Ep.63 Free State Activism with Ian Freeman(Anarcho-Yakitalism Podcast)

I have Ian Freeman of Free Talk Live and the Liberty Radio Network to talk about some of the things he’s involved in.

Free Talk Live: https://www.freetalklive.com/live

Liberty Radio Network: http://lrn.fm/

Free State Project: https://freestateproject.org/

Free Keene: http://freekeene.com/




Filed under Interviews, Politics

3 Responses to Ep.63 Free State Activism with Ian Freeman(Anarcho-Yakitalism Podcast)

  1. Hey, just started listening to your podcast, good stuff. I too am a farmer, of organic veg in the suburbs of Littleton, CO, though I have done more than my share of animal work. I worked on a small raw milk dairy for a year, and have hand washed a few thousand eggs…
    I just wanted to respond to your disappointment with anarchists/voluntaryists like me, and the tension between those who see progress coming from working within the system, to incrementally drag it into the light, and those like me who see that as fundamentally counterproductive. I will tell you, off the bat, that I do not know the best way for others to work, and certainly some incremental gains can be made within the system. But my purism rises up when I hear, “In NH we have real anarchists in the State House”. Um, no. There are real, catastrophic problems with voting in particular. So this scam runs on a fable called “consent of the governed”, which is not possible. Consent is voluntary, governing is control through violence, real or threatened. This is like attaiing sobriety by drinking, or virginity by fucking. And yet, the controllers believe it is possible, so it is crucially important to withhold that consent. They take that consent, and use it to massacre people here and abroad on a massive scale. Not voting is a key baby step on the pat to liberty. As long as people think we could make slavery work, if only the right slave masters were in charge, the huge problems will persist. When you tell them, keep voting, but just for Good Guy A, or Great Ballot Initiative B, you perpetuate the utterly violent myth of majority rule. This would be why authentic anarchists bristle at the idea. But keep up the good work, keep making up your own mind. For example: “If you personally advocate that I be caged if I don’t pay for whatever “government” things YOU want, please don’t pretend to be tolerant, or non-violent, or enlightened, or compassionate. Don’t pretend you believe in “live and let live,” and don’t pretend you want peace, freedom or harmony. It’s a simple truism that the only people in the world who are willing to “live and let live” are voluntaryists. So you can either PRETEND to care about and respect your fellow man while continuing to advocate widespread authoritarian violence, or you can embrace the concepts of self-ownership and peaceful coexistence, and become an anarchist.”

    • Nick

      Thanks for responding Eric, and sorry for my late reply.
      I go back and forth on this issue a bit, incrementalism or just wait for it[government] to crash and burn?
      I’m a utilitarian and I think when people have personal responsibility and freedom, they thrive. So I want to bring about liberty in the most effective way that I can possibly see. I’m not a moralist, which can put me at odds with many ancaps, so I don’t really care that voting might mean that you’re not a “real anarchist”. I think there’s an argument to be made that running for office and voting can be within the bounds of the NAP, but I don’t think following the NAP to a T is the end goal, I think the end goal is to maximize liberty. We can argue that following the NAP strictly can bring that, and I think you argued that here by saying advocating for voting will perpetuate the myth of majority rule. Which may be true.
      I think there’s a point about personal liberty in not working within the system, Kyle Rearden brought this up in the last episode released. I don’t think Federal politics is worth attention beyond knowing talking points, but working within local politics seems to be a strategy that could work, considering spheres of control. With the path that I am pursuing, I don’t think I’m going to have social capital to sway decisions in Washington DC. But I definitely am moving in a direction that could give me enough social capital to sway some decisions in Salem, OR. If not Salem, then maybe Benton County and Polk County(where I live).
      I do think incrementalism is dangerous, and should not be the only strategy being implemented. The seemingly most clear strategy related to incrementalism is using the Libertarian Party, but I’m not so convinced that they’re very effective, or ever will be. I still have optimism for state politics though, I’m not yet disenfranchised, and we’ll see how that goes. This is why I like the Free State Project, they’re testing if working in the system can work. According to Ian Freeman, it is. They’re getting results. When I see a strategy that works, I’m going to promote that strategy, because I don’t care about purism, I want liberty in this world.

      To go back to personal liberty, which I think is very important, being too invested in politics can take away your personal freedom. Just like all endeavors, there’s an opportunity cost, and throwing yourself into the political process is not an endeavor that gives you a whole lot of control over your life. At least as far as I can tell. Starting a business and getting away from the government as much as you can seems to be a better way to gain freedom than to run for office. But it all depends on your situation, what you personally value, and the lengths you’re willing to go.

      I don’t really get the line that not-voting will topple the state, maybe I’m misunderstanding the argument. There are plenty of people who don’t vote, I can’t remember the percentage, but it’s pretty high. I don’t see a correlation at all between the amount of non-voters and the amount of freedom. I get the idea of revoking consent by not voting, and I respect that, but I don’t see it as a strategy to bring liberty on a massive scale. Adopting any sort of principle can serve for a talking point and a way to bring discussion. When you’re family it friends ask who you’re going to vote for this election, you have an opportunity to inform them of your ideals and have a chance to introduce them to voluntarism. It’s the same thing with dropping out of school, refusing to pay taxes, or starting a business. Though I see those as better strategies to bring more personal liberty in your life than refusing to vote. I guess my point is, show me how effective not voting is compared to incrementalism. The Free Staters in the New Hampshire legislature are helping bring more liberty to New Hampshire, what’re the non-voting anarchists helping by not voting to get more Free Staters in the legislature?

      I appreciate the feedback, Eric, I love that people reach out. Especially to tell me when I’m wrong 😉 As anarcho-capitalists, voluntarists, and libertarians, we advocate for a free market. These kind of exchanges are important to me, some people resent the “infighting” that the “liberty movement” has, but I think there’s a difference between having a rational and civil conversation and infighting. The fact is, there are many differing opinions in the “liberty movement”, and it’s important to have discussions about what courses of action we can take to achieve more liberty in our lifetime.

      On a side note, I’d love to hear about your suburban farming, I’m planning on releasing an interview with Curtis Stone, and I want to hear more from urban farmers. If you email me, I’d love to set up a time to talk.
      Nick Hazelton

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *