Nu har jeg ikke hørt så meget af foredraget, men er seasteading ikke et eksempel på “retreatism”? Rothbard beskriver “retreatism” således:
“… the militant decides that the cause is hopeless, and gives up by deciding to abandon the corrupt and rotten world, and retreat in some way to a pure and noble community of one’s own. To Randians, it’s “Galt’s Gulch,” from Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged. Other libertarians keep seeking to form some underground community, to “capture” a small town in the West, to go “underground” in the forest, or even to build a new libertarian country on an island, in the hills, or whatever. Conservatives have their own forms of retreatism. In each case, the call arises to abandon the wicked world, and to form some tiny alternative community in some backwoods retreat. Long ago, I labeled this view, “retreatism.” You could call this strategy “neo-Amish,” except that the Amish are productive farmers, and these groups, I’m afraid, never make it up to that stage.
The rationale for retreatism always comes couched in High Moral as well as pseudo-psychological terms. These “purists,” for example, claim that they, in contrast to us benighted fighters, are “living liberty,” that they are emphasizing “the positive” instead of focusing on the “negative,” that they are “living liberty” and living a “pure libertarian life,” whereas we grubby souls are still living in the corrupt and contaminated real world. For years, I have been replying to these sets of retreatists that the real world, after all, is good; that we libertarians may be anti-State, but that we are emphatically not anti-society or opposed to the real world, however contaminated it might be.” ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard70.html )
Nu har jeg ikke hørt så meget af foredraget, men er seasteading ikke et eksempel på “retreatism”? Rothbard beskriver “retreatism” således:
“… the militant decides that the cause is hopeless, and gives up by deciding to abandon the corrupt and rotten world, and retreat in some way to a pure and noble community of one’s own. To Randians, it’s “Galt’s Gulch,” from Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged. Other libertarians keep seeking to form some underground community, to “capture” a small town in the West, to go “underground” in the forest, or even to build a new libertarian country on an island, in the hills, or whatever. Conservatives have their own forms of retreatism. In each case, the call arises to abandon the wicked world, and to form some tiny alternative community in some backwoods retreat. Long ago, I labeled this view, “retreatism.” You could call this strategy “neo-Amish,” except that the Amish are productive farmers, and these groups, I’m afraid, never make it up to that stage.
The rationale for retreatism always comes couched in High Moral as well as pseudo-psychological terms. These “purists,” for example, claim that they, in contrast to us benighted fighters, are “living liberty,” that they are emphasizing “the positive” instead of focusing on the “negative,” that they are “living liberty” and living a “pure libertarian life,” whereas we grubby souls are still living in the corrupt and contaminated real world. For years, I have been replying to these sets of retreatists that the real world, after all, is good; that we libertarians may be anti-State, but that we are emphatically not anti-society or opposed to the real world, however contaminated it might be.” ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard70.html )
Seasteading handler ikke kun om at skabe nye samfund for “purist libertarians”. Det handler mere overordnet om at udvikle og udbrede den teknologi, som kan sætte mennesket i stand til kolonisere havene. I øvrigt uanset hvilke grunde, de mennesker måtte have for at gøre det.
Men selvom jeg ikke kan se ligheden mellem dem Rothbard kritiserer og seasteading, så forstår jeg dog heller ikke, hvorfor han er så bitter over for dem, han kalder “retreatists”. USA blev trods alt også grundlagt af personer, der havde fået nok og ville starte deres eget samfund fra bunden.
Seasteading handler ikke kun om at skabe nye samfund for “purist libertarians”. Det handler mere overordnet om at udvikle og udbrede den teknologi, som kan sætte mennesket i stand til kolonisere havene. I øvrigt uanset hvilke grunde, de mennesker måtte have for at gøre det.
Men selvom jeg ikke kan se ligheden mellem dem Rothbard kritiserer og seasteading, så forstår jeg dog heller ikke, hvorfor han er så bitter over for dem, han kalder “retreatists”. USA blev trods alt også grundlagt af personer, der havde fået nok og ville starte deres eget samfund fra bunden.
