My FAQ

in #meta3 years ago (edited)

There are some questions I get that are so common, I thought I'd lay them out there and try to get them answered as cogently as possible. If you have a question you would like to submit, please feel free to add it as a comment. I'll consider it as honestly as I can. I don't think there's really any limitation except that I would appreciate it if your question is an honest one too. But humor is always welcome.


Who are you?

So why is your name "inertia?"

I started identifying myself as inertia since 1992. Before that, I was just "Q" when posting online. But "online" wasn't the internet. It was WWIVnet (that's right, modems and BBS). I had to stop using Q because it was only one character and most online systems needed three letters.

But isn't inertia a property of matter referring to a static state of being?

Yes. And I can see the negative connotation. But accelerating forever can be bad too. I have an inertial frame of reference that changes over time, just like you. My goal is to discern between the philosophical equivalent of real forces and pseudo-forces.

With an online name like "inertia," do people ever think you are a black female?

It has happened.

And what does the Ⓐ³ mean?

Agorism, Anarchy, Action!!


Beliefs

So Anthony, are you an anarchist or something?

If by "anarchist" you mean someone who is interested in uncompromising liberty based on a specific set of principles, yes. But I find most people assume the word "anarchy" refers to "total chaos." I don't hold that definition but since a lot of people operate with that assumption, I refer to myself as a "Classical Liberal."

What exactly do you mean by "specific set of principles?"

Another way to word it is to say someone is "principled" as opposed to someone who is "unprincipled." To hold that "principled" means to adhere to a way of thinking based on reason rather than some other basis.

Isn't pretty much everyone principled then?

Someone who is principled strives to avoid self-contradictory positions. Someone who is unprincipled doesn't mind holding self-contradictory positions. People who are unconcerned with holding self-contradictory positions tend not to mind that they are unprincipled. People who are concerned with avoiding self-contradictory positions tend to worry they might be unprincipled when they encounter new information; they may either change their position or try to justify it in some way. Justification of a self-contradictory position doesn't magically make someone principled.

Aren't anarchists simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats?

Yes, they believe that "the best government is that which governs least," and that which governs least is no government at all.

So what exactly is wrong with government?

Government provides services under threat of violence.

What do you mean by "threat of violence?"

If you refuse services offered by government, you will die.

But I know people who refuse government services and they aren't dead. How do you explain that?

They refused the service but the still had to pay for it.

Ok, so you just don't like taxes, is that it?

Correct.

Well, aren't you a Christian? How do you resolve this apparent conflict of world views?

Very simple. Only Jesus Christ (who God the Father raised from the dead) is my ruler, not imperfect men.

So you're a bible thumper?

Yes, but only to people who identify themselves as adherent to God's Word. So if you don't believe it, why would I ever hold it against you? Not my job.

How about ecumenism, are you into that?

Between denominations, probably. But between religions and philosophies, no. Of course, it depends on the scope and context.

Do you think complete liberty is biblical?

Statists use scripture to promote aggression. Anti-statists use it to promote voluntaryism. Liberals and progressives use scripture to defend social programs. Conservatives use it to justify war. Many years ago, people who supported slavery used scripture to support slavery. Abolitionists used scripture to denounce slavery. Anti-tax. Pro-tax. Anti-smoking. Pro-smoking. Pro-life. Pro-choice.

[Though technically, I think the pro-life position can be defended strictly in terms of whether or not abortion is murder, I don't think the state has a role.]

To twist scripture into supporting a particular political system is dangerous. The only thing we can and should conclude by reading scripture is the Gospel and that is all. We would like to believe our political views are supported by end-to-end by scripture, but the fact is, not all contexts and conditions are spoken about as clearly as the topic of salvation. And salvation should be the primary thing we are interested in learning when we approach scripture. That being said, I have opinions on how the inerrancy of scripture can be preserved and how it might support my political position. In that way, it's only a theory on my part. If it doesn't hold up to history and context, I'll be happy to retract an interpretation.

Isn't being a Christian in conflict with your political beliefs, in light of Romans 13:1-7?

Not at all. See my blog post by that title.

But didn't Jesus pay taxes?

