/liberty/ - Liberty

Nothing.

It just won't happen without extreme amounts of genocide, and I happen to be a pacifist.

>>13735

Von Mises had a couple words on Syndicalism;

>The ideal of centralist socialism is at least discussible; that of syndicalism is so absurd that one need waste few words on it.…

>Preferring the producer interest over the consumer interest, which is characteristic of antiliberalism, means nothing other than striving artificially to maintain conditions of production that have been rendered inefficient by continuing progress. Such a system may seem discussible when the special interests of small groups are protected against the great mass of others, since the privileged party then gains more from his privilege as a producer than he loses on the other hand as a consumer; it becomes absurd when it is raised to a general principle, since then every individual loses infinitely more as a consumer than he may be able to gain as a producer. The victory of the producer interest over the consumer interest means turning away from rational economic organization and impeding all economic progress.

>Centralist socialism knows this very well. It joins liberalism in fighting all traditional producer privileges.…

>Syndicalism deliberately places the producer interest of the workers in the foreground.… Syndicalism would make all repatterning of production impossible; it leaves no room free for economic progress.[4]

>>13738

Pacifism =/= inability to defend oneself. I'm a pacifist who also happens to support non-aggression by default.

>>13734

>But how do you expect to change the status quo, to end the state and the federal reserve? Peaceful protest? How do you expect to get anywhere without some kind of violent uprising?

Violence implies an initiation of force. I'd propose noncompliance on a local level. More accurately, I'd advocate for the elimination of public police and their replacement with private police, give the private police a strict NAP-compliant list of rules they must follow, and tell the Federal Govt. that if they want to enforce their policies, they will need to do so at gunpoint themselves (which we all know they can't afford to do/don't have the manpower to do unless they want to turn the military into a domestic police body which comes with its own set of issues). This will inevitably catch on as more people see it happening (and it will be happening in the US in the next decade or two if major changes aren't made).

Meanwhile, I advocate for alternative parallel systems that would fall under grey and black markets while ideally avoiding red markets entirely (see pic related). These parallel systems will usually take the form of peer-to-peer technologies (Uber/Lyft, bitcoin, the new bitstock that's coming out soon, etc.).

With these two policies in place, you will see a general trend towards privatization and ultimately either federal collapse as they fail to hold power/influence over individual states/counties/towns, or the massive expansion of federally-inspired domestic terrorism that tries to force support, and would ultimately lead to a self-defense justification against a tyrannical body that tries to impose itself where it's not wanted.

It's different from a revolution in that the only way that people would need to take up arms is if the federal government tried to punish them violently for noncompliance.

>>13734

> Peaceful protest? How do you expect to get anywhere without some kind of violent uprising?

Non-violent resistance actually has a much better track record than you'd think. A lot of it boils down to non-compliance.

http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Civilian-Based-Defense-English.pdf

That said, I do support establishing institutions which would enable individuals to defend themselves with violence, if only to increase the cost of coercion. I'm tossing around a couple ideas at the moment.

>>13749

>and their replacement with private police, give the private police a strict NAP-compliant list of rules they must follow

As much as I like this idea, I would caution you to avoid the trap of thinking that you can control the sorts of institutions that will pop up. You can certainly create NAP-compliant private police, but just keep in mind that it's still possible for other firms to pop up (not that I think they'll be successful in competition with the superior non-aggressive firms).

>bitstock

I've been looking for something like this. Glorious.

You've got a pretty decent vision, there.

>>13811

Gooood, goo~ooooood. You needn't worry your little head about us. Pay us no mind….

>>13734

You don't have to kill the state. You just have to let it starve. That's what I learn from the European social democracy. If you tax them too much people will tax evade as much as they can. Then the state will increase violence (more policemen, more taxes, less rights & liberties, etc) to compensate for what they can't extract, urging those who can to tax evade even more. Increased violence requires increased spending and since violence is a non productive activity that funds itself parasitically it will cease once there's nothing to leech.

So the anarcho-capitalist strategy is not to kill the state. It is to let it starve, which includes what >>13960 says: Cross your arms and wait for this nonsense to stop.

Basically we just have to find alternatives to government services, to outsmart them. Once everything is privatized and we don't even use euros/dollars and we don't pay any taxes and we can defend ourselves government won't be able to sustain itself.

>>13735

>Labour owned syndicates overpay their workers above the normal market rate

holy shit this guy is actually serious