link to original reddit post by /u/Anen-o-me


I've seen libertarians described in the past as being hyper ethically-driven. This comports with our focus on the Non-Aggression Principle as our ethical cornerstone.

But when comparing libertarianism to ethical crusades like, for instance, the drive to end slavery or the drive to end segregation, or things like Gandhi's drive for self-rule of India, ethical crusades that were successful in the past, they have one thing in common: victims we could point to to shame society with.

In fact some have said that the invention of the camera is the single greatest reason why so many world evils have been ended, showing proof of the results of those evils. We will never forget Tank-man at Tiananmen, or water being sprayed at peaceful protestors and dogs sicked on them.

These visual records of oppression become iconic for the ethical crusades they represent. They create outrage and outrage creates action, it radicalizes people.

It occurs to me then that what we preach, what we see as this fundamental moral principle of the NAP, is perceived by the mainstream opinion as being essentially ephemeral in character. As being a niggle or a jot, when to us it is the world. It is to them an abstraction.

And the reason is because of how many other great crimes and sins exist that draw attention away from the more subtle ethical problems.

But this does imply that ethical progress in the world can eventually arrive at a point where questions of the NAP reach the forefront of the mass culture, if other ethical dilemmas worldwide are resolved.

This implies that ethical progress globally will eventually lead the world into considering and ultimately accepting the NAP as well.

Note that Marxism is offered on a similar basis, the idea that employers are stealing from employees, that seductive lie of capitalism being built on victimization or exploitation as they call it.

One day global warming will be considered essentially solved or stabilized one way or the other.

One day war may become effectively a thing of the past if globally defensive organizations similar to NATO proliferate.

And hunger and healthcare concerns may disappear as well as an age of intelligent machines multiply the amount of work humanity can do for essentially free and we use that to guarantee everyone a minimal subsistence.

I know that implies a great deal of change that does not even appear to be on the horizon yet, but it may be just over the horizon.

Britain proposed a new defense agreement apart from NATO to include Ukraine and the Balkans, for instance.

China and Russia, the two great world belligerents, both face demographic collapse in this century that may see their influence melt from history the same way no one fears the Mongol hordes anymore, though they ruled the world's largest empires for thousands of years in pre-modern history

Breakthroughs in AI and fusion energy production may soon lead to a new wealth level that has us comparing the wealth of that time the same way we compare wealth now to pre-modern poverty.

And I do not suggest to simply wait for that time and do nothing either! There is more work to be done now than ever before!

Questions of liberty will remain important because political technology in terms of political system structure is still in the stone age. Democracy as a concept predates Jesus. And we know there is something better, the stateless society.

When people ask me what I believe, I say "I think all human interaction should be voluntary" and everyone I've said that to instinctively agreed with it and received it positively. It's not hard to agree with anarcho-capitalism, it's only in the application of that principle to the problems faced by society that they run into trouble applying such a rule.

In time we can bridge that gap.

There is another factor however. It is easy to point to victims of the State and deficiencies in how things are being done, but absent a viable alternative people will continue to grasp that which they have and know already.

I've seen many people, in discussion about these things, reach an intellectual point where they know and agree that a certain thing is bad but come with a blank on how things could be changed or fixed and thus default to a mainstream cliche judgment about it.

That's where we can be sometimes dismissed as utopians.

Only by demonstrating that a new system is possible and desirable in its outcomes can the majority of people be brought to accept radical change. And today, as a group, we are exploring ways to do that.

So many of our arguments with the mainstream as ancaps devolve into mere projections of the inductive likelihood of this is that outcome resulting. And there is no way to resolve such a discussion, because it's entirely prospective. At some point we may test ideas in the real world to discover the truth of them. Implementation ends that argument.

And it feels like for the reasons given above, our time is assuredly coming. A time when the world will be ready to hear that another way, a truly ethical system, is possible.

Stay strong, ladies and gents. Keep chugging.