As a Stirnerite too apathetic and unsociable to pursue even a Union of Egoists, I have no helpful advice to give rather than nitpicks.
It seemed very odd to me that Eliezer seemed to imagine hunter-gatherer bands as intentional communities (which I admit to also being interested in on an abstract level) rather than tribes of related individuals, a sort of proto-clan. More like the ideal of the National Anarchists than Seasteaders, however less appealing we may find the former. Eliezer seems to endorse something like antinatalism, which runs contrary to successful tribalism. The Shakers disappeared pretty quickly, because you can’t just rely on converts and people are naturally going to be attracted to more pro-natalist institutions.
I agree with Brad Taylor on certain factors we might consider irrational being integral to the success of religious institutions. Using one of Hopefully Anonymous’ favorite phrases, succesful institutions are non-transparently about self-perpetuation and will sacrifice other ideals (seeming irrational from that idealistic perspective) to serve that purpose.
The idea of infiltrating an institution to take it over is known as “entryism” and is most closely associated with Trotskyites.
As I understand it, the Shakers were knocked out by the advent of state-run orphanages (partly at the behest of furniture-makers in competition with the Shakers).
They had had a steady supply, then they couldn’t adapt. Of course, given their positions, it’s hard to see what they could have done.
As a Stirnerite too apathetic and unsociable to pursue even a Union of Egoists, I have no helpful advice to give rather than nitpicks.
It seemed very odd to me that Eliezer seemed to imagine hunter-gatherer bands as intentional communities (which I admit to also being interested in on an abstract level) rather than tribes of related individuals, a sort of proto-clan. More like the ideal of the National Anarchists than Seasteaders, however less appealing we may find the former. Eliezer seems to endorse something like antinatalism, which runs contrary to successful tribalism. The Shakers disappeared pretty quickly, because you can’t just rely on converts and people are naturally going to be attracted to more pro-natalist institutions.
I agree with Brad Taylor on certain factors we might consider irrational being integral to the success of religious institutions. Using one of Hopefully Anonymous’ favorite phrases, succesful institutions are non-transparently about self-perpetuation and will sacrifice other ideals (seeming irrational from that idealistic perspective) to serve that purpose.
The idea of infiltrating an institution to take it over is known as “entryism” and is most closely associated with Trotskyites.
As I understand it, the Shakers were knocked out by the advent of state-run orphanages (partly at the behest of furniture-makers in competition with the Shakers).
They had had a steady supply, then they couldn’t adapt. Of course, given their positions, it’s hard to see what they could have done.