Strategies for dealing with government intrusion into your life

Last edited by Nemo on Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:48 am; edited 1 time in total

Over at SOLO, Kyle Bennett posted some interesting thoughts on the best way to deal with the nuisance of government. I had difficulty fully understanding it so I thought I'd repost it here in full to see what people make of it:

I can't give you specific pointers, only principles. And you probably know the key one already: apply your reason to your context to acheive your values. But remember, while reason must take the existing context as a given, it only has to do so as a starting point. The heavy lifting for reason is in changing the context.

Perfect freedom is when the law has no effect on your behavior. That can mean that the only things illegal are those you would not do for moral reasons anyway, or it could be because you are willing to defy the law and take the consequences, or it could be because you have managed to insulate yourself from any consequences of the law.

You'll never have perfect freedom. But you can have more of it, if you change the context. Political action seeks only the first of those circumstances, but cannot be unilateral, it requires the enemy to cooperate. Defiance is unilateral, but if used for no other reason than to send a message or to feel like a free man, accomplishes nothing, and does so at very high risk. The third is risky as well, but can be effective and achievable, to some extent. Yet almost no-one seems interested in pursuing it.

Remember also that there are two ways to keep the products of one's mind out of the hands of the moochers, when the moochers are running things. The first is not to produce anything. The second is to produce, but not let them get their hands on it.

Don't get stuck on one method, and don't assume that the only means to any of them are the obvious ones that come straight to mind. Think. Reason. And change the contexts you find yourself in.

Do a Google search on Agorism. Ignore the lefty rhetoric, it comes full circle to explicit propertarian and free market principles. It is almost exclusively an economic approach. There is much more that needs attending to, and in that, it is vulnerable to Rand's "floating abstraction" complaint, but as a selection of means it identifies the most under-utilized tactcal and strategic weapon free men have at their disposal.

It is a weapon that aims straight at the heart of what keeps tyranny alive. Rand saw that in formulating Galt's Gulch, but application of the principle does not require a remote valley and a static-motor invisibility cloak. Unless you want a free lunch, that is, if you think you can achieve your freedom without risk.

Oh, and the reason no one seems interested in pursuing my third alternative above? Because they still grant moral sanction to the law, no matter how corrupt and anti-production, anti-reason, and anti-life it becomes. Voting, not producing, and open, taunting defiance put moral and proper values subordinate to the law, leaving it the moral high ground. Voting, the most craven, grants it the right to dispose of values. Not producing at all grants it the right to prevent the pursuit of values. Open defiance seeks to meet it on its own terms, allowing the law to dictate behavior by negative correlation.

Only the third option, judging one's actions entirely on moral principles without regard to the law, places it squarely in the subordinate position. It reduces law to its proper place, a promise of consequences with no moral status, to be evaluated solely on a cost/benefit calculus. It allows the application of reason to the purpose of reducing the costs and increasing the benefits of whatever actions are chosen, legal or not. That is why the law can tolerate free-riders, it feeds on defiance, but it cannot abide disregard.

==============

From what I can tell, I think he's saying that we should actively ignore them, as if they are beneath recognition -- treating them as you would an animal, which is not to deny that they can at times be dangerous. Putting them in this sub-human position strips from them their current veneer of legitimacy which is the very basis of their power.

Well...

Personally, I think he ought to dump SOLO and waltz in here to give us a rational explanation of his position and views... preferably, in one paragraph... or less....

This seems to be an error:

Quote :: and open, taunting defiance put moral and proper values subordinate to the law, leaving it the moral high ground

As is this:

Quote :: Not producing at all grants it the right to prevent the pursuit of values.

The idea that open defiance accomplishes nothing... well... while the price can be high... that is in fact, the way in which most historical political change has occurred, so it's just cwayzee to claim otherwise...

In fact, all three variables outlined have a moral component to them and do not automatically grant any moral superiority to the system, as Kyle suggests...
So there's a ton of false assumptions and unwarranted conclusions in all the above... and I only had time for a quick skim read...

Either way, he is one of the few decent posters, on that SOLO fuck of a statist site...

