Freedomain Radio

I was thinking more along the lines of people demanding more liberties and, over time, state should dissapear.

Or to demand the right to choose if to pay taxes and to replace those with donations based on governemnt's verifiable performance.

I think the best way to introduce the transition on a significant scale is to get even people scared of the word "anarchy" to agree with that.

What do you think?

I think that hopefully Stef is wrong by about 50-60 years, I do think that it is possible to see a free society turning up in the next 30-40 years. I think though that it is crucial to turn FDR a mass media phenomenon. It would be ideal to have a list of arguments, proof, rebuttal, response, etc, to point people towards, like an FDR for dummies. I feel many times that Stef covers many topics from different aspects too many times. I also disagree with the idea that reasoning will be lost on people, especially if we consider the Flynn effect, then the approach should be making philosophy the cool thing for young people to become actually liberated.

I think 60 years isn't nearly enough. At least 5-6 generations.

I think it is very possible that we could see some major changes in government in the next decade. A truly free society will still take generations though.

It is a real possibility that we could see the firing of all representatives replaced with an Ancient Athenian style democracy. With the internet it is possible for everyone to vote, no matter where they are in the world, in real time. And to protect against the tyranny of the masses, just require a super majority to pass (say 70%) and a super minority to repeal (say 10-20%). Replacing the corrupt and dysfunctional legislature would do wonders for the current system. We would see a huge decrease in executive power and likely the end of war (since no war has ever been popular). Of course this system is likely to give way to the biggest state ever a few decades latter. 

I think it's possible to see it within our generation, but I don't think it's too probably.  That doesn't mean I won't do what I can to try and see it happen.

Ryan:

I think it is very possible that we could see some major changes in government in the next decade. A truly free society will still take generations though.

It is a real possibility that we could see the firing of all representatives replaced with an Ancient Athenian style democracy. With the internet it is possible for everyone to vote, no matter where they are in the world, in real time. And to protect against the tyranny of the masses, just require a super majority to pass (say 70%) and a super minority to repeal (say 10-20%). Replacing the corrupt and dysfunctional legislature would do wonders for the current system. We would see a huge decrease in executive power and likely the end of war (since no war has ever been popular). Of course this system is likely to give way to the biggest state ever a few decades latter. 

^ I am almost certain this will come before anarchy.

States always either adapt to new technology, or are destroyed by it. But given how unpopular the idea of anarchy is, it seems more likely that some State will adapt and temporarily flourish with the Internet.

Because we have the internet, these ideas can spread fast, but it requires good marketing tactics to reach the majority of people.

How would you best market this?

I think one major problem would actually be the word "anarchy" because too many people misinterpret it. A good strategy would be to replace it or to lead an re-education campaign, which probably would not be as effective.

I have more and more become endeared by "voluntarism" it begs for explanation and it logically leads to anarchy.

ZebastianOrtis:

I have more and more become endeared by "voluntarism" it begs for explanation and it logically leads to anarchy.

I only describe myself as voluntarist now. I think it is more accurate than anarchist as I'm not necessarily against rulers, just against the methods they use to obtain their power.

well...I don't separate one from the other as individuals are responsible for the consequences of their actions...I do think they are evil because they know what it is they do.

I like voluntarist because of three reasons:
Most voluntarism seems to be anarcho-capitalism, but for me the words "capitalism" "free market" and "anarchism" are equally stigmatized, so much so that the first two are mostly adhered to by either completely ammoral types, or even worse right wing types. I came to FDR as a jaded anarchist(quite dissapointed with anarchism in its most popular collectivist forms) and at first(like for 30 min) I disliked the term anarcho-capitalist as in statist false dichotomies, state corporativism is confused with anarcho-capitalism. Living in latin America calling yourself an anarcho-capitalist sets you off bad right away. Voluntarism is essentially the same and it seems more open, you can be some commie in a hippie commune if you want as Stef pointed out in the Max Keiser show,  as long as you dont initiate force against other people's property.

