Refuges for Libertarians?

[Togo]

It seems to me that libertarianism in its purest form can't work until everyone acts ethically all the time. Once we get that little problem licked, then we can start to dismantle regulatory mechanisms.

Yeah, that problem has never occurred to libertarians. Uh-huh.

One can believe what you wrote if one has never even attempted to look at what libertarians have written on the issue.

Most of the libertarian writers I've looked at content themselves with a two-fold approach of lauding the importance of ethical behaviour, and placing a very high value on recognising and rewarding ethical behaviour, while punishing unethical behaviour with death exile, or something suitably permanent. In other words, they try and solve the problem by increasing the rewards and punishments. Which does lead me to wonder why they seem to believe that no society has ever tried to do this before.

I suspect one of the problems is that libertarians get caught in the usual right-wing trap of personal morality. Right wingers seem to find it unusually hard to break away from the idea that morality is a personal, individual responsibility that takes precedence over any form of practicality. Hence with the Greek debt crisis, right wing posters kept on banging on about how the money was borrowed, and therefore must be paid back, ignoring the fact that the money wasn't there, and trying to get it too quickly would hurt the entire system including the creditors. Left-wingers tend to think in terms of communities and systems, so look for the best solution to a problem with any regard to who owns it, hence they almost always end transferring money from those who have it to those who don't, ignoring morality, fairness, and any kind of 'ownership' of the problem.

Under this model, the issue for libertarian communities comes sharply into focus. Libertarians imagine a working community where people obey the rules because they are rules and as a result little or no enforcement is needed. Unethical behaviour is threatened severely, and the simple threat works without ever being enforced because people who break rules are cowards by definition - they're personally unethical - and thus easily cowed. The idea that someone might act unethically for good reason is alien to them.

Left wingers look at the same plan for a community and just see a system that vastly rewards corruption. Yes it would work if everyone follows the rules of society, but then what society wouldn't? They see a system with a feedback loop that rewards unethical behaviour, and so seek to change it.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Under this model, the issue for libertarian communities comes sharply into focus. Libertarians imagine a working community where people obey the rules because they are rules and as a result little or no enforcement is needed. Unethical behaviour is threatened severely, and the simple threat works without ever being enforced because people who break rules are cowards by definition - they're personally unethical - and thus easily cowed. The idea that someone might act unethically for good reason is alien to them.

Or worse, the idea that someone might act unethically and then manipulate the circumstances to avoid any possible punishment for doing so. The problem of corruption is one that must be solved in ANY economic or social model, and Libertarianism seems to the one least prepared to solve that problem.

Socialism at least assumes that democratic control of the economy would allow for the removal of corruption through regulation or an electoral process, but it also assumes that voters are sufficiently informed to act against corruption instead of playing into its hands, which is basically the same mistake Libertarians make but on the opposite spectrum.

Although there really isn't a systematic approach to dealing with corruption, the basic solution boils down to "put people in charge who are not corrupt." This is a LOT easier to do in systems where everyone agrees that a certain person or group is actually in charge. Libertarianism avoids designating a fixed power structure and is therefore highly vulnerable.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Wow, I thought the echo chamber in here was bad, but this does beat my expectations.

Yes, that's certainly everything we have ever thought about this problem we haven't even though about.

I'm going to have to go to Leonard Peikoff and Lew Rockwell and tell them "But you never thought about people cheating." Their response will be "Oh my goodness, I completely overlooked that. I'm going to renounce everything I stood for before and throw all my support behind Bernie Sanders."

 

[untermensche]

Wow, I thought the echo chamber in here was bad, but this does beat my expectations.

Yes, that's certainly everything we have ever thought about this problem we haven't even though about.

I'm going to have to go to Leonard Peikoff and Lew Rockwell and tell them "But you never thought about people cheating." Their response will be "Oh my goodness, I completely overlooked that. I'm going to renounce everything I stood for before and throw all my support behind Bernie Sanders."

What is the Libertarian objection to Bernie Sanders?

 

[Togo]

Wow, I thought the echo chamber in here was bad, but this does beat my expectations.

Discussions are formed by those who contribute. If you can't tell us anything about libertarian positions, then we'll go with what we've encountered elsewhere. Note that my generally low opinion of libertarians is based on libertarians I have encountered previously.

