RoR: Forum

G. - Good article. This was what you referred to following your article on the utilities. I see the validity of your point now, though I still wait to hear from someone on how water companies would be able to compete properly, but there are other areas that are useful to de-regulate no doubt! One item on utilities that is very tough is the fact that free riders are give the ability to fail to pay for long periods of time before losing service because of the laws. In any case, I like the overall concept.

Post 2

Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 3:09pm

There's a lot of truth and wisdom in this -- I think. It's certainly exceptionally well written and argued. This article should make a nice addition to the "activist" theory(s) of Rebirth of Reason.

But I wonder if it's too quietist, passivist, and defeatist. Personally, I like harassing people on the "core" issues. Gives me a warm feeling inside.

And shaking the foundations of the monolithic status quo -- however strong those foundations might seem -- may not be as pointless and ineffectual as it seems. Perhaps it dispirits them more than it dispirits me. This yoeman's task may also loosen a few things on the margins too.

One lesson I draw from Mr. Stolyarov's article is that it doesn't pay to be conservative on the core issues. Since you're not going to win (anytime soon) anyway, now's the time to "go nuts." Be utterly radical and principled. Tell nothing but truth and go straight to the heart of the issue. Enough already with "friendly" arguments in fear of turning people off. Enough already with "disagreeing without being disagreeable." (Ugh!) Enough already with pro-freedom and pro-reason programs and claims which are "practical" and which present a "reasonable compromise."

All of the above represents my problem with the US Libertarian Party. As far as I can tell -- and maybe I'm wrong here -- these guys never tell the truth and they never promote libertarianism. How can they ever win -- whether working at the "margins" or at the "core?" And where in holy hell is a true freedom or Objectivist political party!? Does everyone buy into the stupid and evil theories of ARI?

One final point: I think it's pretty easy to win on not just fringe issues but new issues. Just stay ahead of the curve and hit people before they know what's going on. Be opinion leaders. The classic example of this -- for me at least -- is cable t'v'. When this technology and industry first arose no-one knew what to do. Basically everyone paused for about a million years (or so it seemed to me) and just looked at each other in puzzlement. Finally it was decided: Let's award monopoly "franchises" based on "public interest." No real competition or freedom in the mix. Now, of course, these evil cable companies are fantastically enriched and entrenched. There's very little competition or freedom anywhere in America when it comes to cable t'v'. And it so easily could have been so different.

Post 3

Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 2:58pm

Mr. Davison, Mr. Eichert,

Thank you for your kind comments. I am glad that you enjoyed my article.

The free-rider issue is one that ought to be left to private firms to resolve. Perhaps some firms will decide that they will profit in providing utility services despite the existence of a few free-riders. Other firms might find original ways to restrict services to only those who pay. The latter question is more a technological one than a political one. If the means of restricting access to the service to those who pay has not yet been invented, it still might be invented in the future. Those in government who theorize to the contrary should at least allow the market a chance to resolve the problem, instead of feigning omniscience about the future and then coercing people into behaving so that the government's predictions come true.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 4

Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 3:50pm

There is a great deal of useful thinking and common sense in this essay.

I arrived at similar conclusions by somewhat different means, and I offer a host of specific, concrete recommendations for activists in my recorded seminar "Guerilla Activism," and (more generally) in my lecture "Marketing Objectivism."

Those interested in specific blueprints for engaging in successful activism might find a lot of useful tips in those presentations, and will also note the many ways in which my recommendations and suggestions dovetail with and overlap Mr. Stolyarov's own.

Good article, Mr. Stolyarov.

Post 5

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 9:41am

This is an excellent article, definately on my top ten of RoR.

Post 6

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 1:13pm

Mr. Zantonavitch,

Thank you for your excellent and interesting comments.

I agree with you that new issues often begin as fringe issues with a lot of room for intelligent and rational individuals to determine the way the issues are treated-- if said individuals begin early enough. SpaceShipOne was an example of such a new issue turned into an opportunity, while cable TV was an example of an opportunity wasted.

I also tend to agree that it does not pay to compromise on core issues; one can afford to be fully principled and aim at determining the outcome in the long run, while knowing that much more powerful orthodoxies and counter-orthodoxies will prevail in the short run, no matter how one presents one's views.

Dr. Bidinotto,

Thank you for your comments and connections of my essay to your own lectures and suggestions for activism. I plan to order your CDs in the coming months.

Mr. Kauppinen,

Thank you for your kind words; I am glad that you enjoyed my article and judged it so highly. I appreciate your readership.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 7

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 8:36pm

One should match one�s expectations and endeavors with one�s realistic capacities and resources; one individual can seldom change the world, but he can often change a neighborhood, organization, company, community, or even town. We should gain footholds where we can and be happy about doing so; instead of lamenting on what has yet to be done, we should focus on what we already can do. Other friends of reason and liberty will work on the fringes in their own way, too, even if we do not notice them. The effects of their actions will add up all the same.

Excellent motivating thoughts.

Now, on welfare and social security... I think that people begging for, demanding, and fighting for other people's property will always be a core issue. : )

Post 8

Monday, June 12, 2006 - 7:07pm

Mr. Gores,

Thank you for your kind words and interesting comments.

You wrote: " I think that people begging for, demanding, and fighting for other people's property will always be a core issue. : )"

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps it is true that some people will always demand some sort of government action to expropriate others; it is probably impossible to eradicate such immoral intentions in the whole population. Yet some of these methods of expropriation are currently popular, whereas others are not. We can subtly act to dismantle the unpopular methods now or soon, and thereby leave the popular methods weaker as a result. Then there will come a time when currently popular methods will lose their popularity (or at least public attention will shift elsewhere). Then will be the time to end those methods of expropriation as well. Eventually (in the far future) we will have eliminated most or all of these methods, and the would-be expropriators would just be left to whine about taking others' property without being allowed to do it.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 9

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 9:31am