Monday, October 12, 2015

David Gordon on Charles Murray's 'We The People"

David Gordon's concluding paragraph in his review of Charles Murray's By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission, provides, in my view, an excellent summary of David's take on the book:
Murray’s palliative measures, though all right in their place, respond inadequately to the realities of empire and tyranny. We need to do more than protect ourselves against overzealous factory inspectors.


  1. This is limp-wristed criticism. Murray's proposal is bold in the eyes of many because he at least sanctions breaking laws, albeit only minor regulatory laws. Those who rise in criticism of Murray for not going far enough cannot just leave it at that. They must propose their alternative that would go farther or else hold their tongue and thank Murray for having the balls to propose something, anything, that isn't just about more slavish obedience to the status quo.

  2. We need to take control of the government. To anarchists, this strategy is not apparent, but that's what needs to be done.

    1. "We need to take control of the government."

      Who's "we"? Once the "we" takes control, what are the "we"'s going to change so that the same thing doesn't happen again?

      "To anarchists, this strategy is not apparent, but that's what needs to be done."

      Rest assured that a large majority of anarchists are aware of statist/your strategy, most of them look at history and know that your plan is a joke in the context of said history and will yield zero long term change even if somehow it was successful.

      The notion you are going to "take control" of a violent entity and replace it with your version of a violent entity that will yield a different outcome is laughable.

      First you have to educate people on why the violent entity should go away, or you'll just repeat the same failed experiment(government) that's been repeated throughout human history.

      The long term success rate of government over history is 0%- that's why they come and go, change, etc.

      It's a failure of principle, until that's addressed it's more of the same.

    2. This is all correct. Then why do I keep having this fantasy of taking over a dictatorship and putting the whole country through an educational program on how to be free, allowing private governance to arise, take hold, and grow, before shutting down the government entirely? Maybe because it seems like it seems every other path to freedom is thwarted by statist violence.

  3. For anyone who may be interested there is an interesting exchange re: An-Capism/Minarchism and some related issues going on between Paul Nowakowski and James Wisniewski Bozhidar on the Polish version of the Mises Institute (Instytut Misesa).