CovOps wrote:: Personally, I think he ought to dump SOLO and waltz in here to give us a rational explanation of his position and views... preferably, in one paragraph... or less....

I'll see what I can do.

CovOps, the words were chosen carefully, it'd be nice if you read them as carefully. The kind of defiance I said accomplishes nothing is the kind that is "... used for no other reason than to send a message or to feel like a free man ... " Later, in the line you quoted, I said "open taunting defiance". Its the kind of defiance whose only purpose is to antagonize, to provoke a reaction. I don't mean to refer to calm, assertive defiance, the kind that expresses "this is what I choose to do, with or without your blessing". The former places the focus on the one being defied, the latter places it where it belongs, on the self.

The former places the thing being defied at the center of focus, as the cause of action. It is an implicit acknowledgment of the superiority of that which is being defied - that defiance of this is the value pursued, rather than the value itself that can only be pursued in defiance - and thus places the values being pursued in a subordinate position.

The latter does just the opposite.

Not producing at all does the same thing. It allows a law or edict to be the cause of one's behavior, or abstinence. This is different than refusing to produce a specific thing under specific restrictions or demands. The abdication of all production is reactionary, it grants the power to those demanding obedience, even if the refusal to produce is disobedience. The rational pursuit of values requires that they be pursued without regard to the wishes of those who would stop it or appropriate it, only with regard to their actions, and then only to act according to that context in the continued pursuit of those values.

Disobedience is the flip side of the coin of obedience. Disregard is neither, it is anti-obedience, it is behaving as you would, whether the law opposes it or demands it, because the law does not affect your behavior.

Glad you've joined Kyle. Welcome aboard! :Cheers:

You said:

Quote :: That is why the law can tolerate free-riders, it feeds on defiance, but it cannot abide disregard.

I agree with this, in that I believe the most dangerous thing to governments is their supremacy & legitimacy being threatened. In that case, to keep them out of one's life, isn't it best not to let them know that one is disregarding them? To do otherwise would be to encourage their wrath. In other words, internally one ignores them and holds them in contempt, but not outwardly.

Quote :: In that case, to keep them out of one's life, isn't it best not to let them know that one is disregarding them?

That's a strategic question. It may at times be good strategy to make it known. Tactically, it's usually a bad choice. But either way, it's an issue for a later time, when agorist activity reaches widely and deeply enough that engaging them in some way is unavoidable. At an individual level, particularly when at an extreme disadvantage, quietly pursuing one's values with avoidance and evasion the primary means of protection is most likely the best approach. Of course, concrete contexts always have to be considered, and I cannot make a blanket statement that will apply to all possible contexts.

The more important point is that when one is oriented outwardly, toward them, it strengthens them and weakens one's self. Keep the focus on what you can change directly, and until you have gathered enough resources and alliances, that will primarily be yourself and your own circumstances. Keep your pursuit of your own values always primary, don't let trying to influence the behavior of your enemies become an end in itself, don't let it replace your values in being the cause of your actions.

And the focus on changing yourself cannot be underestimated. Above all else, you must yourself be an effective, rational agent of change. It's the foundation on which all other efforts are built. Are you in debt? Out of shape? Have addictions? Are your income or financial and other material reserves vulnerable? Do you lack necessary skills or knowledge? Do you have psychological or philosophical hangups that prevent you from being as rational as you can be? Do you have dysfunctional or detrimental relationships? We all have some of those obstacles to overcome, and you don't have to be perfect in order to start acting, but until your strengths outweigh those weaknesses, you're being negligent in directing your main efforts anywhere else.

By the way, your analogy to a wild animal is right on. They can't be ignored entirely - they are too dangerous for that - but their goals, demands, wishes, and bluster must be treated as the irrational, meaningless animal behaviors that they are. Those have no relevance to your rational decisions whatsoever. Ignore them until they threaten you directly, then fight or avoid them as prudence demands.

First, welcome Kyle, it's good to see you here... where you likely fit in much better, than at that other place... even if you did characterized it as childishness... still, there's worse crimes than that, right? ;-)

Quote :: CovOps, the words were chosen carefully, it'd be nice if you read them as carefully.

