Cepiaclub

Welcome to Cepiaclub.com

Authority v. Liberty

Machiavelli & Thoreau Considered

Machiavelli in The Prince assumes the “will to power” on the part of rulers. How do we interpret someone's “desire for power?”
Which serves the ruler better between Machiavelli's theories of the “fear of the people” or “the love of the people?” Why important? How does “hate of the people” or their indifference factor into maintaining the authority of the ruler and the corporate State?
In the reality of power and the nature of the State, what means do authoritarians today use to serve the ends of holding power?
With the union of authority and the State as one, in what ways can or do Thoreau's dissenting individual action under that power?
Where does or can individual action for liberty fall short and present dangers to the person?
With violence as the supreme source for all political authority and the power of the State, how can the forces of moral personal dissent, the ethics of singular choices, and the actions of the individual(s) best undermine the collective use of violence or armed coercion employed against the person or people?

(Based on the above discussion as a frame of reference, the discussion below may help the Libertarian Party move forward).

Questions That Need Solutions for Libertarian Party Action

Why do people join the Libertarian Party—moment at the inspiration? Who joins?
What tangible benefit(s) does joining a libertarian organization bring its member(s)?
How can the Libertarian Party keep its relevance to its members?
What and where, specifically, can the Libertarian Party do action for the member(s)?
What type(s) of member(s) could the Libertarian Party focus on recruiting? Why?
What and when can the Libertarian Party and its members reasonably deliver on their mission?