Nu har jeg ikke hørt så meget af foredraget, men er seasteading ikke et eksempel på “retreatism”? Rothbard beskriver “retreatism” således:
“… the militant decides that the cause is hopeless, and gives up by deciding to abandon the corrupt and rotten world, and retreat in some way to a pure and noble community of one’s own. To Randians, it’s “Galt’s Gulch,” from Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged. Other libertarians keep seeking to form some underground community, to “capture” a small town in the West, to go “underground” in the forest, or even to build a new libertarian country on an island, in the hills, or whatever. Conservatives have their own forms of retreatism. In each case, the call arises to abandon the wicked world, and to form some tiny alternative community in some backwoods retreat. Long ago, I labeled this view, “retreatism.” You could call this strategy “neo-Amish,” except that the Amish are productive farmers, and these groups, I’m afraid, never make it up to that stage.
The rationale for retreatism always comes couched in High Moral as well as pseudo-psychological terms. These “purists,” for example, claim that they, in contrast to us benighted fighters, are “living liberty,” that they are emphasizing “the positive” instead of focusing on the “negative,” that they are “living liberty” and living a “pure libertarian life,” whereas we grubby souls are still living in the corrupt and contaminated real world. For years, I have been replying to these sets of retreatists that the real world, after all, is good; that we libertarians may be anti-State, but that we are emphatically not anti-society or opposed to the real world, however contaminated it might be.” ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard70.html )
Nu har jeg ikke hørt så meget af foredraget, men er seasteading ikke et eksempel på “retreatism”? Rothbard beskriver “retreatism” således:
“… the militant decides that the cause is hopeless, and gives up by deciding to abandon the corrupt and rotten world, and retreat in some way to a pure and noble community of one’s own. To Randians, it’s “Galt’s Gulch,” from Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged. Other libertarians keep seeking to form some underground community, to “capture” a small town in the West, to go “underground” in the forest, or even to build a new libertarian country on an island, in the hills, or whatever. Conservatives have their own forms of retreatism. In each case, the call arises to abandon the wicked world, and to form some tiny alternative community in some backwoods retreat. Long ago, I labeled this view, “retreatism.” You could call this strategy “neo-Amish,” except that the Amish are productive farmers, and these groups, I’m afraid, never make it up to that stage.
The rationale for retreatism always comes couched in High Moral as well as pseudo-psychological terms. These “purists,” for example, claim that they, in contrast to us benighted fighters, are “living liberty,” that they are emphasizing “the positive” instead of focusing on the “negative,” that they are “living liberty” and living a “pure libertarian life,” whereas we grubby souls are still living in the corrupt and contaminated real world. For years, I have been replying to these sets of retreatists that the real world, after all, is good; that we libertarians may be anti-State, but that we are emphatically not anti-society or opposed to the real world, however contaminated it might be.” ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard70.html )
Seasteading handler ikke kun om at skabe nye samfund for “purist libertarians”. Det handler mere overordnet om at udvikle og udbrede den teknologi, som kan sætte mennesket i stand til kolonisere havene. I øvrigt uanset hvilke grunde, de mennesker måtte have for at gøre det.
Men selvom jeg ikke kan se ligheden mellem dem Rothbard kritiserer og seasteading, så forstår jeg dog heller ikke, hvorfor han er så bitter over for dem, han kalder “retreatists”. USA blev trods alt også grundlagt af personer, der havde fået nok og ville starte deres eget samfund fra bunden.
Seasteading handler ikke kun om at skabe nye samfund for “purist libertarians”. Det handler mere overordnet om at udvikle og udbrede den teknologi, som kan sætte mennesket i stand til kolonisere havene. I øvrigt uanset hvilke grunde, de mennesker måtte have for at gøre det.
Men selvom jeg ikke kan se ligheden mellem dem Rothbard kritiserer og seasteading, så forstår jeg dog heller ikke, hvorfor han er så bitter over for dem, han kalder “retreatists”. USA blev trods alt også grundlagt af personer, der havde fået nok og ville starte deres eget samfund fra bunden.