Comment: Great post, I mostly agree - but a couple objections.

(See in situ)

Great post, I mostly agree - but a couple objections.

1. The OP seems to be implying that unionism benefits working people. It does not. It benefits union members of course, but necessarily at the expense of unemployment or lower wages for non-union members. And over the longer term it retards economic growth in general making everyone, even union members, poorer than they would have been otherwise.

2. The OP writes: "Do any of you consider for a moment the absurdness and futility of trying to eliminate the state without first building a social structure outside of the state to provide these basic needs? Law and order, financial security, education, a functioning credit system, a stable payments system for commerce?"

But it is precisely the State's monopolization of those sectors of society that prevents us from building free alternatives. You can't build a free society until you have already reduced the power of the State.

The only path to a free society is peaceful political revolution, to get hold of the State apparatus from within and deconstruct it - only then, with the State's boot off our necks, can a free society be built.

Finally, I want to emphasize some passages that I think are especially good and insightful.

The last refuge of the disappointed ideologue is the morbid indulgence in Apocalyptic wishful thinking. The belief that your Truth will prevail because the existing order, being False, cannot sustain, and must inevitably collapse in ruins. But friends, you fool yourselves there as well!

Sadly, there's lots of that in the liberty movement. I myself was once afflicted by this delusion.

If you want to dislodge the present elite, you have to form an elite of your own and engage it in its own arena.

It did not argue its way into power; whatever absurdities belong to its ideology, and they are legion, it is not their ideology that brought them to their high place.

They got there by occupying the actual bases of social power, and by understanding the actual nature of the social organism. They did not convince anyone of anything by argument. How could you imagine you could win by argument what was won and is held by the exercise of power and the political acumen of propaganda?

So true. While argument is useful in convincing rational people to join us, most people are not very rational. To gain mass influence, we should indeed examine and adopt the methods of our ideological enemies: i.e. subversion, patronage, propaganda, etc. That doesn't sit well with a lot of people, but that's the reality of politics on this planet. The truth does not prevail just because it's the truth. If it did, we wouldn't be where we are today.

...The OP makes many other good points, but this post is long enough, so I'll leave it here.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."