OK, this time I did, though unfortunately, my position hasn't changed...

Quote :: The kind of defiance I said accomplishes nothing is the kind that is "... used for no other reason than to send a message or to feel like a free man ... "

I don't think anyone sends a message of defiance for only one reason. There's always much more to it than that. It could be to boost morale, recruit others, give hope to the silent voices, attract funding, spread the message, revenge, payback, psychological pain, etc... The subject matter is complex and defiance is a high risk activity. By the time anyone reaches that level of commitment in their actions, just sending out a message, as an end in itself, would seem unlikely at best.

Quote :: Later, in the line you quoted, I said "open taunting defiance". Its the kind of defiance whose only purpose is to antagonize, to provoke a reaction. I don't mean to refer to calm, assertive defiance, the kind that expresses "this is what I choose to do, with or without your blessing". The former places the focus on the one being defied, the latter places it where it belongs, on the self.

All defiance carries within itself, the seeds of antagonism and provocation, otherwise it wouldn't be defiance. The stylization is irrelevant. Calm, cool, assertive or hyper, mouth-frothing, maniacal. Again, I have to take issue with "whose only purpose is to antagonize, to provoke a reaction." It's always much more than that, perhaps to affect meaningful change for instance (and everything that this implies). As for placing the focus "on the one being defied," well, that is its proper place, and not the self. The problem is external hence the solution must be also.

Quote :: The former places the thing being defied at the center of focus, as the cause of action.

But it is the cause. If the system/government wasn't there, you'd have no need to think about it, much less defy it. Semantics aside, if it wasn't the system, but say a lion that was the external problem, you'd have to focus on that lion in your life and how to remove/defeat/neutralize that external problem.

Quote :: It is an implicit acknowledgment of the superiority of that which is being defied - that defiance of this is the value pursued, rather than the value itself that can only be pursued in defiance - and thus places the values being pursued in a subordinate position. The latter does just the opposite.

Sorry Kyle, but there is no "implicit acknowledgment of the superiority of that which is being defied." If I defy the state, I am most certainly not acknowledging its superiority. Only expressing my defiance, for whatever reasons I may have. But even if I was, who cares anyway? It's irrelevant. No one is defying for defiance sake. We're not intrinsicists and there actually are other reasons and issues.

Quote :: Not producing at all does the same thing. It allows a law or edict to be the cause of one's behavior, or abstinence.

But it is the cause, since without it, the subject wouldn't even be raised, much less acted upon.

Quote :: This is different than refusing to produce a specific thing under specific restrictions or demands.

No, it is most certainly not.

Quote :: The abdication of all production is reactionary, it grants the power to those demanding obedience, even if the refusal to produce is disobedience.

So what if it's "reactionary?" They caused it, since without them, the said production would not have ceased. And it does not "grant power to those demanding obedience." Nothing further is given to them, in fact they themselves are now, that much poorer.

Quote :: The rational pursuit of values requires that they be pursued without regard to the wishes of those who would stop it or appropriate it,

I don't mean to be rude or anything Kyle, but this is just about the worst case of context dropping that I've seen in a long time. And from you, of all people! A guy that's highly conscious of the importance of context. Even in a laissez faire "society," such advice could be ruinous. The exact opposite is the truth. In dealing with any problem, one needs to bring to bear the full context of the situation, ie. the full awareness and knowledge of the subject
matter. (Not just partial) If there are important forces around, which seek to stop you from pursuing your values, you had better take them into serious consideration and only then, act accordingly. The idea that you can just dismiss them out of hand and then pursue so called "rational values," is pure wishful thinking.

Quote :: Disobedience is the flip side of the coin of obedience. Disregard is neither, it is anti-obedience, it is behaving as you would, whether the law opposes it or demands it, because the law does not affect your behavior.

I can only repeat, what I've just stated, immediately above. Look at it this way, as an example: I'm imprisoned in Auschwitz. Commercial activity is forbidden. I'd like to make some money. I wish I could open a shop and sell things inside the concentration camp. A letter arrives from Kyle. I open it and it reads: "Behave as you would, whether the Auschwitz law opposes it or demands it, because the law does not affect your behavior." I take Kyle's advice... and... am now unhappily, contemplating it in "heaven..."