I'm going to have to go to Leonard Peikoff and Lew Rockwell and tell them "But you never thought about people cheating." Their response will be "Oh my goodness, I completely overlooked that. I'm going to renounce everything I stood for before and throw all my support behind Bernie Sanders."

<Shrug> I don't think they have anything I haven't already encountered. Until we can find someone willing to discuss libertarianism, rather than just complain that people don't understand it, that's as far as it goes.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I'm going to have to go to Leonard Peikoff and Lew Rockwell and tell them "But you never thought about people cheating." Their response will be

... lots of handwaving, circular logic and a very liberal interpretation of history, probably.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Wow, I thought the echo chamber in here was bad, but this does beat my expectations.

Yes, that's certainly everything we have ever thought about this problem we haven't even though about.

I'm going to have to go to Leonard Peikoff and Lew Rockwell and tell them "But you never thought about people cheating." Their response will be "Oh my goodness, I completely overlooked that. I'm going to renounce everything I stood for before and throw all my support behind Bernie Sanders."

Ah, libertarianism. The philosophy that other people should do your work for you.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If I explain it yet again, does that mean you'll stop repeating all the fallacies you use in substitution of what libertarians believe?

 

[Arctish]

If I explain it yet again, does that mean you'll stop repeating all the fallacies you use in substitution of what libertarians believe?

I'm in favor of a What is Libertarianism thread, and I'll contribute to it, but I'm afraid it will turn into a No True Scotsman thread in a page or two.

The term covers a pretty broad coalition of factions, from the big military spending/ big money neo-cons to the open the borders and mind your own business folks.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If I explain it yet again, does that mean you'll stop repeating all the fallacies you use in substitution of what libertarians believe?

I'm in favor of a What is Libertarianism thread, and I'll contribute to it, but I'm afraid it will turn into a No True Scotsman thread in a page or two.

That's what happened the last three times we tried it. IIRC it started (as it usually does) with a Libertarian posting a wall of text and then all the non-libertarians asking for clarification on issues the wall of text doesn't cover, at which point the rest of the Libertarians joined in a thousand different variations of "No, you don't understand libertarianism!" ad nauseam.

The term covers a pretty broad coalition of factions, from the big military spending/ big money neo-cons to the open the borders and mind your own business folks.

But see, according to libertarians none of those are "really" libertarians and only cooperate with or support libertarian causes because Obama.

 

[Togo]

If I explain it yet again, does that mean you'll stop repeating all the fallacies you use in substitution of what libertarians believe?

Probably not. You're not only person who calls themselves libertarian, and some of their views conflict with your descriptions of what libertarians believe. Explaining your view of libertarianism will help, but it won't solve the problem entirely. Any more than this post will stop you blaming every point where other people' views on libertarinism on the character of other posters.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Discussions are formed by those who contribute. If you can't tell us anything about libertarian positions, then we'll go with what we've encountered elsewhere. Note that my generally low opinion of libertarians is based on libertarians I have encountered previously.

I've know a few libertarians and they were all pretty naive. (And not the phony conservo-libertarians of the GOP.) There were mostly anti-tax and anti-rules and hadn't thought out their philosophy very far. -- like getting rid of all speed limits. "How can the government regulate how fast we drive our cars?" was an actual quote I have heard.

Ask a 1000 libertarians what libertarians believe and you get a 10,000 different answers. But the basics of the philosophy are appealing to nearly everybody:

Lower taxes
Less societal rules
More "personal" freedom

From here we can go into every single philosophical direction imaginable. Anarchists can have a world free of government and business, pot smokers can have their drugs and hemp clothing, survivalists can have their compounds and hand grenades, organic farmers can be free of Monsanto and the government telling them they cannot bring exotics into the country, conservolibertarians can be free from clear air and water regulations and can openly discriminate agains others, etc.

So yes, it would be great if Jason could post his version of what a libertarian is, but as he knows, it will be criticized.

 

[SimpleDon]

It's always amusing to see libertarians talk in all seriousness (and plenty of zeal) about establishing these sort communities/nationstates. It's always so unrealistic and disconnected from reality. I particularly like the ones that are almost literally Andrew Ryan's Rapture city.

I think refuges from libertarians would be more popular.

This contradicts Libertarian dogma.

It is just each seeking his own advantage in a heartless jungle.

There is no such thing as community or communal considerations.

<snip> ...​

Well, those weren't real libertarians.