As near as I can tell, the only account of Jesus paying taxes had to do with a buddy who agreed to pay them (Matthew 17:24-27). Jesus speaks of not offending the tax collector, but he must certainly have offended tax men when he turned over the tables of the money changers in the temple (Matthew 21:12-13; John 2:13-17). I think Jesus' question to Peter indicates that he did not think that the tax collector had any business asking for the money. For all we know, Jesus’ instruction to Peter about catching a fish to find the tax in its mouth could have been a mock command, as though he were saying, “Pay the temple tax? In a pig’s eye!” On the other hand, it would be in keeping with Peter’s character if he made haste for the seashore to inspect the mouth of his first catch.


Beliefs :: Role of Government

So how is government supposed to get money for these services without taxes?

Like any other business that wants to offer services. Voluntarily.

But then it would be no different from a business, right?

Correct.

But businesses screw people. Don't we need an impartial body to provide certain essential services without profit motive?

Good businesses do not screw their own customers. Government is not impartial. If anybody can be perfectly impartial, that would be utopia.

Ok, government is not perfect and never will be. But isn't an impartial government an easier goal than fair businesses?

I disagree. Profit motive fosters fair businesses as long as there is competition to keep it in check. But government undermines competition by granting itself monopolies.

Businesses get monopolies too. I can see abolishing government monopolies, but how do you abolish private monopolies?

Private monopolies are typically established by government. Without government, private monopolies would be rare.

So in those rare situations where private monopolies can occur, are you in favor of government brokering the industry?

No.

So what do you do in those situations? How do you propose a private monopoly get busted up without government?

I refuse to look to government for a solution to this rare, mostly theoretical possibility. There's too much at risk to go down that road. Once government busts up a private monopoly, it'll move on. Innovation is a better approach.

Innovation? So you don't have a specific solution to private monopoly than innovation?

If I had a specific solution that didn't involve force, I would go into business for myself, bust the private monopoly, and become wildly rich. If government does it with force, it stifles legitimate, innovative solutions like that.

But don't private monopolies need to at least be regulated?

No, regulations result in unintended consequences, false security, and typically are what help monopolies form in the first place.

Isn't that a little circular?

Not really. Regulations are supposed to prevent one set of problems but spawn yet other problems. You end up with a huge mess. That's all I'm asserting. Let's let the free market work instead of endless regulations.

How is the free market different from crony capitalism?

First of all, can you say crony free market? No. So they're different from the outset. Crony capitalism is aggressive while the free market is non-aggressive. That's the main difference.

Where do you get this idea of non-aggression?

It's a first principle that can be traced pretty far back. Christians can look to Matthew 7:12.

Are you one of those Ron Paul guys?

I admit that I used to be a "Ronulan" (aka Ron Paul fan). But I have moved on. There is no doubt that Dr. Paul is the Champion of the Constitution. But I now see the US Constitution in a different light.

But what could you possibly have against Ron Paul? Isn't he into small government?

He is a statist.

What is a statist?

A statist is anyone who thinks the state has any mandatory role.

Wow, that's a pretty wide net. Isn't that a little too wide?

Yes, I know it's wide. But I have to define it that way. And you were probably not that taught in school, so that's why you are surprised. You were also probably taught that you are bound under Constitution but there is no discussion or option. It is mandatory so it is a statist document as well. Ron Paul, being the Champion of the Constitution, believes you and I have a mandatory role there.

Why don't you just move?

So a group of bandits move into your neighborhood and demand your property. Are you saying it is just for the bandits to suggest you move?

Right, because you see the Constitution in a different light. That seems ominous. What do you mean by that?

At this point, I usually quote Lysander Spooner:

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”


Beliefs :: Voting

But doesn't Spooner's quote really mean we just need to vote the right people in office?

No. Since the nature of people will be static, and they are bent on abusing power, no law or constitution or anything else that consolidates power, even into three branches, will ever perpetually refrain people from abuse of that power.

I take it you don't vote then, right?

That is correct.

Why not?

Voting is a form of aggression. It is a violent act.

But if you don't vote, what gives you the right to complain?

That's a cliche. People who don't vote can certainly complain. Someone who is restricted from voting can complain. So I reject that cliche.

So you will never vote?

That is correct.

How is voting a violent act?

Whatever the question of the election, everyone is bound by the outcome, even people who vote against the question. The state has granted itself powers that it never had. That is invalid and can thus only be enforced by coercion.

I think you made a leap of logic there. If a ballot is being cast to decide if it's ok for the government to kill babies for fun, wouldn't you be obliged to vote no?

To vote no on a ballot like that is to assume that a yes vote is equally valid so long as it gets enough votes. But the question isn't valid in the first place.