Quote :: The more important point is that when one is oriented outwardly, toward them, it strengthens them and weakens one's self. Keep the focus on what you can change directly, and until you have gathered enough resources and alliances, that will primarily be yourself and your own circumstances. Keep your pursuit of your own values always primary, don't let trying to influence the behavior of your enemies become an end in itself, don't let it replace your values in being the cause of your actions.

I understand where you're coming from, however, given that there's practically an infinite number of values to choose from, if one is so inclined, one can rationally change previous values and embrace new ones, which might in fact be to agitate, attack and fight against the system, which then becomes one's primary value.

Quote :: And the focus on changing yourself cannot be underestimated. Above all else, you must yourself be an effective, rational agent of change. It's the foundation on which all other efforts are built. Are you in debt? Out of shape? Have addictions? Are your income or financial and other material reserves vulnerable? Do you lack necessary skills or knowledge? Do you have psychological or philosophical hangups that prevent you from being as rational as you can be? Do you have dysfunctional or detrimental relationships? We all have some of those obstacles to overcome, and you don't have to be perfect in order to start acting, but until your strengths outweigh those weaknesses, you're being negligent in directing your main efforts anywhere else.

Lots of good advice there...

CovOps wrote:: First, welcome Kyle, it's good to see you here... where you likely fit in much better, than at that other place... even if you did characterized it as childishness... still, there's worse crimes than that, right? ;-)

There, I wasn't remotely trying to fit in, I was harvesting souls. Here.... well, its a matter of perspective. The (still open) question is whether this forum will fit in with me.

Quote :: I don't think anyone sends a message of defiance for only one reason. There's always much more to it than that.

That may be, but hang around long enough, and you see plenty of people who give every indication that they defy for the sake of defiance. But it's beside the point. Disregarding a law and making a stink about it are separate questions. The former does not require the latter. That leaves the latter as a discrete action all its own, with a purpose all its own. Its a very overt, very risky action, and its purpose is to influence or somehow affect the behavior of others, whether enemy or ally. Its an action with an outward orientation. That may be appropriate in some circumstances, but if it reflects a generally outward orientation, which seems to be the case in the overwhelming majority of cases, then its a symptom of a deep, grave error. That outward orientation puts external motivations above values as the driver of behavior.

It's a strategy that is almost always in practice used as a tactic, and as a tactic it is almost always futile. If you've got a well-developed enough strategy that you've determined that such an action is a necessary and effective part of it, then you don't need to be arguing with me about it. Few people that I have come across do. Vanderboegh and his III, and the Free State Projects (Wyoming in particular, New Hampshire is a fatally flawed strategy, but at least it is a cohesive and integrated one), are among a very few that have done so.

Quote :: All defiance carries within itself, the seeds of antagonism and provocation, otherwise it wouldn't be defiance.

True, but there are different ways to defy. The stylization isn't what is important, its the orientation. Take the lunch counter sit in during the civil rights movement, or Rosa Parks. I disagree with the position of the lunch-counter protesters (it was a private establishment that had the right to discriminate, however repugnant their exercise of it was), but I agree with their orientation in doing it. They at least appeared to have the attitude that "I'm going to do what I think is right, and I don't care what you do about it." They certainly had the idea that they would make an external impact, but they were very careful to at least appear not to, and so effectively appeared so that I believe they really thought of it that way, at least at some level. There was a later accusation that Rosa Parks refusal to give up her seat was planned for effect, an accusation that was vehemently denied. The fact that it was treated as an undermining revelation supports my point, that the attitude, real or manufactured, was that of defiance for personal reasons, not for political effect. It's that appearance that allowed for the effect it had.

I can think of several other prominent protests, very common these days, in which people did things that they had no interest in doing except for the fact that it was illegal, and the purpose of which was only to provoke a reaction of some sort. And they have been almost entirely ineffective in swaying public opinion.