I think that the OP has missed the most obvious place that the Libertarian/Anarchist philosophy can succeed.

It is an utopian philosophy born in fiction and in the imaginations of the borderline insane. This is the only only place that it can be successful.

Imagine the insanity required of someone looking at the sweep of human history and deciding at the best way for humans to progress is to abandon cooperation to benefit the common good and to return to a pre-civilization existence of individuals fending for themselves.

Except to enforce contracts of course, by suing one another. Seemly the only vestige of civilization that they consider to be worthy of their brave new world is litigation. Lots and lots of contract writing and litigation. Lawyers would be die übermenchen of the Libertarian world, not the Galten innovators and inventors.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Imagine the insanity required of someone looking at the sweep of human history and deciding at the best way for humans to progress is to abandon cooperation to benefit the common good and to return to a pre-civilization existence of individuals fending for themselves.

I never understood where this "abandon cooperation" meme came from. I tend to guess that it comes from the fallacy that if the government isn't doing something then it isn't getting done, but it seems too shallow to cover this gross an error.

 

[Togo]

Imagine the insanity required of someone looking at the sweep of human history and deciding at the best way for humans to progress is to abandon cooperation to benefit the common good and to return to a pre-civilization existence of individuals fending for themselves.

I never understood where this "abandon cooperation" meme came from. I tend to guess that it comes from the fallacy that if the government isn't doing something then it isn't getting done, but it seems too shallow to cover this gross an error.

I think the issue is that, in order to abandon governmental control and replace it with something else, that 'something else' needs to be something that government isn't or can't be. Establishing cooperation through the societal norms of a small community, or other informal means, only goes so far. Once you reach the stage where the number of people cooperating is such that a single dissenting individual can't effectively opt out of the process, then you've got a government in all but name. Four people can share a house quite easily through informal cooperation. One hundred people sharing a house involves rules that aren't derived from a single individual.

I can see libertarianism working well if people are intelligent, wealthy, insular, live far apart, of a like mind, and homicidal enough to kill people who won't cooperate in the right way. Mind you, I can see communism working under the same conditions.

 

[Sarpedon]

Why do rugged individualists, who rise above the mediocrity of the masses of sheeple, need refuges? If their way can't compete with the other way, isn't it wrong by definition?

 

[Bomb#20]

Imagine the insanity required of someone looking at the sweep of human history and deciding at the best way for humans to progress is to abandon cooperation to benefit the common good and to return to a pre-civilization existence of individuals fending for themselves.

I never understood where this "abandon cooperation" meme came from. I tend to guess that it comes from the fallacy that if the government isn't doing something then it isn't getting done, but it seems too shallow to cover this gross an error.

I think I see the source of your confusion. Are you perhaps under the impression that "cooperation" means people working together to achieve their goals? "Cooperation" means people working together to achieve my goals.

 

[lpetrich]

Imagine the insanity required of someone looking at the sweep of human history and deciding at the best way for humans to progress is to abandon cooperation to benefit the common good and to return to a pre-civilization existence of individuals fending for themselves.

I never understood where this "abandon cooperation" meme came from. I tend to guess that it comes from the fallacy that if the government isn't doing something then it isn't getting done, but it seems too shallow to cover this gross an error.

The trouble is that cooperation often leads to de facto governments, like warlords and criminal gangs. Since these are not government organizations, libertarian ideology says that they must be good.

Even apart from such organizations, there are other non-government organizations that many libertarians hate even though libertarian ideology says that they must be good. Organizations like labor unions.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Libertarians hate labor unions?

I'll have to check with libertarian high command and have them tell me that I must change my beliefs in accordance with this new dictate.

 

[Togo]

Libertarians hate labor unions?

I'll have to check with libertarian high command and have them tell me that I must change my beliefs in accordance with this new dictate.

Check service pack Ayn16/Anarchocorporate667/4. That might have your update. Or you check the FAQ - Promoting Cooperative Communities without being Left Wing.

My understanding was that the critical point was that Libertarians are in favour of cooperation as long as it remains voluntary. As soon as you introduce the idea that all members are bound to abide by the will of the majority, and can't opt out of the process, then you lose the individual freedom and you end up with a de facto governmental system. So agreeing to share water from a river is fine, but having a situation where people have to agree on who gets to use the water, and their consensus binds those of the minority view in to what extent they can use the water, is not.