Freedomain Radio

 

I understand the appeal of activism, I really do.   Hell, I could even be called an activist!  Every newbie, and the occasional old-head, falls into the trap of asking, "but what can we do NOW" as if they are the first folks to ponder the question.  At the risk of repeating myself, I'll just repeat myself, from FDR a little while ago, in answer to the question, "what can I do to make anarchy happen now?"

...there is only one answer.  You don't.  Stephen Covey has a motif he teaches that may be instructive here.  Everyone has a set of concentric circles in his life, each a little bigger than the other.  At the center is the Circle of Control.  Outside it and bigger by some margin, is the Circle of Influence.  Outside it, and bigger still, is the Circle of Concern.  It is not atypical for people who are really interesting in "making the world a better place" -- whatever that means -- to have a huge Circle of Concern.  Generally people spend a lot of energy, angst, mental focus, tears, strategizing, etc. on the outer-most circle.  The irony is that this circle is mostly, if not completely, un-effected by all this gnashing of teeth.  An even more troubling irony is that it is generally only through activity that is focused on the Circle of Control that leads to a larger Circle of Influence, and therefore a larger impact on the Circle of Concern.

To paraphrase Covey, worrying about changing the world is great, but let's clean up our bedrooms first.  I can offer no better summation than that.  The folly of one of us thinking he can "make anarchy happen" is truly time wasted.  Hell, if I'm ruled by irrationality and illogic, it's rather presumptuous of me to plan to change America by the end of the week!  Maybe Covey is full of shit, and maybe I am too, but I figure ridding myself of crap while I share just a little of what I've learned with those who will listen is about enough.

It seems to me that gargantuan tasks, like forming our own state, have a sexy appeal, although they generally lead nowhere.  Meaningful projects, like making sure your interactions are rational, logical, and voluntary, although they are often even harder, are just not sexy.

Now, just because I find it so straw-manned and crazy, I'll address the abolitionist argument as well.  Who did more to free slaves, the people who debated with Congress or the members of the Underground Railroad?  Given that Congress, and in fact, the overwhelming bulk of the politicians of the time actually rather liked slavery, I'd say they lose that argument.

In point of absolute fact, did slavery in the US end as a result of political action?  Again, the answer is no.  One might ask if slavery *could* have ended peacefully in the US, as it supposedly did everywhere else.  Certainly this question is valid, but it has no bearing on this debate.  It cannot inform us one iota about what today's libertarians should do, since we'll never know what would have happened in that case.

My solution?  If you want to act, act.  But don't confuse activity with action.  The history of politics pretty much confirms who most benefits from it, and it's mostly those on the inside.

....of course, YMMV.

One of his articles had a lead paragraph in which he defended Ron Paul as, basically, a kind of "pied piper", leading people to libertarianism, and as a consequence, to freedom. It was the classic, "half a loaf is better than none" argument, with a dash of "libertarianism was my route" thrown in for good measure.

I took him to task on that, right here on the board, and he redoubled his defense, going even further than his article, saying that those of us who call Ron Paul a disaster for freedom, were completely wrong-headed.

I was utterly flummoxed.

In the light of that discussion, I find myself only able to take Wilt's pronouncements here (wherever you got this clip), with one eyebrow raised