But if you don't vote if the government should kill babies for fun, wouldn't your lack of vote help the "yes" side?

Yes it would.

So you must vote no in order for this kind of bad legislation to fail, right?

Immoral laws can be resisted without validating them in the voting booth. It is more consistent to oppose the very question before and after it is raised.

But if government is out of control and a good ballot measure is proposed that would bring it under control, even just a little, isn't it better to vote for such a measure than to ignore it and risk continued lack of control?

In alcoholism, that behavior is called "enabling."

What does alcoholism have to do with government being out of control?

It's an analogy. The drunk is out of control. The drunk comes home from a binge and promises his or her spouse to get things under control as long as his or her spouse will help just this once. The spouse reasons that helping "one last time" will get the drunk to get under control. Then the whole process repeats. This is classic enabling behavior. Voting for "baby steps in the right direction" is exactly the same.

If a person isn't quite ready to quit voting, is there something else you would recommend? For example, what about people outside the US who are required to vote by law? What would you tell them?

I would tell them that they probably won't get caught unless they're in Australia or something. If abstaining from the polls is somehow not an option, I recommend at least voting for any question that reduces aggression. But just because a question purports to reduce aggression doesn't mean one should vote for it. The question on the ballot would have to abolish a law, not merely "decriminalize for the purpose of regulating" or some other nonsense. It's still logically inconstant.

Would you vote for someone who promises to do something like abolish their own office?

No, they are lying.


Beliefs :: "Isms"

Ok, I think I have you figured out now, Anthony. Are you one of those Ayn Rand fans?

Not really. I would classify myself closer to Thoreauvian than Randian. But I do think Rand was misunderstood. Specifically, I think greed is a good thing.

Wait, greed is a good thing??

I'll explain what I mean in a future article. But for now, please understand I don't condone either unethical behavior nor utilitarianism when I say greed is a good thing. At the same time, I also think greed can be a sin.

If you think greed is a sin, does that mean government has a right to tax and regulate it?

No. Don't you know two wrongs don't make a right? Anyway, I don't trust people to estimate whether another person is too greedy. Estimation of greed is a personal matter.

Anthony, you seem sort-of hardcore/radical/extreme/ridged. Why is that?

How far would you go to protect your children from threats of violence? Why stop short when it comes to criminals writ large (government)?

What about roads/streetlights/courts/police/et al.?

I'll write an article about this too. But it's actually a common question. In fact, it means that the notion has broken through some cognitive dissonance on some level.

This is just your utopia, right?

No. Utopia implies that everything would be fine and dandy. It also implies that humans would change their nature. I don't expect either.

Is everything "black and white" to you?

Everything? No, I wouldn't go that far. But if you sit down and try to actually understand the world around you, certain shades of gray do begin to fall away over time. Besides, everyone is "black and white" on something.

How do you know everyone is "black and white" on something?

Because if you say no one is "black and white" on anything, you are being "black and white" by making that assertion in the first place. It begs the question, therefore it's invalid. QED.

Can you name one thing you consider a shade of gray?

Rockey-Road (ice cream); I am rather ambivalent on that topic.

You misspelled "Rocky-Road."

I'm a terrible speller. And that's not a question.

Do you mean to say you could take it or leave it (Rocky-Road)?

Yeah. It's chocolate, which I like, but there are marshmallows, which I don't like. And some types seem to have stale nuts. Depends on my mood, I guess.

You don't like marshmallows?! Who doesn't like marshmallows?!

Well, I mean, they don't completely repulse me. I just don't care for them.


Strategy

Can you name even one society that was able to last any amount of time without a government?

Not being able to name one doesn't imply it can't happen. Anyway, wouldn't people before the US was formed to ask the same thing about self-government? If the US was able to exist with a government of less than 1% of GDP, how was that really different from 0% in day-to-day life?

So it's never happened, what makes you think it'll ever happen?

I didn't say it never happened. I cite sectors like the airlines or any area before government ever tried to get into these sectors of the free market; the Wright brothers put planes in the sky with bicycle parts. They didn't have regulations or any semblance of government force behind them. They were in a state of complete aeronautic liberty, limited only by the laws of physics, aided only by innovation. They couldn't force their contraption to stay aloft by legislative fiat. I see it as an example of contextual anarchy. And their innovation paid off. And that's how complete liberty usually happens. In pieces. Usually about 20 years before regulations come along.