The irony is that the more you try to affect others behavior, the less you succeed. Conversely, the more you at least appear to pursue your own values without regard to the external consequences, the more effect you have on others. Except its not ironic, its a direct application of principles.

Quote :: The problem is external hence the solution must be also.

If there's one fundamental flaw in your thinking, this is it. I'll let you know when I figure out how to explain how it is wrong, but you might start with a basic investigative technique: assume it is not true and examine the consequences and implications.

Quote :: The former places the thing being defied at the center of focus, as the cause of action.

Quote :: But it is the cause. If the system/government wasn't there, you'd have no need to think about it, much less defy it. Semantics aside, if it wasn't the system, but say a lion that was the external problem, you'd have to focus on that lion in your life and how to remove/defeat/neutralize that external problem.

You almost expressed my point quite succinctly in the second sentence. If you had thought about what you had just typed a few seconds more before brushing it off as semantics, you might have learned something.

Why would you have to focus on the lion? Is his existence the problem, or the fact that he is an obstacle to doing something you want to do? Why are you out on the savannah where lions roam? Is it to photograph elephants, or have a picnic, or build an irrigation system? Or did you leave your house, fly to Africa, hike out to the plains, all for the sole purpose of confronting lions? And then, if you are there for the elephants or the picnic or the Peace Corps project, is confronting the lion, getting in his face and demanding your right to take pictures or what have you really the best way to prevent his interference? Or is it better to leave him be, stay alert, and if he gets too close either shoot him or run inside and hide, then get on with your work when the danger has passed?

And maybe you should build a fence before you build that irrigation system, so you have to worry about him even less next time.

Do you see the difference?

Quote :

Quote :: The abdication of all production is reactionary, it grants the power to those demanding obedience, even if the refusal to produce is disobedience.

So what if it's "reactionary?" They caused it, since without them, the said production would not have ceased. And it does not "grant power to those demanding obedience." Nothing further is given to them, in fact they themselves are now, that much poorer.

Without your decision to stop it, it wouldn't have stopped. I should have emphasized the word "all" in there. If you cease producing entirely, there's no longer any point to defiance, resistance, or any other attempt to change things. And you've made yourself a lot poorer than you've made them.

Now, think about the implicit premise in your claim that you've made them poorer. Examine the nature of what it is you are dealing with, the subject of that claim. Do you think it is money that enriches them? It's a tool for them, but it is not their sustenance. Their sustenance is power, and you've handed to them all you had. But keep producing, and doing it in a way that limits or prevents their ability to appropriate the fruits of it, and you've deprived them of both money and power, while enriching yourself. Can't presently stop them from taking the fruits of your labor? Well, that requires that you change yourself, not them. Start building that fence to keep the lions at bay. They are what they are, and their power over you is their lifeblood. They won't give it up because you defy them, they'll just feed on that. You have to take it from them.

Quote :

Quote :: The rational pursuit of values requires that they be pursued without regard to the wishes of those who would stop it or appropriate it,

I don't mean to be rude or anything Kyle, but this is just about the worst case of context dropping that I've seen in a long time. And from you, of all people!

My reputation is already such, eh? Go ahead and be rude, I can take it. Just don't clip my quotes in such a way that it changes their meaning. I followed that up with making the distinction between their wishes and their actions.

Quote :: If there are important forces around, which seek to stop you from pursuing your values, you had better take them into serious consideration and only then, act accordingly. The idea that you can just dismiss them out of hand and then pursue so called "rational values," is pure wishful thinking.

You can dismiss their wishes out of hand, not their actions. You must protect yourself against their actions. What you cannot do is let their wishes, or even their threats, change the values you seek. Reason demands that you decide the manner in which you will pursue those values to account for all relevant context. Your values are definitive of what is relevant context, not the other way around.

Quote :

Quote :: Disobedience is the flip side of the coin of obedience. Disregard is neither, it is anti-obedience, it is behaving as you would, whether the law opposes it or demands it, because the law does not affect your behavior.