I would even go as far as saying that this is a new thing we're doing here, different even from the anarcho-capitalists even, like Murray Rothbbard and others. Sure it largely agrees but this seems more rigorous and less positivistic.

+1 for voluntarism, I like it.

I think one big marketing blunder that Stef did was to emphasize too much the word "anarchy", a word which has been programed into people's minds as a bad word and is likely to trigger negative reactions right from the start. He could do some damage control now, but it would have been far better to start off with a better word.

If you cant get people to even listen to you or they listen with a set preconception that whatever you say is wrong, than you cant get too far. The 50-60 years transition period could shorten considerably when using effective marketing techniques.

Maybe we should have a poll for different words to replace "anarchy". So far, the top candidates would be "voluntarism" and "libertarianism".

majormark:

when using effective marketing techniques. 

This is one respect in which I feel Stef's pride in the "type of individual" (that FDR attracts) gets in the way of these ideas actually spreading as fast as they could(not to say should) and it comes largely from how this has worked for Stef, he started doing the podcasts on the way to work, people started donating, then he went full time. He has often commented on the "advantage" of the fact that FDR doesn't cater to any particular interest group, while at the same time taking pride in the rational, philosophical, reason and evidence types of open minded people it attracts. For me that is not an advantage, but makes the approach inflexible, the worst thing that I think could be done is for FDR to sleep on its laurels because it knows it's right, if being right or more right than everyone else meant success, socrates would be alive and there would be no religion. I read someone's post about how they wished there was an FDR lite and I would agree that it would be much more accessible to the greatest number of people to be directed to a set of brief arguments with their proof and maybe one or two examples, like NAP, argument from morality, the invalidity of the argument from effect, the three laws of logic, the discrete qualities of individual entities, etc, instead of being refered to nearly 2000 podcasts.  It seems arrogant in an martial arts movie sort of way, where you are sent to do all sorts of things to then be trained.  Great output doesn't necessarily mean greater brevity or greater reach, which I think are most important. FDR needs to reach new audiences of millions, not just philosophically oriented, atheist, anarchist, pacifists. I am sure that in order to know the main arguments against the initiation of the use of force, for self-defense, of proportionality, etc, you'd have to spend well over 3 hours of watching/listening. After much listening and thinking I have accepted nearly all of the arguments presented as valid, either through logic or evidence, so past that it's a matter of spreading it, NOT JUST living it or even mastering it because your own life and most people's life is like a desert, like trying to  plant philosophy in a desert, you need to create the fertile soil on which to start living these values. Mastering RTR and UPB in 5 years to meet the same old backward statist/religious freaks is like planting and caring for a pot-plant until it's ready to produce and then take it to the desert. 

I feel there's a caution or something about FDR not having the shape of a religion/political movement and organizing in a similar way and I for one thing think this is counterproductive to the content. There are hundreds of millions of dollars every year that are poured into religions voluntarily by people who have a need for community, meaning and virtue, they proselitize and have weekly meetngs where they study their texts and analyze their meaning.  I feel there's an insecurity here about seeming cult-like, as though it lingered as an external stigma that prevents this from growing empirically proven effective methods and my position is so what? this is not a cult, the fundamental difference is in content, what cults sell are supernatural lies and arbitrary rules that don't conform to reason and evidence, even, EVEN if children were taught UPB on sunday school as tautology it would not be false in content nor flawed in methodology, even if freedomainers went out proselitizing and making a living of selling copies of RTR it wouldn't be cultish, because the content ISN'T cultish, it would be the building of a rational community and spreading logically consistent first principles. What I find most frustrating is the arrogance of being contemptous on FDR becoming a push and not pull market, which to me seems an insecure take on the content of what is attempted in this conversation. Going to bands and giving them a 1 hour disc with every argument there is and ask them to wear FDR shirts, etc, all of this things cannot be negative. It seems to me there's this fear of the content being turned into pop-culture and yet, it's the obscurity of FDR's content that makes it most vulnerable to be compared with scientology type cults, why wouldn't we want the gun in the room to be common speech?

majormark:

I think the best way to introduce the transition on a significant scale is to get even people scared of the word "anarchy" to agree with that.