Come on! How can anything like anarchy, that has never been tried on a national scale, ever work in practical terms?

The system for shrinking the size of government exists today. But has that system ever worked? Has government ever gotten smaller at anywhere near the same rate as it got bigger? I believe the system to shrink government is totally vestigial (i.e. it's there but rather non-functional). There might be "token" shrinkage from time-to-time, but nothing close to the rate of growth; certainly nothing that would ever surpass the growth rate. So my point is, since it never happened, what makes you think it will ever happen?

Are you saying that if I assert complete liberty (anarchy) will never be attainable, I am in effect saying small government is equally unattainable?

Yes, if you are interested in being self-consistent in your beliefs.

Will you assert the same thing in return? If anarchy is attainable, is small government attainable?

I suppose I'll bite the bullet and agree as long as you do. I guess we will have to agree to agree, or however you say it. :D I hate that phrase, but hey.

You seem to have an answer for everything, don't you?

Pretty much.

Have you ever been wrong?

Sure I have. And some of my blog articles are proof. But I leave them there to help me remember my mindset and learn from my mistakes.

Ok, I've been convinced by some of what you say. What do you propose we do about it?

At the very least, read more. Action is important but not mindless action. I recommend joining the counter-economy.

Anthony, what about this new (tea party, coffee party, jack daniel party, whipped-cream-and-handcuffs party, perfect candidate, plan of action, other magic bullet) movement?

Here is my standard answer: I don't really think [your proposed magic bullet here] is going to amount to any real change. If they are extremely lucky (which I doubt) they might succeed in getting more republicans elected that will continue to hold the status quo slightly longer than the democrats will, but overall everything will continue to move in the wrong direction i.e. larger government, corrupt government, outrageous taxes, corporate and social welfare, indiscreet military involvement around the globe and on and on and on. Frankly, I think most "Christian" politicians don't understand the meaning of the word, and the ones that do sign up for the republican party and you vote for them because that's what Christians and patriots do. I definitely feel the system is beyond repair. Even the most conservative of conservatives hold positions that are completely opposed to those of the constitution and the founding fathers, if that ever mattered. Smoke and mirrors.

Wow, that is a great paragraph. Did you think of that yourself?

I agree it's great, but I didn't think of it myself. I adapted it from a good statist friend (@arrowj), which is proof that statists do have the capacity to think clearly.

I want to understand the voluntary society you're always talking about. Is there an article you've written that explains this?

Yes. Please consider my article "Understanding the Voluntary Society."

Sort:  

Couldn't agree more. NB: Here in Australia we need to attend a polling place and get marked off (or pay a $20 fine), but we can use the pieces of paper however we like. I usually scrawl, "Not my circus, not my monkeys".
I tried to leave with them once, but they wouldn't let me.
Romans 13 feels like it's encoded. He was likely in a Roman prison, sending a letter into the heart of Rome; he can't very well overtly call human government illegitimate. The letter would never arrive, and could cause all sorts of problems for both sender and recipient. Look at the reasoning he gives.
For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong
The common factor, the very reason they're all in the same group; is the belief that the state just brutally executed the only sinless person to ever exist.
If you want to slip a message past a censor you need to encode it cleverly, so that a belief or piece of knowledge that you and the intended recipient share (but any intermediary lacks) can be used to decipher it.
Any Christian statist who claims we're inconsistent with Romans 13 needs to clarify whether
A: Jesus deserved it.
B: He wasn't executed by the authorities.
C: Some change in the intervening decades fundamentally altered the nature of human government, rendering it harmless to the innocent.

Well said.

Very nicely written. Didn’t know this about you, maybe I need to pay better attention.

Reblogged and will send along to some fellow Christian statists.

I started identifying myself as inertia since 1992. Before that, I was just "Q" when posting online.

The Hive-Mind is alive and well. ~ Q #4321

Yes I smoke weed yes I grow flowers.

Can I opt out of civilization and go back to my Native American traditional ways?

Why is it that free men scream so loudly about freedoms and those locked in the zoo just accept life....

Right on smoke more weed and be you! Just remember taxation is theft and Epstein didn't kill himself

Congratulations @inertia! You received a personal badge!

It's great to see you are attending HiveFest⁵ in Altspace VR.

Have fun!

You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking

Do not miss the last post from @hivebuzz:

It's today! Do not miss the opening of HiveFest⁵