Liberty Classics: The Politics of Obedience by Étienne de La Boétie With Jeffrey Tucker

Related Discussions

  •  B.K. Marcus

    25 Life-Changing Classics of Liberty

    25 Life-Changing Classics There are books that change your life — the kind you try to get all your friends to read as soon as you’re finished (or sooner). Here Jeffrey Tucker lists 25 such books, classics of liberty: fiction, history, economics, philosophy. And each book-specific chapter links to your free copy of the book in the Liberty.me Library. (And look for Jeffrey’s 25-week course on these classics at Liberty.me U!) Questions, comments, observations or elaborations? Either reply here or create a new discussion using the tag Library_25-life-changing-classics

    Jump to Discussion Post 6 replies
  •  Marco den Ouden

    Questions about Covenants

    I recently read Hoppe’s Democracy: The God That Failed and it brings up a number of questions. I sent him an email with these questions and am still waiting for a reply. But I thought I’d put them out there in this group as well. There are five series of questions and this is the first batch. Is a covenant community binding for all time? Or can a member of a covenant society secede from it just as he ought to be able to secede from the state? Can the terms of the covenant be changed in the future and if so how? Can the covenant specify that all rules and restrictions covered in the covenant can be changed through democratic means – in other words through voting? And if so, can they do specify that this be done by simple majority rule or other ways as specified in the covenant? Further to this – am I correct in assuming that the terms of the covenant inhere to the property and not the person?  For example, I own property in a strata development which is covered by such a covenant. It binds me to the bylaws of the Strata Corporation and these rules can be changed by the members democratically at a meeting. The strata council enforces the rules, manages the budget, etc. I also pay strata fees which are analagous to taxes if this were a municipality. (The strata fees are actually more than the municipal taxes I pay, though the city provides a lot more services.)  And these rules inhere in the property, so if I sell it, the buyer is bound by the covenant. But I cannot secede from the covenant. In effect, a covenant community is really a mini-government, but organized as a contract rather than as a political entity. But in practice, is there really any difference? I have written on my blog about this a few times. Most notably here: http://jollylibertarian.blogspot.ca/2015/10/private-government.html and here: http://jollylibertarian.blogspot.ca/2015/10/consent-of-governed.html and here: https://jollylibertarian.liberty.me/is-consent-a-sufficient-condition-for-a-society-to-be-considered-libertarian/  The latter contradicts the first two as I have had some change in thought on this. Feedback appreciated.

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  •  Jeffrey Tucker

    The Politics of Obedience

    The Politics of Obedience Étienne de La Boétie offers a mind-blowing reflection on the sheer fragility of the state. His answer to the problem of power is to ignore it and disregard it, thereby causing it to evaporate. Is his answer too simple? Is he right for the group but perhaps not correct for the individual? Kick off the discussion! Questions, comments, observations or elaborations? Either reply here or create a new discussion using the tag Library_The Politics of Obedience

    Jump to Discussion Post 9 replies
  •  Steven Handel

    The Psychology of Consent: Why "No Means No" and "Yes Means Yes" Is Too Simple

    This is basically a response to: Beyond ‘no means no’: the future of campus rape prevention is ‘yes means yes’ “No means no” and “Yes means yes” may seem like good, simple, and commonsense advice, but I can’t imagine anyone who honestly observes their social interactions can’t see that most communication (especially in the realms of “seduction” and “attraction”) is completely nonverbal. To start, let me begin by saying that I used to be super careful about ever crossing another person’s boundaries without their permission. In reality, I was too careful. I used to never initiate with women ever. I was too afraid to do something that they didn’t want. If a girl wanted to be with me, she had to do all the initiation (I somehow magically got some action this way, but it ultimately hurt my chances). As a result, I can count on more than one hand when I’ve been in situations where women are giving me a 100% nonverbal “yes,” but I never acted on it, because I never got a verbal “yes.” It got so bad, they would even contact me later in the night and say things like, “You know, you could’ve kissed me/fucked me if you wanted.” Consent is a much bigger grey area than feminists want you to believe. But ignoring how consent usually happens in the real world is ultimately destructive toward an honest conversation about what “consent” really means. To bring this around full circle, this also means that if a girl is giving a verbal “Yes,” but a nonverbal “No” (hesitation in her voice, closed body language, doesn’t seem “into” it) it’s probably better to lay off even though you technically have verbal consent. Please Note: This was originally a post for straight men, but feel free to switch the genders however you like – it’s not relevant.

    Jump to Discussion Post 4 replies
  •  Jeffrey Tucker

    The Rise and Fall of Society

    The Rise and Fall of Society This book is one of the best expositions of economics and politics ever written. It was Chodorov’s last book and the one most overlooked. It’s tragic. It’s great. It explains central economic ideas from the Austrian tradition, and offers up a highly sophisticated theory of the state and its operations. It is one of the books that cannot be overlooked. Kick off the discussion! Questions, comments, observations or elaborations? Either reply here or create a new discussion using the tag Library_The Rise and Fall of Society

    Jump to Discussion Post 6 replies

Description

Why does the state have power and why does it persist? Renaissance philosopher and public intellectual Étienne de La Boétie explained that it is due to public tolerance. Despite all the coercion used by the government, it is the deference of the people toward public authority that gives tyrants their power. His plea is for people to withdraw that consent and deny the tyrant his authority. This is the way we see state’s collapse. Jeffrey Tucker explains that this is precisely what is happening in our time Sunday, November 9th at 8pm ET!

See More See Less