What do you think?

 

 

No. Trying to re-educate people about the word anarchy just makes it harder to spread the FDR message. Most people's reflex on hearing the word "anarchy" - even somebody like me who is 100% pro-anarchy - is chaos, riots and an archduke getting shot. Right?

As far as words go in 2010... "Anarchy" is dead. Long live "voluntary society."

Replace anarchy/anarchist/anarchism with "voluntary society", "voluntaryist" (or voluntarist) and "voluntaryism" (or voluntarism).

Avoid the word "libertarianism" because it's already owned by a political party.

For clarity, define terms every chance you get. For example, "It's fun to be around other voluntaryists, people who understand the initiation of force is wrong."

Define terms 1) so people won't make an erroneous assumption about meaning, such as a "voluntaryist" is somebody in the National Guard, and 2) to avoid the situation where they have no idea what you're talking about and won't ask for clarification... Result: communication failure.

Rehabilitating "anarchy" is not required to spread the FDR message. If you must rehabilitate "anarchy," wait till after voluntary society is achieved, then ask, "Hey, do you realize we're living in anarchy?!"

If you must rehabilitate "anarchy" before voluntary society is achieved, then always associate anarchy with a positively perceived term. For example, a book titled "How to Build A Voluntary Society for the 21st Century," with subtitle "How happy people can thrive in anarchy."

majormark:

 

Because we have the internet, these ideas can spread fast, but it requires good marketing tactics to reach the majority of people.

How would you best market this?

I think one major problem would actually be the word "anarchy" because too many people misinterpret it. A good strategy would be to replace it or to lead an re-education campaign, which probably would not be as effective.

Great question, majormark!

10 ways to market the FDR message:

Produce feature-length movies and short films showing statist society, a feasible transition, then voluntary society. Show what day-to-day life looks like in a voluntary society. The more you tell, the more you sell. The more you show thru examples, the more you overcome peoples' FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) about change.

Focus energies on early adopters to help spread the message.

Create toys and storybooks to educate children, e.g. "The cow says, 'Moooooove into voluntary society because it's good.'" (The donkey and the elephant say nothing.)

Show people what's in it for them in voluntary society. People only care about "What's in it for me?". Sell the benefits. Sell voluntary society like you would any product or service - like Stef says a DRO has to sell its service by demonstrating value and reassuring customers.

Develop marketing slogans, e.g. "Spread voluntary society, not democracy!"

Sell a T-shirt with [YouTube logo + stefbot] to drive curious people to the podcasts.

Recruit top internet marketers like Frank Kern to help promote voluntary society.

Keep the message clear and simple: "The initiation of the use of force is evil (or immoral). The state initiates the use of force; therefore, the state is evil (or immoral)."

Watch your words. (It's all about words!) Use the word "evil" with caution as people can hear it as hype and stop listening. Say, "the psychopaths doing business as the state", not government; "regime", not administration; "crime boss", not president.

Again, make videos depicting life in voluntary society. I think this is important, because most would rather watch than read, although I do not know if that is also true for the preferred target market.

markqq:

No. Trying to re-educate people about the word anarchy just makes it harder to spread the FDR message. Most people's reflex on hearing the word "anarchy" - even somebody like me who is 100% pro-anarchy - is chaos, riots and an archduke getting shot. Right?

Funny, that is so true. I was just watching the Daily Show's segment "Protesters Give Rally Advice" and that is exactly how the anarchist is represented.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-28-2010/protesters-give-rally-advice?xrs=share_copy

In the end, maybe the big challange would be to get people to make more distinction between fantasy and reality.