I can only repeat, what I've just stated, immediately above. Look at it this way, as an example: I'm imprisoned in Auschwitz. Commercial activity is forbidden. I'd like to make some money. I wish I could open a shop and sell things inside the concentration camp. A letter arrives from Kyle. I open it and it reads: "Behave as you would, whether the Auschwitz law opposes it or demands it, because the law does not affect your behavior." I take Kyle's advice... and... am now unhappily, contemplating it in "heaven..."

My purpose in that statement was to distinguish disregard from disobedience, not to offer advice. But I'll cop to a bit of sloppiness there. My advice, in general, has been to practice disregard rather than disobedience. But I do not mean it in the sense of "just start disregarding the legal consequences of everything you do", but rather that the pursuit of your values, in the current political context, requires that you act to make it possible to do so in an ever widening circle of activities. That's what I meant when I said something to the effect that "the heavy lifting of reason is the requirement to change the context."

Of course, if you just stop filing your 1040 every year, you'll eventually face consequences. But if you work hard at it, change the context you presently find yourself in, you may be able to start disregarding that law, either because you've protected yourself from the consequences, or because you've been able to reduce the cost of them, or some combination. Roy Cohn, the 50's lawyer who prosecuted the Rosenbergs and worked with McCarty, is a great example of it. He arranged his life such that his multi-million dollar "debt" to the IRS could never be collected, not even from his estate after his death.

Quote :: ... given that there's practically an infinite number of values to choose from, if one is so inclined, one can rationally change previous values and embrace new ones, which might in fact be to agitate, attack and fight against the system, which then becomes one's primary value.

Go straight to hell, do not pass Go. No, I'm not insulting you, I'm summing up what you've just proposed. What's the purpose of fighting the system if not because it is an obstacle to some other value? If your primary value is not your own life, then your own life is forfeit. There wouldn't even be anything wrong, from that perspective, with a tyrannical, totalitarian state - without it you'd have no values at all.

Besides, isn't resorting to that a tacit admission that I've been right all along? That fighting the state for the sake of the fight is placing it above all your other values? Because, you know, valuing its demise above all else is still putting it as the source of your values, except in a negative sense.... Jeez, even worse, making your primary value an absence, isn't that the definition of nihilism?

In a nutshell, I think we'll have to agree... to disagree.

If I had lots of free time on my hands, I'd engage in the suffocating minutia of every sentence you uttered, but such is unfortunately not the case.

Though if you'd like to take just one point at a time, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. But if you just drown me in an avalanche of arguments... well, it just ain't gonna fly...

And I didn't mean to misquote you in any way, by so called "clipping of your quotes." Even if I take into consideration your differentiation between their wishes and their actions, it doesn't change a thing. If you know what your enemy's position is, you can pretty much predict, what their actions will be also, so it's really neither here nor there.

But hey, at least we agree on utilizing effective strategies, to neutralize the depredations of the state, so at least that's something...

CovOps wrote:: In a nutshell, I think we'll have to agree... to disagree.

What if I dont? More importantly, what if they don't? Because they in fact do not, and our only choice for moving forward against them is unilaterally. We can do it by confronting them, a vastly more powerful and resourceful enemy who have overwhelming public support, or we can do it by focusing on expanding the sphere of actions we have available to us. We can focus on them and lose, or focus on our own abilities and resources and, if not win, at least carve out a niche in which we can have freedom of action. And probably win, too, in the long run.

Look, I wasn't trying to drown you, I was responding point by point to your point by point response to my... Those kind of exchanges usually grow exponentially and have to be cut down at some point. I have no problem with that.

Quote :: What if I dont?

Even better! You can then agree with me, in which case it would be an improvement! ;)

Quote :: More importantly, what if they don't? Because they in fact do not...

Well, they would in fact agree to disagree, nevertheless, they'd attempt to use force, so it's no skin off their nose...

Quote :: We can focus on them and lose...

That's one of our essential disagreements, as I hold that not to be the case... there's no one way to skin a cat, but a multitude... each with it's own pros and cons...

Strategies for dealing with government intrusion into your life

Strategies for dealing with government intrusion into your life

Anarcho-Capitalist Categorical Imperatives

AnCaps On Rights, Individualism & Lifestyles