let alone the future. "Freedom" is only viable in a White society, nobody else cares about that. Prepare yourself for a more South American future and a less "US American" one.
The alternatives are fight back.
Or flee to South America.
And I would note that your statement about white society is measurably incorrect. The Reddest states in this country are also the Blackest. When things get too White you get...Vermont and Oregon.
It's hard to enforce bullshit Lawn Police laws when you have a substantial Black population.
They are red in spite of the Blacks voting 90%+ democract you ignorant buffoon. White yankees voting just as bad as browns doesn't disprove what I said, that's just another ethnic group that makes your politics totally delusional.
Big plans and complicated theories make me nervous. I don't understand why we can't focus on simple actions that everyone can do *today*. The problem isn't a lack of a unified ideology, it's a lack of *getting off the couch*.
Some people need a Narrative, a philosophical framework.
Evidence: this monstrously bloated post has generated a lot more engagement than my simpler posts calling for simple actions. And some of my simple actions are truly simple, such as buying kids DVDs of classic kid friendly sitcoms to let them know that there was once a time when this country had high trust zones, gun ownership was taken for granted, and dads weren't complete idiots.
Another example: Karl Marx gets taught in philosophy departments because he is hard to read. Finding the errors in a thinker like Ayn Rand is just too easy.
And, alas, electoral politics does require getting a large group of people on the same page. The fact that the Republican Party is deeply divided is a problem. And the fact that we have no coherent faction to run viable candidates in deep Blue zones is a really serious problem.
Evidence: this monstrously bloated post has generated a lot more engagement than my simpler posts calling for simple actions.
Come on, man! You can't measure success like that. People love to run their mouths, especially on substack, because it makes them feel smart. But that's not going to win this war. In the immortal words of the great poet Frank Klepacki -- we are going to have to *act* if we want to live in a different world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWwoyxHl7X8
Engagement can lead to action. The most effective Libertarian group that I was associated with was built by having weekly bull sessions at a cheap restaurant. That group ran active candidates, got on the news regularly, networked with interest groups, etc. Socializing, arguing, and drinking beer beats official meetings bigly.
And there is a rational reason for this. Solo action is a pointless drop in the bucket unless many others are doing likewise. Evidence that others are active is motivating. Positive feedback loop. Political rallies exist for a reason.
And individual action doesn't carry near the gravitas as acting as part of a group. Reading books and spouting off makes you Just this guy. Being active in a campaign or party arouses considerably more interest among friends, family, and coworkers. Even in a party as lame as the LP.
A movement which has ideas which are potentially salable has potential to generate far more heft.
This made me think of Daniel Stern’s classic “hot ice” bit from the film Rookie Of The Year.
“Oh, so you want more freedom? Hmm, I guess that sounds reasonable. Let’s put it to a referendum and let the people decide.”
I attached a specific definition to freedom. This is important.
Spouting words like freedom, liberty, small government, etc. without backing with real ideas is mere tawk.
Just as stringing together churchy words is not Christianity.
Great essay. The distinction you make between liberty and freedom is important. It reminds me of the debate between classical liberals and classical republicans in their conception of liberty. There's also the concept of aristocratic freedom as well (e.g. we can be slaves to our own base appetites).
Excessive wealth gaps can entrap the rich as well as the poor. Having bodyguards and worrying constantly about being kidnapped place some significant constraints on freedom as well.
(But we do benefit from having some super rich people who can do what NASA cannot. The goal is not to eliminate all aristocracy, but dial it back a bit and realize that many mundane products can be produced by smaller business entities.)
Hope you do not mind, found you via @neofeudalism.
Well said & I could not find fault with your position(s). I have said it before and will say it again: Believe Them When They Tell You They Hate You https://shorturl.at/qAFLX
Welcome!
And relevant link dropping is fine. I do it myself. Substack has recreated the old high trust blogosphere, and that's a good thing.
“Treason doth never prosper. What’s the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.” So you tried to herd the libertarian cats eh? They might as well be satanists as far as electability goes. I have seen arguments on twitter where they argued that you have no obligation to defend or help a starving orphan baby. A lot of them subscribe to the children as property idea.
I fear you are right as regarding electibility.
Regarding orphans, that's more an abstract objectivist reasoning thing than libertarian behavior in general. As private individuals, I'd say that active Libertarians are more charitable than the average person. Back when I lived in a hippie town the progressives were mouthing off about low cost housing while my Libertarian friends were actually providing it -- and having to continually battle the government in order to do so.
Yes I see your point. I live in San Francisco and it’s so expensive and the city government is so corrupt that it’s damn near impossible to build anything here and very few people in need ever get the subsidized housing. The political climate here is pretty far left progressive but when it comes down to it most people just want the poor, and especially the homeless to go away!
San Francisco? See the Exploit the Environmentalist article linked above.
Whether a Republican faction can fill that niche or if you need a new Conservation Party is an interesting question.
Thanks I will check it out
I've been saying for a while now that ideologies are dead ends. They never fit perfectly, and even if you adopt one, they infiltrate and subvert it.
Only outcomes matter.
Glad to see it's catching on!
Enjoyed the article, but something I want to mention is that the competition between governments that you called for is usually called War. Might have been an acceptable price to pay for the innovation and cultural flourishing it produced in the days of hoplites. In the age of hydrogen bombs and bio-weapons, not so much. We have to find a way to keep intergovernmental competition relatively non-violent (which is a big reason we have a national government to begin with)
Another reason for border friction:
https://rulesforreactionaries.substack.com/p/a-kinder-gentler-nationalism
> She would have more freedom if she lived in an oppressive Scandinavian welfare state!
> Sexual morality requires earlier marriage.
Why would this waitress from a Scandinavian welfare state get married early, and not at 32-35, like women from real Scandinavian welfare states do?
And what do you do about a waitress like that voting for open borders?